Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide

<v Announcer>Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide is brought to you by United Telecom, <v Announcer>a leader in the communications industry and architect of the US Sprint Fiber <v Announcer>Optic Network, a nationwide digital communications network. <v Louis Rukeyser>Good evening and welcome to Louis Rukeyser is 1988 Election Guide. <v Louis Rukeyser>Folks, we are here to sound Reveille for a presidential campaign that appears <v Louis Rukeyser>to have been afflicted by narcolepsy. <v Louis Rukeyser>Indeed, the most profound question so far is why any American should require <v Louis Rukeyser>a sleeping pill between now and November 8th. <v Louis Rukeyser>Even when this campaign has occasionally awakened to fitful consciousness, <v Louis Rukeyser>it has usually been to address such high minded and deeply significant questions as, <v Louis Rukeyser>"Which candidate is more patriotic?" Or "Which one is better at keeping his <v Louis Rukeyser>dates straight?" No wonder the nationwide snoring has quickly resumed. <v Louis Rukeyser>But one of these men is actually going to be elected in less than two months, <v Louis Rukeyser>and surely the Republic deserves some better sense of what difference that might <v Louis Rukeyser>really make to America's future.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Tonight, we're going to try to find out. <v Louis Rukeyser>In pursuit of that goal, we commissioned a nationwide poll first to find out who's <v Louis Rukeyser>ahead--and I'll be telling you that shortly--but then to get beyond such <v Louis Rukeyser>routine horse race handicapping and discover something of more enduring <v Louis Rukeyser>importance: how the American people themselves feel on the <v Louis Rukeyser>key issues facing the candidates and the nation. <v Louis Rukeyser>With those snapshots of America thinking as our starting points, we <v Louis Rukeyser>will seek to determine exactly what the election of George Bush or Michael <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis truly would mean in each of three vital areas: the <v Louis Rukeyser>economy, foreign and defense policy, and social issues. <v Louis Rukeyser>Especially for this program, and for the first time, both the vice president and the <v Louis Rukeyser>Massachusetts governor have named the eminent individuals they have authorized <v Louis Rukeyser>to speak for them on these issues and be questioned side by side with <v Louis Rukeyser>their opponent's choice. So that by the time this hour is over, we should have <v Louis Rukeyser>not just a better sense of what this election is actually about, but what the genuine

<v Louis Rukeyser>shape of a Bush or Dukakis administration would be. <v Louis Rukeyser>And we'll have some other surprises along the way as well. <v Louis Rukeyser>I'm glad you're here. And I hope when we're finished, you'll be glad you came. <v Louis Rukeyser>First, though, the horse race news, and it does indeed <v Louis Rukeyser>appear to be news, in more than 1000 interviews conducted for us by the Roper <v Louis Rukeyser>Organization between last Thursday and Saturday, our poll found that Michael <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis has regained the momentum he appeared to have lost in recent weeks <v Louis Rukeyser>and now leads George Bush 48 percent to 40 percent, with 12 <v Louis Rukeyser>percent undecided. <v Louis Rukeyser>Among likely voters, the Dukakis lead narrows to 49 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>to 43 percent. But given the customary 3 percent margin of error, <v Louis Rukeyser>there is a strong probability that at this still early stage, the Democrat <v Louis Rukeyser>has pulled ahead. <v Louis Rukeyser>Looking at these findings in greater detail, we see some striking results. <v Louis Rukeyser>The so-called gender gap is alive and well.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Indeed, it accounts for all of Dukakis's advantage. <v Louis Rukeyser>Among likely voters, Bush actually leads by 10 points among men, <v Louis Rukeyser>52 percent to 42 percent. <v Louis Rukeyser>But Dukakis more than doubles that margin among women, leading by a whopping <v Louis Rukeyser>55 to 34 percent. <v Louis Rukeyser>Despite all the talk about competence and pragmatism, voters appear to be choosing <v Louis Rukeyser>on heavily ideological lines. <v Louis Rukeyser>Likely voters describing themselves as conservative favor Bush 55 <v Louis Rukeyser>to 37 percent. Self-described middle of the roaders are dead <v Louis Rukeyser>even, while those who call themselves liberal overwhelmingly support Dukakis <v Louis Rukeyser>76 to 17 percent. <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis leads in three out of four age groups, including the nation's youngest <v Louis Rukeyser>and oldest voters, while Bush has a clear edge with those forty-five <v Louis Rukeyser>to fifty-nine. Does this all mean, then, that the rest of the campaign is <v Louis Rukeyser>now an empty exercise?

<v Louis Rukeyser>That the inauguration next January of Michael Dukakis is a foregone conclusion? <v Louis Rukeyser>Not on your Dewey button. <v Louis Rukeyser>Presidential polling is a relatively young and still inexact science. <v Louis Rukeyser>It began barely half a century ago in 1936, and the <v Louis Rukeyser>inexact part soon became apparent. <v Louis Rukeyser>While the Gallup and Roper polls were accurate that year in predicting landslide <v Louis Rukeyser>reelection for Franklin D. Roosevelt, another poll for the Literary Digest <v Louis Rukeyser>magazine actually forecast a triumph for Kansas Governor Alf <v Louis Rukeyser>Landon wound up taking only two states, Maine and Vermont. <v Louis Rukeyser>The magazine soon went out of business. <v Louis Rukeyser>But the most famous goofs in polling history came 12 years later, <v Louis Rukeyser>in 1948, when every major poll predicted a victory for <v Louis Rukeyser>New York Governor Thomas Dewey over President Harry Truman. <v Louis Rukeyser>Elmo Roper, founder of the eminent firm we're using on this program,

<v Louis Rukeyser>declared precisely 40 years ago that Dewey was in. <v Louis Rukeyser>And, he said, no amount of electioneering could change the result. <v Louis Rukeyser>"Nothing changes after Labor Day," Roper maintained, and the Gallup and Causley <v Louis Rukeyser>polls agreed. <v Louis Rukeyser>After the pollsters, like Dewey, were given hell by Harry, their record <v Louis Rukeyser>for accuracy improved dramatically four years later. <v Louis Rukeyser>The early polls liked Ike. <v Louis Rukeyser>And by election day, so did most Americans. <v Louis Rukeyser>In 1956, they liked him even more. <v Louis Rukeyser>1960 was a challenge for voters and pollsters alike. <v Louis Rukeyser>In early September, the polls showed vice President Richard Nixon with a modest <v Louis Rukeyser>advantage, which narrowed as the first presidential debates neared. <v Louis Rukeyser>After Senator John Kennedy showed well in the debates, many psephologist decided <v Louis Rukeyser>the election was too close to call election. <v Louis Rukeyser>Their caution seemed prudent on Election Day, when Kennedy squeaked through <v Louis Rukeyser>in the closest race of the 20th century.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Four years later, though, nobody hedged. <v Louis Rukeyser>Polls showed President Lyndon Johnson smashing Senator Barry Goldwater. <v Louis Rukeyser>And they were smashingly accurate. <v Louis Rukeyser>Nixon's run in 1968 was almost a rerun of 1960 <v Louis Rukeyser>race for the pollsters. <v Louis Rukeyser>They had him well ahead early on. <v Louis Rukeyser>But vice President Hubert Humphrey gained rapidly on it as George Wallace's support <v Louis Rukeyser>faded and Johnson halted the bombing of North Vietnam. <v Louis Rukeyser>This time, though, Nixon held on to win the squeaker. <v Louis Rukeyser>Very little squeaking was heard in 1972, though. <v Louis Rukeyser>By early September, the pollsters gave Nixon a thundering 61 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>landslide in his reelection bid against Senator George McGovern. <v Louis Rukeyser>And that's precisely what the president wound up with on Election Day. <v Louis Rukeyser>But if the pollsters were becoming cocky, they had another chastening experience <v Louis Rukeyser>in 1976. <v Louis Rukeyser>The early polls showed insurgent Democrat Jimmy Carter handing President <v Louis Rukeyser>Gerald Ford a historic thrashing.

<v Louis Rukeyser>But when the votes were counted, the Georgia governor had barely escaped defeat. <v Louis Rukeyser>Carter was less lucky, four years later. <v Louis Rukeyser>Early polls had him slightly ahead of Ronald Reagan. <v Louis Rukeyser>But on Election Day, Americans apparently decided they weren't better off than <v Louis Rukeyser>they had been four years earlier, and Reagan won easily. <v Louis Rukeyser>Reagan again proved a strong campaigner in 1984, outstripping even <v Louis Rukeyser>the early polls with correctly saw him loping to victory. <v Louis Rukeyser>At their best, then, polls can't really predict. <v Louis Rukeyser>All they can hope to do is tell us how the electorate was feeling on the day the <v Louis Rukeyser>questions were asked. With that in mind, let's see how voters seem to be feeling right <v Louis Rukeyser>now on the economic issues facing America. <v Louis Rukeyser>We began with the question made famous by Ronald Reagan Are you better off today <v Louis Rukeyser>than you were four years ago? <v Louis Rukeyser>Forty percent said they were. <v Louis Rukeyser>And most of them, not surprisingly, are likely Bush voters. <v Louis Rukeyser>Sixteen percent said they were worse off. <v Louis Rukeyser>And that group is overwhelmingly for Dukakis.

<v Louis Rukeyser>But the largest number, 42 percent, said they were doing about the same. <v Louis Rukeyser>But American optimism lives. <v Louis Rukeyser>An impressive fifty-seven percent of us, including clear majorities of both <v Louis Rukeyser>Bush and Dukakis supporters, expect to be better off in the next four <v Louis Rukeyser>years. Only 6 percent expect to be worse off, while 29 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>are looking for the status quo to continue. <v Louis Rukeyser>Despite all the talk of tax reform, most Americans, 55 percent, <v Louis Rukeyser>think U.S. federal taxes are too high. <v Louis Rukeyser>Only 3 percent crave to see them higher still, while 37 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>are content with the present level. <v Louis Rukeyser>But the poll found most voters believe George Bush's flat pledge <v Louis Rukeyser>not to raise taxes. <v Louis Rukeyser>Only 41 percent said they expected the taxes they pay to be higher if Bush <v Louis Rukeyser>was elected. Whereas 52 percent are expecting a higher tax bill <v Louis Rukeyser>if Dukakis wins. <v Louis Rukeyser>Many economic issues are important, but which is most important to you?

<v Louis Rukeyser>This was the order that our poll found. <v Louis Rukeyser>Providing for the needy got the most support, twenty-seven percent, but it was closely <v Louis Rukeyser>followed by reducing government spending and holding inflation low. <v Louis Rukeyser>Then came a tie between holding down taxes and holding down unemployment. <v Louis Rukeyser>Perhaps a sign that with record employment this year, the unemployment issue lacks <v Louis Rukeyser>some of its traditional political firepower. <v Louis Rukeyser>Our last four economic questions asked which candidate would do a better job <v Louis Rukeyser>of dealing with each of four key economic issues. <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis had a clear edge on dealing with unemployment, while Bush was rated <v Louis Rukeyser>higher at dealing with inflation. <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis was well ahead on dealing with the budget deficit, while Bush was slightly <v Louis Rukeyser>favored on dealing with the trade deficit. <v Louis Rukeyser>What do these results tell us about how the economic debate will go, and for that matter, <v Louis Rukeyser>how the economy will go? <v Louis Rukeyser>In the first of our three confrontations on issues tonight. <v Louis Rukeyser>Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire is here as vice President Bush's designated

<v Louis Rukeyser>economic spokesman. Governor Sununu will leave office next January after completing <v Louis Rukeyser>his third two-year term and would be expected to figure prominently in a Bush <v Louis Rukeyser>administration. He is now serving as co-chairman of the Bush campaign. <v Louis Rukeyser>Robert Reich is a professor of political economy at Harvard University's Kennedy <v Louis Rukeyser>School of Government and a leading adviser to the Dukakis campaign, designated <v Louis Rukeyser>by the governor as his economic spokesman tonight. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich joins us from Boston. <v Louis Rukeyser>Governor Sununu, our poll suggests that voters believe George Bush won't cut <v Louis Rukeyser>taxes, but that they don't think he'll balance the budget either. <v Louis Rukeyser>If they're wrong, why don't you tell us tonight where he is prepared to cut spending? <v John Sununu>Well, I think what you're going to see is a recognition that it's not going to happen <v John Sununu>overnight. What the vice president has laid out is a commitment to work towards <v John Sununu>a cessation of the growth in spending each year that takes place, in contrast--in <v John Sununu>Congress. His commitment has been to deal with it on the basis of a flexible freeze. <v John Sununu>And if you will allow the revenues to catch up with expenditures.

<v John Sununu>We we always think in terms of two curves and bringing one down. <v John Sununu>But you can also get the same coincidence by shifting in time. <v John Sununu>And I think that's really the basis of the flex freeze over a four-year period. <v Louis Rukeyser>Flexible freeze sounds like something you go down a snowy hill on. <v Louis Rukeyser>What does it mean in reality? <v John Sununu>Basically it says you you freeze the level of growth at something close--of expenditures <v John Sununu>at something close to inflation. <v John Sununu>It gives you a little bit of money to put in some small new programs--child care <v John Sununu>programs, for example--and then allow the growth in revenue, which in this country has <v John Sununu>been at faster than the rate of inflation over the past few years, to catch up to the <v John Sununu>expenditure level. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich, would that work? <v Robert Reich>Well, the flexible freeze is a nice title. <v Robert Reich>It's not a plan. It's an aspiration. <v Robert Reich>The arithmetic doesn't work. <v Robert Reich>George Bush has not said what he's willing to cut. <v Robert Reich>He hasn't said he's willing to cut a single thing. <v Robert Reich>In fact, I've looked at that flexible freeze arithmetic very carefully, and it all <v Robert Reich>depends on one single assumption. <v Robert Reich>And that is that interest rates will decline by at least 2 <v Robert Reich>percent. Now, in the present environment and in the foreseeable future, interest

<v Robert Reich>rates are unlikely to decline. <v Robert Reich>In fact, with inflation, pressure is building up, with our international trade <v Robert Reich>situation, our dependance on foreign capital. <v Robert Reich>If anything, the interest rates are going up. <v Louis Rukeyser>Is it your view that the--. <v Robert Reich>That flexible freeze is is not going to work. <v Louis Rukeyser>Is it your view that under Bush, the deficit would grow? <v Robert Reich>Under Bush, the deficit will grow. <v Robert Reich>It's going to be a continuation of the same policies. <v Robert Reich>You know, in 1981, America had the largest <v Robert Reich>creditor country rating in the world. <v Robert Reich>It was the largest creditor country. Right now we are the largest debtor country in the <v Robert Reich>world, in the world's history. <v Robert Reich>We owe the rest of the world four hundred and twenty-five billion dollars. <v Robert Reich>And if there's a continuation of the present policies, and I see no way of <v Robert Reich>assuming anything otherwise than a continuation of the present policies, we are going to <v Robert Reich>owe the rest of the world, by six years from now, 1.4 <v Robert Reich>trillion dollars. That's enough money to buy half of the stock on the

<v Robert Reich>New York Stock Exchange. And foreigners are already buying up a lot of America. <v Robert Reich>One--40 percent of downtown Los Angeles, 30 percent of <v Robert Reich>Houston, a lot of American companies. <v Robert Reich>We are making ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable. <v Louis Rukeyser>Let's let the governor respond. <v John Sununu>With all due respect to Professor Reich, the fact is, is that the deficit is falling <v John Sununu>even now without holding the growth in Congress--the growth of spending in <v John Sununu>Congress down. The commitment is to work to hold the growth and spending down. <v John Sununu>Even CBO zone data, which is more conservative than even the administration's data, <v John Sununu>shows that this can happen. The fact is, is that he is correct <v John Sununu>in pointing out that it does require a reduction in real interest rates. <v John Sununu>Interest rates are still at a relative high compared to historic levels, real <v John Sununu>interest rates. The key to that is confidence. <v John Sununu>And the key to confidence is getting somebody in the White House that both the investment <v John Sununu>banking community and the business community has faith in. <v Louis Ruykeser>How about Professor Reich's comment that the foreigners are buying up this country.

<v Louis Ruykeser>What's your man gonna do about that? <v John Sununu>Well, foreigners are taking advantage of the trade imbalance that exists. <v John Sununu>The key to that, again, is to getting to a trade balance. <v John Sununu>But the way to get to a trade balance is not the protectionist stance of the Democrats, <v John Sununu>but a more open--an expansion of the American export process. <v John Sununu>It is beginning to take place, moving towards fair trade and free trade. <v John Sununu>And the key to it is not the kind of things that that are part and--part and parcel of <v John Sununu>the Democrat policy, which will shut markets off to American goods. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich. <v Robert Reich>Again, I beg to differ with the governor of New Hampshire, but the Democrats <v Robert Reich>are not espousing protectionism. In fact. <v Robert Reich>Governor Dukakis has been very clear that only under conditions of absolute <v Robert Reich>injury to a particular workforce, temporary--temporary protection will be <v Robert Reich>provided. But on condition--and here's the big difference between Republican protection <v Robert Reich>and Democratic protection--on condition that that industry, those workers, those <v Robert Reich>managers that are protected, commit those extra resources that they get because consumers <v Robert Reich>are paying more--to upgrade, to retool, to retrain, to become more competitive.

<v Robert Reich>Under the Reagan administration, we've had steel and autos and machine tools--all kinds <v Robert Reich>of industries--get protected. <v Robert Reich>But no quid pro quo. And so you have-- <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me move to taxes because our polls suggest that voters believe George Bush <v Louis Rukeyser>won't raise taxes, but think that Michael Dukakis will. <v Louis Rukeyser>Are they right? Professor? <v Robert Reich>Michael Dukakis has pledged himself that if he is going <v Robert Reich>to even look at taxes, it's going to be as a last resort. <v Robert Reich>He's been very specific about the kinds of things that he would do to reduce the budget <v Robert Reich>deficit. Unlike vice President Bush, Michael Dukakis has talked about <v Robert Reich>curbing Star Wars expenditures. He's talked about ending this Orient <v Robert Reich>Express supersonic travel business. <v Robert Reich>He's talked about getting control over the Pentagon procurement <v Robert Reich>fiasco. Also, he's going to reduce welfare rolls by getting people off of welfare <v Robert Reich>and into our productive system, as he has done in Massachusetts. <v Robert Reich>He's going to get hospital cost containment, hospital reimbursement high on the agenda.

<v Robert Reich>He's going to go after the hundred billion dollars of unpaid taxes that <v Robert Reich>are out and due every year. A lot of very wealthy Americans--not the people who are <v Robert Reich>paying payroll taxes, not the average working American--a lot of very wealthy Americans <v Robert Reich>are not paying the taxes that are due. <v Robert Reich>Now, these are all the kinds of things that Governor Dukakis has said he would do. <v Robert Reich>George Bush has not been specific at all. He hasn't said anything except repeating <v Robert Reich>flexible freeze and hoping and praying that interest rates go down. <v Louis Rukeyser>Governor? <v John Sununu>Well, the reason the voters out there think Michael Dukakis is going to raise taxes is <v John Sununu>that he has a history of doing that. <v John Sununu>Even in his first election where he gave an ironclad commitment not to, he gave the state <v John Sununu>of Massachusetts its highest tax increase ever. <v John Sununu>When he had any difficulty at all in his budgets the last couple of years, the first <v John Sununu>thing he did was run out and raise taxes. <v John Sununu>The worst thing he did on top of that was to try and capitalize that deficit. <v John Sununu>He's been out borrowing, trying to cover that deficit. <v John Sununu>The market has not received it well, to the point where this past weekend, one of

<v John Sununu>the Wall Street firms that generally acts as a leading indicator to what Standard and <v John Sununu>Poor's and Moody's does looked askance at some of the issuances coming <v John Sununu>out of Massachusetts. Well, that's--the key to dealing with the deficit <v John Sununu>situation over the long term is to maintain the economic strength of this country. <v John Sununu>And the success of the Reagan-Bush administration will be continued with policies that <v John Sununu>parallel the incentives for incentives. <v John Sununu>We have--incentives for jobs. We have had seventeen and a half million new jobs created. <v John Sununu>One of the few states that has not been able to create jobs effectively is the state of <v John Sununu>Massachusetts. <v Robert Reich>Governor, if I may--if I may--if I may interrupt, please. <v Robert Reich>Just to--just to correct the record on that, in terms of taxes, Michael Dukakis <v Robert Reich>has lowered taxes seven times. <v Robert Reich>In fact, if you look at tax revenues as a percentage of state incomes, <v Robert Reich>Massachusetts now ranks 35th, 35th out of 50th in terms of <v Robert Reich>low taxes. <v John Sununu>They rank fifth in the country in terms of total state taxes. <v John Sununu>They have had the second highest rate of growth of taxes during this administration. <v Robert Reich>Well, you know, I was, I was prepared--.

<v Louis Rukeyser>And the highest rate of growth of spending. <v Robert Reich>I was prepared for these. I have here data put together on every state, including <v Robert Reich>Governor, your state of New Hampshire. And the fact of the matter is that New Hampshire, <v Robert Reich>again, because incomes are rising so fast, obviously you're going to have higher tax <v Robert Reich>revenues even though your tax rate is low. <v John Sununu>But you do rank second. <v Robert Reich>If your incomes--if your incomes are going up very fast. <v Robert Reich>In terms of bond ratings, Massachusetts has had an upgrading, an upgrading <v Robert Reich>in its bond rating twice over the past three years. <v Robert Reich>It is a--an extraordinary economic locomotive. <v Robert Reich>In fact, your state--. <v John Sununu>But Prescott, Ball and Turben, over the weekend, made it clear that the deficit last <v John Sununu>year and the deficit that is projected for this year, which is typical of not being able <v John Sununu>to manage a state when you're not getting the very rapid growth that you might expect, <v John Sununu>is going to cause, they think, folks to look askance at Massachusetts bonds. <v John Sununu>The fact is--. <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me let me move you both from Massachusetts to America-at-large. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congress last time, last election--more than 98 percent of the incumbents who ran <v Louis Rukeyser>for reelection were elected.

<v Louis Rukeyser>What difference does it make which of these guys is elected president if we're gonna have <v Louis Rukeyser>the same old Congress? <v John Sununu>I think the key to it is that you have to have somebody in there that has a resolution, a <v John Sununu>commitment not to yield to the same kind of mistakes we've made as a nation <v John Sununu>over the past few years. And that is, to try and get some control of the spending process <v John Sununu>and when you can't do it, yielding on taxes and having the expenditure level increase. <v John Sununu>The fact is, is that this country can deal with its economic problem if we keep the job <v John Sununu>engine going. And I think that's the key to what the vice president is committed to do. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich, you want to comment on Congress? <v Robert Reich>Well, I'm afraid that we have had a lack of leadership in the White House. <v Robert Reich>Congress is very effective, can be very effective. <v Robert Reich>But you have to have somebody who is setting the agenda, creating a strategy. <v Robert Reich>We have not had a national strategy coming from the White House in terms of <v Robert Reich>competitiveness, in terms of restoring America to its position as number one. <v Robert Reich>Our technology is slipping. Our real wages are slipping. <v Robert Reich>The governor mentioned before creating all those new jobs, well, many jobs have been <v Robert Reich>created. Yes. Over the last eight years.

<v Robert Reich>But more than half of them have been very low paying jobs. <v Robert Reich>Fact, they've been paying under $12,000 a year. <v John Sununu>Professor Reich, that data is the University of Massachusetts data from nineteen--with <v John Sununu>with the maximum numbers, the latest numbers in there, from 1984. <v John Sununu>Of the seventeen and a half million jobs that were created, four and a half million were <v John Sununu>at $31,000 a year or more and almost 12 million were at <v John Sununu>$20,000 a year or more. <v Robert Reich>No, no, no, no--I anticipated--. <v John Sununu>And those are not low paying jobs. <v Robert Reich>I anticipated this as well. Again, this is--. <v John Sununu>I have the data as well professor. <v Robert Reich>Well, shall we-- <v John Sununu>The Department of Labor data indicates that-- <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me, let me wave my own piece of paper. <v Louis Rukeyser>I just want your final thoughts--. <v John Sununu>--$20,000 or more. <v Louis Rukeyser>We're nearly out of time on this. Let me ask for a single sentence from each of you. <v Louis Rukeyser>What's the most important economic difference between these two candidates? <v Louis Rukeyser>Governor. <v John Sununu>I think it is Governor Dukakis's proclivity to tax. <v John Sununu>Governor Dukakis's inability to even hold a plan of spending and a budget <v John Sununu>plan within his own state, and George Bush's commitment to continue the incentives <v John Sununu>that will create jobs in this country.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Proffessor. <v Robert Reich>I think the difference is that George Bush and, as part of the Reagan administration, to <v Robert Reich>the extent that he made any decisions at all--I'm not sure he made any--but as part of <v Robert Reich>the Reagan administration that has basically made this country one of the largest <v Robert Reich>debtors, the largest debtor in world history, and removed us from a position of number <v Robert Reich>one, because we have no strategy, because we have no priorities, because we haven't been <v Robert Reich>investing in the future. And Governor Dukakis is willing to make tough <v Robert Reich>choices. He has specific proposals with regard to budget deficit reduction. <v Robert Reich>And he is willing to invest in the future, in terms of education, training, research <v Robert Reich>and development and rebuilding America. <v Robert Reich>That is what this election is all about, rebuilding this nation. <v Louis Rukeyser>As a good professor, you got in that sentence a few semicolons and dashes, but <v Louis Rukeyser>there we do have to stop for this section. Thanks very much, Governor John Sununu, <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Robert Reich. As you can see, modern presidential candidates get no shortage of <v Louis Rukeyser>advice from all quarters. <v Louis Rukeyser>If George Washington could see the number of advisers that surround a modern president, <v Louis Rukeyser>he might swallow his wooden teeth.

<v Louis Rukeyser>In 1789, Washington got along with four cabinet members <v Louis Rukeyser>and no formal White House staff whatsoever. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was quite common in the early days of the Republic for the cabinet to be a stepping <v Louis Rukeyser>stone to the presidency. <v Louis Rukeyser>In the first six decades, no fewer than six presidents had served earlier <v Louis Rukeyser>as secretary of state. But as the bureaucracy grew, the political <v Louis Rukeyser>clout of the cabinet diminished. <v Louis Rukeyser>Since 1849, only four cabinet members have even been nominated <v Louis Rukeyser>for the presidency. The last one to make it was a former secretary of commerce <v Louis Rukeyser>named Herbert Hoover. <v Louis Rukeyser>It's interesting that the modern decline of the cabinet accelerated under Hoover's <v Louis Rukeyser>successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, himself a former assistant secretary <v Louis Rukeyser>of the Navy, who was the first president to have an official White House staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was minuscule by today's standards. <v Louis Rukeyser>A mere thirty-seven persons. <v Louis Rukeyser>But men such as Harry Hopkins and Raymond Moley, who didn't have to be confirmed <v Louis Rukeyser>by Congress, soon proved more influential than many who did.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Harry Truman continued the trend, leaning heavily on such White House staffers <v Louis Rukeyser>as John Steelman and Clark Clifford. <v Louis Rukeyser>And then Dwight Eisenhower added the terminology of the military, appointing the <v Louis Rukeyser>first chief of staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>So powerful did that chief, Sherman Adams, become, particularly after Ike <v Louis Rukeyser>had a heart attack, that the joke three decades ago was, "What happens if <v Louis Rukeyser>Sherman Adams dies and Eisenhower becomes president?". <v Louis Rukeyser>If that sounds similar to some of the jokes Democrats tell today, consider some other <v Louis Rukeyser>striking parallels, pro and con. <v Louis Rukeyser>The country was at peace. The economy was relatively healthy. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was claimed that the president was lazy and delegated too much. <v Louis Rukeyser>And his chief of staff left under a cloud. <v Louis Rukeyser>Adams was dismissed, not for failure to get along with Mamie Eisenhower, <v Louis Rukeyser>but for improperly accepting of vicuna coat. <v Louis Rukeyser>Donald Regan is thought to have supplied his own wardrobe.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Under John F. Kennedy, the White House staff continued to grow. <v Louis Rukeyser>But with a new emphasis on recruits from college campuses, notably Harvard professors <v Louis Rukeyser>and other members of what were proudly, if often inaccurately, referred to as <v Louis Rukeyser>the best and the brightest. <v Louis Rukeyser>The adviser the president counted on most was his campaign manager and younger brother, <v Louis Rukeyser>Robert Kennedy. While he turned to the president of Ford Motors, Robert McNamara, <v Louis Rukeyser>to be Secretary of Defense. <v Louis Rukeyser>After Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson kept on many of what had been <v Louis Rukeyser>called the Irish Mafia, but added some local flavoring with his <v Louis Rukeyser>own Texas mafia as well. <v Louis Rukeyser>But the White House staff had never made as much news as it did under Richard Nixon. <v Louis Rukeyser>Who can forget the adventures of H.R. <v Louis Rukeyser>Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and Charles Colson? <v Louis Rukeyser>Not to mention a little known college professor who was appointed National Security <v Louis Rukeyser>Advisor: Henry Kissinger. <v Louis Rukeyser>After the debacle of Watergate, Gerald Ford, the only president never to win

<v Louis Rukeyser>a national election, decided he had to reduce the size of the White House staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was a short lived trend. <v Louis Rukeyser>Jimmy Carter brought in his so-called Georgia mafia--and isn't it about time to bury <v Louis Rukeyser>that word?--and for a time did away with a chief of staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>Ronald Reagan has alternated between powerful cabinet members, powerful staff members, <v Louis Rukeyser>and perhaps most strikingly, three men who have been both: James Baker, <v Louis Rukeyser>Edwin Meese, and Donald Regan. <v Louis Rukeyser>So you see, when you're electing a president these days, you're electing a lot more <v Louis Rukeyser>people than just Dukakis and Bentsen or Bush and Quayle. <v Louis Rukeyser>Will one of the people here tonight turn out to be as famous and influential as Bob <v Louis Rukeyser>Haldeman, or Ham Jordan, or Henry Kissinger? <v Louis Rukeyser>Or Thomas Jefferson? Maybe we better find out what's in their heads, too. <v Louis Rukeyser>And that's part of our job tonight. <v Louis Rukeyser>Before introducing the spokesman on foreign and defense policy, though, let's quickly see <v Louis Rukeyser>what our poll found on those issues.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Relatively few Americans we found, only 12 percent, want to spend more <v Louis Rukeyser>on defense. Thirty-five percent, including fully half of Dukakis's supporters, <v Louis Rukeyser>want to spend less. While the largest group, forty-eight percent, heavily including <v Louis Rukeyser>Bush supporters, wants to keep spending about the same. <v Louis Rukeyser>Interestingly, fifty-one percent, including a majority in both camps, think the U.S. <v Louis Rukeyser>should actively use its influence to improve race relations in South Africa. <v Louis Rukeyser>Nearly twice the number who want to break off all contact with South Africa. <v Louis Rukeyser>The narrowest division was on the question of continuing to give aid to the Contras <v Louis Rukeyser>fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. <v Louis Rukeyser>Americans favored continuing such aid, 34 percent to 27 percent, <v Louis Rukeyser>but nearly a third were not sure. <v Louis Rukeyser>As for the Soviet Union, slightly more than half of those polled now see it <v Louis Rukeyser>as a serious threat to U.S. security. <v Louis Rukeyser>Though the number rises to more than two-thirds among Bush supporters. <v Louis Rukeyser>And this would appear to be Bush's best issue.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Fully 50 percent thought he would do a better job of dealing with Soviet leader Mikhail <v Louis Rukeyser>Gorbachev, compared with only 20 percent who thought Dukakis would do better. <v Louis Rukeyser>As his spokesman tonight on foreign and defense policy vice President Bush named General <v Louis Rukeyser>Brent Scowcroft, who served as assistant to President Ford for National Security Affairs <v Louis Rukeyser>and is currently vice chairman of the international consulting firm headed by Henry <v Louis Rukeyser>Kissinger. Governor Dukakis chose Representative Lee Hamilton, who has represented <v Louis Rukeyser>Indiana's 9th District since 1964 and came to wide public attention <v Louis Rukeyser>last year as House Chairman of the Iran Contra Committee. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman Hamilton, Governor Dukakis today got a blow. <v Louis Rukeyser>Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Carter's top national security adviser, endorsed <v Louis Rukeyser>vice President Bush for president. Said Bush was the candidate best equipped, in his <v Louis Rukeyser>words, "to fashion an effective bipartisan foreign policy." Is Michael <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis, then, actually outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party on these issues? <v Lee Hamilton>Oh, I don't think Governor Dukakis is outside the mainstream of American foreign policy

<v Lee Hamilton>at all. I think Governor Dukakis is very much in the mainstream. <v Lee Hamilton>His position, for example, with the Soviet Union, which is the key foreign policy <v Lee Hamilton>relationship, is that we must maintain our strength. <v Lee Hamilton>But because of the remarkable changes taking place in the Soviet Union, <v Lee Hamilton>he's prepared to test the Soviet Union and to try to move forward with <v Lee Hamilton>negotiations. Vice President Bush, on the other hand, has said that the Cold War is still <v Lee Hamilton>going on. And Senator Quayle said the other day that <v Lee Hamilton>perestroika is simply a refined form of Stalinism. <v Lee Hamilton>Now, it seems to me that Vice President Bush and Senator Quayle <v Lee Hamilton>are not expressing the mainstream view of our analysis <v Lee Hamilton>of what's happening in the Soviet Union today. <v Lee Hamilton>They are not agreeing with President Reagan's position that the barriers may be coming <v Lee Hamilton>down in the Soviet Union, the barriers that have existed <v Lee Hamilton>between ourselves and that country during the past four decades.

<v Lee Hamilton>And so it seems to me that Vice President Bush and Senator Quayle are more skeptical, <v Lee Hamilton>much more skeptical of developments in the Soviet Union than Governor Dukakis. <v Lee Hamilton>And he is in the mainstream in wanting to move forward with negotiations. <v Louis Rukeyser>General Scowcroft, is this right? Is your candidate less of a Reaganite than Governor <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis? <v Brent Scowcroft>No, I think that's not--that's not correct. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think it is prudent at this particular point in time to be cautious about developments <v Brent Scowcroft>in the Soviet Union, to be hopeful, but skeptical. <v Brent Scowcroft>And it seems to me that one ought to continue negotiating, but not <v Brent Scowcroft>act as if all our problems with the Soviet Union are ended, not disband <v Brent Scowcroft>our military, and not take surface manifestations <v Brent Scowcroft>for any fundamental change in policy. <v Brent Scowcroft>It may be there, but we should not act as if it had already happened. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman Hamilton, shouldn't we be skeptical? <v Lee Hamilton>Oh, we certainly should be skeptical. And we should be on our guard. <v Lee Hamilton>There's no question about that. But the posture that Governor Dukakis has put forward

<v Lee Hamilton>is a posture that shows a willingness to accept some of the <v Lee Hamilton>potential opportunities that exist in the relationship with the Soviet Union. <v Lee Hamilton>And he's prepared to move forward on negotiations. <v Lee Hamilton>On the other hand, you have these extraordinary statements from Vice President Bush and <v Lee Hamilton>Senator Quayle, which really are not in tune <v Lee Hamilton>with the statements that President Reagan made. <v Lee Hamilton>For example, when he came back from Moscow and talked about the momentous <v Lee Hamilton>changes occurring in the Soviet Union. <v Louis Rukeyser>I want to make sure that I understand you. Is Governor Dukakis then endorsing President <v Louis Rukeyser>Reagan's foreign policy? <v Lee Hamilton>He is endorsing moving forward towards additional agreements <v Lee Hamilton>with the Soviet Union, pushing ahead on the START agreement, for example, the framework <v Lee Hamilton>with which has been set. And he's certainly shown, it seems to me, a very <v Lee Hamilton>progressive attitude in trying to move forward in an improving the relationship <v Lee Hamilton>with the Soviet Union. I don't think Vice President Bush has shown that same willingness <v Lee Hamilton>to move forward.

<v Louis Rukeyser>President Reagan has suggested that the only reason he's accomplished what he has with <v Louis Rukeyser>the Soviet Union is because he continued arming to an extent that Governor Dukakis, among <v Louis Rukeyser>others, opposed. How do you respond to that? <v Lee Hamilton>I think Governor Dukakis stands for a very strong defense. <v Lee Hamilton>His position with regard to one of the principal measures of that, of course, <v Lee Hamilton>is the defense budget. And he favors a stable defense budget, which would grow <v Lee Hamilton>with the rate of inflation. That's the same position on defense budget that <v Lee Hamilton>Vice President Bush is expressing. <v Lee Hamilton>He favors working with our allies. <v Lee Hamilton>He does not want to dismantle any of the weapons systems that we have. <v Lee Hamilton>He favors the triad. <v Lee Hamilton>He has been very specific about his preparedness to use <v Lee Hamilton>force if necessary in a number of specified instances. <v Lee Hamilton>So I think Governor Dukakis is strong on defense. <v Lee Hamilton>He adopts the view that we should negotiate from strength, and he's prepared <v Lee Hamilton>to do that. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think we're really skirting one of the fundamental concerns I think about <v Brent Scowcroft>Governor Dukakis, which, I believe, has motivated, for example,

<v Brent Scowcroft>Dr. Brzezinski to the move that he took today. <v Brent Scowcroft>And that is what appear to be his fundamental instincts. <v Brent Scowcroft>And those instincts seem clearly to be outside the mainstream of <v Brent Scowcroft>American policy as practiced by both Republican and Democratic presidents. <v Brent Scowcroft>And for that, I think one needs to look back, prior to the time <v Brent Scowcroft>he became a presidential candidate, when he took strong and public <v Brent Scowcroft>positions on things like the nuclear freeze at a time when we were trying to negotiate <v Brent Scowcroft>INF and which would have made that treaty impossible when he refuses, <v Brent Scowcroft>for example, to let a communications network be installed <v Brent Scowcroft>in Massachusetts, as it has been in 48 other states, <v Brent Scowcroft>so that the president could, in the case of Soviet attack, communicate <v Brent Scowcroft>with our forces. It seems to me those kinds of things are indicative <v Brent Scowcroft>of a of a view that is outside

<v Brent Scowcroft>the sort of cautious, conservative mainstream of American policy, <v Brent Scowcroft>which has for 40 years been to improve our deterrents, <v Brent Scowcroft>to make it more credible and to induce the Soviet <v Brent Scowcroft>Union by not showing weakness to be willing to negotiate. <v Brent Scowcroft>And I think that's what happened. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman? <v Lee Hamilton>Well, I think Governor Dukakis strongly supports the idea of a strong <v Lee Hamilton>deterrent against our adversaries with regard to the nuclear <v Lee Hamilton>freeze. His position, it seems to me, was reasonable in the context of the time. <v Lee Hamilton>Keep in mind that when the freeze movement was underway, the Reagan administration <v Lee Hamilton>had really abandoned the process of arms control. <v Lee Hamilton>And the nuclear freeze movement became the focal point where people <v Lee Hamilton>could express their desire for arms control. <v Lee Hamilton>The president read that. And in that speech that he gave towards the end of his first <v Lee Hamilton>term, he got back on the arms control track.

<v Lee Hamilton>I don't think he would have done that had it not been for that nuclear freeze movement. <v Lee Hamilton>With respect to the network system, the governor certainly supports <v Lee Hamilton>a strong communication and control system. <v Lee Hamilton>That particular system was presented to him as a means to carry on <v Lee Hamilton>protracted nuclear war, and he had strong environmental <v Lee Hamilton>concerns about it. When the plan was reduced from several hundred sites <v Lee Hamilton>to less than 100, when he understood that plan properly, <v Lee Hamilton>then he has indicated a willingness to reconsider it. <v Lee Hamilton>He certainly supports and understands the necessity for a strong <v Lee Hamilton>communication and control system. <v Louis Rukeyser>Let's move from this discussion of the past to the future. <v Louis Rukeyser>What difference would it make if either of these two men was elected? <v Louis Rukeyser>What changes would we see in foreign and defense policy? <v Louis Rukeyser>General? <v Brent Scowcroft>I think if a Vice President Bush were elected, you would see, <v Brent Scowcroft>for example, toward the Soviet Union a strong, confident move forward

<v Brent Scowcroft>toward negotiations with the Soviet Union. <v Brent Scowcroft>I believe the Vice President believes that the Soviets do seek stability with <v Brent Scowcroft>the United States and that we should take advantage of that to put forward <v Brent Scowcroft>positions which would both improve the nuclear balance <v Brent Scowcroft>and also advance American interests. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think that would be done with prudence, with caution <v Brent Scowcroft>and without expecting that <v Brent Scowcroft>the Soviet Union has, in fact, changed until the results of those negotiations <v Brent Scowcroft>demonstrate. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman, how about President Dukakis? What would his foreign policy be? <v Lee Hamilton>Well, I think one of the strengths of Governor Dukakis is that he understands <v Lee Hamilton>national security and all of its facets. <v Lee Hamilton>I think there's a tendency in this administration under President Reagan and in <v Lee Hamilton>Vice President Bush's statements to equate the level of defense <v Lee Hamilton>expenditure with national security.

<v Lee Hamilton>Governor Dukakis quite understands that we need a strong defense and he's prepared <v Lee Hamilton>to support that and advocate it. <v Lee Hamilton>But he also understands that we're in for a very, very difficult economic challenge <v Lee Hamilton>in the world. And so he's prepared to strengthen our <v Lee Hamilton>economic status, which, of course, is the basis of the strength even <v Lee Hamilton>of our military. <v Lee Hamilton>And that broader concept of national security, which also includes <v Lee Hamilton>emphasis on education and research and development and many other things, <v Lee Hamilton>I think, would enable him to conduct a much stronger foreign <v Lee Hamilton>policy for America. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think that gets us back to the fundamental question again, and that--and that's to the <v Brent Scowcroft>governor's instincts. Now, he has backpedaled on a number of the weapons systems, so <v Brent Scowcroft>it's difficult to know exactly where he stands right now. <v Brent Scowcroft>But in the beginning, he was against--fundamentally against the modernization of any <v Brent Scowcroft>of our systems. In other words, to cancel the programs we have underway now <v Brent Scowcroft>before we begin negotiations with the Soviets on what we do with the future

<v Brent Scowcroft>strategic systems. It seems to me that's fundamentally wrong, the wrong approach <v Brent Scowcroft>toward negotiating with the Soviets. <v Lee Hamilton>But let me just interject here that it was the Reagan-Bush administration, <v Lee Hamilton>which at Iceland suggested that we do away with all intercontinental <v Lee Hamilton>ballistic missiles. That's two sides of the triad. <v Lee Hamilton>It was the president who discussed seriously at that meeting the Soviet <v Lee Hamilton>proposal that we do away with all nuclear weapons. <v Lee Hamilton>So far as I know, those positions were taken without any consultation <v Lee Hamilton>with the Congress, without any consultation with our allies, without any <v Lee Hamilton>consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. <v Lee Hamilton>Now, you're not going to see Governor Dukakis acting in that kind of a manner. <v Lee Hamilton>He's much too cautious a person. <v Lee Hamilton>He's not going to put forward these very radical proposals to suddenly wipe <v Lee Hamilton>out our entire intercontinental ballistic missile system and to have them discussed in <v Lee Hamilton>meetings with the Soviet Union.

<v Louis Rukeyser>But--General, I'll give you a chance respond briefly, because they did attack your man. <v Brent Scowcroft>Well, whatever one thinks of all the proposals at Reykjavik, they were at least <v Brent Scowcroft>balanced proposals. The Soviet Union is modernizing its entire strategic <v Brent Scowcroft>forces at the present time. <v Brent Scowcroft>Sometimes more than one system--in ballistic missiles, in sea <v Brent Scowcroft>launch ballistic missiles, and bombers. <v Brent Scowcroft>And what the governor apparently proposes is that we should not do this modernization. <v Brent Scowcroft>And the Soviets may be changing, but they're certainly not philanthropists. <v Louis Rukeyser>We're nearly out of time. I'd like to get a quick answer from each of you on this one. <v Lee Hamilton>The governor proposes modernizing the bomber <v Lee Hamilton>leg of the triad. He favors the stealth. <v Lee Hamilton>The governor proposes modernizing the sea launch missiles with <v Lee Hamilton>the Trident II. And he said that he's open to modernization of the of <v Lee Hamilton>the land-based leg. So he favors modernization of the nuclear deterrent. <v Louis Rukeyser>We're nearly out of time, but I'd like a sentence from each of you, if I could, on this <v Louis Rukeyser>one, because we haven't talked about it, and we should. <v Louis Rukeyser>There's another important area in the world called the Middle East.

<v Louis Rukeyser>Would the election of either these two men make a difference in policy? <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman? <v Lee Hamilton>I think the Middle East is a formidable challenge for the next president. <v Lee Hamilton>And it will depend a lot on what happens between now and January. <v Lee Hamilton>It depends on what happens in the PLO, which is in great ferment today. <v Lee Hamilton>It depends on what happens in the elections in Israel. <v Lee Hamilton>But I do think whoever the president is, he will push forward with <v Lee Hamilton>a peace process because that will be demanded by the parties. <v Brent Scowcroft>So I agree with what Congressman Hamilton says there. <v Brent Scowcroft>I would say that the principal difference there would be <v Brent Scowcroft>some experience and background in foreign policy. <v Brent Scowcroft>It's an extremely complex area and almost demands <v Brent Scowcroft>a background in what has gone on before, in the attitudes of the <v Brent Scowcroft>various players, and so on. <v Louis Rukeyser>Thank you very much, General Brent Scowcroft, Congressman Lee Hamilton. <v Louis Rukeyser>And who would have thought that in a discussion of foreign policy before the '88

<v Louis Rukeyser>election, the big issue would be who is the greater Reaganite between the two candidates? <v Louis Rukeyser>Now, before we turn to the social issues in this campaign, let's see what our poll found <v Louis Rukeyser>there. <v Louis Rukeyser>On the ultra sensitive issue of abortion. <v Louis Rukeyser>Fewer than a third of those polled thought the federal government should do more to <v Louis Rukeyser>restrict abortions. Bush supporters were slightly more inclined to give this response, <v Louis Rukeyser>but it came from only 39 percent of them. <v Louis Rukeyser>In contrast, 17 percent of the total thought the government should help make abortions <v Louis Rukeyser>more widely available. While 40 percent, the largest group, thought things should <v Louis Rukeyser>continue about as they are. <v Louis Rukeyser>An overwhelming majority of Americans in both camps said they thought it was very <v Louis Rukeyser>important to provide improved childcare facilities for women who work outside <v Louis Rukeyser>their homes. But among those who regarded such improvement as important, a <v Louis Rukeyser>substantial majority also said that the facilities should be provided by the private <v Louis Rukeyser>sector rather than the government. <v Louis Rukeyser>A heavy majority, 58 percent to 19 percent, think there should be time set <v Louis Rukeyser>aside for a voluntary prayer in public schools.

<v Louis Rukeyser>On handguns, Americans are sharply divided, but the largest group, forty nine <v Louis Rukeyser>percent, say keeping such weapons at home should be none of the federal government's <v Louis Rukeyser>business. On which candidate would be better at dealing with social issues, <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis came out ahead both on education, an issue that Bush has tried to make <v Louis Rukeyser>his own, and on stopping the spread of drugs. <v Louis Rukeyser>To speak for him on the social issues in the campaign, Vice President Bush designated <v Louis Rukeyser>Representative Lynn Martin, who came to Washington along with Ronald Reagan in 1981 <v Louis Rukeyser>and has represented Illinois' 16th District since then. <v Louis Rukeyser>A former school teacher and now a member of the Republican House leadership, she serves <v Louis Rukeyser>as a co-chairman of the Bush campaign. <v Louis Rukeyser>Serving in a similar capacity for Governor Dukakis, both in the campaign and tonight, is <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator Barbara Mikulski, a former social worker who was elected Maryland's junior <v Louis Rukeyser>senator in 1986 after serving in the House of Representatives for five two-year <v Louis Rukeyser>terms. Congresswoman Martin, you yourself represent the split in Republican ranks <v Louis Rukeyser>on the abortion issue. You have voted in the past for so-called pro-choice legislation.

<v Louis Rukeyser>If Vice President Bush truly favors less interference from government in people's lives, <v Louis Rukeyser>why doesn't he just stay out of this one? <v Lynn Martin>I think you have the issue of abortion and this crosses party lines that <v Lynn Martin>people have deeply held feelings. <v Lynn Martin>Those feelings can be based on background. <v Lynn Martin>They can be based on religious training. <v Lynn Martin>And I think both candidates respect each other's feelings on that matter. <v Lynn Martin>Vice President Bush believes that the government should allow--there <v Lynn Martin>should be laws that would allow abortion in the case of rape or incest, <v Lynn Martin>and he would support a constitutional amendment to that fact. <v Lynn Martin>I don't find that at all inconsistent with his doctrine of limited government <v Lynn Martin>involvement. That is limited. He does not support--he does not support funding <v Lynn Martin>for abortions. And surprisingly enough, most Americans, even those who may favor <v Lynn Martin>abortions, share that belief. <v Lynn Martin>So I think not only is he within the mainstream, it's something he feels deeply about. <v Lynn Martin>And he brings up an additional subject that does matter, regardless of your feelings

<v Lynn Martin>about abortion. He strongly believes the children need a place and has <v Lynn Martin>suggested legislation and kind of the bully pulpit of the presidency <v Lynn Martin>to do more with adoption, both for minority youngsters and hard to place youngsters. <v Lynn Martin>And I think, again, that's something he should be commended for across party lines. <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator, is Congressman Martin right, that this is not a partisan issue? <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I think it has become a partisan issue. <v Barbara Mikulski>And I think that Governor Dukakis really has been clearly one the least amount of <v Barbara Mikulski>government involvement here. Governor Dukakis is that of a pro-choice position. <v Barbara Mikulski>What does he mean? He means that throughout America right now, <v Barbara Mikulski>two hundred and twenty million Americans, that in each and every circumstance where <v Barbara Mikulski>someone might consider abortion, that should really be left up to their individual <v Barbara Mikulski>medical circumstance, their religious conviction, and that they should have the right to <v Barbara Mikulski>choose that. For poor women who, for whatever reason--the life of the mother, rape, <v Barbara Mikulski>incest would have to turn to abortion--he believes the funding should be there. <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator, let me let me move you to the, go ahead--

<v Barbara Mikulski>This issue of foster care, adoption, and so on--I find it interesting <v Barbara Mikulski>that the congresswoman talked about the bully pulpit of George Bush. <v Barbara Mikulski>We find, if we looked at human services in this country, that the foster care <v Barbara Mikulski>is at a crisis. That we do not have adequate placement, we do not have adequate <v Barbara Mikulski>supervision in every community throughout this country. <v Barbara Mikulski>There is this crisis related to children. <v Lynn Martin>Absolutely true, especially in the minority community. <v Lynn Martin>You take a state like Massachusetts, you have to, because I think most people would agree <v Lynn Martin>this is going to be better handled. Placement. <v Lynn Martin>You're not gonna have federal placement in foster home care. <v Lynn Martin>I don't think the senator, surely, isn't suggesting that. <v Lynn Martin>It's done on the local and state levels. <v Lynn Martin>And if we both had a bully pulpit, it would be for people to consider foster care. <v Louis Rukeyser>Drugs is on the minds of many Americans, if not most. <v Louis Rukeyser>The candidates have talked a lot about it. Does it really make a difference who is <v Louis Rukeyser>elected president? <v Barbara Mikulski>Oh, yeah. <v Lynn Martin>Oh, yeah. <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator we'll let you have the first one on this one. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, first, we would know that--what would be Michael Dukakis's program? <v Barbara Mikulski>He believes you have to dry up the supply and that you have to dry up the demand.

<v Barbara Mikulski>Number one, he would have a drug czar who would be in charge of the federal <v Barbara Mikulski>drug policy. As you know, during the last couple of years, we've had George Bush <v Barbara Mikulski>in charge of the President's task force. <v Barbara Mikulski>And quite frankly, the First Lady, Mrs. Reagan, has done a better job with her Just <v Barbara Mikulski>Say No program and dying, drying up demand. <v Barbara Mikulski>Under the Reagan administration, we've had a cutback in resources in customs. <v Barbara Mikulski>We've had a cutback in resources in Coast Guard related interdiction. <v Barbara Mikulski>We've had a mushy, murky, confusing policy in terms of foreign policy. <v Barbara Mikulski>And you just can't say no. You've got to say more about drawing it--drying it up. <v Lynn Martin>Well, one of the things, of course, and I'm sure the senator remembers this now is that <v Lynn Martin>it was the Congress who cut back from the administration's request and the Coast Guard, <v Lynn Martin>the Democratic House and Senate. But leaving that as it be, I think there's a few things <v Lynn Martin>we know. One is, would either candidate support, for instance, the death <v Lynn Martin>penalty if there was a drug related murder? <v Lynn Martin>One of them, does George Bush. Would there be parole?

<v Lynn Martin>Would there be a furloughs? <v Lynn Martin>And we have in Massachusetts furloughs from drug related crimes from a governor of <v Lynn Martin>Massachusetts. I agree. You attack both the supply and demand. <v Lynn Martin>But there have to be real questions about one of the candidates in this case who believes <v Lynn Martin>that after you have committed crimes of such violence that are drug <v Lynn Martin>related, you could be out on the street. Thirdly, south Florida task force did <v Lynn Martin>make improvements. But I'm here to tell you right now, it's got to be supply and <v Lynn Martin>demand. And that means tougher prison sentences and better cooperation with our allies, <v Lynn Martin>which will be difficult. Whoever the next president is. <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator, is your candidate soft on criminals? <v Barbara Mikulski>Absolutely not. He's one of the toughest guys on crime and he stands 100 <v Barbara Mikulski>percent with the law enforcement officials in this country. <v Barbara Mikulski>That's why he's opposed the so-called cop killer manufacturing the bullets <v Barbara Mikulski>of cop killers. That's one of the reasons he's an advocate of gun control. <v Barbara Mikulski>And on this issue of sentencing and tough sentencing, there's this <v Barbara Mikulski>issue that the Representative Martin just brought up about the death penalty.

<v Barbara Mikulski>You have to decide what kind of president you want. <v Barbara Mikulski>The one who goes for the headlines, or the one who goes for the convictions. <v Barbara Mikulski>Every responsible prosecutor would tell you that life without parole <v Barbara Mikulski>would be a far more effective tool for putting pushers and kingpins <v Barbara Mikulski>behind bars--. <v Lynn Martin>Not the prosecutors in Illinois, I'll tell you. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I can tell you, the prosecutors-- <v Lynn Martin>The States Attorneys Association. <v Barbara Mikulski>I can tell you that the prosecutors in Maryland do that. <v Lynn Martin>It's not true. <v Barbara Mikulski>I'd like to talk a little bit about this furlough stuff. <v Barbara Mikulski>You know, of course, in my day it was private first class that got furloughs and <v Barbara Mikulski>prisoners. <v Louis Rukeyser>I'll give you a pass to talk about it. <v Barbara Mikulski>But--thank you--but really, one of the biggest practitioners <v Barbara Mikulski>of furloughs for criminals has been the federal government under Ronald Reagan and George <v Barbara Mikulski>Bush. Our federal the federal prison system, the Reagan federal prison <v Barbara Mikulski>system lets people out on furloughs all the time. <v Barbara Mikulski>They got murderers out on furlough. <v Lynn Martin>You are saying the federal system has murderers out on furlough? <v Barbara Mikulski>That's exactly--. <v Lynn Martin>--I would really want to see specific proof of a murderer out on furlough. <v Barbara Mikulski>And then they also have got people with drug related violence--

<v Lynn Martin>I noticed we went by that ?thing? quickly. <v Barbara Mikulski>No, I'll come back. I just want to be sure to make my point. <v Barbara Mikulski>But the federal system does put people out on furlough. <v Barbara Mikulski>That's George Bush's system. That's Ronald Reagan's system. <v Barbara Mikulski>That's Eddie Meese's system. <v Lynn Martin>Nobody objects to some furloughs, by the way. <v Lynn Martin>But we're talking about violent crime and who goes out. <v Lynn Martin>And that's something the governor is having a difficult time with. <v Lynn Martin>You mentioned something else, Barbara, that I think is true. <v Lynn Martin>There's a difference in their positions on gun control. <v Lynn Martin>And that is real. Again, for rural areas--and I've noticed in the program at all, we <v Lynn Martin>really haven't you know, we talked about kind of city issues. <v Lynn Martin>There's there's huge differences in their social attitudes toward what our more--what <v Lynn Martin>I'd really call the middle American values. And and that has to do, frankly, <v Lynn Martin>with the right of people to have a gun. <v Lynn Martin>For hunters. And that is a difference. <v Lynn Martin>It has to do with agricultural policy where there's such a vast difference. <v Lynn Martin>Your candidate came to Iowa and said-- <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me just stop there because we're gonna run out of time. And you've moved us to middle America. Let me talk to you about <v Louis Rukeyser>something that's very important to middle America, to all of America, and that's

<v Louis Rukeyser>education. <v Lynn Martin>Yes, it is. <v Louis Rukeyser>What difference would it make if your man would--gets in? <v Louis Rukeyser>He says he wants to be the education president. <v Louis Rukeyser>Our polls suggest people don't believe it. <v Lynn Martin>And I know they don't. And so I think we have to do--we have to certainly explore that <v Lynn Martin>more. First of all, both of them have now come up with ideas. <v Lynn Martin>And I'm glad to see Michael Dukakis following George Bush about how to help the middle <v Lynn Martin>class pay for colleges. <v Lynn Martin>We have to not just put more money into the system on the federal level, which I think--I <v Lynn Martin>don't doubt Michael Dukakis would do that. <v Lynn Martin>But how do we, how do we make the nation at risk, the <v Lynn Martin>nation with the best kind of education? <v Lynn Martin>I agree totally. That to bring us into the competitive '90s in the 21st century, we need <v Lynn Martin>better education. Where I differ, and why most people think Michael Dukakis would raise <v Lynn Martin>taxes, I think he'd put in more money. <v Lynn Martin>I just don't think it would work as well. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I think Mike Dukakis has a plan and he has a record. <v Barbara Mikulski>What George Bush has--essentially rhetoric and campaign conversions <v Barbara Mikulski>here in the field of education. First, Mike Dukakis would take existing resources <v Barbara Mikulski>and make wiser use of them in preschool care, both in terms of health care,

<v Barbara Mikulski>in teaching early habits, and also having a real daycare program. <v Barbara Mikulski>This gets kids ready for school. <v Barbara Mikulski>And what we know, for every dollar we spend on preschool, we're going to save in <v Barbara Mikulski>megamillions later on in life. <v Barbara Mikulski>Second, he'd do something about our teachers. <v Barbara Mikulski>We need to recruit people into the field of teaching. <v Barbara Mikulski>He would do something about teacher salaries, teachers' performance and essentially help <v Barbara Mikulski>like a teachers corps and also help them pay off their student loans <v Barbara Mikulski>and their student, student debts. <v Lynn Martin>I will confess to not knowing Michael Dukakis has said he'll increase teachers' salaries. <v Barbara Mikulski>Then the other thing is--well, the other thing that Michael Dukakis will do, because he <v Barbara Mikulski>does believe in sweat equity. He's working. <v Barbara Mikulski>He's talking with people like Sam Nunn and myself. <v Barbara Mikulski>When the idea of national service in which we will ask our kids to give community <v Barbara Mikulski>service and for X number of years or a weekend plan that we're developing <v Barbara Mikulski>would help them then reduce their student debt. <v Barbara Mikulski>See, we believe in hard work. <v Barbara Mikulski>We believe in creating an opportunity structure.

<v Barbara Mikulski>People with last names like Mikulski and Dukakis know what the American dream has meant <v Barbara Mikulski>under the Democrats, and we want to make sure we keep that opportunity in this country. <v Louis Rukeyser>What do people with a last name like Martin-- <v Lynn Martin>Well, I wasn't my birth name, but it's still a rather nice name, I think. <v Lynn Martin>I'll say Alsace-Lorraine. So we're all a kind of immigrant, whether <v Lynn Martin>our--whether our ancestors were brought here as slaves, whether they came before <v Lynn Martin>the Mayflower or whether they came, as most Americans did, from about <v Lynn Martin>1895 on. Now, let me quickly go through things, because I think she did it reasonably <v Lynn Martin>well. To go with your man is for day care. <v Lynn Martin>He's for a day care bill that would stop day care in small town and rural America because <v Lynn Martin>it doesn't let you have day care in churches. <v Lynn Martin>Now, that works maybe in Baltimore, but it doesn't work outside. <v Lynn Martin>These typical liberal plans that don't work anywhere except in one big <v Lynn Martin>city. And then they want to put them across America. <v Lynn Martin>Talking about working. They have a welfare reform bill that in three different places <v Lynn Martin>absolutely says--and Dukakis says he supports it--that a state cannot require <v Lynn Martin>a recipient to work. Workfare.

<v Lynn Martin>George Bush is for that. There is such a clear difference. <v Lynn Martin>And that's, we believe in the right of each individual to be able to be better. <v Lynn Martin>The Democrats want to keep them all equal, but down. <v Barbara Mikulski>But George Bush-- <v Louis Rukeyser>One sentence for the last word. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I think that Michael Dukakis's whole philosophy on the social <v Barbara Mikulski>issues is that through hard work, thrift, and the old fashioned American <v Barbara Mikulski>values, that we should continue to provide access to the American dream. <v Barbara Mikulski>To make sure every kid who can make the grade should be able to go to college. <v Barbara Mikulski>That people should be able to have the opportunity to buy a home. <v Barbara Mikulski>And every day, he wonders, where will people work? <v Barbara Mikulski>How, where will they work, how will they work, and how will they live? <v Barbara Mikulski>And I want to president that at least wakes up and does that kind of stuff. <v Louis Rukeyser>There we have to stop. Thank you very much, Senator Barbara Mikulski. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congresswoman Lynn Martin, thanks to all our guests tonight. <v Louis Rukeyser>As we've heard tonight, the policy divisions between George Bush and Michael Dukakis may <v Louis Rukeyser>be far more serious and far more important than most of the superficial day to <v Louis Rukeyser>day personality oriented campaign coverage has suggested.

<v Louis Rukeyser>It's popular these days to say that everybody should get out there and vote. <v Louis Rukeyser>An inspirational message that usually comes from those who secretly believe that if more <v Louis Rukeyser>people did vote, most of them would, in fact, vote the way the speaker considers right. <v Louis Rukeyser>Our message tonight is a little different. Yes, of course go to the polls. <v Louis Rukeyser>Not only is is it indeed your right and your civic duty, but if you fail to perform <v Louis Rukeyser>it, you will have sacrificed your claim on one of the most cherished privileges of being <v Louis Rukeyser>an American. The right to bellyache about the guy who did get elected. <v Louis Rukeyser>But first, before voting, you really have another obligation that is less often <v Louis Rukeyser>mentioned, the obligation to acquaint yourself with the actual issues and positions <v Louis Rukeyser>of the candidates so that when you do pull that lever, you will be making the decision of <v Louis Rukeyser>an informed citizen and not just venting the mindless frustration of some <v Louis Rukeyser>demagogs herd. America needs not just voters, but voters who have done their <v Louis Rukeyser>homework. I hope we've helped you tonight with your electoral homework. <v Louis Rukeyser>I know I've learned a lot and I want to thank all those who helped them. <v Louis Rukeyser>That sometimes difficult task.

<v Louis Rukeyser>See you next Friday. And meanwhile, thanks very much for being with us tonight. <v Announcer>Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide has been brought to you by United Telecom, <v Announcer>a leader in the communications industry and architect of the U.S. <v Announcer>Sprint, a fiber optic network, a nationwide digital communications network. <v Announcer>For a transcript of this program, send $5 to Louis Rukeyser's <v Announcer>1988 Election Guide, Owings Mills, Maryland, 21117. <v Announcer>That's $5 to Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide, <v Announcer>Owings Mills, Maryland 21117. <v Announcer>Louis Kaiser's 1988 Election Guide has been produced by Maryland

<v Announcer>Public Television, which is solely responsible for its content.