The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a Republican convention preview; Paul Solman examines Bush economics; Mark Shields and Paul Gigot look at the platform and other items; convention chairman Andrew Card lays out the convention's themes and goals; Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Haynes Johnson, and Richard Norton Smith add some historical perspective; and essayist Richard Rodriguez notes the coming of the scripts. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Republicans continued today to make ready for their national convention in Philadelphia. The platform committee worked on a draft document. One panel voted to keep a strong antiabortion plank. Another added language opposing special civil rights protections for gays. But the draft also dropped appeals to abolish the Education Department and to make English the official language. And it called for a stronger federal role in protecting the environment. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney began a campaign bus trip today that will end in Philadelphia next week. They're visiting seven states that President Clinton carried in 1992 and '96, and they started in his home state of Arkansas. Bush said he's not conceding any votes.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: It buoys my heart and it buoys my spirit to know that we're working our way to Philadelphia for the national convention and working our way across battleground states that the Republican ticket has not been able to carry the last two election cycles. Our first stop is a place that will sound a resounding signal to America that Arkansas is Bush-Cheney country!

JIM LEHRER: We will be devoting all of the program tonight after this News Summary to the Republican convention. On the Democratic side today, Vice President Gore said he'd work on his vice presidential selection while he vacations through next week on the North Carolina coast. The Democratic convention takes place August 14 through 17 in Los Angeles. Two federal appeals judges have granted astay allowing the on-line music sharing service Napster to stay in business. A federal judge had issued an order that the company shut down as of midnight tonight pending a trial. The Recording Industry Association of America has sued Napster for copyright infringement. The death toll in the Concorde crash rose today to 114, and the investigation took a new turn. French officials said the fire on the supersonic jet apparently started outside the engines. We have a report from Bill Neely of Independent Television News.

BILL NEELY: Another body was found, the victim unknown, dug out from the rubble of the hotel. And they're finding more than that. The plane's undercarriage and wheels were taken away. They're now the focus of the inquiry. Investigators say one or two tires burst during takeoff. Metal fragments from the landing gear have been found on the runway. Until now, it had been assumed the fire started in the left engine that had been repaired. Not so, say investigators; -it started somewhere else. The debris on the runway suggests the plane was plagued with problems before the fire started. Metal fragments were flying as it reached 250 miles an hour -- the pilot reporting that he couldn't lift up the landing gear. The engines weren't his only problem. And more maintenance work was done on the day of the crash than the last-minute job to the engine. Air France said today routine repairs were also carried out that morning. Police have interviewed mechanics and seized records, they've interviewed air traffic controller Boston about what they saw and why they didn't warn the pilot earlier that his plane was on fire on the runway.

JIM LEHRER: In Washington, the National Transportation Safety board said it warned Air France about the Concorde's tires 19 years ago. That was after four "potentially catastrophic" cases involving blow-outs. A Safety Board spokesman said the agency dropped the matter after the French took action. President Clinton had a new warning today for the Palestinians. He said they'd be making "a big mistake" if they declare their own state in the wake of the failed Camp David summit. He told Israeli television, if that happens, he'd consider moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as the Israelis want.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I've always thought it was the right thing to do, but I didn't want to do anything to undermine the peace process or our ability to be an honest broker, which requires that we be accepted by both sides. But it's something that I've taken under review because of the recent events. I think that's all I should say about it now.

JIM LEHRER: Yasser Arafat has said he would declare a Palestinian state on September 13 if there is no final peace agreement. Secretary of State Albright held a landmark meeting today with North Korea's foreign minister. They talked at a gathering of Asian nations in Bangkok, Thailand. It was the highest level contact between the two countries since the Korean War. Albright said it was surprisingly "friendly." Back in this country today, the Federal Trade Commission said there appears to be no single factor in the recent spike in gas prices across the Midwest. The agency told Congress it was still investigating the possibility of collusion among oil companies and it has issued more subpoenas to refiners and pipeline operators. The investigation may take another three to four months. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Republican convention, which opens Monday in Philadelphia.

FOCUS - GOP ECONOMICS

JIM LEHRER: And, first, our economics correspondent Paul Solman of WGBH Boston uses Philadelphia as the backdrop to examine the Bush economic plan.

PAUL SOLMAN: In Philadelphia next week, the Republican convention. And four days before the opening gavel, there was ample evidence of the party's high hopes for the election. The question: Will the GOP's ideas fly in the fall -- especially the party's slogan this year: Prosperity with a purpose. So we began our day with George W. Bush's economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay by asking, hasn't there been prosperity and economic growth with Democrats in the White House?

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Sure, the private sector is booming, and the question is what have we done with that prosperity? You know, is our education system better than it was eight years ago? I don't think so. In Social Security better off? No, the trustees said it's $1.4 trillion more broke than it was when they took office. Is Medicare working better now than it was eight years ago? I don't think so. So if you think about the things the public sector is responsible for, we're worse off. Private economy is doing great. Business is doing great, but we squandered that prosperity.

PAUL SOLMAN: Lindsay set out to illustrate the Republican economic plan on a tour of this year's convention city, starting with the Bush fix for Social Security -- individuals investing roughly a sixth of their Social Security tax in the stock market. So first stop, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: I think this is a good change to illustrate the need for personal accounts in Social Security: To give all Americans a piece of American capitalism. But more important, it's a way of fixing the Social Security system. Money is temporarily flowing into that system. And right now that money is earning only about 2% after inflation. Stocks, historically since the last century, have earned about 7%.

PAUL SOLMAN: But a lot of finance professor particularly today from your own academic profession say the stock market is historically way high, and, therefore, if we're putting our money into the stock market when it's high, we're buying high and looking to pay the piper when it goes down.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: I looked into that. If you were to... if you have personal accounts in 1980 and you were to have put the same amount of money into the stock market each year for the last 20 years and tomorrow the stock market was cut in half, you would still be getting a return four times higher than what Social Security is giving you, even if the stock market was cut in half tomorrow.

PAUL SOLMAN: But don't Democrats have a similar proposal, we asked, and at lower cost, since government will do the investing instead of brokers who charge commissions and thus have an incentive to get people to trade?

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: I think the key thing is that individuals should make the decision. And we could have something like the federal thrift savings plan where individuals own the stocks; it's a very low cost plan. What the Democrats want to do is they want to have the government buy up the stock market. Under Gore's plan, 25% of the economy could be owned by the government.

PAUL SOLMAN: Lindsay's theme, individuals, not government, continued as we headed to the next stop as well. In an area where they worry more about pest control than their portfolios, the once ritzy Broad Street Trust Bank is now being redeveloped by the Greater Exodus Baptist Church as a credit union and computer training center for welfare moms.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: How much do your graduates make when they get out of here?

REV. HERBERT HOOVER LUSK II: Anywhere between thirty and forty thousand dollars a year.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: That's a good job.

REV. HERBERT HOOVER LUSK II: It certainly is.

PAUL SOLMAN: A good job coming off welfare. But,, says Lindsay, the job would be better if Bush were President because he would cut taxes so that graduates of this program would keep a lot more of their money.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Under current tax law, these women, who are making $30,000 to $40,000 have half their raise taken by the government when they go out and work on these jobs.

PAUL SOLMAN: How could it be? They're not in the 50% bracket.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Well, if you add everything up, they are. There's an earned income credit that takes 21 cents out of every additional dollar.

PAUL SOLMAN: And they lose it?

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: And they lose it.

PAUL SOLMAN: I see.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: There's a 15% federal income tax rate. There's a 7.65% Social Security tax. There's a 5% state income tax, 21, 21, 7.5 you're up to 48.6, or something like that.

PAUL SOLMAN: Of every extra dollar they'd be making coming out of this.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Coming out of this program -- is taken from them in taxes. They're paying a higher tax rate than you and I are.

PAUL SOLMAN: Reverend Herbert Hoover Lusk, a former pro-football running, thinks tax cuts that make work more appealing than government traspers, would help the community.

REV. HERBERT HOOVER LUSK II: Self-help is the way that our people should go. I'm very, very interested in our people pulling themselves up from their own bootstraps and not being shackled by welfare programs that keep them in a vicious cycle of looking for a check.

PAUL SOLMAN: And so you think that Governor Bush in that sense and his proposals will more nearly benefit a community like this?

REV. HERBERT HOOVER LUSK II: They more reflect my philosophy of life for the people that I serve.

PAUL SOLMAN: For all its emphasis on low-income taxpayers, however, the Bush plan also benefits the well off, which prompted a question. Why give any tax break at all to people who have already done so bounteously well in this economy, yourself and myself, people in our sector of the economy?

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Well, I think whenever you share half of your income with Uncle Sam -- and you may be and I am -- that is demoralizing. I mean, the question is do you work for yourself or do you work for the government? At some point we have to draw the line. And what Governor Bush is establishing for high-income people is a principle. Nobody should give more than a third of what they make to Uncle Sam -- 33% top rate. Four months out of the year is enough.

PAUL SOLMAN: Another key aspect of Republican economics this year, improve America's human capital, the skills of our people, by improving schools through competition. Reverend Lusk is starting a new charter school down the block from his church. This summer he is running a day camp, in recess at the moment, which teaches business, among other things. Shiron Smith reenacted what had she has learn thus far about banking.

SHIRON SMITH: Come get my money out. Can I please have my money out. They say yes. I take my money and I go right back home.

PAUL SOLMAN: And it's more money than you used to have?

SHIRON SMITH: Yeah. It's more money.

PAUL SOLMAN: Because the money grew while it was in the bank?

SHIRON SMITH: Yes. You get more money...

PAUL SOLMAN: If you put it in the bank. Is that a good thing?

SHIRON SMITH: Yeah, that's a good thing.

PAUL SOLMAN: So you're learning stuff like that.

SHIRON SMITH: Yeah.

PAUL SOLMAN: The Republican plan is to force public schools to do similarly effective teaching.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: What Governor Bush is insisting that they have three years to improve the local public school. If the school can't do it, the money goes to the parents so they can send their children to the local charter school or to another school of their choice.

PAUL SOLMAN: My sister has taught in the LA schools for about 25 years now, pre-k -- and she says when I bring up the idea of school choice, hey, look, what you're going to do is take out... cherry pick the most astute parents who will send their kids to the better schools, perhaps, but you'll leave the parents who don't speak English, who don't know any better, and their kids stuck in an even more ghettoized school.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Well, with all respect to your sister, what she is saying is we should lock the astute parents and their students in failing schools. That's got to be unfair.

PAUL SOLMAN: But don't you worry about the idea of a sort of an even more concentrated what we used to call ghetto?

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: I'd like to see every student get out. And any student that can, I think is better off. Probably the Reverend has a view on this as well.

REVEREND HERBERT HOOVER LUSK II: There will be people who will be hurt in the beginning, however that's why we have community organizations that fill in the gap and who meet the needs of those people and help them make their ministries and resources to get to the people who will be affected by this.

PAUL SOLMAN: And your idea is let's bolster those community organizations.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Absolutely. Governor Bush is pushing the idea that faith-based institutions are the best people to deliver public services. If you actually know the people involved, you know how to help them -- not if you're some faceless bureaucrat in Washington.

PAUL SOLMAN: Lindsay's last stop was not far from Reverend Lusk's church -- a low-income neighborhood rehabbed by a group that gets government money to help individuals rescue neighborhoods house by house.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: In this rehabilitation project, the rehabbers acquired the buildings from the Housing and Urban Development, the government that used to own it. Crack addicts were living in there, in spite of the fact that government owned it for four years, right across the street from a school. The rehabbers bought it, they sold it to a policeman; the policeman, as a result, has changed the whole character of the neighborhood. And you can see what they've done all the way down the street.

PAUL SOLMAN: The idea: Transform the eyesores and you change the face and spirit of the neighborhood.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: What Governor Bush is proposing is first of all to help rehab $1.5 billion a year that states will be able to give to people who do things like this -- and second of all, to provide down payment assistance to buyers so that people like the policeman can move in up on the corner.

PAUL SOLMAN: As if on cue, one of the new owners of the former crack house emerged while we were talking.

HOMEOWNER: With more homeowners, people are interested in keeping up their neighborhoods when they own their own homes. That's the first thing. Give them homes to own and they'll keep the neighborhoods up.

PAUL SOLMAN: Do you think that's a Republican or Democratic policy?

HOMEOWNER: I think it's probably some of both -- some of both.

PAUL SOLMAN: And you?

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Well, I'm biased. I think it's Republican, but... What can I say.

PAUL SOLMAN: We'd reached the end of our tour. And after spending so much time being taken through neighborhoods far from the strong holds of Republicanism, we had one final question for Governor Bush's economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay.

PAUL SOLMAN: Throughout the day here, you've been touting policies that I would have, perhaps naively described as traditionally Democratic or Democrat policies because their intervention is to help solve social problems. What am I missing?

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: What the difference is - is how well money is spent. The Democrats came in and said great society. They bulldozed many neighborhoods like this one and put up giant high-rises, which are today unlivable. That's the Democrat response: Big government, big projects, big jobs,.

PAUL SOLMAN: But that is the traditional Democrat approach of the 50s and 60s ...

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: 70s... 80s.

PAUL SOLMAN: But not 90s. Not the Clinton-Gore approach of smaller government, more responsive government, at least certainly that's what they talk about.

LAWRENCE LINDSAY: Well, if a Republican Congress can turn them around, imagine what we can do with both a Republican Congress and Republican administration.

PAUL SOLMAN: And, at the end of the day, that's what the Republicans will be trying to convince voters of from now until November.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Now, a Philadelphia preview from Shields and Gigot; syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. The convention of the day is the platform. Major change from recent Republican platforms, Paul?

PAUL GIGOT: I think it's a change. It's probably the biggest change in a dozen years from what Republicans have done in the past. Part of it is tonal there. There's a lot more positive thinking in this thing. There's not as much criticism. In fact, I was told by one source there is not even going to be a single reference to Clinton-Gore. They want to put Governor Bush's themes of optimism and compassion ahead of excoriating the Clinton legacy. And I think there is also some changes in policy, some fundamental changes in policy, for example, on immigration, though the 1996 platform was very critical of immigrants, they take jobs in America. This one says we welcome immigrants. In fact, they can help our economy if they come in here legally. This reflects, I think, the Bush idea that if you're going to have a governing majority, you really have to have significant segments of Hispanic Americans and African Americans vote with your party. So there is a change. It's a different document.

JIM LEHRER: A different document, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: A different document, Jim, a lot less of what I would call the government bashing, sort of the... what I characterize mindless demonizing of public employees, public service. There's no talk about meddlesome bureaucrats, the acknowledgment that the government has a role, that has an important role in the environment particularly. But at the same time on the social issues, they roped off that area, endorsed a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion with no exceptions, rape, incest, life of the mother, in addition come out against homosexuals in the military under any circumstances. And all of these... both of these are positions that Governor Bush himself has moved away from in his characterizing as a compassionate conservative -- and also urged that pro-life point of view, or view of the Constitution be a major consideration in the selection of federal judges. So I agree with Paul tonal difference but some substantive difference but still an acknowledgment that the social and religious right is an important and key constituency to George Bush's getting elected in November.

PAUL GIGOT: Make no mistake, Jim. This is still a conservative document and a conservative party. Mark is right about that. I think Governor Bush was smart not to get into, to open that debate over abortion because when you have a debate like this, it's probably going to end up with this language anyway since that's where the majority of the party is, and, instead, you would have a week of debating for no purpose.

JIM LEHRER: Paul, does matter; does this particular platform matter?

PAUL GIGOT: I think all platforms matter as a statement of where the parties are. They matter much less, though, than what the candidates stand for, what the candidate's agenda is. I mean some of us are doomed to have to read these kinds of things and even write about them. So, you know, I don't think most of the American people are going to get to paragraph 35. But they're going to listen to Bush on Thursday, and what he says is in part going to be a reflection of what the broad thinking is within his party. And so in that sense, the platform is worth looking at every four years.

JIM LEHRER: But, Mark, in a more general way, this convention in Philadelphia is George W. Bush's convention more than it is "the Republican Party's" is that not correct?

MARK SHIELDS: That is correct, James. And I would say the platform is important because it's George W. Bush's platform. There were no disputes. They control the platform committee, just as they've controlled everything else here, because he won and won so overwhelmingly. This is his convention. That's what this week is about. It's introducing George W. Bush to an awful lot of Americans. The University of Michigan surveys over the past 48 years have indicated that some 22% of voters regularly make up their minds at or following the conventions, having viewed these two candidates. It's an important week and it's George W. Bush's chance to lay down a set of principles and ideas that would give a sense of... that are believable and valid to a majority of voters where he wants to lead the United States.

JIM LEHRER: And, Paul, what do you think that message is? In the ideal world in George W. Bush's ideal world, based on your discussions with Republican leaders and his folks, in the ideal world, what would he want people to come away from after these four days of this convention?

PAUL GIGOT: I think he wants the people to come away with what his idea is of a governing conservatism. I think this platform and this convention is putting to rest the idea of an insurgent revolutionary conservatism. It's just not in this document anymore. It's not in the Bush message. This is what the governors, the Republican governors, the successful Republican governors in the states have done. And it's a governing conservatism that deals with problems like education and Social Security and health care that Republicans haven't been identified with solving or even caring about in the past. And he's going to say we can deal with those problems. Then he also wants to personally say, look, I'm somebody who has the stature to be able to implement this agenda. Here's my record in Texas - inoculate him somewhat against the attacks that are going to happen. I've done it in the state, I can do it across the country.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, governing conservatism?

MARK SHIELDS: Governing conservatism, yes, Jim, but I think it's a more immediate problem that he has this week-- a mission, and that is George W. Bush is liked. He is liked better, I think, by more voters than is Al Gore. If this were to be an election about national student body president, George W. Bush would win handily. But the question that all political pros when they get together talk about any would-be candidate, they always use the same language, have used it for the 45 years I've been around this business, and that is, is he heavy enough? Does he have the heft to be President? Does he the chair? If there are lingering doubts about George W. Bush, that's what they are. It's not whether in fact he has united his party, whether he will have enthusiasm in the hall because he will have -- an enthusiastic uncritical response, but whether those Americans sitting out there say is this guy the guy I'm going to feel as one Republican Tom Rath of New Hampshire said to me, he has got to convince people, and a Bush backer himself, that they can be comfortable for the next four years getting up every morning with George Bush and not anxious with George Bush as President of the United States.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, that's the bottom line here?

PAUL GIGOT: I do think that that's the bottom line. This is only the first stage though in doing that. Actually, his vice presidential choice was maybe the first stage. This is part two. Then I think the debate's ultimately, head to head against Al Gore where he can close that deal. But this week he does have to look as if he has a clear idea of what he wants to do and look commanding enough to implement it.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, speaking of the vice presidential selection, how's Dick Cheney's selection holding up after three days?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think it's the first time... He got basically positive reviews but they did come back at him and pick out votes from his record, which was an extremely conservative record. And there was a sense of hurt, how can you go back and look at these, from many of the same folks who were talking about voting records, replete with voting records for Walter Mondale and every other Democrat ever nominated. It's totally fair to go back and to look at how Dick Cheney did vote. And I thought he was put on the defensive. I didn't think the Bush people truly anticipated what might happen with Dick Cheney. And I thought some of those questions were not...

JIM LEHRER: Like which ones, did he do poorly on?

MARK SHIELDS: The question, for example, ERA. Nobody cares about the ... I shouldn't say that. I'm sure there are listeners who care... but it's a dead issue. But he said he opposed the ERA, because he was fearful of women being drafted -- Well, this from a guy who had more deferments from the community of South Boston but at the time after the draft was abolished. You come back to, Jim, to the fact that he said he was against Head Start, voting for Head Start because of funds and funding. You know, those... I don't think those are actually going to put it to rest. It's not going to be resolved on his issue, but I think it has hurt already his environmental record and his gun record, cop killer bullets and the plastic guns has already hurt in California.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Paul, that he has got a problem here with his record?

PAUL GIGOT: The ERA, I mean, Mark says it's a dead issue and we're redebating it.

MARK SHIELDS: Just his answer.

PAUL GIGOT: What he said is that he was worried about women in combat. I agree that... with Mark, that Dick Cheney's political muscles are a little bit flabby. You know, he hasn't been in the political arena for a while. And there is kind of a gotcha quality. What about this vote, what about that vote? And he's not up to speed on a lot of that stuff. And it did catch... he was caught off guard. But look, the caricature of Cheney and his voting record is over the top. I mean, this guy was Obi1 Kanobi on Monday and now he's Darth Vader. They're making him sound like Newt Gingrich, and that's because the Democrats are frustrated. They're frustrated because their base is not as enthusiastic about Al Gore as Republicans are about Bush right now. Gore is only getting about 80% of Democrats, Bush is getting 90% plus of Republicans. They need to motivate that base. Right now fear is not one of those motivations. So you take Cheney and you say look at this horrible voting record and you caricature it and say he is against Nelson Mandela being released from prison, which is playing the race card, let's face it. And so you try to demonize him that way. But I don't think it going to work because it was so over the top.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, what about the vote that Cheney made on Nelson Mandela? Is that a fair shot against him now?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, it was a fair shot, Jim. I mean there's no question. I mean Dick Cheney has a point of view, a point of view he represented in Congress, a point of view he believes as CEO of Halliburton and that is he is against unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States. He has been fighting, of course, and urging his party and the government of the United States to remove all sanctions from Iran. I mean, that's been part of his governing philosophy. But I think there's no question that was not about sanctions. That was about urging the South African government to free Nelson Mandela and to bargain with the ANC. And that's where Dick Cheney parted company and again was in a very, very small group of people. Jack Kemp, the last Republican candidate for Vice President was one of the champions and leaders in that whole Mandela movement and sanctions against South Africa.

JIM LEHRER: So you're not saying it's unfair, Paul, to raise this?

PAUL GIGOT: I think that the way it was raised, actually, is unfair, because the implication is, look, Jesse Jackson raised it as a Rainbow Coalition Operation PUSH meeting with Al Gore by his side. And it was deliberately designed to say Dick Cheney is anti-black. Everybody who knows Dick Cheney knows that that simply isn't true. This is about motivating the Democratic base, which right now is not motivated.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, we've got many opportunities next week to talk about this, and many other things, and I'll see new Philadelphia on Monday. Thank you both.

PAUL GIGOT: See you then, Jim.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.

FOCUS - CONVENTION PREVIEW

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the official view, some historical perspective, and a Richard Rodriguez take on it all.

JIM LEHRER: The purpose and nature of political conventions has changed, we look at those changes now, first through the eyes of a co-chairman of the Republicans' event, Andrew Card, Margaret Warner talked to him yesterday about what the organizers have in mind.

MARGARET WARNER: Welcome Andy Card.

ANDREW CARD, Republican Convention, Co-Chairman: Thank you, Margaret. Good to be with you.

MARGARET WARNER: Good to be with you. What is it you want the American people to take away from this convention week?

ANDREW CARD: This convention is about renewing America's purpose and renewing America's purpose together. Governor Bush will be coming into town not just to accept the party's nomination, but also to convey to the people across America exactly what the principles that he stands for are -- and will do that over the course of the four nights of the convention, the first night will focus on opportunity with a purpose, leave no child behind. There will be an emphasis on education. We'll hear from spectacular speakers like the first lady of Texas, Laura Bush and General Colin Powell. On Tuesday we'll talk about strength and security with the purpose, and then we'll hear from Condoleeza Rice, Governor Bush's now security advisor, Elizabeth Dole and the closing speech that night will come from Senator John McCain. On Wednesday evening, unprecedented but Republicans will have the vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney deliver the ultimate speech of the evening, and that evening's activities will focus around prosperity -- prosperity with a purpose. It will be a very powerful night because we'll also hear from small business leaders and people involved in the new economy in America. And then on Thursday night, that will be Governor Bush's night, and this will be the night we identify a president with a purpose, Governor George W. Bush. And we'll summarize the week's activities here from real Americans, some celebrities, have some entertainment and most importantly listen to his wonderful acceptance speech.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you trying to convey to the American people that the people they're going to see on the podium are the Republican Party of today?

ANDREW CARD: Well, this is a convention that's more than just about the Republican party. This is about the principles that we stand for. And there will be a number of people on that stage who personify the kinds of issues that Governor Bush has been talking about. So some of the people that will be talking to Americans won't necessarily be Republicans. They won't necessarily be involved in the political process as politicians. They're people living the policies that Governor Bush wants to highlight. And so this will be a different kind of convention. It will be an upbeat mood to it, lots of music. We won't have the traditional speech trashing the other team, bashing the other team. Instead we're going to focus on the positive, accentuate the positive. Yes, there will be a contrast but this is about renewing America's purpose and Governor Bush is the one to do that.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, how about members of your party, leading members of your party farther on the right, religious conservatives or members farther left, is the public going to see any of either of them?

ANDREW CARD: Well, you are going to hear from all kinds of Republicans. And some people who aren't Republicans at this convention. This is clearly a situation where Governor Bush has solidified the base of the Republican Party. Right now the polls show that 93% of the Republican base is together, supporting governor Bush and Dick Cheney in this quest. And this convention will be about reaching beyond the traditional ranks of the Republican Party to touch Americans who really understand the need for kinds of principles that Governor Bush wants to bring to office.

MARGARET WARNER: But is it fair to say, for instance, that you won't have a pro-life speaker just to be pro-life, just to choose one issue?

ANDREW CARD: That's fair to say. We are not discussing those kinds of issues in detail. Instead we're talking about the issues that most affect people across the country: Education, leaving no child behind. That's very important. We'll hear from teachers, parents, we'll hear from community activists. We'll hear from people involved in foster childcare and adoption.

MARGARET WARNER: Why have you decided to take such a different tact from conventions in the past?

ANDREW CARD: We've got a different kind of candidate running for President. Governor Bush has been leading in Texas in a way that brought the Republican Party together, but more importantly, he brought their legislature to work together and in a bipartisanship way, he brought meaningful reform in education, did a lot on tax policy. He restored a lot of hope and opportunity for people disenfranchised by the political process. And that's the same kind of leadership that he will bring to America once he becomes President.

MARGARET WARNER: Thousands of protestors are also convening on Philadelphia. Do you expect those demonstrations to be disruptive of the convention or affect the convention at all?

ANDREW CARD: Well, we've been working very closely with the city of Philadelphia and the state of Pennsylvania and the state of New Jersey, and the state of Delaware. We know that these demonstrators are exercising their First Amendment rights. We hope that they don't protest - instead they demonstrate - but we don't want them to be disruptive to our particular party and what we'll talk about in the convention. We're going to count on the city of Philadelphia to help to make sure the convention comes off as we expect it will.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, as you know, polling is suggesting that fewer Americans than ever plan to watch this convention or either of the conventions. I think it's the Vanishing Voter Project at Harvard found that 43% said they don't plan to watch this. Is the way you're designing and choreographing this convention designed to try to bring those viewers in?

ANDREW CARD: It's a different kind of convention because we have a different kind of candidate running for president. If you watched the convention before and were turned off, turn this one on, you're going to really like it. If you haven't paid attention to a convention before, turn this one on. It is going to be wonderful.

MARGARET WARNER: So your job really was to design a television show more than a convention in the traditional sense?

ANDREW CARD: This convention also has a very important responsibility. You know you cannot become your party's nominee for President without going to a convention and getting the votes from the delegates. We have an important responsibility as a party to cast our votes by delegates for our nominee. But it's also about talking about the principles that that candidate wants to talk about in the fall. Renewing America's purpose is the theme of Governor Bush's campaign. It isn't a theme we pulled out of the sky. It reflects the kinds of things he has been talking about over the course of his campaign. I went back before I started this convention activity and read Governor Bush's policy statements during the course of the primary season. And what jumped out at me is that he wants to talk about opportunity with a purpose and strength and security with a purpose and prosperity with a purpose. And clearly his goal is to renew America's purpose. We're going to do that together here in Philadelphia.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Andy Card, thank you very much.

ANDREW CARD: Thank you.

FOCUS - HISTORICAL VIEWS

JIM LEHRER: Now, a longer view of the political convention, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: For perspective on political conventions we turn to our NewsHour regulars: Presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, and journalist and author Haynes Johnson. Joining them tonight is historian and biographer Richard Norton Smith, who is currently director of the Gerald R. Ford Museum and Library in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Well, we just heard the co-chairman lay out the... His plans for the coming week. Big change from when the last time the Republicans went to Philadelphia, Michael Beschloss 1948?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: That's for sure. 1948, even more, 1940 when they surprisingly drafted Wendell Wilkie this, unknown candidate for president. You know, Ray, for most of American history, 100 years and more, these conventions were spontaneous. You didn't know at the beginning who was going to be President and Vice President. You would have these bloody fights about platforms. You didn't even wait to hear the candidate give a speech because in those days candidates did not go to the convention to give an acceptance speech. FDR was the first one to do that in 1932. Nowadays you have it in a completely different framework. You have the Andrew Card's very properly seeing this as an opportunity to present the party in a happy light and the candidate for the candidate to give a good speech. But in a way, it's based on 1972 -- Richard Nixon's reelection convention. There was a big surprise, and that was that that was a convention that went by a script. In those days, that was considered to be shocking but there was someone who found that there was actually a script with 10:39 everyone applauds, 10:40, the next speaker. The person who discovered the script is sitting to my right, Haynes Johnson.

RAY SUAREZ: Were you shocked, Haynes?

HAYNES JOHNSON: I wasn't shocked, ray. I was just watching and listening to Mr. Card talk about this convention. What Michael is saying, you have here almost a classic example of what they have become. And this is no offense to him. He had a whole string of the slogans. It's opportunity with a purpose -- a President with a purpose; renewing America with a purpose; strength and security with a purpose. And this is the theme that comes over, but it's robbed of anything that's spontaneous, as Michael said -- robbed of any clash of ideas or emotions or the rest. You want to present a very pleasing picture for those few by the way who are going to watch this. 23% of registered Republican voters four years ago said they weren't going to watch the conventions. This year a new survey taken just a week ago says 43% of registered Republican voters will not watch the convention. That doesn't mean that they don't support Mr. Bush in all things being said. But they have become sort of sanitized and sort of a happy platform by which to please the people.

RAY SUAREZ: I would assume that in any big family there are bound to be family arguments. Doris, we don't get to see those family arguments even though you know they're there.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, I think what happened is after 1968 Democratic convention everybody got terrified of showing the divisions in the party to the country at large because of cost during that Chicago convention, it undid the Democratic Party because of the people shouting, Ribokoff saying to Daley that he had used Gestapo tactics and everything happening in the streets. So it's not a coincidence, as Michael suggested, that '72 was the first of these scripted conventions. It's also true, however, historically, that to the extent that the primary system has taken the decision-making away from the conventions so they are no longer a forum for decision, they're simply a giant ratification ceremony, that drains tension, excitement, suspense, everything that made those old conventions great. So that's an historic change that it's not the convention manager's fault. I still would argue, though, that they would be better off, the irony is to the extent they try to make it better for television, they drain the excitement of debate away. Even though they have a platform, even though they a candidate that we know who it is, we could still hear them arguing on one side or other. It's not going to tear them apart. Democracy is about argument. But I think more people would watch if both conventions would be more honest about letting people fight things out. It's the way new candidates used to be seen. When Hubert Humphrey gave the civil rights plank in 1948, that was his beginning on the stage. He was arguing against his party at that time. I would I like more of that; and I think so would democracy. So I'm not afraid of it but I'm not one of them.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me turn to Richard Norton Smith because some of the tumult that we have been talking about was certainly with the Republicans in 1976 and in 1980. Was it useful for the rest of the country to get to read about some of that, see some of it happening?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: It was useful for the party. But I think Doris is absolutely right. The great irony is that as the parties have tried to script these conventions, as they've made them made-for-television spectacles, television has turned it's away. But I think it would be a real mistake if we confuse the absence of obvious conflict -- no riots in the streets, no orators pointing fingers at defeated candidates, at accusing them of leading the party down the road of defeat. I think it would be a mistake to confuse that with the lack of a story. There is history being made in Philadelphia this week. And the message is this is not your father's GOP. I've called this survivor Republicanism with Newt Gingrich and Alan Keyes voted off the island of prime time. You're not going to hear Pat Buchanan up there leading a Jihad against the 20th century. In fact, he's not even in the Republican Party anymore. That's the story.

HAYNES JOHNSON: There's one thing, Ray, about the conventions that's fascinating. We can say they don't matter much, people don't pay attention -- but there's a figure of the last 13 presidential elections --literally, the last, going back to 1948, only twice has the person who came out of those -- the last convention in the first polls who was ahead in the polls did not win the presidency -- only twice. In other words, the people who do watch, the American people, form an impression about the person who might be the President of the United States. And unless something really untoward happens, that person who is ahead after the last convention has won except for two times: Once Dewey in 1948, and the second time, oddly enough, Jimmy Carter was way ahead of Ronald Reagan until the end. Every other candidate who came out ahead in the last poll or at the end of the conventions went on to win the race.

RAY SUAREZ: One thing that is very different about this time is that even after we kind of knew who the nominee was going to be in previous conventions, the discussion about the vice presidency was full of surprises, full of some tension. Now we don't even have that. A big loss, Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, it's a loss because that was perhaps the last thing that brought suspension. Go back to 1980 in Detroit. That was a time when Ronald Reagan flirted very seriously with the idea of putting a former president, his own opponent in 1976, Gerald Ford, the leader of the opposition wing of the party, Reagan was the leader of the conservatives for the moderates on that ticket as vice president. And it was so suspenseful that the night of the roll call vote there was an assumption most of the television anchors announced that the deal has been cut and Reagan and Ford would be coming to the convention hall to announce that they were going to be the ticket. And suddenly, and you saw this all on television, people were shouting it's Bush, it's Bush, and suddenly it was Bush, Bush, Bush. It was almost like Gore Vidal's movie "The Best Man" - you know - at a convention - something we rarely speak - but George W. Bush wants absolutely the opposite because what he remembers is his father, 1988, on the Tuesday of convention week, announce the choice of Dan Quayle, the ceiling fell in, there was a feeding frenzy, worries that Quayle was a lightweight, had evaded the draft, that threatened to overshadow the presidential nominee at the convention, threatened to sink George Bush and keep him in 1988 from becoming President.

RAY SUAREZ: Richard Norton Smith, does the Republican Party nurse any nostalgia for 1980? It sounds like there were some rough nights during that convention.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, you know, in a lot of ways this election does feels like 1980. Twenty years ago you had a western governor ride out of the West, someone who had made a career out of being underestimated, someone who was a profound conservative, and yet had a smile on his face. His conservatism stood conventional wisdom on its head. It was as futuristic as it was optimistic, and the job that Ronald Reagan had at that convention and in the campaign that followed was to reassure enough voters, particularly swing voters, that he could be trusted and that, in effect, he wasn't a menace. It's interesting. I think the planners of this convention have decided rightly or wrongly that there is a critical mass, a majority of voters out there who are looking to the Republican Party for some profound changes over the last eight years, but they aren't yet sold on Bush. That's what Dick Cheney is all about and that's what this convention is supposed to produce.

RAY SUAREZ: Apart from the potential audiences, apart from the public that's meant to be at the receiving end of these messages, isn't there still an internal function that's being served by this process?

HAYNES JOHNSON: Absolutely. This is where you bring together the people that represent the political party, one of two that we have in this country, that will set the direction for the United States down the next four years. It's very important - if nothing else than the gathering of the people. I have always thought in recent years conventions are much more important outside the hall than it, because this is where people actually gather and talk and rub shoulders and trade ideas and talk about what they privately fear and think, and it does serve a very important purpose in that sense. It's also taking place in the context of which there's no driving single issue, so they're looking for some way to see if they can arrive at some consensus that will appeal to the public that they want to win.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: You know, Ray, in terms of mobilizing the people in the hall itself, I think television has not had a good impact, because in the old days the kinds of speeches that were given were these "to the rafters" shouting kind of speeches so the people in the hallway would really feel yes, we're going to go march with this new leader. Now, because of the cool medium of television you get the feeling - and we've looked at these speeches in these last years - they tend to be more personal - they talk about their own family problems. You know, it's sort of like the Oprah Winfrey style of talking on television rather than getting that audience to feel I'm going to march with this leader. So I, again, would go maybe this is just me always going back to the past, but I loved those old speeches when people shouted to the rafter, people with their funny hats were screaming and running around. I hope that comes back.

RAY SUAREZ: Maybe we could get some of those old-fashioned microphones and put them in front of our NewsHour positions next week. Television isn't kind to the real shouting kind of oration, is it?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: It isn't, and you know, another nightmare that's lodged in the back of the mind of every presidential nominee is George McGovern's convention in 1972. And that was a convention at which he was not able to stage anything. The vice presidential choice, Thomas Eagleton, revealed later to have suffered from depression, had to get off the ticket; McGovern was unable to control the schedule. There were so many spontaneous nominations for vice president and unexpected events that McGovern famously gave his acceptance speech early in the morning only during prime time in Guam. And the point that this was seen that McGovern was incompetent, couldn't lead his own party, couldn't do the same thing with America.

RAY SUAREZ: We'll continue this conversation next week. Thanks to all of you.

ESSAY - FOLLOWING THE SCRIPT

JIM LEHRER: And, finally, essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service considers the conventions and American political style.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: It's convention time again. In Philadelphia, Governor George Bush will be nominated; a noisy celebration by party regulars will follow; confetti and balloons will fall from the ceiling. In Los Angeles, Vice President Al Gore will be nominated; a noisy celebration by party regulars will follow; confetti and balloons will fall from the ceiling. Recently as our civic lives our entertainments and manners have grown more rowdy and fiercely spontaneous. Our national politics have become strictly scripted. The convention acceptance speech written by committee blends blandly into another and another we have all heard before. Call it our politics of regularity. American voters flirt with the irregular. In the primaries, Americans flirted, finally only flirted with candidates who were not pre- chosen by party insiders. Now, third-party candidates are admired for their candor and directness. Could it be that "candid" and "direct" are what you're allowed to be when everyone assumes you've no chance to win? Blame it on television. Beware of the camera. Richard Nixon, in that first televised presidential debate, learned the price of not wearing makeup and, worse, sweating on television. Since then, candidates have been defeated for the sin of weeping or not knowing how to spell potato or looking goofy wearing a helmet or showing impatience by looking at a wristwatch after a presidential debate. Blame it on the press. What makes it into the morning paper is the candidate's misstatement or misstep. Or else what makes it into the paper is not what the candidate said, but the fact that several demonstrators at the edge of a crowd caused a disruption. On the campaign bus or plane, a lethargy or cynicism sets in. Reporters get off in Peoria or San Diego-- sometimes not knowing which-- to hear the speech they have heard at several other stops that day. It has occurred to some reporters on the bus that maybe they were the most interesting story. Maybe you could get a book contract by telling about what it is like to be reporter on a campaign bus. Indeed, so interesting have political journalists become to themselves, it has become conventional for them to interview one another. One sees them on television all the time now-- one left-winger versus one right-winger, journalists playing at being stand-ins for the competing candidates they are supposed to report on and stand-ins for the American public they never need to interviews. Blame it on the pollsters. Walt Whitman heard 19th century America singing. In our age of the pollster, Americans get their voices recorded in numbers-- pro, con, undecided. Politicians and the press hire pollsters to let them know how we're going to vote before we actually do. Estimates in Philadelphia and Los Angeles are that 15,000 print and television journalists will converge to cover the two scripted conventions. With such a large media presence it's occurred to not a few people that both cities would make excellent locations for mass demonstrations - the media inside the hall, easily bored, might drift outside. President Clinton, who grew up in the age of television and pollsters, replaced ideological consistency or fire for a cool, centrist management style. Maybe what he supposed was that we are entering an age when the job of President is comparable to a corporate CEO. You and I are to blame. We have come to accept political campaigns where every ghostly utterance must be written by handlers and a candidate must never appear in an unguarded moment. In coming weeks, millions of us will wait, at every stop, crowds will line up in small towns and along big-city streets, hands will reach out toward the candidates. Many ancient societies believed that the touch was a healing touch. Today we need to touch and be touched by our presidential candidates to convince ourselves that they really exist. I'm Richard Rodriguez.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major stories of this Friday. Republicans worked on the draft platform they'll adopt next week at their convention in Philadelphia. Two federal appeals judges issued a stay allowing Napster, the online music sharing service, to remain in business. A lower court had ordered the company to shut down at midnight tonight in a copyright infringement suit. And President Clinton warned the Palestinians against declaring their own state, unilaterally. We'll see you online, and again here on the NewsHour Monday evening from Philadelphia and the Republican national convention. Then, beginning at 8:00 Eastern Time each night on most public television stations, we'll bring you complete coverage of the convention itself, plus analysis and perspective from Shields and Gigot, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Haynes Johnson, and Kay James; and varied panels of other players and observers. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.