The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the escalating legal wars over the Florida election results, with looks at how the unresolved presidential outcome is affecting opinion overseas and the investment markets, plus the overviews of four observers of American culture. We'll have the other news of this Wednesday at the end of the program tonight.

FLORIDA RECOUNT

JIM LEHRER: The Florida Supreme Court refused to block recounts of the presidential vote. It also declined to consolidate all lawsuits including that vote. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris had made both of these requests. The legal fight over hand recounts did continue in federal court. And in Atlanta the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals degreed to hear an appeal by Governor Bush's campaign to stop them. Betty Anne Bowser again chronicles the day's events in this escalating war of ballots and lawyers.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: At midday, the Democrats said they agreed with part of the Florida secretary of state's petition, but Gore's representative, Warren Christopher, urged that the hand counting continue pending a ruling from the Florida high court. And he disagreed with the secretary's request to have one circuit court in Tallahassee handle all the cases.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER: We think that the effect of this proposal would be to lay yet again the effort to ascertain the views and the will of the people of this state. At the same time, we think there is merit to a notion of moving to resolve the legal disputes more quickly to reach a faster and fairer resolution for all concerned. Therefore, we'll be responding today to Mrs. Harris's petition with our own proposal to speed up the resolution of the matter. Instead of sending the cases to a trial court here in Tallahassee County, we'll be asking the Supreme Court of Florida itself to resolve critical questions. Those questions are, first, whether the hand counts now ongoing are appropriate under Florida law, and if so, what is the deadline for their completion; second, what are the standards for determining if a vote has in fact been cast, and whether a county-wide hand count is justified and warranted?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Gore campaign attorney David Boies accused Secretary of State Harris of imposing unnecessary delays.

DAVID BOIES: The problem with holding up the recount is that every day this week the secretary of state has imposed a new deadline, and every day this week the secretary of state has threatened, "well, if you don't get the recounts done by 2:00 or 4:00 or 5:00, it's going to be too late." Under those circumstances, we think it would be very unreasonable to ask people to stop those recounts, because the game here may be-- I hope not-- but the game may be delay those recounts as long as possible and then bring down the curtain.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Governor Bush's representative, James Baker, denied his side was causing the delays.

JAMES BAKER: By our most recent count, the Democrats or their supporters have filed at least 12 lawsuits to challenge the election results. They even filed suit in one of their selected Democratic counties to overturn the decision of the local electoral board, which had decided not to recount the whole county manually after its test of three precincts. We have filed only one lawsuit: Our original defensive action in federal district court to try to protect ourselves against the flood of litigation that I warned about from the start several days ago. Indeed, the litigation is so run amok now that when asked about accepting a final court ruling that they themselves are now requesting, Secretary Christopher said today that the numerous questions in litigation created too much uncertainty for them to make such a commitment.

REPORTER: What about their claim that all you're trying to do is delay these recounts until the election is certified on Saturday?

JAMES BAKER: Well, I think that's patently false on its face. The recounts have not taken place, not because we're delaying them. The federal district court turned us down in our request for a delay on the manual recounts because we thought that the process is unfair, gives rise to human error, gives rise to the potential for great mischief. We've been turned down on our request to do that. The delay, if any there has been, has been on the part of these counties that vote one day one way to conduct a recount, and the next day they change their mind, they vote another way. Then the Gore campaign threatens to sue them or even sues them, and they go back and change their mind one more time. We're not the cause of the delay. That ought to be clear to everybody.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Republican lawyers said the main reason they joined the Florida secretary of state's petition was to stay on top of the case, but they question whether the high court has jurisdiction. Meanwhile, down in Palm Beach County, vote counters sat idle, waiting for word from a nearby circuit court judge to rule on one of those standards. At issue was what's known as the chad, the little piece of paper that is punched out when a ballot is cast. The Democrats wanted to count ballots that were indented but not perforated. Palm Beach's canvassing board held its meetings outside, in keeping with the state's so- called "sunshine law" that calls for public proceedings to be fully open. While they waited, the chairman of the county canvassing board expressed his frustration.

SPOKESMAN: It seems to me like musical courts. We are going from one courtroom to the next courtroom to the next courtroom, which is ultimately going to have an impact on what this board does.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In a Palm Beach County courtroom was a Democratic Party request to accept ballots that were just partially punched. Democrats believe there could be more votes for Gore if those ballots are counted. Judge Jorge Labarga said the county could make its own rules.

JUDGE JORGE LABARGA: The Palm Beach County Canvassing Commission has the discretion to use whatever methodology it deems proper to determine the true intention of the voter, and should not be restricted in that task. To that end, the present policy of a per se exclusion of any ballot that doesn't have a partially punched or hanging chad is not in compliance with the intention of the law. Accordingly, the canvassing board has the discretion to consider those ballots and accept or reject them.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Meanwhile, in Broward County, the canvassing board there reversed an earlier decision. Now it will hand count all of its 588,000 ballots. Broward joined three other counties in meeting a 2:00 deadline set by the Florida secretary of state to explain why their amended returns should be certified. The hand counts of some ballots in two of those, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, have already added votes to the Vice President's Florida total. And the Florida Supreme Court's action late today opened the door for those hand counts to proceed.

FOCUS - THE CHALLENGE

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has more on the legal situation.

MARGARET WARNER: For that we're joined again tonight from Tallahassee by Lance DeHaven-Smith, associate director of the Florida Institute of Government at Florida State University. And also with us is Pam Karlan, an election law specialist and professor at Stanford University Law School. Welcome to you both. Professor Karlan, how do you read today's legal developments at the Supreme Court and elsewhere?

PAM KARLAN: Well, the development at the Supreme Court is their decision essentially not to do anything today and to allow both the hand counts that are going on to continue going on, and to allow the litigation that is going on in state trial courts right now to continue before they step in. The 11th circuit, which is a federal court, has now stepped in at least to hear a challenge that is an appeal by the Bush campaign and Republican voters from an earlier decision from a federal judge not to stop the counting of votes by hand.

MARGARET WARNER: So which side do you think from a legal perspective has more reason to be -- if either side does -- to be pleased by today's developments?

PAM KARLAN: Well, I think that the Democrats are probably slightly more pleased by today's developments since no one has yet actually stopped a hand count.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think -- I know that the Florida Supreme Court ruling was just one little paragraph, but do you read it to say that the Gore proposal or Gore petition to have the Supreme Court consolidate the cases and take on all these issues themselves is still alive?

PAM KARLAN: Well, there is still - yes -- another petition in front of the Florida Supreme Court. The one they decided not to act on today was the one by Katherine Harris. They also have one from Palm Beach County in front of them. And it asks for some briefing that I think will be completed tomorrow, and then they'll decide that case.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor DeHaven-Smith, how do you read today's developments?

LANCE DeHAVEN-SMITH: Well, I think it was certainly good news for the Democrats. They want to keep the manual counting alive. It's the only chance that they have of course to come out ahead in this election. Katherine Harris had asked the court really to step in and stop everything at this point, and when the court refused to do that, it really also signaled not simply that the manual count was going to go on, but it sounds too as if the court is going to support counting those ballots when they end up in Tallahassee. The court has ruled that a 1998 case in Volusia County, that really the most important thing is do the counts reflect the will of the voters? And it's not the technicalities of the law so much as it is the adequacy of the voting.

MARGARET WARNER: Tell us a little bit about the makeup of this Florida Supreme Court.

LANCE DeHAVEN-SMITH: Well, they are all Democratic appointees. They are appointed essentially for a lifetime appointment but they have to stand through what is called merit retention where if the voters vote them out, they could be put out of office. They lean a little bit to the left on social issues. They have had some conflict actual we the Republican administration and with Governor Bush, Governor Jeb Bush, They overturned the school voucher program that the Republican leadership had developed. We have a requirement in the Florida constitution that all the children in Florida be afforded a good education; an opportunity to a good education and the justices ruled that the voucher program by potentially siphoning money off of the public sector and into the private sector schools could undermine that. This so angered the Republicans -- along with some other things the court was ruling with regard to capital punishment -- that the Republicans began to speak of enlarging the court and packing it with their appointees.

MARGARET WARNER: Professors Karlan, where do today's developments now leave Katherine Harris and particularly the secretary of state? I'm particularly thinking of yesterday, a lower court judge in this whole circus of court had ruled that she had discretion still to essentially reject all of the amended vote totals that are going to be coming in from these other three county. Where, if you were Katherine Harris and you faced this decision from the Supreme Court, what would be your legal opinion as to how much discretion you still had?

PAM KARLAN: Well, you have discretion but if I were Katherine Harris, you have to exercise that discretion in a nonarbitrary and in an appropriate manner. And that is you have to wait to see what the counties tell you, not just now when they filed some legal documents but also once they've completed their recounts so they can tell you why it is that they think that the new totals, the adjusted totals, more accurately reflect the will of individual voters - and then you make a decision based on that. If I were Katherine Harris, I wouldn't make any more announcements before the new totals come in from the various counties that are conducting canvasses.

MARGARET WARNER: And, again, as a legal matter, when a judge has given a state official discretion how reviewable or appealable is that by higher courts later?

PAM KARLAN: Well, this discretion is actually given by Florida law not by the judges; it's in the statutes. And the way that courts normally review issues of discretion is under standards that is called an abuse of discretion standard, so that they understand that the official may have to make close calls and there maybe a lot of complicated circumstances, and they just want the official to act reasonably. They won't substitute their judgment for her judgment. So it's not as if it's a pure question of law which courts review denovo. On the other hand, although they won't simply substitute their judgment, her judgment has to be reasonable under the circumstances, so if she colors too far outside of the lines, they will overturn her acts as an abuse of discretion.

MARGARET WARNER: Professors DeHaven-Smith, last night you talked with the conflicting political pressures on Katherine Harris. Where do you think she stands now in terms of how much running room she has politically?

LANCE DeHAVEN-SMITH: A lot less. She was facing a situation of a no win for her. She was going to have to either kick back the manual recounts headed to Tallahassee and that way assure the victory for Governor George W. Bush, or she was going to have to accept them and that could lead to Gore's victory. What she tried to do was kind of pass the decision off to the Supreme Court, get them to decide, but at the same time, she recommended that they stop the manual recount, which was sort of the best thing for the Republicans. But the court said instead was they pushed it back to her and said it has to be your decision but - you know -- she has a lot less leeway. It looks like she pretty much has got to accept these ballots when they come in, and even if they are substantially late and if she doesn't accept them and doesn't include them in the count, she'd better have a very good reason not to. So she is -- really has much less room than she had before.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Karlan, given all the developments in all these different court venues today, would you say we are closer to a resolution of all this, or is Jim Baker right when he say this is just a process run amok?

PAM KARLAN: Well, I don't think it's yet a process run amok, although one of the troubling developments today is the decision of the federal court to start hearing an appeal of the federal court lawsuit before we know what the state is actually going to do, because so many of the issues in this case are questions of state law. They are not questions of federal law, and really the state system should decide those issues before the federal system gets involved. We won't know until Katherine Harris decides whether or not to accept the recounts whether or not any federal voters' rights have been denied. And so I'm not sure exactly what the 11th Circuit will be doing in hearing the appeal now that would be appropriate. I really think they should wait for the state system to work its way out, and I think that will be relatively expeditious fashion.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor DeHaven-Smith, what is your reading about whether we are closer to a resolution here than say we were last night or maybe farther away?

LANCE DeHAVEN-SMITH: Well, I actually think it's really coming to a head now. The issue of whether the manual recount is going to go forward has now been decided. It is going to go forward. The question of whether the recounts can come in after Friday I think has been pretty much settled. I think you could probably take that back into court, but it's certainly looking like the courts are leaning to accept these ballots, so it now comes down to a question of how the count ultimately comes out. That is unclear. I think it's open as to whether Gore or Bush will prevail in all of this, but ultimately you're going to get a count pretty soon. Then I think the question will be: what will happen in federal court -- and whether they can, the Republicans can go back and argue against the manual recount and the way it was done and so on. But I think we are headed toward a decision pretty quickly, certainly within the next seven or eight days you are going to finish up in Palm Beach County; you're going to finish up in Broward County. I would say the reason the Republicans are probably very concerned about stopping the manual recount is it looks like that will probably bring enough votes in to push the election to Gore -- and there won't be enough overseas ballots even if they widely fever the Republicans -- to counterbalance that. So it has truly been a game of trying to stop the manual recount, and it doesn't look now as if the Republicans are going to be able to do that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, more to come, professors both. Thank you.

FOCUS - VIEW FROM ABROAD

JIM LEHRER: How are foreign nations and the markets reacting to the U.S. electoral deadlock? Well, media correspondent Terence Smith begins our look.

TERENCE SMITH: Yesterday former Secretary of State James Baker -- representing the Bush campaign was asked -- whether he was worried that the deadlock might destabilize world markets.

JAMES BAKER: You are darned right I'm concerned about what is happening in international market and I think we ought to all be concerned. Why are the markets disturbed -- because they don't see any finality here? Why are some of our friends and indeed some of our adversaries overseas looking on this with great... with great interest, on the one hand, and apprehension on the other? Because they don't see any end to this process.

TERENCE SMITH: But Gore campaign chairman William Daley dismissed that notion.

WILLIAM DALEY: The only people who have indicated that there was some impact of this on the markets were probably somewhat partisan investment bankers who have made the case. I think most honest observers of the market today would say that if there are changes in the market, they are a result of some of the earning statements that have been put out by the companies having nothing to do with what's gone on in the last week in the political world.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us now are four journalists from around the world who are covering the American election story. Claus Kleber is the Washington bureau chief for ARD, a German television network. Ana Baron is the U.S. correspondentfor "Clarin," Argentina's largest daily newspaper. Sylvie Kauffmann is the New York bureau chief for "Le Monde," the French daily. And Satoro Suzuki is the Washington bureau chief for "TV Asahi," a national television network in Japan. Welcome to you all. Claus Kleber, James Baker, you just heard say that allies and adversaries even are apprehensive about this continued stalemate. Are they?

CLAUS KLEBER, ARD TV, Well, he hasn't been to Germany lately. Apprehension is not the feeling -- glee maybe, malice maybe. Shardenfreud is a German word that made its way to the American language - all that is right -- apprehension, no.

TERENCE SMITH: No. Ana Baron, what would you say in Argentina?

ANA BARON, Clarin Newspaper: Well, in Argentina, the problem of the timing of what is happening is very bad because we are going through an economic crisis, and it is said that perhaps we will have a lot of difficulty to pay our debt so we are trying to organize a financial package. And, of course, when these things happen, always the leader of this kind of package is the United States. So if this, if our crisis will be bad and bad and bad, then and worse, then it will be a problem for Argentina. So there is a little bit of worry. Of course, there's other aspects like there is a lot of amusement. Nobody can believe how in a country that is the superpower and, you know, the country of the electronics and computers, these machines cannot work. So there is mixed feelings.

TERENCE SMITH: Mixed emotions.

ANA BARON: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: Satoru Suzuki, what about in Japan?

SATORU SUZUKI, TV Asahi: Well, as you may know, the stock market in Tokyo kept falling after the election day here in the United States, basically falling in step with the New York market. And one of the reasons for that decline was the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election, who will be the next President of the United States. But so that the market in Tokyo also nervous, worried, probably apprehensive, but I should also point out that people in general in Japan got very much excited about the, this election -- in other words, its confusion, its unpredictability about this election. You know, people, especially in Japan, tend to like confusion, provided that they are not part of the confusion. (Laughter)

TERENCE SMITH: Silvie Kauffmann, what has been the response, the reaction in France?

SILVIE KAUFFMANN, Le Monde Newspaper: I would say surprise, bewilderment maybe but a lot of amusement generally at the spectacle of this country, which is usually so perfectly organized and which is not plunged into this confusion over the electoral process. There is really a lot of -- I think people are having a little bit of fun at your expense about this as my colleague from Argentina just said about this great superpower -- after all you are the only superpower, the only one we have, and we are supposed to look up to you. There you are trying to count and recount ballots and looking for ballot boxes in some clerk's car. So this is I would say generally people are surprised and are having some fun.

TERENCE SMITH: A little private satisfaction.

SILVIE KAUFFMANN: Right. Probably as well.

TERENCE SMITH: Claus Kleber, I wonder if this is as hard to explain to a German audience as it certainly is to an American audience.

CLAUS KLEBER: Yeah, what Ana said about the image of perfection is right. We just can't believe that it is impossible that the -- that it is possible that the country that throws its weight around the globe explaining to everybody how democracy, how the markets are supposed to work, finally turn out to be unable to count a few hundred thousand ballots. Maybe it's a break down not of the American political system but of American craftsmanship. Maybe some little engineer in the Black Forest would be able to construct a vote counting machine that works. But I want to say with that is I don't think it's a constitutional crisis. It doesn't even get the amount of interest that we would have gotten let's say in 1980 if this if this would have been the Carter versus Reagan election -- and really the basic direction of the country were at stake, then it would be a major story, political story. Here, this is at the end of an election, which has been fought mostly in the middle. And even after weeks of intense reporting, the average German would probably not be able to point out basic differences between Gore and Bush. They like one over the other, but it is not something that really makes people hold their breath. So jokes are going up and down -- Germany's game shows are making their jokes - and things of that nature. And now people get a little restless and impatient. And everybody hopes that by the weekend it's going to be over.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, I guess that is the question, Ana Baron. If this goes on for many more days or even weeks, does that change or accelerate the concern?

ANA BARON: No. You know what they say in Argentina? That we should send the OES electoral observers to see if they can help. I mean, it is a concern; it is a concern because we are going through this economic, financial crisis, but at the same time it's very interesting because the world very -- not very interested in this election and suddenly they are very, very interested. They cannot believe that the campaign has been so tied -- why the United States so divided -- what is going to happen with the Congress so much divided? How come that when in all the counties the separation between the parties is you know, less and less, in this country it seems to be polarized -- so it's very, very interesting. And is this an ideological question or is this something that happened because as Claus said they were running too much in the center -- the candidates -- and now people feel free to go back to the tradition? So it's a lot of political questions, very fascinating.

TERENCE SMITH: Mr. Suzuki, is it, is there a confidence in Japan that the United States will somehow work its way through this stalemate and reach a conclusion?

SATORU SUZUKI: The people are hoping that you guys will resolve this so to speak crisis.

TERENCE SMITH: Hoping but do they believe it?

SATORU SUZUKI: This is the United States of America. This is not a third-world country. This is the only superpower in the world. This is the largest economy in the world, and supposedly this is one of the most sophisticated and mature democratic systems in the world. Many U.S., American leaders gave us lectures about how and what a modern sophisticated democratic system should be like. But if you go after, you know, recount after recount after recount, if you go ahead with lawsuit after lawsuit after, you know, lawsuit, people in Japan have begun to wonder, you know, whether or not this country will be - you know -- this system will be effectively and properly functioning. That's our concern.

TERENCE SMITH: Silvie Kauffmann, some commentators have actually described this as the system working, as evidence that there is a process no matter how untidy and that it's working. Is that the perception abroad or not?

SILVIE KAUFFMANN: Well, I don't think in France, for instance, there is big concern about whether you are going to be able to come out of this crisis. I think we are realistic. We know that once in a while you have those crises. You let things go a little bit out of control like during the impeachment crisis and at some stage people come to their sense, and things go all right. So I think the concern is more about what is going to come out of this crisis. What presidency going to come out of this crisis? If it's a weakened presidency with a divided Congress, it might have some impact on the relations with Europe, with Western Europe. We have a lot of things as we are involved together in like the, NATO, the NATO troops in the Balkans for instance. Those comments made by Governor Bush's diplomatic advisor during the campaign, Condoleezza Rice did cause concern in Europe. Then they had a big impact there. So these are things - you know -- people are starting to wonder about. What is going to happen when this is all over? What kind of president will we have facing us and what kind of government basically?

TERENCE SMITH: Claus Kleber, a diminished president?

CLAUS KLEBER: Yeah. Whoever is going to win this is going to be limited to the inaugural ball. They have 50% of the country against them. Either Bush or Gore - it doesn't matter. They are governing with a divided Congress pretty much 50/50. so whenever it comes to a point where they have to rally the country behind a cause, not this Balkan crisis but the next Balkan crisis or Timor or Africa, or whatever it may be, Korea, there will be a very much weakened President at least for the first 12 months when the memories of this are still fresh. And this will have a lasting political impact -- not the drama of comedy around the vote counting right now, but when we look beyond January 20th, we won't have two popes, we won't have two presidents; we will have one guy and there will be the ceremonies and everything but how powerful will he be to rally the country and unite -

TERENCE SMITH: Would you agree with that?

ANA BARON: Yes. In the hemisphere there is a lot of concern because one of the main problems is ironically democracy at this moment. We have the problem in Colombia. We have the problem in Peru. We have now the economic crisis in Argentina. So it's, it's really worrisome -- the kind of shaky image that the United States projects from the region when we young democracies are trying to consolidate. For example, something very important to us is fast track for trade is going to pass in Congress or not. With this diminished presidency and with this Congress divided it's going to be very difficult. Clinton couldn't get it -- without fast track, you don't have, you know -

TERENCE SMITH: There are some question marks?

ANA BARON: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Thank you all four very much.

FOCUS - MARKET & POLITICS

JIM LEHRER: Now, the American perspective on the markets, foreign and domestic, and to Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, a former economics official in the Reagan and Carter administrations; and Daniel Gross, a financial writer and author of "Bull Run: Wall Street, the Democrats, and the New Politics of Personal Finance."

First, Robert Hormats, do your soundings overseas jibe with those we just heard?

ROBERT HORMATS: They do. I think foreigners are a little confused by what is going on. For one thing, this sort of confirms that America is a litigious society. But it really has not had an effect on their -- the dollar has remained very stable during this whole period. If foreigners were very concerned about the environment, about the economy here they would have pulled money out. They are not doing there. So, there has been a curiosity, but there has not been panic, and there has not been a feeling that the American economy is falling apart or that American politics are falling apart. On the contrary, they think we have stable institutions and a pretty well run economy.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, they may be laughing at us but they're still investing in it?

ROBERT HORMATS: They're still investing; they're certainly not pulling out money.

JIM LEHRER: Well, Mr. Gross, how is this presidential uncertainty affecting our other markets, the stock markets particularly?

DANIEL GROSS: I think it has been a contributing factor to the recent declines, rather than a precipitating factor. In the week since the election we have had major companies like Hewlett Packard and Dell come out and say our earnings aren't looking so good and our future is not looking as rosy as we thought. That is what has caused the recent sell-offs. This is relatively a minor blimp - the political situation - because I think everybody believes it will be resolved, the markets will go on from there.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, the reading on Wall Street is that the country is not that grossly divided; it's just divided between these two men in the middle?

DANIEL GROSS: I believe so. I think there was in many ways a divided verdict not only among the voters but among investors. One of the exit polls show that among people who are stock holders 51% went for Bush and 47% for Gore, so there was no great sentiment one way or the other that one person would be bad or one person would be good for the market among investors.

JIM LEHRER: Bob Hormats, is your reading of Wall Street the same - that there's no holding of breaths there -- oh, my goodness, Bush is going to win, oh, my goodness, Gore might win?

ROBERT HORMATS: No. There really isn't. I mean, the country was divided along political lines, but there are really no deep ideological divisions. And the general view is that policy is not going to lurch to the right or the left. We are not going to have dramatic cuts in taxes or dramatic increases in spending I part because the Congress is so evenly divided -- there are going to be checks and balances, so to the extent there are cuts in taxes they will be modest; the extent there are spending increases, they'll be modest, and basic sound fiscal policies will remain. In the longer term there is a problem because Social Security needs fixing and Medicare needs fixing, and I'm afraid, given the impasse and the divisions, it's going to be very hard to address those issues but they are not immediate issues -- they are longer term ones.

JIM LEHRER: Dan Gross, do you agree there could be a long-term problem here if this thing goes unresolved too much longer?

DANIEL GROSS: Too much longer certainly. I think one of the things that people feel very secure about is we may not know who the next President is, but we know who the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is. Alan Greenspan and the success of his tenure was practically the only thing that Gore and Bush agreed upon, and investors have a great deal of faith, and justifiably so, in his ability to shepherd the markets, to pass judgment on the various fiscal plans that will come before the Congress in the next session. So I think Greenspan's experience and the reputation and image he has is helping hold this together even though we may have uncertainty for several more weeks.

JIM LEHRER: But your point is -- to review what you said a moment ago -- is any kind of drop there has been in the stock market or volatility in the stock market has not specifically been caused by this presidential uncertainty?

DANIEL GROSS: Not specifically. I think it's again a contributing factor but not a precipitating factor. People who may have some money to put to work may be hesitating for a while. You know, there was a lot of discussion in this campaign, especially by Al Gore, about HMO companies, drug companies, big oil, tobacco companies. He spent a lot of time bashing them. If he were to win, I think that's bad news for the sectors. Conversely, Bush wins, it's good news for those sectors. And the fact that you haven't seen wild swings either way in some of those stocks shows that people are -- that there is still some uncertainty. People are wondering where to put their money.

JIM LEHRER: So, Bob Hormats, when Jim Baker and others say, oh, my goodness, this certainty is affecting confidence in the U.S. stock markets, et cetera, take it with a grain of salt?

ROBERT HORMATS: Yes. I think we really haven't seen any evidence of that, and I quite agree with Dan. Alan Greenspan today is the repository of credibility in this country and abroad with respect to American economic and financial and monetary policy. His credibility and that of the Fed is such a dominant factor in the thinking of the market, thinking of global markets, thinking of markets at home that that has really preserved stability to a very great degree, even though we don't know who the next President is going to be. In addition, the institutions of this country are very strong; they're very resilient. We're not - and anyone who says we are I think is wrong-- we are not a banana republic. We are going to come through this. We are going to have a President on January 20th. And we have the strongest, most resilient institutions in the world - political and financial -- and foreigners respect that because there has been a tradition of stability and they fully expect that will continue. This is a very important part of our credibility today and in the future.

JIM LEHRER: Dan Gross, would you agree with what Bob Hormats said earlier, that there is no sign thus far at least that international investors are shying away from U.S. companies or whatever because of this?

DANIEL GROSS: Yes, I agree. Our markets are the most secure and the most transparent. You know, this is the haven for safety especially our government bonds. People buy those as a secure -- the most secure investment. And the bonds have been relatively stable in the last week. If people were pulling out their money from this country, you would see those fluctuate a lot more. And, really, there is nowhere else to put it. There are no other economies that are growing like ours, that are as safe and stable and secure as ours.

JIM LEHRER: All right. so if somebody says - both of you gentlemen - if somebody says whether it's one of the Gore folks or one of the Bush people says, oh, let's resolve this thing in a hurry because if we don't we are going to have an international financial crisis, forget it, Mr. Gross?

DANIEL GROSS: Yes, I would tend to disregard James Baker's kind of alarmist calls. Again, these markets have survived impeachments; they've survived all the crises we've had in Mexico, in Russia, in Asia. Our economy has survived. And there is no reason it should not survive this crisis.

JIM LEHRER: Bob Hormats?

ROBERT HORMATS: Yes. I agree, I think if this lasts a long longer and there is real indecision as we get closer to January 20th, then foreigners and Americans, as well, would begin worrying about continuity and stability, but if we resolve this, as I expect we will, in an orderly fashion, then the problem will be resolved and we'll go on and people will focus on the economic fundamentals and the new policies of the new administration and the Congress, and that will be the topic of discussion rather than this impasse that will last for a temporary period of time then presumably be finished.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, how the election stalemate looks to a group of cultural writers and scholars. Gwen Ifill is in charge.

GWEN IFILL: With me is Rodolfo de la Garza, vice president of the Tomas Rivera, Policy Institute and professor at the University of Texas; Abigail Thernstrom, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and co-author of "America in Black and White"; Dinesh D'Souza, author of the new book "The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence"; and Ethel Klein, author of the book "Gender Politics" and president of EDK Associates, a public opinion and research firm.

Ethel Klein, we have been hearing all the different permutations tonight of this interesting American crossroads we are at. How would you characterize this moment in American history?

ETHEL KLEIN, EDK Associates: I wouldn't characterize it as a crisis; I would characterize it as a wake-up call because it goes beyond the presidency. Every single level of elections here have been very close, and I think it tells us what we've been hearing since the 80's which is that people are dissatisfied with what the two parties are offering them, or enough people, they want to see something else. So they are looking to have other things talked about. I think what we need are leaders to govern and to really think about how to bring this country together rather than to continue the campaign into the next presidential election.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. de la Garza, how about that? Do you think that the parties in this case have behaved well?

RODOLFO DE LA GARZA, University of Texas: No, I don't think they've behaved well at all. I think the way they've behaved both in this particular event and the election generally is evidence and explains why voters are turning off. We had a slight increase in voting this year over 1996, but lower than ' 92. So the parties haven't done their job at all.

GWEN IFILL: Dinesh D'Souza, what is at fault here? Is it the process? Is it the incredible division we are hearing about among - between these two men, or is it just -- what is it?

DINESH D'SOUZA, American Enterprise Institute: I think the reason the election result is so close is because the American people are very divided about prosperity. We all agree that prosperity is a good idea and we have enjoyed the prosperity of the last decade, but in the campaign slogans when Gore says prosperity for all, what he is saying is prosperity is a good thing but many people have not had it, so I'm going to focus on expanding it to reach others. And when Bush says prosperity with a purpose, what he means is that prosperity is a good thing but it needs to be channeled to serve larger moral goals. And the American people aren't sure about that. So they disagree about what prosperity should be used for, but they agree that prosperity is a virtue.

GWEN IFILL: That explains why the election was so close, but it doesn't explain what we see unfolding before us in Florida, does it?

DINESH D'SOUZA: Well, there is an old joke about academic politics that it's bitter because the stakes are so low. The irony here is that these are two candidates that are not that far apart ideologically. By and large, Gore is a moderate Democrat. Bush is a moderate Republican. But what has happened is American politics has become polarized in the sense that one party wants to use prosperity for egalitarian purposes to bring in -- if you will -- the have nots, and the other party wants to use prosperity to liberate us for, to liberate us from government intervention. Bush wants prosperity to flourish in the private sphere. That's the difference.

GWEN IFILL: Abigail Thernstrom, what -- is this debate, this obsession we have, at least for now, with this incredible drama in Florida, is this in the end healthy or unhealthy for us?

ABIGAIL THERNSTROM, Manhattan Institute: Oh, I think it's potentially a catastrophe for us. I think, you know, it all comes down to lawyers at this point, and lawyers are perhaps the least trusted people, professionals in American society. A ballot has become not something, you know, you cast, and people just simply read it, but it's a piece of paper that is interpreted. And I think the level of distrust that is already very high among certain sectors of the population is about to go through the ceiling. It's about to skyrocket and trust is the glue that keeps democracy together. Democracy is extremely fragile. If we don't really trust the processes as being fair, we are in deep trouble, and there are lots of us who do not trust what is going on in Florida as fair. And I must say I strongly disagree with Dinesh D'Souza's characterization of the two candidates. I think that Governor Bush as much as Governor -- as much as Vice President Gore -- although by different means --wants greater prosperity for all. That is what his education policy is all about.

GWEN IFILL: But if you think that the problem here is the lawyers getting involved in the case, how else should this have been resolved?

ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Oh, this should have been handled very, very differently from the beginning. I mean election morning, it wasn't night anymore -- it was morning. After the Vice President called Governor Bush and said, "congratulations, "he should have come before the American public and given that concession speech and said I congratulate Governor Bush -- it does look as if he has won the election -- but of course under Florida law, given the closeness of the vote there will be a recount and Governor Bush understands that, and we will abide by that recount - and then it wouldn't have turned into a circus. There would have been a simple and quiet recount. It would have been a machine recount -- nobody holding ballots up to the light to see whether the chads were dimpled or hanging or what have you. And it would have been resolved in a way that gave the American public confidence. I think this is a disaster.

GWEN IFILL: Let me go to Mr. de la Garza first and ask him to respond to that.

RODOLFO DE LA GARZA: Well, I don't think that the results that we've seen would have been any different; they might have been a little slower. Gore would have looked a lot more statesmanlike had he done that but I think the point about division that Abigail just mentioned is really important because in my mind one of the things that stands out is the extent to which the nonwhite community rejected Governor Bush. And it's quite interesting that we are not really talking about that or making that explicit so there are a variety of kinds of divisions. And that population, I think, would have protested around this election in a variety of ways. Let me give an example. There has been talk about the closing of the polls in St. Louis, the inner city polls. Nobody suggests that those are essentially black voters in inner city St. Louis who got shut out of voting. I think that is pretty much the case. If you look where Bush won his votes -- the white dominated states in the West or states in the South where the whites have overwhelmed the ability of blacks -

GWEN IFILL: What does that tell us?

RODOLFO DE LA GARZA: Well, that tells me that you have a variety of additional divisions -- one of which is a racial division that is very, very - an ethnic racial division that is very, very powerful.

(VOICES CROSSING OVER)

GWEN IFILL: Wait. Everybody stop.

Ethel Klein.

ETHEL KLEIN: Well, I want to build on this. There is also a class division which we are seeing for the first time in really much larger numbers than before but I think we are missing the real historic opportunity here, which is on the micro level really moving this country towards a much more election system in which votes get counted in a systematic way and which a lot of people have actually been talking about for over 40 years but has never had an ear among the public partly because people know how to win in the current system. Now, both parties are finding out that, oh-oh, we may not know how to win with the rules staying the way they are. That is not only how you count votes; that's how you run campaigns; that's how you articulate your positions. I mean, they both ran what people are saying are really lackluster campaigns. That's an easy explanation. The reality is the American public is looking for something else. And they are also looking for someone to talk about the future, not in the language of the past.

GWEN IFILL: I owe Dinesh D'Souza a response.

DINESH D'SOUZA: Well, the reason this election is so bitterly fought and the stakes are so high is that American politics only shifts gears every 40 or 50 years. The Democratic Party has been the majority party for most of the 20th century. Bill Clinton came in in 1992. He was a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. We have had eight years of peace and prosperity. These guys cannot believe that they are going to be turning not just the presidency but both Houses of Congress to the Republicans -- signaling a quite momentous shift. And so that is why they're going to fight tooth and nail but try to hang on and eke out a victory no matter how many recounts it takes. That is why the stakes are so divided.

GWEN IFILL: Abigail Thernstrom, if you had to speak to one of these guys - whoever is the winner -- and he takes over on inauguration day, what should his first step be, assuming that he is coming out of this incredible - as was said here -- divided nation, divided process?

ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Well, obviously his first step should be to try to heal those divisions, to reach out to the other party. I would like to see a cabinet that includes members of the other party and I have to say that Governor Bush has a terrific record in Texas of reaching out to Democrats and he has run a campaign precisely on that platform, that he is a conciliator and somebody who brings people together. The Vice President has run a much more ideologically combative campaign, and it seems to me is much more hard-edged himself.

GWEN IFILL: You wanted to respond earlier to Mr. de la Garza's comments about the racial divide.

ABIGAIL THERNSTROM: Yeah. I do want to say something about that because after all, in Texas itself Governor Bush has been able to reach out to both Hispanic and black voters. You can demagogue issues and that that is what the Democrats have done in this election and scare black voters implying that, you know, they're going to go back to being three/fifths of a person and so forth, and it works because for good historical reasons black voters do get very, very scared. That does not serve our country well and it has nothing to do with the man that George Bush is or his record in Texas.

GWEN IFILL: We don't have a lot of time let, but I just wanted to ask you all quickly, have we opened up a Pandora's box here, or are we ever going back to where we were -

RODOLFO DE LA GARZA: In my mind we are not going back at least on these divides to where we are. But it's not clear how we are going to move forward. One of the ironies in this election and it's a regrettable one is that despite a powerful outreach, a genuine - in my mind - outreach by Governor Bush to the other minority Latinos, he only got 33, 34% of the vote. He has never done better than. In 1998, he did not do that, and so the question then is if when you try to reach minority voters they still don't respond to you, we've got a major problem in the country.

GWEN IFILL: Well, if we opened a Pandora's box, we're just going to have to close it again for tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you all very much.

JIM LEHRER: And earlier this evening Vice President Gore spoke to reporters at his official residence in Washington.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: We need a resolution that is fair and final. We need to move expeditiously to the most complete and accurate count that is possible. And that is why I propose this evening a way to settle this matter with finality and justice in a period of days, not weeks. First, we should complete hand counts already begun in Palm Beach County, Dade County and Broward County to determine the true intentions of the voters based on an objective evaluation of their ballots. Observers and participants from both parties should be present in every counting room as required under Florida law. The results of this recount would of course be added to the present certified vote total and the overseas absentee vote total. If this happens, I will abide by the result, I will take no legal action to challenge the result, and I will not support any legal action to challenge the result. I am also prepared, if Governor Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida. I would also be willing to abide by that result and agree not to take any legal action to challenge that result. If there are no further interruptions to the process, we believe the count can be completed within seven days of the time it starts. Now, second, I propose that Governor Bush and I meet personally one-on-one as soon as possible before the vote count is finished not to negotiate but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America. We should both call on all of our supporters to respect the outcome of this election, whatever it may be. We should both call on all of our supporters to prepare themselves to close ranks as Americans and unite the country behind the winner as soon as this process is completed.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In the other news of this day, three Los Angeles police officers were found guilty of conspiring to frame gang members. A fourth was acquitted. It was the first trial to come out of a major corruption scandal in the city's Rampart District. Wrongdoing within the anti-gang unit has caused the dismissal of about 100 criminal cases. It's also cost the city millions of dollars to settle related lawsuits. The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged today. In a statement, its open market committee said it was encouraged by signs the economy was slowing a bit, but it warned inflation was still a threat. In Israel today, many world leaders were among those who paid final tribute to Leah Rabin. She was buried in Jerusalem next to her husband, the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He was assassinated in 1995. She was eulogized today by First Lady Hillary Clinton, among others.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: What mattered most of all to her was that she was a soldier's wife, a general's wife, a prime minister's wife who shared with her dear husband a dream of a secure Israel at peace with her neighbors.

JIM LEHRER: Leah Rabin died Sunday of cancer. She was 72 years old. This was a symbolic independence day for the Palestinians, and it brought another round of funerals, protests, and killings. Hundreds of Palestinians fought with Israeli soldiers across the West Bank and Gaza. At least eight Palestinians were killed. Another died of wounds sustained earlier. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with our continuing coverage of the presidential election story, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.