The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle meet tonight in a nationally televised debate, the people of Chile voted to endorse or reject military ruler Augusto Pinochet, federal regulators said it'll cost 45 to 50 billion dollars to clean up the savings & loan industry. We'll have detailed in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, Roger Mudd reports on what Senate colleagues think of Vice Presidential candidates Bentsen and Quayle, and David Gergen and Mark Shields follow with some pre-game shatter about their important debate tonight. Then come back to back Bush and Dukakis stump speeches, a Charles Krause interview with the U.S. Ambassador to Chile, Harry Barnes, about today's Pinochet referendum, and finally, a Penny Stallings Essay about John Lennon.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle meet tonight for a televised debate seen as the most important encounter politicians can remember between candidates for the Vice Presidency. With polls showing the Presidential candidates very close but giving Democrat Bentsen a large lead over Republican Quayle, supporters of both camps look to tonight's performances as possibly having unusual influence on the Presidential race. After days of intense briefing and rehearsal, the candidates made separate visits to the Civic Auditorium in Omaha, Nebraska, to test microphones and podium heights. Quayle told reporters that, "Tonight you're going to see Dan Quayle as he really is." Bentsen made his tour later and said he was feeling great. When asked what he would try to accomplish, Bentsen said, "Win." The debate to be moderated by the Newshour's Judy Woodruff will be carried with our analysis by many public television stations. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: This was Pinochet referendum day in Chile. Wire service reports said voters in the South American nation were turning out in huge numbers. The only issue is the rule of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who took control in a military coup 15 years ago. Pinochet called the referendum. The vote is a simple yes or no on his continuing to rule and clearing the way for him to serve a new eight year term as President in 1989. We have a report from David Simmons of Worldwide Television News.

DAVID SIMMONS: A widespread blackout throughout Chile ushered in the first election in 15 years. Eager to vote, citizens started clearly an hour before polling booths opened. In the capital, Santiago, cues stretched for over a mile. Troops deployed throughout the city kept watch for any trouble and former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt was also keeping watch. He led 56 foreign observers, making sure the voting process for an expected turnout of 7.4 million people was fair. A political opposition leader, Ricardo Largos, was convinced the outcome would bring peace and democracy.

RICARDO LARGOS: It's in our hands.

MR. SIMMONS: Chile has been under the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet since he seized power in 1973. Lodging his vote, the 72 year old commander seemed confident that the referendum would extend his 15 year rule by another eight years. If he loses voters' favor in the Plebiscite he called himself, then it's likely he will have to face an open election next year.

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. Department in Washington said the American Embassy in Chile reported there were some blackouts, electrical blackouts, but they did not disrupt the voting.

MR. MacNeil: In Wiesbaden, Germany, American doctors who examined freed hostage, Mithileshwar Singh, said he lost 40 pounds and developed coronary symptoms in captivity, but they said the 60 year old professor, an Indian with U.S. residence, had not been physically abused by his captors and had been given medical treatment. Singh was moving slowly when he disembarked early this morning at the American Air Base near Frankfurt. Later, he was interviewed by a State Department team in a hospital. One American official said there was no sign that any other hostages would be freed soon. Former Iranian President Abuhassan Bonisader claimed in an interview yesterday that an aide to George Bush negotiated Professor Singh's release and that Iran received arms. Today the State Department denied that.

PHYLLIS OAKLEY, State Department: Pure fantasy. President Reagan said yesterday, "We've done no negotiations at all. There have been no negotiations, no direct contacts between the U.S. and Iranian officials. There may be private individuals who misrepresented themselves as speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government; they are not. Only U.S. Government officials are authorized to speak on this matter, and none have."

MR. LEHRER: There was a second day of worker demonstrations in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Some 5,000 factory workers demonstrated in front of the parliament building. They complained about economic conditions and called for the ouster of Communist Party leaders. About 2,000 of the workers charged up the steps of the parliament building, shouting slogans and waving red banners as they ran. The government apparently made no effort to conceal the episode, and these pictures were shown on Yugoslavian television with a commentary by a female voice. The workers burst into the hall and then went on to the parliament chamber. There they took seats and called for the popular Communist Party boss from Servia. After he responded to their chants and spoke briefly, the demonstrators moved quietly out of the parliament chamber and went back to their factories and back to work. Later, the national head of the Yugoslavian Communist Party called for a shake-up in the ruling Politburo and policy making central committee. He said it probably will be done within two weeks.

MR. MacNeil: In Afghanistan, rebels bombarded the capital city of Kabul, killing 13 people and wounding 34. The Soviet News Agency Tasse said that rebels fired 26 rockets into the streets of Kabul during the morning rush hour. Another 16 shells hit the city's suburbs. The attack came as the Soviets accused the United States of violating the Geneva Accord on Afghanistan. The Soviet Party Paper Pravda said the U.S. had spent $2 billion supporting the anti-government guerrillas in an undeclared war.

MR. LEHRER: Back in this country, it will take from 45 to 50 billion dollars to salvage the nation's savings & loan industry. That figure was released today by Danny Wall, Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Board, which regulates the S&L's. Wall's projection is a 1/3 increase over what he said this summer. He said the costs can be covered by his agency if a special assessment on the healthy S&L's is continued.

MR. MacNeil: The White House denied a report that President Reagan had authorized what amounted to a license to kill in CIA anti-terrorism operations. The report in today's Washington Post said the President signed such orders in 1984 and 1985, contradicting a previous order forbidding assassinations by U.S. agents. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called it "An old story being rehashed again, interesting timed, and has no foundation." President Reagan today unveiled the cornerstone for a Holocaust Memorial Museum near the Washington Monument. To be built with private funds on land donated by the federal government, the museum will open in 1990 and commemorate the 6 million Jews and others exterminated by Nazi Germany. Mr. Reagan used the occasion to pressure the Soviet Union on Jewish emigration.

PRESIDENT REAGAN: In these days of glasnost, we hear talk about liberalizing attitudes toward Judaism in the Soviet Union. There are still tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews who wait to leave the Soviet Union so that they may live free as Jews, and here, as we lay this cornerstone and vow that the Jewish people will never stand alone against tyranny, I want to ask the Soviet leaders a question. Where are those exit Visas? Where are they?

MR. LEHRER: In the Presidential campaign today, Vice President Bush spoke of liberalism, Gov. Dukakis of crime. Dukakis made his remarks during a press conference in Boston. He said the Vice President was criticizing the Massachusetts prison furlough program for political benefit.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS: The Vice President's record on crime and the fight against drugs is pathetic, it's been a failure, and in my judgment, this is an effort to use in one case a very tragic occurrence for political reasons. The Vice President knows that the federal government has a very extensive furlough program. He knows that Gov. Reagan in California in the 70s had a very extensive furlough program and there were tragedies as a result of that.

MR. LEHRER: Vice President Bush today unveiled a $3.9 billion aid package aimed at social issues that includes money for children and environmental programs. Mr. Bush also spoke to a high school audience in Littleton, Colorado. He told them liberalism has not solved social problems.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: But you might ask why are some in trouble after 50 years of liberal programs aimed at helping them? Because liberalism didn't help, it often made the problem worse, and is there a non-liberal solution that is every bit as activist and has a far greater chance of success, yes, and there are many initiatives that will help.

MR. LEHRER: That's our summary of the news. Now it's on to the Bush/Quayle debate preview, Bush and Dukakis stump speeches, the Chilean referendum, and an essay on John Lennon. FOCUS - '88 - PEER REVIEW

MR. LEHRER: Senators Quayle and Bentsen are the lead tonight. The two Vice Presidential candidates go after each other later this evening in a 90 minute nationally televised debate from Omaha. We begin our preview of that event with some views from the inside, inside the United States Senate from whence both men come. Roger Mudd reports.

ROGER MUDD: The country may be tired of the politicians and bored with their debates, but there is one place where the viewing audience for tonight's Bentsen/Quayle square off will be nearly 100 percent, and that's right here on Capitol Hill. After all, Bentsen and Quayle are home town boys so to speak. So nearly everybody knowsthem and nearly everybody has an opinion about how they're going to do tonight.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI, [R] New Mexico: I would not be at all surprised if Dan Quayle didn't do very well in a debate setting.

SEN. ALAN CRANSTON, [D] California: I think it's a terrible commentary on Quayle that expectations are so low about his performance in the debate that if he simply doesn't make a fool of himself for 90 minutes, he will be considered to have gained ground.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: I'm banking on Dan. He'll pull this one through and I think he'll pull it through not only to his credit but to the credit of the Vice President that selected him.

MR. MUDD: But on the biographical facts there is no dispute. Dan Quayle, 41, DePauw University 1969, Indiana Law School 1974, Indiana National Guard 1969 to 1975, lawyer and newspaper publisher, Presbyterian, married Marilyn Tucker 1972, three children, elected to the House 1976, elected to the Senate 1980, defeating Birch Buy, assigned to the committees on armed services, budget, and labor, most recently known for his criticism of the intermediate range nuclear force treaty with the Soviet Union, INF.

SEN. DAN QUAYLE: We have got ourselves into a definitional nightmare, because what we're trying to do in one instance is determine what a weapon delivery vehicle is and the common understanding, the first Department of State's analysis was that it was a warhead.

MR. MUDD: Lloyd Bentsen, 67, University of Texas Law School 1942, Army Air Corps 1942 to '45, insurance and businessman, Presbyterian, married Beryl Ann Longano in 1943, three children, five grandchildren, served in the House from 1948 to '55, elected to the Senate 1970, defeating George Bush, assigned to the committees on commerce and finance of which he is now chairman, most recently known for his work on welfare reform and on the omnibus trade bill.

SEN. LLOYD BENTSEN: But in spite of the Administration's efforts, many Republicans voted for the bill. I believe they recognize that putting a bipartisan trade policy in place was far more than any temporary partisan advantage.

MR. MUDD: But what do their colleagues make of Bentsen and Quayle? Do they take them seriously, do they admire them, or do they fear them? Public criticism of Lloyd Bentsen is, as you might expect, almost non-existent among his Democratic colleagues such as Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

SEN. DANIEL INOUYE, [D] Haiwaii: He's been fair. He does his homework. He's knowledgeable and he has a special command over things. That's what you expect of any Senator, especially one who chairs an important committee.

MR. MUDD: Alan Cranston of California.

SEN. CRANSTON: He is highly qualified to be Vice President and he is highly qualified to take over the Presidency if called upon to do so. He's had great business experience. He's had experience in the House of Representatives. He's had long experience in the Senate. He's led one of the toughest committees, the finance committee, where you have to have great knowledge and be able to display great skill in using that knowledge, and I think he's the kind of a person that could help bind the wounds of our country if in a crisis he was called upon to take over and lead our country.

MR. MUDD: Albert Gore, Jr., of Tennessee.

SEN. ALBERT GORE, [D] Tennessee: Clearly, Lloyd Bentsen is in the very top category of Senators who are not only listened to but followed and who accomplish things and change American history. He is outstanding in every respect.

MR. MUDD: And even when Republicans like Pete Domenici of New Mexico talk about Bentsen, they choose their words very carefully.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI, [R] New Mexico: He was the chairman by virtue of the fact that the Democrats were in control and he had been there for a long time. He is not a showboat. He is a work horse. He is not flamboyant. He makes his points. He's a very good Senator.

MR. MUDD: Listen now between the lines to Bentsen's fellow Texan, Republican Phil Gramm.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: Lloyd Bentsen is a serious member of the Senate. Lloyd Bentsen is a very senior member, been here a long time, worked his way up through the finance committee. I know Lloyd Bentsen, I like him. It would have been very easy for Lloyd Bentsen to resent me coming here as a freshman Senator with all the attention on my work on the budget and Gramm-Rudman. He has always in every case treated me very generously, and I work with him very effectively on things that are important to Texas, and we agree on a lot of issues. A criticism you often hear of Lloyd Bentsen is that he is a vain aristocratic person. I don't think that's a fair criticism. I think that Lloyd Bentsen is very reserved, very personally conservative in his behavior in the things he does, in the things he says, and I think people view that as vanity, but I do not.

MR. MUDD: John Warner's bland praise for Lloyd Bentsen.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: Roger, it's again, two things, internal politics, one, he's chairman of one of the most powerful committees, and all of us, every Senator, has got to deal with the Chairman of the Finance Committee, because we all have constituents with tax problems, and secondly, he's been here for a very long time, and Lloyd Bentsen does have a good record in the Senate, and he came to the Senate with a background of experience, having served with distinction in World War II, having served as a successful businessman.

MR. MUDD: But what about Quayle, are the Democrats as muted about Quayle as the Republicans are about Bentsen? Here's the harsh judgment of Alan Cranston.

MR. MUDD: Is he taken seriously?

SEN. ALAN CRANSTON, [D] California: I don't think he has been taken seriously by his colleagues. Most Senators have been laughing about the nomination, the Republicans with tears in their eyes, and they tell a lot of jokes about him. Their private remarks are quite different from their public remarks. They have to support him publicly. Example of a joke: What were the three toughest years in Dan Quayle's life? Answer: The second grade. One Senator who's served on the armed services committee, a Republican, with Quayle describes him as "two pounds lighter than a straw hat." Sen. Simpson, my opposite number, the Republican Whip, had to call him into the cloakroom one day to admonish him to stop being a gadfly. And once when he was typically going on at great, garrulous length and waving his arms while Barry Goldwater was in the Senate, he said in a loud stage whisper, "Sit down."

MR. MUDD: It's always been a rule, Senator, that one Senator does not speak ill of another Senator. Why in this case are you willing to break the rule?

SEN. CRANSTON: It's very important who leads our country. It's very important who serves as Vice President and might become President at any moment, and I think people that have some knowledge of the capacities or incapacities of someone nominated for one of those high positions has some responsibility to level with the American people about what the true facts appear to be.

MR. MUDD: Inouye of Hawaii almost gives Quayle a brush-off.

SEN. INOUYE: He has been in many ways a spear holder for this Administration. He is the one who comes up with all those amendments to kill the minimum wage bill. He's the one who comes up with the Administration's version of the parental leave bill, or the child care center. I would say that among Senators if you were to compare Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle, one would be major league, the other would be minor league.

MR. MUDD: It is Democrat Gore who serves with Quayle on the armed services committee who levels the most serious criticism.

SEN. GORE: I disagree with his conclusions in a lot of the subjects he's curious about and I sometimes find myself disagreeing not just with his conclusions, but with the way in which he moves from step to step. I've dealt with him in the area of strategic arms control and procurement reform, and I just disagree with his whole approach.

MR. MUDD: You disagree with the way he moves from step to step. You mean he's not intellectually consistent, or he misreads history, or misinterprets facts? What do you mean?

SEN. GORE: Well, let me use as an example the discourse on strategic defense that received a lot of attention in the press. The idea of using a popular novel, the plot of a popular novel as an argument in favor of a major new military program --

MR. MUDD: You mean the Hunt for Red October?

SEN. GORE: Yeah -- is a way of reaching a conclusion that I don't find persuasive.

MR. MUDD: But Republicans are quick to protect and defend Dan Quayle. Gramm of Texas, also a member of armed services, says when Quayle sticks to his knitting he is effective.

SEN. GRAMM: He's been on the budget committee; I've worked with him on things like Gramm-Rudman. I've worked with him on a lot of labor-related issues, but I've worked closely with him on armed services matters and I think that probably where Dan came into his own as the preeminent leader in the Senate was in the whole area of arms negotiations with the Soviets. And obviously, if you're talking about being Vice President and the possibility of being President, one of the major issues is dealing with the Soviets, dealing with the whole national security question. In that area, Dan Quayle is imminently qualified.

MR. MUDD: Warner of Virginia, who is now the ranking Republican on armed services, is effusive in his praise of Quayle.

SEN. WARNER: He's tenacious. I don't always agree with him. For example, during the INF Senate debate, I was one of the point men for the President, and he continuously began to take up what I would call very technical points and in the end he prevailed on most of his positions and he was right.

MR. MUDD: Compared to Warner, the words of Republican Domenici seemed flat. When asked to compare Quayle with Bentsen, Domenici tends to give them both the back of his hand.

MR. MUDD: Are they intellectually curious, Dan Quayle?

SEN. DOMENICI: I'm going to be honest about it. I don't think either one is intellectually curious.

MR. MUDD: Is either one funny?

SEN. DOMENICI: Isn't that interesting? You have hit on every one. I don't think either one's funny.

MR. MUDD: Would you compare them as debaters?

SEN. DOMENICI: I --

MR. MUDD: You're not going to tell me that neither one is a debater, are you?

SEN. DOMENICI: Yeah, I probably am.

MR. MUDD: John Warner, without alluding to Domenici, who as a rival of Quayle for the nomination, claims that internal criticism of Quayle is generated by political jealousy.

SEN. WARNER: There's a lot of jealous behind that.

MR. MUDD: You mean from Dole and --

SEN. WARNER: No names mentioned.

MR. MUDD: No names mentioned.

SEN. WARNER: Because the Vice President I think very carefully looked a great many Senators and indeed, some Governors and perhaps some others, and I think he rather skillfully kept it to himself in that there was no real leak that anybody could operate on, and once the decision was out, there's jealousy among our profession, as there is among most professions.

MR. MUDD: The mind set of the Senate of the United States does not favor Dan Quayle. Republicans of course hope he'll win because they want George Bush to win. But privately, the senior Senators from both parties would not be too upset if young Dan Quayle falters. It is, they say, dignity and maturity and seniority and reliability and comity which are to be admired. After all, they say, those are the qualities which made the Senators what they are today.

MR. MacNeil: We continue our preview of tonight's Vice Presidential debate with the views of our regular political analysts, Gergen & Shield. That's David Gergen, Editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, and Mark Shields, Syndicated Political Columnist with the Washington Post. Mark, first of all, what is at stake tonight? How could this single debate, if it can, change the election?

MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: It's a significant event in two important respects. First of all, the campaign, itself, is mostly like parallel skiing. This is one of those times when the campaigns intersect, when they collide and something has to come out of it. If what comes out of it, the second point is, is that Lloyd Bentsen is still seen as he is now by a 4 to 1 margin as being more qualified to be President, then as Dan Quayle, that is a blow to the Bush candidacy.

MR. MacNeil: Where do you get a 4 to 1 margin?

MR. SHIELDS: In the most recent Yankolovich survey for Time Magazine which would be more qualified to be President, and it was by 4 to 1 the choice of -- better than 3 to 1. I'm sorry, 61 to 18, I guess; my old math.

MR. MacNeil: The figures I had in mind were the New York Times/CBS which was 71 percent to 40 percent which I think were - - anyway --

MR. SHIELDS: That's 111.

MR. MacNeil: What does it take tonight? Can this actually change the campaign, the latest polls showing the two Presidential candidates being almost neck in neck?

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: I think most Americans think this campaign is stuck in the snow, maybe stuck in the mud would be more like it. I think it could be a hinge event. Bush has a modest lead right now over Dukakis. Bush's lead is being held down in part by doubts about Dan Quayle. If Dan Quayle manages to resolve those doubts and makes people feel more comfortable about him, I think Bush will surge slightly ahead, farther ahead than he is now. If, on the other hand, Quayle lives down to his expectations in this debate, and people remain doubtful and very skeptical about his ability to serve as Vice President or President, then I think you're going to see Dukakis surge.

MR. MacNeil: "Lives down to his expectations", what does that mean?

MR. GERGEN: Well, in a sense I think the expectations for him are quite low now going into this, and if he plays it about the expectation level, I think those doubts will only grow, the skepticism will grow, and I think Dukakis will be enormously helped.

MR. MacNeil: Well, contrary, the other way around, if he, as Sen. Cranston said, "If he simply doesn't make a fool of himself," to quote Cranston, "for 90 minutes," will he gain ground because the expectations are so low?

MR. SHIELDS: I think you're right. I think Alan Cranston is right there, that the expectations have been lowered because of Dan Quayle and because of efforts by the Bush campaign, which is absolutely legitimate, to establish a standard that if Dan Quayle does not openly and persistently drool and does not say that George Washington was the President just before Eisenhower, that somehow he's prevailed. And I think that's, you know, I think that is an unrealistic standard. The only standard, quite frankly, to be President of the United States is, qualifications in the Constitution, to be Vice President the same as those to be President, to be over 35, and that's what tonight's about, it's a defining event.

MR. MacNeil: Do you agree with that, that Quayle can quote, "win" by merely exceeding expectations and whose expectations?

MR. GERGEN: I think that Quayle holds his own with Sen. Bentsen, enormously respected Senator, a man we all know, is one of the brightest members of the Senate, then I think he will help the Bush campaign a great deal. I have to tell you, my own hunch is after all of the knocks that Quayle has taken, and he has made some gaffs in this campaign, my own hunch is he's going to turn out to be a better debater than we expect. His track record is better than people understand. You know, you had these clips on your own show, because you've had Quayle and Bentsen on plant closing --

MR. MacNeil: They actually debated on this program, yes.

MR. GERGEN: -- and you showed those clips very helpfully earlier this year and a lot of people looked at them and said, you know, Quayle was better on those four points.

MR. MacNeil: In fact, we were told that the Bush campaign looked at them in choosing Quayle.

MR. SHIELDS: That was his audition tape, it really was.

MR. GERGEN: That's right.

MR. MacNeil: So do you agree with David? Do you expect him to do better than expectations?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I mean, what are the expectations? If they are the expectations as I described them, then certainly he will do better. I think that it's a defining moment for Dan Quayle, Robin, in a very interesting way. George Bush was being matched at his debate against Michael Dukakis, and I think he came up a little short, by the standard that he had established from the convention to the debate. I mean, Bush had become a more forceful, more aggressive, more positive and a more eloquent public figure which he did not, he was not able to sustain in the debate with Dukakis. I think with Quayle, he's a tabular -- ..we don't know who he is. The last --

MR. GERGEN: He's been very heavily scripted all through this --

MR. SHIELDS: Hermetically sealed really.

MR. GERGEN: They've hidden him from the press, they've taken him in small towns, but, you know, let's remember also that he was involved in debates against Birch Buy in 1980, when he ran for the Senate. He had a couple of debates. He did all right in the first debate, but by all accounts in the second debate he wiped Buy out, and Buy, as you recall, was a very articulate member of the Senate, he was valuable, but articulate.

MR. MacNeil: Is all the onus tonight on Quayle to raise his stature? I mean, does Bentsen not have to do anything?

MR. GERGEN: I don't think so. I think that the age may play a part for both candidates -- .Bentsen may strike people as being too old for the job, although I doubt it, but Quayle may find that his youth, rather than his debating posture, may be a liability. He may strike the people as being too young.

MR. MacNeil: Conversely, could the age dynamics be a big plus for Quayle?

MR. SHIELDS: When they picked Dan Quayle, one of the things the Republicans said was the picture, we want the picture. It's Lloyd Bentsen, a man 67 years old who looks 67, who carries himself beautifully and is erect and totally polished, but looks 67 against this youthful energetic, occasionally mercurial Dan Quayle.

MR. MacNeil: At the rehearsal in Omaha today, Sen. Bentsen's wife accompanied him there, BA Bentsen, and at the end of checking the mikes in the podium, he picked her up and carried her off the stage.

MR. GERGEN: I have to tell you that the generational politics which did play a role in the selection of Quayle, people on the Republican side thought he would appeal to the baby boom generation, has not been helping the ticket. All the evidence that we have suggests that people who are younger do not find Quayle appealing because of his age. He's not striking home on that right now.

MR. MacNeil: What is a bad performance for Quayle tonight?

MR. GERGEN: Gaff, major mistake, getting mixed up, cracking under the pressure. He has had a couple of mock debates so far in the campaign and I understand that he has done quite in those. He's been relaxed and good, but if the pressure builds on him and he can't handle it, and I think people see he's visibly nervous or loses -- sometimes when Dan Quayle gets nervous, he sort of draws back and his eyes go large and it's not a pleasing picture, it's not a reassuring picture, and I think he has to guard against that tonight.

MR. SHIELDS: I think an introspective question that most people in the audience could answer and he has trouble with, I think that he's been thoroughly schooled and steeled and prepared for this, and prepped. He's been in the locker room, he's done all the training and the light bag and the heavy bag. He knows most of the questions, but if he gets a question, you know, what, for example, Sen. Quayle, do you most admire about Jimmy Carter's Presidency? You came to Washington the same year he did. I mean, that kind of a question could knock Dan Quayle for a loop and if it did, it would hurt him.

MR. MacNeil: What's a bad performance for Bentsen?

MR. SHIELDS: I think Bentsen has a little higher standard. I think Bentsen has to be aggressive. Bentsen has to make the case for the Dukakis/Bentsen -- I mean, they are, when they say it's parallel skiing, David's absolutely right. I mean, Bush and Quayle are ahead on this parallel skiing course, so it's a chance tonight for Dukakis/Bentsen, and namely Bentsen, to intersect and to cut off Bush at the pass.

MR. GERGEN: But you know, Mark, I think he has to do something else. It seems to me that Bentsen has to make a case for Dukakis that Dukakis can't make easily for himself.

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah.

MR. GERGEN: He has to take him as far --

MR. SHIELDS: He has to credentialize him.

MR. GERGEN: He has to help with is credentials. He has to talk in ways that make Dukakis seem less liberal and less of a throw back to the old days.

MR. SHIELDS: He makes sense for a Republican, you know. He's absolutely right.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Well, we'll talk to you after the debate. Thank you both, David Gergen, Mark Shields. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, Bush and Dukakis stump speeches, the U.S. Ambassador in Chile, and an essay about John Lennon. '88 - ON THE STUMP

MR. LEHRER: Now we continue with our series of campaign stump speeches. Tonight we have both George Bush and Michael Dukakis, first Bush. He spoke this afternoon at a rally in Denver.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Nominee: It was 31 years ago that America woke up to its morning newspapers to discover that the Russians had put that first Sputnick into orbit around the earth, and it was a startling achievement, one which announced the beginning of the space age and jolted us into our new effort on space technology. And 2 1/2 years ago the effort suffered a tragic setback, one which fortunately has turned out to be temporary, and on Monday, two days ago, I visited Edwards Air Force Base, and I saw the return of Discovery and the return of America to space, and I know that you join me in congratulating the Discovery crew and all those who worked hard to make that mission possible, all who worked hard to help our nation swell with pride once more, and what they did, they took a space program that had suffered a devastating loss, put it back on its feet guided by one simple thought, a thought that drives people in every corner of this great land, from the smallest child in the smallest town, to the man at the desk in the Oval Office, Ronald Reagan has a sign on his desk which captures that thought perfectly and it says, "It can be done." That is the spirit of America. And that is the spirit that will guide me in the White House and that is the spirit that is guiding me all the way along this campaign trail. It can be done. Eight years ago, eight years ago we brought that fighting spirit to Washington and the results of the fight are clear, the longest period of unbroken economic growth in the history of the United States of America, and we've got to keep it going until everybody in Denver, and in my State of Texas, and every state benefits by this long recovery. Keep it moving forward. I am for creating economic opportunity for every American, every age, every background and color in every city and town in this country. In the last eight years, it has begun, 17.8 million new jobs since 1982, and inflation is about 1/3 of what it was under the previous Administration, and ask these guys back there, ask this Dukakis crowd if they remember what interest rates were when we came into office. The interest rates, 21 1/2 percent. No, but this job is not finished and we aren't going to finish it in Colorado, or across the country, we are going to keep on going till it is finished in Colorado. We are going to keep on going until it is finished in every community in America. We can't do it though by turning backwards. We are the change. Keep America moving forward. And so don't listen to the Dukakis pessimists, don't listen to those liberals coming out here talking about their want, their desire for gun control, or their opposition to prayer in schools. Listen to those of us who believe that it can be done. I am one of those. And there is only one man that has the experience to guide America into the next century, the judgment to keep America strong and growing, the conviction to support the values that have brought us this far, and only one has pledged to build a better, kinder, and gentler nation, an America that remains the last best hope of man on earth. And ladies and gentlemen, I am that man. I need your support and with it, I will be the next President of the United States of America. Thank you all and God bless you.

MR. LEHRER: Michael Dukakis spoke yesterday to the National Business Council at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Nominee: Mr. Bush offers complacency. I offer change. He offers slogans and symbols. Lloyd Bentsen and I are offering real solutions to the problems that face American families and communities and businesses and workers every day and every week and every month. He wants us to charge our future to a trillion dollar credit card that our children are going to have to pay for generations to come. I want us, my friends, to take charge of our future, to build the best America, to make America No. 1 in the world. That's our goal. That's why this campaign is so important -- because we can't build a strong and vibrant economic future for this country on a mountain of debt and the American business community knows that and American workers know that. We can't run up trade deficits in the billions and secure our economic future, and the American business community knows that and American workers know that. We can't produce a well educated and a well trained work force when 25 percent of our children are dropping out of high school in this country and the American business community knows that and American workers know that. And you know that. And that has to be one of our top priorities. Lloyd Bentsen and I want to offer a different kind of leadership. We're going to be fair with foreign competition, but we're going to be tough too. We're going to use the new trade bill to bring down unfair barriers to American products and to make us stronger and more competitive. We're going to build an America where management and labor can come together as they are in this stage and in this hall. They can come together with their President, with the Congress, with our universities to become more productive and more creative and to make American products and workmanship the best in the world. We'll take on our foreign competitors and we're going to beat them, not ourselves. We're going to work with companies and with their workers to modernize and rebuild factories and rebuild our industrial base that's so vital to our national security and to our economic future. And thanks to the new trade bill, we now have the resources to provide our workers with the training they need to master the technologies of tomorrow. We're going to make America No. 1 in the classroom by putting the responsibility where it belongs, by setting high standards for our students, and by making teaching a valued and honored profession once again in this country. You know, these are the kinds of challenges that George Bush can't even seen despite those thousand points of light. My friends, I'm interested in 240 million points of light, 240 million citizens in this country, and these are the challenges we're going to meet and the new frontiers we're going to conquer together.

MR. LEHRER: Michael Dukakis yesterday at Northwestern University. We will of course have other stump speeches as the campaign continues. FOCUS - AMERICA'S STAKE

MR. MacNeil: Next, another election, today's election in Chile. There is only one issue on the ballot. Should Gen. Augusto Pinochet who has ruled since 1973 continue in power for another eight years? We explore the implications of today's Plebiscite for Chile in the United States in a NewsMaker Interview with U.S. Ambassador Harry Barnes. Charles Krause talked with Amb. Barnes recently at his home in Chile's capital, Santiago.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What's at stake here for the United States?

HARRY BARNES, U.S. Ambassador to Chile: What's at stake for the United States I think is very very simply this. We are convinced of the importance in terms of our own interests of a democratic world, and obviously this is our hemisphere, and what happens here, as we've seen in a variety of situations, can have a considerable impact on us. If you look at Chile in the hemispheric context, it's one of the countries which has one of the most important, one of the longest histories of democracy, and therefore, it seems to us that if any country is capable of resuming a democratic role and taking part in the democratic system in the hemisphere, in the world, Chile ought to be able to do that. It's been a traumatic period, the Allende years and the years of this government, but my own conviction is that Chileans are ready, more than ready, to take on the responsibilities of a democratic system again, and that's going to be very much in our interest.

MR. KRAUSE: Are you satisfied then that if the votes are fairly counted, that whatever the outcome is, it will be the result of a process that was democratic, a process that allowed the Chilean people to make a reasonable decision about their political future?

AMB. BARNES: Well, from our standpoint and with our own experience, we have thought and have said that we felt that a process of competitive elections would have been much more satisfactory in that sense.

MR. KRAUSE: Not a Plebiscite?

AMB. BARNES: Not a Plebiscite. It was competitive elections, not simply a yes or no, which is more like a referendum device we use in the United States, but not for selecting our representatives, but since the democratic opposition, itself, has decided that the Plebiscite is the way they have to go and since the changes have been introduced that I was talking about, yes, I think they will have been given a reasonably fair chance to make a better case to the people and are beginning to feel now that many Chileans see that there is a real choice between the yes vote and the no vote, which wasn't that obvious before.

MR. KRAUSE: Well, now having said what you just said, which is that the United States would have preferred an open election between candidates of different parties for President of Chile, isn't that what the No represents, because under this system, if the No wins, then a year from now there will be an election between different candidates in this country?

AMB. BARNES: That's correct. A win for the No vote opens the possibility under the constitution for a competitive election.

MR. KRAUSE: In that case, does the United States Government favor a "no" vote, an end to this government?

AMB. BARNES: We're not going to pronounce ourselves on one side over the other. I did say that as a process, we think competitive elections make more sense for choosing representatives

MR. KRAUSE: The United States Government through the National Endowment for Democracy has spent over $1/2 million directly supporting the No campaign, so is the United States really neutral in this contest?

AMB. BARNES: Well, we start from the assumption that it's important that there be a return to democracy in Chile, but you cannot return to democracy in Chile unless there is some freedom of choice and something to choose between. And consequently, as I mentioned earlier, we think that helping make a somewhat more equitable situation is within the bounds of promoting democracy. But we have not come out and said we're in favor of the "no" as compared to the "yes". And our concern about democracy is not limited to Chile. The activities of the National Endowment, for example, have been important in Eastern Europe as well so we just don't agree that that is interference.

MR. KRAUSE: Who do you think is going to win?

AMB. BARNES: I don't know. At this point, what we're hearing is that the trend toward the "no" is somewhat more pronounced, but I repeat, that's happened before. There have also been trends toward the "yes". Right now, it looks as if it's going to be fairly close.

MR. KRAUSE: Are you reasonably confident that there will not be fraud, vote counting fraud?

AMB. BARNES: Yes. Essentially because under the rules, the political parties that are recognized, and on the opposition side this amounts to three, potentially three, they are able to station poll watchers at all polling places. And those poll watchers have the authority, responsibility, to object if they see any irregularities.

MR. KRAUSE: On the other hand, the concern, as you well know, is that in one way or another, Gen. Pinochet will look for a way to void the Plebiscite if it goes against him, or he will look for a way to justify some sort of coup or some sort of change in the rules. Are you, is the United States Government concerned about that possibility, are you watching for that kind of outcome?

AMB. BARNES: We're watching a whole range of possibilities, and here a lot of that sort of concern that you've just expressed. On the other hand, we don't see any way in terms of the provision of the constitution, in terms of the rules for the voting process and for the counting of votes whereby that sort of action could be taken in any legitimate fashion. And this is a country which places great store on legitimacy and doing things according to law. So I have to say we're watching, yes, as most Chileans are watching what's going to happen.

MR. KRAUSE: If Gen. Pinochet loses this Plebiscite but one way or another does not respect the outcome and remains in power, does that favor the extreme left?

AMB. BARNES: Yes, if you take that hypothesis, because, in effect, what that does is to discredit the whole strategy of the moderate democratic opposition, which was to play by the rules and to rely on people's vote. The people voted in favor of the "no" option. That was not respected and that, in effect, could offer a very fertile terrain to the extreme left, which has been active in Chile, and argumentation in favor of using the violent route rather than a peaceful route.

MR. KRAUSE: And the United States would presumably react in what way if the general were to remain in power, but lose the Plebiscite?

AMB. BARNES: Well, you're postulating significant fraud here. I think we would be very very upset, very concerned about that. We'd want to talk with a number of other governments, particularly Latin American governments, about what anybody on the outside could do. Obviously, what we did, how we reacted, would depend very much on how Chileans reacted as well to that sort of hypothesis. As I said earlier, that doesn't look likely based on all the information we have. ESSAY - LARGER THAN LIFE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, some thoughts about the late John Lennon, who has been the subject of two recent books that present very different views of his life. Our view comes from Essayist Penny Stallings.

CLIP OF JOHN LENNON SINGING

PENNY STALLINGS: John Lennon always said that he didn't want to become Elvis Beatle, a pop idle held captive by his public image, but sadly, a new and controversial biography suggests him to have been just that, a lost soul as ravaged and isolated by fame as his own idol, Elvis Presley.

CLIP OF JOHN LENNON SINGING

MS. STALLING: In the late 70's, the public believed Lennon to be exploring alternative life-styles, playing at being a house husband, while his wife, Yoko Ono, managed his multi-million dollar song writing fortune. In rare interviews, he spoke of escaping the killing confines of rock stardom and creating some semblance of a normal life. He called himself a feminist and he praised the simple pleasures of baking bread and child rearing, and we bought it. Yoko Ono has sought to reinforce this positive image of her husband in the new book Imagine John Lennon. But Lennon's unauthorized biographer, Albert Goldman, maintains that this picture of domestic bliss was sheer fantasy, that during those Dakota years Lennon was, in fact, a bed bound recluse, his muse numbed by heroin and his once outspoken criticism of repressive politics treated in exchange for a green card. You might remember that Albert Goldman is the same guy who brought you the sneering expose of Elvis a few years back. To many, the lives of John Lennon will no doubt seem to be more of the same, another story of rock star excess, or at least of the hypocrisy intrinsic to celebrity. If Goldman's story is true, you could say that John Lennon, or at least the Lennon we thought we knew, had been dead for years before the bullet of a deranged misfit cut him down. The irony is that John Lennon was notorious for his candor.

JOHN LENNON IN CLIP: Hello, we're having lunch on Sunday.

LENNON'S CHILD IN CLIP: Hello. We're having lunch on TV.

MS. STALLING: For spearing the phoniness of show business, he constantly sought to merge his private and public selves, stripping his body and his psyche bare as if to say this is the real me, take it or leave it. At the height of the Beatles' popularity, he courted disaster by pronouncing them to be bigger than Jesus. He sneered at the group's sweetly benign image, distancing himself through from it through all sorts of outlandish stunts. His work became even more intensely personal after the Beatles' break-up, with each new solo album offering a new installment in the ongoing saga of his tempestuous life. He toyed with his fame, exposing its contours and parodying its extremes. By renouncing what he saw as false faith and false gods, he became an idol for people who ordinarily didn't believe in idols. Now Elvis fans, even the most devoted, didn't necessarily want to be Elvis, to live in a mock plantation and wear rhinestone-encrested jumpsuits. But lots of us did want to emulate John Lennon, or what we thought Lennon to be. Millions listened intently when he talked of radical pacifism, of exploring new therapies and life-styles. Some even followed his lead. That's why it's so painful now to discover that it might all have been a lie. The 60's generation has watched often with amusement as the idols of older generations were exposed as hypocrites and rogues, cultural icons, political torch bearers, and spiritual leaders. Now it seems we have one of our own. So how do we handle it? Probably in much the same way as those before us. We ignore it. We refuse to believe it. Or we take what was good and fine about John Lennon's words and his work and we set it aside in a conceptual box, where it will remain good and fine forever. We tell ourselves that someone's ideas can be worth even if they aren't, and that through those ideas can come their redemption. Finally, we put on one of the old records and we sit back and remember how sweet it was.

JOHN LENNON SINGING RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Once again the main stories in today's news, Republican Dan Quayle and Democrat Lloyd Bentsen face each other in a nationally televised debate, an encounter many think could have direct bearing on the close Presidential race. Thousands of soldiers and police guarded polls in Chile, as votersdecided whether to endorse military ruler Augusto Pinochet or reject him. Federal regulators said it would take 45 to 50 billion dollars to save the savings & loan industry. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.