The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the House Ethics Committee decided to investigate charges of misconduct against Speaker Jim Wright. Thousands of South Korean police fought students agitating for unity with the communist North, Ethiopia announced it will let the Red Cross resume food supplies to famine victims in the North. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary we have a newsmaker interview with House Speaker Wright. Then the presidential campaign as seen by four distinguished people of the arts: Actor Bill Cosby, playwright Marsha Norman, novelist Scott Turow and arts critic Hilton Kramer.

News Summary

LEHRER: The House Ethics Committee will investigate the financial affairs of House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas. The committee of six Democrats and six Republicans voted unanimously to do so last night. The decision was announced this morning, Seventy-two House Republicans and the Common Cause organization had asked for the investigation, Committee Chairman Julian Dixon, Democrat of California, said the Inquiry will focus on six areas. They Involved allegations Wright used his office improperly to help constituents who were friendly and financially connected to him, as well as other charges concerning royalties paid Wright by a book publisher. Wright said today he welcomed the investigation and pledged his full cooperation.

JIM WRIGHT: Speaker of the House: I am the principal enforcer of the rules of the House. And therefore when the Speaker of the House is charged with having violated any rule of the House, it's a matter of some seriousness. And it's a matter that must be attended seriously. And resolved promptly.

LEHRER: A reminder: we will have an extensive newsmaker interview with Speaker Wright right after this news summary. Robin?

MacNEIL: in South Korea, police barred radical students from marching to the demilitarized zones separating the two Koreas today. News reports said only 37 students managed to get within a few miles of Freedom Bridge in the DMZ before they were arrested. Other students in Seoul and along the 30 miles of roads leading north were turned back by police vans spouting dense clouds of pepper fog. The border march was aimed at promoting reunification talks between North and South Korea.

South Korea plays host to the Olympic Games this summer, And a White House spokesman said today Secretary of State George Shultz has asked the Soviet Union and other countries to use their influence to prevent disruption at the games.

LEHRER: The Nicaraguan peace talks have ended without agreement. Contra rebel and Sandinista government spokesmen each blame the other for the breakdown. Both said they would not resume the war, however, unless the other side attacked first. But one contra leader came to Washington to sound a call for new military aid.

ADOLFO CALERO, contra leader: We should get military aid. There is already a move, a bipartisan move in Congress and the Senate, to call on the President for that military aid. To keep the resistance from being annihilated, to keep the resistance as a viable force, which has been the declared intent of even people who have never voted for us. And the way to keep the resistance as a viable force is to receive military aid for its self defense against Sandinista annihilation.

LEHRER: President Reagan today issued an order concerning Panama. No Panamanian official associated in any way with its military leader General Manuel Noriega, or its figurehead President Manuel Soils Palma, may enter the United States.

MacNEIL: The Reagan Administration today announced its intention to offer special military assistance to Kuwait. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the administration will ask Congress to sell up to 40 F-18 warplanes to the Persian Gulf nation. He said the sale was in line with the policy of arming countries threatened by spillover from the Iran-Iraq war.

The F-18 is the newest of the Navy's carrier based bombers. So far only close U.S. allies have been allowed to purchase it. Congressional opposition is expected since Kuwait, like other Arab nations, is technically at war with Israel.

LEHRER: In the Middle East today, Israeli authorities arrested a 26-year-old Palestinian on charges of stabbing the mayor of a West Bank town last Tuesday. Authorities said the Israeli-appointed Arab mayor was attacked because ho would not resign in an act of Palestinian nationalism.

In Beirut, a Syrian soldier was killed and two others were wounded during fighting between rival factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The soldiers' position was hit by an artillery shell. Police said a total of eight people were killed and 50 wounded in the fighting, which took place in Beirut's two refugee camps.

Also today in South Lebanon, the Israeli-backed Lebanese militia fired on U.N, peace-keeping forces, One Norwegian soldier was wounded.

MacNEIL: The muzzle on the press and political opposition in South Africa was tightened a little today, It came as Pretoria renewed its two-year state of emergency. We have a report from James Robbins of the BBC.

JAMES HOBBINS, BBC: Few South Africans are surprised by today's headlines, Most expected the state of emergency to be extended, Those detained without trial or charge can now be held for another year. Some starting their third year in prison. Most peaceful protests stay banned and new measures appear designed to silence more of the voices of protest. Archbishop Desmond Tutu could be a target, though not specified by name. Reporters here could be banned from quoting the Archbishop's repeated calls for sanctions against South Africa.

Today, protests against the latest renewal and extension of emergency law was more muted than ever before. The government has succeeded in removing most of the key opposition leaders to prison, and succeeded in forbidding the major anti-apartheid organizations from all campaigning.

HARVEY TYSON, newspaper editor: We feel beleaguered and really under threat, The conditions of the emergency seem to be getting tougher rather than easier.

Rev. FRANK CHIKANE: Church leader: The church's position at the present moment is that we not oblige to obey even an unjust laws, and therefore we are determined to go ahead with our program irrespective of whatever laws they enact according to the state of emergency regulations.

MacNEIL: In Lusaka, Zambia, the anti-apartheid African National Congress said South Africa's renewal of the emergency decree is a reflection of its inability to suppress the liberation movement.

The Government of Ethiopia said today it would allow the Red Cross to resume food distribution to hundreds of thousands of people facing starvation in the north of the country. The Geneva-based Red Cross had halted its aid after it refused Ethiopian government pressure to turn over food distribution to local authorities. Under today's agreement, the Ethiopian branch of the Red Cross will run the relief program, but it will be supervised by the Geneva-based league.

LEHRER: The U.S. Senate today voted capital punishment for drug dealers who are convicted of murder. The vote was 65 to 29 for the bill, sponsored by Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Republican of New York. He said he believes society has a right to say we are outraged by certain acts. Among the opponents was Senator Dan Evans, Republican of the State of Washington. He said It was election year politics that would reduce the civility of society. The legislation now goes to the House.

In another drug action today the Transportation Department proposed drug testing for interstate truck and bus drivers. There will now be a public comment period on the plan, The earliest it could go into effect is this fall.

MacNEIL: In economic news the government reported that wholesale prices accelerated slightly for the third month in a row. Led by food prices, the producer price index rose half a percent last month, after rising .4% in April. Economists said they expect food price Increases to persist over the next month because of drought in the grain-growing regions of the Midwest.

That's our summary of the news. Coming up, Speaker Wright answers charges, and a different perspective on the election year so far.

Jim Wright

LEHRER; The Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, is the lead story of the day, and we go to him first tonight for a newsmaker interview. The 12-member House Ethics Committee announced today that it will formally investigate six charges against the Texas Democrat. They include allegations about a book written by the Speaker, his intervention with government agencies and others on behalf of constituents, and his use of a condominium in Ft. Worth. I spoke with the Speaker from Capitol Hill this afternoon, and asked him first for his general reaction to the Ethics Committee decision.

JIM WRIGHT, Speaker of the House: I am delighted. I've been asking them to do just exactly that. The preliminary Inquiry that they voted to undertake is for the express purpose of ascertaining whether there is any basis at all to these allegations. I have asked now for the third time for the privilege of appearing and answering any question they've got Get it right out on the top of the table in the sunlight of public knowledge, and I'm just absolutely certain that they will conclude in the end that I haven't violated any House rule, nor any other commonly accepted standard of good conduct.

LEHRER: Are they going to allow you to testify?

Speaker WRIGHT: Yes, indeed. I'm sure they will. Absolutely.

LEHRER: The -- what about the decision on bringing in outside counsel? Have they told you whether or not they're going to do that or not?

Speaker WRIGHT: I don't know whether they'll do that or not. It's up to the committee. Whatever they choose. My only desire is that it be done expeditiously and promptly and we get it resolved and get it behind us. That's the thing I want done most of all. You see, I am the principal enforcer of the rules of the House. That's my job as Speaker. And if somebody accuses the Speaker of having violated the rules of the House, even though it was at a time when he wasn't Speaker, then he has a responsibility to see to it that that matter is cleared up. And resolved. And that's what I'm confident will be done and done soon.

LEHRER: A couple of newspapers on their editorial pages have suggested that if and when this inquiry came about, that it ought to be done in public, that witnesses ought to be called, must like Congress investigates the Executive Branch. Would you be In favor of that?

Speaker WRIGHT: Jim, I don't care. That's up to the committee. I'm not going to try to tell the committee how to handle it. I'm going to cooperate with them in every respect. Any question they want answered by me I'll answer. If they want it answered in public, I'll answer it in public. If the news media want it answered, I'll answer it to the news media. I've got nothing to hide. Absolutely nothing.

LEHRER: All right. Do you plan to step aside in any way as Speaker while this investigation is conducted?

Speaker WRIGHT: Oh, certainly not, Other speakers have been inquired into. Some as I, by their own suggestion. And it was at my suggestion that they undertook to look into this because of all the unwarranted innuendos that have been published in some news media, grotesquely distorting the facts. And so I am anxious to get the facts out on the table.

But of course, the Speaker doesn't step down. I was elected, given the responsibility to manage the business of the House. And that's what I've been doing, You know last week we passed the catastrophic illness bill. The week before that we overruled the President's veto on the Trade Bill. The business of the House must go forward. And that's my first responsibility.

LEHRER: And you do not believe that this Investigation and your involvement in it would inhibit your duties as Speaker of the House.

Speaker WRIGHT: Oh, certainly not. Quite the contrary. The sooner we get this thing totally cleared up and absolutely resolved, the better it's going to be from the standpoint of the House itself, And that's what my interest in - my mission is in preserving the dignity of the House of Representatives and maintaining its honor and conducting its business. And I'm not going to let anything interfere with that.

LEHRER: The - you mentioned that you've asked the committee to investigate this in the past. However, the New York Times pointed out that you should have done this their editorial at least said - they asked the question, Why didn't you do this a long time ago when these charges first came out? A lot of these charges or allegations have been out for a couple, three years now,

Speaker WRIGHT: I think the Times said in an article this morning, if you'll read it very carefully, that they're really very frivolous. They're groundless. There really isn't any base for the charge. Now, why didn't-

LEHRER: We're talking about - excuse me - just so the record here is straight, we're talking about two entirely different - I'm talking about an editorial-

Speaker WRIGHT: And I'm talking about a news story-

LEHRER; --and you're talking about a news story. Okay.

Speaker WRIGHT: -- talking about a news story that appeared on the - I think the front page of the Times today, by Jeff Gerth and I think someone else. Read it carefully --

LEHRER: I have.

Speaker WRIGHT; and you'll discover that the conclusion inescapably is that there isn't any foundation to these charges. Now, you raise the question, Why should I not have asked for an investigation months ago when the first pejorative article appeared in Regardy's Magazine, or whatever it was, fictionalizing an account of a meeting that was absolutely not that way at all. Well, you know. If every public official has to be investigated every time a news magazine writes an untrue story about him, there wouldn't be enough members to assign to the investigating committee. Obviously that an unreasonable suggestion. Many inaccurate stories are written constantly. Some intentionally, and most of them unintentionally. Obviously, a member isn't going to go and plead with some committee to investigate him.

Hey, look, Jim, all of these things, most of them go back ten years or more. They've been written in the newspapers in my hometown in Ft. Worthy My business is a goldfish bowl. Everybody knows that, I knew It when I got into it. I didn't realize the degree to which the Speaker would become a target for all the poisoned arrows of the political opposition, but that's okay, too. If I couldn't stand the heat, I'd get out of the kitchen. And I'm not planning to get out of the kitchen,

LEHRER: So that - you do still intend to preside Over the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta next month?

Speaker WRIGHT: Well, my - yes. Of course I do. My primary concern, however, was the United States House of Representatives. That's my biggest job. That's my biggest responsibility, I am more concerned about maintaining the decorum and the dignity and the honor of the United States House of Representatives than I am any other task that I have.

LEHRER: Vice President Bush and others in the party of the opposition, as you call them, are suggesting that your problems are very similar to those of Attorney General Meese. Do you agree with that?

Speaker WRIGHT: I certainly do not. There's a different approach, too, I have given the total answers to everything. I presented today to the committee and yesterday to the committee and today to the public at large a total, complete, exhaustive narrative recitation of everything Involved in every single one of these spurious complaints. Get it all out on the table. And I've presented documentation with it. No, sir. Not - I'm not criticizing Ed Meese. His is another situation. I have no judgment on him, I'm not going to say he's guilty of anything, I don't accuse people of being guilty when I don't know they're guilty, I'm not going to say anything bad about Ed Meese. His business is his business. But there's a big different, Jimmy. He's not answering these things publicly and I am. And I'm ready to answer anything anybody has to ask.

LEHRER: He said of course the same thing that you just told me, though, a few moments ago. That these were brought about by false allegations in the news media, and-

Speaker WRIGHT: Well, they may have been. I don't know the answer to that. I do know in regard to mine, there were some wretchedly inaccurate stories, and I tried to handle it in a very dignified retiring way, not calling attention to it, but writing to the news journal and saying, Look, this was inaccurate in this particular, inaccurate in that particular. And in some cases I even submitted statements by people who were present at the event. Reinforcing what I said. And for the most part it just never the truth hardly ever chases down the falsehood. But that's okay, I'm not complaining about that. I'm just saying that I am delighted to get this all out on the table. I've been wanting to do It for months.

LEHRER: What if the committee concludes that you did in fact violate some rule or rules of the House of Representatives?

Speaker WRIGHT: Well, Jim, I am confident that I did not. If the committee thinks I did, say so. For goodness sake.

LEHRER: But then what happens?

Speaker WRIGHT; Well, it's not going to happen. I'm just telling you that I didn't violate any rule of the House. And I didn't violate any standard of ethical behavior either. Nothing I have done in any of these matters - hardly anybody has said it was illegal. Nobody said I did anything Illegal, or dishonest. And the allegations that rules were violated, I think are effectively and fully answered by the document that I handed out today.

LEHRER: New Republic Magazine recently-had an editorial not terribly favorable toward you, and it said, "If the results," meaning of this Investigation that was even a couple of weeks ago looked like it was going to come off, it said, "If the results are sufficiently damning and Wright turns out to possess grace under pressure, he might diffuse the issue by announcing before November that he's stepping down as Speaker."

Speaker WRIGHT: Now, that presents a self-fulfilling scenario that I have not even envisioned. Of course they're not damning. I'm just telling you. I'm glad to get them out. Get them in the public sunlight, I have answered every question everybody's got to ask. I'll answer any you have to ask.

LEHRER: The only new one that - as you say, there's been an awful lot of publicity about most of these allegations. We've covered them at length on this program as everybody else has too. There was a new one, though, on the list today that came from the committee. And all It said was an Investigation "involving the use of a condominium in Ft. Worth," in addition to the Ones involving the book and President Sadat and all the other things. What Is that all about?

Speaker WRIGHT: - exactly what It's about. For some years, I rented a condominium on a market basis for the days that I was in Ft. Worth. I rented it from a friend of mine who was holding it for investment purposes and was not holding it out to rent to the general public. If I hadn't rented it from him on those weekends when Betty and I were there, he would have had no income from it at all. It was an arm's length transaction. Perfectly legitimate transaction. Here's another Interesting thing. The question was asked to the Chief Counsel of the Ethics Committee of the House if it was an appropriate and proper thing several years ago, and he responded that he saw nothing improper in it. Now, meanwhile I have bought that condominium. I bought it at $58,500, which is exactly halfway between two independent appraisals that were made of its value. And I own the condominium. And that's -

LEHRER: Well, why is it on the list, Mr. Speaker?

Speaker WRIGHT: Don't ask me, but I don't care. I'm glad - anything that they want to ask about. There have been people, Jim, for many months, on the other side, politically motivated, who have been trying to stir up everything they can dredge from my whole past. I've been in public office for 32 years. Now, the people Ft. Worth have read about all those things. And they have 14 times, 17 times, elected me overwhelmingly. And they're the ones who know me the best.

LEHRER: All right, now, you say these are politically motivated. How does that explain Common Cause, which Is not a Republican organization, it's a nonpartisan organization more usually identified more with the liberal wing of things, and they have written a letter to the committee officially asking that this inquiry be held.

Speaker WRIGHT: You're exactly right, Jim. And I don't know how to explain that. I was surprised when Fred Wertheimer wrote that letter. He asked two specific questions, One of them, and both of the questions involved the publication of a book. He said, "Did Wright's campaign committee pay for the publication of the book?" and "Did Wright's campaign committee buy copies of the book?" I would have answered the question if he had come and asked me. It's a perfectly legitimate question. The answer is no. The campaign committee didn't pay for the book.

LEHRER: What's going on here in your opinion? Do you blame the Republicans for this? That they're just out to get you?

Speaker WRIGHT: Not all of the Republicans, Jim. No, sir. Just a little handful of negative campaigners, people who are disruptive and want to tear down the institution Itself to build it again on a hard right wing basis.

LEHRER: Including the Vice President of the United States? He's joined in the criticism of you and called for an investigation,.

Speaker WRIGHT: Let me be kinder to George than he's been to me. I'll not say of him what I might say. But here is a letter, I'll not identify the sender because he didn't authorize me to do that. He is one of those who was sort of browbeaten into signing a letter not endorsing the complaint, but rather saying to the committee why don't you look into it, a Republican colleague. "Dear Mr. Speaker; This letter Is an apology to you. I hope you will receive it in the spirit of good will in which it's offered. Last week," he said, "I did something I'm not very proud of. I swelled up in arrogance and pronounced judgment on another human being, you. Caught up in the bravado of partisan politics, my judgment failed me for a moment, and I agreed to sign on to the letter that was sent to Mr. Dixon asking for an investigation of you. In the cold light of the following day, it rolled in on me like a flood that I have no Christian right to ask that. I asked that my name be removed from the letter but it was too late. The letter had been submitted the previous evening. Probably the easy thing to do would be just let it go--" He goes on and on-

LEHRER: How long is this going to take, Mr. Speaker, before we get a verdict here?

Speaker WRIGHT: The sooner the better.

LEHRER: Yeah, but you have no idea?

Speaker WRIGHT: Tomorrow as far as I'm concerned.

LEHRER: How long do you think? Have you asked the committee? Have they expressed to you--

Speaker WRIGHT: No, I don't have the answer to that. But my desire is that they look at it all, they satisfy themselves as to the answers. I will cooperate with them fully, and I'll answer any question they've got, and I think and believe that very soon they will be completely satisfied that no rule of this House was violated by their Speaker.

LEHRER: All right, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for being with us.

Voice Vote

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, we look back at the first phase of the presidential year that ended with the last primaries this week. What has this long process told us about the mood of the American electorate this year, and how the process is responding to that mood? To discuss that, we step outside the groups of people who usually comment on politics with four thoughtful people who make their livings for the most part in the arts. In Boston at the studios of WGBH, we have actor/producer Bill Cosby. From Chicago Scott Turow, lawyer and author of the bestseller Presumed Innocent, In New York, novelist/playwright Marsha Norman, who won a Pulitzer Prize for the play Night, Mother, And Hilton Kramer, for 17 years art critic of the New York Times, now editor of the New Criterion, a monthly review of the cultural scene. Bill Cosby, what do the events so far and the candidates who survived these many months say about the mood of the American people this year, do you think? The American electorate?

BILL COSBY, actor: My initial thought was that the press claimed that we Americans vote sort of like a beauty contest, and I think that the end result has to bring a smile because these, the last few, are certainly not a type of Ronald Reagan-looking type. We have a fellow who is of a certain size, another one whose face sort of goes to the left, and another one who is a resounding public speaker who says things differently.

MacNEIL: Marsha Norman, what do you think the mood of the American people, as shown by the campaign so far?

MARSHA NORMAN, playwright: Well, I think this is exactly right, what Mr. Cosby has said, that the American public is not interested in being entertained, obviously. We are not casting for a replacement for our favorite actor. We want somebody who has a different idea of what this job is. Who maybe thinks that the country could be run as a business for example. And a business that we could all profit from and that we don't maybe we could find our entertainment in our own lives and our work and our families, and let our country be conducted in some other fashion.

MacNEIL: Milton Kramer?

HILTON KRAMER, arts critic: Well, I think that the American voter really votes on issues rather than on the basis of personalities. And I think to some extent the voters are still waiting for the two principal candidates to really define the issues. I was glad to see that Vice President Bush seemed to put a lot of energy into that in Texas yesterday. But I think that when the issues come to be defined, as I expect they will be as we get, come out of the conventions, I think that the kind of slow-paced reaction to the campaign is going to be a thing of the past, and it's going to heat up very quickly,

MacNEIL: How do you feel about it, Scott Turow?

SCOTT TUROW, novelist: I kind of agree with Mr. Kramer to the extent that I think general elections do tend to be more issue-oriented. The primary campaigns have traditionally been at least to my eye a lot different. And I think this particular primary campaign surprised me in the sense that primaries in the past have generally tended to measure some kind of previously unseen political pulse in the country, usually some kind of subcultural expression, whether it was the yuppie generation making itself felt with Gary Hart, or the resurgence of the right with Mr. Reagan's own ascendancy in 1980, or going back to the McCarthy era, the McCarthy era of Eugene McCarthy in 1968. We didn't see that kind of thing this year. And to some extent I guess I thought it was a little more prosaic than t might have expected. But I agree with Mr. Kramer that what are yet to be the major issues are not framed at this time.

MacNEIL: Let's come back to the issues in a moment and just talk about the personalities. Do you think the two candidates who've emerged as the probable candidates for the fall answer the country's needs this year? Bush and Dukakis? Mr. Turow?

Mr. TUROW: Is that directed to me?

MacNEIL: Sure. Let's start with you,

MR. TUROW: I guess that they must because they're what we have. I'm certainly not in a position to say that there was some great unmet need. I do think, though, that If you go back to the way that both of the major parties' candidates were discussed before the primaries began, people did have the sense that because we're clearly going to have a new president, that something dramatic should have been in the offing, They didn't see it with any of the candidates, with the ten candidates that we started out with in the two major parties. And I do sense that there's some lingering feeling that there could be something more, something better. And you hear it in the talk of, you know, where is Cuomo, where is Bradley, where is Senator Bumpers, that kind of thing.

MacNEIL: Excuse me. Bill Cosby, do you feel that? That there's still something lacking?

Mr. COSBY: Well, it certainly isn't because the American people were not interested. I think I've heard the press more than any other voice just about tell the American people that the people running, the candidates were boring. I've watched them ignore Jesse Jackson until some voters told them that Jesse was very much alive. I watched the press put some of its favorite sons forward, I've watched them fall. And then I watched the press also tell the public again that these people were boring. I think that the same thing would have happened had Cuomo come out. I think that the press would have taken him on to find out what was wrong with him, and then made him boring. I think that Bradley would have been brought out in the beginning, and he, too, would be made to be boring. I have a problem with the mixed signals that the media gives me, television, radio, the papers, books. In -- I mean, who is exciting? What is it that they're saying? What is it that the press wants so that I as the viewer, the reader, the listener, can really know who I'm supposed to pay attention to? Because certainly nobody pays attention to the voter until the vote comes through.

MacNEIL: How do you feel about the choice you've been left with this year, as a voter?

Ms. NORMAN: Well, I think in the Democratic side, there's beon a choice, there's been a real winnowing, a real taking a look at who has what for sale and what we want to buy. And I feel that Dukakis is a clear - there was a choice made. We don't want to be - we don't want young people, we don't want people to wear funny ties, we don't - I mean, we're not concerned with look. We want somebody who appears to know what government's about. And somebody who has a family that supports him, someone who's not going to embarrass us. I mean, that we have in Dukakis. In Bush, I think - I don't quite know how he's gotten here. He doesn't - he strikes me as someone who's not telling the truth. And I don't feel that he's proven that he's superior to the other candidates in his party. I don't know how he's made it really. Except just a kind of traditional, Well, this person's been around and he's waited and been good and really not said anything too horrible, so we'll let him run on his own. I'm quite surprised that he's there, actually.

MacNEIL: Are you surprised that Bush is there?

Mr. KRAMER: I'm not at all surprised that George Bush is there, because far from wondering why he's there, as Ms. Norman suggests - I mean, here's a man who has an immensely distinguished career: heroic military record, a record in government, In business, director of the CIA. He has served in just about every area of responsibility you would want a president to have been prepared in. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that Bush came out of nowhere. You just haven't been watching.

Mr. NORMAN: Well, I didn't say that he -- I don't believe - I mean, it's a difference between what's true in his experience and what I believe as a voter. And I think ultimately vote out of my beliefs, not out of the facts. And I think that's what Americans always do. I don't believe that he's, you know, that his experience has been valuable to him or to us. But then, there I am --that's what elections are for.

MacNEIL: How do you perceive Bush, Mr. Turow?

Mr. TUROW: Well, I think that the Vice President has the kind of experience that Mr. Kramer's talking about, and I think we're going to hear a great deal more about it. I think Senator Dole said the only job that the Vice President didn't have was as the pineapple that was following Dole around taunting him. But I do also sense that people have continuing doubts about him, that they're not satisfied with his decisiveness or his ability to lead. And I think it's going to be an interesting confrontation between Mr, Bush and Mr. Dukakis, who I also think people have at this point some doubts about as well.

MacNEIL: Bill Cosby, you mentioned Jesse Jackson. What function has he performed in this election do you think? And how is he going -- is it going to be felt in November?

Mr. COSBY: Well, that question would take up all of this program. Jesse Jackson running forced America to show its hand, if not politically, then sociologically. Nobody believed when he started to run. My feeling is that -Camille and I would watch the news and reports would come in, and Jackson's name was not there. And many times when the candidates were in various cities, they would mention everybody and there was no Jackson. And our joke was, "Why isn't Jesse showing up for these things?" So we watched the media, once again, Ignore the fact that he was there. Which to me meant that they didn't take him seriously. It was sort of like, Well, that's his right to run as an American and soon he'll be gone.

I think that what we have to look at now that for instance in one of the papers today, a poll came out and it was very, very negative towards a Dukakis/Jackson ticket. But I think deeper than that, we have to look at the importance of what Jesse's voters can bring and swing in terms of the Republican or the Democratic Party winning.

MacNEIL: Talk about the Jesse phenomenon, how you perceive it. What role he's performed and is going to perform for the rest of the election.

Ms. NORMAN: I think it's - he's had an enormous impact. I first was aware of it in Kentucky in March, where I just was in my home state for a month. And there were people saying, "I'm voting for Jackson, and it's not a statement, I want the man elected. I want to feel that there's life in the process, there's life in the country, that there's life in the population as a whole. And that what happens in government matters to people and the other way around. And a real contact with the people that we're electing."

I think that one of the problems with the presidency in general Is that nobody quite knows what the job is. And it's not the same from term to term. A person comes and takes the job and defines it, or a person says, I want to go and do that job this way. But Jackson seemed to say, "I am going to be the same person as President as I am as a human being. And this is what you're going to get, And this is what you need. And here I am, grab hold of me," And I think it was that grab hold quality that really made people in Kentucky say, "I'm going to stand up for him. I'm going to get some of that--

MacNEIL: Scott Turow. you're in Chicago where Jesse Jackson comes from now, How does he look from there?

Mr. THROW: Well, I think people are seldom prophets in their own time and are not really often prophets in their hometown. I think that in Chicago, probably the thing that weighed the Jackson candidacy down Is most apparent, and that is that he's perceived as an interest group candidate. And not somebody with what the politicians might call wing span. I think what was interesting to me, though, watching the Jackson campaign progress, and I thought he was a remarkable spokesman, and really had staked out an area of political terrain of his own, but I thought what was interesting about it was to ask what would have happened had the Jesse Jackson constituency not been represented this year by Jesse Jackson, but rather by candidates who have a track record, like Mayor Bradley of Los Angeles, perhaps Representative Gray from the House Budget Committee, whose ability to attract a broader coalition of voters might have really made them not just frontrunners for a while, but frontrunners permanently.

MacNEIL: Would that have made a difference if the black candidate running had been one of these more mainstream blacks that Mr. Turow refers to?

Mr. KRAMER: Well, it certainly would have been Interesting to have had a black candidate who really seemed to know something about government. I think Rev. Jackson undoubtedly has added a large element of what I would call dramaturgical interest to the campaign it would otherwise not have had. But I think in essence Rev. Jackson is a very gifted demagogue. I mean, he really doesn't seem to know anything about how government or economics works. His economic program Is standard left radical position, you take money away from the rich and give it to the poor. His foreign policy position is the third world's always right, all the problems in the world are being created by the United States and its allies. I mean, this isn't serious politics, it's demagoguery--

Mr. COSBY: Let me--

Mr. KRAMER: Fortunately--

Mr. COSBY: Please--

Mr. KRAMER: May I finish, please?

Mr. COSBY: I think you are finished--

Mr. KRAMER: Fortunately, in American presidential politics there have been very few demagogic personalities. They've been mostly confined to the Senate, the House and some governorships. But in Rev. Jackson, I think we have one. He's very valuable to Democratic Party, too, because so long as - at least to Dukakis, because so long as you have Rev. Jackson then Dukakis is going to look like a centrist

MacNEIL: Bill Cosby?

Mr. COSBY: Yeah, I think that the statements, the accusations made are far off base. I hope that there are more knowledgeable people listening and paying attention, who can correct the mistakes that were just made in representing what Rev. Jackson stands for and his policies. He has had a chance through the media to explain numbers. Many of the candidates thus far have not explained how they were going to move their numbers around to "save the world," or make it even better. And I think that the gentleman who just spoke Is waving some sort of witch flag.

Mr. KRAMER: Oh, are you suggesting that I'm prejudiced--

Mr. COSBY: No, no, no, sir. No, no. No, sir. No, sir, there's a difference between prejudice-

Mr. KRAMER: I think what I'm doing is something that the media have consistently refused to do with the Rev. Jackson. I mean, they have treated him with kid gloves, they've concentrated on his personality, on his undoubted ability to sway audiences emotionally. And they have made him - the media that is a kind of figure of virtue in this campaign. But I at least pay the Rev. Jackson the honor of taking his utterances seriously. And it's the standard left radical position on all social and foreign policy and domestic political issues.

MacNEIL: Do you see Jackson as a demagogue who doesn't know anything about government?

Mr. NORMAN: (laugh) Well, government's people, you know. So I think he knows an awful lot about people. I think that there are lots of people who have been elected to the office who don't know anything about government. And I'm not saying that he's one of them. I'm just saying that knowledge of government is not necessarily a requirement for this office. It hasn't been in the past. Maybe it should be, we could start giving people tests before they get their first campaign funds. But I think what he knows about the public's longing for -- I don't know -- kind of energy, some sort of feeling in their hearts about, this is someone who I don't necessarily want to believe, but I want to know that this person cares what happens to the other people in the country. Living in a city like New York, you can't help but know that we have to do something about the people that we live with. We can't just direct all our attention overseas, we can't just say, Well, we're all fine here in America, because we're not. And Jackson is saying that quite clearly.

MacNEIL: Mr. Cosby?

Mr. COSBY: I want to go back to first of all, just because you decide that you're going to be the person who is now going to do something that "the press and the other candidates didn't do," that is, go after Rev. Jackson, we must understand in the beginning he was just ignored. That's all. Wasn't important. There was this man who was running and may even be amusing and keep things alive. When he became "for real," because the voters were telling, were sending signals -- not the polls, but the voters. I don't think any points can be given because someone decides that they're going to attack Rev, Jackson, You can attack all day, but I think what you're missing on, Mr. Kramer, is the facts, and being able to read what It is he's saying. When you say the third world is all right, that isn't what Rev, Jackson is saying. He is asking that attention be paid to the third world and that is exactly what we haven't done as much. I'm sure that he will center on it, and I think it's something very important that the press and other people have not dealt with yet, because they've kept it sort of to themselves, that, Well, If he goes away, then we won't have to deal with talking about the third world. We won't have to deal with seriously talking about South Africa. We won't have to deal with--

Mr. KRAMER: But it's not true that the United States Government hasn't paid attention to the third world. We've poured billions of dollars in aid, bank loans and other forms of help into the third world, It's simply not true that even the Reagan Administration hasn't paid attention to the third world. I mean, that's all nonsense, It's the kind of attention that's going to be paid. And when the Reagan Administration wanted to help establish some kind of Democratic society in Nicaragua, the Congress wouldn't support It, I mean, Nicaragua's part of the third world, too. I mean, do you want - If you're interested in democracy in Nicaragua, you have to pay attention to the Reagan policy there, It's simply not true that the Rev, Jackson's the first person to show concern for the third world. It's the kind of concern. And it's the name of the value, the values in the name of which you pay that concern that's in question. It's absolute nonsense to say that nobody's been paying attention to the third world.

Mr. COSBY: I don't think that's what I said or what I meant. I took it from your statement, which was that the third world was all right. I mean, that's what I heard you say.

Mr. KRAMER: Well, what I was attempting to suggest was that in the Rev. Jackson's utterances, he generally characterized the third world as the place of virtue and the United States government as the seed of villainy.

MacNEIL: Let's move this along. What kind of campaign do you think it is going to?

Mr. NORMAN: I think it's going to get real ugly. Actually, I think that Dukakis will be faced with the problem of Can you continue to be nice and still remain interesting until November? And this is a terrible problem. I think that Bush has no choice really except to try and find something that proves that Dukakis was not a good governor, that there were - just look for something embarrassing about him. And I think that the press will continue to look for things about Bush's life during the last eight years. And I think that he's probably quite vulnerable there. I mean his silence will damn him I think ultimately.

Mac NEIL: Scott Turow? Do you look for an ugly campaign?

Mr. TUROW: I think Ms. Norman's probably right on the mark. Obviously, the Vice President's going to have to try some way to distinguish himself from Gov. Dukakis. He's also going to have to try to make use of the advantage of experience that he's got. And the only way he's going to be able to do that is ultimately by questioning what Mr. Dukakis puts forth as his most vaunted skill, namely his competence as a manager. For example, I'm sure that we're going to hear some discussion eventually of the fact that Gov. Dukakis lost his first race for reelection, something which I think most Americans today don't know, And by the same token, I think Ms. Norman is also right on the money, Vice President Bush has got a lot of things In the last eight years that he's been able to be conveniently silent about, and he's going to have to answer a lot of questions on that score.

Mr. NORMAN: And take the blame for - I think even more. I mean, whatever anger remains in people's hearts and minds about the Reagan presidency, I mean, Bush will pay that price, he will pay those bills. And it's not fair, truly.

Mr. KRAMER: Well, t think it's certainly true it's going to be a tough campaign. However, I don't think it's really going to be a serious problem for Vice President Bush to distinguish himself from Gov. Dukakis. In fact, I don't think it would be a problem for any of us to distinguish ourselves from Gov. Dukakis. If there's a kind of blank or void there that the Democratic Party and the media work strenuously to fill, but once he becomes officially the candidate, he's going to be for the first time, I think, under examination. And the question is, is there going to be anything there to examine. But it's going to be a tough campaign, It is going to probably get unpleasant, because there are big stakes in this campaign. There are big stakes In the election. The future of the economy is at stake, the future of the kind of defense posture the United States has to the end of the century. The whole emphasis, the whole concern about the future of the family as an institution. There are big stakes in the campaign, and it's because the stakes are so big that I think the campaign is going to be a tough one. I believe it's going to be fought out on very fundamental, major Issues.

MacNEIL: Let's pick up on that. Is this a very important election, Bill Cosby?

Mr. COSBY: Oh, certainly. Certainly. For the first time, I think that both parties have an honest shot, Prior to this, there was a clean feeling of We want to sweep this party out and bring somebody else in. There may be a feeling on the side of the Democrats, We have a shot, but also on the side of the Republicans, We can keep it. So I think it's going to be a very competitive, very interesting campaign, even with dull points to cover. I think the public is going to enjoy being wooed, I think that the media is going to enjoy first one out with half truths or truths, or anything. Sell it. Put it on the front page, and let the viewer beware.

MacNEIL: Is this an important election? Are you and the people you know absolutely determined to vote this time?

Mr. NORMAN: I think so. 1 think there's sort of a mysterious third player who's Mr. Gorbachev, who seems to have issued his own challenge to America, sort of joining in peaceful world. And I think we know as Americans that it's this next President that will indeed have the job of responding to that in a real way. And I think we're all - that's a pretty high stake.

MacNEIL: What about the other items of the agenda that Mr. Kramer mentioned, the survival of the family, and so on? Those-

Mi. NORMAN: Well, there's heart sickness all around the country about that, isn't there? I think that it's a terrible time for the family, for individual humans as well. I mean, clearly the trouble most people have with families is they don't have one. I mean, determining where it went Is an enormous issue. This is part of what makes Mr. Dukakis look wonderful to people There is a family there that you can actually see.

MacNEIL: Mr. Turow? An important election?

Mr. TUROW: Yeah. I don't think you can elect a President of the United States in the 20th century and not have it be an important election. I really - It is not clear to me, though, what the major issues are going to be. And I do look forward to seeing what the articulation of those issues turns out to be. I haven't - I look at Issues like education, which I've thought throughout this decade was going to be the buried issue of the decade. Nobody has ever really talked about it very successfully. And yet we know that In our major cities, our public schools are in terrible trouble for all kinds of reasons. And I think there may be a kind of latent issue that emerges in this campaign and ends up becoming controlling.

MacNEIL: Bill Cosby, 60%, something like 60% of the electorate named drugs as the number one issue in this campaign. Do you agree with that? Is that what really - the most important issue facing this country? That is relevant to a presidential election?

Mr. COSBY: No. I think that education is there. I think more than anything, what Ronald Reagan will leave us with, and what we believe to be good about what he left us with, is going to be -- or what he's going to leave us with is going to be very, very, very important. I think that communism, the fight against it, whatever Ronald Reagan leaves us with is going to be very, very important. Gorbachev, the talks, how much we believe, how friendly they are, how much we believe, how far we can go with them. I think that'll step over drugs. But it isn't, as far as I'm concerned of one Issue that is stronger than the others. Certainly I think that the drug issue can be taken care of with more force from the public demanding that these things be done. We're a country that can handle 20 different issues with great supervision and great authority.

MacNEIL: We have to leave it there. Bill Cosby, thank you for joining us from Boston. Scott Turow in Chicago. Hilton Kramer in New York, and Marsh Norman, thank you.

Recap

LEHRER: Again the major stories of this Friday. House Speaker Jim Wright. The 12-member House Ethics Committee voted unanimously to launch a formal investigation of the Speaker's financial affairs involving a book and other matters. Wright in a NewsHour interview said he welcomed the investigation, pledged his full cooperation and said he was sure he would be cleared of any wrongdoing, In other news, South Korean riot police fought with students again today. The students were attempting to march to the North Korean border. And the government of Ethiopia announced it will allow the International Red Cross to resume famine relief to the northern part of the country. Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.