The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer at Madison Square Garden in New York City for the third night of the Republican National Convention. Vice President Cheney will be the center of attention tonight. We'll profile him, then hear from delegates on the Vietnam issue; get some history from Michael Beschloss, Richard Norton Smith and Meena Bose, and analysis from Mark Shields and David Brooks; as well as look at how events in Russia, Sudan, and elsewhere could affect the presidential race; and report the other news of this day.

JIM LEHRER: The Republican National Convention hears from Vice President Cheney tonight. He will be nominated by acclamation and then give his acceptance speech. He'll lay out differences between President Bush and Democrat John Kerry and make the case for four more years in office. Earlier in the evening, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia will give the keynote address. Miller has frequently sided with Republicans in Senate votes. Protesters were on the streets and inside the convention hall today. Thousands of people carried pink slips in a mock unemployment line that stretched three miles. They said the president's economic policies have been a disaster. Also today, ten AIDS activists got onto the convention floor as White House chief of staff Andrew Card addressed a youth rally. There was a scuffle, and police removed the protesters. And later, thousands of people rallied about three blocks from the convention site at Madison Square Garden. The event was peaceful, with no arrests. In all, more than 1,700 people have been arrested in a number of incidents since the weekend. President Bush arrives in New York City later tonight. He'll accept the Republican nomination for a second term as president tomorrow night. This afternoon the president held a rally in Columbus, Ohio. He said he and the vice president are ready to address the nation.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm here to let you know I'm going to lay out a vision tomorrow night for a safer world and a more hopeful America; that we have done a lot. (Cheers and applause) I'm looking forward to hearing my superb running mate's speech tonight. Dick Cheney is a solid citizen. He's got good judgment and sound advice. He's a man who can get the job done.

JIM LEHRER: The president's top political strategist, Karl Rove, criticized John Kerry today for his statements against the Vietnam War. Rove said Kerry tarnished other veterans in 1971 when he told Congress of alleged war crimes by U.S. troops. Kerry said at the time that others had witnessed the incidents. He has since said he regrets some of the language he used. Sen. Kerry charged today U.S. failings in Iraq have let extremists gain momentum. He cited the president's statements last week that were "miscalculations" about the post-war period. Kerry addressed the American legion convention in Nashville, Tennessee, a day after Mr. Bush spoke there.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: In truth, his miscalculation was ignoring the advice that was given to him, including the best advice of America's own military. So when the president says, "We have the same position on Iraq," I have to respectfully disagree. Our differences could not be plainer, and I have set them out consistently. When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently; I would have done almost everything differently.

JIM LEHRER: Kerry also criticized the president for saying earlier this week the United States could not win the war on terror. Mr. Bush has since insisted the U.S. will win. Amid the U.S. debate over fighting terror, militants struck again in Russia today. More than a dozen attackers seized a school in the South, near the border with Chechnya. They took as many as 400 hostages, many of them children. At least two people were killed. We have a report narrated by Jonathan Miller of Independent Television News.

JONATHAN MILLER: Interior ministry reinforcements moved in this afternoon. It's a conventional army rendered helpless by the hostage-takers' threats to murder 50 children for every fighter killed. A little girl emerges, among a handful to escape. Minutes earlier, around 17 masked gunmen had stormed the playground of Beslan Secondary School shortly after the children's first assembly of the new autumn term. No one's too sure how many hostages remain inside-- up to 400, it's reported. Outside the school, huddles of tearful parents, many of them beside themselves with fear, suggesting most inside are children. A Russian news agency is reporting that parents, pupils, and teachers have now been herded into the school gym and the building wired with explosives. This boy, who'd been by the gates, said the shooting began suddenly as the children were standing around. "The Chechens," as he called them, "were shooting in the air and shouting at us," he said. "We didn't understand them." His schoolmate said that when he'd seen people with automatic weapons running around, he'd thought it was a joke. Then they started shooting. "We ran for it," he said. Sporadic gunfire's continued all day. One tearful mother told a Russian reporter, "Every gunshot I hear is like a shot through my heart." The fighters, said to be both men and women, are reportedly strapped with what one local official called martyrs' belts. Their demand: That Russian troops withdraw from next-door Chechnya, and that Chechen Islamist fighters held in another neighboring republic since a violent attack in June are all freed.

JIM LEHRER: Just yesterday, a suicide bomber killed nine people in central Moscow, and last week suspected terrorists brought down two Russian airliners. Both attacks were blamed on Chechen rebels. Late today the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting to condemn the attacks in Russia. Israel blamed Syria today for two suicide bombings that killed 16 people yesterday. Hamas claimed responsibility, but an aide to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon said Hamas officials operate freely out of Damascus. Wire service reports said Israel will resume attacks on those Hamas leaders. The U.N. today called for more international troops to monitor the Darfur region in Sudan. Secretary-GeneralAnnan reported Sudan has failed to stop attacks by Arab gunmen on black villagers. Annan noted, "the vast majority of militias have not been disarmed." He said a much larger force must be sent as soon as possible. Right now about 300 foreign troops are in Darfur, protecting 80 military observers. More than 50,000 people have died in the violence there; another million have fled to refugee camps.

FOCUS CHALLENGES ABROAD

JIM LEHRER: Today's news from Russia, Sudan, Israel and elsewhere serves as a reminder that the presidential election of 2004 cannot escape the influence of outside events. Margaret Warner begins our look at that.

MARGARET WARNER: How should the U.S. respond to the sudden flare-ups of international hotspots like the latest three this week? For that I'm joined by Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who sits on the Armed Services Committee and is chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee, and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome to you both. As we just saw in the taped reports....

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: We've got critical situations. I mean they're ongoing but hit new crisis points: The Chechen-Russian and in Darfur and of course Arab-Israeli. Let me start with you, Sen. Roberts. First of all, does the U.S. have its national interest at stake in all three of these.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: I think it does. I think on the Russian situation, this is a repeat the of the Chechen problem. Putin has said it's war. As a matter of fact, he is getting support from Chirac and from Schroeder and from NATO. They have coalesced in regards to condemning this violence. Two airliners down and the school hostage business. There's a fellow named Bassiev who is a terrorist who is behind the theater takeover. And so consequently I think in terms of our NATO response and also our other allies, we know that we have to be unified against this kind of terrorism.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And how about the other two just briefly? We'll come back to each one individually. But, I mean, are U.S. national interests at stake in Darfur obviously in Arab-Israeli situation?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, the U.N. Security Council gave them 30 days, the government of Sudan, to say this militia, the Janjuweed militia who is causing all sorts of problems in regards to refugees and civilians, and they're killing them, and basically what we've asked the African Security Council for 2,000 peacekeepers. Kofi Annan has asked for 3,000 in regards to U.N. peacekeepers but he's had very few takers. The one thing about peacekeepers is if there isn't any peace to be kept, well, you become a target so that's a problem.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Sen. Dodd, do you think just broadly first of all the U.S. national interests are at stake in these areas that they are things that the U.S. has to get pretty deeply involved in?

SEN. CHRIS DODD: Well, I do. I agree with Pat Roberts on this point here. Certainly there is a linkage here that is undeniable in all of these cases. In most of them we're dealing with the elements of extremism. And there have been new forces of extremism unleashed. And I think there's a growing sense of confidence among some of these extremists that they can get away with these things. Certainly the United States because of our own immediate self-interests, obviously, since we're so much of a target as is seen over the past number of years have no other recourse but to respond to this but clearly it also points out I think very dramatically the importance of building the kind of international relations that are absolutely essential if you're going to deal with the transnational problems of terrorism; the relationships between Chechnya, the Arab-Israeli conflict, what's going on in Iraq, these suicide bombers. They're isolated events but connected and I think the importance of that point should not be lost here.

MARGARET WARNER: I didn't mean to interrupt you. Let me stay with you, Sen. Dodd. Let's take them one by one since we have to get through all three fairly briefly, but on Darfur, what more should the U.S. do, what more about a Kerry administration do than the Bush administration is?

SEN. CHRIS DODD: Well, John Kerry has laid out very specific points in terms of our response. You've got to build the... take the leadership role here and not only get the U.N., which by the way is being ridiculed at the Republican Convention but to get international organizations to step up and meet this responsibility; 50,000 people have died, a million have been displaced. The U.N. estimates that a million people could die in Darfur if we don't respond to this by being much more aggressive. Now we've sent Secretary Powell to the region. But youve got to do far more than just send envoys out there. You have got to really insist that this genocidal behavior is going to stop or you'll have another Rwanda on your hands during this watch.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think the Bush administration could be doing more, should be doing more?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, I think everybody ought to do more. I think that's the kind of mission that Jim Jones, who is the supreme allied commander in regards to NATO, says this is the kind of thing that NATO could go out of country. I'm not sure they're going to do that in terms of a vote. You have to have a vote. But on the U.N., you know, we gave them 30 days. And obviously the government of Sudan has sort of, you know, thumbed our nose at that. We have a situation again where we asked... well, we didn't ask. We demanded and said African Security Council step up; it's your country. It's your area. It's your regional stability. We need about 2,000. There's been a deafening quiet in that regard. I don't know what the Security Council is going to do. A Kerry administration or a Bush administration, both are going to try to work diplomatically, be very aggressive, try to put a stop to this. Add in Israel. We had six months of a situation where it was relatively quiet. Now we've got two bus bombings. Now we have got the Israelis really going after the Syrians and it's the same kind of situation. Dont forget Iran where they are now enriching their uranium up to the point that they could have in a short time enough uranium enriched for five nuclear devices, that means you have to have resolve. And that's why I think the Bush administration will be successful in spelling that out at the convention and to the American people and why the president will be successful in November. I had to toss in a little politics for you.

MARGARET WARNER: We want a little politics here.

SEN. CHRIS DODD: Shocked me.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Dodd, go to the Chechen-Russian situation. Is there anything more a Kerry administration could do to help out -- at least quell the violence there than the Bush administration is trying to do?

SEN. CHRIS DODD: Im getting a lot of rhetoric here about this but there's very specific actions that can be taken. We ought to be asking and demanding that the U.N. declare, for instance, Darfur that this is a Chapter 7 under the U.N. charter, Chapter 7 situation, which requires military intervention in effect to stop what's going on, to provide the meaningful assistance so they can really respond to this situation and set up tribunals to begin to attack and try these people for war crimes.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you do in the Russian-Chechen situation?

SEN. CHRIS DODD: I think clearly again we need to form the kind of coalitions other than just rhetorically supporting what Russia is trying to deal with here but to offer our assistance, to develop the kind of inter-cooperation between our intelligence agencies, to share information about people, where they're getting the resources, where theyre getting the arms, where theyre getting the support financially to engage in these kinds of attacks. I don't think we're doing enough of that. There seems to be reluctance to really reach out. Again, I come back to the point you can't talk about these issues in isolation. There is a connection. And the failure of the Bush administration to embrace what the first Bush administration 41 did, and that is to build the kind of international strong coalitions to fight this terrorism problem. We're refusing to do that. And so in Chechnya again we're given the kind of rhetorical concern about these issues but we have done nothing specifically about this problem working with the Russians in connection with the other issues we face in the Middle East and elsewhere.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Take on that broader point head on, Sen. Roberts, that these all are situations in which the Bush administration has not used alliances, in effect has disrespected alliances.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, let's go back to Mr. Schroeder in Germany who ran on a pacifist ticket and obviously he wouldn't have been elected had he supported the military activities in Iraq. Now he's changing his mind a little bit because he sees the situation in regards to Russia. Let's take, say, Chirac. Now he's upset, very much upset, because they passed a law in regards to head scarves for young women who are Muslims in France and now finds out that there are two journalists being held hostage. Then you have to go to Putin. Putin at that point said, well, you know, we have a pretty good deal for oil-for-food and we have other considerations. I don't know what it is that John Kerry could whisper in all three of those people's ears that would have made them change their mind. Now we are making some very specific recommendations. Our intelligence worldwide community is sharing things much better. We're in contact with the Russians. We're offering to be of help.

MARGARET WARNER: Even in the Chechen situation.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Oh, very much so. I mean, this isn't anything new in terms of the Chechen War with the Russians. They just had an election. The major general was elected president. And the Chechens don't like it. They want the Russians to withdraw. In doing so they had the same fellow who also took over the theater. This is a very difficult task but the thing that has changed now is that NATO has finally come around and said, you know, this is not a stabilizing situation. Thank goodness NATO is finally getting itself alerted to the fact that they can't just rely on the United States for their defense. It has to be a true alliance. I think that will happen.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask you both quickly, Sen. Dodd first of all, the difference in how President Kerry would handle the Arab-Israeli conflict at least to quell the violence.

SEN. CHRIS DODD: Not just talk about the road map but he'd go to work on it. Again this has been a complaint you've heard over and over again. I'm not going to say something startling new to you here but there were some real opportunities at the end of the Clinton administration that didn't work out at Camp David and certainly major problems there, Arafat being primarily the one that blew up an opportunity to maybe bring some peace to the region. But since that time, there has been neglect, benign neglect of this area. We haven't paid attention to it in my view. You can't walk away from it. Too much that's been if case. I listened to Republican Convention last night. I heard speakers get standing ovations when they suggest somehow we're not going to be associated with the U.N. system. What does that message to the rest of the world we're trying to solve these problems together -- when we say collectively at a national convention by a major political party in the 21st Century we're no longer really interested in working with international bodies; that's the reaction of the people reading these things. In the Middle East crisis here, this requires tremendously hard work. John Kerry will roll up his sleeves the day he is sworn into office and go to work to try and bring about peace not just talk about it but become deeply engaged in it. That has not happened in the Bush administration.

MARGARET WARNER: Your rebuttal, Senator.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, there's nothing that hurts the truth like stretching it. Basically, you know, the U.N. passes a resolution and another resolution and another resolution and another resolution. Here's Kofi Annan. We have 80 observers there in regards to Darfur. Now he wants 3,000. I haven't seen anybody raise their hand up. So I don't know what it is that President Kerry in that position could do to convince the U.N. to really take specific action. There's been complaints in regards to Russia in the Security Council. It has to be relevant. You have to back it up with action. And simply because if you get into a very tough situation-- and the war on terrorism is very, very difficult and people don't go along-- you just can't wish it away. You can't say I'll roll up my sleeves with a few adjectives and adverbs and smother people with the milk of human kindness and they'll go along. They won't. It has to be in their international interest. I think now finally the international community understands with all these flare ups it is an international war against terrorism. And we're doing the best very we can.

MARGARET WARNER: I want to ask you both like a three word answer.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Three words; I don't know if we can do that.

MARGARET WARNER: Starting with you, Sen. Roberts, do either -- any of these three crises have the potential to flare up in such a way that it could affect the election?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Oh, I think it's part... okay. I've said three words. I think it's... don't ever ask a senator for three words. Come on. Especially me or Chris.

MARGARET WARNER: Three sentences.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Okay. Three sentences. Yes it has an impact because it affects Russia and what they do basically affects international interests. Yes, of course, it does in regards to Israel. Yes, of course it does in regards to Iran and yes of course it does in regards to the Sudan.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me get Sen. Dodd on this political impact.

SEN. CHRIS DODD: It is already. These are costing us dearly here. Iraq is... the mishandling of Iraq has cost $200 billion. That's money not going for health care, for job creation. The insecurities here at home are directly linked to the insecurities internationally. You can't be unmindful of that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Senator. Sorry, but we have to leave it there. Thanks so much both of you.

SEN. CHRIS DODD: Thank you, Margaret.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Thank you.

FOCUS HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

JIM LEHRER: History has some lessons about outside events. Gwen Ifill goes there.

GWEN IFILL: How have events beyond the control of the candidates affected presidential campaigns of the past? For that I'm joined by presidential historian Michael Beschloss; Richard Norton Smith, director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library; and Meena Bose, a professor of American politics at West Point. They call them October surprises, Meena. Is that what we can expect or is that what we've seen in the past?

MEENA BOSE: Well, we've certainly seen different types of October surprises. Ones that come to mind, there were fears in 1980, when American hostages were being held in Iran, there were questions about whether, if the hostages were released right before the election, whether that would affect the results of the race. Ultimately, of course, the hostages were released on Inauguration Day, after Ronald Reagan took the oath of office.

GWEN IFILL: But did the prospect of the possibility of a release affect the outcome? Does anybody know now?

MEENA BOSE: Well, I think you could say that, if it had happened, it would have; but certainly the prospect raised a number of questions on both sides of the campaign, both Carter and Reagan campaigns, trying to figure out how they would respond if that happened.

GWEN IFILL: Richard, can you think of other examples where the October surprise-- if it's not a myth; I'm not going to assume that that actually is a trend-- has affected a campaign from the outside?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Actually, if you look at 1964, not that it was a very close contest, but for one moment the Goldwater people allowed themselves to believe that their issue of moral decay might actually take hold. One night in October, Walter Jenkins, who was a very close aide to President Johnson, was arrested in a YMCA in Washington under compromising circumstances, and for a few hours the Goldwater people thought this might be what they needed. Well, two things then happened, totally unpredictable. One was China-- then Red China-- successfully tested their first nuclear device; and in Moscow the politburo overthrew Nikita Khrushchev. All of a sudden, the world stage was back center stage. People forgot Walter Jenkins.

GWEN IFILL: Michael, is it always the world stage?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: It is. I think you forgot two things also, or didn't forget, but also the World Series and also there was a change of government in London. So it was almost like the planets aligned to help Lyndon Johnson. But these things do happen, and I think you have to have really two things be the case: Number one, it has to be a close election coming in to those last weeks in October; and it also has to be an event that's really at the center of the campaign. For instance, 1968, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon were neck and neck late in October. October 31, five days before Election Day, Lyndon Johnson announced a halt of bombing of North Vietnam. A lot of people angry at Johnson and Humphrey about the war said, "well, maybe peace is coming." And so for a couple of days, Humphrey zoomed in the polls, and then the South Vietnamese government said they would not negotiate, and Humphrey plunged. So a result was that, you know, after the two days, if the election had been held then, Humphrey probably would have won, according to the polls; but it was held two days later; in the end he lost.

GWEN IFILL: When these unpredictable things happen, Michael, are they usually... do they usually benefit the incumbent or the challenger?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: No way of saying because it really is sort of the way that the issue flips, and obviously, you know, the one thing that we hate to mention, but if there was some horrible terrorist event this fall, you can imagine the debate in advance-- you know, would that help President Bush or would it help John Kerry?

GWEN IFILL: How about that? What do you think about that? Do incumbents sit around and hope for... well, I guess if they're behind, they sit around and hope for something.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: In the classic case of 1864, when Abraham Lincoln... I mean, in a time of war, events are even more beyond control of a president. They really rest with the armies in the field, and Lincoln had two lucky breaks, though. He thought in august of that year he was going to lose the election. Then he had two lucky breaks. One was the Chicago convention. The Democratic Convention met. They adopted a peace platform, calling for a negotiated end to the war and repeal of the Emancipation Proclamation. That shocked millions of voters. And then, two days after that convention, General Sherman took Atlanta, and all of a sudden, from the depths of gloom Lincoln and his supporters were seen to be winning the war, and his victory became almost a forgone conclusion.

GWEN IFILL: Now, the interesting thing about Lincoln is it was a domestic war, not a foreign war. So it was a slightly different take on the whole idea about whether foreign policy is what usually switches things. Are there cases where unemployment numbers or other domestic concerns might have switched and affected the outcome or at least the direction of a campaign?

MEENA BOSE: Well, one interesting example that I was thinking about just as we were talking about foreign policy is, in the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were in a very tight race, and in October of 1960 Martin Luther King was arrested during a civil rights protest. John F. Kennedy called Martin Luther King's wife, Coretta Scott King, to express his sorrow that Martin Luther King had been arrested. Richard Nixon considered making a phone call, but then decided he should stay out of the situation altogether. Well, Martin Luther King's father was so touched by Kennedys phone call that he announced that he was going to vote for Kennedy. He said that he hadn't been planning to vote for Kennedy because Kennedy was catholic, but now he was going to change his vote. Did that affect the outcome? Hard to say, but it was less than 120,000 votes.

GWEN IFILL: Lawrence Walsh in 1992 famously indicted members of the Bush administration having to do with Iran-Contra, and at the time, if you were young enough to remember, that was really-- or old enough-- we always remember that seemed like it was going to have a huge effect. Did it?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I think it did. Friday before the 1992 election, 2:20 in the afternoon, it was... this indictment was announced and also some suggestion that George Bush the elder had more to do with Iran-Contra than he had thought. The polls show that Bush the elder had been getting traction on the issue of honesty and integrity against Bill Clinton. At that moment his polls began to go down, and there was not much chance that he would win. We probably saw the same thing in 2000 on the... late in the week before Election Day, there emerged the news that George W. Bush had been arrested for drunk driving in the mid-1970s. The issue that was helping Bush an awful lot was the fact that he would restore honesty and integrity to the White House. What the numbers show is that on that issue this hurt him.

GWEN IFILL: Go ahead.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Yeah, and I can give you the unemployment number... picture. For example, back in 1976 the Ford-Carter race: Ford had basically eliminated a 33-point deficit in the polls. The Harris Poll showed he actually had gone ahead by one point the last weekend. Some unemployment numbers came out, some other economic statistics that indicated the recovery that Ford was boasting of, claiming at least, had at the very least stalled. I think it caused second thoughts in enough voters so that at the very last minute they moved back and Jimmy Carter narrowly won.

GWEN IFILL: The notion of the use of the word "surprise" assumes that it's something that nobody could have predicted, but, you know, the term "wag the dog" has now come to mean it's kind of a manipulated surprise, something which was meant to affect the outcome. How many... in how many cases do these... are these surprises not really surprises at all for people on the inside who are trying to change the outcome, Meena?

MEENA BOSE: Well, that's a good question. I think a lot of times they're surprises in the sense in the sense not of changes in policy, but of announcements of what will come that may not have been directly planned beforehand, but at least there was some thought put into it. I'm thinking of one case in particular, 1952. Dwight D. Eisenhower was in a contest with Adlai Stevenson. Now, this was not a close contest, but nevertheless there were a lot of questions about the Korean War, and October I think it was 24, 1952, Eisenhower announces that he's going to go to Korea. He says, "I shall go to Korea to see for myself what needs to be done." Now, I think that that statement solidified his victory over Stevenson and was in some ways considered an issue that had been considered by the campaign.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: But what you're saying is so right because the term "October Surprise" comes out of 1980, because the Reagan people were worried that Jimmy Carter would commit some kind of October surprise, meaning something that would suddenly cause the hostages to be released and carter to win the election against Ronald Reagan, and now there's a lot of suspicion and there are some people to this day who believe that one version of it is that George Bush the elder, the vice presidential candidate, flew to Paris in an SR-1 spy plane to have a secret meeting with some French people and some Iranians to try to foil this. People are suspicious. But if you talk to Bush people, they feel that in 1992 a partisan special prosecutor caused that news to be announced the Friday before, and also in 2000 the drunk driving.

GWEN IFILL: Richard, we look at all the unpredictables right now, we see what's happening with new bombings in Israel and in Chechnya and in Darfur, and all kinds of possible things which could change the outcome, including our own economic situation, how do presidents, or how have presidents braced for this, or is this something they just have to sit back and take as it comes?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: It goes with the oath of office. You know, Harry Truman said that being president was like riding the tiger, and that is never truer than in a campaign year in a wartime situation, where you have an iffy economy. It goes with the job.

GWEN IFILL: Richard Norton Smith, Meena Bose, Michael Beschloss, thank you all very much.

GUESTS IN UNISON: Thank you.

FOCUS THE RUNNING MATE

JIM LEHRER: This is Dick Cheney night at the Republican National Convention. He will be honored, he will be re-nominated, and then he'll address the delegates.

Kwame Holman has a brief look at the man who is the vice president.

DICK CHENEY: That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

KWAME HOLMAN: For three and a half years, Dick Cheney has quietly shaped policy in the Bush White House. It's a familiar role for Cheney. George W. Bush is the fourth president he has served. Cheney grew up in Casper, Wyoming, where he met and later married his high school sweetheart, the former Lynne Vincent. They have two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary. During the Vietnam War, Cheney received five separate deferments exempting him from military service. After holding a low-level position in the Nixon White House, a young Dick Cheney was tapped by President Gerald Ford to be his chief of staff. After President Ford lost in 1976, Cheney returned to Wyoming and ran for Congress, winning the state's single House seat in 1978. During that race, Cheney suffered the first of several heart attacks.

DICK CHENEY: There are really only two reasons to vote against this proposal.

KWAME HOLMAN: Cheney quickly worked his way into the leadership ranks of the then- minority party in the House, racking up one of the most conservative voting records of any member.

SPOKESMAN: Congressman Dick Cheney of Wyoming.

KWAME HOLMAN: In 1989, the first President Bush named Cheney secretary of defense. Two years later, U.S. Troops went to war, driving Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Cheney left public life after Republicans lost the White House in 1992. He became CEO of Halliburton, a Texas-based energy services company. It made him a millionaire, but his tenure there has proven controversial since. Halliburton has been heavily scrutinized as a prime beneficiary of government contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq. In 2000, Cheney headed the vice presidential search team for George W. Bush and was its surprise choice.

DICK CHENEY: I look forward to working with you, Governor, to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation. Sorry.

KWAME HOLMAN: But controversy also has been a hallmark of Cheney's term. Early on, his taskforce of private sector advisors on energy policy worked in secrecy, bringing criticism that the panel was biased toward the energy industry. A lawsuit ended in a Supreme Court ruling that Cheney did not have to reveal the advisors' names. On Sept. 11, 2001, with the president out of town, Cheney was in charge at the White House. He would spend time sequestered in an "undisclosed location," and away from the president to ensure the line of presidential succession. Later, Cheney was a strong advocate for the invasion of Iraq.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

KWAME HOLMAN: No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. And on the question of Iraqs involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the vice president has said it remains to be seen whether Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida cooperated.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: There's clearly been a relationship. There's a separate question. The separate question is, was Iraq involved with al-Qaida in the attack on 9/11?

SPOKESPERSON: Was Iraq involved?

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: We don't know.

KWAME HOLMAN: The 9/11 Commission report said Iraq played no collaborative role in the attacks.

SPOKESPERSON: I would like to know, sir...

KWAME HOLMAN: Cheney has been a strong voice for administration policies with one prominent exception: He opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. My general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free... ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

KWAME HOLMAN: On the campaign trail this year, Cheney has taken on the time-honored role for vice presidents, attacking the challengers.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: These are not times for leaders who shift with the political winds... (applause) ...saying one thing one day and another the next. And that brings to mind our opponents in this campaign.

KWAME HOLMAN: But the vice president also has tried to show a lighter side.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Somebody said to me the other day that Sen. Edwards got picked because he's sexy, good- looking, charming. I said, "How do you think I got this job?" (Laughter and applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: Dick Cheney will make the case later tonight that he and the president should keep their jobs.

JIM LEHRER: And now Vice President Cheney by the numbers, and to Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: And once again I'm joined by our man with the numbers: Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

Excuse me, Andy, (coughing) forgive me. When you look at your polls and others, what is the public's impression and image of Vice President Cheney?

ANDREW KOHUT: Vice President Cheney has become an unpopular vice president. In our poll 48 percent in August said they favorable view of him; 42 percent unfavorable view. And other polls have his ratings even lower.

TERENCE SMITH: And how did that compare with what they thought of him when he first came into office?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, he started -- very popular. He started 65 percent popular favorable, 18 percent unfavorable. He was very popular in the last campaign. In fact he pretty much outpolled Sen. Lieberman throughout the campaign and in the post mortems of that election. So this is a transformation of his image.

TERENCE SMITH: Quite a drop. I mean, is there a historical parallel for that sort of change in the course of a single administration?

ANDREW KOHUT: If you look at other vice presidents going all the way back to Nixon, at this time at the end of the first term they generally poll about 60 percent, with the only exception being Dan Quayle who was never very popular. So Cheney, Vice President Cheney is the only vice president to really come down in public esteem over the course of this first term and it's been quite a drop.

TERENCE SMITH: You've referred to him, Cheney, as the Velcro vice president. What do you mean by that?

ANDREW KOHUT: He's a lightning rod for a lot of criticisms of Bush administration policies that seem to stick him. He's considered a Bush hawk on Iraq, the Halliburton controversies have hurt his image. And he's seen as an ultraconservative, seen as much more conservative than the average voter.

TERENCE SMITH: Among women, is there a difference? Women and men when they look at....

ANDREW KOHUT: There's a very big gender gap. Vice President Cheney's image has fallen by over 20 points among women and much less among men and importantly some very significant political changes. When he took office, moderate and conservative Democrats who the Republicans hoped to woo from Sen. Kerry had a 55 percent positive view, favorable view of him. Today that number is 18 percent among this potential swing constituency. That is a considerable change in opinion.

TERENCE SMITH: That seems huge. What would explain that particularly among women if their view has changed so sharply?

ANDREW KOHUT: A lot of it Iraq. I mean, even in mid '03 Vice President Cheney's favorable ratings were up in the 60s. And as opinion has shifted against the decision to go to war especially among women, he's been very much criticized.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. But at the same time he's a source of strength for the ticket with another group.

ANDREW KOHUT: He gets a 92 percent favorable rating from conservative Republicans. Only the president gets a better rating. He gets a 98 percent favorable rating. So the two of them are the apple... they are big stuff to the conservative Republicans.

TERENCE SMITH: Contrast that image with what your polling shows the public feels about John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential candidate.

ANDREW KOHUT: Oddly enough of the four men or curiously enough of the four men on the ticket, Edwards has a 62 percent favorable rating, the most favorable rating of the four. He's obviously the least known. And we're going to have quite a study in contrasts when the two get to debate. You have an inexperienced but popular candidate who the voters don't know much about. Then you have an experienced vice president who has become very unpopular.

TERENCE SMITH: Fascinating. Andy Kohut, thank you very much. Jim?

FOUCS VOICES FROM THE FLOOR

JIM LEHRER: Thank you, Terry. Next, a campaign issue that involves an event that happened more than 30 years ago: The Vietnam War. Ray Suarez spoke to some convention delegates about that earlier today.

RAY SUAREZ: Jim, I spoke to delegates from states that may end up deciding the 2004 presidential race. States like Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania. The delegates differed over whether to be surprised or not that a war over almost 30 years can still provoke furious debate. But they were unanimous in concluding that once Sen. Kerry made Vietnam a centerpiece of his appeal, his record there was fair game.

KEN DAVIS: I guess I am surprised, but, of course, it was the other candidate who raised the issue initially in his campaign, and I think it's a fair opportunity to go back and evaluate that. I was a young man working on Capitol Hill at the time of the Vietnam War, and I remember the passions and the debates that went on. I think, frankly, it will go on for a long time after this. I don't think the wounds have ever healed on Vietnam, and I think it's unfortunate that it came back, but, again, it was Mr. Kerry who raised the issue, and I think he can't be surprised that others would pick it up.

RAY SUAREZ: Are you surprised to hear the war still being discussed in this hot, passionate way?

GLENDA BRION: Well, I think Kerry has chosen to make that a topic for himself and about himself, and if either he or his campaign advisers have done that... so once you choose to do that, then you open up the door for it to become a discussion.

RAY SUAREZ: So it's fair game?

RAY SUAREZ: So its fair game then?

NANCY BRIGGS: We thought it had been dropped. I thought that was in the past. We're looking to the future and protecting ourselves in the future from our threat now.

ALAN DOTY: Well, I was there. And I've got to tell you, as a Vietnam veteran I haven't forgiven Kerry, and that is probably the one thing that could remove me from being Republican. If that man was a Republican, I'd have to become a Democrat. I could not support that man, no way, no shape, no form, and I think almost every Vietnam veteran who served there and come home was called a baby killer or a rapist or was spit on, and I don't think today's veterans have a clue how little respect the Vietnam veterans got when we came back, you know, and a big chunk of that was his fault.

RAY SUAREZ: I'm asking people about how, 30 years after the fall of Saigon, we're once again engaged in a passionate conversation about Vietnam. Does it surprise you?

PETER SECCHIA: Well, we're not engaged in a passionate conversation about Vietnam. We're engaged in a passionate conversation of truth. There's a difference.

RAY SUAREZ: Explain the difference.

PETER SECCHIA: Well, one guy says, "I'm reporting for duty; I'm a hero," and someone else is saying, "no, he wasn't; he didn't report for duty; he shirked his duty, and he isn't a hero." I don't know who is right, but that's the discussion. The discussion is over truth. I haven't heard any discussion over the Vietcong or the fall of the government of South Vietnam. I havent heard that. We're not discussing that. We're discussing personal activity during Vietnam, personal recollection. That's different.

RAY SUAREZ: And that last speaker, a Michigan delegate, is a Bush pioneer, a major fund- raiser for the president and a Marine Corps veteran. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Thank you, Ray.

FOCUS SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

What's your reading, David, about this Vietnam issue? Does it have serious legs as far as John Kerry is concerned?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I think it does. The polls show clearly the Kerry campaign stagnated a couple weeks ago, when it first started. And it's been sort of dropping ever since, or slightly anyway. And I think there are a couple issues here. First, the '71 testimony, which a lot of veterans feel offended by. I frankly don't think that's broad-ranging. I don't think younger people particularly have a view one way or the other. But then the deeper issue is not about Vietnam, it's about authenticity. I happen to think the most damaging thing that's happened to the Kerry campaign is when they said that he would have voted for the war in Iraq even knowing what he knows now. That seemed to many people artificial and it seemed to people over-clever. And I think coming into this whole tradition, where a lot of people have doubted Kerry's authenticity, a lot of the debate about Vietnam has fed into that. I have trouble believing without Kerry's reputation as a flip- flopper anybody would be caring-- aside from these 200 veterans who dispute him-- anybody else would be caring about this issue.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, whatever you think about the issue itself, there's been a lot of growing criticism about the way John Kerry has defended himself from this. This has been going on now for two or three weeks. As David said, it's hurt him. The criticism is, "hey, he should have fought back and done something differently." How do you read that?

MARK SHIELDS: I think you could certainly make the case, Jim, that they did not respond forcefully and quickly enough. They weren't sure whom to go after. But what's remarkable about this as an issue is this is a war that took 58,135 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Asian lives. We had four American presidents that could not adequately or successfully explain, defend or prosecute that war. It's not surprising it's still an open wound politically. You would have thought the wound would have been between those who did go and those who didn't, because it became an American... John McCain sat here the other night; it was a war fought not by the privileged or the well off-- quite frankly they figured out ways not to go-- and we saw in this hall the other night something absolutely remarkable. We saw mock purple hearts on some Republican delegates.

JIM LEHRER: Kind of a put-down of Kerry.

MARK SHIELDS: And a put-down of the purple heart. And Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker, was asked about this. He said, "weren't you somewhat put off by this?" I mean Karl Rove, in fact, disassociated himself, condemned it. He said, "No, no, I thought it was funny." So it's an intriguing, intriguing issue to me. The reality, I think, for Kerry is that-- and I think David's absolutely right on one crucial point-- that is, Kerry should have, in my judgment, said, "yes, I would have voted against the war in Iraq." I mean, there is enough information and intelligence, there was no connection between al-Qaida-- the president said that-- there was no involvement of Saddam and 9/11, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Wouldn't you vote against it? Geez, I hope the hell he would have voted against it. And I think for fear of being accused of being a flip-flopper, because that charge had been leveled earlier, there was a sense, "well, if I say that now, do I now look like a flip- flopper?" I think he stuck to it.

JIM LEHRER: So the Vietnam thing plays off of that.

DAVID BROOKS: I think it's all part of Iraq. It's not about Vietnam, but Iraq and reactions to it. I personally think if John Kerry was against the war, he'd be five points ahead or ten points ahead.

MARK SHIELDS: Ten points ahead.

JIM LEHRER: Is that right? Both of you think that.

DAVID BROOKS: Because that's the debate the country wants to have. George Bush passionately argues for the war. The Democratic Party can't passionately argue his case because he's somewhere where he can't figure it out.

MARK SHIELDS: John Kerry can make the case I mean, there's nobody who can be an anti-war candidate more effectively than someone who has faced combat and bears the scars of battle. I mean, when Dwight Eisenhower said, "I want to warn against a military industrial complex" that wasn't some limp-wristed State Department alumnus or whatever, or think-tanker; this was a guy who had sent Americans into battle in the most devastating experience militarily that the country or the world had ever known in World War II, and been the winning general in it. And I mean, for John Kerry now to stand up there and say, "let me tell you why I'm against this war, and why I wouldn't fight it, and how I'm going to get you out of it, and how I'm going to make America stronger" I think he has the credentials to do it.

DAVID BROOKS: That wouldn't be the John Kerry we've known for 20 years because he has always tried to not offend anybody on either side. That's been his problem. To me the voters of Iowa, when they made the decision, "we're going to go with somebody who is electable," they should have gone with their guts. And that's the lesson of politics: Go with your guts because you might as well. You don't know what's going to happen down the line.

JIM LEHRER: Tonight Dick Cheney will be heard and re-nominated, et cetera. You heard what the numbers are from Andy Kohut and, et cetera, on Cheney. What's your view of Cheney now, in terms of his negatives and his positives vis- -vis November?

DAVID BROOKS: Politically, when he speaks, very... he's not a guy who has buffed his image. I wish he would have a little more. I think he'll speak pretty well. He spoke very well four years ago. He spoke quite well in the debates against Joe Lieberman. He's capable of buffing his image. The administration's attitude toward the press is quite often hostile. They're the bad guys. And Dick Cheney has proved his mettle to the administration by saying, "I'm not worried about my reputation. Im going to give the press the back of my hand. I'm going to serve the president and give the press the back of my hand. I'm going to take all the heat." It's hurt his popularity, but it's proved his loyalty to the president. I think, in truth, inside the administration there are a number of issues-- Libya, the Pakistani proliferation-- where he has been very useful. But it's that adversarial attitude towards the press which has prevented him from ever appearing like a nice guy.

JIM LEHRER: What's your readout on Dick Cheney?

MARK SHIELDS: Dick Cheney is a mystery to me. It's a mystery, first of all, that he's on the ticket in 2004. I mean, he was a great source of strength and political help to George Bush, and I think substantive help to George Bush, who had no...

JIM LEHRER: In 2000 he was.

MARK SHIELDS: In 2000. Next to no Washington experience -- he gave gravitas and legitimacy and a whole area where Bush was a total novice, a neophyte in foreign policy and military security, and so dick Cheney brought that. And dick Cheney, you heard Andy Kohut, it was at 65 percent approval. He was at 65 percent approval a year ago. It really is only in the last year. But he's a different figure, Jim. Maybe it's a consequence of Washington. When dick Cheney was on Capitol Hill as a member of Congress, conservative Republican of Wyoming, he had friends across the aisle. I mean, he and Tom Foley, the Democratic speaker of the House, were good friends. They'd see each other socially and they would kid with each other. I don't think dick Cheney-- I've checked on this-- I don't know a single Democrat on the Hill who has had any relations with Dick Cheney. Maybe Zell Miller, who is going to speak tonight.

JIM LEHRER: What about Zell Miller? What do you think of him as a choice for the keynote address tonight, David?

DAVID BROOKS: A good choice. We'll see how he does, but... this has been a party, this was a party that a generation ago was way behind the Democratic Party in terms of how many people were Republicans versus how many people were Democrats. This is a party that's been growing while the Democratic Party has been shrinking. So this is a party that is growing because people like Zell Miller have joined the party. So he represents people who are joining the Republican Party. He joined because he first sided with President Bush on education policy. He was, as governor, they worked together on education. Then he joined on taxes. Then he joined on homeland security. So it's a series of issues drew him closer and closer to Bush.-- Bush cultivated the relationship. So he symbolizes people who have joined the party. So he's a good person for that.

JIM LEHRER: I would think his symbol would be different within the Democratic Party, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: If you want to talk about the old Zell, Zell Miller was a fellow who campaigned for the most liberal member of the House, John Lewis, a bruised and battered and honored veteran of the civil rights movement. I mean, he was hospitalized at Selma, and at the same time a man pledging to repeal George's --Georgia's anti-sodomy laws, pledging to preserve pro-choice in Georgia. I mean, these are things that are not going to be mentioned here tonight, I can assure you. But, you know, Zell is a guy who has had several incarnations. I mean, he came to prominence, you recall, as the chief of staff to Lester Maddox, the last segregationist governor of Georgia. Then of course as governor he tried to knock the confederate symbol out of the Georgia flag. So he's a man who has brought great passion to positions. You might call him a flip- flopper, but... ( laughter )

JIM LEHRER: What an interesting phrase. Look, we've touched on several things, and we'll touch on them again. We'll continue all of these dialogues and the convention coverage itself. Thank you.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: But before we go now, the other non-convention news today, militants in Iraq released seven foreign truck drivers they'd kidnapped in mid-July. The three Indians, three Kenyans and an Egyptian, were freed when their employer in Kuwait paid half a million dollars in ransom. Gunmen tried to kill Ahmed Chalabi today as he drove from Najaf to Baghdad. He escaped injury, but two of his bodyguards were killed. Chalabi was a key U.S. ally before turning vocal critic of U.S. policy. He went on to Baghdad today for the opening of the new national council. That group will monitor the interim government and make ready for elections next year. The U.S. military charged an army sergeant today with prisoner abuse in Afghanistan. He's accused in the deaths of two prisoners in December of 2002. The Washington Post reported as many as 26 U.S. soldiers could face charges once the investigation is completed. In economic news, U.S. manufacturing expanded in August for the 15th month in a row. A business research group reported that today. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost five points to close at 10,168. The NASDAQ rose 12 points to close at 1850. We'll see you again at 8:00 P.M. Eastern time with our live coverage of the Republican Convention here in New York, then again here at our regular NewsHour time tomorrow evening. We also have further convention coverage online. For now, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.