The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The Ferraro-Bush debate was the main news topic of this day as the partisans and the pundits sought to assess victory and impact. Also, an apparent IRA assassination attempt on British Prime Minister Thatcher left four dead and 30 injured, but Mrs. Thatcher unharmed. And a new government figure shows inflation still nowhere to be seen on the immediate economic horizon. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: The debate aftermath is one of our principal focus stories tonight. We look at the reactions through the eyes of voters in Chicago and through those of the stand-ins for the two opponents during debate rehearsals. We also see how the first debate is tickling the fancy of American cartoonists. On a major campaign topic, Central America, we have a documentary report and an issue debate. And we close with an essay noting the death of a famous highway, Route 66.

LEHRER: Only the devoted and the partisan made clean, clear claims today about last night's vice presidential debate, Vice President Bush's people saying their man was the decisive winner, Congresswoman Ferraro's saying the same about her. The polls -- instant ones by ABC News and USA Today -- both gave the nod by different margins to Bush; so did a panel of debate experts put together by the Associated Press. But no one, not even the most partisan from either side, talked of crushing defeat or victory, and privately most used the word "draw" and talked about the main event coming a week from Sunday in Kansas City -- the second Reagan-Mondale debate. Vice President Bush's own reaction to the debate came while he was campaigning in Elizabeth, New Jersey, among friendly members of the Longshoreman's and Teamsters Unions.

Vice Pres. GEORGE BUSH: And you know, just a quick word about that debate. There are a lot of athletes around this crowd. I can tell from looking. And adrenalin gets flowing when you're out there, but boy I'm glad that thing's over. I don't need any more of that. But it's -- I think it worked out -- I think it worked out well. I -- but that there is -- I hope you saw a difference. There is a difference. One side can knock America all they want; they can talk about gloom and doom all they want, but I wish they could come right here and see the spirit of the Teamsters and of the ILA and of the NMU -- upbeat about our country, proud to be Americans. You people have stood for us for a long, long time.

LEHRER: Congresswoman Ferraro and her leader/running mate Walter Mondale campaigned together in Madison, Wisconsin, today. Mr. Mondale attacked Mr. Bush for his claim last night that Mondale-Ferraro believe the U.S. servicemen who died in Lebanon died in shame.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: For somebody to suggest, as our opponents have, that these men die in shame, they had better not tell their parents of these young Marines. Now, we all make mistakes in campaigns, but that one is unpardonable. Mr. Bush, we love this country as much as you do. Mr. Bush, we honor our men and women who died in the service of our country, and we grieve for their families as much as you do. Mr. Bush, apologize, today, for that remark. Ladies and gentlemen, the fighter from Philly, the winner and new champion, the next vice president of the United States, Gerry Ferraro.

GERALDINE FERRARO, Democratic vice presidential candidate: Did we win the debate last night? Did Fritz Mondale beat Ronald Reagan on Sunday? Are we going to win in November? Three out of three ain't bad. In the last week four candidates for president and vice president have debated, and I know two things for sure: I beat George Bush and George Such [sic] beat Ronald Reagan.

LEHRER: Both Mr. Bush and President Reagan were later offered opportunities by reporters to apologize or take back the "shame" statement. Both declined. Mr. Reagan was campaigning by train in Iowa today, riding in the same railroad car Harry Truman used in 1948. He also used tough, Truman-like language to describe his opponent, Walter Mondale.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: You know, he's done a lot of talking lately about that there's a new and an older Reagan. And he doesn't mean my age when he's talking that. He means that the old Reagan said things differently than the new Reagan is saying. Well, the old Mondale said that tightening the budget and reducing deficits would worsen the recession. The new Mondale thinks higher taxes lead to a healthy economy. The old Mondale publicly supported Jimmy Carter's wrongheaded grain embargo, and the new Mondale claims he opposed it privately. Awfull -- privately. No one else ever heard him. The old Mondale sponsored National Bible Week in the United States Senate. I think that's fine. The new Walter Mondale says there's too much religion in politics. The old Mondale called the space shuttle a horrible waste, a space extravaganza and led the fight to kill it in the Senate. The new Mondale praises American technological achievement. Just when you're beginning to lose faith, you find there is some constancy. The old Mondale increased your taxes and the new Mondale will increase them again.

MacNEIL: We'll be returning to the debate story presently. The Congress finally adjourned today after 11 days of substantive debate and parliamentary maneuvering to fund the federal government for the year that began October 1st. The final act needed dramatic action by Republican Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker. Late last night the Senate defeated a bill needed to increase the federal borrowing or debt limit by $251 billion. Senator Baker called back by Air Force jet and commercial airliner nearly two dozen Republican senators who'd left town thinking the measure would be passed without a roll call vote. When he had enough votes back in the Capitol, Baker called the roll. The measure passed 37 to 30 and went to President Reagan for signature. Within a few minutes, both houses adjourned until January. There is no television ins the Senate. This was the scene in the House.

Rep. THOMAS FOLEY, (D) Washington, Speaker Pro-Tem: The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.

Rep. DALE KILDEE, (D) Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now stand adjourned sine die, or, as the Romans would say, sine die.

Rep. FOLEY: The question is on the motion. Members in favor will say aye, those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And, in accordance with House Concurrent Resolution 377 as amended, the chair declares the second session of the 98th Congress adjourned sine die.

MacNEIL: In the Senate this was the last hurrah for Howard Baker or, as he put it, "the last vote of my career." The Senator is not seeking re-election, and his retirement was applauded by members os the floor, despite a Senate rule against applause.

Sen. HOWARD BAKER, (R) Tennessee: I count my service in the Senate as the high point of my life and will always do so. I will never regret a single day of service in the Senate, but after 18 years for me, I want to move back to civilian status and to do some other things. The Senate is the greatest institution for public government in the country and the world, and I think, frankly, it is growing in prestige and stature, and I think it will continue to do so in the years ahead. But for my part I am pleased for whatever contribution I've been able to make, but I look forward to continuing in other fields, and I look forward to a little more time for myself to sort out my thoughts, travel, to make sure I understand what's going on in the country and around the world, and to spend some more time with my family.

MacNEIL: Applsause for Senator Baker, but not much applause for the procedures that caused Congress this budget hang-up. Departing members were blunt.

Sen. PATRICK LEAHY, (D) Vermont: I said four days ago, "Free the Senate 100." We've finally done it -- and a whole lot of other people. We're going home, and the country's probably a lot better off.

Sen. LLOYD BENTSEN, (D) Texas: Well, and I think the people saw a very frustrated Congress this time, and it's obvious that the rules of the Congress have to be modernized to make it a more effective institution. And I think the time has long passed for that. I hope that in the new session next year that that'll be getting a top priority.

Sen. PETE WILSON, (R) California: I think there are two things that have made this a very sorry spectacle. One is a great deal of needless partisanship, and the other -- Senator Garn is absolutely right -- it is imperative that we get rules changes.

MacNEIL: As the Congress adjourned after raising the debt ceiling, the Reagan administration got two pieces of good economic news. The Labor Department reported that wholesale prices declined for the second month in a row. The September drop of 0.2% followed an August decline of 0.1%. It meant that wholesale price inflation has been running at 1.9% for the year. The Commerce Department reported today that retail sales were up 1.6% in September, the best rise in five months. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said that President Reagan could face voters "riding the crest of good economic news." Jim?

LEHRER: The major news from abroad today is about a bombing and a court ruling.

In The Hague, Netherlands, the World Court drew a new ocean boundary between the United States and Canada in the resources-rich Georges Bank area. The 30,000-square-mile area has been in dispute for years; under today's ruling, part of the area would be Canadian, the other American. World Court decisions are not binding, however, and there was no immediate word on how the two countries will respond.

The bombing story is from Brighton, England, a resort city on the sea where Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party is holding its annual convention. Early this morning a bomb exploded in the bathroom of Mrs. Thatcher's hotel suite. She was not hurt, but four persons died and 30 others were injured. The Irish Republican Army claimed credit. Don Lang of Visnews reports.

DON LANG, Visnews [voice-over]: The clear light of day showed the full extent of the damage, a gaping hole where the building had collapsed into a pile of rubble in the foyer. From time to time the rescuers would pause and listen for survivors. Then the painful job of searching each room and removing the debris by hand would resume. Most of the injured bore terrible injuries. For P. C. Richard Smith it was probably his initial confusion that saved his life.

Police Constable RICHARD SMITH, bombing victim: Well, face it, that all I can remember is a loud bang, thinking it was towards Metropole, started walking down the steps of the Grand, and there was a shower of glass. Something hit me on the head.

LANG [voice-over]: Later in the morning Mrs. Thatcher too went to the hospital. Predictably, and almost too late, she was surrounded by heavy police protection. Meanwhile, the Conservative conference went on, almost as planned. It opened with two minutes' silence. Then Mrs. Thatcher spoke to them with the resolve that has typified Tory reaction to the bombing.

MARGARET THATCHER, British Prime Minister: -- and the fact that we are gathered here now, shocked but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.

LANG [voice-over]: And while she was speaking they were pulling down what was left of the building's facade to make it safe. Professional demolition men say the bombers were either lucky or building experts to have done so much damage with just one bomb. This is Don Lang reporting from London.

MacNEIL: That's the principal news of the day. Now we're going to go back to the Ferraro-Bush debate story and examine the reaction in more detail. And we start with a report from correspondent Elizabeth Brackett in Chicago. Vice Presidential Debate: A Neighborhood Watches

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: It was a mixed group that gathered in this living room on the North Side of Chicago to watch last night's debate between George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro. Some Republicans, some Democrats, and some still on the fence. When it was over there were no new converts to either side, but there was agreement that both candidates had done what they had to do.

JOANNE CICCHELLI: He is certainly a known person.We expected him to be well-informed on affairs. And he spoke, I think, everyone though, well. But she really -- she had to make a show, and I think -- show is the wrong word. She had to be impressive and she was.

BRACKETT: Did you think that Geraldine Ferraro's understanding of foreign affairs, of nuclear disarmament, was in enough depth to have her become a vice president or a president?

GEORGE THRUSH: She came across, I should say to me at least, as being somewhat naive on some issues, specifically the disarmament issue, where she suggested that all you needed was a strong-willed administration. And I certainly don't agree.

KAREN HOWELL: I was very impressed with the amount of effort she's taken to educate herself on it, and I was impressed with her sincerity.

TOM HOWELL: I think she appeared relatively naive, but I wouldn't say that in a way that indicts her or says she's not qualified to be vice president. She appeared to me to be a very qualified candidate. It seemed to me that on that particular issue I liked George Bush's answer to the question better than hers.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: It was foreign affairs that brought the hottest exchange between the candidates.

Vice Pres. BUSH: But let me help you with the difference, Ms. Ferraro, between Iran and the embassy in Lebanon. Iran, we were held by a foreign government.

Rep. FERRARO: Let me just say, first of all, that I almost resent, Vice President Bush, your patronizing attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy.

BRACKETT: You almost got the feeling that she had been waiting for that opportunity.

MARY THRUSH: She was going to raise the "are you condescending to me because I'm a woman or treating me that way" whether it came up or not.

Ms. CICCHELLI: I thought that his remark was outrageous and I was extremely pleased that she came back like that. I don't see how anyone could not have.

BRACKETT: On the issue of abortion and on the issue of separation of church and state, who do you think made their case the best?

Ms. THRUSH: On those general principles -- and I'm not getting into abortion; I say that I'm talking about just, just the church -- I don't think the stands are really appreciably different.

MARY DISSER: I think their stands are very different. I think George Bush did a good job tonight of playing down the administration's ideas, and I think that was his role tonight. But I think maybe in that way he did a better job because he sort of neutralized that issue.

Mr. HOWELL: I am, I think, not too uncommon in tending to like the Republicans' economic platform and the Democrats' social platform. I believe strongly that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she wants to. I had harbored a hope that that's the way George Bush felt in his heart, too, and he said tonight in front of the world that he doesn't.

BRACKETT: There was the perception that George Bush would have a very difficult time with this debate with "how do you handle a woman"? How do you think he did on that score?

Ms. THRUSH: I think he treated her as an equal --.

Ms. CICCHELLI: -- and I wasn't sure he would be able to do that, not because of his attitude towards women, just because of his basic personality.

MIKE GUERRIERI: Tonight he was wound up. He was well-coached, I thought. But I thought that was probably in response to what happened Sunday night when Reagan obviously wasn't, or else something was happening to him while he was speaking.

BRACKETT: Did anyone change their ideas significantly tonight about either candidate?

Mr. GUERRIERI: I thought both were more qualified to be president than I had previously thought.

Ms. THRUSH: We're not just electing a vice president. We're electing a potential president -- "heartbeat away" is the coined phrase. I don't think to assume the position of president of the United States, she does have an adequate depth.

Ms. DISSER: I think she showed herself to be really in command of the issues and articulate, cool, strong. I was very, very impressed and real pleased to see how she did.

BRACKETT: But you were a supporter anyway?

Ms. DISSER: But I was a supporter, but I think there are a lot of people here who aren't her supporters have said the same thing tonight.

Mr. HOWELL: Well, I agree with that, but in response to your question I don't think either party won. I'd have to rate it a draw. The Stand-ins Stand Out: More Debate Reaction

LEHRER: That report by Elizabeth Brackett. Now to some other reaction from two persons who played most unusual and unique rules in last night's debate. Judy Woodruff has that. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, two people who played a critical role in the preparations for last night's debate were the stand-ins the candidates rehearsed for the debate with. We are fortunate to have both of them with us tonight. First, Republican Congresswoman Lynn Martin of Illinois, who stood in the role of Ms. Ferraro during Vice President Bush's debatepreparation.She joins us tonight from Chicago. And Robert Barnett, a Washington attorney, a Democrat, who stood in the role of Mr. Bush during Ms. Ferraro's rehearsals for the debate. Let's just start out, both of you. The polls are saying that Mr. Bush won, and yet we're hearing a lot of comments that leads us to believe, from this report we just saw from Chicago, that both candidates really came out doing well. What do you two think? Mr. Barnett?

ROBERT BARNETT: It's fascinating, because I've obviously heard about the polls. I talked to a lot of people today -- admittedly not a scientific sample, but overwhelmingly --

WOODRUFF: I won't expect either one of you to be non-partisan in this anyway.

Mr. BARNETT: Oh, of course, and I'm sure neither of us will be. Overwhelmingly people felt, I thought, that Gerry Ferraro won. And I think the greatest evidence was the event today in Madison, Wisconsin, where Fritz Mondale and Gerry Ferraro appeared on the State Capitol. I spoke to someone who was there, and apparently you could not see beyond the people. There were anywhere from 30- to 40,000 people there. There is a new enthusiasm in the campaign. The Mondale-Ferraro ticket is generating enthusiasm --

WOODRUFF: Building on what the vice-presidential --

Mr. BARNETT: Absolutely. The momentum that started last Sunday has continued, and last night really helped it, in our view.

WOODRUFF: Miss Martin, who do you think won?

Rep. LYNN MARTIN: Well, I am going to try to be fairly objective, ex-government teacher here. Both of them won. Gerry Ferraro, because she had to prove that she could stand coolly under pressure, and she did; and Vice President Bush, because he had to prove not only was he the vice president but a superb candidate. Now, I'm going to argue that the polls are correct, and I don't think you can judge a rally -- a Reagan-Bush rally can pull out a lot of people too, but most of them, frankly, are going to be Reagan-Bush people. Same thing in a Ferraro-Mondale rally. I think what happened is that, foreign affairs overall, that George Bush, his experience showed. That doesn't denigrate Representative Ferraro, by the way, and I think she did herself proud. She had to hit -- and we're using too many sports -- I'm starting to feel like the -- you know, like the Coliseum and the gladiators, and they're two very good, competent people. She had to do even better to dominate the polls because Vice President Bush is so ahead. And that she did not do. But she did well. Neither side has to be ashamed: frankly, I was quite pleased, and I think the happiness of the Reagan-Bush people is exemplified in the polls. But even if you said George Bush did well, you didn't say Gerry Ferraro blew it. She did not; she did fine, too.

WOODRUFF: Let me ask you both about style. Lots have been today about how unusually subdued Ms. Ferraro seemed, that she looked down a lot. Did you expect that from the rehearsal?

Mr. BARNETT: I heard that too, today. Let me see how I can explain it. I think I can. Most people prior to three, four months ago didn't know much about Gerry Ferraro -- may have heard her name but hadn't seen her. Over the past four months they've seen on the evening news shows little snippets -- five seconds, 10 seconds, generally the punch line or the applause line or the criticism of President Reagan. And through this mosaic they've gotten this impression that she somehow is that person.The Gerry Ferraro -- the real Gerry Ferraro that you saw last night -- thoughtful, intelligent, competent, measured --

WOODRUFF: That's the real Gerry Ferraro.

Mr. BARNETT: That's the real Gerry Ferraro --

WOODRUFF: Not the more fired up --

Mr. BARNETT: There's also a sense of humor and there's also an ability to say what she thinks and to fight back when it's required and be tough, but I think people were so surprised because what they saw last night was different than those little snippets, but, as I think all of us know, those little snippets are not representative.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Martin --

Rep. MARTIN: Well, I just would comment, I've worked with Gerry, and I think they slowed her down a little too much. As a Republican I'm pleased. I think she does have a nice sense of humor, and I think there's a liveliness to what had been an incredibly bland, dull Mondale campaign.I think it was slowed down. But I also was told, and I don't know if this is true, that she debated once yesterday in the morning. Boy, that's an awful lot to ask of a person to, you know, get the emotions up twice.

WOODRUFF: How much were you all, as stand-ins --

Mr. BARNETT: I don't know who told her that, but it's wrong.

WOODRUFF: That's not true.

Rep. MARTIN: Oh, good.

WOODRUFF: How much were you all as stand-ins able to really anticipate what the other guy was going to say last night?

Mr. BARNETT: From my point of view it was very easy. We were amazed -- I put together a George Bush briefing book based on his statements, his speeches, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee materials and all, and I was --

WOODRUFF: Did you watch tapes of him?

Mr. BARNETT: I watched tapes of him, put together transcripts of that. And I would say 90% of what he did last night came right out of the Republican National Committee road. Not many surprises from our point of view. He basically took the Reagan line.

WOODRUFF: What do you do when you're a stand-in? Do you -- I mean, do you actually use some of his phrases? Do you try to sound like him? I mean --

Mr. BARNETT: I tried to resist becoming the Rich Little of American politics. I wasn't doing an impersonation. I was simply saying what I thought he would say. George Bush really has a style, and that style, I think you saw in the debate last night, sometimes it was a little overwhelming, for my taste anyway. But we tried to duplicate it. We tried to let Congresswoman Ferraro see what she was going to see. And I think we succeeded.

WOODRUFF: Miss Martin, how did you get ready? How did Mr. Bush get in the right frame of mind? I guess so many people were looking at him to see how he was going to deal with a woman. How conscious were you all going into the debate of that, and what advice did you give him in that?

Rep. MARTIN: I really didn't give him advice. We had debated a number of times, and so if there had been that problem -- and, frankly, I never noticed it -- it certainly would have been over. I don't think -- you know, I didn't try to put on a Queens accent, and I don't know if my counterpoint had this, but once in awhile last night I even found that I was expecting Gerry to say something, and not in the sense of rooting, but okay, here's -- you know, here's the way to go through it. And I -- so I think it's an interesting thing to do because you identify with both candidates. I think what Vice President Bush did was debate an opponent and being; a man or woman didn't enter.

Mr. BARNETT: Congressowman Martin, you'll be interested to know I had the same experience.

Rep. MARTIN: Really. Isn't it just amazing?

WOODRUFF: Did she rehearse -- one last question. Did she rehearse the line when he started to tell her about the Middle East and she said, "I don't want you to --

Mr. BARNETT: Judy, we talked about a lot of things in those rehearsals. We went over -- I can stand her and tell you honestly and truthfully that was not rehearsed. That was truthful. It came right out of her. She felt that he was being patronizing and she said so. That was not rehearsed.

Rep. MARTIN: I believe that, but I have to tell you that I used the same line on the Vice President because I thought it would come up during the debate.

WOODRUFF: All right. That's wonderful. Thank you, Lynn Martin, Congresswoman Martin and Robert Barnett for being with us. Jim?

LEHRER: Okay. On matters of substance there were many differences on display last night, few more so than on the issue of Central America policy.

Vice Pres. BUSH: We don't like it, frankly, when Nicaragua exports its revolution or serves as a conduit for supplies coming in from such democracies as North Korea, Bulgaria, the Soviet Union and Cuba, to try to destabilize El Salvador. Yes, we're concerned about that because we want to see this trend towards democracy continue. There have been something like 13 countries since we've come in move toward the democratic route.

Rep. FERRARO: Quite frankly, now what is being done by this administration is an Americanizing of a regional conflict. This administration seems almost befuddled by the fact that Nicaragua is moving to participate in the Contadora process, and El Salvador, through its President Duarte, is reaching out to the guerrillas in order to negotiate a peace. What Fritz Mondale and I feel about the situation down there is that what you do is you deal first through negotiation; that force is not a first resort. It's certainly a last resort in any instance. Issue and Debate: Central America

MacNEIL: That exchange between the vice presidential candidates echoes a similar debate that's run almost throughout the first Reagan term. It's pitted the White House against congressional Democrats over U.S. military aid to El Salvador, covert support for the contras in Nicaragua and U.S. policy towards Central America in general. We turn now to what we call an issue and debate segment, part of our extended coverage of the political race. We begin with a background report by correspondent Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: From the very beginning the Reagan administration viewed political violence in Central America as part of the larger East-West global conflict. The administration's basic assumptions and policy goals have changed very little in the four years President Reagan's been in office. The policy is to stop what the administration views as communist aggression in El Salvador and to put an end to Cuban and Soviet influence in Nicaragua.

Pres. REAGAN [May 9, 1984]: What we see in El Salvador is an attempt to destabilize the entire region and eventually move chaos and anarchy toward the American border. As the national bipartisan commission on Central America chaired by Henry Kissinger agreed, if we do nothing, if we continue to provide too little help, our choice will be a communist Central America with additional communist military bases on the mainland of this hemisphere and communist subversion spreading southward and northward. This communist subversion poses the threat that 100 million people from Panama to the open border of our South could come under the control of pro-Soviet regimes.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: To counter the appeal of armed revolution the Reagan administration has promoted elections in Central America. For the United States perhaps the most important vote was held earlier this year in El Salvador where a moderate, Jose Napoleon Duarte, was elected president. The administration hailed the election as proof that U.S. policy is to encourage peaceful, democratic change. But since 1981 the Reagan administration has also greatly expanded U.S. military aid and activity to further its policies in Celtral America. In El Salvador, direct U.S. military support for the army has climbed from $35 million four years ago to $196 million this year. U.S. military advisers play an important and at times controversial role in training Salvadoran troops.From the beginning the Reagan administration has claimed that El Salvador's guerrillas receive their arms from Cuba and the Soviet Union through Nicaragua.

In Honduras, where there is no guerrilla threat, U.S. troops built airstrips and other military installations, part of on-going U.S. military maneuvers. Some of these installations are also reportedly used by U.S.-backed guerrillas at war with Nicaragua's Sandinista government. President Reagan calls the guerrillas freedom fighters. The Sandinistas call them counterrevolutionaries or contras. Whatever they're called, they've attacked Nicaraguan ports and mined the country's harbors as part of a campaign to destroy Nicaragua's economy. Critics, including Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale, charge that President Reagan's policies have heightened tensions in Central America, that the President's downplayed diplomacy and increased the possibility of a direct U.S. military intervention.

Mr. MONDALE [May 15, 1984]: I predict that if Mr. Reagan if is re-elected, he will present the American people with a December surprise. His policies will continue to fail, and at some point after the election, American boys could well be fighting and dying in Central America.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: President Reagan denies any plans for a Grenada-style invasion of Central America.

Pres. REAGAN [May 9, 1984]: The issue is our effort to promote democracy and economic well-being in the face of Cuban and Nicaraguan aggression aided and abetted by the Soviet Union. It is definitely not about plans to send American troops into combat in Central America.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: On the campaign trail this year both Reagan and Mondale have, for the most part, left Central America to their running mates. Geraldine Ferraro accuses President Reagan of being reckless and trigger happy. Central America is part of what the Democrats call their war-and-peace issue.

Re. FERRARO [September 16, 1984]: They just don't see the whole picture.They see the Soviets and the Cubans as do we all, but not the centuries of poverty, oppression and militarism. They see what's wrong with guerrilla sabotage, but not what's wrong with CIA mining. They see the need for aid to Central America but not the need to tie that aid to improvements in human rights conditions. We have now had almost four years of Ronald Reagan's policies in that region and cannot ignore the threat that Soviet and Cuban forces pose to our security, and we cannot look the other way while any government threatens its own people. But we cannot succeed by force alone. We must be willing to fight if necessary, but we must be willing to negotiate if possible. The Marines should be our last choice, not our only option.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Vice President Bush accuses the Democrats of being weak and naive.

Vice Pres. BUSH [September 6, 1984]: They voted to cut off aid to Nicaraguan freedom fighters. They don't even acknowledge that there is a threat from Marxist-Leninists down there. Now, you all can't see this, but there is a commemorative stamp from Nicaragua. That is the communist manifesto. These are stamps of Karl Marx. Ortega, the head of Marxist Nicaragua, says, "Without Marxist-Leninism there is no Sandinismo." If you walk like a duck and you quack like a duck and you say you're a duck, you're a duck. They are Marxist-Leninists. They're not liberals, as Mondale says.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The outcome of this year's election in the United States will have a direct and important impact on what happens next in Central America. If Mondale is elected he promises to remove all U.S. troops from Honduras, end U.S. support for the contras and enter into serious negotiations with Nicaragua's revolutionary government. In El Salvador Mondale would condition U.S. military aid to respect for human rights and would encourage a dialogue between the government and the guerrillas. If President Reagan is re-elected, he would press Congress for a resumption of U.S. aid to the contras. He has also warned the Sandinistas not to introduce MIG jet fighter planes into Nicaragua as planned. Otherwise, the President is expected to continue what the administration now views as a successful policy in Central America.

LEHRER: And the debate in the campaign is over that question: has the administration's policy worked? Plus the second question, how would a Democratic administration do it differently? We join it now with two central figures in the debate, Ambassador Otto Reich, the State Department's coordinator of public policy for Latin America and the Caribbean; and Congressman James Shannon, Democrat of Massachusetts, a most persistent and outspoken critic of Reagan's Central America policy. Mr. Ambassador, how has the Reagan administration policy worked in Central America?

OTTO REICH: If you look at the situatin today compared to what it was four years ago, you have to say that without the administration's policy, which, I have to admit, has been distorted in some of the statements by a lot of critics, as some of the tape we saw here a few minutes ago, which does not recognize, for example, the support for social and economic reforms, some of the most radical economic reforms ever undertaken in this hemisphere. Without those policies, those reforms and the policies, the situation in Central America would be much worse, similar, perhaps, to what it was four years ago. Take the case of El Salvador. On Monday President Duarte is scheduled to meet with the guerrillas of El Salvador. That probably would have been unheard of it he did not have the political legitimacy which has been provided for him by the free elections the country's had in the last four years, the international support that he's obtained --

LEHRER: In other words, your position is that the La Palma meeting grows directly out of Reagan administration foreign policy in Central America?

Amb. REICH: I'm saying that without the support of the administration for the political reforms, the elections, the improvement in human rights, the support that the government of El Salvador has received from the broad center of the population -- the administration has helped to isolate the violent extremes in El Salvador. But without that this meeting may not have been possible.

LEHRER: Is he wrong, Congressman?

Rep. JAMES SHANNON:I think he's dead wrong.I think it's much more likely that the La Palma meeting is taking place because Duarte feels that after the election, at a less politically opportune moment, it'll be more difficult to get the Reagan administration to go along with such a meeting with the guerrillas. It's been clear for the last several years that they don't want these kinds of meetings to take place, and I think it's very courageous of President Duarte not only from the viewpoint of his own internal political situation, but from the viewpoint of dealing with the Reagan administration in the future should the President be re-elected, to go ahead with this move.

LEHRER: Is it your position, Congressman, that the situation in Central America is worse after three, almost four years, of the Reagan administration than it would be otherwise?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I think it's worse in many respects. First of all, we're spending a lot more money in military assistance than ever before in El Salvador, and we have a military stalemate existing there. According to your figures it's $200 million this year -- for what? Secondly, the United States has committed some acts in the last few years that the greatest democracy in the history of the world should never have been involved in.

LEHRER: All right, let's go through those. What?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua.

LEHRER: Let's stop there.

Amb. REICH: Well, the first thing I'd like to say is that it is this administration that's supported President Duarte, and a lot of members of the party of Mr. Shannon in the House opposed the aid with which we were providing -- economic aid. Three fourths of our aid to Central America is economic assistance. We believe that the military assistance -- and I disagree with his evaluation of the military situation in El Salvador. And in fact we believe that one of the reasons why President Duarte is able to go to La Palma to meet with the guerrillas and they are willing to talk to him, is because the guerrillas realize that what Mr. Shannon says is not correct, that they are on the defensive right now militarily.

LEHRER: Well now, what's wrong with that, Congressman?

Amb. REICH: Well, the guerrillas have expressed their willingness to talk for a long time. They've known that it would take a long, long time for any kind of guerrilla victory to take place in El Salvador, and any victory would be a tenuous victory. They've wanted to talk for a long, long time. President Duarte took over this year. The Magana presidency wasn't strong enough to do that. That was put in place by the Reagan administration. I think --

LEHRER: In other words, your position in a nutshell is that the Reagan administration has inhibited peaceful negotiations in El Salvador?

Rep. SHANNON: I think that the Reagan administration has been pushing for a military solution to the problem in El Salvador.

Amb. REICH: That's clearly not the case. The Congressman said that we put in place a particular of the administration. What, we have been supporting in El Salvador and in Central America a process, a process of fundamental reforms. Unfortunately those reforms are not easy to describe or, say, photograph. And not too many programs -- and I have to give you credit for this -- take the time to explain to the American people in the depth of detail that you do what is happening in the region. And it's very difficult, for example, to photograph or to describe a land reform taking place, a constitution being written, an electoral process taking place orhuman rights being changed. The mentality of the people who have been in power in that region for 100 -- for hundreds of years, in fact, is being changed. That takes years. We've only had four years.If you look at the situation in El Salvador four years ago as opposed to what it is today -- take the case of human rights. 1980. In the year before this administration came to office, there were 10,000 political deaths, according to the Catholic Church in El Salvador. That is now to less than one-tenth of that. We aren't satisfied with that, but it's progress.

Rep. SHANNON: It's Ronald Reagan who vetoed the legislation that would have put strong, stringent human rights conditions on military assistance for El Salvador. It's the Reagan administration that has given the Salvadoran military virtually a blank check in increased military assistance despite the continuation of those human rights abuses. [cross-talk] -- And you can't tell me that all of the human rights abuses in El Salvador -- and yet this administration is willing to dramatically increase the military assistance with those conditions still existing. You're talking about a process.

Amb. REICH: This administration is the one that is responsible for having reduced that violence which was in place when we came to office.

Rep. SHANNON: You talked about a process.The Vice President last night talked about the Nicaraguan elections and how that wasn't democratic. Well, it's clear, and I think the administration has admitted, the CIA was involved in financing Duarte's party in the Salvadoran election. Did the CIA involve itself in that?

Amb. REICH: There was money spent for political parties and labor unions in Salvador across the board, not to help any particular group. [crosstalk] I can tell you, for example, one of those expenditures included ink, a certain type of ink, that would prevent electoral fraud. I would think that that would be perfectly agreeable with you so that the elections could be --

Rep. SHANNON: You're telling us it went to all the political parties equally?

Amb. REICH: I'm talking about the money that was spent. It was spent to benefit the entire process, not to benefit any particular party.

LEHRER: Robert MacNeil is going to pick it up there. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, can we turn for the remainder of this debate to the future, gentlemen? Congressman Shannon, how great is the danger in your view, if Mr. Reagan is re-elected, of an increased U.S. military role in Central America?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I think it's very great. I think it's great because the premise of this administration's policy has been that the United States has to be willing to fight to change things in Central America. We've done it indirectly by sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the brutal government of El Salvador over the last couple of years. We've done it indirectly by supporting the contras who are invading Nicaragua. We've done it directly to the degree that we've given assistance to the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua. Having committed ourselves in that way, I think it's going to be difficult for this administration to back off. That's why I think that these meetings in La Palma and the willingness of the Sandinistas to go along with the Contadora treaty is so important.And I hope that the administration is going to encourage both of those things.

MacNEIL: Let's come to the Contadora treaty in a moment. Ambassador Reich, same question. How great is the danger if Mr. Reagan is re-elected -- this is the Democratic charge -- of increased U.S. military involvement in Central America?

Amb. REICH: I think that the danger is much less than it was, frankly, four years ago. I have never seen a war started because an intended victim was seen as too strong. This is the reason for the military assistance, which is one-fourth of the involvement of the United States in Central America. The policy is working; the situation that we see today in El Salvador, as I said, is much better. It is also working in other countries of the region. Four years ago there was only one country, Costa Rica, that had had a free election in the last four years. Today only one country -- Nicaragua -- has not had a free election. We are supporting democracy. And to the extent that the Congress has given us the resources that we have requested, the policy has been allowed to work.

MacNEIL: Let me ask the question another way. I used the word danger, which sort of paraphrasing the Democrats' approach to this. You said it was less than it was four years ago. What is the likelihood -- what likelihood is there at all of more U.S. military involvement if Mr. Reagan is re-elected?

Amb. REICH: We do not believe there is any need, as the President has said and the Vice President said again last night, there is no need for any involvement of any U.S. combat troops, none have been requested. We believe the policy is working. However, at the same time, as the President has said, no President can ever say "never" in a situation as to what he would do under unforeseen circumstances.

MacNEIL: Congressman Downey [sic], why are the Democrats justified, then, particularly Vice President Ferraro [sic], justified in saying on the campaign trail that there's a danger of our boys being sent to fight in Central America?

Rep. SHANNON: First of all, it's Congressman Shannon. I think that --

MacNEIL: I beg your pardon.

Rep. SHANNON: -- the reason why we see that danger and why I think that danger is a real one, is because American indirect military involvement has been increased dramatically in the last few years. We've seen that in El Salvador, we've seen it in Honduras. We've seen it with regard to the contras. And clearly there's a certain kind of momentum that develops here where we've said we had a national security interest, a military interest in Central America, and it's hard to reverse that. It just seems to me that we're more likely, after an election, should Ronald Reagan ever be re-elected, to see that investment protected. And I think that it's a bad investment to begin with, and that's why I'm glad this is such an important issue in this campaign.

MacNEIL: Let us pick up the Contadora question that was mentioned a moment ago. The neighboring states, the Contadora group, have drafted a peace treaty with United States encouragement, the Reagan administration encouragement. Now Nicaragua suddenly says that it will sign the treaty, and now the United States has reservations about that. Why is that, Ambassador Reich?

Amb. REICH: Well, first of all, Nicaragua said two weeks ago that it would sign a draft treaty at that time without any further changes. We find it very interesting that they do not want the process to continue, a process which, by its own definition, hasn't finished. In fact, comments from the member countries of Contadora are not due in until next Monday, and yet Nicaragua felt, we believe for public relations purposes, that it had become so isolated internationally and had become so unpopular domestically that it had to try to take the publicrelations initiative and that is why it decided, we believe, to make that announcement. Now, the process is not finished, and we're not the only country, by the way, that has expressed reservations. As you know, a number of other countries have said that that process of Contadora is not yet complete.

MacNEIL: Congressman Shannon, what's your version of that?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I think it's this kind of doubletalk that markes me worried about the future, if we have another four years of a Reagan administration. We've been hearing the administration talk so much about this Contadora process and the fact that they were drafting a treaty. And they come up with a draft treaty which the Nicaraguans say that they will accept, and all of a sudden the United States backs off and tries to get our allies --

Amb. REICH: We have not backed off.

Rep. SHANNON: -- tries to get our allies in the region to reject that treaty. I think that this is an issue that has to be resolved by the people of Central America. The Contadora process is designed to bring about that kind of agreement. The United States, it seems to me, and the Reagan administration is serving as an obstacle to that kind of agreement.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you, we have a couple of minutes remaining, each of you, to express as clearly as you can, starting with you, Congressman Shannon, what is the essential difference between the policy the American people would get if Mr. Mondale was elected as compared with the Reagan policy?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I think a Mondale policy in Central America would rely much more heavily on diplomatic negotiations as a way of resolving the problems of that region. The problem is not a military problem, and the problem is not primarily one of Soviet intervention in Central America. It is one of economics. It is one of a dispute between haves and have-nots. It's one of expression of self-determination by peoples in Central America. A Mondale administration would encourage that, would encourage negotiations and would be far less reliant on military involvement than the Reagan administration.

MacNEIL: Does that mean you would decrease aid to the Salvadoran army, that you would pull American troops out of Honduras?

Rep. SHANNON: Well, I think that a Mondale administration would clearly hinge any further military assistance on meeting certain human rights standards. And I believe that after this election is over, should President Reagan by some chance be re-elected, we're going to see -- we're going to see, unfortunately, a strengthening of the more extreme right-wing elements of the Salvadoran army.

MacNEIL: Otto Reich, how do you see the essential difference between Reagan policy and Mondale policy on this?

Amb. REICH: I believe that the essential difference is that our policy works, has been working. It does not overlook any of the social, economic, political, diplomatic or military causes of the problem. It does not have a simplistic answer. I've never seen, for example, poverty negotiated away. Negotiation is very much a part of this administration's policy. The basic difference is that we have a balanced policy that addresses all of the problems of the region, and it is working.

MacNEIL: We have to leave it there, gentlemen. Thank you both for joining us. Jim? Poking Fun at the Pols

LEHRER: We close out our week of politics with our regular assemblage of editorial cartoons from around the country. Some Democratic viewers have noted with alarm that Walter Mondale has been getting the worst of it in these weekly presentations. They'll have no complaints this week.

NARRATOR [Summers cartoon, Orlando Sentinel, Washington Post Writers Group]: Which of these four candidates will you vote for in November?

Pres. REAGAN: "Evil Empire" . . . "Detente!"

Mr. MONDALE: Timid Fritz . . . Fightin' Fritz!

NARRATOR [Toles cartoon, The Buffalo News, Universal Press Syndicate]: The "Feeling Better About America" Kit. A little something for each of you.

1st CITIZEN: I work hard for my $100,000 a year, and I think it's nice to be rewarded with this flag and cash bonus.

2nd CITIZEN: I work hard for my $50,000 a year, and I think it's nice to be rewarded with this flag and cash bonus.

3rd CITIZEN: I work hard for my $20,000 a year and I . . .?

4th CITIZEN: I make $10,000. What's this?

NARRATOR: The shaft!

PRESIDENTIAL AIDE [Oliphant cartoon, Universal Press Syndicate] 2: Some people to see you, Mr. President. Your drama coach, your speech coach, your debating coach, your image technician, your kitchen remodeler, etc. [Father Time at the end of the line]

CMMENTATOR BIRD: Is he in there?

2nd BIRD: That's debatable.

SECRET SECURITY AGENT, Searching Reporter [Hulme cartoon, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, United Features]: I was afraid of this. He's concealing two pointed questions and an inappropriate observation.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN [Auth cartoon, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post Writers Group]: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but, excuse me -- [stops to read Reagan poll] Never mind.

Mr. MONDALE, behind debate lectern [Wasserman cartoon, The L.A. Times Syndicate]: I've outlined my plan to reduce the deficit. What's yours?

Pres. REAGAN: Well, uh, growth. [Mondale grows] No taxes, um, budget balance. Just, uh, growth. [Mondale grows] Millions, eh, uh, billions . . . growth!

Mr. MONDALE: I feel it working already.

Mr. MONDALE [Willis cartoon, The Dallas Times Herald]: Donovan.

Pres. REAGAN: Ferraro.

Mr. MONDALE: Casey.

Pres. REAGAN: Lance.

Mr. MONDALE: Watt, Burford, Lavelle, Thayer, Allen, Smith!

Pres. REAGAN: Yo' MAMA!!

Mr. REAGAN, at debate [Benson cartoon, The Arizona Republic Tribune, Washington Post Writers Group]: Are you better off now than you were an hour and a half ago?.

Mr. MONDALE: Yes!

MacNEIL: Once agaion, the main stories of the day. Both sides claimed victory in the debate between the candidates for vice president last night. Congress finally adjourned after raising the ceiling on the federal government's debt by $251 billion. The government reported wholesale prices went down in September for the second month in a row. Four people were killed and 30 injured by a bomb explosion in Prime Minister Thatcher's hotel in an English seaside resort. Jim? Route 66: End of the Road

LEHRER: Finally tonight, an obit, a death notice about the passing of something lovely and loveable, a U.S. highway named 66. Route 66 was once the great way west from Chicago to Los Angeles, but piece by piece it's been replaced by things called interstates.Tomorrow, the last piece, a stretch through Williams, Arizona, goes, and an interstate named 40 takes over. There may be only a few of us who care about such things. Fotunately, one of them is Tom Pew, publisher of American West magazine.

SINGER: "There is a road from the coast to the coast, New York to Los Angeles/I'm 'a goin' down that road with worries on my mind/I've got them 66 Highway blues."

TOMPEW [voice-over]: From the corner of Jackson Boulevard and Michigan Avenue in Chicago and for 2,200 miles, to the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica, California, old Route 66 has either been covered up and paved over or cut off and abandoned like the meanders of a great river that's been forced into a new cement-lined channel. Route 66 hasn't been just a part of America; it is America. It is the ultimate symbol of a restless nation that's never settled down, the migrant wave of footloose folk who are more at home on the road and on the move than the most nomadic tribes of the world.

[on camera] Tomorrow, here in Williams, Arizona, never to be recorded by school-book historians, Route 66 will be forever eliminated from the interstate highway system. [voice-over] The final silencing of the last great roar of 66 will come as quickly as it takes to remove the last two barriers at the eastern and western ends of Williams. Gone once and for all will be the last place where Route 66, John Steinbeck's mother road, runs right through the middle of a town mixing cowboys in their pickups with Chicago- and Los Angeles-based long-haulers riding high in their Peterbilts. Already, all but the last holdouts of Mom-and-Pop places in Williams are headed the way of the old road. No more homemade apple pie, real milkshakes, coffee that tastes like coffee. No more places to skinny-dip in a creek on a hot afternoon on the road. No more farms with a ramshackle fruitstand run by the youngest kid in the family, and no more rooms for rent for the families that are making the trek with some really hard times pushing them out of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas and Missouri and on towards California, once the Mecca at the end of the Dustbowl.

Gone, too, is the original inspiration for the road west that followed the 1673 portage routes of the French explorers Joliet and Marquette in their exploration of the upper Mississippi River following the ancient Osage Indian trial. And gone is the historical memory of the first real roadbuilding along Route 66, in 1857, along the 35th parallel from Fort Defiance in Arizona Territory, with the help of a pack-train of more than 70 camels imported from Egypt and Arabia.

I don't think much of the spirit of the new roads that have replaced Route 66, although they're a convenient way to avoid all human contact as you get from Chicago to Los Angeles. But when the highway department took the 66 shield and put it on some undeserving road outside Washington, D.C., they debased a symbol of our history that has marked a lot of determined miles of a lot of determined American families for generations.

Route 66, the way west for gold seekers bound for Arizona in the 1860s, and the way west for dust refugees. [voice-over] It was a good ol' road, that 66. It was a road with history. It was a road with heart. This traveler doesn't think he's alone when he says he's going to miss her -- America's 66 Highway, blues and all.

LEHRER: Words of Tom Pew. Good night, Robin.

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