The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening from the First Union Center in Philadelphia. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour this second night of the Republican National Convention, Newsmaker interviews with Colin Powell and John McCain; a discussion of exercising presidential power abroad; a Kwame Holman report on some McCain delegates from Michigan; plus perspective on it all from Michael Beschloss, Haynes Johnson, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Kay James; and analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot. We'll have the non-convention news of this Tuesday at the end of the program tonight.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: This is the second night of the Republican National Convention here in Philadelphia. The focus will be on foreign policy and national security. Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf and former Senator Bob Dole will speak, as will Senator John McCain. The rolling roll call of the states will continue, leading to the formal nomination of George W. Bush this week. Governor Bush today answered criticism from President Clinton. On Monday, the President charged Republicans are trying to deceive the public with talk of compassion. On his campaign plane, Bush said this:

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I welcome President Clinton's criticism. It's amazing to me that the President of the United States would spend time trying to be a political pundit. He is so desperate to have his legacy intact by getting Al Gore elected, he'll say anything, just like Al Gore will-- and I welcome him to the arena. He was criticizing Dick Cheney the other day, I noticed, and, you know, it's his prerogative. I'm not the least bit surprised.

JIM LEHRER: Bush also continued his bus trip to the convention. At a stop in Charleston, West Virginia, he again defended his running mate, Dick Cheney. Democrats have charged Cheney's record in Congress was too conservative. Bush told the crowd, "you'll be proud to call him Vice President." Back in Philadelphia, Senator McCain vowed to continue his fight for campaign finance reform. In a NewsHour interview, he said there would be "blood all over the floor" of the U.S. Senate next year if there's no reform legislation. We'll have that interview later in the program tonight. Retired General Colin Powell challenged the convention last night to bridge the racial divide. After his speech, Powell spoke with Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: General Colin Powell, welcome.

GEN. COLIN POWELL: Thank you, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: We keep hearing about this new face of the Republican Party. What is that?

GEN. COLIN POWELL: Well, I'm trying to help the party put a new face, and I think Governor Bush will be very, very effective at displaying that face to the American people, and the statement says we understand that there are difficulties in our community. We want to reach out to the African-American communities, especially, and let them know that the Republican Party has programs that will benefit them - programs in education, programs in health, programs in housing; we will not ignore their needs. We will not just say that this vote is going to the Democrats, and we're not going to fight for it. That's really what I was tried to do tonight. I've seen Governor Bush lean in this direction. I watched his speech at the NAACP very, very carefully. In '96, our candidate wouldn't go to the NAACP because he thought that he was being set up, he said. Governor Bush went, and what I was trying to do tonight was to pick up what he said to the NAACP and charge the party - challenge the party to help him make us a more inclusive party and fight for those votes.

GWEN IFILL: You talk about making the party more inclusive. You disagree with Governor Bush on several key issues, certainly on abortion. In your speech you talked about affirmative action. These are things that you and Governor Bush don't necessarily see eye to eye on. Is it the big tent you're talking about, or are you just talking about -

GEN. COLIN POWELL: What I'm saying is that we see - we don't agree on abortion. He's pro-life and I believe in a woman's right to choose. But we can stand side by side and both of us give our opinions. I don't think it should be a litmus test to being a good Republican that you have to be pro-life. Some others in the party would disagree with me. And I think what Governor Bush is saying, is that's our party platform. We believe in the right to life, but there are many members of the Republican Party who believe in the philosophy of the Republican Party who don't agree with that. Let's not cast them in the darkness just because they don't agree with that particular position of the party. Let's have a big tent party that welcomes then in. There are lots of Republicans who will not be terribly happy with what I said tonight, but then let's have a debate about it. You know, I believe in affirmative action. You don't, let's argue about it, and let's not just say that you have got to be an anti-affirmative action person to be a good Republican in good standing. I don't agree with that.

GWEN IFILL: Watching the first night of this party's convention, did you get the sense that maybe the Republican Party from four years ago when you also had tough words for your own party is coming around more to where you are?

GEN. COLIN POWELL: I hope so. They didn't do so well in 1996 by not moving in this direction, and I hope that our party has enough wisdom gained over the last four years to realize we are becoming more and more of a party that has more of a nation and has more people of color, more people coming in from lands around the world where the people are not white, and that if we are going to stay relevant, if we are going to be talking to the America of fifteen, twenty years from now, we have got to have not only a better face on our party but we have to have programs to support that face. It just can't be let's have an event once every four years and say we're for inclusion and then everybody goes home again. We've got to work in housing. We've got to meet with leaders of the African-American community, dialogue with them, understand the dimensions and the struggle that still exists in this country, a struggle that is not over. You can't tell me it's over when 52 percent of all men in jail are black men. There's something wrong. They're in jail because they committed crimes. Why did they commit those crimes? Where did the hopelessness creep in? What did we fail to give them in this American society of ours that we talk about all the time? That's the message we're trying to give to the party.

GWEN IFILL: Your friend and colleague Dick Cheney would be vice president if George W. Bush was elected. What kind of vice president would he be? He cast a lot of votes that Democrats are raising questions about that you would probably disagree with as well.

GEN. COLIN POWELL: Sure I would. Dick is more conservative than I am, especially ten or 15 years ago when he was in the congress and I was national security adviser. I'd probably argue with every single one of those with Dick. And Dick will explain his votes in the time and context in which those votes were taken. But he will be a loyal vice president. He will be a seasoned, experienced manager standing next to President Bush. And he will follow the lead of President Bush. Dick is first and foremost someone who will serve his president well. And if they are Governor Bush's policies, they will be Secretary Cheney, then Vice President Cheney's policies.

GWEN IFILL: How about Secretary Powell? Do you want to be Secretary of State?

GEN. COLIN POWELL: I have not had any conversations with the governor about a future role in his administration. Perhaps...

GWEN IFILL: Let me try this again. Do you want to be Secretary of State?

GEN. COLIN POWELL: I'm coming to that. Give me time. You get to pick the question, Gwen, I pick the answer. We haven't had a conversation yet, and if the governor thinks there may be a role for me in his administration, in due course, I'm sure he will enter into a discussion with me about it, and I'd consider it. Secretary of State is an important, challenging job, and I would certainly consider it. But it would be presumptuous of me to start trolling for a job. I'm very happy in private life. I have a nice business on the speaking circuit. It gives me enormous amounts of time to spend with my non-profit programs.

GWEN IFILL: People have already started to say you would be too cautious to be Secretary of State.

GEN. COLIN POWELL: Oh, there are always those. I have a cottage industry of critics who say that. But I think I know a little bit about national security policy. I know a little bit about the use of the armed forces of the United States. And I think I know how to use the armed forces well and correctly. And I think I would bring quite a bit of experience, useful experience to that job.

GWEN IFILL: You served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Neither Dick Cheney nor George W. Bush served in the active military. Does that bother you at all?

GEN. COLIN POWELL: No, increasingly there are going to be politicians who have never served. It is part o having peace. And in the case of Secretary Cheney, he served not at all, whereas Governor Bush served in the National Guard as a pilot. But Secretary Cheney served not at all. But he took us... He led us through several very, very difficult conflicts, the Panama invasion. He took us through Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and I can tell you, I was with him every single day. And he spent an enormous amount of time learning what the armed forces was all about, not just listening to me and the other members of the joint chiefs of staff, but learning so that he understood what we were doing and why we were advising him to do certain things. So you can learn it. What it takes a willingness to learn the basic leadership ability that you have developed over the years and the ability to manage large and complex organizations.

GWEN IFILL: You are a powerful symbol in your party and publicly a powerful symbol far beyond it. You talked tonight about the burden being on us. How powerful is it to be a symbol, and how much of symbolism can be translated to action after a convention like this?

GEN. COLIN POWELL: I hope it can be translated into action. We have yet to hear from Governor Bush. We'll hear from him Thursday night, and we will see how he wants to move the nation forward under his leadership. So symbols can be translated into action. And there's no point being a symbol unless you use your symbolic position to try to force action. And what I was doing tonight is to be here to help launch this convention and not just be a symbol, but to challenge all of the delegates present, to challenge my party to get behind the leadership of the governor, and to pick up what he said to the NAACP, and what I know also his heartfelt feeling that we have to move in this direction -- we can leave no child behind.

GWEN IFILL: General Colin Powell, thank you very much for joining us.

GEN. COLIN POWELL: Thank you, Gwen.

FOCUS - WORLD VIEW

JIM LEHRER: How will the world's solo superpower play that role in a Bush administration: General Powell did mention that subject in his speech last night, and it's a major topic at tonight's convention session. Margaret Warner takes it up now.

MARGARET WARNER: For perspective on George w. Bush's view of America's superpower role, we turn to Robert Zoellick, a foreign policy adviser to Governor Bush- - he held a senior post in the State Department under President Bush; Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican Senator from Texas-- she serves on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee; and Gordon Smith, a Republican Senator from Oregon-- he's on the Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome all.

Bob Zoellick, if Americans go to the polls, they vote for George W. Bush in November, what are they going to be getting as compared to Al Gore on that central question, that is, is how America uses its just overarching strength at this point in the world?

ROBERT ZOELLICK, Bush Adviser: Well, I think the most critical role the United States can play is as a coalition and alliance leader. There's a lot that we can do by ourselves, but there's more if we can bring others along. And I think frankly one of the problems over the past seven and-a-half years is that while the United States has great power, if it's combined with inconsistency and unpredictability, even our friends around the world start to ask questions. And so part of what you're going to hear tonight is the Republican Party talking about its strategy, some of the ideas that it thinks is important, showcasing some of the people that are going to be part of that, because at the end of the day to be successful, you also have to bring along your public. And I think that again is going to be one of Governor Bush's objectives, to have a foreign policy that's successful in the world, builds on alliance leadership, but ultimately is sold to the American public as well.

MARGARET WARNER: Does that sound a lot different to you from Al Gore, or just is he saying, George W. Bush would do it better?

SEN. GORDON SMITH, (R) Oregon: We've had many, I think, very zigzagged signals from the Clinton/Gore administration that relates to engagement and withdrawal. I think what you're going to see from George Bush is what I would describe as realistic engagement, leading our alliances, staying involved in international organizations, but at the same time, never losing sight of America's national interest, nor surrendering our sovereignty. I think that that will be central to his leadership.

MARGARET WARNER: But we hear Democrats and Republicans using phrases like that, America's national interest, but in the end it comes down to how you define it. How do you expect George W. Bush will be different from Al Gore?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, (R) Texas: Well, I think Al Gore has not separated himself from the Clinton/Gore administration. And you have seen an unpredictability and the willingness to spread our troops around the world without any real strategy, no exit plan and not even coming to Congress and talking.

MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry, Senator Hutchison, I'm told people can't hear you because there's something wrong with your mike. So let me just go back to Bob Zoellick. Again, let's try to get specific here. What about Kosovo and Bosnia? Would a President Bush move quickly to withdraw?

ROBERT ZOELLICK: No, I don't think he would. In fact, what he's said is that he believes that is a key issue for the United States because of our alliance commitments and the role we play with our European allies. But over time, and I think this is an important point, he would expect them to take on a greater role in that because he does believe in priorities. And our priorities are not just the civil wars around the world. They have to be dealing with the big powers of Russia and China, they're dealing with the question of weapons of mass destruction, missile threats, and the questions of megabucks. And that is a big difference with the Clinton/Gore administration, because everything is on their agenda. I think people recognize, if you try to do everything, you're not going to be very successful. You have to set priorities. You have to have a strategy.

SEN. GORDON SMITH: I think the point that Senator Hutchison was making is that this President and this Vice President have over- committed our military and under-funded our military. You can't have it both ways.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But let's get even more specific. You have been very skeptical of our involvement in the Balkans, both in Bosnia and Kosovo. What would you expect from a President Bush immediately on taking office on that score? Would you expect him to take steps to start pulling out?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: No. I don't think anyone would say start pulling out. But I think he would come in, he would call all the parties together, he would assess what it's going to take to really make a difference. We cannot stay in the Balkans for 50 years without progress, without an idea of what it's going to take to really bring lasting peace. And then once the parties come together and we have a game plan, then I think he will bring a coalition of people around the world, allies who want to play a role, plus Russia, which could play a very productive role here, and try to work things out there. What many of us have disagreed with the Clinton/Gore administration about is that there is no progress. There is no strategy. And I don't think Governor Bush as President would put our troops in harm's way ad infinitum and certainly with no exit strategy.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So what if a new situation came up, another Rwanda, another Somalia? Somalia, his father did send in troops. Rwanda, President Clinton did not. What would he do in a situation like that?

ROBERT ZOELLICK: Well, first off, again, what I want to try to emphasize a little bit is that you keep focusing on some of what I consider to be the more peripheral issues. You want the talk about free trade, you want to talk about great powers, nuclear issues. Those are going to be the centerpiece issues. Now, on the type of things you're talking about, I think you have to decide case by case. But one of the key decisions you have to make is, do you have clear objectives? Are you willing to deploy the means to achieve those objectives? And are you willing to explain it the Congress and the American people - because that is not what we've done, and that's one of the reasons why you had a Democratic Senator start to lead an effort this year to try to pull our forces out of the Balkans. That wasn't a Republican effort. It's because people don't know where we're going with these things.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: The other thing is President Bush is going to be committed to peace through strength. As Bob said, we're talking about the ankle biter issues. The big issue is, we are at risk of having an incoming ballistic missile, and we have no defense. And President Bush is going to go forward and work for a defense that will work so that we are protected and so that our men and women in the field are protected, wherever they may be.

MARGARET WARNER: And do you think he would go ahead with that even if our allies, not to mention Russia, remained very nervous or even hostile to the idea?

SEN. GORDON SMITH: He'll go ahead with it if he believes it's in America's national interest. When you have leaders of other countries talking about taking out Los Angeles, for example, I don't know of a leader of this country that should ever take that lightly. We need to defend this country first. And our allies need to understand that. But we have to focus on a system that will work.

MARGARET WARNER: One final topic, much has been made of Governor Bush's inexperience in foreign affairs. How has he gone about preparing himself, educating himself in this area?

ROBERT ZOELLICK: Well, as I think some of the people you see tonight, I'd like to believe the Republican Party is a pretty strong team. We used to work with you when you used to cover this subject, so we had good exposure. I think from the start in 1999 he talked to a lot of people. He's focused on particular issues. But let the record start to show itself. He's supported the president on the China WTO issue this year when Vice President Gore was nowhere to be seen. He's the one that stepped up and helped the President on this Balkans resolution. And he'sthe one that came out with a nuclear security initiative where Al Gore has not taken on this issue of his supposed expertise in ten years. So, there's already a record out there on top of his experience with a country like Mexico, which many people I think in this country recognize is going to be a key part of our foreign policy.

MARGARET WARNER: How much of comfort level you feel in him as a potential President in this area has to do with the team around him?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I think he has good instincts, but I think he has strengthened a future Bush administration with his choice of Vice President. He went to a person who has foreign policy experience and Washington experience. He's surrounding himself with Colin Powell, who has the military experience, as he pointed out, which adds another very important layer. And then you have Condoleezza Rice and many of his advisers like Bob Zoellick and others who have wonderful experience in this area. So I think he is rounding out a team, and I think it's very complementary.

MARGARET WARNER: And so what do you think he has to do to persuade Americans that he can lead in this area?

SEN. GORDON SMITH: American people are sophisticated and know that no man or woman knows everything. And part of how you judge a leader is their wisdom in picking people that fill in the blanks or provide the backstop where they have weaknesses. I think with the selection of Dick Cheney, who has literally helped to lead this country through a war, he's demonstrated that beautifully.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all three very much.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Thank you, Margaret.

ROBERT ZOELLICK: Thank you.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: The use of military power was also one of the subjects I discussed with Senator McCain. That interview was conducted this afternoon at his Philadelphia hotel.

JIM LEHRER: Senator, welcome.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Thank you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: What did you think of Collin Powell's words last night about affirmative action for lobbyists?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think he was right on the mark, and I'm very pleased that he made the statement, and I'm glad it was applauded -- (laughter) -- event by lobbyists.

(laughter) Look, there's no doubt that special interests and their representatives have taken over the legislative process and more and more money is pouring into the political campaigns from these interests and we have got to reform the system.

JIM LEHRER: What about -- what does this convention say about the system?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: The convention and tens of millions or however much it is that's being spent by special interests in order to achieve access which then gains influence is a testimony to how the system is out of control. There's more of the special interest or lobbyist money this convention then there was last, and last there was more then the one before.

JIM LEHRER: So what does that applause that Collin Powell got last night mean?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think that on the part of some it was simply because they are applauding Collin Powell because he's clearly, head and shoulders, the most respected

man in America today. But I think there are many rank and file Republicans who were there who were also applauding because they agree with him -- that they believe that they have been deprived of their representation in Washington. Remember many of these delegates are not high income Americans; they are party workers. And they see the manifestations of the influence of special interests in Washington as well.

JIM LEHRER: But is the current leadership of your party going to do anything about this?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: The current leadership of my party doesn't want to do a lot. The current leadership of my party and the Democrat Party is going to have to do

something because I and the other advocates of campaign finance reform will tie up the United States Senate next year. We will have blood all over the floor of the Senate until we exceed to the demands now, not the wishes, the demands of the American people to be represented in Washington again. There's a majority in both Houses. The Congress will pass it easily, the House will pass it easily. In the Senate we have clearly well over 50 votes; we need 60. So they're going to get reform.

JIM LEHRER: Those are strong words, blood on the floor, tie up the Senate?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Yep, absolutely, absolutely.

JIM LEHRER: Have you told George W. Bush this?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: No, I have not, but I will repeat my advocacy for campaign finance reform whenever and however I can.

JIM LEHRER: So if somebody thinks you are going to go quietly away on this issue, forget it?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Forget it. The one thing I learned in my albeit failed campaign is

that the American people feel that, especially young ones, that they are no longer represented in Washington; they deserve a lot better than what they are getting.

JIM LEHRER: Are you going to have to reform the party first though, before you can reform the campaign finance system?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: No, I don't think so because, again, the majority of my colleagues in the Senate and clearly the majority of Republicans want campaign finance reform. It's those who are the beneficiaries of this system, the incumbents that keep this system, the incumbents, that keep -- this system keeps incumbents in office - that are resistant to change.

JIM LEHRER: And you say you have not said this forthrightly, directly to George W. Bush, right?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I said it all through the campaign.

JIM LEHRER: But in conversation since, when you talked about campaigning together and the 2000 election?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: No, I didn't. I took it for granted that he knows of my advocacy. And in his behalf, he wants to rid us of corporate union contributions. He also wants full disclosure; he is about three quarters of the way there.

JIM LEHRER: But if he doesn't go the whole way - you're going to fight him, right? You would fight him, along with everybody else, if they don't go along?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: First of all, I think that he will a solution, one that we may not agree with, but I think he realizes the system is out of control. Second of all, I will do whatever is necessary, I hope with the leaders of both parties, but -- if not -- then we have to move forward.

JIM LEHRER: So you believe, if I understand what you are saying Senator, you believe that you have a McCain mandate that goes beyond party, goes beyond leadership, goes beyond the 2000 election, et cetera, to do something about this issue?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I believe it not only because I think I have a mandate but I also have an obligation to serve the people of this country -- something I've been doing

for more then 40 years. And obviously they no longer are represented in what is supposed to be, once was, and will be a democratic form of government. And so there's just no doubt about it in my mind where my duty lies. If that sounds a little demagogic, I think I can back it up with polling data after polling data, including the reality that young

voters are no longer participating in the political process. In the 1998 election, the 18 to 26-year-old vote was the lowest in history, and when these young people are asked why, it's because they believe they are no longer represented.

JIM LEHRER: Back to the Republican Party specifically.. it's been suggested today that the diversity that was shown on the podium last night is not reflected in the reality of the Republican Party? Is that right?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Yes... But let me add a very important caveat. The Republican Party presented last night what it wants its image to be. I believe that that's the

vision of Gov. Bush for the Republican Party in America; it's certainly mine. I believe it is certainly General Colin Powell's. So I think -- I don't think it was disingenuous what the Republican Party did. I think it's the image that we want our party to be, and our message of inclusion is one that I think is best articulated by those individuals who have been attracted to our party.

JIM LEHRER: So it's more of a come join us, rather then a reflection of what the party is today?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think so, particularly when you look at the delegates. But let's also look at the fact that Governor Bush got a very significant percentage of the Hispanic vote. I in my last election got over half of the Hispanic vote in my state. There are many Republican office holders who are attracting people from all walks of life to our banner; we just have to do a lot more of it. And those we have attracted -- as we all know -- are our best messengers.

JIM LEHRER: Colin Powell -- also, the conventional wisdom is that Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State if there is a Bush/Cheney administration.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I devoutly hope.

JIM LEHRER: You do?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Why?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Because I think he has all of the good principles and grounding and experience on national security issues. I think he is respected not only in America but throughout the world. And I think he will restore some coherency and consistency to the conduct of American foreign policy. And I have as much confidence in that as I have anything in America today.

JIM LEHRER: What about the specific issue - you've talked about it and others have too - but not in much detail - is to -- when should the United States deploy its armed forces abroad, and what criteria should be used? Are you comfortable with the decision-making that would - that a Bush-Cheney- Powell triumvirate would make?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Yes. I'm extremely comfortable and basically it's when American interests and values are threatened. And sometimes when our values are threatened, over time our interests can be threatened. I can't make an argument to you that Kosovo

posed an immediate threat to our national interest. But I argue that it offended our values to a degree that if allowed to go unchecked, then unrestrained, once Milosevic started to do his ethnic cleansing, then sooner or later our interest would be threaten because that same kind of scenario would transpire in other places in Europe

JIM LEHRER: You mentioned campaign finance reform. I assume that in this area too foreign policy, defense policy, that you would remain active with a Republican administration as well?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Yes I would. I believe that we have to reform the military, we have not, to meet the challenges of the post Cold War era. We are still pork barreling

in the most obscene fashion, in fact the worst that I've ever seen on defense appropriations bills, and we -

JIM LEHRER: That's wasting money on things that are not needed?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Not only not needed but have nothing to do with defense. The last defense appropriations bill had $4 million in it for the protection of the desert tortoise. I'm all for protecting the desert tortoise. Tell me - what relation does it have to defense? I mean, we're going to pave Hawaii and Alaska before this is over, the senior members form the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hail from those states. It's really disgraceful and unconscionable, and I said so on the floor of the Senate. But we also have to reform the military to meet the post Cold War era, and again, campaign finance reform -- influence to the defense contractors has to be diminished. President Eisenhower's warnings about the defense industrial complex are still valid, so we have to reform the military to achieve a military establishment that can be rapidly deployed. anywhere on the globe at short notice and once they are effective, beneficially affect the battlefield equation and we haven't done that yet.

JIM LEHRER: Bush-Cheney-Powell will do that?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Oh, I'm convinced of it, and, frankly, I know of no one better who knows of the need for reform in the military than Cheney and Powell, who both have had intimate knowledge of our defense establishment.

JIM LEHRER: On a personal level, Senator, finally, are you having any problems being at this convention not being the party's nominee?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I am not, Jim, and here's why: because once the campaign was over, I think that I had to move forward, and I have moved forward. I've been grateful for the experience. I don't think Americans like a sore loser. In fact, I know they don't. and I'm grateful for having had the opportunity to run; I'm grateful for the incredible experience, which is so unique that I was able to able to have, and I'll always be grateful.

JIM LEHRER: But you don't see yourself as a loser, do you?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, let me say runner-up...(laughter).... You remember Vince Lombardi once said, show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser. But no, certainly we didn't win, I'm a distant runner-up, and there's no doubt who did win. So the answer is obvious.

JIM LEHRER: Sure, but in a more general way, a broader way - you were - yes, you were well known, but you were basically well known as a Senator from Arizona before all this happened. Now, all the polls show you are one of the most respected public figures in America, and now the question is: what do you do with this?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Exactly right. That's exactly right. That's the heart of all this. I was able to get a small but significant -- I with the help of many others - able to get a

modest reform of disclosure of some rather egregious organizations that were involved in political campaigns. I wouldn't have been able to do that before this campaign. What I need to do and what my job is, is to reform the institutions of government and using campaign finance form as that gateway, but campaign finance reform is not an end to itself -- unto itself. It's a means to an end, which is to reform the institutions of government, which would then be more responsive and attuned to the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the American people. I think that my last campaign allowed me more influence in that process.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, for the record, you have not lost your desire to be President of the United States, have you?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Certainly it's been put in deep cold storage.

JIM LEHRER: But you haven't lost it?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, in 2004, I expect to be campaigning for the reelection of President George W. Bush, and by 2008, I think I might be ready to go down to the old soldiers home and await the cavalry charge there..

JIM LEHRER: But between now and then you are, in fact, as we're sitting here now in Philadelphia, you are a national figure. Do you intend to remain one over these next few years?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I intend - I have four more years in my term, in this term as a United States Senator -I intend to remain active, committed, dedicated to the principles that I hold dear and the policies that I think should be pursued for the benefit of the American people. But I think I can do that as a member of the United States Senate very effectively.

JIM LEHRER: Senator thank you very much

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Thank you, Jim.

FOCUS - THE McCAIN FACTOR

JIM LEHRER: What happened to the John McCain supporters who had hoped to be nominating their candidate this week? Well, Kwame Holman has that story.

SPOKESMAN: Please welcome the Senator from the great state of Arizona, John McCain!

KWAME HOLMAN: When John McCain arrived in Philadelphia this weekend, John McCain immediately began an emotional round of appearances before some of the most avid supporters of his aborted presidential campaign.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I am very, very grateful to the people in this room who spent their blood, sweat, and tears on behalf of this campaign. I will always be grateful. I will never be able... I will never be able to thank... (Cheers and applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: McCain won seven state primaries and many convention delegates in this crowd were bound to him, so he chose this moment to release them, asking them to support Governor Bush, the final official act of his presidential campaign.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: This is a time for celebration. This is a time for happiness. And this is a time for us to look back with pleasure at the wonderful ride we had. So at this time, I release all of these delegates. I hope you'll accept them, and thank you all for everything. And again, thank you so much. Thank you.

KWAME HOLMAN: It was a bittersweet moment for the former candidate and some of his most dedicated followers.

WAYNE MAC DONALD, New Hampshire Delegate: A lot of effort and time and hard work went into it, and a lot was invested into it, emotionally and otherwise, and you can't help but to think back about what went into it and what might have been.

KWAME HOLMAN: At the major party conventions, the candidate who gets the most delegate votes wins the presidential nomination. But the process of selecting the delegates who come here varies from state to state. In some, it's based on the percentage of the primary vote a candidate receives. In others, the winner of the primary gets all the delegates. But in Michigan, John McCain won the popular vote, but lost the delegate count.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Hey, how you doing?

KWAME HOLMAN: McCain's victory in Michigan was fueled for the most part by independents and Democrats, who were allowed to vote in Michigan's open Republican primary. But among Republicans, McCain was beaten by George W. Bush 3-1, and that created a problem for McCain when it came time to select Michigan's convention delegates. Arcane nominating rules gave Michigan Republican insiders, most of them Bush supporters, the inside track to the convention. Michigan State Senator Joe Schwarz, the lone top Republican office holder to support John McCain, explained.

STATE SEN. JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan Delegate: The Michigan state convention is an interesting sort of an event, and that is that we meet in congressional district caucuses and the people that have been the Republican powers in the congressional district caucuses for years are still in power and they run things pretty much the way they want to run them. And we let the McCain people know in advance that there was going to be some slippage, there was nothing we could do about it.

KWAME HOLMAN: When the caucuses were over, the majority of convention delegate slots were filled by Bush supporters.

KWAME HOLMAN: Is that fair?

STATE SEN. JOE SCHWARZ: No, it's not , but it's politics. It was something that there was no way we could get around. Our party rules did not allow us to get around it. We all walked away from that convention with a bad taste in our mouths.

KWAME HOLMAN: Chuck Yob, a Bush supporter, is a member of the Michigan's Republican party leadership. Yob said McCain tried to enlist him to help get a McCain delegate elected.

CHUCK YOB, Michigan Delegate: What happened was I was at my caucus. They put John McCain on the phone-- I had a portable phone, and they put John McCain on the phone and he said, "will you help me?" And I said "sure, what do you want me to do?" And he said "I want you to get up to the podium, take the microphone, and tell them you want them to elect this particular fellow." Well, the problem was the fellow he wanted me to elect, nobody knew him there, hardly, and the person he was running against was the most popular person in e county, so he won by a couple of votes.

SPOKESMAN: Good morning, everybody.

GROUP: Good morning.

KWAME HOLMAN: At the Michigan delegation's headquarters this week, party regulars said the McCain supporters' lack of political experience worked against them.

KATHLEEN BRANG, Michigan Delegate: People there just walking in for the very first time to a state convention and don't know anyone, have no history with the party, I think were expecting too much to be elected to the national convention.

KWAME HOLMAN: Delegate Kathleen Brang is from Pontiac, Michigan, and a solid Bush supporter. She was selected to go to Philadelphia even though McCain beat Bush in her congressional district.

KATHLEEN BRANG: The three people that were elected from my district were people who have stood out in front of the polls on election day no matter if they're being rained on or snowed on. They're making the phone calls, they're delivering the literature, they've been fully involved. From my own self, I can tell you that for myself, almost all of my spare time goes to the Republican Party. So I think it squares very well with the delegates - that they want to send Republicans that have an active history to the convention.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rusty Hills, the state Republican chairman, says voters ultimately will care little about such intra-party wrangling.

RUSTY HILLS, Chairman, Michigan's Republican Party: This is all inside baseball. I mean, the public is going to... frankly, politics is not a priority for a lot of people. They'll focus on politics probably beginning with the national convention. They're going to focus on the candidates. They're going to look at George W. Bush and Al Gore and make their decisions then.

KWAME HOLMAN: And McCain backer Joe Schwarz agrees.

JOE SCHWARZ: We're disappointed that more of our people aren't real McCain supporters, but by the same token, you can't look backward. You have to look out, not in, and that's what we are doing, and we are here to support Governor Bush.

KWAME HOLMAN: But McCain supporters from the Northeast may not back Bush unless he embraces the centerpiece of the McCain platform, reform of campaign finance laws.

KWAME HOLMAN: You want George W. Bush in his speech to say something significant about campaign finance reform, and if not, you and others from New England will get up and leave?

DWIGHT SOWELL, Massachusetts Delegate: Well, to be honest with you, there is discussion that we're quite concerned about this. There's a lot of us that worked hard on this campaign over money, over cleaning this act up, and if our national candidate can't spit out a few words concerning it, we're going to be concerned ourselves. So we hope that in the next 48 hours some good things can happen. We really do.

KWAME HOLMAN: And for good things to happen for George W. Bush in November, he may need the votes of the many McCain faithful.

FOCUS - PERSPECTIVES

JIM LEHRER: Now, some second night convention perspective, and first to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: And for those perspectives we turn to NewsHour regulars, presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss; to journalist and author Haynes Johnson; and they're joined this week by Kay James, a Bush delegate from Virginia and a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Well, the convention theme for tonight revolves around issues of national strength, national security, but America is basically at peace, and the Cold War is pretty much over. This is a pretty different circumstance from a lot of times this past century.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Oh, no question. I mean, I was thinking about it. You think about McKinley being nominated for president in 1900. Britain was the major power in the world with colonies -- as Churchill said, the sun never set on the British empire. We had no standing military army, almost no good navy at that time. Even in 1940, when Wilkie and Roosevelt are running against each other -- America only had 18th in military power. We had only 500,000 people in the army compared to ten million in Germany's army. In 1980, we only had two million people in the armed forces, twice that number Russia had, even though we were equal in nuclear destructive capability. Here we are at 2000. The American President, the most powerful person in the world, our economy, a dinosaur in the world. Our cultural influence is extraordinary. So the real question is, with this power to, what purpose shall it be put?

RAY SUAREZ: And that's -- nobody's answered that question in either party so far. That's one thing I don't think you're going to get an answer out of this convention either because they're not sure. They have more power than at any time in human history, a nation... a party that used to be isolationist and came to be internationalist. Its last five Presidents all were World War II veterans, starting with Eisenhower, Nixon... you go all the way through -- Ford, Reagan, Bush. All served in World War II, all had to deal with wars during presidencies and then now we're in this era where we have no Cold War, no nuclear threat that seems to challenge us at the moment. And we don't know what to do with the power, and we don't have any real clear, defined goals.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And I think there's a little bit of a reason for that, too, one among many. That is, how were American Presidents from the mid-30's, Franklin Roosevelt all the way through George Bush, Sr., able to get essentially an isolationist country interested in spending a lot of money and lives of Americans in having a world role? And that was mainly by scaring them. Franklin Roosevelt in the late 1930's made the case, this is what your world willbe like if it's run by Hitler and the Japanese, and the same thing happened with the Cold War Presidents. Harry Truman in 1947 said he got Congress and the American people to oppose the Soviet Union by scaring hell out of everyone. It's a wonderful way of doing this, but the problem is, the moment the threat is gone, as the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, then you've got the problem of later Presidents trying to get the public aroused.

KAY JAMES: Perhaps I've been spending too much of my time actually listening to and reading campaign materials, but it seems to me that what I'm hearing coming out of this particular convention and hopefully we'll hear in Los Angeles, as well, is what to do with that, and what I'm hearing this week is that even though we are at peace and we do have a great economy, there's still a lot to be done. And what I heard last night was a focus on education. We should use some of that power to bring those children who have been left behind and give them the education that they need. What I'm hearing is that there's still a lot to be done about relieving tax burdens and those kinds of things. So whether we agree with it or not, I think the case is trying to be made for what should be done with that office and what George Bush says he wants to do with it if elected President of the United States.

RAY SUAREZ: But with American power, aren't the answers - they have to be more subtle, sometimes tougher to grasp - a Kosovo or a Rwanda - not an easy Cold War fit?

HAYNES JOHNSON: Take Kosovo. Here we have all this power - we wouldn't commit the Apache helicopters because we were afraid that one of them might get shot down and one American might die. The lesson of all the other Presidents - the war is dangerous - I could argue it's more dangerous today because of the fragmentation and the terrorism and the threat of nuclear weapons. So there has to be some way the country deals with it, but we are afraid to commit forces up to the very end. Desert Storm ended in an inclusive basis - that's not - George Bush -as Michael said last night - had the highest popularity rate of any President in Desert Storm and then he was thrown out of office.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: The other big division I think you see both in history and in the Democrats and Republicans now is whether the United States is going to move, as the Republicans seem to be arguing, unilaterally, which means using their power to decide when they are going to commit forces, to what extent to, what exit, or whether as the Democratic administration seems to argue, we need some international cooperation. It was the Democrats who wanted the League of Nations. It was the Democrats under FDR who wanted the United Nations and believed that the best power in the world is somehow shared and that we have to share obligations, pay those dues. I mean, that's going to be an interesting debate over time. It's not the quite old debate of isolationism versus interventionism, but it is a different focus that's also been floating around through history.

KAY JAMES: Wasn't it George Bush and Dick Cheney who sort of laid out the parameters when we went to the Persian Gulf, that, in fact, we needed to make sure that there were certain principles in place, things like, just as you said, which was a part of their principles, things like making sure that we did have the other national... the other nations involved in the decision-making process with us at the table, making sure that there was a clearly defined mission, making sure that we had an exit strategy. So I think, you know, with principles in place, you can begin to see how perhaps this President might want to use his power on the national level.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: The world is always more complicated than that unfortunately.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I think we lost something when President George Bush did not get a second term. And that is because he was deeply engaged in these issues. He was fascinated by them. And in a period after a Cold War or a struggle, that's when you need a leader who is absolutely energized by this and has the vision thing.

RAY SUAREZ: We will continue our conversations. Thank you all. Back to you, Jim.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: And, yes, now some closing words now from Shields and Gigot: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. Paul, it is national security night, and it's also John McCain's moment in the convention sun. Where does he stand tonight? You've heard everything that he said and others said about him leading up until now. Where do you think he stands tonight as a figure on the political stage?

PAUL GIGOT: Probably as good as any failed challenger has stood since Ronald Reagan lost to President Gerald Ford in 1976. He's well-liked by a lot of these delegates. He has stature in the country. And he stands in a position to both help his candidate, George W. Bush, and help himself, help his candidate by giving the man he said some pretty harsh things about during the primaries, they had a big scrap. Now he can say, "look, I think he's the best man for the job. I want to support him." He can help himself with a lot of these delegates, John McCain can personally, because he lost two out of three Republican votes.

JIM LEHRER: And that's are all Republicans.

PAUL GIGOT: These are all Republicans -- two out of three Republican votes in every state except New Hampshire. That was his problem. He had great appeal to independents and in some states to Democrats, he didn't do as well as George W. Bush among Republicans. And he can help himself with them, show he's a party loyalist, and particularly on foreign policy, show that George Bush is up to the job.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, in a year when politics was afflicted with turmoil, disappointment, gridlock, scandal, John McCain has been emblematic of the year. This was a year when Americans were looking for a genuine hero and a genuine belief that the system could be cleaned up. And that's what he tapped into. That's -- the reflection is in the numbers that Paul cited. But more important than that was the reach, Jim. I mean, he excited people. He made people believe again. I mean, Al Gore and George Bush are... the choice of their party, but there are very few people walking on hot coals in their bare feet for either man. There's strong support for them, but there isn't that intensity and that passion: This is a man who in the Massachusetts primary, 31,000 Democrats left their party, changed their registration to vote in a Republican primary for John McCain. Now, some folks on the right say, well, that should prove this was a Democratic conspiracy. You couldn't get 13 Democrats as part of a conspiracy to do that... to follow up a two-car funeral. This guy had an appeal that is really... as he speaks tonight to this convention, Jim, he has more ears listening to him in the country because he's more favorably regarded by Democrats, independents and Republicans than the man who is President of the United States or either of the men who is going to contest that job. He'll be listened to.

JIM LEHRER: Paul, what do you think of that interview? I mean, he kind of laid down the gauntlet on campaign finance. He's talking about blood on the floor and tying up the United States Senate. That's as much a gauntlet to George W. Bush as it is to Trent Lott and the others in the Congress, is it not?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I suppose it is. It says maybe George W. Bush should name him defense secretary and get him out of the Senate. And there is some talk about that.

JIM LEHRER: Is that right?

PAUL GIGOT: Yeah. Maybe -- tonight in fact on foreign policy issues, something of an audition for the job of defense secretary. But it's a very tough talk. No question about it. But next year is next year, and, you know, there will be an awful lot of other priorities with a new President.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think he'll be a problem for George W. Bush, John McCain, always?

MARK SHIELDS: John McCain is who he is. I mean, John McCain is committed to campaign finance reform. It makes no difference if Al Gore is President of the United States, if Ralph Nader is President of the United States, George W. Bush. That is his passion. That is his... that carries conviction with him. He is intellectually engaged in the subject of defense and foreign policy -- very much so. He's committed to other issues in the Senate. But this is what drives him and defines him. And this, Jim, those of us that covered him this year, we saw him sway crowds. I mean, people all of a sudden, the light bulb went on over the head when he told them how the system worked. I don't think there's any question that he's not going to leave this issue.

JIM LEHRER: And of course this is national security and defense night, Paul. You mentioned last night that it's time now for the Bush convention to start talking about the agenda, what they're now going to do if elected President. Do you think it's going to happen?

PAUL GIGOT: They should hope so. I think... I would hope so, that that's what they have to do. They have to put some substance on the table. They have to begin to show some contrast, to make the case for change. To say that our policy... these policies that the administration has followed didn't work or hear the problems with them. Here's why ours are better. I don't think there's any accident, Jim, that two of the most prominent speakers here early on in the convention, Colin Powell and John McCain, are both well known for their foreign policy, because as the governor of Texas, George W. Bush doesn't have that. He needs and wants their imprimatur.

JIM LEHRER: And is that -- could that be a deciding issue in this campaign between Gore and Bush? Foreign policy, defense?

MARK SHIELDS: I don't think so. I just don't think it came on the radar with most Americans. It is a place where... I think Paul's right, that George W. Bush is seen as vulnerable -- because he's a governor, just as Bill Clinton was in 1992, especially when he was running against George Bush's father who was, of course, as Michael reminded us, 91% favorable just 18 months before the election because of the Persian Gulf triumph. But I think the Persian Gulf War and the victory reminded us in 1992 when George W. Bush lost... George Bush Sr. lost with 38% of the vote that foreign policy has receded in the consciousness of American voters.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, we'll continue this conversation later. Thank you both.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: And in the non-convention news of this day, Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat said there would be no retreat on declaring a Palestinian state. He told two Saudi Arabian newspapers he plans to act September 13, no matter what. President Clinton warned the Palestinians last week not to declare a state, in the wake of the failed Camp David summit. But Arafat said it would happen regardless of those who agree or disagree. The U.S. military was mobilized today to fight wildfires in the West. Fifty fires have burned more than 660,000 acres across ten states in the last two weeks. Nearly 11,000 firefighters are already on the fire lines, but they're stretched thin, so the army sent 600 soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas to Idaho. They'll be joined Friday by 500 marines from Camp Pendleton, California. Editor and writer William Maxwell died yesterday. He worked at the "New Yorker" for 40 years and edited some of the magazine's most celebrated writers-- J.D. Salinger, John Cheever, and John Updike, among others. He also wrote novels and short stories himself. A 1980 novel, "So Long, See You Tomorrow," won the American Book Award. William Maxwell was 91 years old. We'll be back on most PBS stations at 8:00 PM Eastern Time with our complete coverage of this second night of the Republican National Convention, and we'll return at our regular NewsHour time tomorrow, with a Newsmaker interview with Dick Cheney, among other things, as well as being with you throughout the convention online. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you for now.