The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines today the big banks lowered their prime lending rate to 12%. A U.S. embassy employee was shot and killed in El Salvador. Seven more persons were indicted in Italy in the plot to assassinate the Pope. And President Reagan campaigned for the Jewish vote in New York while Walter Mondale talked to auto workers in Michigan. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The new charges leveled in the plot to kill the Pope lead off our focus segments on the NewsHour tonight. An analyst joins us to put the newest developments in Rome in perspective. The presidential campaign gets the rest of our attention. A Republican and a Democratic strategist join us to assess the latest TV spots. We'll run our weekly review of how the editorial cartoonists are seeing it all. David Gergen and Alan Baron will be on hand to size up the candidates as they begin the home stretch. And we close with a closeup look at how the Social Security issue is affecting one key race for a congressional seat.

LEHRER: First, our quick summary of the news of the day. The prime rate went down again today, its second lowering in two weeks. This time it went to 12%, as major banks in New York and Chicago were the first to announce the change and others throughout the country followed the lead. The prime rate is the interest banks charge their largest business customers, and sometimes, but not always, means other interest rates may also be coming down. Today analysts were split, some saying it was only a brief interlude and would have little effect; others saying just the opposite.

And the latest from the oil price war front came again from the oil minister of Saudi Arabia. He said non-OPEC Mexico and Egypt have agreed to cut their oil production, all in OPEC's drive to forestall a drop in world oil prices.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: After more than three years of investigation a judge in Rome today charged seven men, three Bulgarians and four Turks, with trying to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Judge Ilario Martella also charged for the first time that a second gunman was involved besides Mehmet Ali Agca, who was previously convicted for the shooting. Martella named Oral Celik, a suspected member of a right-wing Turkish terrorist group as having fired one of three shots that wounded John Paul. Celik is at large. We'll have more on the judge's findings later in the program when we interview a man who has become an expert on the subject.

Jim?

LEHRER: Secretary of State Shultz's big speech on terrorism was still in the news today. Last night in New York the Secretary said the U.S. should use force against terrorists, saying "the public must understand before the fact that there is a potential for the loss of life of some of our fighting men and the loss of life of some innocent people." Today State Department spokesman John Hughes added this comment.

JOHN HUGHES, State Department spokesman: The secretary wasn't flagging that it would be necessary to kill innocent people. He was raising the question that in an operation there conceivably could be. Nobody wants to create a situation in which innocent people would be at risk, and that is not the intent. But I think you can -- given the evolution of our thinking about the way to handle terrorism, the recognition that terrorism is in fact a kind of warfare and therefore has to -- may have to be responded to with warlike action or military action, there is the possibility that civilians who may be innocent might be involved.

LEHRER: Both President Reagan and Vice President Bush stayed out of Shultz's comer on the issue today. Reagan told the campaign audience in Connecticut that Shultz's speech was not administration policy. And Bush in Cincinnati said he disagreed with the Secretary of State.

Vice Pres. GEORGE BUSH: I don't think we ever take the point, as the United States of America, where we say we're going in to kill innocent women and children, 100 of them, in order to get one terrorist. I don't think we've reached that point. But what we do do is strengthen our intelligence agencies. We don't tear them down. We strengthen our counterintelligence, we try to pinpoint where these terrorists are. We hope that local governments would use the law to do something about it, but in Lebanon the local government, regrettably, even though they'd like to help, are impotent in helping. So what you try to do is find who did it and target them.

LEHRER: Terrorist violence claimed the life of another U.S. embassy employee in El Salvador today. A 62-year-old Salvadoran security employee at the embassy was gunned down as he walked to work. An embassy spokesman said the man was shot three times in the back and head by gunmen who jumped from a car, fired the shots and then sped away. The chief of embassy security was murdered in similar fashion in April. Judy?

WOODRUFF: President Reagan took his campaign to the affluent suburbs of New York City today, stopping in three states in the process -- Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. In an appearance before a Jewish group he charged the Democrats could not find the moral courage or leadership to condemn anti-semitism at their convention last summer. And, in a new justification for having sent a peacekeeping force to Lebanon, the President linked the sending of U.S. troops to a fundamental moral obligation to prevent another holocaust. Here is part of what he said.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: You know, when you talk about human life, I think that means seeing that the immeasurable pain of the Holocaust is never dehumanized, seeing that its meaning is never lost on the generation or any future generation and, yes, seeing that those take our place understand: never again. Now, perhaps that message should again be impressed on those who question why we went on a peacekeeping mission to Lebanon. Indeed, anyone who remembers the lesson of the Holocaust must understand that we have a fundamental moral obligation to assure never again.

WOODRUFF: U.S. sevicemen formerly in Lebanon were also on Walter Mondale's mind today. In a speech in Iowa the Democratic nominee criticized Mr. Reagan as a sunshine president who, he said, celebrated the first anniversaryof the successful Grenada invasion but, in his words, "lacks the decency to honor the more than 200 U.S. troops killed in last year's Beirut bombing." It was one of the most scathing attacks Mr. Mondale has yet made on the President. The Democratic nominee also campaigned in Flint, Michigan, at a high school and talked about his vision of the future.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential nominee: I want an economy that grows. I want to get this debt down and these interest rates down so that Americans can have a chance to get jobs and growth. I want the jobs here in America. I understand that a president's duty is to stand up for American workers, American farmers and American businesses, and I want the future here in our country for our people. I want an America where our kids come first. I want us to invest again in the human mind. I want every young American to have the same chance to go on to college and vocational school as the kids in my generation did. I want every American child to have a chance for the fullness of American life. I want -- I want a president who protects our air and our water and our land. I never want to see another James Watt, another Ann Gorsuch, another polluter, another poisoner anywhere near that federal government again.

WOODRUFF: Earlier in the day Mr. Mondale denied a newspaper report that his top campaign aide had told him the election was all but lost. Talking with reporters Mr. Mondale said polls that show President Reagan's lead widening are dead wrong. He added "It's tough; I know that. I've never doubted it. But I think we've got an excellent chance of winning." Later in the program we'll have more on this week's political developments. Jim?

Lehrer: And, finally in our news summary, the story of Dessima Williams, once a diplomat from Grenada. She lost her job as Grenada's ambassador to the United Nations when the leftist government she worked for fell with the arrival of United States troops there a year ago yesterday. But she stayed in the United States, and last night she was arrested by U.S. immigration agents on charges of being in the country illegally. Today she appeared before a judge in Washington and was released on a $1,000 bond to the cheers of 50 supporters. Packaging Politicians

It's focus-on-politics time again on this next-to-last Friday night before it's finally over, before the 1984 race for President and all others reach their November 6th climax. At the Mondale-Reagan level the campaign was fought at many levels this week, most of which we're going to touch on in the next few minutes, beginning with the war of the television commercial. Both campaigns introduced new ones this week. They were tough and they were about the war and peace issue. We have one from both the Reagan and Mondale camps, and here they are.

NARRATOR [Mondale commercial]: With the whole world at stake, it's time to move on and we must do better. Mondale for president.

NARRATOR [Reagan commercial]: There is a bear in the woods. For some people the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it all all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it's vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who's right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear?

LEHRER: Other new commercials from both campaigns are due out next week as part of a final media blitiz, a final go at getting the message over in paid, 30-second bites. It's become an important part of all candidates' campaigns, of course; their importance is one of several things we want to discuss now with two media experts who produce such things for candidates. Marc Haroff does it for Republicans through his political consulting firm of Smith and Haroff. Ray Strother is a political consultant to Democratic candidates, and he joins us tonight from New Orleans. First, gentlemen, who won this exchange of commercials we just saw, Mondale or Reagan? Mr. Strother?

RAY STROTHER: Well, I think the Republican commercial was one of the most interesting things I've seen. I thought at first it might be a Merrill Lynch commercial. It proves to me the Republicans have more money than they know how to spend. It seemed a little misdirected. I thought the Mondale commercial was excellent. However, I think it was a little weak in message. I think Mondale should get back into his campaign more.

LEHRER: What do you mean?

Mr. STORTHER: Well, we see more and more of Mondale's paid television without Mondale. Yet I saw a newsclip just a few seconds earlier, and Mondale looked great. There was an enthusiastic crowd and he was delivering his own message very well. I really think people vote for people and not for a paid television message. I think Mondale should be in his paid television messages.

LEHRER: Mr. Haroff, what's your view of these two commercials?

MARC HAROFF: Well, I think the Reagan ad did exactly what it needs to do, which is to reinforce what every poll shows is the majority view in this country, which is that we should be prepared for peace. The ad brings home and keeps, I think, for Reagan, those people who are undecided but who believe that Reagan is better equipped to keep America's defenses where it should be. And if you notice the Newsweek poll which came out right after the debate, a majority, 57%, believe that Reagan is better able to run this nation's defenses. And I think all that spot does is say, "Isn't it better to be prepared for peace?" And I think that reinforces what he needed to reinforce.

LEHRER: Is that basically the commercial strategy there, is to hold on to what he's got rather than to try to get any more?

Mr. HAROFF: I think as much as anything it pre-empts or tries to get away from what Mondale is obviously trying to do in the other spot, which is to imply that Ronald Reagan would lead this country into war. Now, that same Newsweek poll shows that by a very slim margin they might think that Ronald Reagan is more likely to preside in this country during a war, but they still support his approach of being strong -- peace through strength.

LEHRER: Mr. Strother, you are not on the Mondale payroll, but if you were, what would you be advising him to do -- he's so far behind -- on his commercials between now and Election Day?

Mr. STROTHER: Well, I think he needs to change his strategy completely. I was telling a client yesterday that all winning campaigns involve gambling and luck. He needs some luck and I think he needs to gamble some. We see sort of a rejuvenated Walter Mondale right now out on the stump, enthusiastic crowds. Things are going really well for him. If this was three months ago I think we'd be in wonderful shape. I think it'd be very interesting if they took 30-minute blocs throughout the day or throughout the night, or whenever they can get them, and let Mondale be Mondale on television and show this enthusiasm and show this message and let him deliver his message. I think it'd be an unusual type of political advertising, and he needs something unusual right now. He needs to gamble some and be creative, and I would like to see him do that.

LEHRER: Mr. Haroff, I know you probably don't want to give any free advice to any Democrats, but looking at it objectively, if possible, what would be your commercial strategy if you were going to advise the Mondale campaign now?

Mr. HAROFF: Well, I think it's interesting that most of the Democratic advisers keep talking about Mondale needs to change his message. He's been trying to change it ever since this campaign began, and I don't think he's found one. I think probably the best advice, if there's any message he could do to try to increase his support against this President as a time of both peace and prosperity, would be to follow Tip O'Neill's advice, which is to challenge him on the Social Security issue: "What are you going to do on those kinds of issues in your second term?" And those are the issues that worked for the Democrats in the off-year two years ago.

LEHRER: In other words, you think issues is the route to go between now and Election Day with only 11 days to go?

Mr. HAROFF: I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that the Mondale strategy of trying to appeal to fears of Reagan's age, fears of war -- which is a clear feeling in this country -- is working.

LEHRER: Mr. Strother, what would be -- to reverse it, what would be your advice to the Reagan folks as to what they ought to do with their commercials between now and Election Day?

Mr. STROTHER: I think they're very interesting, and the bear commercial says a lot to me. It shows supreme confidence, because how can you run such an obtuse commercial unless you feel very confident that you're going to win? Obviously they feel no great pressure at all. So if I were advising them and I were looking at the same polls they're looking at, I would say go slowly about changing anything, I suppose.

LEHRER: What's obtuse about that commercial?

Mr. STROTHR: Well, it's so indirect. It's more of an image commercial. You have to really think about the commercial to make it work. And I know it's about war and peace and being prepared, but I'm very confident that that spot wouldn't pass a good focus group of middle America.

LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Haroff?

Mr. HAROFF: No, I disagree. I happen to know some of the results of the focus groups that that was used for, and frankly what it does is, instead of getting into a debate on the basing mode of the MX missile or whether we need B-1 or Stealth, it really gets to the bottom line of the major issue and the major difference between President Reagan and Walter Mondale, and that is the approach called peace-through strength, which is that you don't just stop all weapon building. You have to be prepared in the event that the bear is somewhat different than those who support some of Walter Mondale's policies believe the bear is. And I think it's a thematic ad that makes a point.

Mr. STROTHER: If Reagan were six points behind it'd be considered a great error.

LEHRER: Is that right?

Mr. HAROFF: But he's not six points behind.

LEHRER: No. Mr. Strother, as we sit here 11 nights or 11 days before the election, how important do you believe these commercials have been up 'til now in this campaign?

Mr. STROTHER: Well, it was my experience --

LEHRER: I don't mean just these. I mean all paid political commercials in the Reagan-Mondale race.

Mr. STROTHER: Well, being, you know, vitally involved in the process, at least earlier in it, I found that the paid media was a very small part of what was happening. You know, what we have is a public that's very aware of our attempts to influence people, and when a television commercial comes on for a politician, a red flag goes up that says CAUTION. And I think that the clip I saw earlier --

LEHRER: What do you mean? Why is that?

Mr. STROTHER: Well, they've read a lot of stories. They've seen a lot of us on television, like my colleague there. And they know that we exist, that we're out there trying to influence them, trying to change their minds. When they see a news clip it's completely different. So I think probably television -- paid television has played a smaller part than ever in this presidential race, and non-paid television has played a much larger part than ever.

LEHRER: Mr. Haroff, what's your view of that?

Mr. HAROFF: Well, I think that some people indeed would try to influence the race by changing the message with the ads, and when Gary Hart had different messages on television from his message in the news media, when he was saying on the stump, it did work. But in this case I think that this message totally reinforces the point that President Reagan is trying to make against Walter Mondale, which is peace through strength versus peace through weakness.

LEHRER: Well, but do you believe that commercials have had an impact on this campaign in any measurable --

Mr. HAROFF: No, I think only to the extent that some of the commercials that I think have worked are those in which President Reagan is directly talking to the American people about what he has accomplished in the economy, what he wants to accomplish in his second term. For Walter Mondale, I think he was on the right track when he had a new five-minute commercial that talked about his record in the Senate, that was a good record in areas like the environment, and which brought up issues like toxic waste. They were issue-oriented, they were positive, they were telling people things about Water Mondale that they don't know.

LEHRER: Mr. Haroff and Mr. Strother, thank you both for being with us tonight. Judy? Reagan and the Jewish Vote

WOODRUFF: President Reagan spent much of this week appealing to traditional Democratic voters in the Northeast and Midwest. As we said earlier today, he sought the support of Jewish voters, who gave him an unusually hight 40% of their vote in 1980, and who have been expected to turn out an event greater percentage this year. But the recent furor over his ties to certain fundamentalist Christian groups and their beliefs has thrown that into some jeopardy and, as our correspondent June Massell found out, that's why Mr. Reagan stopped at a temple on Long Island today.

UNE MASSELL [voice-over]: After President Reagan listened to the Israeli national anthem, Hatikva, he told the congregation of Temple Hillel that Jews had been abandoned by the Democratic Party.

Pres. REAGAN: The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance or antisemitism or for bigotry of any kind. None. In Dallas we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning antisemitism and disassociating the Republican Party from all people and groups who practice bigortry in any form. But in San Francisco this year the Democratic Party couldn't find the moral courage or leadership to pass a similar resolution. And, forgive me, but I think they owe you an explanation. What has happened to them? Why, after the issue became so prominent during the primaries, did the Democratic leadership walk away from their convention without a resolution condemning this insidious cancer?

MASSELL: The President's invitation to visit Temple Hillel todaywas met with criticism among some Jewish leaders. There was a concern that the invitation would seem like an endorsement. It is a concern that comes at a time when many Jewish leaders feel there has been an erosion in Jewish support for the President in recent weeks.

[voice-over] One of those leaders is Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the American Jewish Committee.

Rabbi MARC TANENBAUM, American Jewish Committee: There has been some substantial erosion, and that has grown out of a fear that he has allowed ultraconservative, right-wing Moral Majority types, who preach the gospel of a Christian America, to have too great an influence on the White House and in the domestic and foreign policymaking of the United States.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The most recent cause for this concern came up during the last presidential debate when Mr. Reagan was asked about his long-term interest in the fundamentalist religious theme of Armageddon.

Pres. REAGAN: But no one knows whether Armageddon, those prophecies, mean that Armageddon is 1,000 years away or day after tomorrow. So I have never seriously warned and said we must plan according to Armageddon.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Rabbi Tanenbaum says the Armageddon theory preaches that anyone who is not a born-again Christian is a sinner, and that, he says, has a direct impact on Jews.

Rabbi TANENBAUM: Look, when you divide the human family, you divide American society between the saved and the damned, you will have the saved who feel they have the right to run the country and those who are not saved must be removed from any central role in this society because they with pollute the society by virtue of their being sinners.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The Democrats, Tanenbaum says, have had a problem with Jewish support also because of concessions Mondale made to Jesse Jackson.

Rabbi TANENBAUM: So now the Jews, the Jewish community, I think, is going through a sifting process of choosing between the lesser of two evils -- who represents the greater threat to America? And I think Jews are beginning to feel that Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson, at this stage, while they must be watched very carefully, represent a lesser threat than the massively organized fundamentalist Christians and ultraconservative politicians who are out to take over.

MASSELL [voice-over]: As a response to the President's speech this morning, an invitation was made this afternoon by a different group of Jewish leaders, to Geraldine Ferraro to speak next week in New York City. That invitation came from Jewish leaders who did not want to give the impression that Jews as a group endorse President Reagan. Poking Fun at the Pols: Political Cartoons

WOODRUFF: The mix of religion and politics was only one of a number of topics that inspired editorial cartoonists this week. Now we take our usual Friday sampling of the week's editorial cartoons.

Mr. MONDALE [Locher cartoon, Chicago Tribune, Tribune Media Services]: Americans are jobless. Prices are too high. The poor are hungry. There's too many nuclear missiles. The weather is bad. The rich won't pay taxes.The Russians are ticked at us.

GERALDINE FERRARO: Gad, what if we win?

Mr. MONDALE, at Halloween [Brookins cartoon, Richmond Times-Dispatch, News American Syndicate]: Reagan doesn't care about ooold people. OOOoooo.

OLD LADY: George! What was that?!

GEORGE: Don't worry about it, Edna. It's just a big wind blowing.

NARRATOR [Gamble cartoon, The Florida Times Union]: Look, look, see Dick and Jane. Dick can't read or write. Jane doesn't know math or science. So how will they ever get a job?

Pres. REAGAN: Uh, pray!

CHERNENKO, instructing spies [Gamble cartoon, The Florida Times Union]: And remember, if you get caught stealing their Star Wars technology, just tell them Reagan was going to give it to us anyway.

NARRATOR, reading CIA primer [Benson cartoon, Arizona Republic, Tribune Media Services]: See Juan. See Pedro. See Juan and Pedro plan the assassination of the nasty Sandinista leaders. Kill, Juan! Kill, Pedro! Kill! Kill! Kill!

NEWSCASTER [Wasserman cartoon, Los Angeles Times Syndicate]: In the second presidential debate, Walter Mondale knew his facts, presented clear arguments and addressed himself to the issues. President Reagan made only on serious gaffe, rambled less than last time and seemed to know where he was. The experts have pronounced it a draw. Handicapping the Home Stretch

WOODRUFF: That's pretty tough on the media. Now for our other Friday tradition, a walk through the campaign thicket with our seasoned political analysts, Democrat Alan Baron and Republican David Gergen. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Gergen is the former director of communications for the Reagan White House, now with the American Enterprise Institute, and Mr. Baron publishes the biweekly political newsletter, The Baron Report. Well, gentlemen, even the Democratic polls are showing Mr. Mondale as 12, 14 or more points behind, and yet we're seeing on the news reports that he's getting bigger and more enthusiastic crowds than he's gotten as any time through this campaign. What's going on? Could the polls be wrong? Alan?

ALAN Mr. BARON: I'm reminded of 1960 when John Kennedy met with Richard Nixon after the election, and Kennedy's hand was all full of callouses. And Kennedy said, "I got those in Ohio." I think Nixon carried Ohio that year and Kennedy had gotten the biggest crowds in the world in Ohio.

WOODRUFF: But Kennedy won, so as you're saying that's what --

Mr. BARON: He won, but he didn't win in Ohio where he got these tremendous crowds. Crowds and enthusiasm I think Mondale has managed to ignite the Democratic troops, a lot of people that he hadn't before. But, you know, the best polls in America for President Reagan are ones that show him winning about 58-42, say, and so that means that out of every 100 people there are 42 that are for Mondale. So in a city of a million people that's 420,000 that are for Mondale, and you can get a big, enthusiastic crowd and still lose an election.

WOODRUFF: But polls have been wrong before, right, David?

DAVID GERGEN: It's possible the polls are off, I think that the best thing and most encouraging thing about the crowds for Mondale, they're keeping his spirits up and they suggest that the Democratic turnout may be high, and that of course is very, very important to him. I think it's more likely, given the fact that we have so many polls, that he is substantially ahead, and the problem he now faces, Judy, is, frankly, is the spreading perception in the press that it's over. And as that -- you see that in a lot of different places now, and as that sets in the public begins to take its cues from those kind of signals, and it becomes more and more difficult for Mondale to convert people.

WOODRUFF: Well, we had this report, for example today in The Boston Globe, saying that Mondale's campaign manager Jim Johnson told them it was all but lost, and of coure Mr. Mondale denied that today and said we know it's tough, but we're in this thing to win it.

Mr. GERGEN: You know, one of the things -- we've discussed this earlier, he came out of the second debate without a rallying cry. There is no single message now in his campaign. So that we were in a situation over the last 48 hours in which he wasn't even on the front pages of some newspapers, morning newspapers, with his message because he had nothing he was really having to say. He was getting good crowds, but there was nothing that was really rallying the country as a whole. And I think that's a problem for him. He has to find a message now. I understand he is trying, and I think he probably has succeeded in buying time this Sunday night to address the nation for five minutes. And that's an important opportunity for him.

WOODRUFF: But he is going around -- I mean, he's really, we read, he's really going after the caring theme -- that "Mr. Reagan doesn't care about you and I care. We need a president who believes, who feels, who cares." And he's doing that and he's also apparently -- well, we saw it tonight on the news, raised this whole issue of Lebanon and the 240-some Marines who were killed. Does either one of those themes strike a resonant chord?

Mr. BARON: Well, I think they do, you know, but there's a whole -- you talk about the caring theme. People are well off. If there's a big recession in two years, if it turns out, if Reagan's re-elected and it turns out that this business -- of course, if there's a recession the deficit'll go up even higher and they won't be able to borrow money to bring us out of it. If it turns out that this is all some kind of a ponzi scheme, then the Democrats will come back in. If it turns out that it's brilliant in economics and all of these people who have been telling us about the balanced budget have been dead wrong for years, then the Republicans deserv that, to be re-elected. He is stating, I think, the issues, the things he believes in. I agree with David about the debate. I think he would have really, at the second debate, been better to focus it on the Freeze or whatever position he had, to try to draw a line and give an impetus to people because it is confused now, the message.

Mr. GERGEN: The caring message, I think, is a good one for him. But the fact that he moved to it in mid-week also suggests that he tried that -- he was trying some other message. he was trying the message out of the debate that the President's not on top of the facts, he's not really in charge, and apparently that wasn't working.

WOODRUFF: Trying to scare people?

Mr. GERGEN: He was trying to scare people about Reagan's capacity.And I don't think it -- they must have decided in their own internal polling and for whatever other reason, that that message was not effective for them, so they suddenly moved to this caring thing, which suggests they are still in the process of shifting gears, trying to find something, anything, to make this work.

Mr. BARON: David, I would say it a little different. I think every time that Walter Mondale has gotten into trouble in this campaign, and he kind of takes it away from his campaign managers and pollsters and advisors at that point, and comes back to what is his central concept of the presidency and of the country, and that is that when someone else is sick, when somebody -- the people in Wyoming don't want gun control because they consider it an inconvenience, he says that people in Wyoming are Americans and that if gun control will save somebody's life in New York, they should be inconvenienced. I talked to a fellow, aide to the new prime minister of Canada, and he couldn't understand it, because all over Canada they have gun control. That's -- Mondale's fundamental issue is that this is a society, not of 220 million individual people doing whatever they want at any time, but with an obligation to each other. Now, he gets polls constantly that say oh, no, that's not where the public's at, but every time he gets in deep trouble, now, last spring, he comes back to what he really believes.

WOODRUFF: He says the Democrats care about you, they'll look after you, they have compassion.

Mr. BARON: No, no, it's more than that. You have an obligation to other people in this society -- this is a family -- to each other to look after each other. And certainly he's not an extreme -- that's the fundamental difference between him and Reagan. I'm not saying Reagan doesn't say look after people, but within the narrow context of American politics -- it's not communism versus fascism. Within that context, Reagan says people look out for themselves.

WOODRUFF: Well, if he sticks to that theme, how much difference will it make, do you think?

Mr. BARON: Well, you know, I don't think you can -- I think you have to be what you are. And I think -- I don't think other themes work if they're not what he is.

Mr. GERGEN: I'll agree with that. I do think that Mondale, when he goes to the caring theme, is more authentic. And his best moments in the debates are when he began to talk about things that were deep within him. For instance, I thought the finest moment he had was in the first debate when he talked about religion and the state. I thought he was really very good. And in that sense he is acquitting himself now with honor and with integrity in the campaign. I am skeptical that it will move may voters.

WOODRUFF: To what extent is what he is doing now just trying to avoid an embarrassing landslide loss? I mean, doesn't there come a point in a campaign when you, if it doesn't look good, you think, "I don't want to go down in the history books as a --"

Mr. BARON: Well, I don't think that's it. Yeah, I don't think in his mind the issue is, does he go down in the history books at 37% versus 43%? I think what he doesn't want to do, if he's going to lose -- and he does not want to lose and surrender that he believes, even though the pollsters say, look, the public isn't very concerned about physically challenged people right now. The public isn't concerned about Head Start. These aren't big priorities. The public doesn't want to handle disadvantaged families and so forth. He says, "Look, I'm not going to lose and election and compromise too." You know, "If I have to compromise a little and win, that's one thing." --

WOODRUFF: You're saying he's an honorable man, that's what you're saying.

Mr. BARON: Well, I'm saying --

Mr. GERGEN: But there's another element here.

Mr. BARON: -- if he thought he could win I think he'd be more pragmatic maybe, sure, a little bit more. But fundamentally if he's going to lose it he's going to make sure that people know where he stands.

Mr. GERGEN: I think Alan is right on that, but I think there's another element there from the Democratic Party standpoint there must be an awful lot of pressure on him not to lose it too big because it will affect the other races and that's --

WOODRUFF: Because of -- especially the races for the House?

Mr. GERGEN: Especially the races for the House. Now, the Senate races seem to be on their own axis now. A lot of them are moving separately from the Reagan-Mondale race. But the House races may still very much depend on what happens to the coattails.

WOODRUFF: Let me just ask you all very quickly about one Senate race, the Helms-Hunt race in North Carolina, getting more attention than any other. Yesterday 20-some U.S. ambassadors endorsed Mr. Helms in a pretty unprecedented move. What do you all think about the propriety of that?David?

Mr. GERGEN: Well, I suppose in the closing days no one's going to say very much about it, and clearly it was done because Jesse Helms thought it would help him. They've had a slam-bang race down there and it's coming right down to the wire. Hunt's got an excellent organization. Helms has got a lot of money and a lot of enthusiasm. I'm not sure it's going to make that much difference, but presumably they thought they would make a marginal difference.

WOODRUFF: Doesn't bother you or does it?

Mr. BARON: Well, they're trying to make Helms look responsible. The key thing in North Carolina does relate to the Mondale race. It's the turnout of the blacks. If they think that the race is over for president, that can keep some of them home.

Mr. GERGEN: One last thing I'd like to say, Hunt was making points against Helms on the question of El Salvador and what Helms had said about that. This letter may help him in that regard.

WOODRUFF: Okay. Thank you again, both of you, David Gergen, Alan Baron, for being with us. Jim? The Gray Vote

LEHRER: Our final piece of politics tonight is a look at some proof that most politics is eventually local. The issue is Social Security; the place is Connecticut; the reporter is Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio.

COKIE ROBERTS, National Public Radio [voice-over]: Most of the 2,000 senior citizens who live in the Bella Vista Apartments in New Haven, Connecticut, are long-time Democrats, but in 1980 many crossed party lines to vote for Ronald Reagan. That's a decision some seniors regret, and this year they're returning to the Democratic fold.

MARIE VILLANO: We're kind of worried about this Social Security and this Medicare. You know, when we got in the last time he said he wasn't going to touch Social Security and Medicare, and then it was all the opposite and then he was going to change. So I'm going to vote for Mondale.

THEODORE BECCARY: I'm a senior citizen now, and I think along the lines that the senior citizen should think, that we have to take care of ourselves and some of the things that the President has done has affected us.

ROBERTS: Throughout this campaign senior citizens have shown up in the polls as the group least likely to vote for President Reagan. That's a shift from four years ago when Ronald Reagan ran strongest among the elderly. When these people go to vote, the Social Security issue is paramount, not only at the presidential level, but in congressional races as well.

[voice-over] In Connecticut's Third Congressional District, where a quarter of the voters are elderly, the Social Security issue gets the most attention and arouses the most ire at the frequent debates between Democratic incumbent Bruce Morrison and the former incumbent, Republican Lawrence DeNardis.

QUESTIONER: Considering the huge cuts that have already been implemented by the Reagan administration in Social Security, Medicaid and many other domestic programs, where and how would you propose to control the economy when it is now based on bloated federal deficits if you don't want to increase taxes?

LAWRENCE DE NARDIS, (R) former congressman: First of all, your facts are wrong. There have been no cuts in Social Securityin the last [boos from crowd] four years.Well, the fact of the matter is that everyone who has received a pension check under the pension program has received that check with a cost-of-living adjustment each and every year for the past four years.

MODERATOR: Mr. Morrison?

Rep. MORRISON: I'll use my time to straighten out the facts; with respect to Social Security, benefits were cut. With respect to Medicare, benefits were cut, and Larry DeNardis voted for those cuts. In 1983 when they came again to cut benefits, I voted no.

Mr. DE NARDIS: That simply isn't true, and I hope I get a chance to respond to that because that's a blatant lie. It's just simply not true. [crowd boos]

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Democrat Morrison took the congressional seat from Republican DeNardis two years ago by hammering away at DeNardis' votes for the Reagan budget which cut some benefits under Social Security.

Rep. MORRISON [1982 commercial]: Marie and I are here tday to discuss the repeated votes in Congress by Republican Lawrence DeNardis to cut Social Security and Medicare. Social Security --

"MARIE": And I've got a few choice words for you, Congressman DeNardis. Too bad I can't say 'em on TV. You say you're all for Social Security. Well, that's just a great big fib. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Lawrence J. DeNardis!

ROBERTS [voice-over]: This year DeNardis is responding in kind.

ACTRESS [1984 DeNardis commecial]: Remember this? "Shame on you, Larry DeNardis!" Well, that supposedly real gesture on TV by an elderly Social Security recipient in our last congressional election was really performed by an actress like myself. A trick by Bruce Morrison that cost us a very good congressman. And, you know, when he got to Congress, Morrison voted against the bill that saved Social Security. Bruce Morrison, it's you who should be ashamed.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: But Democrat Morrison believes Social Security is still his issue, and he spends a lot of time shoring up his base among the senior citizens, campaigning at events like the Halloween party at the Jolly Timers Senior Club.

Rep. MORRISON: If you'll stick with me I'll stick with you, and I think together we're going to keep Social Security and Medicare strong for the rest of your lives, the rest of my life and the rest of the lives of people who aren't even born yet. Thank you very much.

Mr. De NARDIS: Bruce Morrison, when he had a chance to vote for the rescue of Social Security in March of 1983, he voted no.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Republican DeNardis also hits the senior centers trying to convince the elderly that he's not going to do anything to harm Social Security.

Mr. De NERDIS: We are a middle-class, working-class people. Social Security is important to us, and Social Security, that check that my mother gets every month, is the basis for her support. And I got to tell you, I'm so concerned that that system be strong that I will do anything to make it stronger and more lucrative in the years to come.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: The Republican knows he'll have a tough time winning over senior voters. DeNardis blames his defeat two years ago on misinformation about his record on Social Security and thinks the older voters are still inclined to go for his opponent.

Mr. De NARDIS: I haven't given up hope, you know. I think that if we continue to make the case and it's a good one, and it's an honest one, that we'll regain -- regain some of the votes that we lost.I know that as a whole we'll probably lose more than we win, but I don't think the damage will be that bad.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: DeNardis is counting on a strong Reagan showing to sweep him back into Congress, and despite the Social Security issue, the President has his senior citizen supporters.

ANTHONY ADAMO: The Democrats are saying that Ronald Reagan wants to spoil the Social Security. There's no president of the United States can stop that Social Security because there'd be a revolution in the country.

MICHAEL MOSS: I look at the picture this way. Reagan has proven a lot: he's done a lot. Took us out of the depression, right?

ROBERTS [voice-over]: But the Democrat Morrison expects the Social Security issue to help him convince those Reagan supporters to split their tickets and vote for him.

Rep. MORRISON: If people think Ronald Reagan's ahead and is likely to win, they probably think he's a risk when it comes to Social Security, and they know I'm just the opposite of a risk. I'm an insurance policy. So maybe some people will be especially wanting to vote for me for that reason.

Mr. ADAMO: But, yes, I'm going to split my vote. I'm going to vote for Morrison.

ROBERTS: Why is that? What has he done?

Mr. ADAMO: Well, I think Morrison does a lot for old-age people. He really fought for different things for them and he did a lot of things in Congress that the other guy, when he was in, he wasn't doing that much.

Mr. MOSS: I'll split my ticket. I'll vote for Morrison. I think he's a nice guy and a good worker. He does a lot for this community here.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Bruce Morrison joins Democratic candidates all over the country hoping to win the senior citizens again this year by capitalizing on the Social Security issue, and whatever their effect on the presidential race, elderly voters can be expected to have a significant impact on congressional elections and help determine whether Democrats can retain their large majority in the House of Representatives.

LEHRER: That report from by Roberts of National Public Radio.

Now to our final major focus segment, the subject is the plot to assassinate the Pope and the startling charges brought by officials in Italy. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more. Charlayne? Papal Plot

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, today's indictment of seven more Bulgarians and Turks was based on a three-year investigation and some 25,000 pages of evidence. Summing up the lengthy investigation today, Italian judge Ilario Martello said, "We must believe without question that there was an international plot to kill the Pope. "When Pope John Paul was shot in St. Peter's Square in May, 1981, a lone gunman was apprehended, but Judge Martello said today that a second gunman was standing nearby and that he fired one of the three shots that wounded the Pope. The accused gunman was Oral Celik, one of four Turks indicted today. Celik is a suspected member of a right-wing terrorist group and is still at large. Also indicted today on new charges was Mehmet Ali Agca, who is already serving a life sentence in an Italian prison for shooting the Pope. Agca, who now says he's sorry for his role in the plot, gave the prosecutors much of the evidence that led to today's indictments. Perhaps the most controversial news today is the indictment of the three Bulgarians, Sergei Ivanon Antonoc, who worked for the Bulgarian National Airline in Rome, along with Todor Aivasov and Major Zhelyo Kolev Vassilev, both of whom worked at the Bulgarian Embassy in Rome. The inditments said that the three were responsible for the escape plans, first from Vatican City, and eventually from Italy.

Earlier this year an Italian prosecutor who reviewed the evidence released today said that he was convinced that Bulgarian authorities, possibly with Soviet aid, had masterminded the assassination attempt to stop social unrest in the Pope's native Poland. Bulgaria has denounced those charges, and Judge Martello today said that he had not addressed the issue of Soviet involvement.

Here to help us sort through the twists and turns of this complicated story is Paul Henze, who worked for the National Security Council during the Carter administration. He is the author of the book published last year, The Plot to Kill the Pope, and currently works for the Rand Corporation.

Mr. Henze, briefly, how did the Italian authorities piece this case together?

PAUL HENZE: Well, they worked very systematically. They started very early. They had evidence very early that there was Bulgarian involvement, because when Agca was captured after he shot the Pope, he had telephone numbers on him that led back to Bulgarian apartments and Bulgarians. So they knew right from the start that they had a big story and a big problem on their hands, and they went at it very systematically and very carefully.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why was it so long before it came out that there was more to it than just this one lone gunman?

Mr. HENZE: Well, it was an enormously complicated plot. It was quite clear from the start that there had to be more to it than the one gunman because the stories he told didn't hang together and didn't make sense. Actually the people who were handling him hadn't really given him very good stories to tell. But he stuck to it for a considerable period of time because he expected to be rescued. He had committed a major murder in Turkey a couple of years before, had then been caught and put on trial and he was rescued from one of Turkey's highest security prisons. So he'd obviously been promised that he'd get the same treatment in Italy.

HUNTER-GAULT: You say "the people handling him." Who were the people handling him?

Mr. HENZE: Well, the people handling him, it now becomes very clear, in view of the Italian indictments, were the Bulgarians. But there were probably other people in the picture as well.

HUNTER-GAULT: What's the deal with the Bulgarians? What's thw story on that?

Mr. HENZE: Well, Bulgaria is a well-known subcontractor for all kinds of dirty business that the Soviets inflict upon the world. Bulgaria has been shipping arms around the last 20 years to terrorists. They've been supporting and training terrorists. They've been dealing in drugs. They have given shelter to all sorts of Middle Eastern mafia types who've been spreading drugs around the world. Bulgaria -- the Bulgarian communist regime does just about anything the Russians want done.

HUNTER-GAULT: Are you saying that this was specifically ordered by the Russians?

Mr. HENZE: I don't see how it could have been otherwise. There was no good Bulgarian reason for doing it, and we know that the Bulgarian secret service really operates simply as a section of the KGB.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what would be the point? Why would the Soviets want to kill the Pope?

Mr. HENZE: They were very upset about Poland, and they were upset about the effect the Pope was having on Poland. Poland had almost sprung itself free from communism. People in Poland, like most people that live under communism, detest it, and with a Polish Pope in Rome, the Poles felt that they'd at long last got into a situation where they could gain some real freedom.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, as you heard a few moments ago, the Bulgarians have denied any involvement in this, and one of the things they said today was that it wouldn't have made sense to carry out a plot like this for that reason, because to kill the Pope would probably have had the obvious effect of solidifying the opposition in Poland.

Mr. HENZE: Well, I'm glad they think so now, but they didn't seem to think so when they were deeply involved in it. The Bulgarians have been telling lies about this from the beginning, just as the Russians have been telling lies. The first Russian lies told in the first hours after the shooting were that the United States was behind the plot, and they've fabricated bigger and better lies along those lines for the past 3 1/2 years.

HUNTER-GAULT: What convinces you so that the Bulgarians and the Soviets are --

Mr. HENZE: Well, the evidence -- from the very start it became clear that Agca had some connections with the Bulgarians and there was no reason why a Turk of this sort, who was a known murderer and obviously selected because he'd alrerady proved himself as a skillful assassin. There was no reason why he should have a connection with Bulgaria unless the Bulgarians really had some pretty nefarious intentions. Now, the Bulgarians maintain they couldn't possibly know who Agca was. That's just a lot of poppycock. Agca had been -- his picture had been in the press in Turkey, it'd had been in the press in many places in Europe for more than a year. The Bulgarians have a secret service that keeps track of everybody that comes into the country. So it's just unbelievable that they wouldn't know who he was. They knew darned well who he was, and they helped him on his way.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why do you think he started to talk? Was it because he hadn't been sprung, as you say?

Mr. HENZE: Yes, I think two things. One, I think he suddenly realized that probably he was scheduled for elimination and --

HUNTER-GAULT: By whom?

Mr. HENZE: By the Bulgarians or by the KGB or some combination. They're practically one and the same. One of the interesting -- fascinating things now is -- it's very interesting for me today to see Oral Celik, the second man indicted. But where is Oral Celik? Well, it's fairly likely that Oral Celik left Rome that very night, the day the Pope was shot in a sealed Bulgarian truck. You may recall the Bulgarians had sought special permission to get an international customs-cleared truck into Rome, and they had it parked near their embassy, and the very night of the day the Pope was shot, that truck left and went back to Bulgaria. Now, Agca was supposed to be one it. Of course, Agca was caught. Oral Cellig is obviously one of those people that several people saw and some people captured on film fleeing across St. Peter's Square.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you know, one of the other arguments the Bulgarians raised in their defense was that if Antonov, for example, the man who is the one Bulgarianin custody now in Rome, had been guilty, why did he hang around for 18 months after Agca's arrest?

Mr. HENZE: Well, Antonov was a small fish. The bigger fish, of course, skipped out of Italy and got back to Bulgaria. Now, that's a --

HUNTER-GAULT: Which is where they presumably are now?

Mr. HENZE: Aivasov and Vassilev of course are in Bulgaria. People see them there and they're trotted out periodically. But Antonov was a small fish. He just happens to be the only one the Italians had, and they had to build their investigation around him because they were able to get hold of him.

HUNTER-GAULT: The judge said today that he had not, when asked about the Soviet connection, said that he had not pursued that. I mean, do you think that's ever going to be definitively proved?

Mr. HENZE: It may. It may not. It's hard to say. It could be proved in a number of ways. It may turn out, as the trial opens and as all the evidence is laid out, that there are some Soviets involved. The Italians have found the KGB involved in terrorism and other assassinations in Italy. We could also learn about it from a high-level defector, where we always learn fascinating things from the people that decide to break with the Soviet Union and come out and tell what they've really been doing, and we can't rule that possibility out.

HUNTER-GAULT: You know, the defense has begun to talk about its strategy for defending Antonov, and they've talked about Agca's credibility, the fact that he has on several occasions recanted major portions of the story, like, for example, he first talked about a plot also involved to kill Lech Walesa in Poland. I mean, how strong is their case, do you think, particularly in view of the fact that Agca is their main witness that the whole case seems to be built on, all of these indictments seem to be built on his testimony?

Mr. HENZE: I think their case is very strong. My understanding of the way they've gone about it is that obviously Agca has given them important leads. But Agca didn't know the whole story. Agca was kept in the dark in part by his handlers. He didn't know a lot of things, and I'm sure, as he's put some of the things he knew together, he has himself deduced a great deal more. But Judge Martello's technique has been to interrogate Agca carefully, listen to Agca, go out and check then, and then come back and recheck. And this process of checking, double-checking, triple-checking has gone on now for nearly three years. I think this is probably going to stand as one of the most meticulously investigated and researched major cases that the world has seen in modern times. So in spite of all the Bulgarian noise about Agca lying and so forth, I think the Italians are going to demonstrate that they have a very strong case, and its -- the convictions will undoubtedly hold.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that there are any holes left, any smoking guns, any place where this case can fall apart?

Mr. HENZE: I doubt it. Of course, we've had people predicting -- Bulgarians and Russians and people associated with them, and people deceived by them have been predicting that the case has been falling apart all along. But the case has not only not fallen apart, it's got stronger all the time. I have the greatest respect for the integrity and the thoroughness of the Italian judicial authorities, and I think they've demonstrated today what a thorough job they've done.

HUNTER-GAULT: What about this re-indictment of Agca? I mean, how significant is that? I mean, he's already serving life. They indicted him today on bringing in weapons or something like that.

Mr. HENZE: It's kind of a legal technicality. I think it sort of just cleans the record.There are a lot of people on the fringes of this case. There's a very interesting trial going on in Turkey now that involves a number of the people that supported Agca there, including the great Turkish Mafia godfather, who used to live in Bulgaria, a figure who's been involved in durgs and arms and all sorts of things for the last 15 years. In Italy and Turkey over a long period of time I think a lot of things will continue. But the central aspect of it is what Judge Martello reported today.

HUNTER-GAULT: How soon do you think this will all be resolved?

Mr. HENZE: I don't think it'll go very fast. The Italians are very thorough, and they are thorough at the expense of being slow at times because they want to demonstrate that they've built a very strong case.

HUNTER-GAULT: So are you talking months?

Mr. HENZE: I think it's months. It may take the better part of next year.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well, thank you very much for being with us, Mr. Henze.

Mr. HENZE: You are very welcome. Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Judy?

WOODRUFF: Turning now to a recap of today's other top stories, a number of big banks dropped their prime rate to 12%. A U.S. embassy employee in El Salvador was shot and killed in the capital of San Salvador. And Ronald Russian campaigned in the Northeast while Walter Mondale denied a newspaper report that his staff told him the election is already lost. Mondale blasted the President in a Midwest campaign stop.

Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Judy. And we'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer; thank you and good night.