The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, former Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger was found guilty of illegal lobbying. President Reagan announced a new plan to rejuvenate the U. S. space program and another earthquake shook California, but it caused only minor damage. We'll have the details in our new summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary we focus on the Robertson factor in 1988 presidential politics. Judy Woodruff interviews Pat Robertson and four experts discuss his appeal, his constituency and his weaknesses. Finally, our stump speaker tonight is Democrat Jesse Jackson.News Summary MacNEIL: President Reagan's former political director, Lyn Nofziger was convicted today of illegally lobbying Presidential aides for private clients after he left the White House. The jury found Nofziger guilty on three charges, that he lobbied former colleagues, including Edwin Meese on behalf of the Wedtech Corporation, a maritime engineers' union and the manufacturer of the A 10 Anti tank plane. Nofziger said he had done nothing wrong and would appeal. LYN NOFZIGER, former Reagan aide: Obviously we're disappointed. We thought we were innocent going in; we think we're innocent coming out. We think it's a lousy law. It's a law -- there's supposed to be in this country something called 'equal justice under the law', and that does not apply here. It does not apply to members of Congress; it does not apply to members of the Judiciary; it does not apply to people below a certain salary level. We think it's unconstitutional. We think -- well, we will go ahead and appeal this, and we think we're going to get good results. MacNEIL: Nofziger will be sentenced on March 25th. He could be sent to jail for up to six years and fined as much as thirty thousand dollars. The independent counsel who prosecuted the case, James McKay, said Nofziger had contacted his friends in the White House to cash in on his influence. The White House said it would have no comment. Jim? LEHRER: President Reagan today announced a plan to get the nation's space program back on track. It calls for raising NASA's budget to $11. 3 billion next year and for strong involvement of the private sector. The plan includes putting a scientific station on the moon, a permanent space station and sending humans to Mars.

Dr. JAMES FLETCHER, NASA Administrator: The policy clearly establishes that, for the first time, the United States has a long range goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond earth orbit into the solar system. This is a goal of enormous significance with potentially historic, future implications. MacNEIL: The Secretary of Transportation said today that the nation's aviation system needs a major overhaul. James Burnley said the Federal Aviation Administration is unable to keep up with technological changes and increases in air travel. Burnley said red tape and political delays plagued the current system. Burnley raised several possible plans for shifting responsibility for air traffic away from the FAA. One plan would establish a nonprofit corporation to operate the air traffic control system. LEHRER: A Federal Appeals Court today said requiring railroad workers to take drug or alcohol tests after accidents was unconstitutional. The Court in San Francisco threw out the Federal rule which has been in effect for two years. The Court said it violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches. The case will likely go on to the U. S. Supreme Court for final disposition. MacNEIL: An earthquake rocked southern California this morning, causing at least 25 injuries but only minor damage. The tremor shook buildings, smashed windows, and sent good tumbling off store shelves. Burglar alarms were set off and there was some temporary power outages. The quake measured five on the Richter scale and was felt over a ten thousand square mile area. LEHRER: The stunning testimony about Panama's leader, Manuel Noriega, continued today before a U. S. Senate Subcommittee. The witness was Ramon Milian Rodriguez, a Cuban born accountant. He said the Colombian drug cartel involving Noriega generated a $200 million a month profit in the United States. He said U. S. banks were also involved in the operation. RAMON MILIAN RODRIGUEZ, convicted drug conspirator: I would say it would be fair to say that American banks courted my business. MAN'S VOICE: And would you describe to me, as you did previously, what that entailed? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, in the specific case of American banks, they have -- for one thing they have a special representative for people like me. MAN'S VOICE: Do you know who you were looking for when you first arrived at the bank? Mr. RODRIGUEZ:: Well, after a while I knew the fellow that were in charge of it. You know -- MAN'S VOICE: Do you know them by name to this date? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. No, because that's -- it was a very real reason why we went through this type of charade. We were breaking laws in a very big manner, and you always have to have plausible deniability. And, uh, the New York banks are no fools. LEHRER: He also said the cartel's work was helped by U. S. Intelligence information supplied by General Noriega. Noriega was indicted last week in Florida on a multitude of charges involving drug trafficking. He remains in power in Panama, however, and it is considered unlikely that he will ever stand trial on those charges. MacNEIL: In Beirut the group calling itself Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine threatened today to take action against three Americans and an Indian hostage. The threat was accompanied by a photo of Allan Steen, one of the hostages, which was sent to a Western news agency and a newspaper in Beirut. It did not say what the action might be taken against the hostages, but called for more demonstrations in Israel's occupied territories. In the West Bank city of Ramallah today Israeli soldiers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse Palestinian protesters who threw rocks and blocked roadways. The Army said Arab demonstrators also attacked a Jewish motorist and stoned and burned a bus in East Jerusalem, but no injuries were reported. LEHRER: The government of Vietnam today announced the release of some 1,000 former officials of the defeated South Vietnam. The officials have been held in re education camps since the Communist victory in 1975. They are among a total of 9,000 prisoners who will either be released or have their sentences reduced. The Associated Press reported today a massacre of more than 20 civilians by Government troops in Ethiopia. The report said the people had lined up for food distribution but were then told to get aboard trucks for resettlement. When they resisted, the troops opened fire. A UN relief official has demanded an emergency meeting with Ethiopian authorities to discuss the killings. MacNEIL: That's it for the news summary. Now it's on to the Robertson candidacy and the Jackson stump speech. Crusading for Votes LEHRER: Our major story tonight is Pat Robertson, the former Protestant television minister who wants to be President of the United States, the man who stunned most political experts by finishing second in Monday's Iowa Republican caucuses. Robertson compares his campaign to that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. He says both had to combat religious bigotry, Kennedy because he was Catholic, Robertson because he is an evangelical fundamentalist. Our look includes an interview with Robertson himself and the analysis of four specialized observers of Robertson and the role of religion in politics. We begin with a political report from on the ground in New Hampshire, a very different place than Iowa. The reporter is correspondent Elizabeth Brackett. PAT ROBERTSON, presidential candidate: As you know we have had an interesting couple of days after Iowa, and we're here in New Hampshire because this is an extremely important primary coming up. And I'm sure you might wonder when somebody like me did as well as I did in Iowa, and garnered more votes in the Republican side of the ledger than any of the leading Democrats got on their side of the ledger. You might say, what is this guy talking about?

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: That was what Republican Party regulars who gathered in Nashua, New Hampshire, last night wanted to know. Who was this man who had turned their party upside down in Iowa, embarrassing the frontrunner, George Bush. While some searched for an answer, many of the party's leaders in New Hampshire were already saying it couldn't be done again. BILL HATCH, GOP state representative: I think there are a peculiar set of circumstances in Iowa and other caucus states that Robertson took advantage of. And to the degree that he took advantage of it, we certainly congratulate him for a very good job and a job well done. But I don't think it's going to affect the Republicans here in New Hampshire.

BRACKETT: But Robertson claims his invisible army will materialize here just as it did in Iowa. Staunch Robertson supporter Wallace Woodman, says his candidate will bring a new group to the polls. WALLACE WOODMAN, Robertson supporter: The church gives him a head start, because there a lot of people in churches who will vote for him, as well as the people who get cable in the area. We have a cable station here, or a cable hookup company, and they carry CBN, and a lot of people watch CBN here. BRACKETT: Have you ever been involved in working for a political candidate before (unintelligible)? Mr. WOODMAN: Never, never. I never voted before. I've never registered before. Until recently.

BRACKETT: Whether Robertson continues to make gains or not, his candidacy has highlighted the split within the Republican Party. JACK KEMP, presidential candidate: I think a good old fashioned primary debate about the soul the intellectual gravity -- or center of gravity in the Republican Party will win new converts. And ultimately we will be back together after New Orleans. I don't see it as a long term problem. BRACKETT: You're grappling for the soul, but it may be healthy? Rep. KEMP: Yeah, because I think an intellectual struggle is oftentimes cathartic.

BRACKETT: So the deep divisions in the Republican Party that surfaced in Iowa may well be seen again in New Hampshire. But this time say the politicians and voters here, it may not be Pat Robertson that brings those divisions out into the open. ELSIE VARTANIAN, New Hampshire GOP Chairman: It's remotivated Jack Kemp to really be out there swinging. I think what was overlooked somewhat in the Iowa race was the effect that Jack will have on the campaign here in New Hampshire.

BRACKETT: In last night's New Hampshire forum, Kemp was well received, while the response for Robertson was only lukewarm. Mr. ROBERTSON: I intend to be the nominee of the Republican Party, and I would like to have your help along the way.

BRACKETT: And though Republicans are beginning to look more like Democrats as they battle for the soul of their Party, conservative Republican Senator Gordon Humphrey says the Party will not be damaged. Sen. GORDON HUMPHREY, (R) New Hampshire: Some commentators are talking about a Republican blood bath, but it isn't at all. It's (unintelligible). We're having a good time. There's been a periodic war in the Republican Party over the last 20 years. It's the old guard vs. the new guard. The old vs. the young, and the establishment vs. the anti establishment. GEORGE BUSH, presidential candidate: And I discovered I have another something in common with President Reagan. We both lost Iowa.

BRACKETT: The establishment candidate taking the most hits of the battle is George Bush. The latest New Hampshire poll showed Pat Robertson's Iowa upset giving a boost to Bush's chief rival, Bob Dole. Despite that, a relaxed Bush had some unusual comments on the Alaska pipeline last night. Vice President BUSH: Remember when they built the pipeline? ''Don't build the pipeline, you're gonna get rid of the caribou. '' The caribou love it. They rub up against it, and they have babies, and there are more caribou in Alaska than you can shake a stick at.

BRACKETT: And that somewhat puzzling remark was left untouched by his opponents. So the evening did not make the road back from Iowa any easier for the Vice President. Party Chairman Elsie Vartanian says if the conservative wing does settle on a candidate, Bush could be in even more trouble. Ms. VARTANIAN: The conservative wing of the party has been leftwithout a candidate without President Reagan there. And they're looking for a natural heir to that, and I think many of them are comfortable with Kemp, many of them are comfortable with Robertson and some are comfortable with duPont.

BRACKETT: Pat Robertson, of course, is counting on his Iowa showing to turn that conservative wing towards him. But many here say that when choices are made by ballots, not caucuses, this divided Republican Party could produce very different results. MacNEIL: Next we have an extended newsmaker interview with candidate Pat Robertson. Judy Woodruff taped it this morning when Mr. Robertson was in Hudson, New Hampshire.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mr. Robertson, congratulations again on your showing in Iowa. PAT ROBERTSON, Presidential Candidate: Thanks, Judy. I was just simply delighted, and I really congratulate those wonderful people in Iowa; they did a fabulous job. WOODRUFF: As you well know, some people are saying that really wasn't a true test of your popular appeal because you really were just demonstrating your organizational ability. What do you say to that? ROBERTSON: Judy, I was emphasizing a message. I traveled to 53 cities in five days, and I said the same thing over and over again: Let's make America number one, let's restore the greatness of America through moral strength, let's rebuild America's families, let's rebuild American industries so it's number one in the world, and let's be strong for freedom. I said it over and over again, and I think the message took hold. It wasn't just organization, although organization out there was great, the message was getting through too. WOODRUFF: You're now heading to New Hampshire -- you're in New Hampshire where they are saying you cannot do as well because it is a primary state, it's a popular election. And again, organizing the evangelical and the other Christian voters is just not going to be enough. ROBERTSON: Judy, what people don't seem to understand is that the caucus process in a state like Iowa is very complicated. It means you have to organize 99 counties and 2,400 and about 89 precincts. It was tough. The primary is much, much easier, and, in essence, you can do this on television and through message, and organization isn't that significant. But what's happening here in New Hampshire, I have been moving in the polls, I'm right now tied for third place, and I'm the one that's got the momentum going, going into Tuesday. Nobody else is moving. Bob Dole may be up a couple of points, but George Bush has slipped and so has Jack Kemp, and so, in a sense, I am positioned to move clearly to third, and move up beyond that. WOODRUFF: What do you say, Mr. Robertson, to the people like the editor of the Manchester Union Leader, which is, of course, a major conservative newspaper there, who say that New Hampshire is not your kind of territory? That you scare people there? ROBERTSON: Well, Maggie Loeb is a very good friend of mine, and her recent editorial, she has been hitting pretty hard at a couple of my competitors here, and in yesterday's paper there was a great big picture, front page, so they are conservative, I'm conservative, they're beginning to give me some very fair treatment, and I appreciate it a great deal. WOODRUFF: But again, the editor said that you scare people in New Hampshire. How do you. . . ROBERTSON: Well, I tell you what's happened. In the last, say, month, my so called negative ratings have dropped from 59% to about 30% and they're still going down, which says that I'm finally getting through. I've talked to people on television, on radio, in the print, they see who I am and what I believe, and as soon as they do this, they begin to switch. But I've done something here that I don't believe any candidate has ever done in history; I mailed a 30 minute cassette tape of what I would do as President to every single registered Republican and every single registered independent family in the entire state. And when people listen to that tape, and they hear what I want to do, then I am seeing tremendous support generated from that. WOODRUFF: But how do you reassure people who are worried about this notion of blurring the line between church and state? And they're worried that putting a former minister in the White House in going to do that. ROBERTSON: Well, Judy, they worried about the same thing about John Kennedy in 1960, he was a very attractive fellow, but they said, ''He's a Catholic, and therefore he will be owing allegiance to the Pope in Rome, and we've never had a Catholic as our President, we tried Al Smith and didn't want him, and we can't have Kennedy. '' Well, the people rejected that in 1960, they said, ''Look, we are not going to put a religious test on anybody for office. It isn't American; it's wrong. '' In 1988, they're trying to do the same thing to me. . . WOODRUFF: But isn't it. . . isn't it. . . excuse me. . . isn't it a little different though, because, with all due respect, you were a minister for three decades? ROBERTSON: Yeah, but Judy, I'm also trained as a lawyer. I've been in business, I've run a major cable television network. I headed the Council on Foreign, I mean on National Policy. Included in the membership was the Governor of New Hampshire. We've had all kinds of people exposed to my point of view. I've been dealing with issues just like you have on television for at least ten or more years. I mean, I have gone into depth on almost every major policy issue facing the world, and. . . WOODRUFF: Well, in connection with that, I want to ask you, you bristled the other night when Tom Brokaw of NBC called you a TV evangelist, a former TV evangelist. You were a minister and you were spreading the word of God. . . ROBERTSON: But I have never been an evangelist. Judy, I've been a film buyer, I have been a program director, I have been in charge of the sales force, if you will, as president of four major market television stations. We have a motion picture film company that has just sold an after school special to both CBS and ABC, we've done joint production ventures with Australian and Canadian television, I've done a youth program over in Japan that I sold to BBC. I mean, it's nonsense to call somebody who heads a network of 37 million homes a ''TV evangelist. '' That is bigoted and it's an insult. And it denigrates who I am and what I am and I'm sick of it. I mean, I think it's arrogance on the part of the press to decide they are going to label me and put me down. And I'm just not going to take it any longer. If Joe Montana of the 49ers was called the tight end of the team, everyone would laugh those sports writers out of the business, but yet people in the media think they can just write off all the things that I've done. I've also founded a major university; I'm chancellor of a fully accredited graduate university. So why don't they call me an educator? WOODRUFF: But it also sounds like you are downplaying your role as a minister for 20 or 30 years? ROBERTSON: Call me a religious broadcaster. Call me a minister, if you want to --I'm a minister. But a minister means ''servant,'' and that's exactly what a person should do in public office, be a servant. And that's all I want. If they want to call me a servant, they can do that. I'll take the term gladly. But I just. . . it's like saying Joe Montana is a center. I've never played evangelist. I've played quarterback, if you know what I mean. And it's a great deal of difference. WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about a couple of positions that you have taken over the years. Now, at one point, at least at one point, and I know this from a newsletter back in 1981, you advocated abolishing the Social Security system. Do you still think that should be done? ROBERTSON: You know, that, again, sounds like a pejorative, and I wouldn't do that. I am for the integrity of the retirement program to our elderly, obviously. But whether we like it or not, by the year 2015, Social Security is going to be bankrupt. Now, what's going to happen to younger workers in 2015? There won't be retirement benefits without raising the tax structure to at least 23%. WOODRUFF: But what I'm asking you about is something that you said, or. . . ROBERTSON: Yeah, but what I'm trying to tell you is, I want to move, over a 30 or 40 year time period, from a compulsory government unfunded program to a fully funded actuarially sound private program that will take care of our younger workers. And I want then to begin slowly phasing in, over the next 40 years. That isn't abolishing the Social Security system. You see, politicians demagogue this thing like I have never seen. Some of our opponents in this thing are demagoguing it, and trying to scare the elderly. All I'm saying is, Look after the elderly, guarantee them their retirement, but at the same time look after the younger workers. I'm just looking down the road long range, that's all. WOODRUFF: Another point, in a book in 1984 and elsewhere, you advocated something you called ''The year of jubilee,'' in which all debts would be repudiated or canceled. Um, is this what you would do? ROBERTSON: Well, again Judy, I don't know where you're getting these extreme spins to what I say. What I'm saying is, in Israel, every 50 years, they had a cycle of jubilee. And if we can write such a thing into our Constitution, that 50 years down the road, when you and I are both dead, it would be a wonderful idea and we wouldn't be in the problem economically we're in right now, because the brakes would slowly be applied about 15 years before the landing, before the stop, and then there could be a new cycle of business formation. It would be a very wise, enlightened policy. Obviously, you can't do it now, I wasn't suggesting that. WOODRUFF: One, one last line of questioning. You have talked repeatedly about restoring family values. What role really does a President have in restoring family values? In other words, what does he have to do with family life in this country? ROBERTSON: Well, I think as Franklin Roosevelt said, ''The principle task of the Presidency is moral leadership. '' But in terms of policy, over 20 years we've added maybe 245% extra tax burden on families with children. In the tax structure, we can reward stable families by raising the deduction per child per family to what it would have been with inflation. That would be one way to make it easier. I'm favoring tax deduction. . . WOODRUFF: How much, how much would that cost? ROBERTSON: We're talking maybe 20 billion or so a year, but I haven't run the numbers completely on it. Obviously the amount of the deduction would depend on how much it did cost. But it would be. . . if we could save an equal amount of money in delinquency, in crime, in a poor education for children -- I will tell you what functional illiteracy costs in this country, it's about 220 billion dollars, and if there could be some offset. . . so it would maybe cost a little bit at first, ten years down the road it would be an enormous saving in terms of the stability of our population. WOODRUFF: One other quick question. What kind of people would serve in a Robertson administration? Would they be people who have been in government before, would they, for example, have to be Christian? How do you define who would serve in your administration? ROBERTSON: Well, Judy, I'm a conservative. I am a fiscal conservative, an economic conservative, a political conservative, and I want conservatives in my administration. I only have 3 to 4 thousand appointees, and I'm promising everybody that I'm not going to appoint liberal democrats in there. And if there are any around, I am going to ask for their resignations. But I think of a man like my former boss, Peter Grace, at W. R. Grace and Company, I'd love somebody like that as head of OMB, rather than David Stockman and that lady they used to call ''Rosy Scenario'' they had working down there, if you remember her, a few years back. I would like to have, maybe, a man of the calibre of Ross Perot, in charge of the Defense Department. WOODRUFF: Is religious faith any sort of predeterminate? ROBERTSON: Well, that's unconstitutional, as I'm sure you know, and if I'm pledged to support the Constitution, I have to do what the Constitution says, and it says there shall be no religious test for any office or position of trust under the United States, and so I would have to do what I was sworn to do. But I'm not sworn not to have conservatives. So, for example, the Governor of Missouri was the former head of the state's Attorneys General of the United States, he would make a fine candidate for Attorney General. There are many people like that, who are superb public figures, but also superb business leaders. I want to get practical, realistic business leaders in there to bring some order out of this incredible budget deficit we've got in Washington. WOODRUFF: Mr. Robertson, once again we thank you for being with us. ROBERTSON: Thank you, Judy. It's been a pleasure. LEHRER: Now, a four way analysis of Pat Robertson and the religious and political issues his candidacy raises. We get the views of Dr. J. Neal Rodgers, editor of the Baptist Laity Journal. He is with us from Public Station KERA in Dallas. Jim Wall, editor of Christian Century, a weekly nondenominational Protestant magazine, which selected Pat Robertson as its Man of the Year in 1987. John Buchanan, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, former Republican Congressman from Alabama, who's now chairman of the board of People for the American Way, the liberal public affairs group founded by Norman Lear. And the Reverend Jerry Falwell, founder and chairman of the Moral Majority. He joins us from Lynchburg, Virginia. Rev. Falwell, does Robertson have a religious bigotry problem similar to the one John Kennedy had in 1960? Rev. JERRY FALWELL, Moral Majority: I think he does. I think he's very correct when he says that he is being berated and pejorative terms are being used. I think that will disappear, I think it's purely a matter of time before that is rejected by the American people. But, yes, I do think he has that problem. LEHRER: Why? Rev. FALWELL: Well, basically because evangelical religion in this country today is looked on quite negatively generally by the medium. And of course by those persons who oppose Ronald Reagan who was the beneficiary of much of the evangelical vote in recent times. The last three presidential elections were -- the outcome was determined by the evangelical vote. Jimmy Carter, with the born again message, was by a two to one vote, put in the presidency. That group quickly became disenchanted with Mr. Carter because of his philosophy and performance. Two to one they went for Reagan in 1980 and four to one in '84. And right now that group that Louis Harris, the pollster, said in '84, was about 20% of the electorate. Now, according to CBS in Iowa, about one in three are saying, ''I'm an evangelical Christian,'' and because of the influence that group has had, it has brought about a backlash, and a great deal of misunderstanding. The word fundamentalist, for example. In '79, when they needed a name for the Ayatollah, fundamentalist seemed to be a quite nice one to use. But the fact is these evangelical Christians are just Bible believing God fearing Christian people who love Christ and believe the Bible is the word of God. And for the first time in the past ten years, because of Moral Majority, and other such groups, have become informed, involved, and are participating in a very significant way. And come '88, well, after New Orleans, you'll find that 50% right now, the evangelical vote is behind Bush, Dole, Kemp. Fifty percent with Pat Robertson. Whoever that candidate happens to be, the nominee, will find all 100% coming clearly behind him, and if that candidate happens to be George Bush, who I think it will be, or Bob Dole, and I think it's between those two, they will be well served to bring Jack Kemp or Bob Dornan, or Pat Robertson on as Vice President. And come '88, my guess is for the fourth consecutive time, the evangelical vote will determine who wins the presidency. LEHRER: John Buchanan, do you agree that he's a victim similar to what happened to John Kennedy? JOHN BUCHANAN , People for the American Way: No, I really think the shoe is entirely on the other foot. One of my concerns about the Robertson candidacy is the kind of religious intolerance I've heard from him. Exemplified, for example, when he won in Michigan, and he described it as a great victory for the Christians. It happens all the other Republican candidates who lost were also Christian. He said the Constitution's a great documents -- LEHRER: Can't he mean he's more Christian than the others? Is that -- Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, he has through the years from his pulpit, through his ministry of -- I would say -- televangelism -- that's not an insult, I don't consider it an insult to call Jerry Falwell a televangelist, or Billy Graham -- but he has mixed politics heavily with his religion. He's given scriptural sanction for far right political positions. And he himself has mixed the two very thoroughly in a very potent ministry. I don't think he's a victim of anybody else's intolerance. I think, rather, he has tended toward the view that ''My interpretation of scripture as applied to political issues is the Christian interpretation, that those who may be Christian but may have very different ideas about politics, are scripturally wrong. '' Or somehow not be taking the Christian position. And this is the problem with the religious right. Some of the very best people I know are conservative Republicans. Some of the best people I know are liberal Democrats. And one can't claim any particular position on public issues to be THE Christian, THE moral position. I don't think anybody does anything other than welcome evangelicals to the political process. I'm an evangelical, and I've been in it for a long time. But we have to play by the same ground rules as everybody else, and we have to respect other people's faith, other people's political opinions in a diverse and pluralistic society. And this, I think, Pat Robertson and those of the religious right have tended not to do. Therefore, the shoe is entirely on the other foot. Rev. FALWELL: John, that's the kind of bigotry Pat Robertson's talking about. You're head of Norman Lear's group that's very anti Christian. You're not, but Mr. Lear is. And -- Mr. BUCHANAN: That is simply untrue! It is untrue! LEHRER: One at a time. Rev. FALWELL: -- very slanted, I can show films where you just completely misstate facts on Pat Robertson, and you know that's true, John. LEHRER: Let me bring Mr. Wall into this. Mr. Wall, you have studied Pat Robertson's views. How -- I'm sorry -- that's Dr. Rodgers -- you wanted to speak. Dr. NEAL RODGERS, Baptist Laity: Yeah, if I can just go ahead and jump in for a moment. LEHRER: Go ahead -- Dr. RODGERS: Mr. Robertson speaks of himself as being a victim, but I think he in reality sees that he has a real problem. And that problem is that as he has professed publicly, the leadership and God in his life, he realizes that that presents some difficulties for him in being able to lead a pluralistic society, where many people do not believe in the same sort of god that he does, or in the same version of religion that he does. And as a result, I think that's why today we have seen him beginning to try to make some distance between him and the title ''TV evangelist,'' that has been tagged to him over the years. Why, he's got a problem with many of the statements that he has made during the past ten years or so. LEHRER: Like what? Give me an example. Dr. RODGERS: Okay. Richard Vigury's book, The New Right: We're Ready to Lead. In that book, Mr. Robertson says, ''Protestants and Catholics have enough votes to run this country. Whenever Protestants and Catholics say enough is enough, we're going to take over. '' You know, that's a pretty hardline, narrow sort of statement, which is, I think, representative of many statements that he has made over the past few years. And those statements present him problems. LEHRER: Well, what are his -- how would you characterize his religious views? You've studied them. What -- how would you say -- what are they? Dr. RODGERS: I think that his religious values -- now, I'll use that phrase that (unintelligible) the political process -- are values that are very muscular, so to speak. Values that emphasize a kind of we vs. them sort of theology. Almost as I view his politics of armageddon, you know, that America wears the white hat always, regardless of what they do. And Russia always wears the black hat. And I think that weakens the democratic process. You know, in a democracy such as ours, we emphasize that no one has a corner on the truth, whether they be protestant, Catholics or atheists. That we all have partial truth, and it's only in the process of democratic debate that hopefully we come to an understanding of exactly what decisions are best for our country. LEHRER: Mr. Wall, is it your impression that Pat Robertson believes he has a monopoly on the truth? JAMES WALL, Christian Center Foundation: We have to realize, and I suppose, Jim, I'm about as far away from Pat Robertson theologically and politically as anybody on your panel tonight. But we have to realize that one of the principles on which he speaks is this absolutism. He is a conservative fundamentalist. He does believe he has the answer. I don't agree with him. Obviously, two of the other panelists don't agree with him either. But that is his theological point of view, and it's A point of view that is followed by a lot of people in this country. And I also agree with Pat Robertson that he is being picked on because of his fundamentalist views. And I want to distinguish with Jerry Falwell, not every evangelical is a fundamentalist. That's a very important distinction to make, and Jerry knows this -- that some evangelicals would not consider themselves fundamentalists. So let's be careful -- LEHRER: Now, explain that. Mr. WALL: We don't simply adopt the term fundamentalist for all evangelicals. LEHRER: Well, all right, explain that -- Mr. WALL: The fundamentalists believe in biblical inerrancy. Every word of the Bible is absolutely correct. Not every evangelical would say that. Every evangelical would say they look to the Bible for authority. But they do not look to the Bible as the absolute word for word truth. LEHRER: Well, what's a lay definition of evangelical? Mr. WALL: A person who believes, as Jerry accurately said, in Jesus Christ as savior, who wants to convert other people to that point of view, a spiritual conversion is behind the evangelical. Jimmy Carter was a conservative evangelical; he is not a fundamentalist. And by the way, I think we ought to point out that Jimmy Carter's religious commitment was certainly as strong as either of the ordained clergy persons running right now. The fact was that he was a lay person. I think one of the things that Pat Robertson is saying is, ''Don't hold it against me because I am ordained. '' You see, one of the things people are doing is picking on him to try and nail him down for his ordination. Ordinations should not rule out a person seeking office. Rev. FALWELL: Jim, you and I also both know that no one would do that to Jesse Jackson. No one has done it to him, nobody would do it to him. While at the same time, he is an ordained Baptist evangelist and pastor, and I agree with you that Pat -- I'm a Bush supporter -- but I'm telling you I believe Pat Robertson is being unfairly treated, I think he's a very levelheaded and fair person, and when the public gets to know him, they're going to learn that he probably is at worst second or third in the race, all the way to the convention. Mr. WALL: Well, for example, his point about TV evangelists is a well understood point -- well, I understand it well. He is not an evangelist. He does not preach for conversion. He uses his television ministry to do that. LEHRER: You disagree with that? Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, the problem is he is not being attacked because he's a minister or because he's a fundamentalist or charismatic. He is not being attacked for his religious views. I don't think he's even under attack. I think that is a misstatement. Jerry Falwell a few minutes ago gave us a real example of religious intolerance. He referred to my organization, 270,000 diverse Americans as anti Christian. (crosstalk) That is simply untrue. And that is intolerance, Jerry. You've done it over and over. And the problem with Pat Robertson is a same kind of intolerance toward people who disagree with him politically. He has made a far right political agendainto something that is somehow scripturally sanctioned and ordained by God. That's simply not right, and we don't like intolerance in this country. We think evangelicals and preachers are fine. Rev. FALWELL: Jim, may I get in on this? LEHRER: Yeah, go ahead. Rev. FALWELL: John, (unintelligible) you, like Father Hesburg of Notre Dame, like Monsignor Higgins of Catholic University, because in their words, you are bigoted against evangelical Christianity. Mr. BUCHANAN: (unintelligible) LEHRER: Dr. Rodgers -- yeah, let Dr. Rodgers -- Dr. RODGERS: -- get back in on this if I can for just a moment. I think that one of the difficulties that many evangelicals have with Pat Robertson is in some ways looking at other religious figures who have gotten into the political marketplace over the years, is that he has somewhat of a -- at least I would put it -- almost a weak view of sin. He takes the idea that America is a righteous nation, almost as he says in the interview a few minutes ago, that America needs to be number one, it needs to be strong. While other religious leaders who have gotten into the political forum over a number of years have taken a different view. They brought a different sort of religious value to the political marketplace. Like Martin Luther King. Who came emphasizing not the fact that America is great and is wonderful and super among all the nations of the earth, but that America is simple just like every other nation. And that in order for us to be great, we have to understand our own failings, we have to promote brotherhood, equality, the democratic process, rather than some sort of a muscular, stick carrying kind of idea. LEHRER: Mr. Wall, let me ask you, what kind of support does Pat Robertson have within the total evangelical movement? Mr. WALL: I think he has a great deal of support. And one reason he does is that there is a deep hunger for moral values in this country. Now, as I've indicated, he and I are far apart on both theology and politics. But I think you're going to find him in state after state being able to appeal across the board to people who may not be fundamentalists, indeed probably aren't fundamentalists, may not even be religiously oriented, but they're touched by his -- LEHRER: You think he can broaden the base? He's not restricted to just a small group? Mr. WALL: Let me make the point -- one of the things that Dr. Rodgers is arguing really is a point of view I agree with. I don't agree with Pat Robertson's view on the absolutism of his positions. But that's a theological argument we have with him within the Christian community. He now has to persuade the public one way or another whether they will accept that absolutism. They may not. But we ought to not try and say he has no right to put that forward. We are really arguing his theology. Not his politics. LEHRER: Dr. Rodgers, you want to respond to that? Dr. RODGERS: Yeah, I think that -- well, let me make one comment. In the Southern Baptist Convention we've had over the past few days a former president of our convention, Dr. Charles Stanley, First Baptist Church, Atlanta, come out and say that no, he is not endorsing Pat Robertson for President. Another Baptist, Ed McIntyre, who hosted a meeting of reporters at a reception for Pat Robertson at last year's Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, has now switched allegiance, from Robertson to Bush. He thinks Bush is much more of the winnable sort of candidate. And so I'm not sure exactly how much support Pat Robertson has -- at least in the evangelical community and the Southern Baptist Convention in particular. LEHRER: John Buchanan, you're a Southern Baptist, how do you read Pat Robertson's support? Mr. BUCHANAN: I think he is a serious candidate and must be taken seriously. And he's a real candidate, and I think people need to look at the totality of his real record. The problem with Pat Robertson and the whole religious right is taking the absolutist mentality and applying it to a political agenda, so that you would have an absolutist political far right agenda. People need to know where he stands on the issues, they need to study that record. But what he has going for him is first, he's charismatic, not in the theological sense, but he's a charismatic person. He just demonstrated that quite ably a minute ago. Secondly, he has built a political organization through his freedom council based on people who are very highly motivated folk from his television ministry. And that has proven in Iowa, and elsewhere, to be a very formidable force. Third, I agree that people are concerned about traditional values, about crime and drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and all the other problems of our society, and they're hungry for strength and purity in public life. Those who envision him as representing that would certainly tend toward being sympathetic toward his candidacy. I would agree however that Jimmy Carter clearly represents those concerns and those values, and he was in a very different place politically. Evangelicals will be divided. But he has highly motivated, well organized force, political force, that he has built that needs to be taken seriously. LEHRER: I assume you agree, Rev. Falwell. Rev. FALWELL: I do. And I think if he should become the nominee, and that is a very long shot, I don't think it will happen. But if he should become the nominee, he would indeed broaden his base in a hurry because of his access to the people, and in my opinion, would be elected president of the United States. I think he is capable of being an excellent president. He is a trained lawyer from Yale, he has all the qualities of an outstanding businessman. There's no question in my mind that he would gather around him a pluralistic cabinet and conservative people of the Jeanne Kirkpatrick variety, and others that he mentioned. And frankly, Ronald Reagan -- he espouses the evangelical views that Pat Robertson believes in. And while many would not agree with everything Mr. Reagan stands for, there are none who would not believe he has been a very effective president, and Pat Robertson would be that also. LEHRER: Let me ask you one very specific question, Rev. Falwell. Everybody else has commented on it. Do you consider TV evangelists a pejorative term? Rev. FALWELL: Only in the last year with the Jim Bakker/PTL scandal, some of the questionable fundraising tactics of some of those kinds of things. And the tremendous media attention that has been focused upon all of that, has clearly in the past year, like Iran contra, (unintelligible), Watergate, and so forth, has brought a negative thing that at this moment could hurt Pat, and he's correct in saying that. LEHRER: Yes, but Rev. Buchanan says that aside, he is in fact, was in fact, a TV evangelist. Rev. FALWELL: He was never an evangelist. One must know terms -- pastor is what I am. I'm pastor of a local church here in Lynchburg, (unintelligible) Baptist, who uses television to take the message from that pastoral pulpit. Billy Graham is an evangelical fundamentalist evangelist who believes in the inherency and absolutism of the Word of God. It would be fair to say that Billy Sunday was an evangelist. But an evangelist is one who is not a pastor of a church, but who in facts goes about from city to city preaching the saving Gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, with in mind getting people converted to the Christian faith. Mr. BUCHANAN: I think this is mostly a distinction without any difference, Jim. He has had a major television ministry. And we don't understand, all of us Americans, these fine distinctions. What we do understand is that we don't like intolerance. And it is not bigotry to make a mistake in using a term. To say someone's a televangelist instead of a major television ministry person, who is somehow not a televangelist. The point is it is not the fact that he is a television minister that has made him a target of some kind of bigotry. His own intolerance is what is the problem many of us have with him. LEHRER: Do you agree, Dr. Rodgers? Dr. RODGERS: Well, I wanted to get back to his politics for just a minute. And -- -- LEHRER: All right. A quick few seconds -- Dr. RODGERS: Very quickly. I think Martin (unintelligible) made a very telling statement a few weeks ago when he said that Robertson's campaign may not be necessarily that good for the religious right. Because it may show a deep division between charismatics and fundamentalists. And because fundamentalists are very wary of someone who claims to speak in tongues and speak directly with God. And so I'm not sure exactly how forceful or how beneficial Robertson's candidacy may be to the religious right as a whole. LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you all very much for being with us tonight. On the Stump MacNEIL: Now we continue our series of major excerpts from the stump speeches of all the presidential candidates. Tonight, it's the turn of the other minister in the race, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. He spoke last night at a rally in Birmingham, Alabama.

JESSE JACKSON, presidential candidate: We must shift the agenda from yesterday's racial battleground to today's economic common ground (applause). There are 13 million Southerners without any health insurance, Five: Housing. Worst housing in the nation. Four out of ten of dilapidated houses is in the South. We must reinvest in housing, and education. If birds can provide nests for other birds, and bees provide hives for bees, surely a civilized society can provide houses for its people. Six: Education. I would double education budget and reduce the need for the jail budget being doubled. Let me give you an example. Four years, full scholarship, University of Alabama, Alabama State, Alabama A & M, four years, full scholarship. Will cost less than $30,000. Those same four years, four penitentiary scholarships will cost more than $120,000. Schools at their worst are better than jails at their best. Let's educate American children. (applause) Number seven: Secure farms. In these last seven years, one of every seven farms has gone bankrupt. At this rate, every black farm will be extinct by year 2000. Farmers deserve a bailout. If we can bail out Chrysler, bail out Continental Bank, bail out Europe, bail out Japan, bail out the family farmer. It's the right thing to do. We must raise minimum wage (applause). We must fight for an Economics Rights Amendment for women (applause). We must pay women comparable worth (applause). We must have day care for our children (applause). Better that we pay for Head Start and day care on the front side than jail care and welfare and despair on the back side (applause). Corporations, merging. And then purging workers. And then submerging our economy and bankrupting our cities. These corporations must reinvest in America. Retrain our workers. Research and development -- 1980 to '84, observe this if you will -- the number one exporter from Taiwan is not Taiwan, it's General Electric. Which owns RCA. Which owns NBC. They closed down plant in this nation and took jobs to Taiwan. The Taiwanese did not take jobs from us. GE took jobs to them. Because of cheap labor there, undercutting organized labor here, and then sold the products at high prices, made big profits, managed to jump out the window, golden parachute, big bonus, workers lose their jobs. Through '81 and '84, GE made $10 billion. Paid no taxes. We must stop drugs from flowing into our country (applause). Eighty five percent of drugs that flow into America flow through the South. Through Key West, Florida, or borders in Texas. In 1986, the Coast Guard stopped 10,000 pounds of cocaine from coming into our country. In '87, they stopped 25,000 pounds. Then what did Mr. Reagan do? Cut the Coast Guard's budget by $100 million. Which then became a green light for drug pushers and traffickers coming this way. If we can defend the borders of our allies in Europe, in Japan, defend our own borders, stop drugs from coming into America! I believe in a strong defense. Where we've got 13 aircraft (unintelligible) carriers, the Russians have got one. We don't need two more at a cost of $40 billion. Use that money to educate our children and put people in decent houses (applause). Tonight, the fact is we've got a strong military. Weak policies. Guided missiles, misguided leadership. When I was a child growing up, in South Carolina, my grandmother, God bless her soul, could not buy a blanket, wind freezing, and she didn't complain. She'd take strong cord and sturdy hands, try and patch it in rags, into a quilt. Her fingers would be the finger power. Friends, when you fight for fair wages as your right, but your patch ain't big enough. Women, when you fight for comparable worth, your right, but your patch ain't big enough, seniors, when you fight for more security, your right, but your patch is not big enough, farmers who fight the fair fight, your rights, but your patch ain't big enough, those in your wheelchairs, for better access in transportation, you know your rights, you can make it. I'd rather have Roosevelt in a wheelchair than Reagan on a horse, you can make it! (applause). When you fight for good scholarship, your right, but your patch is not big enough -- but guess what! But turn to each other, and not on each other, red and yellow, brown, black and white, we the people can win! We, the people, have the power to win! We can win! MacNEIL: We conclude this series of stump speeches tomorrow night when the candidate is Vice President George Bush. Recap LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday. Former Reagan White House political director Lyn Nofziger was found guilty on three felony counts of illegal lobbying. He was convicted of having lobbied his former administration colleagues on behalf of private clients in violation of ethics laws. And President Reagan announced a plan to rejuvenate the nation's space program. It combines higher funding for NASA with increased reliance on private commercial space efforts. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight.We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.