The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, with the election three weeks from today, four presidential campaign stories: A from-the- front report from the battleground state of Ohio, a look at the women's vote, a debate about Sinclair's decision to air an anti-Kerry film on its 62 local television stations, and a Paul Solman perusal of the federal deficit issue.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: U.S. forces in Iraq launched attacks in more Sunni Muslim areas today. There were air and ground operations in several cities northwest of Baghdad, where insurgents have concentrated. In Fallujah, U.S. warplanes struck at least twice, going after followers of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Residents said the attacks destroyed a popular restaurant and a house, killing at least five people. And in Ramadi, U.S. and Iraqi forces raided seven mosques where militants allegedly stored weapons and took sanctuary. They also detained a prominent local cleric. Kidnappers in Iraq freed ten Turkish hostages overnight. The men were truck drivers seized last month by a previously unknown group. The militants threatened to kill them unless their company pulled out of Iraq. Today, the company said it will resume operations. It said it can't be sure if the kidnappings really were politically motivated. There was word today the situation in Sudan's Darfur region has gotten worse in the last month. A senior U.N. official said new violence has driven another 220,000 people from their homes. Attacks on relief workers are on the rise, as well. In the last 18 months, ethnic fighting in Darfur has killed more than 50,000 people, displaced more than 1.5 million others. In the U.S. Presidential race today, President Bush campaigned in Colorado and Arizona, painting Sen. John Kerry as a tax-and-spend liberal. The senator had no public events, but his running mate, John Edwards, charged the president's policies have hurt families. Tom Bearden has our report.

TOM BEARDEN: President Bush spoke to a large crowd of supporters inside a Colorado Springs ice arena this morning. The president won Colorado four years ago, but one poll shows his race with John Kerry for the state's nine electoral votes tightening up. The president talked about tax cuts, job creation, health care and education, the domestic issues that will be the focus of tomorrow's third and final debate.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Those debates have highlighted the clear differences between the senator and me on issues ranging from jobs to taxes to health care to the war on terror. Much as he's tried to obscure it, on issue after issue, my opponent has showed why he earned his ranking as the most liberal member of the United States Senate. I have a different philosophy. I'm a compassionate conservative. (Cheers and applause) I think government ought to help people realize their dreams, not tell them how to live their lives. (Cheers and applause)

TOM BEARDEN: Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards also campaigned in Colorado, speaking up for running mate John Kerry at a town hall meeting in Commerce City.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: John Kerry's going to win that debate tomorrow. (Cheers and applause) And one of the reasons he's going to win is because George Bush is out of touch. He is out of touch. He is out of touch with the economy. It's why he thinks outsourcing jobs is good for our economy. He's out of touch with the healthcare crisis in this country, which is one of the reasons he fights for HMO's, insurance companies and big drug companies. He's out of touch with what's happening in Iraq right now, which is why he continues to say everything's going great. (Cheers and applause) And the problem is, if you don't see a problem, you can't see it can you?

TOM BEARDEN: While Edwards continued to campaign, Sen. Kerry spent a second day in New Mexico preparing for tomorrow night's debate.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether displaying the Ten Commandments on government property is constitutional. The announcement today said the justices will hear cases from Kentucky and Texas early next year. In 1980, the high court banned posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. In the years since, lower courts have allowed such displays in some cases and blocked them in others. The Centers for Disease Control announced a plan today to get flu vaccine to people who need it most. It will go directly to pediatricians, nursing homes and others treating those at highest risk. The plan is part of an agreement with the manufacturer. Last week, British authorities halted shipments by another company over fears of contamination. That slashed the U.S. vaccine supply by half. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than four points to close at 10,077. The NASDAQ fell more than three points to close at 1,925. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now, it's on to four presidential politics stories: The battleground called Ohio, the women's vote, Sinclair Broadcasting's anti-Kerry decision and the deficit issue.

FOCUS - BUCKEYE - BATTLEGROUND

JIM LEHRER: Gwen Ifill has the Ohio story.

GWEN IFILL: On Clark Street in Canton, Ohio, the lawns are tidy, the houses are modest, and Dave Leasure's work is door to door.

DAVE LEASURE: Hi, I'm Dave Leasure. I'm in the area with ACT-Ohio, which stands for America Coming Together.

GWEN IFILL: Leasure lost his $20- an-hour steelworkers' job in 2002. He now makes half that knocking on hundreds of doors for ACT, a Democratic-leaning activist group.

GWEN IFILL: So what do people say when you come knocking? What are the issues?

DAVE LEASURE: Certainly the economy here, because we lost 231,000 jobs. So, we talk about those things. We talk about education, healthcare, Social Security...

GWEN IFILL: These days, his job is convincing the residents of this struggling and politically critical county to register, and especially to go to the polls.

DAVE LEASURE: We've talked to these people now several times, and in some instances, with us talking to them several times and everybody else that's out here doing their part for the November election, they go, you know, "hey, it's a little bit of an overload. Every time I open the door, somebody's handing me literature of some kind." So...

GWEN IFILL: That's the kind of problem you want to have.

DAVE LEASURE: Yeah, exactly.

GWEN IFILL: Leasure is far from alone in this political equivalent of grunt work. At Stark County Republican headquarters here, volunteers spend their evenings stuffing envelopes, dialing for votes...

CALLER: Can President Bush count on your support?

GWEN IFILL: ...And delivering a disciplined message.

VOLUNTEER: I'm a volunteer. President Bush is committed to defending America in the war on terror, growing the economy and...

GWEN IFILL: This year, Ohio has attracted stars, party crashers and candidate visits in unprecedented numbers, all hoping to drive their most reliable supporters to the polls. The candidates attract the media coverage. President Bush stresses the issue of security.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Go out and register your friends and neighbors. Tell them they have a duty in America to vote. And remind them if they want a safer America, a stronger America, and a better America, to put me and Dick Cheney back in office. (Cheers and applause) Our strategy is clear: We're defending the homeland, we're reforming and strengthening intelligence services, we're strengthening our volunteer army. We're striking the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause )

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Kerry puts more emphasis on the economy.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: When he became president, we had a strong economy. We had just finished creating 23 million new jobs. We had the highest rate of income in America. Unemployment was as low as it's been in years. In the span of four years, he has added more to the debt of each and every one of you than was added from George Washington through Ronald Reagan, okay? Conservative? There'snothing conservative about these people. They're radical. They're extreme.

GWEN IFILL: President Bush won Ohio in 2000, but not by much. And since this state has voted with the winner 24 times in the last 26 elections, both major candidates consider it a must- win. This year, the door-to-door combat for Ohio's 20 electoral votes resulted in a surge of new registrations, which have thrown an unpredictable wrench into the state's battleground status. Few here are bold enough to predict how this is going to turn out. There are too many unknowns. For instance, one quarter of all the jobs lost in the United States were lost right here in Ohio. Then, there's the wild card of Iraq. And this puzzling question: No one knows how many of all those brand-new registered voters are going to even bother to show up on Election Day, Nov. 2. Stark County, which has historically been a good barometer of this swing state, is an especially attractive target. Its largest city, Canton, is the home of President William McKinley and the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It's also absorbed its share of bad economic news. ( Cheers and applause ) President Bush visited Canton's big employer, Timken manufacturing, last year.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm honored to be in Canton, and I'm honored to be here at the Timken Company. (Horn blast)

GWEN IFILL: But this past spring, Timken announced that, without union concessions, it will close three of its plants within two years, taking 1,300 jobs with them. The problems are statewide. Cleveland, the state's largest city, recently won the unenviable distinction of being declared the nation's poorest. And everywhere in the state, from the Appalachian towns to the south, to the steel towns in the north, the vote hunters have taken to the streets.

JACKIE BRAY: Hi guys, I'm Jackie Bray. I'm with vote mob, which is a young voters project for 21st century Democrats. Today, we're going to knock on over 1,000 doors. We're going to talk to hundreds of voters. ( Cheers and applause )

GWEN IFILL: By last week, Bray's group had registered more than 8,000 voters in Ohio alone.

JACKIE BRAY: We're going to rewrite the story on the youth vote. No longer is it going to be the vote that stays home on Election Day. This election, it's going to be the vote that decides on Election Day.

MAN: Registration, Paul. May I help you?

GWEN IFILL: Still, the Election Day formula is about more than registration and turnout. For legions of election lawyers deployed here by both campaigns, it's also about making sure Ohio does not become the Florida of 2004. Three-quarters of all voters will be using the punch card ballots that caused so much trouble in 2000, and state officials are already worried.

AD SPOKESMAN: So remember, align your ballot carefully in the machine. Punch it clean, all the way through. Make sure there are no Florida hanging chads.

GWEN IFILL: Both major parties are already assailing the process, with Democrats accusing Republicans of conspiring to keep voters away from the polls, and Republicans accusing Democrats of illegally pumping up their registration numbers. Political scientist John Green at the University of Akron:

JOHN GREEN: Many people react to this sort of normal sorting through the registrations with a very negative reaction. There are many groups that see this really as voter suppression, not just making sure that we have an accurate voter list.

GWEN IFILL: Might it be?

JOHN GREEN: It might in fact have that effect of suppressing the vote, because many of the people in question are not regular voters, and they're people that might easily be intimidated by official sounding proceedings.

GWEN IFILL: And that's just the process. Issues could also determine the winner. With a gay marriage ban on the ballot this fall and events in Iraq dominating the headlines, the state is no slam dunk for Democrats or Republicans.

JOHN GREEN: The economic factors aren't translating directly into politics. There's been the long-term economic decline in Ohio, particularly in northeastern Ohio. So voters are a little bit skeptical about politicians coming in and talking about the economy. They know it's bad, but it's been bad under Democratic and Republican administrations.

SPOKESPERSON: We'll go down to the patio.

GWEN IFILL: Retirees Rich and Joyce Freeland are the kind of staunch Bush supporters the president is counting on. They have volunteered for the president, visited with him here, and been to the White House.

GWEN IFILL: Is this different than previous years?

RICH FREELAND: I think there's more intensity. I notice more intensity on both sides, both the Republican and Democratic side, and I know when we're volunteering down at headquarters that the people that come in seem more invigorated, more intense.

JOYCE FREELAND: I have my fingers crossed that it's not going to be close enough that we have it contested as we did in the year of 2000. I don't want our country to have to go through that again. So win, lose, of course, we think we're going to win, and we'll win big enough so that they don't have to be contested.

GWEN IFILL: The debate plays out on a weekday morning at Fisher's Supermarket as nearly every shopper we talked to offered a different assessment. There were Kerry voters.

GWEN IFILL: What are the issues this year?

BETTY QUINCY: Loss of jobs, business going out, education. They don't have enough money. It's just a lot of things really, and the economy. The economy is terrible.

GWEN IFILL: Bush voters. Explain this to me. You were laid off from Republic Steel. You worked there for 38 years. Yet, you're supporting George W. Bush.

FRED MASTERS: Right. This decline in jobs and outsourcing didn't just start under Bush. This has been going on for a number of years. I've voted Democrat before. I've voted independent. But I'm going to vote for Bush. I don't think now is the time for change.

GWEN IFILL: And the undecided, like Vicky Ryan, a registered Republican.

VICKY RYAN: No one has any money. No one can afford anything. School levies aren't passing. Money's tight. It's no fun. You can't enjoy life if you can't spend your money.

GWEN IFILL: You're the kind of Republican that George W. Bush worries about.

VICKY RYAN: Yes, I know.

GWEN IFILL: Should he be worried?

VICKY RYAN: (Laughs)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The sun is shining on Ohio. ( Cheers and applause )

GWEN IFILL: So the ground wars continue, with rallies and photo opportunities for the candidates.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: I'm sorry you're going through it, but help is on the way.

GWEN IFILL: And high-stakes grassroots voter mobilization for their supporters...

SPOKESMAN: Hopefully, that will give you a little more insight. And I thank you for taking the time to talk with me.

GWEN IFILL: ...With everything at stake on election day.

FOCUS - GENDER POLITICS

JIM LEHRER: Now, women voters and the 2004 presidential campaign. Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: For insights into gender politics this time around, we are joined by two pollsters: Republican Linda DiVall and Democrat Ethel Klein.

Linda, let's start with you. Give me your view of the race overall and then break out women and explain where they are.

LINDA DIVALL: Sure. There are four surveys released today. Three of those polls show it absolutely dead even. The fourth, the Washington Post tracking poll shows the president having a lead outside the margin of error. I would say this race is dead even. If you look at women specifically and the so-called "gender gap," what's interesting in this race so far is that John Kerry's real problem is that he's underperforming with men. He's only getting 40 percent with men if you yew look at the Washington Post tracking poll. The president wins with men 56/40 and trails by five with women, 45/50. So Kerry has two problems. He's not doing well enough with men, and the president is doing far better than I think a lot of people, the conventional wisdom had dictated with women. If you look at what he's done in Afghanistan for women having the right to vote, when you look at what he's done with one simple word "security," women are worried about security abroad, security at home. They're worried about job security and health security. And they're hearing this president talk about this. And that makes a fundamental difference in terms of a different type of Republican talking about issues that they're concerned about.

RAY SUAREZ: Ethel Klein, your view of the race overall and then break out women for me.

ETHEL KLEIN: Well, the key people right now are undecided and weakly committed voters. That's who the race is focusing on. And they're disproportionately women. The estimates are between 55 to 60 percent of the undecided or weak supporters are women. And so everyone agrees that women are going to make the difference. And it's what you say to them that will decide which candidate will win. I respectfully disagree with Linda about where the polls are, because, in fact, if you look at the latest Zogby Poll, men are breaking even between Bush and Kerry, and they're doing that because they're looking more and more like women voters. The economy is the big issue among undecided voters. And what they're finding is that men are increasingly saying they're dissatisfied where the economy is going. In July, the Washington Post poll showed that 55 percent of men said they were satisfied with the economic direction of the country. A month later it was 46 percent. And now it's 46 saying satisfied, 47 dissatisfied and not knowing. Women are the canary in the coal mine; they have a real sense of what's going on in the economy because they have the low-wage work and low-benefit jobs. And they see what's happening to the price of milk and they watch the credit cards and see how much in debt they are. So I think if you focus on the undecided voters and you think about what worries them, it's the economy. And they're looking for both candidates to say something new and different about that.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, I hear you both saying that the gender gap is still alive and well and really the argument is over how much of a matter of degree, but Linda, do you agree with your polling colleague that the undecideds are disproportionately women?

LINDA DIVALL: Yes, they are. The question with the undecided is: are they going to commit and are they going to turn out and vote? There is no question that of the undecideds they tend to be disproportionately female; they tend to be more independents and ticket splitters; they do tend to be concerned about the economy and health care, however, if they're not yet decided and one of the interesting things in this election - it was pointed out by Mr. Freelandfrom Ohio -- that if you look at the polls today and if you look at vote intensity, everybody is a definite voter. There is nobody in between. There may be 6 percent to 8 percent totally undecided, but there are no leaners and no probable. Everyone is definitely Kerry or definitely Bush in differing proportions. So the question is: and this is one thing in Ohio that we don't know, which Gwen really talked about, is the ground game: what the Democrats and Republicans have done with newly register voters, and what, if anything, will motivate those people to vote on Election Day. If you look at single women in particular, they are more likely to vote Democratic if they decide to vote, but they're also the least likely to vote. So the problem is twofold: One getting them to vote, and two talking about issues that will get them to the polls on Election Day. They tend to cite the fact they don't have time to vote; they tend to cite the fact that politics and government is not relevant to them. Those are two significant hurdles to overcome.

RAY SUAREZ: Ethel Klein, do you believe people undecided in this late in the game are also pretty good candidates for being no-shows on polling day?

ETHEL KLEIN: Yes. I agree, and I think Linda is right. And I would add to her list of why they are. It's because they don't want to make a mistake. The people who are undecided at this point see this as a major responsibility. They are going to decide the direction of the country. It's daunting to them, particularly to women. And in making that decision, they want to be comfortable that they're making the right decision. And I think both Republican and Democratic candidates are really focusing on the battleground states and they're going to be talking about economics because that's what's left. I would give you an example of how both parties could be courting the women's vote. The Republicans are doing this. I think Linda and her colleagues have done a very good job in understanding about women being the economically vulnerable voters. And they talk about the ownership society, because the iconography of what it means to be secure is to be able to have a house, maybe own some stock, have some security. What the Democrats need to be talking about is the debt-ridden society, which is, as one of your people said in the clip, you know, they have no money to spend, money is tight. People who own a house are worried about keeping their house. When people talk about off-shoring, they talk about manufacturing jobs. Well, the reality is that right now the biggest growth in off-shoring is in service sector jobs, and those are women's job. So you find women losing their place in employment because the call centers are going overseas. You're finding that more and more radiologists and technical, low-level technical jobs that are considered good jobs for women are being displaced because those jobs are being digitized and you can be reading them from a lab in Pakistan or in a lab in Ireland, and you're also finding that the government, because of this incredible debt, is shrinking its workforce. So the people who are losing jobs are teachers who happen unfortunately to be women. This is first time when you look at unemployment numbers where women's unemployment rate looks surprisingly like men's. I mean, the only good thing about women's jobs beings low wage work is that you're less likely to be fired, and increasingly women's jobs are going. And they're going partly because of outsourcing and they're going partly because the government sector is shrinking. And they need to hear this from the candidates.

RAY SUAREZ: Linda DiVall, you just heard Ethel Klein lay out the economic case, but aren't women voters also telling researchers that security issue, terrorism, the war, are front brain, high-priority issues, as well?

LINDA DIVALL: Absolutely, but security means more than terror in Iraq. It also means being concerned for your health care benefits, being concerned for your job. One thing Ethel didn't mention is one of the more growing segments in terms of women business is female small-business owners and part-time owners. That's about a ten to fifteen million voter bloc. So you have a lot of women, when Ethel talks about the ownership society, women saying, I want to have a piece of this for myself. And they've become the job creators. And what President Bush is talking to you is lower taxes, lower regulation, making sure they have a more positive environment to operate in and thrive under, so that the security umbrella is obviously much broader than just terror, but I think when you look at women in particular, they are very concerned about security at home, making certain that their kids are safe, making certain that the world that we function in has become a safer place. And I think that is one thing that President Bush clearly represents is leadership, commander-in-chief, and quite frankly, until John Kerry crosses that threshold of being perceived as commander-in-chief, he's going to fall short. And that currently is what's happening. He's not been able to make up that deficit on leadership. If you look at all the polls, the president has a strong lead on the leadership dimension, and the other thing, this is in the Washington Post tracking poll, when it comes to understanding the problems and concerns of people like you, which is typically an attribute that Democrats have a significant advantage on, the president is dead even with John Kerry. So the one thing - we've talked about issues; what we haven't talked about is likeability and a connection with the voters. And women are seeing that they're connecting with President Bush and they're still seeing some distance here between themselves and John Kerry. I want to be cautious here. Obviously women are not a monolithic voting block; nobody knows that better than Ethel and myself. We're talking about many different types of women but when you look at the aggregate, that does seem to be true, that John Kerry has a problem connecting with women in terms of their everyday problems.

RAY SUAREZ: Quick response, Ethel Klein?

ETHEL KLEIN: Well, I would agree that John Kerry has not as yet connected with women on their everyday problem, and that is his challenge and he needs to take it very seriously. But I would also say is we're covering this race as if we're talking about an open race. And we're talking about an incumbent president who has a four-year record. For it to be this close and this problematic says that, in fact, people are not that happy with George Bush. And for people to stay this undecided says there are... we may be connecting with him, but we're not comfortable. And whatever the internals say, and I have to say that Bush's internal numbers have been going down rather than up, this was a president who was at 81 percent approval at some point, is now down around 50 or 47 depending on which polls you look at.

RAY SUAREZ: I have to end it there.

ETHEL KLEIN: He's in trouble.

RAY SUAREZ: Ethel Klein, thanks for being with us. Linda DiVall, good to see you.

ETHEL KLEIN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The anti-Kerry film story and the deficit issue.

FOCUS - NEWS OR VIEWS?

JIM LEHRER: Now, the storm over the decision by a local television group to broadcast a film critical of Sen. Kerry. Media correspondent Terence Smith has our look.

TERENCE SMITH: In an unusual move, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the largest independent operator of television stations in the United States, has ordered all 62 of its stations to preempt regular programming next week to air a documentary that is harshly critical of Sen. John Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 1970s. The senator, decorated for valor as a navy lieutenant, became a leading anti-war voice upon his return from Vietnam. Sinclair defends its decision, saying that Kerry's Vietnam military and protest record have not received enough coverage. The producer of the film, called "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal," is Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and a former reporter for the Washington Times. Sinclair is calling the documentary a special news event, which could exempt it from FCC equal time provisions. Sinclair says Sen. Kerry has been invited join a discussion of the film after it airs. The Sinclair move has caused an uproar from Democrats who accuse the broadcaster of using the public airwaves in an attempt to unfairly influence an election and of making what is in effect an illegal contribution to the president's reelection campaign. The Democratic Party and 20 senators have sent letters to the Federal Communications Commission in protest. The senators' letters said in part, to allow a broadcasting company to air such a blatantly partisan attack in lieu of regular programming and to classify that attack as news programming, as has been suggested, would violate the spirit and we think the text of current law and regulation. The Smith family, which runs Sinclair broadcasting, and many of the company's executives, have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations over the last five years, almost all of it to Republican candidates and causes. Sinclair Broadcasting stations reach 25 percent of the U.S. population. Sinclair owns affiliates of all the major broadcast networks. Many of their stations are in pivotal swing states. This is not the first time Sinclair has been accused of partisan motivation. This past April, Sinclair ordered its ABC affiliates not to run an edition of the ABC News program Nightline that honored American military personnel killed in Iraq. Sinclair accused ABC News of promoting an anti-war agenda, which ABC denied.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining me now to discuss this controversy are Mark Hyman, vice president of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, who also delivers on-air commentaries on some of its stations; and Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to the Democratic National Committee. Welcome to you both.

Howard Wolfson, what's your basic argument against running this film?

HOWARD WOLFSON: Well, Democrats have no problem with good and fair journalism, but there's no pretense to objectivity in this film. It's essentially a 90-minute political commercial masquerading as a documentary. And if the individuals behind it or the Sinclair Corporation wants to run a political advertisement attacking John Kerry, they have the right to do so, but they ought to pay for it. So, we filed a complaint with the FEC arguing that this was essentially an in-kind contribution, an illegal in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. Now, the Sinclair Corporation has a little history here. Top executives there have given well over $100,000 to George Bush and the RNC. They refused to run a Democratic National Committee ad, presumably because they didn't agree with its content. And they refused to run a Nightline special that was honoring our fallen soldiers in Iraq, presumably because they didn't agree with its content. So, there is a history of unbiased, unfair, leaning towards the right on the part of this corporation, and we think political speech is a great thing. If you want to run a commercial attacking John Kerry, pay for it, but don't put it on the air, force your stations to put it on the air for free.

TERENCE SMITH: All right, Mark Hyman, what's your response to that and your basic argument in favor of running this film, as you intend your stations to do?

MARK HYMAN: Well, a couple of thoughts, first of all, Terry. First of all, it's kind of ironic that an adviser for a political party would suggest that somebody else has a political agenda. Second of all, he made mention about a 90-minute documentary. This is a 40-minute documentary, which tells me that he's never even watched the documentary, so he probably has no idea what's actually in it. Third, I have to let you know right up front that we haven't made any formal plans as to what is going to be in the one-hour program that we envisioned. All we know is that we've invited one guest, Sen. John Kerry. We've made no other offers to anyone else. We haven't made any final decisions on what this final product will look like. So anyone who's complaining about the content of a product that does not yet exist is like someone complaining about a referee's call in a sporting match that hasn't even taken place yet. But the bottom line in this is these are Vietnam prisoners of war, former POW's, who after years of horrific abuse and unspeakable torture have ended their 31 years of silence and have come forward and wanted to rebut some claims made by John Kerry that statements he made in his 1971 testimony he said were an act of conscience and didn't affect anyone adversely. They're saying they beg to differ. It was used in their torture just days after he testified. They've just now have come forward. This was made available to the broadcast television networks. They all turned it down. It came to us. We vetted it. We made sure these people, who they were, they have some legitimate complaints. And what we said was, "John Kerry, we'd like you to respond to this," and we're still waiting for Sen. Kerry.

HOWARD WOLFSON: But they haven't just come forward, sir. As you know, some of them have even appeared in the attack ads run by the Swift Boat Veterans. So, they haven't just come forward. They've been out there attacking John Kerry for some time. And, you're right, I don't expect a television network to have a political agenda. This is the United States of America. It's not Russia. We don't expect that television networks are going to air phony documentaries that are essentially attack ads against one candidate or another. We have a right in this country to expect good, balanced journalism on our airwaves and not the kind of a phony documentary attack piece that you're running here.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, Mark Hyman, let me ask you this, please. How do you justify this, if indeed you do, as news programming?

MARK HYMAN: Well, first of all, I don't think it was necessary for him to bring in CBS's "Memogate" controversy and talk about phony documents. That's immaterial to this entire process here. But these men we know for a fact were Vietnam prisoners of war. They were tortured. We know that. They're making some very strong allegations and claims for the entire news industry. The news gatekeepers, to act like they don't exist and say "we're not even going to consider your claims" is as irresponsible as it gets. These men, more than anybody else from Vietnam... may I finish speaking, please?

TERENCE SMITH: Yes.

MARK HYMAN: These men, more than anyone else, have earned their right to be heard, more than anybody else who served in Vietnam, for our industry to say it doesn't count. The second part of that is there have been suggestions that since they may have appeared in commercials that that satisfies the news reporting? Our industry-- broadcast television at the network and local level-- has received criticism, probably much of it justified, because we aren't covering enough issues in the political debate and instead we're shuffling it off to paid commercial advertising. That is absolutely the wrong way to address a topical news story. It should be discussed in news content, not simply saying, "please go off and advertise and that will cover all our responsibilities."

TERENCE SMITH: Howard Wolfson?

HOWARD WOLFSON: Two points. One, Mr. Harman previously referred to the networks in this context as "Holocaust-deniers." He was criticized by the Anti- Defamation League for using that kind of language. I think it unfortunately is the kind of vituperation that he has waylaid John Kerry with now in so much of his daily commentary. Secondly, every American has the right to speak out, and I hope every American does speak out. It's election time. We all have that right. But we don't all have the right to get a free 60 minutes or 40 minutes or however many minutes you want to put them on the air, a free 40 minutes to do that. We have laws in this country. They say, if you're going to attack a political candidate or support a political candidate in an advertisement, you have to pay for it. And these individuals ought to be paying for their time and you ought to be making them pay for their time, not forcing your stations to run a free ad attacking John Kerry. It's not the American way. We don't do that.

TERENCE SMITH: Does John Kerry, Sen. John Kerry have any intention of accepting the invitation to participate in a discussion to follow the film?

HOWARD WOLFSON: I can't speak for Sen. Kerry. I wouldn't advise him to do that because you don't... it's not at all fair and balanced to have a 40-minute attack ad and then get five minutes or ten minutes or however many minutes to respond. That's not good journalism. Good, balanced journalism assesses news value. There is no news value here. These are people who have an issue with John Kerry. They're allowed to air their concerns, but not in a free political attack ad.

TERENCE SMITH: Mark Hyman, what is your commitment and what is your requirement here for equal time or balance?

MARK HYMAN: Obviously, Mr. Wilson is already indicating he's never seen the documentary and doesn't know what's in it. If John Kerry sat down with us for two hours, we may end up with a 60-minute program that has 57 minutes of John Kerry presenting his side of the issues. That's fine. That's what this is all about. We've made an open invitation. We told Sen. Kerry we would meet him anywhere, any time that he choose, anywhere in this country to discuss this issue. We are going to as far as we can to make this available to him. And if he spends... if he offers us 30 seconds, it certainly makes it more difficult for us to get the whole story out. If he offers us an hour, guess what, John Kerry probably gets 45 minutes, 50 minutes of this entire program because he's got a valid statement to make. We want to put his view on the air. Putting on a few clips of what the allegations are, that will satisfy the concerns. We'll give John Kerry the bulk of the time. He should be able to answer some good, solid questions.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Howard Wolfson, you suggested that this is the violation of, I guess, at least the spirit if not the letter of the law. What law and what recourse do you have and do you want... what do you want to see done?

HOWARD WOLFSON: Well, it's a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of the law. The FEC says that if you're going to run a political campaign, a commercial, you have to pay for it. A station can't give, for instance, George Bush free time to run a political ad against John Kerry in this context. It's against the law. So we are arguing quite clearly that this is a violation of FEC law, of election law, if you will, that it constitutes an in-kind, an illegal in-kind corporate contribution. Of course, it's not, as I said earlier, the first time that Sinclair has tried help the Bush agenda. Over $100,000 in contribution, refusal to run a Democratic National Committee ad and refusal to put on a Nightline program honoring our fallen soldiers in Iraq. You know, I would take Mr. Hyman's claims more credibly if he had run a 90-minute news program on the president's Iraq policy or the failed policy in Iraq, but he's not doing that. This is a focus on John Kerry. It's a focus that John Kerry's enemies want to make to distract the American people from the real issues in this election, and we're not going to stand for it.

MARK HYMAN: Mr. Wolfson, we run stories on Iraq every single night...

HOWARD WOLFSON: 90 minutes? 90 minutes?

MARK HYMAN: Every single day.

HOWARD WOLFSON: You preempt prime-time programming and order all your stations to do it? I would challenge you to do that, sir, run a 90-minute programming on the failure in Iraq, order all your stations to put it on and have it run and be produced by a critic of the Bush administration. That would be the equivalent. You're not going to that.

MARK HYMAN: How many times do I need to say we haven't asked for 90 minutes of anything?

HOWARD WOLFSON: 60 minutes, then.

MARK HYMAN: A 60-minute program. And if there's valid information, we're going to put it out. We run every single night something on Iraq. Just one point, though, on the campaign commercial that Mr. Wolfson was referring to. There was a complaint lodged. They took a statement out of context. Removed words, didn't put ellipsis in there. We told the DNC that if they put the statement in context without the words that were missing and reinserted those, we'd be happy to run the ad. They refused.

HOWARD WOLFSON: So on one hand you're in favor of the First Amendment, but on the other hand, you want to suppress our political speech. You can't have it both ways, sir. You can't suppress our political speech.

MARK HYMAN: Mr. Wolfson, you took a statement out of context. You can't remove words from a statement...

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Mark Hyman, let me ask you this: When you were criticizing ABC's Nightline for its broadcast that we referred to in the setup, you said this. You said, "political speech disguised as news content is not the way to serve the public good." So how does that...

MARK HYMAN: That's right. That was George Stephanopoulos who announced on April 25, it was a political statement when he said that Ted Koppel was going to read the names of the dead to mark the president's "mission accomplished" speech. Those with the words of George Stephanopoulos. He made it clear. We contacted ABC and asked them to clarify their intentions. They decided not to speak us to, which certainly heightened our concerns that there were other issues at stake. Again, we're talking about a program here that hasn't even been developed. Gentlemen, this program doesn't even exist. There was a documentary. That's the basis upon which we want to put a program together. Again, John Kerry could have the bulk of this presentation if he just decides to join us.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Let's get a final comment now from Howard...

HOWARD WOLFSON: Thank you. I would ask the viewers at home: Does this seem like a debate between a Democratic partisan, which I am, and an objective newsman on the other side? Of course not. It seems like a debate between somebody who is supporting John Kerry and somebody who opposes John Kerry. People have a right to oppose John Kerry in this country, but we don't expect our news organizations to oppose or support individual political candidates in this country. That's what's wrong with this. That's why it needs to be stopped.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you both. I'm afraid we're out of times, but thank you for joining us.

FOCUS - COMING UP SHORT

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, our business correspondent, Paul Solman of WGBH, Boston looks at a subject that's likely to come up again at the third presidential debate tomorrow night.

ANNOUNCER: We're ready to begin.

PAUL SOLMAN: Alumni of Washington D.C.'s Gonzaga High at a recent charity golf event to raise scholarship money for their Jesuit School. Most of them are aging baby boomers barreling toward retirement at a time when the federal budget has swung back into deficit after years of surpluses. That is, Uncle Sam's again spending more than he takes in and will soon be spending way more for the boomer's Social Security and Medicare benefits. Both candidates for president have said the deficit is a problem. Both have promised to cut it in half.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I've proposed a plan, detailed budget, that shows us cutting the deficit in half by five years.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: And I've said as a pledge I'm going to cut the deficit in half in four years.

PAUL SOLMAN: But even if you believe the candidates-- and there is some reason to doubt them...

DEBATE MODERATOR: But I didn't hear one thing in the last three and a half minutes that would indicate how either one of you do that.

PAUL SOLMAN: ...A huge question lingers: Will halving the deficit do much to solve the bigger problems just a few years off? You probably guessed the answer- - no-- which we'll spell out in a bit. But first, a bit of perspective: The current deficit is running some $400 billion a year. Sounds like a hefty piece of change. But, says Dan Mitchell of the conservative Heritage Foundation:

DAN MITCHELL: The important thing to realize is in an $11 trillion economy, in a world where $2 trillion of capital changes hands every day, even a "big" change in the deficit is like a drop in the bucket.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, the idea that today's deficits have a very small effect on the economy is highly controversial. Both candidates, as we said, promise to cut today's multi- billion dollar deficit in half, but neither has spelled out any detailed plan to address tomorrow's obligations -- Social Security and Medicare for the baby boom. Those promises amount to tens of trillions. Cutting today's deficit won't make much of a difference. And that brings us to the meat of this story: Theproblem that lies so ominously ahead, as articulated by the author of the new book, "Running on Empty," President Nixon's Secretary of Commerce and for decades one of Wall Street's most eminent bankers, Pete Peterson.

PETER PETERSON: The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. And as I think about the concept that we're slipping our own kids and grandkids a check for our free lunch, I say we're failing the moral test.

PAUL SOLMAN: Peterson became a public scold back in the '80s, when deficits first became an issue.

SPOKESPERSON: You owe the United States Government in round numbers $50,000. (Baby Crying)

AD SPOKESPERSON: If federal deficits continue at their current rate, it's as if every baby born in 1985 will have a $50,000 debt strapped to its back.

PAUL SOLMAN: But though ads like this may have opened the eyes of viewers, it didn't exactly scare them straight.

PETER PETERSON: Talking about boomers retiring in the 1980s, in the year 2010 and 2020, it must have seemed like forever to them. It's not forever now; 77 million boomers are about to retire, and that begins in five years.

PAUL SOLMAN: Financial planner Jim Durkin's clients are among the 70-some-odd million.

JIM DURKIN: Our shots are like Social Security. They're coming up short.

PAUL SOLMAN: As Durkin's clients near retirement age, they ask him: If they retire early, should they start taking lower benefits at age 62 or wait until they're 65 or even 70, when the payments rise? Durkin's answer?

JIM DURKIN: A bird in the hand is better than a bird in the bush. And you know, if you are pessimistic about the long-term future of Social Security, as I think a lot of us should be, you know, maybe it makes sense to take it now.

PAUL SOLMAN: But wait a minute: Isn't there money salted away for the baby boom's retirement, a trust fund started in the mid- 1980s? Well, there is a federal building in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and it does contain the Social Security Trust Fund.

PAUL SOLMAN: This is it?

MAN: This is it.

PAUL SOLMAN: This is the lockbox we heard so much about in the campaign four years ago.

AL GORE: I will keep Social Security in a lockbox.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Because we are lock-boxing the payroll taxes, our promises to the senior is going to be kept.

PAUL SOLMAN: But all we've been locking in the box are copies of IOU's that we, the people, owe to ourselves. And another $11 billion.

MAN: That's correct.

PAUL SOLMAN: And another $11 billion. So this is like $100 billion in this folder.

MAN: That's correct.

PETER PETERSON: I think the trust fund belongs well up there in American oxymorons because it shouldn't be trusted, and it's not funded. What you've been doing is not stashing money away. You've been stashing IOU's away. We've already spent that money for things that had nothing to do with Social Security. And that's the dirty, big secret that we're keeping from the American public. My father, my immigrant father went to his deathbed thinking that the Social Security trust fund was like his savings account, that somebody had taken that money and set it aside. The melancholy news is, the brute news is that money has been spent.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, the U.S. is taking in more money for Social Security than it pays out, spending it for other purposes and putting away IOU's to pay itself back when the boomers retire. But when the time comes to pay the benefits to the boomers, there are only two ways to turn those U.S. Government IOU's into cash: Pay them off by raising taxes or borrow the money. But that just means issuing new government IOU's to pay off the old ones -- a whole new tsunami of borrowing. Not a very appealing option. But neither is raising taxes by trillions a year. Or, as President Bush's former chief economist Glenn Hubbard puts it:

GLENN HUBBARD: We would have to raise taxes across the board, not just payroll taxes, every tax for everybody by 50 percent. And I think that helps paint the picture of why an adjustment has to be made here.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now when Glenn Hubbard says "an adjustment," he means cutting benefits, or, as he delicately puts it:

GLENN HUBBARD: Your Social Security benefit over time would be perhaps less generous than it is today.

PAUL SOLMAN: Not to mention what would happen to Medicare. In fact, such cuts might not have to be that drastic. According to the New York Times in a recent editorial, raising the retirement age slightly but regularly while lowering benefits for wealthier recipients would do the trick if combined with modest tax increases. But as mild as such adjustments may seem to some, at the charity golf event, even the generous alumni of Gonzaga High were loath to take any hit at all.

JOHN GAUGHAN: Well, I think that I'd be pretty upset about that. You know, I think we made a deal a long time ago, and, you know, whatever... whatever you signed up for, you ought to get.

RICHARD COLLINS: Everyone pays a certain amount, and everyone's entitled to receive from that.

PAUL SOLMAN: These boomers are nearing retirement age, and, the data show, older Americans tend to vote more. So, retirees may successfully vote to resist benefit cuts, just as we've all resisted salting money away for the promises we've made so far.

PETER PETERSON: Official sources say that we have somewhere between $45 trillion and $74 trillion of unfunded obligations.

PAUL SOLMAN: "Unfunded" meaning there's nothing.

PETER PETERSON: There's no money set aside there, that somebody else in the future has to pick them up. The entire net worth of America is $42 trillion. So, technically speaking, you might say if this were a corporation, we're technically bankrupt.

PAUL SOLMAN: But we won't admit we're bankrupt until we're forced to-- when the baby boomers are drawing their benefits and the younger generation can't afford to pay for it.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now Pete Peterson's wife is Joan Ganz Cooney, who created the Children's Television Workshop, which, in turn, created, yes, Sesame Street, one of the great investments America has made in its younger generation. But when Cooney's husband looks down the road, he sees trouble in Big Bird land.

PETER PETERSON: I would guess Oscar the grouch is going to become a major figure on Sesame Street ( laughs )

OSCAR THE GROUCH: Whatever it is you want, the answer is no!

PAUL SOLMAN: That is, if the Sesame Street generation winds up having to bankrolling Peterson's retirement, America will be one unhappy neighborhood.

PETER PETERSON: If old fogies like me are going to get all the resources, let's face it, that's about the past. Sesame Street is about the future in the ultimate sense, but so is elementary education and science education, engineering education. And that's the key point that we've got to understand here. If we don't cut down these utterly unsustainable obligations, it's our kids that are ultimately going to pay the price.

PAUL SOLMAN: Young versus old: The generation war Peterson has warned of for years. And yet, out on the links, we heard something a little bit different, because we asked the youngest alumni for their reaction to the coming crisis in Social Security.

PAUL SOLMAN: Are you counting on it when you retire?

MAN: No.

PAUL SOLMAN: How about you?

MAN: No, I don't think we're going to get it.

PAUL SOLMAN: Any Social Security?

MAN: Absolutely not.

PAUL SOLMAN: Not a dime?

MAN: Not a dime.

PAUL SOLMAN: These 35-year-olds say almost none of their peers are counting on Social Security. Instead, they're saving for retirement on their own. They may not be thrilled about it, but they sure aren't plotting a generational war. On the other hand, they can afford to save for themselves, says service station owner Andrew Durelli. It's America's working stiffs he's worried about.

ANDREW DURELLI: People work for me and make $6.50, $7.00 an hour. They can't save. They don't have... they're working from day to day. They don't have the money to save in case Social Security's not there. But a chunk of their money is going to Social Security to pay for what's needed now. So when they get there, don't they deserve something?

PAUL SOLMAN: It also suggests a slight variation on Pete Peterson's theme.

SPOKESPERSON: Let us review these figures for you.

PAUL SOLMAN: Not the war between young and old warned of for so long, but a more traditional economic conflict between those well-off enough to be on course for a comfortable retirement and those not on the course at all-- because they can't afford to be here or to save for the future. It's an issue neither candidate seems to be addressing. In the debates thus far, Social Security itself has yet to come up, though President Bush has elsewhere suggested funding private accounts. But Pete Peterson says that will only add to the deficit. As to John Kerry's commitment to balance the budget to save for the future, Peterson says he can't evaluate the long-term plan because it hasn't been spelled out in any detail. Perhaps both men will make their positions clearer Wednesday night.

JIM LEHRER: And a reminder, we'll provide special PBS coverage of that debate, beginning at 9:00 P.M. Eastern Time tomorrow.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day. U.S. forces in Iraq launched attacks in more Sunni Muslim areas. Kidnappers in Iraq freed ten Turkish hostages overnight. And a senior U.N. official reported the violence in Sudan's Darfur region has gotten worse in the last month. Tonight's Frontline is called The Choice 2004. It looks at the experiences and the issues that divide President Bush and Sen. Kerry. Please check your local listing for the time. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.