The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. On this evening of the big debates, big day after. Both partisan sides claimed victory in last night's Louisville confrontation, while most nonpartisan polls and observers gave varying margins and edges to Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan. While the debate dominated matters today, there was other news. The president of El Salvador issued a peace invitation to antigovernment guerrillas. Israeli Prime Minister Peres came to town in search of economic help. And the Iraquis broke the silence in the Persian Gulf with an attack on a supertanker. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Reaction to the debate is our principal focus on the NewsHour tonight. We see how elderly voters in a Chicago suburb reacted. With political scientists Norm Ornstein, we separate the facts from the debate rhetoric on Social Security. At the University of Texas, we get reaction from students of former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Also tonight, an interview with Salvadoran President Duarte about his new offer to the rebels. And a documentary look at the key issues in the historic libel case pitting CBS News against General William Westmoreland.

President Reagan and Walter Mondale hit the campaign trail hard today after their televised debate last night, Mondale visibly buoyed by reactions to his own performance. While both sides claimed their polls showed victory, two independent polls gave the edge to Mondale. A survey overnight for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization said 54% of people who watched saw Mondale as the winner to 35% for Reagan. A USA Today poll showed a smaller Mondale edge, 39% to 34%, while an instant ABC News poll of 400 voters gave a slight edge to Reagan, 40% to 37%. In the political world, most evaluations were partisan. But some Republican officials thought President Reagan did not give his best performance while most Democrats were pleased by Mondale's showing.

Mondale and his running mate, Geraldine Ferraro, marched in the Columbus Day parade in New York today and then went on to a Democratic Party rally in a downtown hotel. There they got a rousing reception and some encouraging words from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Sen. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, (D) New York: Have you ever known the like of it? This campaign was born again in Louisville, Kentucky, last night.

CROWD: We want Fritz! We want Fritz! We want Fritz!

Vice Pres. WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: Today we have a brand new race. Today everything is different. Millions of Americans now know what's at stake in this election, and it's a solid and decent future for our country which is at issue in the 1984 elections.

LEHRER: Aides to Mr. Reagan were upbeat in their assessment of how their man did, but both the up and the beat were a bit more restrained than those from the Mondale camp. White House advisor Richard Darman, for instance, saying even if Mondale won the debate, it would not change anything in the election. Mr. Reagan himself told reporters, "I'm smiling, I'm smiling" when he left Louisville. Later a crowd of about 35,000 people greeted him in Charlotte, North Carolina, when he arrived for a rally. There he shrugged off the question of who won the debate and had a compliment for the audience and a line from an old song.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: You know, last night we had a little sparring in the political arena. But whether I won them or not, I know now that I have won the fruits of victory because I get to be with all of you. And I can truthfully say, nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina in the morning. The Debate: Thru Old Eyes

MacNEIL: Now some reaction from ordinary voters to last night's event. We picked two kinds, older Americans and younger. We start with the elderly. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett watched the debate at the Bensonville Home Society Retirement Center in Bensonville, Illinois, just outside Chicago.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The senior citizens here followed the debate intently as Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan met for the first face-to-face encounter of the campaign. Most in this normally Republican Chicago suburb favored Ronald Reagan when the debate began. That did not change when the debate ended, though the perception of Walter Mondale did change.

EVELYN LUND: I thought he came across much better than I had anticipated. I thought that Ronald Reagan would just mow him down, and I don't feel he did.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But on the issue of vital importance to the seniors here, Social Security, Walter Mondale's attack on Reagan's policies did not score many points.

Vice Pres. MONDALE: The President's budget sought to cut Social Security by 25%. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Pres. REAGAN: The only 25% cut that I know of was accompanying that huge 1977 tax increase.

BRACKETT: While Mr. Mondale had repeatedly tried to make the point that under the Reagan administration, Social Security would be endangered. Does anybody believe that?

GROUP: No.

CARL MEYER: President Reagan gave a much better explanation of Social Security than Mondale did. Both the Democrats and Republicans said Social Security was going broke and something had to be done, and he went ahead and did it.

Pres. REAGAN: They scare millions of senior citizens who are totally dependent on Social Security, have no place else to turn, and they have to live and go to bed at night thinking, "Is this true, is someone going to take our check away from us and leave us destitute?"

BRACKETT: How many of you go to sleep afraid that your Social Security checks may be cut? Anybody? [silence] Mr. Mondale continually challenged President Reagan to give his plan for reducing the deficit. Do you think the President gave a plan that you can understand for reducing the deficit?

CAROLYN HENDRICK: No. And I don't think anybody could. I think Reagan just skirted around it, because I don't think anyone of 'em can by without raising taxes. I don't care who's president.

BRACKETT: What do you think the President was trying to say about whether or not he needed to raise taxes to resolve the deficit issue?

PAULA CAIN: I think he truly does not want to raise taxes, but he has to leave that little loophole there to say, well, the times and conditions may warrant a tax increase.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The seniors were surprised at this response from Ronald Reagan.

Pres. REAGAN: The connection that's been made again between the deficit and the interest rates -- there is no connection between them.

RUTH PEARCE: I was really surprised, because I can't see how he can get around it.

BRACKETT: What did that say to you about his understanding of the subject?

Ms. PEARCE: Well, I think he was -- I don't think he was thinking.

BRACKETT: When Walter Mondale came into the debate, most of the polls were showing that one of his biggest problems was that he did not project leadership. How do you think Mondale comes out on the leadership question after the debate?

Ms. CAIN: Walter Mondale came across to me a little better than I had ever thought he was or would be, but I still think Reagan has the better leadership.

MARGARET KEHOE: When you see Mondale on the screen, usually he's more belligerent, and instead tonight he was quite calm about the whole thing and took time out to be nice to the President.

BRACKETT: Did Ronald Reagan have the magic tonight that everyone says he has?

VOICES: No.

Ms. KEHOE: No, he didn't have that.

BRACKETT: What did the debate tell you tonight about the age of the two candidates?

LILLIAN MEYER: Well, it just brought it out very forcibly the younger man and the older man, and I never thought about Reagan being old until he was right next to the younger man.

BRACKETT: Who do you think won the debate tonight?

Ms. MEYER: Reagan seemed to give me more confidence, although I was really surprised that Mondale came through the way he did.

Ms. KEHOE: I think that Mondale will have won more by the debate than will have Reagan. And the reason is Mondale had absolutely nothing to lose.

Ms. PEARCE: Well, I really think Mondale won the debate tonight. I think he did a good job, and I really do think he knows what he's talking about.

BRACKETT: More than you thought before?

Ms. PEARCE: Yes. More than I thought before. Social Security: Who Said What?

LEHRER: Social Security was the issue that wouldn't go away last night. It continued to pop up and out throughout the 90 minutes. But only devoted, knowledgeable, nonpartisan followers of the Social Security story could possibly sort the facts from the rhetoric and all that was said by Messrs. Reagan and Mondale.And fortunately we have just such a follower with us tonight.He's the familiar, the ever-popular explainer of complex issues, political scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

First, Norm, the basic Mondale charge against Reagan. It flowed out onto the record this way last night. Let's look at it.

Pres. REAGAN: With regard to Social Security, I hope there'll be more time than just this minute to mention that, but I will say this. A president should never say never, but I'm going to violate that rule and say never. I will never stand for a reduction of the Social Security benefits to the people that are now getting them.

BARBARA WALTERS, moderator: Mr. Mondale?

Vice Pres. MONDALE: Well, that's exactly the commitment that was made to the American people in 1980 -- he would never reduce benefits. And of course what happened right after the election is they proposed to cut Social Security benefits by 25%, reducing the adjustment for inflation, cutting out minimum benefits for the poorest on Social Security, removing educational benefits for dependents with widows trying to get them through college. Everybody remembers that.

LEHRER: Norm Ornstein, the President of course denied the charge that Mondale made. What are the facts? What happened in 1981?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Well, the fact is that twice the Reagan administration looked at the Social Security system in 1981. The first time was when the big Reagan budget came down early, in March of 1981, and there the administration proposed what one could consider minor changes in Social Security, but there were cuts. They wanted to save about $3 billion, $2.9 billion in the next year, and they wanted to eliminate the minimum benefit that goes to those people who haven't been in the system very long to collect benefits. They wanted to eliminate the death benefit, a lump sum of $255 that went to help pay for burial costs. They did want to end some benefits for college student beneficiaries who are dependents of Social Security recipients and adjust disability. Then later in May --

LEHRER: Wait a minute. But did that add up to a proposal for a 25% cut in benefits, as Mr. Mondale charged?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: No, it didn't, Jim. But in May of 1981, added onto the budget changes, the Reagan administration proposed a much bigger change in the Social Security system which included not a 25% cut in all benefits across the board, but did cut the benefits of those who would retire early, starting in the next year, in January of 1982, from if you retired at the age 62, under the system as it existed you would get 80% of the benefits that came to somebody who retired at the normal age of 65. The Reagan administration proposed changing that to 55% of the normal benefits, which meant it went from 80% to 55%.

LEHRER: This was to discourage later retirements, right?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Exactly, exactly so. Or to discourage earlier retirements --

LEHRER: Yeah, right, I'm sorry.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: -- when people would come to the system and take money earlier. Now, that is actually more than a 25% cut for those people, because it goes from 80 to 55 -- that's more like a cut of a third of the benefits that those people would get. Now, President Reagan noticed last night, as he had in 1980, said he won't cut the benefits of those currently earning Social Security. He violated that pledge early in 1981 in a modest way by saying he would eliminate the minimum benefit. But the major change --

LEHRER: Now, minimum benefit, what do you mean by the minimum benefit?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Well, if you hadn't paid into the system for three years, or hadn't paid a certain amount of money overall during your earning period into the Social Security system, then technically, without a minimum benefit you aren't eligible to collect anything. The minimum benefit meant that anybody who had at any time paid into the Social Security system could collect at retirement age 65 a minimum of $122 a month -- for those people who had no other claim, on the system, in other words. Now, that meant basically very poor people, and it was a rather modest amount, although it added up to about a billion and a half dollars. And that created a firestorm on Capitol Hill, as you might imagine. Not nearly the firestorm, however --

LEHRER: The whole thing was put down, however.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: It was put down. Not nearly the firestorm that was created when the President proposed changing those benefits for early retireers. And particularly because it was proposed to be done almost immediately. As you can imagine, people in their late 50s who'd been planning for a number of years on the income that they'd have for retirement were very unhappy. So that's not a 25% cut in benefits for everybody, but it is a cut that amounted to 25% of what people could get. And along with that, there were also going to be delays in the cost-of-living adjustment, as Mr. Mondale said, and tighter disability provisions, as he also said. So overall, with the exception of the hyperbole on the 25%, Mondale was accurate.

LEHRER: Okay. Now, let's go to Mr. Reagan's major counterpunch last night, and that was the charge that Mr. Mondale supported the only real cut in Social Security, which came in 1977 when he was Vice President. Let's look at that.

Pres. REAGAN: The Social Security tax of '77, this indeed was a tax that hit people in the lower brackets the hardest. It had two features. It had several tax increases phased in over a period of time -- there are two more yet to come between now and 1989. At the same time, every year it increased the amount of money -- virtually every year, there may have been one or two that were skipped in there -- that was subject to that tax. Today it is up to about $38,000 of earnings that is subject to the payroll tax for Social Security, and that tax, there are no deductions. So a person making anywhere from 10, 15, 20 -- they're paying that tax on the full gross earnings that they have after they have already paid an income tax on that same amount of money.

LEHRER: In simple terms, please, sir, what happened in 1977?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Okay. In 1977, the Carter administration came in after a time when we had run, or were about to run for the third straight year, a deficit in the main Social Security account, the old age and survivors program, of a few billion dollars. We had had, as we have every four years, a Social Security Advisory Commission that said we needed substantial changes. During the 1976 election campaign, during that year the Ford administration had proposed increasing payroll taxes for individuals.

LEHRER: That's how Social Security is financed.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: It's financed largely through payroll taxes on individuals and an equal amount that's paid in by employers.

LEHRER: Right.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Carter during the campaign said no payroll tax increases for employees. When he came in he saw that immediately something had to be done about Social Security. To keep to his pledge he proposed increasing the taxes that employers would pay by a substantial amount and no longer having it equal to what employees were paying in, and also increasing the amount of money that was subject to Social Security earnings. Back at that point it was $16,500. The first $16,500 that you earned you had to pay a Social Security tax -- 5.85% at that time. The employee paid in the same that the employer paid. Carter proposed increasing it substantially for the employer. Employers screamed; labor unions liked it, naturally enough. But in Congress they didn't want to take the equity that had been there for employees and employers, and eventually, after a lot of give and take, Congress passed, with the push of the administration -- and Walter Mondale was actively involved at that point; at one point he broke a tie on a key amendment in the Senate -- a very large increase that increased the payroll taxes. They were going to go up gradually under existing law; they went up more under Mondale. Over 10 years, from '77 to '87, it was going to go from 5.85% to 6.45%. Under the plan that passed, it goes in 1987, or would go, to 7.15%, and increased, as the President said accurately, the amount on which you had to pay those earnings up to about $38,000 or $40,000. So the President was right about that, and it was clear at the time that the expectation was that this would take care of the Social Security problem for some time to come. But when we ran into inflation and recession in the next few years higher than had been anticipated -- inflation means higher outlays into Social Security, because it's adjusted, the cost-of-living adjustment takes effect -- and recession meant less revenues. And also with unemployment, more people opted for early retirement, so we ran into a problem before the end of the Carter administration. Now, let me also say, Jim, later on in the debate the President made another reference to the 1977 changes.He was accurate in the one reference that he made there. Later on he made another reference when the 25% cut came up, and he said, "The only 25% cut I remember came in the benefits going to everyone born after 1916 in that 1977 change." There's nothing to that. There were no benefit cuts made in 1977, just substantial tax increases.

LEHRER: Is it a fair summary of what you've said on these two elements, and on Social Security, that with a few exceptions here and there, both men essentially spoke the truth in their charges against each other?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Sure. It is certainly the case that the Reagan administration, when it came in, went to cut Social Security benefits, for people coming into the system after 1982 and in a more modest way for those currently in the system. It is also the case that the Carter administration presided over an extremely large tax increase to solve the Social Security problem that wasn't solved, and we later had to come back after a lot of political give and take to that compromise at the end of 1982, the Greenspan Commission.

LEHRER: Mr. Explainer, you've done it again. Thank you, Norm.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Thank you, Jim.

LEHRER: Robin? The Debate: Thru Young Eyes

MacNEIL: We've heard the reactions of some elderly Americans. Last night we also sampled the views of some young people. In Austin, Texas, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan brought together a dozen graduate students at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Before the debate, eight of the students called themselves Mondale backers, two were for Reagan, and the remaining two were undecided. But the debate didn't change any minds.It reinforced some opinions.

Prof. BARBARA JORDAN, former Texas Congresswoman: A real question is whether you feel Mondale filled in any of that 18-percentage-point gap as a result of the debate tonight? What do you think, Mary?

MARY KRAGIE: I'd have to give an edge to Mondale. I think maybe he did draw in a few more people that weren't aware of his speaking abilities and his knowledge about the issues.

TOM MARKGRAF: I think Mondale did very well tonight, considering his record on television before. It's not his best medium. But I don't think he garnered the knockout that he needed.

RANDY FRITZ: Reagan did not seem to be at all in vintage form. He stumbled, he was halting, he stopped dead in his tracks several times as if he was losing his train of thought.

SUSAN KELLEY: I was very disappointed by the fact that the people, the candidates skirted the issues and were throwing in comments about things like the Olympics that didn't really address the questions the journalists were asking. So I would have to say it was a draw.

TIM BONCOSKEY: I tend also to agree with you. I don't think this debate hurt the President at all, contrary to some other people's opinions in the room.

Prof. JORDAN: Did it help Mondale?

Mr. BONCOSKEY: I don't think so.

Prof. JORDAN: Imagery and fluff. That seems to be what was paramount on the minds of these two candidates for the presidency, one the incumbent and one the challenger. Imagery and fluff. What do you think, do we want imagery and fluff or do we want people discussing the issues and dealing with us like intelligent people?

TRIPP FINLEY: What we have today when they started talking specifics, they talked back some statistics, just statistics. That's not what we want. We want outlines, plans, a concise thought of the future. And we didn't get it.

JOHN HARKEY: The plan for the future is the thing. Tripp, that I really missed. Like for instance when they discussed the plan for the middle Americans and the tax problem. I heard both candidates discuss it. I'm still in the dark, almost, as to which way they're going to go.

CARLOS CONTRERAS: The thing that Mondale did is he looked at what is working for the President, and he said to himself, "Well, you know, the people out there are really concerned about how a president looks" -- presidents look presidential, and he was trying to do the same thing. And I think he came across pretty well as a president, as looking as a president.

CHARLES PATTON: But how can for months you criticize President Reagan for doing that, and then you stoop to that level?

Mr. FINLEY: The major mistake he made was that he was presenting this image of this presidential image. He wasn't the Walter Mondale that can attack, and he had shots open left and right to go at the President, pursue that, pursue the interest rates, tell him what -- tell the American people what that means. He's 18 points behind; he has to make some points.

Prof. JORDAN: He was trying so hard to be presidential, he was almost wooden. And I think -- do you agree with that?

Mr. HARKEY: Yes, I do. I believe, especially in the beginning, when Mondale first appeared, I thought he was extremely rigid. I thought to myself, here he is again, we're going to be subjected to, you know, a dull, very dull type individual who's going to, you know, very systematic, very logical and set out the steps. However, then as the debate progressed, you saw him move into this framework where he just gave the kind of big generalities.

Prof. JORDAN: Do you think anyone changed your mind as the result of this debate? What do you think?

Ms. KELLEY: I'm still undecided.

Prof. JORDAN: You were undecided before the debate and you're undecided after the debate.What will it take, Susan?

Ms. KELLEY: It's going to take me walking into that voting booth and just finally making that arbitrary decision.

Mr. FINLEY: No one is really happy with the two candidates tonight.

Mr. HARKEY: I'm distraught in voting for, you know, Mondale or for Reagan, because I really do believe on the issues I'm going to have to say that Mondale won, but I believe that Reagan won in the fact that he held his own, and he's going to, you know, be triumphant in the end. I think --

Mr. MARKGRAF: You believe that Mondale won the battle, but Reagan is going to win the war.

Mr. HARKEY: Right. Exactly.

Mr. MARKGRAF: I believe that too.

MacNEIL: Here's how those 12 graduate students lined up at the end. Seven said Mondale was the debate winner, and five, including the two avowed Reagan supporters, said they thought it was a draw. Now both camps are anxiously waiting to see if the millions of viewers who watched had the same reaction. For those who did watch, they saw interchanges reminiscent of the 1980 Reagan-Carter debate. Judy Woodruff has that story, as well as further analysis. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Robin, one echo of 1980 was a question posed by Mr. Reagan, is America better off than it was four years ago? Four years ago he had asked, "Are you better off?" The other best-known phrase from the 1980 debate also surfaced again, provoking the most memorable drama of the evening. It came when Mr. Mondale ignored the rules that said the candidates couldn't address each other directly after he heard President Reagan's answer to a question on taxes.

FRED BARNES, The Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, let me try this on you. Do you think middle-income Americans are overtaxed or undertaxed?

Pres. REAGAN (to Mr. Mondale]: You know, I wasn't going to say this at all, but I can't help it: there you go again. I don't have a plan to tax or increase taxes. I'm not going to increase taxes. I can understand why you are, Mr. Mondale, because as a senator you voted 16 times to increase taxes. Now, I believe that our problem has not been that anybody in our country is undertaxed. It's that government is overfed.

Vice Pres. MONDALE: Mr. President, you said, "There you go again," right? Remember the last time you said that?

Pres. REAGAN: Uh-huh.

Vice Pres. MONDALE: You said it when President Carter said that you were going to cut Medicare. And you said, "Oh no, there you go again," Mr. President. And what did you do right after the election? You went out and tried to cut $20 billion out of Medicare, and so when you say, "There you go again," people remember this, you know. And people remember that you signed the biggest tax increase in the history of California, and the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States, and what are you going to do? You've got a $260 billion deficit.You can't wish it away. You won't slow defense spending -- you refuse to do that.

BARBARA WALTERS: Mr. Mondale, I'm afraid your time is up.

WOODRUFF: To get a reading on how that and other highlights of the debate will affect the campaign, we turn to our team of regular political analysts, Republican David Gergen, formerly communications director in the Reagan White House, now with the American Enterprise Institute, and Democrat Alan Baron, editor and publisher of the biweekly political newsletter, The Baron Report.

First of all, David, did Mondale get the better of Mr. Reagan in that little exchange we just saw?

DAVID GERGEN: I thought that was Mondale's best exchange. It illustrated two things about it. One was that he was more aggressive last night than Reagan was. He was very impressive in the way he handled that. And for the most part, I thought he managed to look presidential without looking mean. I thought he was very successful in that. On the other hand, when he raised that last night, I thought he had Reagan a little bit on the ropes and he never went after him. I was a little surprised he didn't try to hit a little harder after that was over with. That was the end of that exchange, and it didn't go beyond that. So he scored a point on that exchange. You have to give him credit for that.

WOODRUFF: Alan, do you agree?

ALAN BARON: Well, I think he did on that exchange, and I think he did during the whole debate. What I think in retrospectis that it was a much more comfortable debate for Walter Mondale than the debates last spring, when he was in with Gary Hart, who agreed with him on about 95% of the issues, and they had to be focusing on this 5% they disagreed about, and it was very tough. Because his difference --

WOODRUFF: Well, he was pretty tough with Hart.

Mr. BARON: He was tough with Hart, I agree, and therefore he came off as more strident and petty and hard. Neither one came off well. The fact is that there are fundamental differences here, not only on issues and performance, and I think he did very, very well, Mondale. I would put him as the best -- probably better than Reagan or Kennedy in previous debates.

WOODRUFF: Well, the question that really matters, of course, is what difference does it make? How much bearing is this going to have on the campaign, David?

Mr. GERGEN: Well, I think the other two accomplishments for Mr. Mondale last night, to give him his due, is it seems to me going into this debate he had not become a plausible candidate, he had not crossed what Pat Caddell once called the acceptability threshold that a challenger needs to cross. And I think he did that last night. He presented himself as a viable alternative for those who have doubts about the Reagan presidency. Now, that's not a majority of the country for Mondale, but it still means that he's in a better position. And I think he also rallied his troops, as I'm sure Alan can say in more detail. But in terms of the fallout for this race, I think you're going to see a little closure but not much. Reagan is still a prohibitive favorite. Reagan held him off last night. To give Reagan his due, he didn't commit any gaffes. He was warm and personable for the most part. He was nervous in the beginning, but I think he came back on better toward the end of the debate.

WOODRUFF: Do you think Reagan hurt himself at all by being less assertive than some people expected?

Mr. GERGEN: I don't -- you know, it's interesting. We're going to be playing the media game here for the next few days, and in some ways what happens in the press interpretations may hurt him more than what happened in the debate. I think that he held his own pretty well in the debate with the public. What you're going to see with a lot of the interpretations that come out, he may slip some.

WOODRUFF: Alan, what do you think the fallout's going to be in the campaign?

Mr. BARON: I think it first of all, as David said, raised Mondale to the level that you now have two plausible presidents, and he's a plausible opportunity. So there you start with that choice. And it certainly limited the ideological differences in the debate. The major difference was who would agree with Robert Taft about deficits, and Mondale was on Taft's side and Reagan wasn't. Reagan was saying, just like Johnson did during the war, it's not a problem, we've won. Reagan was saying there's no problem with these deficits. So that issue is -- and Reagan was bragging that the number of people on food stamps had increased. So he didn't make a clear ideological case. So you get down to the third issue, which is how do they perform as president? Now, people are not going to vote for a change, I don't think, just because Mondale does well. He can get up to 45, 46 percent. They have to have some questions about Reagan's performance. I don't know whether those questions were there. You know, last spring Gary Hart was leading Reagan and Mondale was close to him. There could be an underlying question -- how people reacted toReagan the man on there is as significant as how they reacted to Carter in 1980. And it's not something that I don't think you can put down on paper. The people that were in that old-age home that said he looked older than they thought, that Mondale looked younger and so forth -- I don't know how this affects people's minds, and I think that's an uncertainty. Reagan will have to be in real trouble to lose, but it could happen.

WOODRUFF: We're trying to force an assessment kind of early, I realize that.

Mr. GERGEN: It's good to see Alan finally really excited and energized by the Democrats. If this is what's happening around the country --

Mr. BARON: That's because I think -- sure. I like Mondale better than any Democratic candidate I've seen since --

Mr. GERGEN: Since he's the only one running now, right?

Mr. BARON: No, no, no. Well, I didn't like the last one running, when he was the only one, very much.

WOODRUFF: Somebody over at the Reagan campaign told me that even if Mondale energized all those Democrats that had left him in the last six months or so, he's still only got 40% of the electorate. Do you agree with that?

Mr. GERGEN: That's right. I think that's right. He's still substantially behind. What he has done is captured enough public attention now that people are going to start listening to him more seriously. He's got a chance to make his case more effectively now. I do disagree, with all respect, with Alan on one point, and that is I do think there are deep differences between the two candidates, particularly on taxes, particularly on the social spending -- that they are very different versions and views of what kind of future they'd like to have for the country.

Mr. BARON: Oh, I don't disagree there are differences. I'm saying there obfuscating the differences. Reagan is not talking as ideological as he did four years ago in that debate. To brag that he increased the number of people on food stamps. If the average Republican voter said, "I'm going out and vote for Ronald Reagan because he's going to increase the number of people on food stamps during his presidency and brag about it."

Mr. GERGEN: That wasn't his argument, Alan.

WOODRUFF: Let me ask you this. Where do we go from here with this campaign? Does this mean Mondale now goes out and reaps some results right away? I mean, what happens next?

Mr. GERGEN: I think what you may see, Alan -- you may have a very different view -- but I think what you may see is, I think this raises the stakes for the debate Thursday night between Ferraro and Bush.

WOODRUFF: Ferraro and Bush.

Mr. GERGEN: Yes, because more now rides on the outcome. If Mondale had lost this clearly and essentially the race was over, that debate would have essentially been for their two political futures, their personal futures. Now it has a lot more to do with this campaign. The Democrats have a lot riding on the outcome of it. I think you're going to see some rallying of the Democratic ranks. I think you're going to see the Republicans pulling together and trying harder, and I think you're going to see Reagan more up next time. I think Reagan basically was good, was not at his best. I think he'll be better next time.

WOODRUFF: Alan, you get a rebuttal --

Mr. BARON: I think the most significant -- oh, I'm sorry.

WOODRUFF: -- next time you're back. Probably the day after the Ferraro-Bush debate. Thank you, Alan. We'll let you finish when you come back. Thanks, Alan and David. Jim?

LEHRER: Thank you, Judy. Still to come tonight, an interview with Jose Napoleon Duarte, the president of El Salvador, and a report on Westmoreland versus CBS, a most extraordinary libel suit that goes to trial tomorrow.

[Video Postcard -- San Francisco]

MacNEIL: The space shuttle mission ran into another problem today when a burst of radiation from the sun knocked out half of Challenger's communication system. That meant long periods of silence on circuits between the spaceship and the ground until repairs were made. A problem with the antenna forced a decision yesterday to put off the first spacewalk by an American woman by two days until Thursday.And today the temperature aboard the ship went up to 90 degrees because of a problem with the cooling system. Finally, a tropical storm may require the ship to land in California or New Mexico on Saturday instead of Florida. Jim?

LEHRER: The major international news of the day came from the Persian Gulf. It had been 22 days since either side in the Iran-Iraq war had attacked ships in the Gulf. That silence was shattered today by Iraqi warplanes which hit a supertanker near the Iranian oil terminal at Kharg Island. There were reports six crewmen were killed and the ship was set afire.

A second story concerning that part of the world happened here. The new Israeli prime minister, Shimon Peres, is in the United States for his first visit as prime minister.After meeting with New York Mayor Ed Koch Sunday, he came to Washington today to see Secretary of State Shultz and other U.S. officials. He is to see President Reagan tomorrow. Number one agenda item is help for Israel's severe economic problems. We are scheduled to interview the prime minister Wednesday night.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Nicaragua today asked the World Court in the Hague to give it protection against U.S. aggression, charging it has proof of new U.S. attacks. Last May the court ordered the U.S. to cease support for military activity against Nicaragua's Sandinista government. Today the 15-member court, an arm of the United Nations, began new hearings to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the case. Nicaragua says it has, the U.S. says no and has declared it will not recognize World Court rulings on Central America for two years. Washington accused Nicaragua of trying to undermine neighboring governments, including El Salvador. Duarte: Offering an Olive Branch

MacNEIL: The president of El Salvador, Jose Napoleon Duarte, today made an offer to meet the left-wing rebels fighting his government. Speaking in the United Nations, Duarte invited guerrilla leaders to meet him on October 15th in the town of La Palma to talk about peace and rebel participation in El Salvador's new democratic process. President Duarte is with us this evening, speaking from United Nations headquarters in New York.

Mr. President, good evening.

JOSE NAPOLEON DUARTE: Good evening.

MacNEIL: You asked the rebels to come unarmed to La Palma a week from today. How do you guarantee their security?

Pres. DUARTE: Well, I have said that I am guaranteeing their security with my life. I'll be there without arms either, so whatever will happen, it'll be my life first.

MacNEIL: The rebels have consistently refused to take part in elections, which is one of the things you say you want to talk to them about, unless they are given a share of power first. Why would they agree now?

Pres. DUARTE: Well, I have presented in the United Nations speech my concept that they have made an historical mistake. They have to redesign their strategy against the new reality, and this is the reason why I am calling the commandantes in the mountains, because they are the ones who come down to the towns, they are the ones who meet the people when they think that they are going to the towns as liberators, and they find differently. They are the ones who have suffered when they find a different truth. They're the ones who understand that the reality of today is different than the reality of 1978.

MacNEIL: Is part of the new reality that you would now be prepared to offer rebel leaders some posts in your government, a share of power?

Pres. DUARTE: No, no, that would be against the Constitution. There is one way, and the way is elections. And the election is next March, and so there is time for them, if they want to have a pull, they have to win it, to win the will of the people.

MacNEIL: U.S. Pentagon officials have been quoted recently as saying that your army now has the upper hand in the war against the rebels. Does your government agree with that?

Pres. DUARTE: Well, I would say that the army has the initiative. There's no question about during the last three or four months. But this is only seeing it through a military point of view. My point of view of this is not a military war, this is a political war. And this is the reason why I am presenting political solutions.

MacNEIL: Well, are you offering this meeting now because you think the rebels are in a military position, which you have the initiative, as you say, which might make them want to come?

Pres. DUARTE: No, no. That would be again taking in consideration only military objectives. I am seeing this as a political confrontation. I have to present with political positions and political solutions. What I'm trying to do is to make everybody understand that this war has different dimensions, and one of those dimensions is an ideological, political, economical, social and military. Everything has not to be measured in the military dimension. This is the mistake.

MacNEIL: If they don't come, you will press on with the military side of the struggle?

Pres. DUARTE: I'll keep on pressing upon the political formulas that I have presented. For example, I presented the formula that we could discuss the possibilities of freeing some of the prisoners that both sides has. So we already have exchanged some prisoners through --

MacNEIL: That happened just a few days ago.

Pres. DUARTE: Sure. This is an effort that I'm making. Now today I am making another effort. I already have announced this morning that Mr. Recinos and the nine leaders of the Esel [?] labor union are to be freed today according to the final resolution given yesterday.

MacNEIL: Those are the labor leaders who have been in jail without trial in your country since 1980.

Pres. DUARTE: That is correct. They are free today.

MacNEIL: And the Reagan administration has recently been bringing a lot of pressure, as we read in our newspapers, to speed up the process of justice in their case.

Pres. DUARTE: Well, I don't know whether Mr. Reagan has pressed upon that, but this is the way the -- this is my style, this is the way I act. I am looking for a way in which I have given signs that the solution is a political solution, and I'm taking steps to solve this problem.

MacNEIL: Are they freed and are the charges dismissed, or are they freed pending trial?

Pres. DUARTE: No. They are free and the charges dismissed.

MacNEIL: Charges are dismissed.

Pres. DUARTE: Yes.

MacNEIL: To come back to the invitation to the rebels, what is it you think might make the rebels want to come now?

Pres. DUARTE: Well, again as I say, the people in the mountains, the rebels in the mountains, know that that they are antihistorical, that they have to revise their position. The difference of the rebels outside, or the FDR groups, the political groups outside, is that they left the country in 1978. And from that moment on, the country's absolutely different.

MacNEIL: I see. Last week the rebel leader, Ruben Zamora, said that President Reagan wouldn't allow you to talk to them. Have you cleared this with the Reagan administration before you made this offer today?

Pres. DUARTE: I don't have to ask permission to take decisions as president of my country. And at this moment I can tell you that Mr. Zamora and all the political groups are also hovered in debate. You know there'll be a coast-to-cost debate --

MacNEIL: In Los Angeles.

Pres. DUARTE: -- in Los Angeles between the political Salvadorans and the politicals of the FDR.

MacNEIL: But have you touched base with the Reagan administration on this offer to the rebels?

Pres. DUARTE: No. I have no -- the only thing I did this morning was to hand Mrs. Kirkpatrick with a copy of the speech.

MacNEIL: I see. You say that you will ask the legislature -- you also said in your speech today you will ask your legislative assembly to approve an amnesty. What would the terms of that be?

Pres. DUARTE: Well, that would be written down as soon as I get back to my country.

MacNEIL: Is that conditional on the rebels coming to these talks?

Pres. DUARTE: No, no, no. That's something else. This is again another sign of my will to look for peace.

MacNEIL: Do you have any confidence that your assembly would pass such an amnesty?

Pres. DUARTE: Well, I'll do my best, and I'll work in favor of it. At this moment I believe I have a majority on this issue, and I have the support of the PPS, who has one vote, the support of the PCN, who has five votes, and the support of the AD, who has two votes. So that makes it eight votes, plus 24 we have -- we have the majority.

MacNEIL: Yes. And would the army in El Salvador support such an amnesty?

Pres. DUARTE: There's no question. The army is -- the high command is absolutely behind my decisions on this.

MacNEIL: Well, President Duarte, thank you very much for joining us.

Pres. DUARTE: Thank you very much.

MacNEIL: Jim? Westmoreland vs. CBS: Refighting Vietnam

LEHRER: Our final major focus piece tonight is about a lawsuit, General William C. Westmoreland versus CBS News. The general claims CBS libeled him in a 1982 documentary which charged him with falsifying reports about troop strengths in the Vietnam War. Jury selection begins in the case tomorrow in New York. Much is at issue.June Massell has our report on how much.

DAN BURT, Westmoreland attorney: They said he conspired to suppress information from the President, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the Congress. They said that he suppressed critical intelligence on the enemy in Vietnam in 1967. It's simply false.That's how they libeled him. They called the man a traitor. That is what that charge means.

DAVID BOIES, CBS attorney: You've got a situation for really the first time in our history, at least the first time in over a hundred years, in which there is an attempt to penalize through libel laws, to impose some kind of penalty on criticism of governmental action.

Mr. BURT: What the people who complain about this case are asking for is immunity, and the only person I know who has immunity are the dead and the gods. As long as you're either not a god and not a ghost, you're going to have to be responsible, and that's what's at issue here.

Mr. BOIES: Once you start imposing one kind of penalty on public debate, one kind of penalty on criticism of government, it's a very short step until you begin to have the kind of censorship that is so inconsistent with what we think of as democracy.

JUNE MASSELL [voice-over]: The right of a free press to criticize a former government official for official conduct versus the right of that former official to sue to protect his reputation. The CBS documentary under question, called "The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception," was reported by correspondent Mike Wallace.

MIKE WALLACE [January 23, 1983]: The fact is that we Americans were misinformed about the nature and the size of the enemy we were facing. And tonight we're going to present evidence of what we have come to believe was a conscious effort, indeed a conspiracy at the highest levels of American military intelligence, to suppress and alter critical intelligence on the enemy in the year leading up to the Tet offensive.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The documentary, which aired almost three years ago, has become the subject of one of the most hostly contested libel cases in American history. The broadcast says the U.S. military command in Vietnam, which was headed by General William Westmoreland, deliberately underreported enemy strength figures to Washington in order to appear to be winning the war. When the program aired, General Westmoreland didn't like what he saw. And so the retired general, who had always said the war was lost in the press and not on the battlefield, once again found himself fighting the news media.

Gen. WILLIAM WESTMORELAND [January 26, 1982]: It was all there. The arrogance, the color, the drama, the contrived plot, the close shots -- everything but the truth.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Westmoreland sent a letter to CBS demanding a public apology, but he never got it. What CBS offered instead was 15 minutes of unedited airtime within a second broadcast reexamining some of the issues presented in the first broadcast. Westmoreland declined. His attorney, Dan Burt, from the Capital Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm in Washington, D.C., explains why.

Mr. BURT: Because in the last analysis, it would have been to dignify a lie. CBS knew that what they said wasn't true. Why dignify it? If a man lies about you, do you call him a liar or do you defend yourself against a charge?

MASSELL [voice-over]: Adding more fuel to Westmoreland's fire were two reports. First, this one by TV Guide accusing the network of a smear, of beginning the project already convinced that a conspiracy had taken place and turning a deaf ear toward evidence suggesting otherwise. CBS then ordered its own investigation, an internal report which seemed to support some of Westmoreland's charges.It concluded that the broadcast had several flaws, among them: (1) an imbalance in presenting the two sides of the issue; (2) a conspiracy, given the accepted definition of the word, had not been proved; and (3) violations of CBS News guidelines. Despite the report, the president of CBS News at the time. Van Gordon Sauter, said CBS stood by the documentary.

VAN GORDON SAUTER, CBS News president [April 21, 1983]: Was it accurate? Yes. Was it fair? Yes. Was it well supported by the documents? Yes. And we stand by the accuracy and fairness of that broadcast.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Nonetheless, in September 1982, General Westmoreland filed a lawsuit charging libel and seeking $120 million in damages.

Gen. WESTMORELAND [September 13, 1982]: There is way left for me to clear my name, my honor and the honor of the military.

Mr. BURT: The main issue, whether or not our largest media network in the world has the right to destroy a man's reputation. Whether like brigands in the night they had the right to rob a man of his honor.

Mr. BOIES: Well, I don't think CBS News stole anything that General Westmoreland didn't give away himself.

MASSELL: In order to win, General Westmoreland must prove two things: first, that the broadcast was false, and second, that CBS knew the broadcast was false, or that CBS had a reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, General Westmoreland must prove malice. If he wins, he will be the first high government official to ever win a libel suit.

[voice-over] The network is represented by David Boies, an attorney with the Wall Street firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Their defense: truth.

Mr. BOIES: Because we think the broadcast was true, and because if the broadcast is true, there is no basis for a libel suit no matter what else they prove. Second, because it's absolutely clear that CBS believed it was true at the time it was broadcast. And again, it's black-letter law that you can't recover for libel where the broadcaster believes the program is true.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The network tried, unsuccessfully, to get the case dismissed. CBS takes the position that because Westmoreland was such a high government official, the suit doesn't even belong in court.

Mr. BOIES: People in that kind of position have the ability to answer back and engage in a public debate that is inherent in a democratic society. What we're saying is that that's the proper form for these kinds of questions, not a court of law.

Mr. BURT: The law doesn't say that, and you couldn't have the law say that, because if you did, what you would have done would be to give to one institution in our society unlimited and unchecked power. There would be no accountability in any situation.

Mr. BOIES: I would say that the way the press is held accountable is through public debate and not in a libel court.

Mr. BURT: How can one man, an old man, 70 years old, washed up, an old general in a country that doesn't particularly like generals, reply to the largest television network in the world? It's silly. That's just silly. He doesn't have any right of reply.

Mr. BOIES: An ordinary citizen can sue. The difference is when you're talking about something that strikes at the highest public officials, the policymaking officials in our government. I'm talking about -- you're talking about a handful of people who make government policy, people who are so closely identified with government and government functions that you can't criticize government without criticizing them. For example, how can you criticize the Vietnam War without criticizing either Johnson or Westmoreland or both?

MASSELL [voice-over]: While CBS argues that in this case Westmoreland and the government are the same, Dan Burt doesn't buy it.

Mr. BURT: They were talking about Westmoreland, not about the government. In fact they said Westmoreland deceived the government. Yet they're now arguing the government deceived itself -- well, that wouldn't be the strangest argument they've made, and possibly more sensible than some.

Mr. BOIES: Well, I think that's a debater's point. Clearly what the broadcast was talking about was the deception ofthe people, of the American people, by the government. There may also have been a deception of, for example, the President by General Westmoreland.The fact that General Westmoreland as the commander in Vietnam may have also deceived the President of the United States, who's another part of the government, does not in any sense diminish the fact that General Westmoreland was acting in his official capacity.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The two sides are also debating about the documentary's use of the word conspiracy. CBS maintains the broadcast never said Westmoreland conspired. Once again, an excerpt from the program.

Mr. WALLACE: A conscious effort, indeed a conspiracy at the highest levels of American military intelligence . . .

Mr. BOIES: The word conspiracy is used just once in the program, at the beginning. At the time it's used, it's referring to what the intelligence officers did, not to what General Westmoreland personally did.

Mr. BURT: Why did they have Westmoreland in the show if it was about intelligence officers? If you believe that that broadcast was not about Westmoreland, you, like CBS, believe in elves and fairies. And I stopped believing in elves and fairies at least 10 years ago.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Whether or not there was a conspiracy is only one issue. Both Westmoreland and the CBS internal report raise other questions about the program, and while Westmoreland hopes the internal report will help his side, the CBS attorney says the report will be neither very damaging nor very relevant in court. For example, on the issue of balance.

Mr. BURT: The pro-Westmoreland camp got two shots of Graham and Westmoreland. Graham only got 19 seconds. The antis, with Catto [?], they got a hell of a lot more.

Mr. BOIES: There's nothing in the First Amendment or good journalism that says you have to put the same number of minutes to denials as to accusations.

MASSELL [voice-over]: As for any violations of CBS News guidelines, the CBS attorney says that doesn't worry him either.

Mr. BOIES: Whether or not a broacast is put together in accordance with internal guidelines isn't something that decides whether it is libelous or not libelous, true or not true.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The test in federal court will not be about journalistic practices or procedures, but about whether or not the broadcast is true, and if not, whether there was malice. Both sides agree: whoever wins, a lot is at stake.

[interviewing] If General Westmoreland wins, what does that mean?

Mr. BOIES: Well, one thing that it means is that press organizations and citizens can be sued for libel for criticizing the way their government is conducted. I think that will inevitably tend to have a chilling effect on public debate, on criticism, both by the press and by others, of what their government does.

MASSELL: If you win, do you think it will have a chilling effect on the press?

Mr. BURT: No. I think it'll have a liberating effect on the press. Because if you have enough egregious acts, if you have enough outrages, enough lynchings, enough smears, in the words of TV Guide, like this, sooner or later the tribe who bites the Neanderthals will have their way, and they'll rise up out of the tobacco patches and the cornfields of Iowa and hang the media. And that is what I'm trying to prevent.

LEHRER: That report by correspondent June Massell. Last week General Westmoreland dropped CBS News president Van Gordon Sauter as a defendant in the suit. The general said it would make the triala lot simpler and a lot clear. Even so, the trial is expected to last more than three months. Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories, of today. Both parties claimed victory in the presidential debate last night, but the polls gave Walter Mondale an edge over President Reagan.

President Duarte of El Salvador invited the rebels in his country to a peace conference next Monday.

Prime Minister Peres of Israel arrived in Washington to ask for financial assistance.

And six sailors were killed when Iraqi planes bombarded a supertanker in the Persian Gulf.

Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. And we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.