The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the President's missile defense decision, we have excerpts from his announcement, plus reaction; then, Kwame Holman and Terence Smith explore the new Lieberman- triggered debate about politics and religion; Paul Gigot and Tom Oliphant offer their analysis of all matters political; and Robert Pinsky recites some Labor Day poetry, it all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton today left the decision on national missile defense to his successor. He made the announcement in a speech at Georgetown University. He said deploying a missile defense was important, but the technology was unproven. There have been three tests of the system so far. Only once did an interceptor succeed at knocking a dummy warhead from the sky. We'll have excerpts from the President's speech, plus reaction, right after this News Summary. In the presidential race today, George W. Bush defended a new Republican ad attacking Vice President Gore's credibility. He spoke on his campaign plane, en route to stops in Louisiana and Arkansas. He said the ad was humorous and accurate, and that Democratic ads had already targeted his record in Texas. Democrats said Bush had broken a promise not to get personal. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. Vice President Gore took a break from campaigning today before beginning a Labor Day marathon. Starting Sunday afternoon, Gore and his running mate, Joe Lieberman, will make a round- the-clock swing through five cities.They'll talk to people working during the holiday. Overseas today, French investigators outlined a chain of events that may have led to the Concorde disaster last month. 113 people died when the Air France jet crashed outside Paris. We have a report from Paul Davies of Independent Television News.

PAUL DAVIES: At their press conference, the investigation team revealed that the normal practice of sweeping the runways of Charles de Gaulle Airport searching for potentially dangerous debris was postponed on the day of the crash. The sweep would surely have located this 18-inch long piece of metal probably dislodged from another plane. Instead, because of a fire drill, the runways were not checked for 12 hours. It's believed the rogue piece of metal shredded a tire, and tire fragments punctured the Concorde's fuel tanks. The report reveals the last communication with the crew of the doomed supersonic plane. Concorde was cleared to take off at 4:42 in the afternoon. Within seconds, it's obvious the plane is in trouble, as air traffic control warns, "Concorde, you have flames behind you." The pilot orders engine two to be cut, and says, "engine fire procedure." Air traffic control then responds, "it's burning badly, and I'm not sure it's coming from the engine. At your convenience, you have priority to land." The co-pilot indicates the jet will make for a nearby airport, "Le Bourget, Le Bourget, Le Bourget." The pilot simply says, "too late, no time." The last sounds from the pilot can't be made out. At 4:44 and 31 seconds, the recording cuts out.

JIM LEHRER: All Air France and British Airways Concordes remain grounded, and it's unclear when they'll be allowed to fly again. Back in this country today, a federal appeals court blocked the release of Wen Ho Lee. He's the nuclear scientist fired last year from Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. In December, he was jailed on charges of mishandling weapons secrets. A federal judge had ordered him freed today on $1 million bail, but the federal prosecutors objected, and the appeals court intervened. His trial is set for November. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to, the President's missile defense decision, religion and politics, Gigot and Oliphant, and a Labor Day poem.

FOCUS - DECISION DEFERRED

JIM LEHRER: The President made his national missile defense, or NMD announcement in a speech this morning at Georgetown University in Washington. Here are some excerpts.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Since last fall, we've been conducting flight tests, to see if this NMD system actually can reliably intercept a ballistic missile. We've begun to show that the different parts of the system can work together. Still, though the technology for NMD is promising, the system as a whole is not yet proven. After the initial tests succeeded, our two most recent tests failed, for different reasons, to achieve an intercept. Several more tests are planned. They will tell us whether NMD can work reliably, under realistic conditions. There is a reasonable chance that all these challenges can be met in time. But I simply cannot conclude with the information I have today that we have enough confidence in the technology, and the operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward to deployment. Therefore, I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national missile defense at this time. Instead, I have asked Secretary Cohen to continue a robust program of development and testing. That effort still is at an early stage. Only three of the 19 planned intercept tests have been held so far. We need more tests against more challenging targets, and more simulations, before we can responsibly commit our nation's resources to deployment. We should use this time to ensure the NMD, if deployed, would actually enhance our overall national security. My decision will not have a significant impact on the date the overall system could be deployed in the next administration, if the next President decides to go forward. The best judgment of the experts, who have examined this question, is that if we were to commit today to construct a system, it most likely would be operational about 2006 or 2007. If the next President decides to move forward next year, the system still could be ready in the same time frame. A key part of the international security structure we have built with Russia, and therefore a key part of our national security, is the anti-ballistic missile treaty, signed by President Nixon on 1972. The ABM Treaty limits anti- missile defenses according to a simple principle; neither side should deploy defenses that would undermine the other side's nuclear deterrent, and thus tempt the other side to strike first in a crisis, or to take counter measures that would make both our countries less secure. Now, here's the issue: NMD, if deployed, would require us either to adjust the treaty or to withdraw from it, not because NMD poses a challenge to the strategic stability I just discussed, but because, by its very words, NMD prohibits any national missile defense. Thus far, Russia has been reluctant to agree, fearing, I think frankly, that in some sense, this system or its future... some future incarnation of it could threaten the reliability of its deterrence, and therefore, strategic stability. For me, the bottom line on this decision is this: because the emerging missile threat is real, we have an obligation to pursue a missile defense system that could enhance our security. We have made progress. But we should not move forward until we have absolute confidence that the system will work, and until we have made every reasonable diplomatic effort to minimize the cost of deployment and maximize the benefit, as I said, not only to America's security, but to the security of law-abiding nations everywhere subject to the same threat.

JIM LEHRER: Reaction to the President's announcement, from Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, a member of the Senate Intelligence and Appropriations Committees, and John Pike, director of the Space Policy Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

Senator, was the President right to delay this decision?

SEN. JON KYL: Jim, I don't believe so. I think the President was wrong for several reasons: First of all, there is an implication that we don't have to worry because implied is that there's no immediate threat. But his own Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen has made it clear as he put it that the threat threshold has been met. That means that it's important to get this system deployed as soon as possible. Now the President, by his decision today, has guaranteed that we will not have the ability to protect the American people from ballistic missile attack until 2006 or 2007 at the earliest, as he said. But we could have deployed the system as early as 2005 if we were to begin construction of the important radar site early next year. That's in Alaska, which has a very short construction season, as you know. And that's why we have to begin that process now. The development of the missile will take longer. He's right about that. But you need to do both of these things at the same time. So by the time the missiles are ready, the radar and other facilities are also ready.

JIM LEHRER: Do you challenge... Senator, do you challenge the President's basic statement that the technology has not been proven yet that the system would work?

SEN. JON KYL: No, I think there's a subtle difference here. The President suggested, without saying so, that we're not sure whether it will ever work. Well I think that the expert opinion is that it can work. It will work. It simply is a matter of time. It is true that not all of the tests have been fully successful. And therefore, it may be that the missiles themselves in the so-called kill vehicles will not be ready by 2005. It may be 2006. But we know this for sure: If they are ready by 2005, we still won't be able to deploy, based on the President's decision, because he is now guaranteed that the radar site won't be ready until 2006 at the earliest.

JIM LEHRER: You have to have the radar site in order for the kill vehicles to be... to work.

SEN. JON KYL: In order to hone in on the enemy missile, you have to know where it is in order to kill it, that's correct.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Mr. Pike, did the President do the right thing or do you agree with Senator Kyl?

JOHN PIKE: He did absolutely the right thing. A year ago they basically said they were going to decide on the basis of do we need it? Will it work? Can we afford it? And is it going to create more problems than it is going to solve? And by all four of those criteria, a decision to deploy right now would have been premature. They've had three tests; two of them have failed. The threat appears to be receding because North Korea has at least for the time being agreed not to test its long-range missiles. Everyone agrees it's going to cost tens of billions of dollars. And recently the intelligence community concluded that if we go ahead with national missile defense, the Chinese are probably going to deploy 200 nuclear weapons aimed at America, rather than the 20 that they have today.

JIM LEHRER: So when the President made a reference to we need to do some diplomatic work, that's what he was talking about, right, Russia and China?

JOHN PIKE: Absolutely because right now the countries that have nuclear weapons that could devastate our society are Russia and China. North Korea doesn't have them. And obviously we have to make sure that we are not creating more problems than we're solving by leading the Russians not to reduce their arsenal or, as the President pointed out, causing the Chinese to build up their arsenal and setting off an arms race in South Asia with India and Pakistan following.

JIM LEHRER: I want to come back to the diplomatic thing with Senator Kyl in a moment, but what about Senator Kyl's point at that at least the President could have done today is at least go ahead with the radar station because if you don't have the radar, no matter what happens on the other vehicles, it isn't going to work?

JOHN PIKE: The President I gather made his decision on the basis of the assessment. of the Pentagon that the interceptors are simply not going to be ready by 2005. You need to start the radar four years before the missile interceptors are going to be ready after the test problems they've had over the last year, delays in the booster rocket for the interceptor; it was clear that the actual interceptors aren't going to be available until 2006 or 2007. So there was no reason to start deploying the radar next year when it would be coming online a year or two before there would be any interceptors for it to guide.

JIM LEHRER: What about that, Senator?

SEN. JON KYL: Well, I think that Mr. Pike is inferring what the President's decision is based on without knowing. I don't know either. I suspect there were some politics involved in this and a fear of offending the Russians. With respect to the matter of the Chinese, I want to make it clear, the Chinese are proceeding anyway, so what we do and what the President does with respect to his decision on deploying national missile defense is not affecting the Chinese plans at all. In any event, it's precisely the kind of nuclear blackmail that the Chinese have engaged in that creates a necessity for us to proceed. Remember, it was Chinese military officials who said when the United States began to send a fleet to the Taiwan Straits to let the Chinese know that they couldn't forcibly take Taiwan, the Chinese military officials were the ones who said we think in the long run that Los Angeles is more important to you than Taiwan, meaning of course we could send our missiles over to Los Angeles. Now what Mr. Pike would have us do is leave ourselves defenseless against that kind of nuclear blackmail. That's the kind of threat that we have got to defend ourselves against and we have got to do it as soon as possible. We can't wait another seven or eight years.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Pike?

JOHN PIKE: If it is going to cost us $60 billion to defend against a threat of 20 missiles, then when the Chinese build 200, we're going to spend $600 billion. This is simply the formula for the arms race that we thought that we had ended when the Cold War ended. And it's obviously the reason that we need to be proceeding very cautiously here to make sure that we're not creating more problems than we're solving.

SEN. JON KYL: Jim, I hope everyone realizes those numbers just cited were purely fanciful.

JOHN PIKE: The numbers that... The threat numbers, the 20 warheads and the 200 warheads are from the intelligence community.

SEN. JON KYL: I'm on the Intelligence Committee. And I can assure you that there has never been anyone that suggested that because of the Chinese threat, it would cost us $600 billion to deploy this system. That's simply fanciful.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Kyl, on the diplomatic thing, how did you interpret what the President said about we've got a diplomatic thing to do too in addition to developmental work?

SEN. JON KYL: Well, he is right, although I lay part of the blame at the feet of the President because for many years he was telling the Russians and Chinese and our allies look, the United States should not deploy a national missile defense. That would be destabilizing. Then because of the Rumsfeld Commission Report, which confirmed a threat, because his own defense secretary confirmed a threat, and because his own Pentagon confirmed that, yes, we had a robust plan here to get this done, he then decided to move forward. Shouldn't be surprised that both allies and the Russians were very confused and frankly very anxious because he had been telling them all this time that the deployment of such a system was not a good idea. Then he had to backtrack and said you shouldn't worry too much about it. It will be all right. The truth of the matter is that we have a lot more work to do with the Russians. We have got to assure them we mean no ill will with them. And the kind of system that we are planning to deploy would have essentially no effect with respect to a Russian strategic program. This is designed to deal with the North Koreans, the Iraqis, the Iranians, countries like that, and, frankly, China if China should become too belligerent, vis- -vis the United States.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Pike, come back to the basic question here. Do you believe that a national missile defense system can ever work?

JOHN PIKE: I don't think that it can ever be made to work with sufficient reliability that the President would really trust it in a time of crisis.

JIM LEHRER: Any President?

JOHN PIKE: I don't think so. I'll tell you what. Let's put it to the test. If all of the supporters for national missile defense will stay here in town while we fire an armed nuclear weapon at Washington to see whether it will work to demonstrate to the world that it will work and that our political leadership trusts that it will work in a live fire test like we do with all of our other weapons, then I'll believe that it is reliable and that we'll trust it. But until we put it to that test, until Senator Kyl is prepared to sit knowing that the a hydrogen bomb is heading his way and the only thing standing between him and being vaporized is national missile defense, I don't think that people will believe that we believe that it works.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Kyle?

SEN. JON KYL: Well, the world needs to believe that this system would work. But here's the alternative. A country like Iraq - let's say -- decides to loose a nuclear missile against London or against the United States. The President then has this option: Do we unleash our nuclear deterrent, our nuclear weapons, and incinerate everything and everybody in Iraq and frankly in surrounding territory because of a decision of one man, Saddam Hussein? Or should we have another choice -- a choice of defending the American people so that we don't have to resort to that kind of last resort? I'd rather believe that we can develop the national missile defense and have that option in our arsenal. And I believe that by the time, if we get along with it, by the time we need that defense, we will have demonstrated with sufficient certainty to the rest of the world, that it work for that to be our real effective deterrent.

JIM LEHRER: Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Pike?

JOHN PIKE: Saddam Hussein as the President pointed out today, was deterred from using chemical weapons in the Gulf War because he knew that we would retaliate. Deterrence worked during the Cold War and unavoidably given the possibility that missile defense could fail, we're going to continue to rely on deterrence, regardless of what else we do.

JIM LEHRER: So you don't think it's either or/

JOHN PIKE: The question is whether missile defense is going to make deterrence more difficult to calculate and whether it's going to result in us having more nuclear weapons pointed at us, the intelligence community assessment is that we're going to get into an arms race with the Chinese.

JIM LEHRER: Senator.

SEN. JON KYL: It is a gross exaggeration. That's not the conclusion of the "intelligence community." There are some who believe that that might occur. It doesn't have to occur, and one of the reasons it doesn't have to occur is that the United States can take an entirely different approach, the kind of approach that Governor Bush, by the way, would take to international relationships here -- first of all, assuring our allies that if we're able to deploy a national missile defense, we'll have much better flexibility in helping to defend them from the kind of regional threats that are probably the most likely threat in the near term; and then secondly, dealing with countries like Russia to assure Russia to the same effect. And there may even be some ways that we can cooperate with a country like Russia to ensure Russia that this kind of system is not one that is designed to defeat their military objectives but rather these rogue states. By the way, with respect to Iraq, remember after the war, unfortunately, some U.S. officials confirmed the fact that we would not have released U.S. nuclear retaliation on Iraq. And I think that certainly casts a significant degree of doubt on the effectiveness of the ultimate weapon, our U.S. nuclear deterrent, in the case of rogue nation threats. That's not a moral response. We should not have to rely on that response, especially if we have the technology at hand to defend the American people.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

FOCUS - RELIGION AND POLITICS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, religion and politics, Gigot and Oliphant, and a Labor Day poem, Kwame Holman begins our coverage of the religion story.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes.

KWAME HOLMAN: From the first days after being named the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman has spoken about faith, morality, and the role of religion in public life. (Cheers) Vice President Gore's selection of Lieberman, an observant and modern orthodox Jew, was viewed by many as historic and gutsy, but also risky. This week, Lieberman came under fire for remarks about religion. It began with this homily at a black church in Detroit last weekend.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: While so much of our economic life is thriving, too much of our moral life is still stagnated. I miss the days when faith was discussed in public and not the most intimate details of our lives.

KWAME HOLMAN: The next day, Lieberman spoke again to a gathering of religious leaders in Chicago.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: This is a gathering across religious lines because it makes real for me what I have believed with a profound faith throughout my life: that religion is a source of unity and strength in America.

KWAME HOLMAN: Those statements drew a caution from one of the nation's most prominent Jewish groups, the Anti-Defamation League.

ABRAHAM FOXMAN, Director, Anti-Defamation League: Keep religion where it belongs, which is in the synagogue and church and home and their consciences, not on the campaign trail.

KWAME HOLMAN: In a letter to Lieberman, league director Foxman wrote: "To even suggest one cannot be a moral person without being a religious person is an affront to many highly ethical citizens" The League also wrote that "using language such as this risks alienating the American people. The First Amendment requires that government neither support one religion over another, nor the religious over the non-religious." Shortly thereafter, Lieberman said he did not intend to cast doubt on the morality of the non-religious. Throughout the presidential campaign, candidates on both sides explicitly have discussed the importance of religion in their lives and beliefs. Vice President Gore, who calls himself a born-again Christian, has talked about the significance of Jesus in his life. And Republican nominee George W. Bush has stressed his faith throughout the campaign. He recently proclaimed June 10 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a move criticized by some. Bush also talked about the importance of Jesus during a debate with his opponents in the Republican primary.

QUESTIONER: What political philosopher or thinker do you most identify with and why?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Christ, because He changed my heart.

QUESTIONER: I think that the viewer would like to know more on how He has changed your heart.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, if they don't know it is going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart, it changes your life, and that's what happened to me. (Cheers and applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: Some evangelical leaders say Lieberman is enjoying a double standard-- that Governor Bush is criticized for talking about Jesus, but Lieberman is given more leeway because he's Jewish. Still, Lieberman says he won't back down from discussing religion and faith. He says talking about those subjects is part of the American way.

JIM LEHRER: Terrence Smith takes it from there.

TERENCE SMITH: Now, four different perspectives, J.J. Goldberg is editor of the "Forward," a Jewish weekly newspaper published in New York City; Samuel Freedman is a professor of journalism at Columbia University, he is the author of "Jew Versus Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry;" Barry Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State; and Richard Lessner is Vice President of American Renewal, the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council. Welcome to you all. Barry Lynn, I wonder your reaction to the ADL statement and position and to the question of whether Senator Lieberman has crossed a line here.

BARRY LYNN: The letter accurately described what the problem is. What has happened in this campaign is a move way beyond what we call civil religion, the kind of thing that leads to playing Kate Smith's record of "God Bless America" at the end of all political conventions. This is something that's become a proof text from holy scripture - that is, we look for a place within our holy scriptures for specific support for programs. For example, Senator Lieberman said the Fifth Commandment: Honor your father and mother -- was the basis for the democrat's version of pharmaceutical aid for the elderly. I think that's inappropriate in the campaign season. I also think we found in the last week of campaigning, Senator Lieberman assuming that it is the goal of politicians, part of their job, to tell us to reaffirm our faith. It assumes that everyone has it. Millions of Americans of course manage to live moral lives without religious faith. And it suggests that politicians should be the ones who tell us to be better religiously. I think that's up to the Imans, the ministers, the priests and rabbis of the country, frankly not Senators and not future potential Vice Presidents.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. J.J. Goldberg, do you think this encroaches is, as Barry is suggesting, a line of separation between church and state?

J. J. GOLDBERG: I think there's a very fine line. The notion that the government can inspire people to behave better and to be a more moral nation is a very compelling one. I think the Democrats want to get into that box and not cede morality to the Republicans. PickingJoe Lieberman was a gamble that it was possible to encourage more moral behavior without crossing the line of state-church separation. He crossed that line Sunday in Detroit he crossed that line; saying as a nation we need to reaffirm our faith in God is the wrong way. As 270 million individuals may have a faith in God, the nation of the United States does not. The Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom of from religion. That's plain wrong. The Constitution guarantees the freedom. So if he can go back to affirming his own personal faith and holding himself up as an example that he hopes can be emulated, that's fine. As a bully pulpit, that's fine. Once he says politics and government need to be involved in finding the way to do that, rather than himself as an individual, he is involved in coercion.

TERENCE SMITH: Sam Freedman, what is your view of this? Has a line been crossed?

SAMUEL FREEDMAN: I was not troubled by the speech. In fact, I thought it was very appropriate that he gave the speech in a black church because what he was partly doing was laying claim to a glorious moment in American history, the civil rights movement when the language of religion, when the organizing role of the church was used to achieve civil rights for African Americans. And by really invoking that similar appeal to God's purpose there, and really speaking out of his own experience, after all, not putting that forward as a platform plank, he was reminding us that religion as a force in public life isn't as J.J. was just suggesting, the province of one point of view or one political party, and that it's part of a dialogue that can be put to the purposes of achieving social justice.

TERENCE SMITH: Richard Lessner, it's not entirely new, is it?

RICHARD LESSNER: You know, the other night I was over at the Lincoln Memorial and inscribed on the walls of that memorial are the stirring words of Lincoln's second inaugural speech, a speech that is suffused with biblical imagery, theological illusions. If there is no role for faith in our public life, we should go over to that monument and chisel those words off the walls of that stirring edifice. When this country was at war, and our boys were landing on the beaches of Normandy, FDR went on the radio and led the nation in a prayer. The comments that Senator Lieberman has made stand squarely in the majority historic tradition of America. There is a reference made to the Constitution, you know when the constitutional convention reached an impasse over the issue of slavery, you know what the delegates did? At Benjamin Franklin's suggestion, they closed the doors and they prayed. And that broke the impasse. There is a sense in which our country, as William O. Douglas said, the Justice of the Supreme Court, that we are a religious people whose institution presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being. We invoke God all of the time. It is common to assert our liberties derive from God, as we said in our declaration. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. So there isn't anything that Senator Lieberman said or did which is outside the mainstream tradition of America.

TERENCE SMITH: Barry Lynn, you're shaking your head.

BARRY LYNN: Well, of course, the Declaration of Independence mentions God but the Constitution does not. And that is what we need to remind politicians of on a regular basis. Ultimately the source of American law and public policy is not anyone's holy scripture but in fact the Constitution. I think that's where people get very nervous with this mixing of religious metaphors and seeming to have religious solutions for what are really secular problems. Also, Richard's being a little disingenuous about history. When Franklin Roosevelt asked for the nation to pray at this one crucial moment, he was not campaigning day-by-day, finding a new religious quote that would be used on the front page of the "Washington Post" and the "New York Times." I think there is a big difference. This starts to look like pandering more than a profession of faith. And that's no good, frankly for religion or for politics.

TERENCE SMITH: J.J. Goldberg, that's a good question. What is the appropriate role for religion in politics, or for religious illusion in campaigning?

J.J. GOLDBERG: The appropriate role for religion is to help us to gauge the individuals that we're electing to office. Once they take office, they're committed to running a secular institution whose primary job is coercion. That's what government is about. So when they say I'm a person of faith, I believe in morality, I'd like to make this nation better, I understand a little bit about who they are. When they say this nation is dedicated to God, I get a little scared. You know, going back to Jefferson's time, this nation has been divided on whether the role of government is to make the nation more moral, as the Federalists argue or whether the role of government is to stay out of this, as Jefferson argued. And that's why the American -Jewish community as a religious minority has been tied to the Democrats since the 1800 election. It's appropriate for politicians to say I believe I'd like others to behave in more moral ways, but to say here's how our government ought to be guided, they've got to be very careful. For somebody from the party of Jefferson to start saying the government needs to make these decisions will scare people away from the Democratic Party.

TERENCE SMITH: Sam Freedman, how much do you want to hear from politicians, from candidates for public office about their religious views?

SAMUEL FREEDMAN: I think I'm willing to hear whatever they have to say because it's part of what reveals them as human beings and as candidates for office. And then like any other citizen, I can take that into account when I cast my vote. I certainly wouldn't want to muzzle it. And there is also an important distinction to be made that when Joe Lieberman is talking in general terms about his religious belief or even as Al Gore did or George W. Bush did, in some of the sound bites that you had on earlier, the video bites you had earlier, they're not dictating a particular governmental program that's going to be imposed in the name of religious belief. I'm old enough to have grown up in the year when there was still school prayer that was mandatory. So I remember it was like to be a Jewish kid in a classroom where every day you must say a Christian prayer. What is happening here is different with the possible exception of Governor Bush's declaration of Jesus Day in Texas because that was an action of the state that was valorizing one particular religion at the expense of others.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, is there a double standard or different standard applied there?

SAMUEL FREEDMAN: I don't think so. If there is a double standard, why would a Jewish group have been the first one really to criticize a Jewish candidate on this?

TERENCE SMITH: Which was....

SAMUEL FREEDMAN: Joe Lieberman, that is...

BARRY LYNN: I don't think there is a double standard. I think that Governor Bush has had a longer history of both an interest, an extraordinary interest in the political support of the so-called religious right. He is the one who has invoked Jesus much more and God more frequently, for years during this search for his position in the White House. As a consequence, I think it was reasonable for people to take a breath, give someone like Senator Lieberman, largely unknown to the American people when he was chosen, a chance to explain himself. I personally would not have explained myself in such religious detail the moment selected by Mr. Gore to run. But on the other hand, that was an acceptable time to say, enough now; we know everything. I think people frequently talk about knowing the heart of people. We know the hearts of these men. I think the American public knows all four of them to be religious people. But now we're starting to see the oracles and the ventricles and the aortas. And that's more than we need to see.

TERENCE SMITH: Richard Lessner, is there a different standard, or a different application of the standard?

RICHARD LESSNER: Clearly, there is. There is a double standard. The conservative politicians who speak about faith and who give voice to their personal faith and speak about God in public are routinely vilified by the left for dragging religion into politics. It did take sometime for Mr. Lynn's organization to respond and for the ADL to respond, but I think what's important in all of this to note is what Joe Lieberman didn't say. Joe Lieberman didn't say we should compel people to believe; he didn't say we should drive people to churches and synagogues. He didn't say we should have a religious test for office. He didn't say we should tax people to support religious institutions; he said none of those things. He merely spoke about his faith and about the faith that his country has historically had in God. And to the notion that somehow just hearing this unduly burdens the conscience of some Americans I think is not a mainstream deal.

TERENCE SMITH: Gentlemen, let me ask J.J. Goldberg one question, which is, how widely from what you know, how widely was the objection outlined by the ADL held in the larger Jewish community?

J.J. GOLDBERG: I think it represented a very broad segment of the community. I think there's a widespread fear that the government is opening its door when it talks too much about religion, to acting on religion so the distinction Richard drew disappears. I think when the experiment -

TERENCE SMITH: A fear of what, though? A fear of what will happen?

J.J. GOLDBERG: A fear of coercion, a fear of prayer in public school, a fear of outlawing abortion because one particular religion is opposed to; a fear of legislating religion or the religious views of one segment of the population. Now, you know, the same debate over double standard happened in Israel. One week earlier Israeli had elected an orthodox president and there were hells of protest. When Lieberman was nominated a week later, people were celebrating and people on the left. And the right asked why is this double standard - why is it okay in American and not in Israel? The answer was because Lieberman wouldn't propose to close off streets on Saturday or outlaw eating of pork or any of the coercive religious legislations that the religious right has proposed in Israel as the religious right has proposed in America. It's not how many words they use but whether they propose coercive legislation. I believe that in Detroit Lieberman stepped over that line and opened a constitutional door in his language to coercive, religious legislation. He didn't advocate it. He opened the door to it.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. I'm afraid we have to leave it there. Thank you all very much.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Now, Gigot and Oliphant, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot -- "Boston Globe" columnist Tom Oliphant, Mark Shields is on vacation.

Paul, how do you read the fallout from this issue we just listened to -politics and religion?

PAUL GIGOT: Jim, growing up in Green Bay, Wisconsin, I always thought God was a Greenbay Packer. Imagine my surprise to find out he's a Democrat. I think there is no downside to this for the Democrats, Jim, none whatsoever. They should hire Joe Esterhaus; they should hire Barry Lynn to go on the air every day and attack Joe Lieberman for talking about God. This is exactly what the Gore administration wanted - excuse me - the Gore campaign wanted. This is exactly... this is one of the reasons he picked Joe Lieberman was to send a message. The Democrats have been suffering all this last year on the issue of moral values. This goes right at the heart of that and tells average Americans look, we're not the libertines where anything goes. We're just like you. We go to church on Sunday. We care about moral guideposts.

JIM LEHRER: Synagogues on Saturdays.

PAUL GIGOT: Synagogues on Saturdays. In Joe Lieberman's case, so much the better. And religion provides for a lot of Americans a sense that there are moral guideposts and Democrats agree with it. It's very smart politics.

JIM LEHRER: Smart politics?

TOM OLIPHANT: From all the evidence since last weekend, overwhelmingly popular politics, as I think Senator Lieberman being an experienced politician knew instinctively, if not empirically, going into this. Having grown up on the lower East side of New York, where you were either ecumenical or you got in an awful lot of fist fights, one of the things that I learned is that the separation does not involve either a wall or hostility. And I thought in reading and rereading Senator Lieberman's remarks, looking for imaginary lines that might be crossed the way he was so careful to make the distinction between talking about what I bring to the public arena, my baggage, my beliefs, here's who I am, and whether I would use my religious beliefs to inform my policy choices where he drew a very explicit line, very much like the last sentence in John Kennedy's inaugural where he said on earth God's work must truly be our own.

JIM LEHRER: So no downside.

TOM OLIPHANT: Not that I can see.

JIM LEHRER: No political fallout?

TOM OLIPHANT: To be attacked if you're a Democrat by the "Washington Post" editorial page - I mean, you know -- on the left and by figures in Hollywood - I mean, they're in heaven.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Speaking of heaven, let's move on to a storm surrounding that Republican ad that was released yesterday. Again Kwame Holman reports.

FINALLY - LABOR DAY

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, some words about work. Here is NewsHour contributor and former poet laureate, Robert Pinsky.

ROBERT PINSKY: Here for Labor Day is a poem by Philip Levine, an American poet who has written memorably about work. Here's Philip Levine's poem, "What Work Is," from his book of the same title. "What Work Is. We stand in the rain in a long line, waiting at Ford Hyland Park for work. You know what work is. If you're old enough to read this, you know what work is, although you may not do it. Forget you. This is about waiting, shifting from one foot to another, feeling the light rain falling like mist into your hair, blurring your vision until you think you see your own brother ahead of you, maybe ten places. You rub your glasses with your fingers, and of course, it's someone else's brother, narrower across the shoulders than yours, but with the same sad slouch, the grin that does not hide the stubbornness, the sad refusal to give in to rain, to the hours wasted waiting, to the knowledge that somewhere ahead, a man is waiting who will say, "no, we're not hiring today," for any reason he wants. You love your brother. Now suddenly you can hardly stand the love flooding you for your brother, who's not beside you or behind or ahead, because he's home trying to sleep off a miserable night shift at Cadillac so he can get up before noon to study his German. Works eight hours a night so he can sing Wagner, the opera you hate most, the worst music ever invented. How long has it been since you told him you loved him, held his wide shoulders, opened your eyes wide and said those words, and maybe kissed his cheek? You've never done something so simple, so obvious. Not because you're too young or too dumb, not because you're jealous or even mean, or incapable of crying in the presence of another man. No. Just because you don't know what work is." I wish you a relaxed, easeful Labor Day.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday: President Clinton left the decision on national missile defense to his successor, and George W. Bush defended a new Republican ad attacking Vice President Gore's credibility. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening, have a nice Labor Day weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.