The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary tonight, we have stump speeches by President Bush and Gov. Clinton campaigning today. Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks to swing voters about last night's debate. David Gergen and Mark Shields analyze all the reaction to the debate, and essayist Richard Rodriguez talks about Christopher Columbus. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: A powerful earthquake struck Egypt today, killing at least 340 people and injuring more than 4,000 others. The country's prime minister said he expected those numbers would rise. Many of the victims were in the capital, Cairo, just 20 miles from the quake's epicenter. some of those killed were trampled when panicked people rushed into the streets. The quake, which lasted about a minute, measured 5.9 on the Richter Scale. Security officials said some 80 buildings in Cairo collapsed or were severely damaged. Crews worked throughout the night probing the rubble for survivors. The quake was felt as far as Jerusalem, 250 miles away. It's believed to be the strongest on record ever to hit the Cairo region. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush and Gov. Clinton returned to familiar campaign themes today. Mr. Bush told a crowd in Springfield, Pennsylvania trust was the key issue in the election. He said he had the experience to lead the country in a global economy and now was not a time to "hand the wheel to a novice." Gov. Clinton spoke in Philadelphia. He said his top priority would be rebuilding the economy and creating jobs. He said Mr. Bush already had his chance to do that and failed. Ross Perot made no public appearances today. We'll have more on the presidential campaign after the News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: About 5,000 AIDS activists formed a ring around the White House today. They said they were trying to send a wake-up call to Bush, Clinton and Perot about the disease. They stretched 6000-feet of red ribbon along their human chain. Red ribbons are often worn as the symbol of AIDS awareness. Many chanted anti-Bush slogans and expressed support for Clinton. But some questioned whether any of the candidates would answer their demands. The demonstration was organized by the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, known as ACT UP.

MR. LEHRER: Gunmen tried to assassinate Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez today. Three people were killed in the shootout, at least seven others injured. The President escaped injury. Thousands of black South Africans marched on the country's parliament building today. They were protesting an expected government plan to grant amnesty to police and soldiers who committed crimes under apartheid. President DeKlerk did not mention the plan when he opened a special session of parliament on multi- racial reform. The African National Congress called the session "illegitimate" because blacks are excluded from parliament. An Irish Republican Army bomb ripped through a London pub at lunchtime today, injuring at least five people. A warning was telephoned to a local radio station but police saidthe caller was deliberately misleading about the bomb's location. It was the eighth IRA attack in London in less than a week.

MR. MacNeil: The Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to two U.S. researchers today. Dr. Edwin Krebs and Edmond Fischer won the award for discovering a process in human cells linked to cancer and the rejection of transplanted organs, among other things. Fischer described it as the chemical reactions by which cells are turned on and off. The two men did the work over a ten-year period from 1956 to '65. NASA today began a search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Scientists at a deep space tracking station in California's Mojave Desert activated a giant dish-shaped antenna. Another larger dish was switched on in Puerto Rico. They will scan the universe for alien radio signals. The 10-year project has a $100 million budget.

MR. LEHRER: The 500th anniversary of the voyage of Christopher Columbus was marked today by celebrations and scattered protests. Spain, his benefactor, put on a huge military parade in the Southern City of Sivia. The event was paired with the formal closing ceremonies for Spain's Expo '92. In this country the event was marked with parades and protests. The protests were mostly led by native American groups which said Columbus's discovery of the new world had led to the victimization of their people.

MR. MacNeil: That's our News Summary. Ahead on the NewsHour, Bush and Clinton on the stump, how swing voters saw the debate, Gergen & Shields, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - MAKING HIS CASE

MR. LEHRER: This was the first day of the rest of their 1992 campaign lives for Gov. Clinton and President Bush. Both were back on the stump picking up on what they had said last night in the presidential debate in St. Louis. What they said is our lead story tonight. We begin with excerpts from President Bush's speech this morning in Springfield Township, Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I hope some of you -- I hope some of you tuned into last night's political talk-a-thon. I am not -- I don't pretend to be an Oxford debater but I think I did okay. [applause] And what we're going to do is continue to tell the truth about this country and let the voters decide three weeks from whenever it is tomorrow, three weeks away. We need your support. [applause] And, you know, listening to -- listening to our opponents, you might think they want you to believe that America is a nation in decline, and of course we've got our challenges, but we should never forget that our people are still the best educated, our economy, in spite of the problems, the most dynamic, our workers are still the most productive, more productive than any other workers in the entire world. [applause] And I am proud of what we have done to strengthen America's leadership all around the world. [applause] Four years ago, we said we'd bring American's disabled into the mainstream, and we delivered. I said we would do what no President has done in 10 years, and that is start to clean our air and our acid, get rid of acid rain, and we delivered. And I said we would strengthen the family by letting parents, not the government, choose our kids' child care. And we delivered again. [applause] And I am very proud that on my watch more than a billion people, almost one-fifth of the entire population of the world, have enjoyed the first breath of freedom. And I'm proud that we stood up to the bully -- the bully of Baghdad and led the world to say no to aggression. [applause] And I am especially proud that the children here today, the young people, will grow up in a world that is safer because we reduce the fear of nuclear war. [applause] But as you people know, there is still -- the Soviet bear may be gone, but there are still some wolves in the woods. And it may be tempting to believe that we can turn the American commander in chief into the Maytag repairman, but there are still dangers in the world. And you've got to ask who do you trust to keep your families secure. [applause] Gov. Clinton has absolutely no experience in international matters. and I am the President who has led the world and made these kids safer. I ask for your support on that basis. You see, the new world brings new challenges and new opportunities. And we're part of a global economy. And this is no time to hand the wheel to a novice. And when it comes to steering America through to new global economic challenges, America needs a driver who knows the highway. Do not take a risk on America's future. [applause] I have laid out -- I have laid out my agenda for American renewal, the steps that we must take to win the economic competition, to build a prosperous, secure nation for all the kids here today. And step No. 1 is to tear down the barriers to free and fair trade so that we can create good jobs for American workers. [applause] but let's be serious about one point. If we're going to win that competition in the new economy, we've got to do it. And we've got to do it by changing our schools. You know, we already spend more per pupil than any of our major industrial competitors. And yet, our kids rank near the bottom in math and science. We need to embrace new ideas. And, again, I'm proud of what we've done already. Never in history has America had national education goals. But today we do. Now let's build on that goal to give every kid here a better education. We've got to cut the cost of health care. and with our current health care system, you get sick twice; first, when you go to the doctor, and then a month later when you get the bill. And I want to reform this malpractice insurance. I want to use competition to drive the cost down. I want to make insurance available to absolutely everybody, the poorest of the poor, right up through the over-worked, over-taxed middle class, and -- and my plan does that. And we still keep the quality of American health care. Let's not go to socialized medicine. Let's go to competitive medicine. So this is some of our agenda for America's renewal. It's comprehensive. It's an innovative, a new approach, a new plan. And it offers the promises of a very different America than the plan Gov. Clinton proposes. Here is the biggest difference of all. Where I want to make government smaller, Gov. Clinton has already proposed, worse than Mondale, worse than Dukakis, $150 billion in new taxes and that ain't all of it, man, he's also proposed over 200 billion in new spending. And he hasn't got there yet. We cannot have that. You've got who's going to pay for it. He says, sock it to the rich. There aren't that many people that are rich. What he's going to do is stick it right to the cab driver, the teacher, the nurse, the firefighter, the construction workers, and I say we need to help the middle class, not sock it to 'em with more taxes. So we've got two fundamentally different philosophies of government. He puts his faith in more government, in special interests, in higher taxes to pay for all his promises, and I offer smaller government, lower taxes, and more power to the people, so that we can renew America. I am proud of the United States. I do not tear it down. I want to lift it up and make life better for every single American. And may God bless you all. May God bless you, and thank you for this fantastic show of support. I am very, very grateful.

MR. LEHRER: Gov. Clinton hit three states today, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and North Carolina. He spoke early this afternoon at a rally on Philadelphia's South side.

GOV. BILL CLINTON: We got to debate a lot of issues last night, nothing real tough like whether Pat or Gino's has the best cheese sticks, but still it was a pretty good debate. The one thing -- the one thing that I want to say to you is that you have to make a decision that is fundamental to the future of this country. In 1980, when Reagan and Bush came in and we started this 12-year era, we had the highest wages in the world. Now we're 13. In the last four years, there has been a decline -- listen to this -- in the whole United States of America -- a decline of 35,000 jobs in the private sector. In this nation, there would be no net job growth in the Bush presidency if it weren't for state and local and federal government. These people who say they hate government. That's the only thing that gave 'em any jobs, because they couldn't figure out how to make jobs in the private sector. And, yet, this administration, after 10 years in which people are working harder for lower wages, in which unemployment is up, in which twice as many bankruptcies as new jobs have been visited on this country, in which 100,000 Americans a month -- I'll say it again -- 100,000 Americans a month are losing their health care, they say that they are the friend of free enterprise. These folks are going to tear the free enterprise system apart, give Al Gore and Bill Clinton a chance to put it together and take it farther. [applause and cheers] And let me say that I know that our problems are not simple, we did not get into this mess overnight, we won't get out of it overnight. I know that many people have said to me, well, I know you're a governor, I know you weren't part of what went on in Washington, but I'm worried about spending getting out of control. Let me tell you something, folks. In my state, we have the second lowest tax burden and the second lowest state and local spending per capita in the United States, 12 balanced budgets in 12 years, but we increased investment for jobs, for education, for taking care of people who need taking care of. We can cut waste, increase investment, and get this economy going, but only if we move away from trickle down economics. What I wanted to do last night -- we have tried it their way for 12 years -- they have had their chance. It didn't work. It failed. And we've got to change. That is the issue in this election. We have got to have the courage to take a different course. And I want you to know the only thing that creates jobs, the only thing that has ever created jobs, is investment. I want to give you a tax code that asks the wealthy to pay their fair share, gives the middle class a modest break, but takes most of the money to say, look, under Reagan and Bush and Quayle, you got a tax cut if you were rich, whether you spent it on a vacation home, a Mazarati, or a manufacturing plant. Under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, you'll get a tax cut if you make money the old fashioned way by creating jobs for the rest of America in new factories, in new businesses, in new technologies. [applause and cheers] They cut -- they cut the defense budget, and what did they spend the money on? Rising health care costs and the S&L bailout. I want to take every dollar by which we cut defense and spend it on you; investments in high speed rail and new roads and new bridges, and new water systems, and new solid waste systems. We can create -- we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs for people in the private sector by investing your tax money, instead of squandering it. I am telling you we could solve a lot of the people problems of America. How many places in Philadelphia are boarded up, belong to the government and they're boarded up, and a block away there are people sleeping homeless on the street? We ought to give these properties back to these cities, let 'em put people to work repairing them and open 'em up for people. That's what we ought to do. [cheers and applause] We want to prove that America's a "can do" country again. You know, we're the only advanced country that doesn't control health care costs and provide basic health care to all our people. More than anything else, that's what veterans talk to me about. There was a veteran on the North side today in his wheel chair with a Clinton/Gore sign in his lap saying, I just want somebody who'll think about my tomorrow. I'm worried about tomorrow. Can't we do something about health care? I'm telling you, folks. I've got a health care program that even the Republican group that analyzed it said will save $2 trillion more than George Bush's will in unnecessary medical procedures and taking on the insurance companies and the drug companies and the bureaucracies that have milked this system dry and putting this thing back in the hands of the people. We can do it. We can do it. I want to face our problems. I want to face the deficit, but first you've got to grow the economy. The people who say we should just raise taxes on everybody to fix the deficit don't understand that until people go back to work and incomes go up, nobody's going to have any taxes to pay for the government. We've got to get this country working again. And I will control unnecessary spending. We will cut the deficit in half in four years. But you've got to get Americans working again. If this economy doesn't work, the deficit will go up. [applause] -- be a different sort of politician. I don't seek a victory of party in this election. I welcome the Republicans, the independents, the former Perot supporters. I believe that we've got to get business and labor and government and education back on the same side again. We've got to grow this economy. We can't do it when we're fighting with one another. We don't have a stake in being divided. I think we've got to unite people across racial lines again. We don't have a person to waste there either. Every time a kid drops out of school, whether he is white, black, Latino, or of Asian descent or anybody else, the rest of us pay for it. Every time somebody goes to prison who could be in the work force, the rest of us pay for it. Every time a child is born with low birth weight, the rest of us pay for it. It is time that we focus on the great challenge of our time, which is to prove that we can make the American dream live again. If you want to build up America, not tear it down, if you want to unite America, not divide it, if you want to vote your hopes and not your fears, vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. We need you. And we'll never forget you. Thank you and God bless you.

MR. LEHRER: Independent candidate Ross Perot was back in Dallas today but he made no public appearances. Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, voters react to the debate, Gergen & Shields, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - '92 - VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

MR. MacNeil: Next, last night's presidential debate as viewed by voters. Over the course of this campaign, with the help of the Times Mirror Center for the People on the press Charlayne Hunter- Gault has talked to a variety of voters from key swing groups from around the country. We brought eight of them to New York, where they were joined by two New Yorkers to watch the debates this week and next. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has this report on their reactions to last night's debate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It was a diverse group of people from around the country, Republicans, Democrats, and independents, but mostly swing voters, considered critical to the outcome of the election. Going into the debates, most of them were undecided about which candidate they would vote for in November. For them, last night's debate could have been decisive. When it was over, the first thing on their minds was Ross Perot.

SCOTT MacCORMACK, Computer Consultant, Republican, Denver: Ross Perot had the most to gain in this debate, and I think did gain the most in this debate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why?

SCOTT MacCORMACK: Well, his answers were somewhat simplistic, but that's perhaps good on TV and in the time span he had. He was funny and humorous. Maybe that goes a long way. But I do think he -- I think he had the furthest to go, and I think he showed he's been thinking about this. I didn't hear a lot of solutions, but I heard some. And I frankly through fault of my own haven't heard enough of his -- his platform. But I think he did the most to help himself.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Jason Conley, you once were intrigued by Perot early in the campaign. And then you switched, and the last time we talked, you were pretty solidly for Bush. What do you think of Perot now?

JASON CONLEY, College Student, Republican, Wake Forest University: Oh, he's funny, and he has pinpointed more problems and he's been more precise about those problems, but his solutions are still very simplistic. They don't hold much water, and I don't think his economic plan is the right one for America.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But do you think he's back in it now, I mean, as a real contender?

JASON CONLEY: I think more so than he was. He can't go below the 10 percent base. I see him not rising much above that either though. People are pretty much decided by this time.

GWEN CLINKSCALES, Teacher, Independent, New York City: I think he's definitely back in, and like I said before, it certainly made the debate more exciting. Otherwise, I think the debate would have been quite boring, and I probably would have turned it off, but because of his one-liners, his humor, and the change, you know, the kinds of things that he was talking about, he was a little more real than the other candidates. I mean, he's saying things like there has to be a gasoline tax. He's saying things that aren't very popular, so he's a little bit more real than the other candidates I think.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think, Robin Ganzert?

ROBIN GANZERT, Accountant, Democrat, Winston-Salem, NC: I agree with you that right now we do need a vehicle for change. I just disagree with the fact that Ross Perot was that vehicle. Quite frankly, the gasoline tax would put us in a worse state of economy, worser state of affairs, than what we currently are in. And quite frankly, Ross Perot would just lead us into more division, in my opinion.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Where do we leave the character issue tonight as a result of the debate?

ANNE GREER, Real Estate Agent, Republican, Columbus, Ohio: We haveto remember in 1968 and 1969 there was a thought in the United States of how patriotic people should behave. And Jane Fonda went to Hanoi, and everybody to this day, she's kind of tainted. What in the world would this young man -- I don't care -- college student -- been gifted and given opportunities -- what would he be doing in Russia? Remember, this was the time of Ari Hoffman and all the other things going on in this country. And everybody wants to wash Bill Clinton off and hang him out there and say he's just a real nice pretty little boy, and give him a lot of credibility. And some of the things that he was saying tonight didn't give me any credibility.

ROBIN GANZERT: It's a ridiculous remark. If I had a chance to go to Russia, I would love to take a study opportunity to go to Russia. It's just, in my opinion, a ridiculous remark. It has no place whatsoever in this campaign.

DR. WILLIAM EURE, Retired Physician, Republican, Hattiesburg, MS: But you know, you have to say, in defense of what Anne said, you have to say that Bill Clinton has not been clear and cohesive in his defense of these charges they've brought against him. Everything -- everything that he has done to defend the charges for his personal behavior, for his trip to Russia, the bits and pieces, and it's been incoherent and not cohesive. And we hear bits and pieces of remarks coming out at different times. And so it makes you wonder. You just have -- you can't but wonder why is he so inconclusive when he tries to convince us that those are not worthy charges?

SCOTT MacCORMACK: I think it was wrong of Bush to bring it up, and I think it's been wrong of Clinton to be as indecisive about putting it to rest. Those are not qualities I want in leaders. So who gains by that? We're back to Ross Perot. That's his position, to gain as these two guys tear at each other through negative campaigns and so on. So both candidates hurt themselves, I think. And everybody they do that, Perot gains.

MARTHA MacCORMACK, Teacher, Democrat, Denver: I think it's interesting that we keep hearing about the character of Clinton or Bush, but we have yet to hear about Perot's character. He stood back tonight and said that people make mistakes when they are young but when they make mistakes when they're mature, that's when we have to be concerned. And I wonder what he -- his underlying message is. Is there a mistake that we don't know about that is his?

JAMBE CLINKSCALES, Computer Technician, Democrat, New York City: I think that what he might have been alluding to is perhaps comparing what Clinton did as a youth in Moscow, and I think what you said is right, that is to be looked at because it goes to character, but if you are going to compare what he did as a young man before he got in office, then you've got to compare that to what somebody in office, who was the vice president, and what did he do during that time. And the issue I'm referring to is the Iran-contra thing. He's -- Bush has constantly said that he didn't know anything about that, but there's been some evidence lately that perhaps he might have been in the loop, even though he said he hasn't. There's also this thing about loans to -- going to Iran to keep -- I mean to Iraq to keep Iraq boosted up. So there's questions there. If you are going to compare the character judgments that Clinton made when he was young, you have to also compare the judgments and what Bush has been saying about what he did when he was the vice president.

JASON CONLEY: Bush opened a wound, yet again, but he didn't go for the kill. The entire thing, Moscow was just a small piece of, of Bill Clinton's disceptiveness. No, we don't know definitively what he did in Russia, but we know there are bits and pieces of contradictory statements on his part. And I think that's been true on his stance in the Gulf War, on his stance on what should be done in Yugoslavia, on his stance on a number of issues, on his marijuana, about his marital infidelity, and this shows a bit of deception, the character of a man who was willing to say anything and to readjust what he says according to what the American people want, according to which truth is the most popular.

DR. WILLIAM EURE: You know, Charlayne, on the issue of character, the point was made that in maturity we have to be careful that we don't make the wrong decision. I think Ross Perot has bankrupt his currency of trust. If he can't stand the heat of the media's questioning him and if he wants to withdraw from the campaign halfway through, how do we know that three months into the presidency he might decide to go back to Dallas and leave his vice president?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the point President Bush continued to make, that he's tired of these people running down America, and you know, America has a lot to be proud of, did that resonate with anyone? I mean, was that --

GWEN CLINKSCALES: I kept thinking that President Bush does not take the subway to Washington Heights, where I go every day, and he doesn't see the same America that I see. He doesn't see all the people laying in the -- in the subway sleeping and using it as their home. He doesn't see the people in Washington Heights, two and three families in one apartment. And it's not because they're not working. It's because they're working, but they're not making enough money to rent their own apartment. He must be seeing a totally different place in America than what I'm seeing every day.

ROBIN GANZERT: She's in New York. I'm in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. We see similar situations, homeless on the street asking for work, food for work.

JASON CONLEY: Well, I think you need to look at the situation relatively, how bad is America, well, is it horrible, look at 1929. Look at 1979. Look at Somalia. Look at the Soviet Union. It could be worse. And I think that's what he's saying. He's comparing our economy to quite devastated ones. And of course there's going to be poverty no matter, in any economy, because, you know, and demand and scare resources, and it will happen every time.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Some of you have said that you really didn't see a lot of difference, particularly between President Bush and Gov. Clinton. Let me just run around the room right quick on this. I mean, did this in any way clarify for you the difference between the two men and you can throw Ross Perot in too -- I mean, were the differences clarified for you at all enough to give you some sense that you might go this way or might go that way?

STEPHEN HERRING, Substitute Teacher, Republican, Hattiesburg, MS: Bush's main thing all along has been that he is a world leader in world peace, and the Gulf War and this type situation, which I've known that all along. Maybe he hasn't addressed the economy like he should -- and I think he could in the future with the help of Congress -- but -- and Clinton, his constant thing was that it's time for a change. And Perot, he had a lot of one-liners. I think everyone in there has said that. But he never really had any solutions for a lot of things. He agreed that many things need to be changed, but he didn't have much to say about how to change it. I don't think I'll vote for Perot, but I don't think he's electable.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the other two?

STEPHEN HERRING: The other two, I'm kind of straddled on the fence, as someone else mentioned.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Robin Ganzert.

ROBIN GANZERT: The debate tonight reinforced my opinion that Bush does not have a vision for reforming America during the next four years. They enforced my feelings for Clinton. He performed very well. He looked like a true statesman. His answers were very well stated. He had statistics to back it up, and I'm going to vote for Clinton still.

JAMBEY CLINKSCALES: I think this is the second time that Bush has had an opportunity to speak to me and convince me that he could do better in the next four years than he has this four years. And I'm not sure that he did anything in that direction. I think that although I'm leaning towards Clinton, I still have my doubts, but I was impressed, if anything, with his sincerity. He seemed to look at the camera lot, to look at the American people like he was talking directly to them. I think Ross Perot has a good prescription but I'm not sure of his heart and whether he's able to stick out the process of government, which is just constant negotiation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mrs. Clinkscales.

GWEN CLINKSCALES: Well, I've certainly moved further from President Bush because his view of America is very different from mine. Ross Perot, I'm a little -- I'm afraid of. I mean, he even said, I'm not sure if you're going to put me in Washington. I mean, he wasn't that sure of himself. I'm not thrilled with everything that Clinton said, but I'm still a little confused, but moving that way.

JASON CONLEY: The debates really helped me understand Clinton's passion and Perot's passion about what the problems are and their willingness to solve the problems, but also reinforced my feelings that they don't know quite how to solve the problems. They seemed a bit idealistic, a bit quick with their answers, and not quite prudent enough to be President of the United States.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And Bush, President Bush.

JASON CONLEY: Yes. I think he reinforced his trustworthiness. I think he defended his record well, but in the next debate, I think he needs to go a little more on the attack.

DR. WILLIAM EURE: I'm scared of Gov. Clinton. I don't think he has the maturity or he certainly demonstrated to me his lack of knowledge of Asian affairs about the China thing, so I'm going to vote for Bush as it stands now. I'm not enthusiastic, but that's where I'm going to go.

ALLEN RAMSAY, Graduate Student, Independent, Wake Forest University: Bush, overall, I was very disappointed with. I expected a much more specific action plan from him. Clinton seemed very sincere. I enjoyed the statistics just out of interest.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because you're a business major.

ALLEN RAMSAY: I guess that could be it. And again, maybe the lesser of three evils, but I felt like Clinton was more sincere and looked even more presidential than he has even in the past.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Anne Greer.

ANNE GREER: I'm having a very difficult time, I really ma, because I don't feel that what I consider the real problem's being addressed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Scott MacCormack.

SCOTT MacCORMACK: Well, I -- I think about Reagan when he ran. He had a vision, like it or not, and I think what we're getting from George Bush is --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you voted for Reagan.

SCOTT MacCORMACK: In the first election -- or the second election, I believe, where he asked the question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" And I had to answer yes at that time. Bush is not asking that question. Bush is saying, give me a shot, you'll be better four years from now. There's no vision. There's just management. He's managing old practices, some might be good, some aren't. I'm not seeing enough vision from George Bush. I was disappointed in him frankly tonight. I don't think he did that well. I thought he was shaky. Statistics are for losers. And I was really looking for Clinton to come out strong, because I've really been being pulled that way. And I think I'm probably still leaning that way a little bit. I was very disappointed in George Bush in the sense that I didn't have more of a vision and I was disappointed in Clinton that he didn't come across stronger to me with his vision. Perot had a vision and that vision scares me. I'm still on the fence.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Martha MacCormack.

MARTHA MacCORMACK: I don't know if any of it was clarified for me other than the fact that I still think it's the lesser of three evils at this point. As someone I work with said, the problem of the election is someone is bound to win. And I don't know who is going to give us the best at this point.

MR. LEHRER: Charlayne will talk to these voters again after the remaining three campaign debates. FOCUS - '92 - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. MacNeil: With us specially tonight, specially because it's Monday night, our team of analysts, David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, and columnist Mark Shields, who is in Portland, Oregon, tonight. David, what did you think of our people's reaction to the debate?

MR. GERGEN: Fascinating. I thought they presented such an interesting insight into I think the American people's reaction in general, and it seemed to me very much that the debate instead of changing people's views reinforced their views going in. That, of course, is the classic response in American history, in the debates we've had since 1960. It's only been the rare debate that's changed people's minds. This debate apparently did not. Most people stuck where they were. That's good news for Bill Clinton because he maintains the lead that he has. I think that Bill Clinton has to take some pause here that with some of these voters he clearly hasn't closed the sale yet. He hasn't quite -- he hasn't sealed their real heart felt approval even though they may get his vote, and he's going to need that if he's going to be President.

MR. LEHRER: That was different, Mark, wasn't it? If that's true, that's different from what happened in 1960, the first debate, Kennedy/Nixon, when a lot of people with a relatively inexperienced Democratic Senator who many people regarded as callow, that first debate really changed a lot of minds, didn't it, about him?

MR. SHIELDS: It certainly did, Robin. John Kennedy could not have been elected President without the debates in 1960. I don't think there's any question about that. And it shook up a lot of people in 1984, if you'll recall the first debate, when David's former mentor, Ronald Reagan, was wandering down the Pacific Coast Highway in the closing moments and people thought that perhaps the geriatrics ward was next. And that race became close. It didn't happen last night. I think people's impression of Ross Perot did change dramatically though.

MR. MacNeil: Do you -- did it strike you -- it did me, listening to Charlayne's guests here -- and these are people she's talked to carefully individually throughout the campaign, most of them, that they are less ready than the professional commentators and the newspaper editorial writers, and everybody else, to say so and so won, or so and so lost, or it was a clear victory for this? What - - Mark, what do you think about that?

MR. SHIELDS: I think that they were perhaps more thoughtful and reflective than -- than those of us who rushed to resolution.

MR. MacNeil: Of course, you have to make a living doing this.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, if I sat there, Robin -- and this and that - - you'd probably say, Mark, why don't you come back three months from now, but, you know, where David and I are hired to make fools of ourselves, but as --

MR. GERGEN: Speak for yourself.

MR. SHIELDS: But, no, I think -- I think that they were very thoughtful, very reflective, and I think it does -- I mean, David said earlier, the sale has not been sealed. It -- people have decided, I believe, that George Bush is not their guy. They don't want to rehire George Bush but there is not an enthusiasm, there is very little jumping through hoops, and doing hand stands for Bill Clinton at this point.

MR. MacNeil: Any surprises in the wider reaction today that you have absorbed around the country, polls, comments, political spin, whatever?

MR. GERGEN: Well, Mark I think raised the right question. The big surprise in the debate was Ross Perot, and I think all of us have been trying to -- have been waiting overnight to see how -- how much of an impact he would have -- very strong debate performance, very folksy, used the vernacular very well. I think he spoke to people in their hearts more than the other two candidates. What the polls show, Robin, is -- as much as we saw in Charlayne's interview -- is that two of the three polls that have been taken show that people think that Ross Perot won the debate. A third poll shows that Bill Clinton won, but Ross Perot was a close second. Unfortunately for the President, in all three polls, he comes in third. But what's very striking though is that even though the polls show that Ross Perot won the debate, there is not a huge bump for him. There is some bump, not enough to really make a difference yet in the race. He goes from about 10 points, maybe 8 points, to about 15. Now -- and he possibly in the next two debates could reinforce that and raise those numbers. In some ways, you begin to wonder if the Bush campaign secretly would like Ross Perot to get up to about twenty-five or thirty percent in the polls and maybe they could win it that way.

MR. MacNeil: Mark, what did you think of the general reaction today? I know you were on an airplane most of the day, but --

MR. SHIELDS: No -- I was, I mean, but I think what we saw most of all was -- was this kind of a headline as in the Portland Oregonian, which seemed to be --

MR. MacNeil: Hold it up a second again.

MR. SHIELDS: Excuse me.

MR. MacNeil: We didn't have time to read it.

MR. SHIELDS: No knockdowns, no knockdowns. Political writers, whenever there's a major political event, we invariably return to sports metaphors, and there were no runs, no extra base hits, no errors last night, no fumbles, no interceptions, and no knockdowns and knockouts. But I think the Perot thing, I just want to take a slight dissent from David, I think Perot was more than folksy and vernacular. I think Ross Perot did something last night that nobody's done in this campaign, and I think may account for a lack of enthusiasm. Ross Perot treated voters like grown-ups. Ross Perot actually was asked about a tax increased that he's endorsed. He not only admitted he'd endorsed it. He defended it. He championed it and put it in terms,Robin, that haven't been heard much in this campaign that that is each of us has an obligation to our community and all of us have an obligation to the next generation. And I think he is sort of the personification of what people don't like about the opposite of what people don't like about politics. He's not a professional politician. He's not part of the money chase. He's not part of the political system. He's not the -- he's a guy who talks about what people are worried about, that their education system is -- educating their children -- that we are a nation that's lost control of its economic destiny. I think he's addressing real things. It's more than just one-liners.

MR. MacNeil: David.

MR. GERGEN: Well, I think a lot of people, Mark, enjoy the comments. A number of people I talked to felt that he was a bit simplistic at times, and I'm not sure were ready to make a jump for him, but equally important, what he did, he helped himself a lot last night, Robin, but I think he also helped Bill Clinton a great deal. Two or three times when the President was on the attack, it was Perot who came to the defense and made a very effective defense. Example, when the President went after the Vietnam experience of Bill Clinton, it was Perot who said you should distinguish between what someone does as a --

MR. MacNeil: One our voters just echoed that, picked up on that today. And also perhaps indirectly where he wasn't -- it wasn't quite as explicit by, for instance, making the joke about, well, experience, I don't have the experience of creating --

MR. SHIELDS: Exactly right.

MR. MacNeil: -- a $4 trillion deficit. Let me ask --

MR. SHIELDS: If you hate people, I don't want your vote is a pretty strong statement too.

MR. MacNeil: If I may, let me ask you about the -- the news that Mr. Bush made -- it seemed so casually during the debate yesterday -- that Jim Baker, the man for all tasks and seasons, is going to come as a kind of a domestic policy czar and coordinate the -- the new economic plan if Bush is re-elected. What do you think about that, David, and the impact it's had and likely to have? Because there's been a lot more to come out today from unnamed officials at the White House who said the old economic team is going to be thrown out.

MR. GERGEN: You mean about Deputy President Baker, now think about that. I -- I have believed for some time that if the President laid out an economic plan and named Jim Baker as his economic czar for the second term, that would help his re-election efforts. I thought it would have been a lot more effective had he done that in September. I think coming this late and being done in such an off-handed way in this debate did not make much of an impact. It seemed rushed. And after all, only a few days ago, this same President told Larry King that Jim Baker was going to be a Secretary of State in the second term. Now the question is out there -- the way I interpret what he's saying, Robin, what the President's saying is, if I'm re-elected, Jim Baker's going to be my economic czar in the short haul, and then he's going to go back to the State Department after three or four months, after we get the team in place, the plan in place, et cetera. But I don't think it had the political impact the White House may have thought. There are various indications in the White House today that we're going to hear a great deal more about this from the President in the next few days. They're, in fact, going to come back and try to sell this economic plan a lot harder.

MR. MacNeil: And that Baker is going to make a big speech about he's going to implement it.

MR. GERGEN: Exactly.

MR. MacNeil: Mark, what did you think about this? I noticed that Baker, himself, told CNN the reason for doing this seemed very candid, people think Bush's agenda for renewal is all political, this is a quote -- is all political -- "He's only doing it because he's running for re-election." Now, if that was the perception before, will this move also be perceived that way?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, every -- every move in a campaign is discounted somewhat, but I think it really becomes the -- the message of the Bush campaign is re-elect George Bush and you'll get Jim Baker. I think there's probably a crash program at NIH, National Institute of Health, trying to clone Jim Bakers at this point. He's the one guy that can handle the world, the one guy that can handle America, and I guess George Bush's most valuable player. I don't under estimate his -- his talents or his abilities. But I think when you start tossing people overboard, as the -- the reports out of the White House today suggested, that Darman and Nick Brady won't have parking spaces -- Dick Darman, the budget director, and Nick Brady, the Secretary of the Treasury, will not have assigned parking spaces after January 20, 1993, if George Bush is re-elected, I think that has about the whiff of desperation.

MR. MacNeil: Also, that's something that his conservative critics within the Republican Party have desperately wanted for months, isn't it, not something that is to the general voter --

MR. GERGEN: Absolutely. And in some ways this is really inside the beltway kind of stuff, but there was a series in the Washington Post last week by Bob Woodward that portrayed the inner workings of the economic team with a lot of back stabbing and people, you know, arguing with each other, and frankly being disloyal to the President that had the Republican Party stalwarts on their ears last week, saying this should not be permitted, these people should all go. They're not only giving you a bad economic policy, but they are now building their own reputations at the President's expense. So I have a feeling that what's been coming out of the White House in the last 24 hours has a great deal to do with what that -- that Post series, as well as the election.

MR. MacNeil: Mark, finally, this -- this question -- let's discuss whether there will be a job, any job for Jim Baker after November. Is -- is there still -- given the state of the polls and the results of last night's debate, is there still a winning scenario for George Bush? Has anybody done what he has to do in the next three weeks?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think last night we talked that he had a hat trick facing him, that he had -- had to be presidential, he had to lay out a different sense of a second term that was different from the first, and he had to brush off Bill Clinton. I think one can make a case that he did the first two, that George Bush was more coherent, more consistent in his presentation. He seemed very much in control of himself and comfortable, but he didn't lay a glove on Bill Clinton, and I don't see how Bush is going to win this. David's earlier concern or mention that the Bush people cited that Ross Perot could get to twenty-five or thirty, if Ross Perot gets to 30, George Bush might be at 28.

MR. MacNeil: Is there still a winning scenario?

MR. GERGEN: Not that I can see. It may be they're very creative, maybe they can pull it out still. It would help if they took these debates more seriously than they did. I don't think they went into this debate last night looking for a victory. The President went in trying to be presidential as opposed to taking it away from Bill Clinton. He was not on the offensive. Bill Clinton was on the offensive. The President didn't have a plan. He didn't have a message. He has to find that in these last two debates. He will be playing to a diminished audience. But if he comes on strong Thursday night, if Quayle gives a surprising performance Tuesday night, and the expectations are very low, so Quayle could possibly do quite well, possibly the country will wake up, but if he gives two more debate performances as he did last night, it's over. You know, it may be too early to go looking for a new job, if you're working in the White House, but you should be polishing up your resume.

MR. MacNeil: Well, David Gergen, Mark Shields, thanks both. ESSAY - EPIC ENCOUNTER

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight an essay that marks Columbus Day which marks the 500th anniversary of the Christopher Columbus voyage of discovery. The essayist is Richard Rodriguez, editor of the Pacific News Service.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: I'm standing inside the walls of Sutters Fort in Sacramento. For most Americans this is where we imagine the story of the Indian, within the story of cowboys, within cowboy movies of Saturday afternoon, the Indian lost, Tonto, Sitting Bull, the cigar store Indian, Jim Thorpe, Burt Lancaster, Montezuma, Shirley MacLaine's Indian incarnations. The Indian exists for most Americans in the confusion of fact and fiction. Awhile ago I was in a suburban movie theater watching Kevin Cosner's version, such a sad movie, "Dances with Wolves," such a brutal portrait of the pale face. When the theater lights went on, I realize that most of the people in the theater were white. It struck me that they had just paid $7 to watch a movie that regretted their very existence. The international ecology movement turns the Indian into a mascot. In the public service TV commercial the Indian sheds a tear at an America polluted beyond recognition. Post industrial America romanticizes the Indian who no longer exists and ignores the Indian who does, the Indian who is poised to chop down his rain forest for example, or the Indian who refuses to practice birth control. Five hundred years ago, Christopher Columbus, a European, met the Indian. Five hundred years after that epic encounter, we are still trying to determine what happened, which is why we cannot decide today on words to describe 1492. Dare one even speak of Indians, or should we say native Americans? And what verb do we attach to brave Columbus? Did he discover at all? Historians tell us that the Indians who first approached Columbus died of plague from contact with the European, and of course, we know that Indians were raped or murdered by conquistadors. But what does it mean when we read in the history books that Indians approached Columbus? It means they had brains, were people with eyes, were curious. Only Shakespeare among the Europeans understood that Indians have eyes. [Shakespeare Segment]

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: In the Tempest, Shakespeare portrays Callaband, a new world Indian on all fours, a brute. But Callaband is dangerous because he is curious. Callaband eyes the Europeans' books, eyes the Europeans' daughter. So accustomed are we to thinking of Indian defeat and Indian death that we are apt to forget that out of that rape and death and pillage came birth, births which have continued for 500 years. I grew up here in Sacramento, a few blocks from Sutters Fort. I used to play on this cannon. Growing up, I never thought of myself as Indian. You're not Indian, you're Mexican, Indians in this country tell me to this day. Indians are as apt as any pale face to imagine the past in simple terms. In real life, the Indian did not die, despite plagues and slaughters. Look at the browned faces of Mexico City, if you do not think so, or Los Angeles, or your city. Five hundred years after Columbus, Callaband's dissidents have stolen the language. Spanish is an Indian tongue now. English is an Indian language. It is my language. I have stolen it. The religion of Europe is an Indian religion. The center of Catholicism is Latin America, not here. Within all the white guilt expressed this year, there is an arrogance that assumes that the European is the sole actor in history, the Indian is victim. But 500 years may be too short a time for us to know how the story of Columbus ends. In the mountains of Peru and Bolivia today there are Indians who are the new Maoists. In the jungles of Central America, there are Indians singing evangelical Protestant hymns, and they are headed this way to convert the secular United States. What is 500 years? Today pale archaeologists from Harvard and Oxford unearth stone cities of the Inca and the Maya. All the while, the brown cities of the two hemispheres keep growing and growing 500 years after Columbus thought he had landed in India. There are those who say there should be no celebration of Columbus this year, let 1992 be a year of mourning. The problem of course for me and for tens of millions of others in the Americas, people of mixed European and Indian blood, mestizos. The problem is that 1492 is our birthday. I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Monday, a powerful earthquake killed at least 340 people and injured more than 4,000 in Cairo, Egypt. Five hundred years after Columbus discovered the new world, NASA began its quest to find intelligent life on other worlds. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you to tomorrow night with a presidential campaign issue and debate segment on when to use military force abroad. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.