The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, Charlayne Hunter-Gault interviews soon- to-return president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrande Aristide. We peruse the TV ad battleground of the 1994 elections, and essayist Anne Taylor Fleming look at an unusual writers' workshop. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: White House Press Sec. Dee Dee Myers said today there was evidence of a broad-based Iraqi withdrawal from the Kuwait border, but she said some troops remain in place and the U.S. build-up will continue. Sec. of State Christopher visited Kuwait today in a show of U.S. support for the Arab Emirate. He met with Gulf State Foreign Ministers and said they'd agreed to share the cost of the military operation. They also pledged to send troops to help defend Kuwait. After the meeting, Christopher issued this warning to Saddam Hussein.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We'll be watching him closely. We'll be able to tell, of course, whether he's really turned his troops around and moved them back out of threatening danger. We're considering steps so that he can't have this kind of provocation again. We must reach some kind of a situation where he can't on a whim of his own bring about this kind of a crisis or require this kind of a confrontation.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sec. Christopher also visited U.S. forces stationed in the Gulf. The number of troops is expected to pass 40,000 in coming days, and officials said they're prepared to send up to 200,000 to the region. In addition, two dozen warships and more than two hundred planes will be deployed. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The last man in the soon-to-go military rule of Haiti stepped down today. The military backed president, Emile Jonassaint, resigned. In a radio address, he thanked the Haitian people for their help through what he described as the most tragic period in Haitian history. Two planes waited at the Port-au-Prince Airport to fly the post-military ruler, Raoul Cedras, and his army chief of staff out of the country, possibly to Panama. Panama's president said he will decide in a day or two whether to grant them political asylum. The legally-elected president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is due to return to Haiti Saturday. During an interview with the NewsHour this afternoon, Aristide said U.S. troops should continue their efforts to disarm the Haitian people.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE, Haiti: If we have the weapons, we may have violence. Haiti is a non-violent country, always victim from an institutionalized violence. Now, by having the support of President Clinton of some others helping us disarming the thugs, it's a step which is indispensable for that reconciliation.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have the complete interview right after the News Summary.

MR. MAC NEIL: President Clinton today released $200 million in funds from the recently passed crime bill. Police chiefs and mayors from around the country joined the President for the announcement at the White House. Nearly 400 communities received grants to hire more police officers. Under the provisions of the crime bill a hundred thousand new officers will be hired in the next six years.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: A hundred thousand police officers is a number that doesn't mean a lot to the average American. Most Americans don't know how many police we have now. They don't know how many that is. They're not sure what it means on their block. There are 550,000 police officers in America today. A hundred thousand police is nearly a 20 percent increase. And if they are all put into community policing, as they are supposed to be, then it will be at least a 20 percent increase in the effective police presence on the street in the United States.

MR. MAC NEIL: Most U.S. states are enjoying healthy economies. A report released today by the Conference Board, a non-profit research organization, said state governments are in their best financial shape since the 1980's. Southern and Rocky Mountain states show the strongest economies. The Board predicted nearly $2 billion in state tax cuts this year as a result of the improved fiscal climate.

MR. LEHRER: The Russian ruble recovered a little today after losing a quarter of its value yesterday. President Yeltsin fired his acting finance minister and called for the ouster of the central bank chairman. He said the currency drop was a threat to the economic security of Russia.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Nobel Prize for physics was awarded jointly today to Canadian Bertram Brockhouse of McMaster University and American Clifford Shull of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They were honored for their separate work on neutron scattering techniques to better understand atoms. Their award-winning research was conducted in the 1940's and 50's. American George Olah was the sole winner of the Nobel chemistry price. The organic chemist from the University of Southern California received the award for his use of strong acids in the study of hydrocarbons. His research has contributed to effective oil refining and lead free gasoline. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Jean-Bertrand Aristide, politics by TV commercial, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. NEWSMAKER

MR. MAC NEIL: We go first to our Newsmaker interview with Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. His three-year exile is scheduled to end Saturday when he returns to Port-au-Prince to resume the presidency that was cut short by a military coup seven months after he took office. This morning, President Aristide attended a ceremony honoring a victim of Haiti's political violence. Afterwards, he talked with Charlayne Hunter-Gault.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Aristide, thank you for joining us. Within hours, you'll be going home to Haiti. Can you tell me what the voice inside of you is saying at this moment?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE, Haiti: Let's celebrate this reconciliation. Let's build, instead of loss. Let's work together for a new world order.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You really are optimistic that it's going to work this time?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: It will. It will.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why are you so confident?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: Because we could reach a couple of steps by having the implementation of the UN Resolution 940, the U.S. troops are there. The multinational force is there providing security, disarming key players among the members of the paramilitary groups. We wish they can do the same with Emanuel Constant, the head of FRAPH.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: They haven't yet.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: If we continue this process of disarming the thugs peacefully, we will see how beautiful the Haitian people will answer.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that the biggest problem that you face, getting the weapons out of the hands of the thugs?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: I think so, because if we have the weapons, we may have violence. Haiti is a non-violent country, always victim from an institutionalized violence. Now by having the support of President Clinton, of some others helping us disarming the thugs, it's a step which is indispensable for that reconciliation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Does that mean that U.S. and multinational forces need to be there and will be there a long time?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: I think it will be a couple of months.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Only?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: You know, we have two phases in the program. The first phase is the implementation of the UN Resolution 940. Then we will have a second one, which will start with the implementation of the Governor's Island Agreement. So by that, we will be reaching more than months close to one year when I will be finishing. And I'm happy to realize how together we can create this climate of peace for our people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But without the forces, do you think that the climate that you need to govern will be there?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: We have to reform the judicial system by the time they are providing security, by the time we have the restoration of democracy moving ahead. We will have to reform our judicial system. We will have to professionalize our army from seven thousand to fifteen hundred. We will no longer have an army of seven thousand people controlling 40 percent of the national budget in a country where we still have 85 percent illiterate. So by having the police separated from the army for the first time, that will make a difference.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any fears for your own personal safety, given that this process is only a beginning?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: Being the president of every single citizen, I will be back for those who would not wish me to be back, working with them, building a new country with them. That's why we granted amnesty. That's why we want to have the light of reconciliation for us and for every single citizen of the nation. So I don't have to be afraid when I assume my responsibility, when I am doing what more than 67 percent of the population three years ago asked me to do by voting for me, and also, with those who didn't vote for me, this is democracy. The president has to work with them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The departure of Gen. Cedras appears to be imminent. How do you feel about him leaving the country?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: This is the will of the Haitian people. This is what the UN Resolution 917 called for. I feel it's okay. Although I would like to see all the Haitians staying in Haiti and together building Haiti, when some of them, like those generals have to leave, let's see that happen.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what about the issue of justice? You talk about justice and not revenge, but many of the Haitians, your followers that I've talked with, say that people like Gen. Cedras and Michel Francois and Biamby should be put to trial for criminal acts.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: In fact, I would say the Haitian people are wise. What you just said is the first choice. When they realize how it's not so easy to get it, they move to the second one, which is the departure. And if this departure can help us building that peaceful nation which we need, let's do it, because we don't want vengeance, we don't want retaliation, so by having this departure, that will be better than having their presence.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But the amnesty is not a general amnesty. It absolves the generals and their military people of political crimes but not of criminal acts like murder and rape and torture and things like that.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: That means while we are moving towards reconciliation and the president will continue saying no to violence, no to vengeance, yes, to reconciliation, while we are moving this way, we will be rebuilding the judicial system. And the judicial system in light of this amnesty will find what heneeds to do the job.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you expect that people will be prosecuted criminally, people who were in the military, in the secret police, civilians? You expect that they will come to trial?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: It will be the decision which has to be made by the judicial system.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But as I have talked to many of them in Haiti, they really do want to see justice. In fact, already a small number of them have even exacted vengeance on some of the military people, beating them to death in the streets, and to be sure, the overwhelming number of victims have been the pro-democracy people. But these acts of vengeance have take place. How do you plan to deal with that?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: I'm in communion with Gandhi, with Martin Luther King, with President Mandela, and so many others who realize how important is this necessity of building reconciliation. When we saw the Haitian people in Cap-Haitien taking the weapons, turning those weapons in to U.S. troops while there were victims, I'm in communion with them. This is the spirit of non-violence. This is the spirit of moving from a tradition of non-violence. This is the tradition of the Haitian people to the future of non-violence. Although we always had a small group of thugs using an institutionalized violence against us, that we always said yes to non-violence, that's why they could turn in the weapons to the U.S. troops.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you believe that you will be able to control your followers who many might argue have a righteous lust for vengeance?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: Absolutely. Absolutely. The UN Resolution 917 calls for change in the high command, it's that that has to be implemented, which will be new steps towards this new Haiti. And I'm fully aware about what does that mean and I'm ready to lead the nation with all the international community the way we are together.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You said that the most difficult problem you face is going to be getting the thugs disarmed. What is your next biggest problem, the biggest challenge you think you face after that?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: Education, health care. By education, we see we cannot have 85 percent illiterate in a country which is the first black independent country in the world. We have to reduce it, and it's possible to reduce it. Health care, we have one soldier for each one thousand Haitians, but one point eight doctor for each ten thousand Haitians. When we say we have fifty- six hospitals, we don't have two hospital beds for each one thousand Haitians, so we have to face this challenge and do something. But for doing that, we need money. And the way to get money is to have that political, political stability which I talked about, to welcome people who want to invest in Haiti, to have the private sector creating jobs. And once we have that, I think we can slowly move from misery to poverty with dignity.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about the business community? Because many of them complained when you were president, your government was disorganized, had no direction, and that you didn't communicate with, with them.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: One thing is to have the weapons in your back when you are talking. Gen. Cedras was there. Gen. Biamby was there, Michel Francois also. So the weapons were there, and I had to listen to people and putting them in the social context. Another thing is to look at our seven months in office and compare what we had at that time as free climate for people to want to investand what we were getting from the coup to today. Now, we don't talk about the past. Let's talk about the future.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, what would you say to the businessmen of Haiti now?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: I need you, because you and I will lead the nation. We have to work together. As the head of state, I have the responsibility to provide security to you, to your capital to move towards a free market. Those who want to invest, their rights must be respected, and their rights, as during our seven months, will be respected. Those who will have jobs, their rights will be respected. This is a question of respect for every single citizen, those who invest and those who are working. The state cannot lead the nation without the private sector. And the private sector cannot lead the nation without the state. We have to be together. And when we opened our economic plan in Paris a couple of months ago, we could see how they were excited about our plan, praising our plan.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Today are you the same man you were when you left Haiti?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: I know you know French, and I have my way to say it in French, and then I'll try to translate it if I can.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because I don't think I'm prepared to translate it at this point, but please.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: Je suis -- [speaking French] ---

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I think I know that, but let me hear you translate it.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: I will try. I am the one I was to be, the future the one I have to be. So you have to grow up, but while you are growing up, you cannot deny your roots. You cannot deny the seeds of your education. So you are learning day after day to become better. You are building the future today in the light of the past, without denying your identity. You and I will have our forefathers coming from Africa. How could we deny that? We cannot. But at the same time, day after day, we have the light of knowledge, of experience, helping us to grow up. This is the dialectic which we cannot forget about it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the biggest lesson you've learned during your time here in America?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: In 1944, we saw troops coming from America to go to Europe and help freedom coming out. Today what we are seeing in my country reflects what happened in the past. And it's always beautiful to see the weapons protecting lives, instead of killing lives. And in my country, the weapons right now, from the international community, are protecting lives, which is so marvelous.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So does that mean --

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: That means --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I'm sorry.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: That means it's a dream. And I learn how we can make a dream be coming true in the light of these past three years. It could appear too long for people, but once you believe in truth, in principle, and you care about doing what is right and when it comes from the people, 67 persons voted for democracy, of course, it's clear that the roots of this will, which is the will of the Haitian people, are strong.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It's sounding as if you've made some new peace with America, because your relations have not always been easy with this country. How would you characterize the lesson you've learned, if any, from your dealings with the American government?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: I think, as I said, we cannot deny the dialectic which cross the field of knowledge, and when someone says, oh, you've changed, it's also maybe because that one changed to see you the way you are. So this dialectic can help us growing together as global citizens, living in an interconnected community where I have to learn from you while you are learning from me, and together we can make it better. And I think it's a new relationship which we have between Haiti and the United States, built on mutual respect, dignity for both sides.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you feel about America now? I mean, once upon a time when you were in Haiti as president, you had a lot of ani-American things. Has any of that changed, all of that?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: That's why it's good to see the future today in the light of yesterday. Today, right now, we have the troops, the U.S. troops in Haiti, side by side, with the Haitian people, the same way the Haitian soldiers were in the battle of Sabana, side by side with the American troops, fighting for an independence of the United States. Wonderful it was, as it's wonderful today to move the same way. So I think what we have today, it's the light of the future. It's the light of the new world order. It's the light of a nation with nations, for instance, under the leadership of President Clinton implementing the UN Resolution 940. Together, we are sending hope to the world. We are sending the light of peace and reconciliation to the world. And I am really proud to see Haiti can play this historic role, while the world is assuming its responsibility.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. President, thank you, and all the best.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: Thanks a lot.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: Thank you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead, campaign advertising and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - POLITICAL STATIC

MR. LEHRER: Now, the ad wars in the elections of 1994. On November 8th, voters will choose 435 House members, 35 Senators, and 36 Governors. And as that day nears, so does the saturation of television screens by political ads. We'll talk to two makers of such ads and two analysts of them right after this brief ad sampler from campaigns around the country.

FIRST AD SEGMENT:

JIM SASSER: [ad] You can bet I'm going to side with the senior citizens every time, and you can count on it.

FIRST POLITICAL AD SPOKESMAN: That's what Jim Sasser says in Tennessee, but Sasser's votes don't match his words. In Washington, Jim Sasser voted to increase the elderly surtax by 70 percent, but he took a 40 percent pay raise for himself. He can retire with a $3 million pension, more taxes for you, more money for him. That's the Sasser record. Sasser, 18 years is long enough.

[ON SCREEN UNDER SASSER: PAID BY FRIST FOR U.S. SENATE & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE]

SECOND AD SEGMENT:

SECOND POLITICAL AD SPOKESMAN: Slade Gorton's not working for us. He voted against family and medical leave, against college loans for middle income families. He voted against the crime bill to put hundreds more police on our streets, and Slade Gorton voted to cut Social Security and Medicare. It's time for a change. Ron Sims. For 16 years, he's worked as a community volunteer, helping kids. Last year, he cut spending 14 percent on the King County Council. Newspapers call him tough on crime. Ron Sims, a Senator who'll fight for us for a change.

[ON SCREEN: PAID FOR BY THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZED BY RON SIMS FOR U.S. SENATE]

THIRD AD SEGMENT:

THIRD POLITICAL AD SPOKESMAN: Mario Cuomo's policies have caused New York's property taxes to skyrocket. It'stime for a change. Mario Cuomo, too liberal for too long.

FOURTH AD SEGMENT:

TOM BARLOW: I'm Tom Barlow. We're losing too many young people to crime and the basic lack of Sunday school values. We have to break the cycles of crime. In Congress, I'm fighting for welfare reform that requires personal responsibility and hard work. And I want school prayer for our children. I ask for your vote so together we can keep fighting for important change for Kentucky, for our families, for America.

WOMAN'S VOICE: Tom Barlow.

[ON SCREEN: PAID FOR BY BARLOW FOR CONGRESS '94]

FIFTH AD SEGMENT:

PEARL HOCKMEYER: I'm Pearl Hockmeyer and the only survivor of the assault which took place at the Newbury Town Hall last November. I'm grateful to Dick Swett for his vote to ban semiautomatic weapons. I think that vote took a lot of courage. Even though I'm a Republican, Dick Swett has my support for doing the right thing.

[ON SCREEN: Dick Swett is the only N.H. congressional candidate who supports the Crime Bill and its assault weapons ban.]

SPOKESMAN: Paid for by the Dick Swett For Congress Committee.

SIXTH AD SEGMENT:

BILL CLINTON: [October 19, 1992] I am not going to raise taxes on the middle class.

AD SPOKESMAN: That's what Bill Clinton said. Instead, he gave America the biggest tax increase in history, a tax bill that passed in the Senate by one vote. Sen. Jeff Bingaman's vote for higher taxes made the difference. Clinton says he counts on Bingaman's support of his liberal agenda. We need a change. Colin McMillan delivered the largest tax cut in New Mexico history and will fight for lower taxes in the U.S. Senate. Nobody owns Colin McMillan, especially Bill Clinton.

[ON SCREEN: PAID FOR BY McMILLAN FOR U.S. SENATE]

SEVENTH AD SEGMENT:

AD SPOKESMAN: The Republicans just met in Washington to sign a contract for America's future, but it's really an echo of a failed past, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, billions in defense increases, and gigantic, new job-killing deficits. And buried in the fine print is the rest of the deal -- deep cuts in Medicare, education, and veterans' benefits. The Republicans -- they fooled us once, and we'll be paying the bills for generations. Why would we go back to that?

[ON SCREEN: PAID FOR BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE]

MR. LEHRER: Now, four perspectives on this 1994 crop of political ads. Two analysts, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, she's the dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania; Stuart Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg report, a political newsletter that tracks races and candidates; and two media consultants: Robert Shrum is a Democrat. Mike Murphy is a Republican. Kathleen Jamieson, Sen. Danforth on this program the other night said political ads such as the ones we just saw have added to the cynicism that the American people have about government and politics. How would you rate this crop thus far of 1994 on that scale?

MS. JAMIESON: When ads oppose things, rather than favoring things, they tend to invite the public to focus on the negative, rather than the positive. This year, the ads began to oppose earlier a higher percent opposed, and because you have many well- financed incumbents who are frightened because of re-districting among other things, you have more money available for them to engage in escalating attack on both sides. And yes, I think in the absence of a sense of what the alternatives are -- and here the Republican contract, in fact, provides a valuable alternative -- we do invite cynicism with high levels oppositionaldiscourse.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rothenberg, any overall themes that, that make this particular election season different than others?

MR. ROTHENBERG: Well, certainly, again we're seeing time for a change. That's an anti-Congress theme, anti-Washington, anti- politician, and anti-Bill Clinton. Now, Democrats have their own approaches. They're trying to focus on individual candidates and individual races. We're hearing discussions about crime and taxes, so I think overall it's the mood, the time for change theme that we're seeing across the country in political spots.

MR. LEHRER: More so than usual?

MR. ROTHENBERG: I think so. We saw some of this two years ago, but now we have a -- you know, there was an uptick in public sentiment, optimism right after the '92 election, and I think the public is more pessimistic about the future now. And so more and more candidates are trying to tap that with time for a change.

MR. LEHRER: Kathleen Jamieson, what about the -- how President Clinton is being used on both sides, how would you analyze that?

MS. JAMIESON: The ads that are for Democrats are not mentioning that they're in league with Clinton, and the ads that are opposing Democrats are trying in many cases to suggest that this person favored Clinton X percent of time. Interestingly enough, some of the people who are being tarred with the anti-Clinton brush by Clinton's standards were not very helpful to him in the last two years. But is this being portrayed at least by the Republicans as a referendum on Clinton, yes, it is.

MR. LEHRER: Is that unusual? Or is this par for the course, or more so than usual?

MR. ROTHENBERG: It depends on what the President's approval -- when you have a weak President, a President where the public is dissatisfied with the overall performance, I think that's a standard fare. And in this case, the President's ratings are so low combined with the overall mood of the country where we feel we're going in the wrong direction, that invites attacks on Bill Clinton, and linking Democrats to the President.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Murphy, as a Republican, is going after Clinton good stuff, good fodder this time?

MR. MURPHY: I think it's good politics and good policy too. He is the most, you know, important elected official in America. He sets the policy agenda in D.C. He's unpopular because his policies aren't working, so it's organizing the Republican Party pretty effectively in opposition to say, hey, give us a chance, we're going to bring real change to Washington. The Democrats run Washington. Washington is not working in public perception, so we can be the anecdote. We're the change.

MR. LEHRER: What's the evidence about whether or not that's working? In other words, tying a congressional candidate to Clinton, is there a cause and effect that you've been able to measure?

MR. MURPHY: Yeah. We're pretty happy over at Republican headquarters. I mean, it's never till election day, but I can tell you the tracking data from all over the country in these various races show that we're in the hunt in a lot of places right now. And when you at the data --

MR. LEHRER: That you didn't expect to be.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah. We didn't expect to be. We thought it would be harder. It's -- we're all going to look pretty smart on election day. Maybe we're not so smart, but I can tell you the country is ready to make some changes, and they're latching onto Republican candidates to do that, which the Democrats are trying to find something to talk about to divert that tidal wave, hence, their attacks on the Republican Congress.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what that's all about, Bob Shrum?

MR. SHRUM: Well, I think what's happened here is that the Republicans decided sometime ago that the best way to try to make progress here -- and it's Newt Gingrich's strategy from some years ago -- is to destroy the system. I call the Sampson strategy. You see if we can knock the building down, and then maybe we'll be hired to rebuild it. And I think you saw that at the end of this Congress. You saw that in the way Mike just sort of cavalierly went through Clinton's policies aren't working. In fact, of course, in half the time, more jobs have been created than in the whole Bush administration. I mean, and I think the effort is to make people cynical about politics and institutions, and if it damages some Republicans along the way, that's fine. There are two things I think that contribute to this: The first is that there's been a major fall in real incomes in this country for the average worker in the last 20 years. People are very dissatisfied and frustrated, and, therefore, when you appeal to that frustration by saying, Congress is paid too much, people say that's right. And secondly, I think politics follows culture. And from the O.J. Simpson case to a movie like "Natural Born Killers," this decade, it seems to me, is becoming the nasty 90's. And I think that's true in politics, and I think it's true generally.

MR. LEHRER: How nasty have these things been so far, Kathleen?

MS. JAMIESON: I make a distinction between ads that oppose and are opposing legitimately. They're differentiating, and that's an important part of argument, and ads that are dirty, they're lying, they're deceptive, they're taking things out of context. And by that standard this is not an unusually dirty year. This is an unusually oppositional year. The problem, of course, is that the oppositional character of the year does invite cynicism, but not the level of cynicism that would be invited if the ads weren't hewing toward a higher level of factual accuracy than they have in the past. And that's in large part a function of ad watches.

MR. LEHRER: Meaning that when let's say a Republican ad goes after a Democrat, they tend to go after them on differences that are real, you mean, rather than imagined, and vice versa?

MS. JAMIESON: Then the question becomes: Was this a vote that was representative of the person's time in office or not, but not was it really a vote that the person cast. And you're seeing that in some of the ads that you showed. The ads are now increasingly carrying the sources of their information on them, something that we've began to see emerging at the national level in 1992. The people who are putting forward the ads are offering facts as a back-up when they're putting the ads on the air. That's constructive. And the newspapers and major markets are doing ad watches, which is inviting the candidates to be as accurate as possible, or those ad watches can be used by the opposition since have rapid response now.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MS. JAMIESON: The ad watches are driving us toward more accuracy but they're not bringing down the level of opposition.

MR. LEHRER: How would you rate the distortion level?

MR. ROTHENBERG: I would say two things: First, Jim, that the cynicism and skepticism out there predated these recent political ads. I mean, it was out there all year during the summer, and it was magnified, I think, by the failures -- the redefinition, let's call it -- of the crime bill and the health care debate. So it's not just these political ads. I think the ads early on were rather soft and generally positive bio spots. They've been starting to get negative recently. They're going to get real negative. They're going to get real negative.

MR. LEHRER: Why?

MR. ROTHENBERG: Democratic candidates who have to personalize elections, make individual contests, 435 races out there, choices between two candidates, not between global messages of change and new direction and Bill Clinton, and so you're going to see a lot of Democratic attack ads.

MR. LEHRER: And they're attacking whom?

MR. ROTHENBERG: Attacking Republicans particularly --

MR. LEHRER: Attacking Republicans who've been attacking -- you're talking about incumbents?

MR. ROTHENBERG: Right. Democratic candidates attacking Republican candidates on character, judgment, ethics, and some positions.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do.

MR. LEHRER: The worst is yet to come?

MR. MURPHY: Pretty much, unfortunately. The Democrats are caught in a zero sum strategy. They do not have a compelling theme to get their own candidates re-elected, so the only thing left for them is to try to make the Republican candidates worse, which means throw the rule book out the door and try the late smear.

MR. LEHRER: You think my guy's bad, you should see the other guy, right?

MR. MURPHY: Well, wait, let me give you a minute to talk about the other guy. And they do it late, and they do it hopefully without any kind of voter backlash. But Kathleen made a good point. Voter cynicism is so strong now ads are considered untrue until proven true, which is why you see real people in them, like the crime victim in the one ad, why you see --

MR. LEHRER: Wait a minute. You think that people just automatically assume now that a political ad is lying?

MR. MURPHY: The most hostile single place I've been this year was in focus groups showing of Democratic ads where eight or nine randomly chosen voters say it's all untrue, we don't believe anything. I've never seen so much cynicism in the electorate about advertising as I have in this election cycle.

MR. LEHRER: Is that -- does your work bear that out?

MR. SHRUM: Well, yes, I think focus groups people say that, but, of course, then when you go back a couple of weeks later and say, what do you like or not like about somebody, they tend to repeat back to you what was in these ads that they dismissed as, as irrelevant and inaccurate.

MR. LEHRER: So they were paying attention, they were listening?

MR. SHRUM: They pay attention, the listen, and they absorb. I think that one reason -- there are two reasons for this: The first reason is this is an oppositional year. I think the Republicans succeeded fairly early on in defining it as a year when they were going to go at Clinton, they were going to go at big government, they were going to go at Democrats, they were going to run on frustration. And the second thing is --

MR. LEHRER: But you do not agree that, that that frustration was already there?

MR. SHRUM: No, as I said earlier, I think the frustration is very deep in the culture --

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. SHRUM: -- and I also think it's very deep in people's economic situation.

MR. LEHRER: And the anti feelings about President Clinton were already there. You're not saying that the ads have made that?

MR. SHRUM: No, the ads haven't made that. I think there was a deliberate Republican strategy from early in '93 on which mainstream Republicans like Sen. Dole only signed on to as it seemed to be working to, to really go after the President at every level, in terms of policy, in terms of himselfpersonally. I mean, and I think they made some progress with that, although I think it's a very dangerous strategy. Actually, Mike says they're thrilled over at Republican headquarters. I think they may be celebrating their victory a month too soon because I think they may have peaked too soon.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think the worst is yet to come? Do you think things are really going to get nasty?

MR. SHRUM: Well, I want to hold to Kathleen's distinction, because I think it's absolutely true. I think what's happened is that people are sourcing ads, they're being much more careful about what they say in the ads.

MR. LEHRER: Are you more careful than you used to be?

MR. SHRUM: Well, of course, I was always careful.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, right. Okay. Are the people you work with more careful than they used to be?

MR. SHRUM: Yeah. I think -- it's not an act --

MR. ROTHENBERG: Absolutely, yes.

MR. SHRUM: It's not an act of charity, but you've got to do it.

MR. MURPHY: It used to be you be you put the message on television and you read about in the poll a week later. There are filters of cynicism now that have required all of us in political advertising to try not to oversell the case and to state the facts, and just try to -- agenda control is what political advertising is really all about and try to do it on the facts that tell the comparative story we want to tell about our candidate versus theirs, which is why Clinton is a driving fact right now.

MR. LEHRER: What does your research show on this, Kathleen Jamieson, about what the attitude of the viewer is when they see one of these things?

MS. JAMIESON: We're trying to place it in a broader context, because we just spent nine months studying the health care reform debate which is highly oppositional in advertising as well as in the news media. And we think that this isn't simply advertising. The news media tend now to cover politics and policy much the same way. They focus on the strategy. That's a cynical filter. It assumes Machiavellian self-interest.

MR. LEHRER: Why is that cynical? Why is that cynical?

MS. JAMIESON: Because it assumes that a politician doesn't act out of philosophic goodwill with philosophical differences between himself or herself and the opponent, and that everything is done for political gain not because there might be some sense of a common good.

MR. LEHRER: The politician is not interested in really bringing health care to the uninsured.

MS. JAMIESON: Right.

MR. LEHRER: Something else, some other agenda?

MS. JAMIESON: And then when the press doesn't focus on strategy, it tends to focus on the attacks and counterattacks against all the existing positions even when the candidates have taken reasoned positions for an alternative. And so the press is part of this problem too, and when you begin to cover the public policy process and governance and the campaigns through the same cynical filter, what you do is get a self-fulfilling prophecy out of all of this. And press coverage in campaigns has always been driven by strategy and attack. That's going to be magnified this year as the ads become more oppositional, and they're rewarded for being oppositional because the oppositional ads get time on MacNeil- Lehrer. You didn't show very many positive ads tonight.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Okay. Good point. Do you agree with that?

MR. ROTHENBERG: Well, I think comparative ads work because elections are about differences, differences between candidates. And so you say that one candidate stands for one thing or has a certain background, or certain experience, or has more integrity, and so I think, look, all campaigns have positive ads, and they try to -- they're soft and fuzzy, but I don't think -- frankly, I don't think soft and fuzzy ads tell us a lot about candidates and about the races. I think there's more information in negative ads. Now, sometimes --

MR. LEHRER: So you defend our not running them.

MR. ROTHENBERG: Absolutely.

MS. JAMIESON: I'd like to see candidates put forward an ad which will say I voted for this for this reason and it was right for the country and I'm defending that as a positive move.

MR. LEHRER: Well, one of those we did, the woman from -- was it New Hampshire who said, I'm for Sammy Sue Candidate because he voted to ban assault weapons. That was a positive ad.

MR. SHRUM: A couple of those. I think it was banned from Kentucky. I mean, I didn't particularly like the ad, but the man from Kentucky said I'm for school prayer, I'm for values, I'm for welfare reform. But the interesting thing about that ad is you couldn't tell whether it was for a Democrat or a Republican. That is the interesting thing. That ad was for a Democrat. Democrats are running value ads. Democrats are running tough on crime ads. That's very different this cycle from previous cycles.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you, Mike Murphy, when you sit down, you and your groups sit down to make an ad, do you believe that that ad could truly affect the outcome of the election, or is it, is it just one of many little things? How important is it now in the -- as a weapon in the machine right now?

MR. MURPHY: I'll get in trouble down at the consultant's union for saying this, but political ads are highly overrated. They're part of an overall campaign, and what we try to do is get a lot of information out both about our candidate and about the opponent. And the dirty little secret here is people like negative information. They complain about getting it, but it's like going through a stack of resumes. You remember of the two hundred the one who did the four years in prison for armed robbery. Negative information disqualifies, and people want to know both sides. So we try to build a campaign off a lot of spots that tell the story on both sides. It's important, but it's not the only source of information they get, because I think --

MR. LEHRER: Is it more important now than it was say two years ago, four years ago, where does it fit? Give me some kind of a value.

MR. MURPHY: The news story in a statewide campaign, Senator or Governor now, is I believe for the first time in maybe the last two election cycles television easily beats print in impact.

MR. LEHRER: You mean a news story?

MR. MURPHY: Yeah. If you're being beaten up by the newspapers, but you're running a pretty effective television campaign and you're doing a good job of giving the right pictures to lazy local TV news, you're going to win or move numbers.

MR. LEHRER: What's your experience?

MR. SHRUM: Oh, I think ads are very powerful. I think people spend a lot of money on them, and I think it's because television is very powerful. I actually have a theory that a lot of people in the country find what happens on television in some ways more real than what happens in their own lives.

MR. LEHRER: Even if it's a commercial?

MR. SHRUM: Oh, I think with a commercial -- I mean, people have emotional relationships with television shows, so I think that the power of the visual when it's put together with an argument in an ad can be enormous. And I think this year, you know, there was a wonderful quote by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster in the paper the other day, who said the ideal Republican candidate is an astronaut, or as my partner, Tad Divine says, the Republicans want to run the man who fell to earth, I mean, who has no basic political background, no basic political record against all of these Democratic incumbents. So it's sort of inevitable that people are going to say in the case of a business person here's their record and you ought to look at their business record, and it's relevant to say the kind of Senator they're going to be. So I think you're going to get oppositional ads in an overall context like the one we're in and in the particular political situation where you have a lot of Democratic incumbents and a lot of almost non-person Republican challengers, excepting, of course, his client, Col. North, who does have a record.

MR. LEHRER: You want equal time on the astronaut question, Mr. Murphy?

MR. MURPHY: Well, I think there are a lot of Democrats who after watching this show and getting some wise advise from Bob will head off to astronaut school because they're defending a failed presidency, and they're finding out that's a recipe for disaster in mid-term elections. Hence, the zero sum negative campaign. Destroy your opponent, so there's no dialogue about you.

MR. LEHRER: Kathleen Jamieson, how important are these ads? Are they any more -- you've been studying these things for years now. You're the world's number one expert. Track their importance for me, say the last 12 years.

MS. JAMIESON: Ads have become important insofar as the news media has elevated their significance.

MR. LEHRER: Because we talk about 'em, other people talk about them.

MS. JAMIESON: Because you talk about them.

MR. LEHRER: The New York Times runs big things on them.

MS. JAMIESON: When I first started studying this, you didn't have to worry about what the news media said about ads. You could find virtually no discussion. Now, a portion of the news hull is reserved for discussing the ads. And the purpose of the consultants is to try to get their ads into news time because that's free national access, it legitimizes the candidates, and it legitimizes the consulting firm that managed to accomplish it. So that's a major change. The other thing --

MR. LEHRER: I must say we had an experience -- in fact, you were on our program once when we ended up running an ad that had never been broadcast. I mean, somebody had made the thing but for some reason it never got pulled, and we realized that, my goodness, this was the only airing that particular ad got. Excuse me, go ahead.

MS. JAMIESON: But there's also more of a synergy between ads and news, and so the ads have a capacity to direct news attention in ways that becomes interesting, and the news are directing the ads' attention as well. We're seeing it now with crime becoming a major focus. The pollsters are saying it's a central issue to the electorate, it's a central issue in the ads. The news media are now actually doing something very constructive. They are spending part of their news time trying to press the candidates for solutions to the crime problem that they featured in their ads. And they're starting to ask questions such as: How are you going to pay for those extra prison cells? What's going to happen when you abolish work release programs, and now you have a lot more people in jails we haven't built yet. Can you do this and still reduce taxes?

MR. LEHRER: And that comes out the ads, you mean?

MS. JAMIESON: In part, that comes, because we can say on a national level crime is focal to this campaign through its advertising.

MR. ROTHENBERG: You asked if they worked. Peter Hoagland just gained fifteen to twenty points in a Nebraska congressional race because of his ads. Mike Murphy actually won his candidate in Michigan, a Republican Senate primary because of a late ad. Joel Hyatt, Ohio Senate -- Democratic primary --

MR. LEHRER: A good ad, a nasty ad, a negative ad?

MR. MURPHY: A true ad.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, right. Okay.

MR. ROTHENBERG: But these ads can be decisive, and you can see it, and you can look at the numbers.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. And more so now than ever before?

MR. ROTHENBERG: I think so. I think there's more money behind the ads. I think the ads are better done, and I think consultants know how to tap that, that --

MR. LEHRER: And they're building in to being able to defend them, and so they don't get caught out.

MR. MURPHY: I'd just add that one thing that's really happening is there's an absence of real coverage in the newspapers because all they cover now is process, the making of. I get 25 press calls a day about what kind of ads are you going to make tomorrow for somebody, as opposed to what their plan is to, you know, increase foreign trade. It's all foreign trade.

MS. JAMIESON: But I wish when people ask the consultants that, the consultants would say, we don't answer those kinds of questions, they're irrelevant, our candidate stands for this, here's the argument for it, here's how we differ from the other side, cover that, or we don't talk to you. You feed into the cycle of strategy coverage by being willing to be on the record about - - with all those strategy comments.

MR. SHRUM: Well, the only -- I mean, I agree with that in an ideal state. The only problem is that people are going -- you can't tell reporters what they're going to cover, and you can't refuse to talk to them, and the ads have a lot of power, and everybody's figured that out. That's why politicians have gone to them.

MR. LEHRER: I refuse to talk to the four of you anymore tonight. Thank you all four very much. ESSAY - PASSAGES

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally tonight, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming tells us about an unusual group of writers in Los Angeles.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Once a week, every Friday, they show up ready to write. This is their workshop, and they almost never miss it. For the first forty-five minutes, they compose, heads down over lined paper, the way we used to write in school, writing against deadlines, writing as if our very lives depended on it. These men are all HIV positive, some still without symptoms, some in the midst of gothic medical dramas. The workshop is under the umbrella of AIDS Project LA, and in it, they write about all the things that all of us writers write about, death yes, but even more, life, parents, lovers, encounters, real and imagined, growing up a nerd, holding a crack baby.

BRENT BALLONE: But here I am many months into regular injections of testosterone, and I'm feeling things I've been deprived of for many years, groin urges, aggression, hungry prowling late at night. Could it be reaching to include paternal feelings too? It is sweet, I must admit. I don't know this child. Yet, I love him, want to protect him and take care of him, make it all right. Oh, my God, don't tell me these are maternal feelings. [laughter in room] I just know I want to experience this, to enjoy it, to drink it in, and to go where this moment is taking me. That's enough. I got a taste, and in my wildest imaginings, this wouldn't have even made the list. Thanks, God. Thanks, ma. Thanks, Brent.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: When they talk about each other's work, they are attentive, respectful, not patronizing, never that.

JERRY ROSENBLOOM: I like the way you pulled out of your head and went into your heart. You just moved into a whole 'nother realm, from the head down back to your fluttering chest.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: This is not a support group for dying men. This is a writers' group for men who are very much alive, a circle of men telling each other stories, literate men with successful professional lives behind them who write for the most elemental of reasons, the reason any of us write, to record their passage, to understand what has happened to them, to be remembered.

MICHAEL MARTIN: I think we all have stories to tell, not only the people in this room, but everyone has stories to tell, and I think we've gotten away from telling stories, where people used to gather around and tell stories. And we just rely on outside sources for entertainment, when we can entertain ourselves and tell our truth. That's all it is, is our truth, and to share that amongst ourselves, that's the important part I think.

STEVE MAHRER: I think in a way I feel like I'm creating -- I'm validating my existence in a certain way, and I'm also creating a legacy for myself. It assumes kind of a certain dignity and stature that it doesn't have when it's running around in my mind. So in a way my life is more important to me and perhaps to somebody else than it was before I started writing it down.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Watching them and listening to them is to enter a strange and wondrous zone where everyone's living right at the edge, intensely alive, creative, hopeful.

JERRY ROSENBLOOM: It's very energizing. You know, we don't leave at the end of the day tired, or maybe we do, but we leave high, you know, laughing usually and joking, and it's a very invigorating experience.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Besides going to see the doctors, this is probably the most regular thing I do.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: This and the doctor, writing and dying, writing and living, writing to live, living to write, dying to write. It's all jumbled up, and the irony is not lost on any of these men, that it is death that has brought them to this place, to this workshop, to the writing.

FRANK WANG: The strange serendipity that AIDS has brought us together and turned us into creative artists that we had never possibly imagined.

JOHN BELL: This has allowed us to -- or me anyway -- to look at the aspects of my life. Many people go through -- become 60, 70, 80 years old, and they never look, don't want to look, don't have - - you know, people go through AIDS the same way, blocking totally. And in that respect, oh, God, I hate people who say, AIDS has given me life, you know, but, but it's not that true anyway, I mean, but just to have that -- there's a sense of advantage, that we do -- I would not have done this. I could be 80 years old, dying of cancer or heart disease or emphysema or whatever, and I would not have traced back over my life. I would have preferred just to forget it, the way so many normal people do.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Is it hard though to write through the loss, to keep going, or keep coming, as places open up around the table?

STEVE MAHRER: I think my fear of death is probably less by allowing myself to stay closer to people and actually losing them and not turning away from it. I think there's something -- something about the courage it takes for me to do that is valuable. I don't know how to explain it really.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: In the days after our taping, Michael Martin has died and John Bell is in the hospital, not likely to emerge. Chairs -- vacancies. Meanwhile, the other writers go on crafting their stories and sharing them.

AL WINN: Steven is dying today, everyone tells me, as if they are surprised, but he's been sick for years. Abby, Steven's cousin, called me from San Francisco, who heard from Nancy in Berkeley, who got a call from Billy, Steven's brother in Oakland. Steven's in St. Luke's Roosevelt in New York. I immediately called Laurie, who was in the country for the weekend, and got no answer, so I tried Barry in Queens, who was Steven's lover now. Barry told me Steven was dying today. In a few minutes, perhaps less than half an hour, all of these messages, and undoubtedly many more, were spoken through wires, bounced off satellites and microwave towers, routed back and forth across the country with a rapidity that had nothing to do with the urgency of the message. When I finally got through to Laurie, she wasn't able to come to the phone, so I spoke to Leslie, who told me, the truth is no one really knows what's going on. Steven is parceling out the information and telling different stories to different people. We'll call you when we know something. So I sit here waiting, which is the way Steven probably wants it, everyone worked up in a frenzy, while he lays calmly dying.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: As they listen and critique and look around at each other, they know they are part of a continuum and that down the road others will come and fill the places and tell their stories. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, U.S. officials said there was evidence of an Iraqi withdrawal from the Kuwait border region, but some troops remain and the U.S. build-up will continue. Kuwait and five other Persian Gulf states agreed to share the costs of the U.S.-led military operation. And Haiti's military-backed president resigned, clearing the way for Jean- Bertrand Aristide to return this weekend. Good night, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. And we'll see you again tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.