The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a Kwame Holman update of the Washington struggle for a budget agreement; excerpts from last night's Gore-Bradley exchange in New Hampshire; a conversation with presidential candidate Pat Buchanan; a Terence Smith look at what the recalled Bush biography revealed about book publishing; and another scary Halloween essay by Roger Rosenblatt. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: A double shot of economic news today sent the stock market back up today. The Labor Department reported employment costs-- wages, salaries and benefits-- rose just 0.8 percent in the third quarter. The Federal Reserve looks to that figure and others to measure inflation. In another report, the Commerce Department said the economy grew at an annual rate of 4.8 percent, July through September, making up for a springtime lull. Then on Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up about 2.5 percent, 227 points at 10,622. The NASDAQ Index was up 72 at 2875. President Clinton commented on the activity.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If we keep this going in February without having had a war-- wars guarantee you an economic expansion-- in February, it will be the longest expansion of any kind in history without a major conflict. And we can be very grateful for that, it's a tribute to the American people and their innovation.

JIM LEHRER: The House today the Republican plan for a 1 percent across-the-board federal spending cut. The vote was 218 to 211. Democrats, including President Clinton, say it would be devastating. The House also passed a third temporary spending bill to keep the federal government running. The Senate was to do the same, and Mr. Clinton has said he'd sign it. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The Democratic presidential candidates faced off last night for the first time. Vice President Gore and former Senator Bill Bradley fielded questions in a town hall-style meeting at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. They agreed on a number of issues, but highlighted differences on matters such as health care. The Republicans, minus Texas Governor George W. Bush, will have their session tonight at the same place. We'll have excerpts from last night's event later in the program tonight. New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith withdrew from the 2000 presidential race today. The former Republican was running as an independent on a conservative, right-to-life, anti-gun-control platform. He said he lacked the necessary finances to keep going. He never polled higher than 1 percent, even in his home state, which holds the first primary next year. He spoke at the capitol in Washington.

SEN. BOB SMITH: I have no regrets, no animosity. I'm not claiming I lost because somebody else raised more money. I just could not raise the money, and money frankly, is a reflection of support or lack thereof. And clearly, those who in some cases-- obviously, had more support because they had more contributions and were able to help. And that's the way the process works.

JIM LEHRER: There are reports Smith may rejoin the Republican Party. He's next in line to chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. He would succeed Rhode Island Senator John Chafee, who died on Sunday. In Armenia today, the killers of the prime minister and other government officials freed their 40 hostages and surrendered. The overnight siege of the parliament building ended when the country's president promised the five attackers a fair trial and the opportunity to broadcast a recorded statement by their leader on national television. Yesterday, the heavily armed gunmen stormed the building and said they were carrying out a coup because government leaders and legislators were robbing the country. President Clinton met today at the White House with the president of Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation. President Olusegun Obasanjo took office last May. He's Nigeria's first civilian president in 15 years. Mr. Clinton offered to help him turn his nation into a stabilizing force for the rest of Africa. Obasanjo said Nigeria would act to halt regional unrest and ethnic feuds.

PRESIDENT OLUSEGUN OBASANJO, Nigeria: A new commitment which will make peace and stability an enduring future of that part of the world... it is a significant contribution to the world of peace, to the world of harmony, to the world of order and stability.

JIM LEHRER: We plan to have an interview with President Obasanjo tomorrow night. Two Navy pilots from the Blue Angels flying team were killed today. Their jet crashed during a practice flight at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia. The Blue Angels were scheduled to perform there this weekend; 23 members of the team have been killed since its creation in 1946. Federal experts in Washington are examining the voice recorder found in golfer Payne Stewart's crashed jet plane. There was no word on its contents. The National Transportation Safety Board said it expected to clear the wreckage in South Dakota by the end of the day. They'll study the fragments in an airport hangar near the crash site. In Houston, golfers held an early morning tribute to Stewart on the first tee before the start of the PGA Tour Championship. They'll skip play tomorrow to attend a memorial service in Orlando. The New York Yankees are the champions of baseball. They beat the Atlanta Braves last night 4-1 to sweep the World Series in four straight games. It was the third time in four years the Yankees have won the World Series, and a record 25th in baseball history. The team will celebrate in New York tomorrow with a ticker tape parade and rally at city hall. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a budget update; Gore and Bradley in New Hampshire; a conversation with Pat Buchanan; a book publishing problem; and Roger Rosenblatt on Halloween.

UPDATE - DUELING FOR DOLLARS

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman has today's budget story.

KWAME HOLMAN: The House of Representatives today took care of first things first. With temporary spending for many government programs set to expire at midnight, members debated and voted on yet another extension of that funding, a device known as a continuing resolution. It provides funds at last year's levels, giving congressional and White House budget negotiators more time to work out a final spending solution for the current fiscal year, which began October 1.

SPOKESMAN: And Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the president, that this is acceptable to the president, and I would hope we could expedite...

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Speaker, the house is still not in order. We've got several conventions going on on the floor.

SPOKESMAN: The gentleman is correct and the chair is going to start naming names.

KWAME HOLMAN: In truth, many members weren't paying much attention to the first debate. After all, this was the third continuing resolution Congress has had to pass in the last three weeks and the points of debate already were well known. But that didn't keep some members from making them again.

REP. BILL CLAY, [D] Missouri: If the Republican leadership had done its job instead of playing politics with appropriations for vital government services, I wouldn't be here this morning to speak on this unnecessary continuing resolution.

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT, [D] Texas: You know, this Congress is quickly running out of federal buildings to name around the country. It's about commemorated everything that can be commemorated, and since these uncontested measures represent the principle legislative product of this Republican do- nothing Congress, this legislation deserves a name: The Republican Congressional Failure Act of 1999.

KWAME HOLMAN: As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Florida's Bill Young has been the lone Republican obliged to respond to the Democrats' charges. Today he brought charts to make his case.

REP. BILL YOUNG, Chairman, Appropriations Committee: Now let me tell you how the job has been done. Look at this chart. There are 30 items on this chart that the Appropriations Committee will have done at the end of this day, 30 items. I challenge any other committee in the House or the Senate to have produced 30 measures to bring before their body for votes.

KWAME HOLMAN: As expected, House members approved their third continuing resolution this month, on a near unanimous vote. It was sent off for the Senate to approve and for the President to sign before midnight. However, the debate and vote that followed reflected the reality of the partisan disagreement over federal spending, and revealed the same budget impasse that has entangled congressional Republicans, Democrats and the President for weeks.

REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ, [D] California: The Republican leadership is urging that we make severe cuts to our nation's domestic programs. And you know, this is just after the last four or five months, when they said there was so much money there they could return $800 billion. But today, they're telling us, not only can they not do that, but they've got to cut the funding programs of the national government.

REP. TOM DeLAY, Majority Whip: It's almost Halloween, and the Democrats are up to their usual tricks, in search of the big government treats. Like all of our appropriations bills, this conference report funds many very significant programs sufficiently while maintaining a balanced budget. But despite all the good qualities of this legislation, it's being opposed.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans came to the floor this afternoon with a different kind of spending bill, a package that combined appropriations for the District of Columbia, appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, a 1 percent across-the-board cut in all discretionary spending, and a 1 percent reduction in a congressional salary increase scheduled for January 1. Republicans argued their combination of spending priorities and spending cuts would meet their budget targets.

REP. DAVID DREIER, Chairman, Rules Committee: What we're saying is is that we're not going to increase the tax burden on working families. We're not going to touch Social Security. And at the same time, we're going to make sure that we don't increase spending.

KWAME HOLMAN: As they have been doing for weeks, Democrats jumped to their feet to charge the Republicans' plan indeed touches Social Security.

REP. DAVID OBEY, [D] Wisconsin: Despite the fiction we have just heard, we have a letter from this Congressional Budget Office which spells out that the Republican budget so far has eaten into $17 billion of the Social Security surplus - so much for the fiction we just heard.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans in turn tried to refute Democrats' charge that an across-the-board spending cut would devastate many social programs.

REP. ERNEST ISTOOK, [R] Oklahoma: We're hearing people on the other side of the aisle say because this has a 1 percent reduction, not in Social Security benefits, not in veterans benefits, not in Medicare, only in so-called discretionary spending, we can't handle it; even though spending will actually be up for so many of those agencies from what it was before, they don't want to take a hard look at the size of government.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Maryland's Democrat Steny Hoyer singled out the "delays" Republicans built into funding for the National Institutes of Health.

REP. STENY HOYER, [D] Maryland: We are delaying clinical trials for cancer patients. We are delaying clinical trials for victims of heart disease. We are delaying clinical trials for victims of AIDS. We are delaying clinical trials for children with serious life-threatening diseases. We are delaying them until September 29 and 30. That is... that's 11 months away. Who of you would stand and say to a critically ill child, "wait 1 months?"

KWAME HOLMAN: Not expecting the support of many Democrats, Appropriations Chairman Young closed the debate with remarks aimed at holding the narrow Republican majority.

REP. BILL YOUNG: We have increased our investment in national defense, a promise that we made. We have increased medical research, a promise that we made. Despite the rhetoric today, to the contrary, we have increased medical research. We have increased education over and above the President's request. It hasn't been easy, but we made promise, and we have kept those promises. And this bill today will complete the promise of having 13 bills on the President's desk, and then we will go to the final phase of our appropriations process for this year. And then we can all go home and be with our constituents, where we should spend considerable time.

KWAME HOLMAN: Early this evening, the Republican spending plan passed the House as expected, on a nearly party line vote. The Senate is likely to pass it as well. The measure awaits a promised veto by President Clinton. Once that happens, all sides can resume closed-door negotiations over what to fund and where to cut.

FOCUS - FACING OFF

JIM LEHRER: The Democratic presidential contenders, Vice President Gore and former Senator Bradley, appeared together for the first time last night. It was in a town meeting format in Hanover, New Hampshire. Here are extended excerpts from the event.

MODERATOR: Thank you for joining us as we uphold a New Hampshire tradition, the town meeting. Let us begin. Please state your name and then your question for Mr. Bradley.

MARTHA GOODRICH: My name is Martha Goodrich, and I'm from Lebanon, New Hampshire. Mr. Bradley, in your opinion, what is the one most compelling reason that I should vote for you rather than your opponent?

BILL BRADLEY: I think there's only one reason to vote for me as opposed to anybody else, whether it's the vice president or whether it's a Republican candidate, and that is because you think that my leadership would improve the quality of life for millions of Americans today; that you agree with my vision of where the county should go; that you share the values that I espouse, and that you recognize that by your participation in the process that America can become what I've laid it out to be. So if you care about fundamental campaign finance reform, if you care about increasing the number of people in America with health insurance, if you care about racial unity in America, if you care about reducing the number of children in poverty in America, and you care about managing the economy so that growth takes more and more people to higher economic ground, then I would hope you'd feel that I would be your candidate. And if you do, I welcome you. I need your vote. [Laughter]

MODERATOR: Your question for Vice President Gore?

MAN IN AUDIENCE: As you know, Vice President Gore, there's a great deal of cynicism in the country about politics and politicians. The campaign finance system is one source of that, but there are many other sources, including the behavior of the Republican-dominated Congress, but also the behavior of some members of your administration. What, as President, would you do to restore confidence in the American political system?

AL GORE: I understand the disappointment and anger that you feel toward President Clinton, and I felt it myself. I also feel that the American people want to move on and turn the page and focus on the future and not the past. He's my friend. I took an oath under the Constitution to serve my country through thick and thin, and I interpreted that oath to mean that I ought to try to provide some... as much continuity and stability during the time that you're referring to as I possibly could. And it was also a time of some real hard fights-- to keep Social Security on track, to make sure that we expanded health care to more children, to keep the economy going strong -- and there are still fights going on for the health care patients' bill of rights. I would like to have your support for me because I want to fight for you. A President can fight for all the people.

MODERATOR: Our next question is also for Senator Bradley.

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: My question concerns health care, your health care plan. I like your proposal. I like your proposal for guaranteed child health care for every child in the United States. My concern is about the cost of the plan, and my question to you is how do you plan to fund it?

BILL BRADLEY: I'm glad that you've looked at the proposal and you see that it covers all children, that it brings many adults who don't have health coverage into the system now, that it provides a drug benefit for the elderly. And I also am glad that you took a look at what it costs, because I think that a politician who doesn't put out what something costs when he says "I want this program or that program" is just, you know, politically posturing. Ours will cost between $50 billion and $65 billion a year. It will come either from the surplus-- we have a trillion- dollar surplus over the next ten years, and that's enough to take care of this program-- or it will come through the enormous savings that we can get through the application of technology to the medical system. We spend $1.2 trillion for health care, $50 billion on administrative costs. By simply moving things from paper to Internet, you will be able to achieve significant savings.

MODERATOR: Your question for the vice president?

SECOND WOMAN: I'm wondering, if you were to implement health care reforms, who would be the decision- makers? Who chooses what's covered?

AL GORE: I think the decision-maker ought to be the people who are getting the care. That's why I strongly support an H.M.O. Patient bill of rights, so that the decisions on specific care are made by doctors and not by faceless bureaucrats who don't have a license to practice medicine and who don't have a right to play God. That's who I think ought to make the decisions. Now, I think it's also important that we look ahead and answer exactly how we are going to finance the plans, because I paid, obviously, a lot of attention to the exchange over here. Just today, the respected Emory School of Public Health came out with a nonpartisan analysis of both my plan and Senator Bradley's, and they said that his plan costs $1.2 trillion. That is more than the entire surplus over the next ten years. You're going to shred the social safety net. So I think that the cost is way excessive.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

Our next question is actually to both candidates, and we'll take Mr. Gore first.

SECOND MAN: What do you think characterizes those whose leadership is most effective, and how does your own approach to leadership relate to that?

AL GORE: I think that a President must have a vision of the future that is compelling enough to bring people into a common effort to bring it to pass. I care very deeply about what happens to this country in the future. A President is the only person in our constitutional system who has the responsibility to fight for the welfare and well-being of all of our people. Senators, Congressmen have constituency groups, and they look to the national interests, but a President is charged with fighting for all the people. That's what I want to do, to bring into being a vision of a bright future for our country, and I've been talking about it during this campaign. I think that a President has to assert values and elevate those values so that people buy into them and base their decisions on those values. I think Abraham Lincoln was the finest example of that trait. I think that Franklin Roosevelt was the finest example of articulating a vision of how we could get through the Depression and win World War II.

MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President -

AL GORE: And I think that Lyndon Johnson was good on setting the goal...

MODERATOR: We're going to give Senator Bradley a chance to respond.

BILL BRADLEY: I'd be glad to answer this, but first I just want to make one clarification. [Laughter] On the cost of the health care plan, we each have our own experts. I dispute the cost figure that Al has used. [Applause] Now, in answer to your question, I think there are three values that are important that a leader has to have. One is absolute integrity-- honesty, integrity-- and there I think of Jimmy Carter. Second, I think that a leader has got to have the ability to see around the corners, to see the future before it's here. I think Woodrow Wilson had that. What he talked about America became America in the 20th century. And next, I think a leader has to have courage. The example of that, I would pick somebody who's not an American, Mikhail Gorbachev, who saw that the world must change and had the courage to make that change. I think leaders, wherever they are in the world, need those three qualities if they're going to be world-class leaders.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We are going to bring our program to a close at this point. We do want to thank Dartmouth College, the voters of New Hampshire, and the candidates who joined us here tonight.

AL GORE: Karen, could I say one more word? I would like to stay. If anybody has other questions, I will stay after the TV cameras are turned off and as long as you want. [Laughter]

MODERATOR: That's your cue.

OTHER MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good night from Hanover, New Hampshire.

JIM LEHRER: The Vice President fielded questions for another 90 minutes after the TV cameras shut down. We'll have excerpts from tonight's Republican session tomorrow night. Still to come tonight, Pat Buchanan; checking out books; and a Roger Rosenblatt Halloween essay.

SERIES - ONE ON ONE

JIM LEHRER: Now, the third in our series of interviews with presidential candidates. Tonight's is with Pat Buchanan, the former Republican speechwriter and commentator. On Monday he left the Republican Party, announcing his candidacy for the Reform Party nomination. He's 60 years old, a graduate of Georgetown University and the Columbia School of Journalism. He worked at the "St. Louis Globe-Democrat" before joining Richard Nixon's law office. He served in the Nixon, ford and Reagan administrations. He first ran for the presidency, as a Republican, in '92 and again in '96. Mr. Buchanan, welcome.

PATRICK BUCHANAN, Reform Party Presidential Candidate: Thank you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: How would you assess the reaction you've received since your announcement on Monday?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: I think the reaction has really been outstanding. I am astonished at the enthusiasm we got in New Hampshire. In Michigan, we had a crowd of 500 packed into a small auditorium. Last night, I was down in South Carolina, and we signed books for two hours. I just signed books for two and a half hours up here in Minnesota. Jim, I think there's been an explosion of interest and enthusiasm for the idea that there's going to be a third choice in the election of 2000.

JIM LEHRER: What about the Reform Party? What is the Reform Party to you? What does it stand for? What is it?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: What it stands for basically, Jim, I think is fundamentally, it is economic patriotism, a foreign policy that keeps America out of wars that are none of our business. It stands for restoring the full sovereignty and independence of the United States and on issues that are of concern to me, social and cultural conservatism and right to the life, it does not take a stand, and it includes people of all parties basically no matter their views on those as long as they stand basically for the Reform Party agenda. And I forgot to mention obviously, political reform, campaign finance reform, opening up the system to other people and other parties.

JIM LEHRER: Would you have joined this race for the Reform Party nomination if it had not had the $12 million in federal matching funds for its nominee?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: I think I would, Jim. Certainly, it would be difficult without the $12 million. But nobody can win an election with $12 million when the other parties have 65 or 70 [million dollars] given to them by the federal government, and they have enormous piles of money in addition to that. One of the reasons is, Jim, if you want to be President of the United States, at one point, 19 percent of the American people voted for the Reform Party. They are comfortable with the Reform Party as a third party.

JIM LEHRER: You mean and voted for Ross Perot?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Excuse me. You're right. And voting for Ross Perot in 1992. So, they accept the idea, I think, of a Reform Party today as a legitimate third party which gives you at least access to those debates.

JIM LEHRER: As you said, the Reform Party has taken no position on social and cultural policies. Let me quote what you said when you announced your candidacy for the Republican nomination in March: "As long as Pat Buchanan is fighting in the arena, there will be at least one major political party in America that dares without apology to stand up for the rights of the unborn." Will that party now be the Reform Party?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: If Pat Buchanan is the nominee of the Reform Party, Jim, the Reform Party nominee will be the most committed, dedicated pro-life candidate in the presidential election of 2000.

JIM LEHRER: And will you insist that the Reform Party as a party, adopt your positions on matters like right to life?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: No. In 1996, Jim, we wrote basically the Reagan plank back into the Republican platform over the objections of some national Republicans. We kept the Republican Party pro-life and its platform pro-life as I had pledged to do. No sooner had we done that than the Republican ticket announced it had not read the platform and party leaders said, "We are not bound by it." At that point, I decided it was futile, simply to write platforms when individuals did not feel bound by them, that what we needed was a candidate and President who was dedicated to these beliefs and who would carry them with him in his heart and into the Oval Office. And I believe I am that man. And I think those who trust in me believe in me, that no matter what ticket I ran on, if I became President, I would be true and faithful to all the commitments I've made including a new Supreme Court which would overturn "Roe V. Wade".

JIM LEHRER: But you're not going to insist -

PATRICK BUCHANAN: No, I'm not.

JIM LEHRER: -- that members of the Reform Party in order to be members of the party, and support you, have to also accept your social policy positions?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: No. I didn't even insist on that in the Republican Party. As you know, there are in the Republican Party many individuals who are or were pro-choice on abortion or some of them very strongly pro-abortion. I never called for the expulsion of anyone from the Republican Party.

JIM LEHRER: You said you've had a good response since your announcement on Monday.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Right.

JIM LEHRER: How do you account for the fact that there has been less support for you this time than there was in 1996 -- at least as a result of the polls and what polling had been done within the Republican Party, which caused you to go into the Reform Party in the first place -- what's happened?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Well, in New Hampshire, I was doing very well. I won the straw poll up there on July 4 three to one over everybody else and defeated the other conservative candidates. I was running second or third in New Hampshire when I started dropping out of the race. In Ames, Iowa, I got the greatest reception of any of the candidates there based on my ideas and my ability to communicate those ideas. Now, why didn't we come in third as I had in '96? And why did we come in two slots behind that? Basically, the first reason, Jim, is money. I mean, I can beat Mr. Forbes, I believe, hands down. I beat him in 46 states in 1996. I can't beat him if he's going to put $100 million into the race and pay $1,000 a vote in an Ames Straw Poll. I can't do that. Secondly, a lot of candidates saw how well I did in '96, so they got into the race. A friend of mine told me that Lamar never left New Hampshire after '96, and some of these fellows were in there for three years and they organized and organized and beat me by a couple of hundred votes in the straw poll. I decided that, look, the conservative base, which is fundamentally a strong Buchanan base, was being carved up six ways. At the same time, you had Mr. Bush, who is raking in $37 million in a couple months, and Mr. Forbes with $100 million. I could not tell our folks that I could win that nomination against those kinds of insurmountable odds when the whole party began to rearrange the primaries and pour in that kind of money. It is a fixed system, Jim. I think I could have beaten Dole head-to-head -- if I had had half the money he had, I would have beaten him. But I can't go up against $100 million opponent or two of them in a primary and expect to beat them.

JIM LEHRER: What do you say, though, to those who analyze it very differently, who say that you are, because of the fact that you have been on television and the fact that you have been in the public eye now for many years that, you had a lot of "free media going for you" and that the better known you became and the better known your views became, the lower you went with the voters?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Well, what I would say is this: The views, let's take the views Pat Buchanan represents that are different than Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore. On NAFTA and GATT, the country agrees with me, not with them. On controlling illegal immigration cold and cutting back on legal immigration, 75 percent want to cut back on legal immigration. 95-100 percent want to end illegal immigration. They agree with me there. On China, a majority agreed that our policy is too soft toward China. Mr. Bush would make more concessions. If you take these issues, the war in Kosovo... I don't think the American people wanted that war. Bush did, McCain did, Mr. Clinton did, Mr. Gore did. If you take those issues, I'm in a majority position. That's why those Republicans came out of their chairs cheering and I got ovations, unlike any Mr. Bush got or Mr. Forbes got, because I can articulate those positions. But Jim, you cannot put together a nationwide campaign with... against two folks with $100 million when you're barely making it raising money.

JIM LEHRER: The "New York Times" editorial page sees it quite differently. On Tuesday, it said "your" - meaning you, Pat Buchanan " war-like oratory draws fringe voters and surrounds his candidacy with the persistent whiff of racism and anti-Semitism." Is that a fair statement?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: No. That is recycled garbage from the "New York Times." And to say that about the three million people that supported me-- most of them $15,000 to $30,000 incomes in 1992 and 1996 when I ran against the President of the United States and I ran against the leader and the establishment candidate of the Republican, to call these good grassroots, populists conservative, to say they're animated by racism and hatred of any kind of people, I think, is wrong. There's a sense of elitism in Washington and New York which suggests that any populist candidate has got to be smeared because he somehow threatens the hegemony of the establishment. It happened to Ronald Reagan. It happened to a man who helped bring me into politics, Barry Goldwater. He was called a Fascist. He was called every name you could think of. There were ads run against him by psychiatrists saying he was insane simply because he stood up for his country.

JIM LEHRER: Have you looked back on what you have said and written in the last several weeks, several months, several years, and tried to determine why there is this increasing... you say it's all a conspiracy, people out to get you, but that there might be something you have said and done that has legitimately caused people to suggest that possibly there is a racism strain here or an anti-Semitism strain here, intentional or otherwise?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: All right. Let me ask you -- name one single racist statement you think I've made.

JIM LEHRER: No. I'm asking you --

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Well, look -

JIM LEHRER: -- if you have looked at yours -- I mean -

PATRICK BUCHANAN: You cannot throw out nonsense like that without making a statement. Let me tell you why. With regard to the charge of anti-Semitism. I defended the nuns at the convent in Auschwitz, which was very controversial. I defended Pope Pius XII. I think he's a saintly man who saved 850,000 Jewish folks during World War II. According to a Holocaust historian, he was praised by Golda Meir at his death. The World Jewish Congress gave a million dollars to the Pope at the end of World War II in gratitude to him. All these things were known about him from 1939 to 1959. Now he's called anti-Semitic. Now he's called Hitler's Pope. Pope Pius XII hasn't changed. Attitudes of people have changed. In my view, I am attacked because I defend traditional values of Catholicism. I defend people who are falsely accused, one almost to the point of being hanged in Jerusalem as a Nazi war criminal, who was innocent. I think because I have succeeded and because I will speak up for my faith when it's attacked, and I will even criticize the Israeli lobby, when others will not, people will attack me and use these smears to silence me. And they have not succeeded, Jim. And the reason they haven't succeeded because the people that know me in Washington and the people that know me in America from the thousands of appearances you describe, know that in Pat Buchanan's heart there isn't a trace of that, that what there is, is a man of convictions who fights for those beliefs and convictions against anybody.

JIM LEHRER: Your conscience is completely clear on these issues?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: My conscience is as clear as it can be. Moreover, I not only don't owe anyone an apology, I believe I am owed an apology by people who attempt to silence me, or get my columns killed, or get me off television, or get me out of speaking engagements, or use the vilest terms you can think of against me. Go find the record of Pat Buchanan. He doesn't run around calling people Communist, or Fascist, or terms like that. I am called those names.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of qualifications and your record, what would you lists your qualifications to be President of the United States?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: I have a greater... I think, a vision more in tune with America, where America is going than any of my potential rivals. I believe many of them are caught in a Cold War mind-set. I think some of them are looking upon America as the next great empire of some kind. I think what the American people want is to restore a constitutional republic in this country. They don't want to lose their nation in some global economy or new-world order. And I think because I represent that, I think that's why they respond to me as passionately as they do. And I think it's the reason why we've got a fighting chance to be the next President of the United States.

JIM LEHRER: But your views aside, your qualifications to run the government, to actually administer all of the things that have to be administered, et cetera.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: All right. They would be these. Let's take Mr. Bush.

JIM LEHRER: No. I'm talking about you. I'm talking about you.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: All right. He's had four years as governor. It's a fairly weak governor's job. I've had eight years in the White House. I commanded the largest staff in the entire White House, far larger than any other Senatorial or Congressional office. I've been to four summits. I wrote presidential speeches as long ago as 30 years. In addition to that, I've authored five books, including a "New York Times" best-seller. I've written syndicated columns in 200 papers. I've gotten three Ace Awards for television appearances. I don't think there is anyone almost in national politics who has my very background and extent of experience and knowledge of the issues. I mean, I not only delivered speeches at national conventions, I've written them for Presidents at national conventions. Who, Jim, in American politics has that much experience? You know, I came into politics and national notice probably at the same time as Governor Bush's father came to national notice. I've been here many, many years, almost 40 years. And it's hard for me to think of any other candidate who can rival that experience. But the test would be, let Pat Buchanan in the debates with Al gore and with Mr. Bush. Take away all the notes. Take away the podium, the lecterns. Put up three naked microphones and let them debate for ninety minutes four times and let the American people decide, and I will be the next President of the United States.

JIM LEHRER: Pat Buchanan, thank you very much.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Thank you, Jim.

FOCUS - FACT OR FICTION?

JIM LEHRER: A recalled book is making headlines in the media and waves in the publishing business. Media Correspondent Terence Smith has the story.

TERENCE SMITH: Last week, the publisher St. Martin's Press suspended distribution of a new and controversial book, "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President," by J.H. Hatfield. 90,000 copies of the unauthorized biography of the Texas governor had been printed under the Thomas Dunne imprint. In an afterward, the book purports to tell the untold story of George W. Bush, including an uncorroborated allegation that he was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession. The book says that his father, the future President Bush, had used his influence to get his son off and expunge the criminal record, a charge that both father and son have denied.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: That book accused me of being anti-Semitic. It accused me of obstructing the justice system by going to a judge and having a narcotics charge dropped and have George do community service. It's a lie. It was a vicious lie.

TERENCE SMITH: On the book jacket, Hatfield is identified as a freelance Texas journalist and businessman. But the publisher discovered last week that Hatfield also is apparently a felon, convicted 11 years ago of hiring a hit man to kill a former boss. No news organization has been able to corroborate the story of Bush's alleged cocaine use, and reporters were pressuring Robert Wallace, a former journalist and the editor in chief of St. Martin's for details. On Tuesday, Wallace suddenly resigned, issuing a statement in which he denied that he or his staff had oversight or control of the book. Robert Wallace declined to come on this broadcast, but yesterday accepted a new job as editorial director of "Talk" Magazine.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us to discuss this latest publishing controversy are Lindy Hess of Radcliffe College, a former executive editor at Doubleday, and Bruce Sanford, a Washington lawyer who vets non-fiction books. He is author of "Don't Shoot the Messenger," a book about the media.

TERENCE SMITH: Welcome to you both. Lindy Hess, from your knowledge of publishing and your experience in publishing, how could this happen? What went wrong here?

LINDY HESS, Radcliffe College: Well, I think that it's unusual for an editor... for a lawyer to... for a writer not to be honest about who he is. Apparently, Mr. Hatfield was very, very credible. And the book was vetted by in-house counsel, out-of-house counsel, and he was an author who had done a lot of publicity tours, had written a number of books. And he was very persuasive, both personally and in his book. I mean, he not only fooled the publisher, he fooled the agent, and I think he was a kind of con man about his past, certainly.

TERENCE SMITH: But wouldn't you, as a publisher, if someone came to you, particularly someone's background who you didn't know personally, came to you with such a - you know, sort of extraordinary and explosive charge in the book, wouldn't that set off some bells?

LINDY HESS: Well, as I say, a decision to publish the afterward, which contains this allegation, was made by house at large with the help of lawyers. And one of the things that's puzzled me about the story is that the "New York Times" received an early version of the book, and they had three reporters work for three or four days, nonstop to see if they could corroborate the story. And none of them came up with the fact that the author was a felon. So it may not be such an obvious kind of thing to be looking for.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Bruce Sanford, who, in fact, is responsible for the veracity of the contents of a book, the author or publisher?

BRUCE SANFORD, Lawyer/Author: It's the author. The author has a contractual relationship with the publisher where they always warrant the truthfulness of what they're giving the publisher, that there's no libel in it, that there's no invasion of privacy, that all the copyright issues have been cleared and authorized. And it's really the author's responsibility. And then the publisher does-- because they can't independently verify and re-research everything, it just is not possible to do that with every book -- the publisher does a sort of legal review or vetting process. And if something screams libel off the pages, they do a check. I think what went on here, clearly, there was a conversation between the author and publisher that we don't know about because I know the lawyers at St. Martin's Press. They're very good lawyers. There's something here where I think St. Martin's just good hoodwinked; they got snuckered.

TERENCE SMITH: President Bush has said that he is still considering whether or not he will sue over this matter. If he does, who would he sue, the author, the publisher, and would he have a case?

BRUCE SANFORD: I think President Bush and Governor Bush, for that matter, could sue the author. And I think they would have a good case against the author, a strong case against the author. Here is an accusation that has been rumbling around Texas for years, floated by Governor Bush's political adversaries, undoubtedly. And nobody - dozens of news organizations have been to Texas to scour the landscape and try and find out if it's true - and there isn't any hard evidence. These are false accusations. And the sourcing in this book is three confidential sources. You know, they're not going to show up at a libel trial.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. Lindy Hess, Robert Wallace said that he... we spoke to him today even though he wasn't willing to come on the broadcast...and he said that if Bob Woodward or some other responsible journalist had come to him with this book, he would not have had a problem with it. Would that have been your reaction?

LINDY HESS: Absolutely. I think that issue was the book was ready to be published. And this afterward appeared two months ago. But the whole house considered it. I think even Bob Wallace did. The publisher looked at it. The editor looked at it. Tom Dunne looked at it. And the lawyers looked at it. The decision to publish the book with the afterward and bring it out early was a joint decision, so that there are a lot of people who felt that the book was true. Certainly, if you think about the news at that time, there was a lot of talk and Governor Bush himself was saying that he hadn't tried cocaine in seven years or twenty-four years. But this whole issue was very much in the air.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, surely it was. Bruce Sanford, a criminal conviction, a criminal record is not in and of itself a bar to writing a book.

BRUCE SANFORD: No. Certainly not. I think the problem here is I think St. Martin's didn't know who they were dealing with, and they clearly had had some conversations. But the fact that they've recalled the book and taken it out of circulation, I think it must mean that they felt deceived by this author.

TERENCE SMITH: Lindy Hess, would you publish an author who had been convicted of such a crime?

LINDY HESS: I think it was the fact that the author had lied to them. And when they realized that the author wasn't telling them truth, they, I think, confronted him with the fact that they had heard that he was a convicted felon. I believe he was actually in their offices at the time. He denied it. And they did the honorable thing immediately. Sally Richardson recalled the books instantly, which is the honorable correct thing to do and shows that she is still a good gatekeeper of the ideas.

TERENCE SMITH: And I assume financially punishing for a publisher.

LINDY HESS: Oh, absolutely. 90,000 books is a significant part of anyone's budget.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. Bruce Sanford, what does this decision tell you about the competitive pressures of the publishing industry these days?

BRUCE SANFORD: I think it tells us actually, Terry, more about journalism, I think, than the competitive pressures. I think any publisher -

TERENCE SMITH: How so?

BRUCE SANFORD: Any publisher can make a mistake, I think. Every reputable publisher in New York and elsewhere have published books that in hindsight they wished they hadn't published. You can make mistakes. That's part of the process when you contract for a book and then a year or two later, you get a manuscript and it may or may not be more or less what you contracted for. So, it's not a perfect science, this business of publishing books. I think what's most troubling about this whole story is this rumor mongering that keeps going on in journalism about the story that just keeps getting repeated so that I think half of the American people end up thinking that Governor Bush did something that in his past where there's no hard evidence of it. There's no substantiation for it. And I think that has a corrosive effect on the quality of our public life and on journalism.

TERENCE SMITH: Lindy Hess, does this speak more broadly to the publishing industry to you? In other words, there are more titles being published all the time and more pressure on publishers to produce books and to make money. Is this what this was about?

LINDY HESS: I don't think so. I think that they published this book fast because there were other competing books coming out and because they felt they had a good news story. I feel when they made the decision to go ahead and publish this book, they believed in their author and they felt they had an important book and important message to tell the American people. And as soon as they lost confidence in their author, they pulled the book. So I feel that St. Martin's did responsible thing.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. The credibility of the - Bruce Sanford - the publishing industry to the consumer, how does that stand today?

BRUCE SANFORD: Well, I think that's a problem for not just book-publishing companies, but media companies, because when the public approaches media today, they worry that they're no longer about public service. They worry that all they're about is just making money. And I don't think that's necessarily true. I think journalism is still as much about public service as it's ever been. I think the perception is different.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Lindy Hess and Bruce Sanford, thank you both very much.

LINDY HESS: Thank you, Terence.

ESSAY - HALLOWEEN NIGHTMARE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt has another of his Halloween nightmares.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Just when I thought I'd gotten over the terrors of last year's Halloween, I had a dream about this year's Halloween. The dream was about presidential campaign 2000, a year away to be sure, but in full swing already. To my door came trick-or-treaters, each claiming to be candidate for President of the United States. Standing in my doorway, wearing no Halloween costumes but their normal outfits, was a wholly new group of candidates, each explaining why he or she would make a great American President. They were Jesse Ventura, Warren Beatty, Cybill Shepherd, Donald Trump, and Mr. Ed. Of these folks, only Mr. Edhas not declared himself to be a candidate or possible candidate. But given the qualifications of the others, there is no reason that America could not have a draft horse in the race. Besides, I told you: This was a dream.

MR. ED: Hello. I'm Mr. Ed.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I was scared, all right-- not because I had anything in particular against any of these future Presidents. It simply was difficult to understand their stated positions on any of the issues. Jesse Ventura, for instance, began by telling me that religious people were weak- minded, then said that being weak-minded was good. And just when I started to point out a logical inconsistency there, he reacted very strangely. Warren Beatty seemed rational enough at first, but then he threw himself into the rap song from "Bulworth."

WARREN BEATTY: Yo Bank of America this table over here -- Wells Fargo and Citibank you're really very dear.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: And immediately switched over to "Reds," where he was singing the communists' anthem "The Internationale"... [Assembly singing] a political blunder, if you ask me. The Donald was especially difficult to comprehend. Every time he explained why he would make the best President since Abraham Lincoln, he started talking about how rich he was and how he was the best real estate mogul New York had ever seen.

DONALD TRUMP: The city's the hottest city, and I'm the biggest developer in the hottest city in the world right now.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Cybill Shepherd said nothing, really, but she is a blonde. Mr. Ed made the most horse sense, mainly because he seemed to be the only candidate who knew who he was.

MR. ED SONG: A horse is a horse of course, of course no-one can talk to a horse of course that is, of course unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Halloween is a holiday when we are supposed to drive away our monsters, but in America, we seem to attract them. Last year, you remember, we had the Monica group showing up at the national front door. Tricking and treating were Monica herself, and Linda, and Lucien, and Monica's lawyer, William, and all the other lawyers, loud and soft, and other persons and spokespersons, and the many congressmen and women who took one side or another, and all the talk show hosts on cable. Knock, knock, knock. Rant, rant, rant. It was all quite frightening, but nothing compared to a crowd of celebrities threatening to lead the free world. In my dream, I thought that all the trick-or-treaters had gone away, and I began to relax. But then more celebrities came, knocking, knocking, knocking. There was Charles Barkley in shorts, who said that he wanted to be governor of Alabama. I asked him what he could do as a politician the Bill Bradley couldn't. Then came Jerry Springer, who wanted to be a U.S. Senator. "How would you keep the peace?" I asked him. The next guy was knocking so loudly, I thought the door would cave in. He said he wanted to be governor of California. "Okay," I said, "how would you settle disputes?" [Gunshots] I was at the end of my tether. After Arnold left, I sat there trembling. I began to long for a qualified candidate, someone of high intelligence, impeccable character, who has the best interests of the country at heart, and is cute as a button besides. The night was howling. The moon was full. There was one more knocking at the door. I opened it. And there, at last, was the candidate of my dreams. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday. News of steady growth and low inflation sent the stock markets back up. The House approved the Republican plan for a 1 percent across-the-board federal spending cut, and it also passed a third temporary spending bill to keep the federal government running. Both bills have now gone to the Senate. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with David Brooks and Tom Oliphant, sitting in for Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.