The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the Iowa caucus results, Margaret Warner talks to Pat Buchanan, Mark Shields & Paul Gigot, plus David Yepsen of the "Des Moines Register" do some analyzing; a new way to settle disputes on the range, Elizabeth Farnsworth reports; the globalization of the economy, David Gergen engages "New York Times" columnist Tom Friedman; and something new about a very old map, Charlayne Hunter- Gault de-briefs a man from the Smithsonian. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The race for the Republican Presidential nomination moved from Iowa to New Hampshire today. Last night, in the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Bob Dole came in first, with 26 percent of the vote, Pat Buchanan was second, with 23 percent. Lamar Alexander was third, Steve Forbes fourth, Senator Phil Gramm fifth. Gramm cut short his New Hampshire trip this afternoon and flew back to Washington. His campaign manager said Gramm would make an announcement tomorrow. Earlier today, Pat Buchanan talked with Margaret Warner.

PATRICK BUCHANAN, Republican Presidential Candidate: I'm in this campaign because I have ideas, convictions, and beliefs. We don't have consultants, focus groups, pollsters. No one tells me what to say. I am firmly pro-life. I always have been. My supporters in United We Stand, they say, Pat, why don't you not talk about that so often? My right to life folks say, Pat, I don't think you're right on trade. And I tell 'em, look, this is what I believe, and these are the issues that I've decided upon, and you agree with me on so much, even if you disagree with me there, come on, this campaign's wide open.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton had no opposition in the Democratic caucuses last night. We'll have the rest of Margaret Warner's interview with Pat Buchanan plus analysis of the Republican results right after this News Summary. In Washington today, President Clinton signed an executive order on hiring illegal workers. Federal contractors who do so would be barred from additional federal contracts for one year. There are already criminal penalties for those who hire illegal workers. White House Spokesman Mike McCurry explained the new ones. MIKE McCURRY, White House Spokesman: The executive order he signed today relates to federal contracts that go typically to companies that are among the most often in the construction business, but there are other federal contractors that would apply. It's not designed to apply to individuals, and it's not designed to put a burden on private sector employers either. What they simply have to do is to verify that they have employed people that they know to be legally employable, legally authorized to work.

MR. LEHRER: The order prohibits employers from using these sanctions as a way to discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin. On Bosnia today, Sec. of Defense Perry hailed the extradition of two Serb officers to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Perry told reporters at the Pentagon the peace mission in Bosnia is back on track. He said NATO peacekeeping troops will be given more information to help them recognize suspected war criminals. He spoke at a photo opportunity with a Croatian defense minister.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: NATO does have instructions that if they come across any indicted war criminals, they are to detain them and turn them over to the international tribunal. This function can be greatly facilitated by getting better information to the NATO forces on the identities, pictures of these indicted war criminals. And we're in the process of doing that right now.

MR. LEHRER: In Bosnia, in protest of yesterday's extraditions, Bosnian Serb authorities said they would not attend arms control talks in Vienna later this week. In Israel, the government has closed off access to and from the West Bank and Gaza. A spokesman said it was done because of warnings about possible suicide bomb attacks. Palestinians protested the action. It will keep tens of thousands of them from going to work in Israel. In Norway today, Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian negotiators initialed an agreement on sharing Middle East water resources. It must now be approved by their governments. Character actor Martin Balsam died today in Rome, where he was vacationing. The cause of death is not yet known. Balsam won an Oscar for his supporting role in the 1965 movie "A Thousand Clowns." He also played supporting parts in such films as "On the Waterfront," "Twelve Angry Men," and "Psycho." He was 76-years-old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Iowa story, something new on the range, a Gergen dialogue, and a new discovery about an old map. FOCUS - CAMPAIGN '96 NEWSMAKER - CAMPAIGN '96

MR. LEHRER: To the Iowa results and impacts are where we go first tonight. Our coverage begins with a report and an interview by Margaret Warner.

LAMAR ALEXANDER: Thank you, Iowa. On to New Hampshire. Let the future begin.

MS. WARNER: The results from the Iowa caucuses were barely in when the Republican candidates took off for New Hampshire. The first to greet New Hampshire voters this morning was the third place finisher in Iowa, former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander. He held an early-morning meeting with high school students in Manchester, then worked the breakfast crowd at a nearby diner.

VOTER: I've narrowed it down between you and Bob Dole. Why should I vote for you?

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Republican Presidential Candidate: Well, there's nothing wrong with Bob Dole to start with. He's a terrific person. I've got a lot of respect for him, but here's what I think. We need new leadership. I mean, Bob Dole's a legislative engineer. He's very good in the legislature. That's where he belongs. We've got to pick somebody who can stand up there with Clinton.

MS. WARNER: The first event of the day for Iowa winner Bob Dole was a late-morning speech to the New Hampshire legislature in Concord, where the Senate Majority Leader tried to cement his claim to the state's Republican establishment.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: I have long been a fan of the great New England poet, Robert Frost. But I've found an area where we have very slight disagreement. You see, Mr. Frost wants roads at New Hampshire and Vermont, the two best states in the union. I hope you would forgive me this morning if I had said that New Hampshire and Iowa were the two best states in the union. But I want you to know, as you already know, that the eyes of the nation are trained here, waiting for your judgment a week from today, your judgment on who should lead America.

MS. WARNER: Dole understands how critical the New Hampshire primary is. No Republican in recent history has won his party's presidential nomination without winning here first. But New Hampshire voters have a history of anointing someone other than the Iowa winner. Texas Sen. Phil Gramm finished fifth in Iowa. That, coupled with a loss last week in Louisiana, was grim news. Gramm made just one stop in New Hampshire today, then cancelled the rest of its events to return to Washington to re-think his campaign.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, Republican Presidential Candidate: When you run fifth in Iowa, an important state, you would have to be brain dead not to take a look at where you are and what you're doing. And I think that one of the things that we're going to try to do this afternoon and tonight is to take a look at where we are, to try to take a look at what our strategy is.

SPOKESMAN IN FORBES AD: He's been called a champion of economic growth and a visionary. He is Steve Forbes.

MS. WARNER: The only sign in New Hampshire today of publisher Steve Forbes was his multi-million dollar advertising blitz. Forbes cancelled his only scheduled appearance in the state. Aides said the candidate and his campaign needed to take a day to regroup after his distant fourth place showing in Iowa. The last to appear publicly was an exhausted but ebullient Pat Buchanan, who took a strong second place last night.

PATRICK BUCHANAN, Republican Presidential Candidate: People want to be a part of this cause. They believe in it. They do wonder whether we can win, but more and more are coming to believe that Pat Buchanan can be the next President of the United States. And I'm coming to believe that.

MS. WARNER: A sign of what that Iowa showing may mean, his press conference in Manchester today drew more reporters than candidate Buchanan has seen so far in this campaign.

MS. WARNER: Now, we speak with the man who surprised the pundits in Iowa, Pat Buchanan. Welcome, Mr. Buchanan.

PATRICK BUCHANAN, Republican Presidential Candidate: Margaret.

MS. WARNER: How do you explain your strong showing last night?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: I think our message is resonating across this country. We have a new conservatism of the heart that speaks out not only to the innocent unborn but speaks out for working Americans whose jobs have been shipped overseas, and it speaks for the American middle class and their concerns about economic insecurity and economic stress, and we're the only candidate that's addressing that issues of jobs and economic insecurity. And I think that was it, and we had a wonderful organization, and we got devoted followers and supporters who work harder than anybody else, even though we don't have as much money as anybody else.

MS. WARNER: You made your living as a television commentator, handicapping politicians and politics. Give me your quick assessment of top, other top four finishers in Iowa, how they did as well or as poorly as they did and what it says about the prospects.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: All right. Sen. Dole only got 26 percent of the vote in a state where he is really a favorite son, 75 percent voted against him. I think that means the Republican Party wants someone other than Bob Dole, even though they respect him, admire him, and like him. I think the Dole candidacy for Republicans is like an arranged marriage. They really would prefer not to do it; they may have to. Steve Forbes, I think, really crippled his campaign with the extent and the remorselessness of his attack ads on everybody in the race. They were on every other minute, it seemed. Originally he came in as an outsider with three good issues which happened to have been my issues, and he sort of seized them, and said, I stand for these, and they were very popular. But when he turned to the remorseless attack ads all the way up to the last day, I think he hurt himself, and a lot of his votes, I think, went to Lamar Alexander. Lamar's a good friend of mine. He's a class act. He runs a class campaign. I think Lamar did well because a lot of the Forbes people went to him, but I think this--Lamar's problem is that there is no agenda. There is not cutting edge there. There is, there is Lamar, who's a nice, moderate man and a good friend of mine. I used to serve with him in Richard Nixon's White House in our youth long, long ago. Phil Gramm is suffering from the fact that he and I were competing for the title of Mr. Conservative in the politics of 1996, and I defeated him in the first major battle in Alaska, and he came in fifth. And then we went down to his state, which is virtually home state of Louisiana in his backyard, and we worked it and worked it and worked it, and to the life of me, I don't understand why he didn't go down there. And we defeated him, and I think that hurt his campaign. What happened was the conservatives in Iowa said, well, there's only one conservative now who can win, and so we came into Iowa with momentum. At the same time, people were being disgusted by these attack ads everyone was doing. We ran positive ads, and the conservatives started moving toward Pat Buchanan.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask about--

PATRICK BUCHANAN: That's Bob Dole's problem in New Hampshire.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you about the two legs of your conservative message, the first being the social or cultural conservative message. There are a lot of voters who are turned off by that message.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Right.

MS. WARNER: As much as you have fervent support, you also are a polarizing figure. If you really want to win the nomination, how can you--can you deal with that? How are you going to deal with the polarizing nature of the candidacy?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Margaret, we were out-spent by Mr. Dole maybe eight to one in Iowa, by Mr. Forbes thirteen to one at one television station, we saw. I'm in this campaign because I have ideas, convictions, and beliefs. We don't have consultants, focus groups, pollsters. No one tells me what to say. I am firmly pro- life. I always have been. My supporters in United We Stand, they say, Pat, why don't you not talk about that so often? My right to life folks say, Pat, I don't think you're right on trade. And I tell 'em, look, this is what I believe, and these are the issues that I've decided upon, and you agree with me on so much, even if you disagree with me there, come on, this campaign's wide open. You're welcome. I know you disagree with me, but that's where I stand, and I'm going to be faithful to all of my constituencies. You know, it's something I learned from a President you covered and I worked for, and that's Ronald Reagan. Say what you mean and mean what you say, and, and follow through, and do it with a smile.

MS. WARNER: But can you do that particularly on these social conservative issues and win actually a majority of your party? And if you look here in New Hampshire, a majority of even Republicans say they are pro-choice and--

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Margaret, we are a pro-life party. We elected 40 new pro-life Congressmen in 1994. Ronald Reagan wrote the pro- life platform plank in the Republican platform. He did fairly well twice. George Bush ran as a pro-life candidate in 1988. I believe that not only is pro-life the right position to take because it's right, I think it's politically right, and I think these Republicans who say, well, it looks like the polls are moving, let me start moving over there, I think as they move over, they cut their own throats, because people know they really are just, they're just creatures of polls and creatures of trends and people are tired of that.

MS. WARNER: You have a very firm anti-free trade message. You're talking about abolishing or getting out of GATT and NAFTA. Do you think that's a selling message again to a majority of voters?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Well, I think--see, I think that's--that is really a distortion of the message. I'm in favor of the, the free trade agreement with Canada. I would be in favor of free trade with the Europeans and I said Australia, even with Japan, if they were free traders. People that play hard ball with us, you play hard ball with them. Here's what we need, Margaret. We need a free trade zone, if you will, among nations that have comparable wage levels and comparable regulations. But if you take, try to make a free trade agreement with Mexico, your factories will go down there and get labor which they can buy at 10 percent, no environmental rules, and none of these other rules, and all your factories and good- paying jobs will go down there. It is simple common sense. It is happening. We've now got a 1.7 trillion dollar total merchandise trade deficit in the last 15 years. My friends in Washington have got to wake up and smell the coffee. There are more Americans now working in government than in manufacturing. And we wanted America- -I want America to be the greatest industrial and manufacturing nation on Earth, with the highest standard of living for our workers, and I want to make America the enterprize zone of the western industrial world. It is Reaganism plus the Founding Fathers equals Buchanan.

MS. WARNER: You just had a press conference that I just attended in which you said that you thought your party had become too arid. Arid was one of the adjectives you used. What did you mean by that?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Well, I mean, look, this was--I thought we had a great victory in '94, and there's got to be some romance and poetry in politics, and you've got to concern yourself with leading people, but in the last several months, all we hear about is, you know, balancing the budgetin seven years with OMB or what's that other group up there, numbers--

MS. WARNER: CBO.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: --CBO numbers, and I mean, that's really something to march up the Hill for, isn't it? I mean, look, Ronald Reagan made ours a party of the city on a Hill. Ronald Reagan brought romance to politics. What Jack Kennedy did for the Democrats, Ronald Reagan did for the conservative movement. And people expect their leaders to really--to lead, and to show where we're going and to describe it to 'em. Instead, we've got, I mean, a lot of our guys are behaving, you know, like they're accountants working on an audit, you know, of some company I'm not interested in, and they got to get out, and they got to address the people, and they got to communicate with 'em in words people understand.

MS. WARNER: Okay. Let me go back to this electability issue one more time. A senior Dole person in the state said to me last night, this is just what we want, it's a two-man race, and our opponent in this two-man race, Pat Buchanan, is a guy with a built-in ceiling.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: That's what Phil Gramm said in Louisiana. That's what they all said in Alaska. Listen, in the state of New Hampshire and in this race, I believe that not only can we win this nomination but Bob Dole would have far, far more difficulty beating Bill Clinton than I would. I'll tell you why, two reasons: One, I can communicate and I can debate with Bill Clinton head-to-head, no problem. I think Bob will have a problem on that. Secondly, Bob cannot bring home the Perot voters. This is the missing element. They were driven off from 1989 to 1993, 19 made Americans, where do they stand, they oppose NAFTA, they oppose GATT, they oppose the Mexican bailout, they want campaign finance reform. Bob Dole is the antithesis of campaign finance reform.

MS. WARNER: They're also--

PATRICK BUCHANAN: He was for NAFTA, GATT, and he was for, he was for the Mexican bailout.

MS. WARNER: They're also pro-choice.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Many of them are pro-choice, but if you were at that Dallas convention, they know I'm pro-life. I mean, they lifted the roof off there a couple of feet.

MS. WARNER: One final thing about the week ahead. You benefited in good part, it seems to me, in previous weeks because you were not a target of the negative advertising by Steve Forbes. He did go after Alexander, Gramm, and Dole. Do you expect that special status to continue, or do you think he's going to start attacking you?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: I think it'd be--he might start attacking me, but it would be a mistake. My vote is rock solid, and if he hammers me, they're not going to leave me and go to him, because Steve Forbes is a social liberal. They're not going over there, and so I think that would be a mistake, and also I think it would be a mistake from the second standpoint. Steve Forbes better stop attacking people, or he's going to get less than 10 percent. I mean, people are a little bit tired of someone, you know, excuse me, but as I described it, a little rich kid throwing rocks at every car that comes down the street, and, uh, and I think he hurt himself, and he had a good message, and I don't know why he did it. I know Steve Forbes. He's a much nicer guy than the campaign he ran in Iowa.

MS. WARNER: Well, thanks very much.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Thank you. FOCUS - IOWA FALLOUT

MR. LEHRER: Now how the various Iowa outcomes appear to our regular analysts, Shields & Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot, joined tonight by Dave Yepsen, political reporter for the "Des Moines Register." Gentlemen, let's start at the bottom because that's where the news is of the day, and work back up, and that's Phil Gramm, that's the latest development. He'll make an announcement tomorrow, Mark. Is it over for him?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: Dave Yepsen, why couldn't he make it in Iowa?

DAVID YEPSEN, Des Moines Register: Phil Gramm had the props knocked out from underneath him here. Steve Forbes took the economic conservatives away from him, and Pat Buchanan's victory in Louisiana took the social conservatives away from him, and there was no legs left on his stool.

MR. LEHRER: Paul Gigot, what would you add to that?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: I think that David summed it up quite well. He never found a way to talk about the values agenda that is so important to Iowa voters in a way that made them believe that he really believed. Deep in his heart, I think Phil Gramm is an economist, and he's a libertarian-economist, and that's the way it came across to these voters.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, the fourth place finisher was Steve Forbes. We just heard what Pat Buchanan said about him, and his attack ads. What do you think he did wrong, if anything, in Iowa?

MR. SHIELDS: A couple of things, Jim. First of all, he stayed negative too long. In a multi-candidate race, you cannot go negative and expect to be the beneficiary. In a two-way race, if you're running against, Brown against Jones, and Brown's beating Jones' brains in, voters only have an option if they're going to vote against Jones to vote for Brown. Voters had another option than to vote, as he attacked everybody in sight, and they could go elsewhere; they did. They went to Lamar Alexander; they went to Bob Dole; they went to Pat Buchanan. But they didn't go to Steve Forbes. I don't think he gave them a reason to vote for him last week, and I think the other thing is that at some point the lack of restraint in that campaign on spending became a political liability. If he had spent 20 or 25 percent more than everybody else in the race, Jim, it wouldn't have been as much of a problem. He spent $4 million on television. He spent more on television, seven times as much as Buchanan spent in the whole campaign.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Paul, what's your reading on Forbes in Iowa?

MR. GIGOT: I think that the negative advertising gave everybody, including his opponents in the media, a chance to change the subject from his message, which was, as Pat Buchanan said, a good message, to the, to the ads. I also think that getting into a fight in Iowa with the Christian Coalition is a little like running for mayor of Nashville and running against country music. I mean, you are just not going to win here with that, and that was a--and the social conservatives also moved against him. He was doing well with them for a while.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Dave Yepsen, I heard on television last night various people, various Iowa pundits saying, well, this is terrific, that Forbes did so poorly, it proves that Iowans can't be bought. Is that an oversimplification of what happened?

MR. YEPSEN: Well, I think it's a little bit true, but I think it's also true that Steve Forbes went negative when he should have stayed positive. If you look at Steve Forbes' tracking numbers in the polls, when he started in this race, it was a positive advertising message that he had about the flat tax, and he really took off in the polls. And then when he went negative, then he started flattening out. You know, if you swing a ball bat at other people, sometimes things splatter on you. And so I think he was one of the big helpers of Pat Buchanan in this, in this state, because he knocked down Bob Dole and he knocked down Lamar Alexander. Pat Buchanan has to thank Steve Forbes for a lot today.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Mark, Lamar Alexander apparently has a lot to thank Steve Forbes for too. Has that--what's that--what's your explanation for Alexander's good strong third place showing?

MR. SHIELDS: It's a good third. He's claimed a good third. I mean--

MR. LEHRER: It sounds weird, doesn't it? The words--

MR. SHIELDS: Most guys get 18 percent, Jim, and they go into hiding, and only in Iowa, do you stand up in front of friends and family and say, boy, oh boy, did we wamp 'em, but, no, he had 12 percent in David's paper's poll in December. He ended up with 18 percent as opposed to Buchanan, who went from 7 to 25. But he's the remainder man of this campaign. I mean, his basic message is he's Dole-light; I'm not as hard to swallow as Bob Dole, I'm certainly not as old, I'm not as threatening as Pat Buchanan, my campaign is not as mean as Steve Forbes. And, and that's sort of the message. Now, Lamar Alexander, just like Pat Buchanan in Margaret's interview, will be scrutinized this next week, more so than he has been before. I mean, his basic message has been I'm a president for the 21st century, whatever that means.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Paul, what's your reading on Alexander?

MR. GIGOT: Well, he is the none of the above candidate. And he's the best at props. I mean, I've never seen any politician use props so skillfully. You know, he has those ABC blocks, Alexander Beats Clinton. He had those mud boots, which he used as a prop to describe his candidates and his strategy which worked enough to keep him fighting another day or another week was to run right up the demilitarized zone between Dole and Forbes, and it's succeeded. He's got a tougher job in New Hampshire, though, because it's an economic-minded electorate out there, and he's going to have a hard time beating Pat Buchanan to move into second or to beat Bob Dole to move into second, to stay in this race.

MR. LEHRER: Dave, Buchanan, how did--what's your explanation for why he did as well as he did, 23 percent to 26 percent for Bob Dole?

MR. YEPSEN: Well, he got the social, a lot of the social conservatives, but I think one of the stories that, that Pat Buchanan really highlighted in this campaign is the economic disaffection that Americans feel. Many people feel left behind. I mean, the Dow is going through 5600, and there are a lot of people who are saying, gee, I can't make ends meet, and you go to a Buchanan event, and yeah, there were pro-lifers there, but the thing that really added the juice at a Buchanan event were the, were the blue collar workers who showed up, and there were times you'd sit there and you would close your eyes, and you'd think, my God, I'm sitting in a Jesse Jackson event, and Pat Buchanan has tapped into something here that I think will--is an issue that politicians in both parties are going to have to address, including President Clinton. He can't sit there on the State of the Union and tell us how great the economy is doing and expect that to resonate with a whole lot of American workers today.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Mark, you've said that before, that you think that's at the heart of Buchanan's message, correct?

MR. SHIELDS: I, I really do, and I think David's put his finger on it with the Jesse Jackson parallel, Jim. He's a hot candidate. You saw it. He's a guy, he has a coherent, consistent message.He doesn't go through focus groups. He knows what he believes, which is an enormous advantage, but he's speaking to and for a constituency that the party, each party covets in November, in this case, evangelical Protestants, religiously active people, in Jackson's case, it was African-Americans, but the party really doesn't want to get, spend a lot of quality time between now and November. And, and they don't want their candidacy, didn't want Jackson, but what's fascinating to me is he's putting together a coalition, or he did in Iowa, he began to carry--he beat Bob Dole by better than two to one in Dubuque County, which is a Catholic county, in Carroll, County, another Catholic county on the other end of the state, he, he beat Dole by better than two to one. And he--putting together a possibility of putting together a coalition of conservative Northern Catholics and Southern evangelical Protestants, two groups that have been at each other's throats culturally throughout our history, but that FDR forged into a, a democratic coalition, just as Jesse Jackson tried to put together blacks and white working class people. If he does that, if he pulls that off, it's formidable.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Paul, how do you read that, and also put it in the context of Bob Dole. What did Bob Dole win yesterday?

MR. GIGOT: Well, first, on Buchanan, I think that I agree with Mark's analogy on Jesse Jackson but disagree a little bit on the analysis. I think he is the--he is the only Republican other than Steve Forbes who has an explanation and a prescription, a remedy for the economic distress that's going on out there. The problem with his prescription, and this is where I think the Jesse Jackson analogy is right, is it divides the Republican Party. He may be able to draw in some of those Perot voters, but the problem is it's going to push some of those business interests, as well as a lot of economic conservatives, away from the Republican Party. So he's got a very difficult job, I think, to be able to win the nomination. Bob Dole, the story was all he had to do was go to his rallies. I mean, they weren't really rallies; they looked like everybody there was under orders. There was no enthusiasm at all. One of the rallies I went to in Waterloo they had to import people from Wisconsin to have any kind of enthusiasm. There's almost a sense of resignation that he's a safe choice but there's a real doubt out here, and I think this vote showed it, about whether or not Bob Dole can go toe-to-toe and beat Bill Clinton.

MR. LEHRER: Dave Yepsen, what's your reading on what Bob Dole won last night?

MR. YEPSEN: He didn't win anything last night. In fact--

MR. LEHRER: Not anything? Come on, he came in first.

MR. YEPSEN: He got a wake-up call.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. YEPSEN: You know, he got 25 percent of the vote in a state where he, where he got 37 percent in 1988, he got fewer votes this time. This state is not typical of the country as a whole, but these 100,000 activists who, who showed up last night, are fairly typical of Republican activists everywhere, and I think it ought to be a real wake-up call to Sen. Dole's campaign and to Sen. Dole that three-fourths of these people wanted somebody else to be their nominee. And I think that--I think one of the problems he's got is a message. What's he for? He kind of wanders around on the stump, and, you know, he needs to, to get rid of that 10th Amendment card that he carries around with him and just write 10 things on a piece of paper that he wants to do and get up and talk to people about it. I mean, you know, there's got to be some energy in that campaign, because Paul's right. You go out to his events, and they're just flat.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, your reading of Dole right now.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I mean, Bob Dole did finish first, I mean, that--and finishing first still does matter for something, but I would say instead of ten things, three things, three things that a Dole presidency means. I think he has to ask people for their vote. This is something that doesn't come easy to Bob Dole, or people of his generation, his background, to be self-promoting, but I think he has to do that to bring some energy and some intensity and some passion to the campaign. Jim, what's fascinating about this race to me is every Republican hates Washington. Some Republicans hate Hollywood. Pat Buchanan is the only one that also hates Wall Street. Okay. And the American people don't like all three.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. SHIELDS: And I think that's what the key is, to me, coming out of Iowa.

MR. LEHRER: Finally, Dave Yepsen, from the inside looking out, in other words, from inside out, or we're looking out, does it-- does it make sense to you that so few people, your 100,000 activists in Iowa, who went to these caucuses last night, are making such a huge difference in who's going to be the next President of the United States?

MR. YEPSEN: Well, that's always a criticism that's made of the Iowa process, and the problem is the country can't come to an agreement on an alternative, and so Iowa and New Hampshire continue to be first, they continue to have a disproportionate impact on the process. It may not be right, but that's the way the--that's the rules of the game.

MR. LEHRER: And the rules of this game is are that we're over for tonight, and we'll talk about it again later. Thank you all three very much. FOCUS - HOPE ON THE RANGE

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, another way to solve range wars, a Gergen dialogue, and an old map story. The range wars story is about a place on the Arizona-New Mexico border where some traditional opponents have declared a truce. Elizabeth Farnsworth reports.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In much of the West, this threesome would be about as unlikely as Sitting Bull and General Custer riding together one hundred and twenty years ago. The riders are a third generation Arizona rancher and mountain lion hunter, a U.S. Forest Service official, and a botanist from the Nature Conservancy, the powerful environmental organization. They've joined forces in Southern New Mexico and Arizona in something called the Malpai Borderlands Group. It stands in stark contrast to what's happening elsewhere in the West.

DEMONSTRATORS: [shouting] Graze reform now! Graze reform now!

MS. FARNSWORTH: This scene is more typical, a protest in Bozeman, Montana, by environmentalists out to limit cattle grazing on public lands. The charge: that over-grazing causes erosion and other damage, especially in river beds and other vulnerable places. And in this confrontation in Nevada, an angry rancher aimed a bulldozer at an armed U.S. Forest Service agent in a dispute over a road on public lands. No one was hurt, but the incident, which was taped on home video, served notice that disagreements between ranchers and government agents can turn violent. In a million-acre triangle of mountain and high desert straddling the Arizona-New Mexico border, the Malpai Borderlands Group is taking a different course.

WARNER GLENN, Cattle Rancher: We're just really excited about how well we've come. I mean, we're working with the Forest Service and the BLM and the state land departments and, and the game and fish departments, both in Mexico and Arizona.

PETER WARREN, Nature Conservancy: The spirit of what's going on here is that people are trying to get together and recognize that they share common problems in trying to improve the condition of the land, and by working together, sense that we can actually make some progress toward solving some of our mutual problems, rather than blaming each other for those problems.

MS. FARNSWORTH: It all began when the Nature Conservancy bought the 320,000-acre Gray Ranch in Southern New Mexico to preserve it from development and then sold it to a foundation set up by a local rancher who promised to preserve and improve the land in cooperation with the Conservancy. That relationship widened to include about 15 local ranchers and two government agents. They hope to preserve and improve one million acres here. Their first goal was to bring back natural wildfires. Until federal agencies had started suppressing wildfires, they kept woody shrubs down and grasslands healthy. The Malpai Borderlands Group forged an agreement with the agencies to let some fires burn. Malpai executive director Bill McDonald let a fire burn on his land, and in late August, when he walked the area with other Malpai members, they found the fire had been partially successful in clearing the woody shrubs which made room for grasses to grow. Endangered species are another key problem for the Malpai group.

WARNER GLENN: Ranchers are, historically speaking, scared to death to have an endangered species found on his place because they think, well, then they're going to make you quit grazing. Well, what we're trying to prove is if there's an endangered species there and it is existing at the present time with grazing, that there's no reason why it shouldn't be continued to be that way.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The endangered Shirakawa Leopard Frog was found on Malpai rancher Matt Magoffin's property. Because of a drought, he's been hauling 1,000 gallons of water a week since early 1994 to keep the rare amphibians alive.

MATT MAGOFFIN, Cattle Rancher: The Malpai Group has been helping me some on the, on the expense; they've donated some money, and they've offered to assist on some equipment if I need equipment. And Fish & Wildlife has helped some on the project.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Malpai Group's most controversial program is called the Grass Bank. It allows a rancher whose pastures are in trouble to graze cattle on neighboring lands.

BILLY DARNELL, Cattle Rancher: Without participating in the Grass Bank, I would frankly have been out of business here. I, I withstood droughts before for the lack of rain for one year, but three sustained years in a row really put a tough situation on the land here, the cattle, and the whole situation.

MS. FARNSWORTH: As part of the Grass Bank program, Billy Darnell was able to move his hungry cattle to pastures on the neighboring Gray Ranch. The Malpai Group paid the Gray Ranch for the service and in return, Darnell signed an agreement prohibiting the subdivision of his own ranch in perpetuity. Subdivisions are replacing ranches all over Arizona. And one of the key goals of the Malpai members is keeping their ranches relatively untouched and intact.

AL SCHNEBERGER, Livestock Weekly Digest: This is the Nature Conservancy's version of what ought to happen in the world. This is not the version of the community. This isn't something that they thought of.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Malpai Group's programs are drawing heavy fire from some ranchers in the area who are convinced the Nature Conservancy in league with the federal government is out to control the whole million-acre borderlands area.

AL SCHNEBERGER: We're talking about tying up certain options into perpetuity, and everybody's ears ought to go forward when that happens.

LEVI KLUMP, Cattle Rancher: They are selling or trading-- and these are Al's words--a renewable crop, which is grass, for a non-renewable crop, which are the property rights.

AL SCHNEBERGER: This is something that came from the outside, and it's still being run by people from the outside.

WENDY GLENN, Malpai Group Coordinator: The reason that we have outsiders helping us and that we feel that we need them is because those are the people that have been determining what's happening to us. We can't any longer sit here in the middle of nowhere, minding our own business, and not be affected, because the government and the environmental people that are way away from us that don't understand us, are the ones that are making policy for us, whether we like it or not.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Malpai board and advisers meeting at the Glenns' ranch address some of the critics' concerns.

BILL McDONALD, Cattle Rancher: You know, this whole thing was not a grand scheme. I had never intended to have the Nature Conservancy involved in any significant way. It takes a lot to effect a change, and the Nature Conservancy is an extremely influential, powerful organization, and if, you know, it works, then they can be very helpful to us.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And John, why do you want to do it? I mean, a lot of conservationists, a lot of groups would just not want to do this, because they would feel that they are somehow compromised.

JOHN COOK, Vice President, Nature Conservancy: Yeah. The mission of the Nature Conservancy is to protect the native plants and animals and habitats that support them, and increasingly, we realize that a, a preserve with a fence around it doesn't do the job, that really where we need to go is to support and be part of healthy rural economies, as well as straight biological systems.

BILL McDONALD: In those areas where a group like ours does not emerge or some middle ground does not emerge, there's going to be a tremendous loss. There's going to be a loss for those people who are fighting about it right now. And it's going to come when one side, the landowners' side, finally caves in and says, okay, we're off, and I'm going to turn around and I'm going to sell this thing for the highest dollar I can get out of it, and you're never going to see it the way it was again. And that'll be a sad day for everybody.

[MUSIC IN BACKGROUND]

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Malpai members aren't alone in forging alliances with former enemies to save the ranching way of life. This is a gathering a hundred miles away in Dos Cabezas of a group called Common Ground, which has chapters in several Western states. Common Ground has also brought together environmentalists and ranchers to experiment with new range management techniques.

PEGGY MONZINGO, Cattle Rancher: [talking to pony] Oh, you are pretty. You are pretty.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But even with these efforts, most ranchers in Arizona, including Peggy Monzingo and her son, Ed Allen, remain outside the new organizations and are skeptical about cooperating with environmentalists or government agents. Also, the Monzingos worry that the new ideas for protecting the range will be too expensive to implement. Still, the Malpai group and Common Ground give Peggy Monzingo some confidence that ranchers will not always be seen as environmental villains.

PEGGY MONZINGO: And hopefully, we're getting a foot in the door with these wonderful groups that are using imaginative, very expensive, but still workable methods of working with the agencies and with the environmentalists.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And so, for some ranchers at least, there is some hope on the range, and a temporary peace in the new war for the West. DIALOGUE

MR. LEHRER: Now, a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen, editor-at-large of "U.S. News & World report," engages "New York Times" columnist Tom Friedman. He talked to him last week about a piece he wrote about an economic conference both had attended in Davos, Switzerland.

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: Tom, it's been 13 months now since you became the foreign affairs columnist for the "New York Times," and during that time, you've traveled all over the world. I think you may have traveled more than the Secretary of State. But coming back from Davos, Switzerland, at a forum we both attended, the World Economic Forum, you wrote a column in the "New York Times" which seemed to crystallize a lot of your thinking over the last year.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN, New York Times: "Revolt of the Wannabes" by Thomas Friedman What I've really seen this year, David, as I travel all around, is free markets and free market principles spreading all over the world, and markets being integrated more and more. And as that's happening, it's putting a lot of pressure on every country in the world to compete to attract capital. Under that pressure, there are winners and losers. There are people who have the knowledge, skills in order to tap into that market, and there are people who don't, who are left behind. And really what I found is that some of the most interesting conflicts in the world today are between winners and losers within countries, whether it's the Communists against the Yeltsin forces, or the energy forces in Russia, the unions against owners in France, or the Buchananites against others in this country, and it's really those conflicts between winners and losers in societies and how they are resolved that I think it's going to increasingly shape international affairs.

MR. GERGEN: Right. So you think that increasingly also foreign policies of various countries are going to be shaped by their internal conflicts?

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Oh, absolutely. You look at Russia today. I mean, the outcome of this fight really over the next presidency in Russia, whether it's won by the Communists, or the Yeltsin forces, it's going to very much influence Russian foreign policy.

MR. GERGEN: Right, right. And in addition to the Buchanan campaign, it continues to have an influence on the Republican Party. That will clearly have an influence upon our economic trade policy.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. I think when people talk about America going isolationist, it's not happening in a vacuum. Who is an internationalist and who is an isolationist today is a lot dependent on whether you can tap into and are benefiting from this process of globalization, markets, and integration, or you're not.

MR. GERGEN: Right. And so what you're seeing then is a backlash against globalization.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. What struck me about Davos, of course, was that Davos is a convention of capitalists. It is, it is the place where people who get together to celebrate the process of global markets and global integration, and who is the start at Davos this year, who of all people but Gennady Zuganov, the head of the Russian Communist Party.

MR. GERGEN: Right.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: And that told me that--and he was there representing a backlash avowedly, and there were a lot of businessmen interested in talking to him because I think they intuitively understood that this is a wave out there.

MR. GERGEN: Right. What also struck me about Davos in that same regard, and the losers here are people who have jobs, but they're low-paying jobs, whereas, in Europe, the losers are increasingly people who have, you know, can't get jobs, because the cost of creating a job there is so high, they haven't reformed their social safety net.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. You know, Germany had 150,000 people unemployed in the 1960's. Today, it's got over 3 million people unemployed. And the, the Europeans really have not begun to go down that road yet. I sort of see the world like this, David, you know, Russia's what happens in a country where you have a social safety net, a whole system to protect people, and you take it away, the instability they've got. France today, a fight between the unions and the government, what happens when you have a very elaborate social safety net but you don't reform it to make it sustainable. Africa, where I just was two weeks ago, in its worst forms, is what happens when you have no safety net at all, and if one is really left to the tender mercies of the global marketplace.

MR. GERGEN: But the Europeans, you know, in the chemical industry today in Germany, for example, it now costs a corporation some $43 an hour per employee. That's about twice what it is in the United States. And the result is they're having to lay off a lot of people. You can't compete in this process of globalization with $43 an hour payments.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. See, every country is really in the same boat. Now, what is the role of governments increasingly? Everyone's motto is "Come hither," is to attract global capital and investment to their country because they don't have it indigenously to produce those jobs.

MR. GERGEN: There was another important insight that you had in your column about the fact that it's not just corporations that are downsizing; because of the globalization process, governments feel it's important to downsize so that even as workers are getting hit by their corporations having to lay off a lot of people, the safety net that was there is also being withdrawn or being threatened because governments are downsizing.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: That's what's scary, that as businesses streamline and downsize, and as governments do it, the left behinds are left in freefall, and that's, I think, the danger that we have to think about in this country and others do, that when you talk about taking away Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, yes, it has to be reformed, to be sure, and made long-term and sustainable, but let's not take away these social safety nets precisely when our society is going through this cleavage and pressure.

MR. GERGEN: What have you seen in your travels around the world that suggested to you that there are solutions out there that one could embrace?

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Well, everyone is really grappling for the right combination. The good news is, I think, people are now really thinking about what is the formula to deal with. The bad news is nobody's quite got it yet, but it's going to be some combination of worker training, environmental protection, population control, and sustainable social safety nets. But one thing we know for sure is that globalization, free trade is not necessarily a win-win proposition. And I think that's the beginning of wisdom, and we've gotto start looking, if you care about this process, and if you believe it is inevitable, as I do, that we've got to look how to, I think, cushion it a little more.

MR. GERGEN: Do you see any country that's out in front and dealing with these issues? Have you visited a country that you think has been most successful?

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Well, the best example is Japan. You go into a department store in downtown Tokyo today, and 14 women bow to you, and you say, what is this, and then you stay out at the karioke bar till 2 in the morning and walk back to your hotel and there isn't crime, you can eat off the streets, and then you understand what's going on, that Japan has made a choice, and that's full employment, that they want to employ those 14 women who greet you at the department store in order--it's a social choice--in order to maintain social stability and cohesion. You can only do that in Japan, though, where the system was basically rigged to keep foreign competition out. But that is one answer.

MR. GERGEN: Yeah. But it's also an answer they can't sustain.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: They can't sustain. They're under pressure.

MR. GERGEN: In some ways, it's interesting because I found that just as we in America are fascinated by what happens in California, because we think it's going to happen around the rest of the country over the next three or four years, that many Europeans and Asians look to America for what's happening--what happens here first often happens there later.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Right.

MR. GERGEN: And so they have the same fascination with America we have with California.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: We're all in the same game. See, we've gone through a world, David, of superpowers to a world being increasingly dominated by supermarkets, and everyone really is under the pressure of those supermarkets. It's the Tokyo Bond Market the Shanghai Bond Market, the Wall Street Bond Market, the Frankfurt Bond Market. In the old days of the superpower conflict, you know, a country could play the Soviet Union in the United States.

MR. GERGEN: Right.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: Now, you really have to try to play off the markets, but you can't do that because they play you off.

MR. GERGEN: So you have to be--there are two superpowers, I think, you say.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: That's right. There are two superpowers in the world today in my opinion. There's the United States and there's Moody's Bond Rating Service. The United States can destroy you by dropping bombs, and Moody's can destroy you by downgrading your bonds. And believe me, it's not clear sometimes who's more powerful.

MR. GERGEN: Okay. Thank you very much for joining us.

HOMAS FRIEDMAN: A pleasure. FINALLY - MYSTERY MAP

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a map mystery. Charlayne Hunter- Gault has that story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It's called the Vinland Map, and it's also been called the most exciting cartographic discovery of the century. But it's also been called a fake, and that has led to 30 years of to- ing and fro-ing in high academic circles, including Yale University, which first published the map in 1965. Today, Yale weighed in once again, declaring the disputed map valued at $24 million, genuine after all. For more on the modern day mystery of the thing medieval, we turn to Dr. Wilcomb Washburn, director of American Studies at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. And, Dr. Washburn, thank you for joining us. What exactly the Vinland Map and its significance?

WILCOMB WASHBURN, Smithsonian Institution: Well, it's the earliest representation of the Western Hemisphere on a map--fifty years before Columbus. Now, does that mean that it took the map to prove that the Norse came here that early? No, it doesn't, because most scholars accept the saga or chronicle evidence from the Icelandic sagas which describe various Norse ventures into the area west of Greenland. And also there's archaeological evidence which emerged particularly in the 1960's. And so all those things demonstrate that the Norse did come about 1000 AD. But the importance is that it's a graphic representation. It's a picture, and you, you in television, of course, know the power of a picture. And the fact that it is a picture, it is a drawing, it is a graphic cartographic representation of the New World, that has caused it to be tremendously powerful in its impact on the American imagination.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, we have--we have a representation of the map. Tell us, if we can get it up here, what we are seeing.

DR. WASHBURN: Well, we're seeing basically a world map from the mid 15th century, about 1440. At that time, the assumption was that there was a single Eurasian land mass with a surrounding ocean sea. But in the green area on the left, in the ocean sea to the west of Europe, is a peculiar island which is called on the map Vinland. We're now focusing on it. It's west of Greenland and west of Iceland and west of the European Peninsula. At the other end of the map, you have various islands that represent the end of the world from the other direction, and this was a map, if it is authentic.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We'll get to that in a minute.

DR. WASHBURN: And you pointed out that there is a question about it--that represented--if it was--if it was made during the 1440s and perhaps in the council, a church council that occurred in, in Switzerland, it perhaps represented the extent of Christendom, because the document with which it was bound was called the Tart of Relation and related to the Mongols or Katatas, who dominated the end of the world at the other end of the Eurasian land mass. But there also was a, for instance, a bishop of Gada and Greenland, and we have from this saga evidence knowledge that he even took a trip to Vinland. And, indeed, you could even say that the first, the mother of the first child of European origin born in the New World actually went back to Iceland and then eventually went to Rome. We know there was a connection, in other words, from the saga evidence.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And this, this map, it establishes that, if it is authentic, that--who were the people who were supposed to have come here, the--Leif Ericson and--

DR. WASHBURN: Well, these were Norsemen, yes, generally the people from Scandinavia, Leif Ericson and Magarny. In fact, there's an inscription next to that island that you highlighted that tells about Leif and Bjiany in company discovering this particular island.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Now, tell me when and how the controversy over this began, because first it was authenticated.

DR. WASHBURN: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Give me the details, quickly.

DR. WASHBURN: Most maps, early maps, have a very odd and uncertain probe analysis, as they call it, origin. And it came out of Spain and went through a series of dealers and eventually ended up in Switzerland and was bought by a dealer from New Haven, Lawrence Witten, for 350--$3,500, and was eventually sold to Yale University and a donor provided the money to buy it, a million dollars. It's now valued at $24 million, as you pointed out.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It later turned out to be Paul Mellon, right?

DR. WASHBURN: Yes, exactly. So that it, it had an uncertain background, but most maps, most early documents, have an uncertain background.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And there were scholars who vindicated-- authenticated it at the time?

DR. WASHBURN: Yes. Several scholars from the British Museum and several scholars from Yale University analyzed the map and published the first edition of the book that came out in a second edition today in 1965.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But then it was declared a fake.

DR. WASHBURN: Well, it wasn't actually declared a fake, but there were some people who were critical of it, including members of the Yale faculty in the History Department, who were not really aware that this was going on. And I organized a Vinland Map Conference at the Smithsonian in 1966, and the--the map was debated for a long time, and nobody could shake anyone else, you know, on, on the evidence, on cartography or paleography--that's early writing and so on--so they said, let's get a technical study of this, let's do a technical study of the inks. And it was at that point that they provided the map to Walter McCrone & Associates in Chicago, who analyzed the ink and concluded that it contained a 20th century substance and, therefore, it was probably a forgery. Yale tended to accept that at that time.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And now just briefly--

DR. WASHBURN: And now--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: --how come they've changed their minds?

DR. WASHBURN: --the shoe is on the other foot, and over the years people were very skeptical of this analysis by McCrone & Associates, and the University of California at Davis at their laboratory, particularly under Thomas Cahill, analyzed not only the map but hundreds of other medieval documents. As a matter of fact, McCrone had not analyzed medieval documents before.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And now they're saying that the ink is really, indeed--

DR. WASHBURN: And now they're saying that this particular substance, which is based on titanium, it's a commercial product, anotase, that derives in a precipitated form from titanium, could have occurred in nature, could have occurred. In fact, it does occur in most of the other medieval maps.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. So--

DR. WASHBURN: And documents.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: --so does this put the controversy to rest?

DR. WASHBURN: It--nothing puts the controversy to rest. It's still going on. At the second Vinland Map Conference which occurred in New Haven on Saturday, Walter McCrone came and others came and said that it was still a forgery.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, Doctor, thank you for joining us. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, the Republican nomination race moved on to New Hampshire. Senate Majority Leader Dole won the Iowa Republican caucuses last night. Sen. Phil Gramm finished fifth and was reassessing his race. In Washington, President Clinton signed an executive order penalizing federal contractors who hire illegal workers. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.