PAT BUCHANAN

	September 22, 1999
	Three veteran political journalists: Thomas Edsall of The Washington Post; Elizabeth Arnold of National Public Radio; and Ron Brownstein of The Los Angeles Times, discuss Pat Buchanan’s possible run for the Reform Party nomination for president.

TERENCE SMITH: In the past few weeks, Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has been making the rounds on the Sunday morning television talk shows, putting out the word that he may soon jump the GOP ship. PAT BUCHANAN: We are taking a hard look at leaving the Republican nomination run and running for the Reform Party nomination. The decision has not been made yet. TERENCE SMITH: This is Pat Buchanan's third presidential run in 1992, he ran a close second to then President George Bush in New Hampshire, and later stole the spotlight at the Republican convention with a speech whose hard-line conservatism surprised even some Republicans. PAT BUCHANAN: There is a religious war going on in our country. It is a cultural war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. TERENCE SMITH: Buchanan ran again in 1996, and beat Bob Dole in the New Hampshire primary; it was the high point of a campaign that fizzled in the later primaries. Now Buchanan is eyeing the nomination of the Reform Party, founded in 1992 and funded by billionaire Ross Perot. Perot so far has not publicly endorsed any candidate for the 2000 run. Privately, aides say he favors Buchanan. But the route to the nomination will not be smooth. The Reform Party's leading elected official, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, is hostile to both Buchanan's conservative views on social issues and to his potential candidacy. GOV. JESSE VENTURA: Pat Buchanan I don't believe is necessarily a good fit because Pat Buchanan puts social issues on the front burner. TERENCE SMITH: Ventura reportedly has been contacting possible alternatives, including the actor Warren Beatty, former Governor Lowell Weickert, and more recently, real estate tycoon Donald Trump. Buchanan's flirtation with the Reform Party has coincided with the furor caused by his controversial new book, "A Republic, Not an Empire." In the book Buchanan, analyzes the U.S. role in foreign affairs and takes some typically incendiary positions. He questions, for example, whether Hitler ever intended to attack the United States, writing: "…After the Royal Air Force won the battle of Britain, the German invasion threat was history." Buchanan also repeats earlier criticisms of the pro-Israel lobby, writing: "After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders." The book has revived questions within the media about whether Buchanan's views approach anti-Semitism. He was questioned this week on CNN's crossfire by Republican host Mary Matlin. MARY MATLIN: What do you think it is about either your presentation or what you produce in print that raises these accusations, as has been the case day after day, show after show, that these charges of anti-Semitism and racism? PAT BUCHANAN: Well, first let me say, look, there's not a trace of bigotry in that book and there's not a trace of bigotry in my heart toward any individual or group of individuals. Pat Buchanan all of a sudden may break through and get a Reform nomination to be President. Now, good old Pat, oh, my goodness, and all this garbage and stuff like that is thrown at you. The idea is to stop me and smear me and tell the Reform Party people, "you can't take him, you can't take him." TERENCE SMITH: Buchanan's views have him once again front and center in the national news. He concedes that he courts the attention. PAT BUCHANAN: Well, I benefit from the fact that I am controversial and I do have high name recognition, for good or ill, and I take controversial stands. TERENCE SMITH: It's that high name recognition that could make him an attractive candidate for the rank and file of the Reform Party. Buchanan has said he will decide by October 15 whether to run for the reform nomination, and the estimated $13 million in federal matching funds that comes with it. TERENCE SMITH: For more on the Buchanan saga, we're joined by three veteran political journalists: Thomas Edsall of the "Washington Post," Elizabeth Arnold of National Public Radio, and Ron Brownstein of the "Los Angeles Times." Welcome to you all. Tom Edsall, let me begin with you. Explain to us why Republican Pat Buchanan is or may be running for the Reform Party nomination. THOMAS EDSALL, Washington Post: Pat Buchanan for two elections was able to be Mr. Conservative. He was the guy who challenged Bush first, almost caused a lot of problems and really caused his defeat you could argue. He did the same thing to Dole. And he was the center of attention. In this election he has really faded. He's competing with about three or four others, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Dan Quayle, all for the same conservative mantle. He's not doing well. The Reform Party offers him a chance to get into the general election as a full-fledged candidate to be in the debates possibly, to have $12.6 million, which he's never seen before. And he would be facing two candidates where he would be the one opposed to the two of them on trade, immigration. He would be the one popularizing the event. This is just the kind of... this guy loves to be in the fight, and this would put him right in the fight. TERENCE SMITH: Ron Brownstein, if that's the logic of it, what are the prospects, what are his chances of getting the Reform Party nomination? RON BROWNSTEIN, Los Angeles Times: Well, handicapping the Reform Party presidential primary is a little bit daunting task because the Reform Party itself is kind of a permanent floating crap game. What it is as any given moment is not what it was six months ago. But with that caveat, Buchanan begins with two principle problems and three principle assets in doing this. The problems are that on some issues he is simply not a good fit for the parity. It is silent in its platform on social issues, and many of its leading figures tend to be pro-choice. He is, of course, staunchly anti-abortion. Secondly, he has Jesse Ventura, as your piece mentioned, the leading elected official in the party, sort of searching for a tag team partner, somebody to go into the ring against Pat Buchanan. Warren Beatty has already said, no, he's not going to run for the Reform Party nomination. Donald Trump and Lowell Weickert are the liveliest possibilities he has at this moment. It's not clear whether either of them will get in either. The assets Buchanan have are also formidable though. As you mentioned, Ross Perot through his running mate in 1996, Pat Choate, his running mate, is actively... Pat Choate is actively supporting Buchanan. Many read that as a sign that Perot wants him in. Secondly, Buchanan's economic nationalism message, his protectionist message on trade is broadly in tune with the party, certainly where Perot and Choate took it in '96. Finally, the rules of this rather Byzantine rules of this election process for the Reform Party nomination benefit a candidate like Buchanan. The electorate is an amorphous concept in the party. Anybody that asks for a ballot in 2000 will be allowed to vote in their "primary." That means a candidate like Buchanan who has an existing mailing list of 250,000 or so names has a great advantage, because he can simply mail to all of his supporters, many of whom may not go with him because they're Republicans, but many of whom might. They can then request a ballot. He can in effect stuff the ballot very legally. That puts pressure on anyone who wants to run against him. TERENCE SMITH: Elizabeth Arnold, what do you think? Is there a logic here, and does it make sense from the way you see it? ELIZABETH ARNOLD, National Public Radio: Well, I think it's sort of hard to assess what the Reform Party really is, as Ron was pointing out. It sort of gives new meaning to the phrase big tent. When you think about the candidates that they're all talking about, Ralph Nader, Lowell Weickert, Donald Trump, Pat Buchanan, think about the differences between Pat Buchanan and the party's highest elected official, Jesse Ventura - Pat Buchanan opposes abortion, opposes gay rights, opposes free trade, opposes immigration. Ventura is for abortion, he's for gay rights, he's for free trade, he's for legalization of marijuana, legalization of prostitution. Put that up against Pat Buchanan's moral crusade of the last two election cycles and you kind of wonder, what is this party really about. And at this point, it's really more about personalities than it is about a set of issues. And so they're embracing Pat Buchanan. TERENCE SMITH: Let me ask Tom Edsall that. I suppose that the Reform Party has some concerns here, too. It wants to do well and preserve its matching funds. THOMAS EDSALL: The main thing that Reform Party people want is to get to the next election with more money flowing and to do that, they have to get at least 5 percent of the vote. That's one of the appeals that Buchanan has, that he would break that margin, whereas Trump or Weickert, that's a big if. Jesse Ventura wants to have a lot of money, as much as he can have in the pile there so that if he decides to run five years from now, he will be well financed in that bid. TERENCE SMITH: So perversely, he actually has an interest in Buchanan running. THOMAS EDSALL: Actually, I think he's got more interest in Buchanan from his own personal point of view. Plus the Reform Party is both, as Elizabeth and Ron are saying, it's a vehicle, not a party. It's like a car, who drives it is just who has the keys and turns the engine. TERENCE SMITH: Ron, if in fact he does run for and obtain the Reform Party nomination, will that make him a major player in the general election? RON BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think he will be a player because he will have $12.5 million. He could be in the debates. He is s a very effective campaigner. The underlying climate I think is less conducive to a third party challenge than it was when Perot first ran in '92. Then you had higher unemployment. You had a very high percentage of Americans saying they thought the country was in a wrong direction; now you have a lot more economic satisfaction, a lot more general satisfaction. It's going to be, I think, harder to make the case that we need something outside the two-party system. It may be hard for him to go beyond what Perot did in '96, which is about half of what he did in '92, which is where Buchanan is polling now. But even that could tilt the balance in the electoral college especially in the number of southern and mountains states that Democrats will have trouble competing in a two-way race. If you bring down the margin you need to win because a third party candidate is pulling away some of those votes, they come back into reach potentially for Democrats. TERENCE SMITH: Would that make sense to you, Elizabeth? Would it hurt perhaps a Republican candidate more than a Democrat? ELIZABETH ARNOLD: That's the conventional wisdom, that if he runs as a social conservative, that hurts the Republican candidate; if he runs in the other direction and preaches economic nationalism, which is what he's done very successfully in the last two elections, that hurts the Democrat. But as Ron pointed out, I think it's really important -- this election cycle is very different. People are telling pollsters they don't want change, and they're not looking for more choices. I was with Buchanan in Michigan blast month, and you know, he used to get all these folks unemployed auto workers who were anti-NAFTA. They would have huge rallies. Well, those guys didn't turn out for some of these rallies because they're all employed now. So the situation is really different in terms of his base, and his base in the Republican Party is shrinking, and I think his base among Reagan Democrats has shrunk as well. TERENCE SMITH: Tom Edsall, what about the statements he's made in his book and on these talk shows recently, the controversy around them -- has that made it a more difficult sell for the Reform Party or Pat Buchanan himself? THOMAS EDSALL: He has created a real problem for himself with this argument that the United States should have stayed out of World War II, at least through 1941 and on into 1942 and perhaps through the whole thing. That is just not an argument that's going to sell. It's a complex argument he's developed in his book, but you can't make complex arguments in political campaigns. He was on for an hour on a show today, and the whole show was really about this. And you start getting veterans on these shows, and they don't like it. TERENCE SMITH: They're not happy I'm sure. Ron Brownstein, would you think this would have an effect on him and a related question, does the press go easy on Pat Buchanan? That allegation has been made. If another candidate said anything like that, a George W. Bush or an Al Gore, he'd really feel the fire. RON BROWNSTEIN: I think the answer is yes but not necessarily because Buchanan is part or has been part of the police. I think we almost have parallel presidential races developing, Terry. We have candidates who we think might actually be president, that we hold to one set of standards and who we scrutinize very carefully. Then we have the field being increasingly cluttered with lots of people who are using this as a vehicle to project their views and who use it as a platform to make their case to the American people. But very few people are actually ever going to be president. Those are sort of let slide in a way. I mean, we're not examining them in the same respect or dealing with their comments with the same level of gravity. You know, this is a classic case. Pat Buchanan did not need to reopen the issue over whether Charles Lindbergh should be rehabilitated in 2000. This is not really a pressing issue for many Americans: Was Lindbergh right in saying whether America should have stayed out of World War II? He's opened a problem for himself, but not as great a problem as if someone like George Bush or Al Gore had said it, because we are not applying the same standards for the candidates where there's sort of an informal consensus, this guy will not be president in all likelihood. TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Thank you, Ron, Elizabeth, Tom. Thanks very much.