POLITICAL WRAP
November 3, 2000

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot discuss the final days of the election season, following a look at the latest campaign ads.

 

Nov. 12, 1999: Online Special: Election 2000 U.S. Senate Races: Missouri New York Michigan U.S. House Races: New York 01: Grucci vs. Seltzer Oklahoma 02: Ewing vs. Carson Montana At Large: Rehberg vs. Keenan Connecticut 05: Nielsen vs. Maloney California 36: Harman vs. Kuykendall California 27: Rogan vs. Schiff Virginia 02: Wagner vs. Schrock Nov. 1, 2000: One-On-One Humorists debate who should be our next President Oct. 31, 2000: One-On-One Religious leaders debate who should be our next President Oct. 31, 2000: Polls and the presidential race. Oct. 31, 2000: Polls and the presidential race. Oct. 31, 2000: Polls and the presidential race. Oct. 30, 2000: One-On-One African American leaders debate who should be our next President Oct. 30, 2000: Journalists Broder, Oliphant and Brooks discuss the presidential campaign. Oct. 23, 2000: Undecided voters in Ohio. Oct. 9, 2000: A report on the battle for Pennsylvania voters. Sept. 29, 2000: A report from the battleground state of Florida. Browse the NewsHour coverage of Politics & Campaigns.     Full coverage of Election 2000 for students.	TERENCE SMITH: Battling into the final weekend of the presidential race, each campaign is putting its best advertising foot-- and fist-- forward. This Bush ad, entitled "Nonsense," stops just short of calling the Vice President a liar. AD SPOKESMAN: Now Al Gore is bending the truth again. The press calls Gore's Social Security attacks nonsense. Governor Bush sets aside $2.4 trillion to strengthen Social Security and pay all benefits. VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: There has never been a time in this campaign when I have said something that I know to be untrue. There has never been a time when I have said something untrue. AD SPOKESMAN: Really? TERENCE SMITH: Matching attack for attack, this Gore ad began airing yesterday in many swing states. Building on past charges, it questions Bush's readiness to lead. AD SPOKESMAN: Texas now ranks 50th in family health care. He's left the minimum wage at $3.35 an hour, let polluters police themselves. Today, Texas ranks last in air quality. Now Bush promises the same $1 trillion from Social Security to two different groups. He squanders the surplus on a tax cut for those making over $300,000. Is he ready to lead America? TERENCE SMITH: On the flip side, both candidates are running ostensibly positive ads that subtly reinforce the alleged shortcomings of the other: Experience for Governor Bush, trustworthiness for Vice President Gore. AD SPOKESMAN: He has the experience to be President: A life of service... TERENCE SMITH: This Gore ad, entitled "Experience," touts the Vice President's accomplishments and sets forth his goals. AD SPOKESMAN: Pay down the nation's debts. Strengthen Social Security. Cut taxes for middle-class families. Save our environment. Experience, vision, values. Al Gore. GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I believe we need to encourage personal responsibility so people are accountable for their actions. TERENCE SMITH: This Bush ad, dubbed "Trust," has been running in various forms for weeks. GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: He trusts government. I trust you. I trust local people to run their own schools. I trust you with some of the budget surplus. TERENCE SMITH: The ad war is being fought in a handful of battleground states with the Gore and Bush campaigns matching each other nearly dollar for dollar in: Florida, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, and much of the Midwest. The exception is California, where Bush is spending millions on advertising and Gore had spent nothing through October 24. According the Brennan Center at New York University Law School, the two campaigns had spent almost $50 million between them on advertising prior to the closing phase of the race. Their respective parties spent an additional $68 million marking the first time in history that the unregulated soft money expenditures by the national committees have exceeded the so-called hard money spent by the campaigns themselves.
	Trustworthiness vs. experience
	JIM LEHRER: And that brings us finally tonight to Shields and Gigot. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot.. Paul, what do the ads tell you about where the campaign is on this last weekend? PAUL GIGOT: It tells me that the Gore campaign, the first ad we ran which is very tough, as tough as you'll ever see in a presidential race, I think, is part of the strategy where they're trying to shake up this race, Jim. I think they understand they're behind and they need to do something to undermine the perception voters have about George Bush as a leader and George Bush's capacity and so they're throwing the kitchen sink at them, everything they got, Social Security, Texas record, doubts about his leadership. Bush is responding with that Social Security spot, which is really also a credibility spot, taking on something that has moved some voters in Florida, Pennsylvania, a little bit in Michigan, the Social Security issue has, for Gore. They're trying to respond to that and twist it to Bush's strong point, which is raise doubts about Gore's trust and credibility. So they're going back and forth trying to play to their strengths. JIM LEHRER: So, trustworthiness versus experience? MARK SHIELDS: I don't know if it's trustworthiness against experience, Jim as much as this is a race that has come down to the qualities of the two men involved and the character and the experience. It's a very personal.... JIM LEHRER: What I meant is the Gore people are trying to... are questioning Governor Bush's experience and the Bush people are questioning Vice President Gore's trustworthiness. MARK SHIELDS: Sure. I think that's the principal thrust. That's what the Texas record is all about. And it's to raise doubts about the comfort level of continuity, whether in fact Governor Bush would... that Al Gore becomes the safer choice. In an interesting way, the Gore people are betting on experience being more important than it has been in most presidential elections. To use a poker analogy that... experience politically comes down to about a pair of deuces. JIM LEHRER: Explain what you mean. MARK SHIELDS: In other words, it's not a big hand, not four kings. I mean, what he is arguing is Gore has this experience, long, extensive experience and Bush doesn't have any, and they're hoping the pair of deuces which is what experience - not his own experience - what experience really amounts to politically... usually candidates -- voters stipulate the candidates for President have experience. He is basically trying to deny that Bush has experience that is comparable to that needed for a President. JIM LEHRER: Do you think it's going to fly, Paul? PAUL GIGOT: No, I don't. I think that this year when voters mention the personal qualities that are most important to them, at the top are trustworthiness and honesty in making judgments. I think that's a legacy of the last seven years with Clinton. But those are the things that voters say are the most important personal characteristics. So experience is a pair of deuces. It's down the list, no question about it this year. JIM LEHRER: So why is Gore still hanging in on that one? MARK SHIELDS: I think it has doubts about George Bush -- two out of five voters question whether he has the knowledge and the ability to be President of the United States. JIM LEHRER: That's different than experience, right? MARK SHIELDS: That's right, but it goes right to the experience. In other words, that's part of those questions; it's reinforcing the doubts voters already have about him. And I just listened in Terry Smith's piece about Governor Bush saying personal responsibility, people are accountable for their actions. Well, when you're run on straight forwardness, you run on honesty, the last thing you want in the last weekend of the campaign is to have an issue introduced that raises doubts about your own straightforwardness and honesty.
	Bush's 1976 DUI conviction
	JIM LEHRER: And that's the drunken driving thing. Let's segue to that. What is your feeling, Paul, about the downside of that for George W. Bush at this point? PAUL GIGOT: Well, certainly, a distraction, Jim. I believe with that without that, without this element, Bush was going to - he had a comfortable... not a comfortable lead but a solid lead, and that he didn't need anything to knock him off that trend because he was marching to the White House, I believe. He had enough support that unless something shook the race up, he was probably going to win on Tuesday. JIM LEHRER: What are the negatives for him in this? Why do you think it has the potential for shaking it up? What is there about this issue? PAUL GIGOT: I mean, I don't know if it will or not. I'm not that smart, but I know that it gets him off message somewhat. That's part of the problem; it's a distraction. What the Democrats are going to try to do ironically is to try to say, this is Clintonian. It's a character issue here to try to... because that has been George Bush's big advantage over Al Gore, and they hope this evens the playing field. Now, I think that so far it doesn't look to be that level to me. I mean this is something that did happen 24 years ago, it's something that he seems to have been straightforward about answering so far. Last night he was pretty good. The only sour note that I heard is when he said when he raised the possibility that this had been four days before an election, he didn't need to do that. That's a Clintonian touch because you blame your political enemies. If he just answered it and said I took my medicine. I didn't do it... I didn't deny it, not proud of it but I don't think this disqualifies him to be President. JIM LEHRER: Where is the vulnerability here from your point of view, Mark? MARK SHIELDS: Vulnerability is two places where Paul described it. The decision by the Bush folks to go after the source of the story rather than the substance -- had nothing to do with the source. I mean, this was not planted, this was not a dime dropped on him by an unfriendly person. This was a court record. I think the most serious one, Jim, is the second-day cycle. What you want to avoid in a story like this is end it the first day. The Dallas Morning News, Wayne Slayer, long time reporter who has covered George Bush extensively, reported today that George Bush in an interview two years ago, this isn't 24 years ago said that he had not been arrested since 1968. Paul's point about the Clintonian, I can remember in 1992, when Bill Clinton said he forgot he received a notice from the draft board. I said at the time, Jim, you can forget your first kiss, you can forget your first beer. But when you're living day-by-day to avoid military induction, you don't forget when you get a draft notice any more than when you forget you have been arrested especially at that point of being Governor of Arkansas - he'd been Governor of Texas - had George Bush -- for four years when he supposedly told this to the Dallas Morning News. That guarantees the story is into Saturday now. Now, you're into two days on the story. He is off message. The good news for Bush is that it keeps Gore off message because it pushes Gore off the front page as well and it starts to become a story. So if we're still talking about this on Sunday, with a new wrinkle and some other element to it, that is not good for Governor Bush. I don't share Paul's sense that this race was over by any means. I still think that we have an inflated national number because of George Bush's 28-point lead among white southerners where he is going to run up the score among the southern states. JIM LEHRER: We'll get to that in a minute. But Paul, what about the issue that some people have raised that there would have been no problem here if Bush had just revealed this when he announced for president many, many months ago? PAUL GIGOT: I believe that strongly. I believe he should have done this as a matter of political judgment. He did after all say I didn't lead a perfect life as a young man. I drank too much as a young man. He has been perfectly candid about that. That can certainly fall into that category, particularly since it's a matter of public record. It makes me wonder what is he thinking? He didn't think his opponents were going to try to dig something like this out? He should have done it. His argument that he wanted to hide this from his daughters, I believe him. It's a worthy objective. He is not your average suburban dad. He is running for President. And he is running for an office where people play for keeps. And we know the rules in this city, been here the last seven years, we found out, if anything has happened, it comes out. The way this might work to George W. Bush's advantage is precisely on that point. There could be something of a backlash to help him if somehow had begins to be perceived by the public as that same old brand of politics, his theme of I want to change the tone of Washington and move on, that could help him. JIM LEHRER: The story just for the record is that this story got out yesterday because a former Democratic candidate for governor in Maine told somebody and got the story out. There is no evidence there was any link to the Gore campaign or whatever. MARK SHIELDS: There isn't. And I mean, you know, that's interesting but it's not important. What is important is the story. JIM LEHRER: I'm just speaking to.... MARK SHIELDS: I understand that. But I think you raise the central question, Jim. You said should he have inoculated himself by opening up. Sure. This was two years before he even ran for Congress. My point is the story by itself, is it World War III, no? Is it going to cost him the election or state? No. But if, in fact, it is updated, if it's made fresh by other stories where he has misled the biggest and most important and probably the most respected paper in the state on this, and a paper that has covered him quite fairly, then it becomes a problem and newsworthy.
	Election 2000 -- still to close to call
	JIM LEHRER: I'm going to make you all really earn your money. This is Friday night, we're going into the last weekend. Factor what we've just been talking about in, in other words the possibility of fallout one way or the other on the drunk driving thing, the polls say this election is really very close. How do you read it based on everything that you know, all the wisdom and experience that you have, bring to bear on this question. MARK SHIELDS: Reminds me of '56... No. JIM LEHRER: None of that. MARK SHIELDS: It's an election unlike any I've ever seen. It is closer than I could ever recall. JIM LEHRER: You really believe it is close. MARK SHIELDS: I believe it is close. JIM LEHRER: The polls are right. MARK SHIELDS: I believe it's close in the sense that if you start off with Al Gore has to carry New York and California -- if he doesn't, if he fails to carry those, he is gone. George Bush has to carry Texas and Florida. If he doesn't carry Florida, he has got to carry Pennsylvania. If he doesn't carry Pennsylvania, he has got to carry Michigan. And if Al Gore wins Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 11 votes each, George Bush is toast. He can't put it together. The numbers... You can string together all the New Mexicos and little bit of New Hampshire up here and then go get Maine and come down to West Virginia, it can't be done. So you're down to these big large states where these candidates have concentrated all their effort, all their attention, all their energy and it is, I mean it is something to behold. JIM LEHRER: Something to behold. PAUL GIGOT: What Mark is saying though is that Al Gore has to win all three of those, probably has to win all three. Two of the three for sure, the big states, Pennsylvania Florida, Michigan and maybe all three because this is the other point I think that has changed from previous years. I think Mark would have been right in 1996, Bush must win Florida. But there are a lot more states at play than anybody ever imagined this year. Washington and Oregon, Bush could win one or both. Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin. Bush is probably going to carry Wisconsin. Louisiana which Clinton carried twice -- safe for Bush now. Kentucky which Clinton carried twice -- safe for Bush. Ohio probably safe for Bush. So you're talking about… MARK SHIELDS: Those are figured in. PAUL GIGOT: No. I'm saying they guarantee the election but I read it a little different than Mark; I think Gore has the more difficult electoral task right now and that is he has to run more of an inside straight in the electoral college. JIM LEHRER: There's that poker analogy again. PAUL GIGOT: He has to win I think basically two out of the three.... MARK SHIELDS: I would not disagree with that. PAUL GIGOT: Particularly those big toss-up states which could go either way. And I think don't just look at the polls or electoral college. Look at the candidates; look at the campaigns. You can tell who is winning and where the campaigns are just by watching them. I went on the stump this week and looked at both. The Bush campaign is a more relaxed campaign. It's a more confident campaign. JIM LEHRER: You agree with that Mark? MARK SHIELDS: Yes, it is. PAUL GIGOT: He's a more confident campaigner, more optimistic. Vice President Gore is straining - it's as if he is trying to find something, anything that will really turn this around. JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mark, that Bush is going to go with what he's got and Gore is still looking for something? MARK SHIELDS: I think there's no question that Bush has his message down and I think he is comfortable with his message. He delivers it. He is a more disciplined candidate; that Gore continues with a sort of a sense of urgency and striving. But just as an example this week there was no reason on God's green earth for George Bush to go to California. He is not going to carry California. Nobody on the Republican side thinks he is going to carry California. He went there to tweak Gore. PAUL GIGOT: I disagree with you. MARK SHIELDS: He went there... He kept a promise to California that he wouldn't turn his back on it, that he would help out the congressional candidates. California is 370 electoral votes. I mean that's when you're at 370 looking for 390. You are not talking about getting 270 by going to California. JIM LEHRER: To summarize the views of Shields and Gigot tonight for all of America to hear, this race for President on the Friday night before the Tuesday is too close to call. Is that correct? Do I summarize your views? PAUL GIGOT: Yes, but I think that George Bush has a lead that is significant enough to, that if nothing changes, he is the next President of the United States. MARK SHIELDS: I think this race is a more uncertain race than it was 48 hours ago, and I think... I think we're down, Jim, to a series of pitched battles in major states that truly could go... I think intensity is on the republican side and I think the psycho drama is on the Democratic side which man the Clinton thing has been awful. JIM LEHRER: That's a yes. MARK SHIELDS: It is. JIM LEHRER: Thank you both. Thank you both very much.