POLITICAL WRAP
September 1, 2000

Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant and Wall Street Jounal columnist Paul Gigot analyze religion and politics, national missile defense and the new political ads debuting this month. Watch the discussion on religion in streaming video Watch a segment about the commercial in streaming video. Watch Oliphant and Gigot discuss the ad in streaming video.

Online Special: 2000 Democratic Convention 2000 Republican Convention Election 2000 Aug. 15, 2000: The post-convention political scene. Aug. 15, 2000: The political road ahead for both Bush and Gore. Aug. 15, 2000: Who are the Democrats of 2000? Aug. 15, 2000: Hollywood and Senator Joe Lieberman faceoff. Aug. 15, 2000: Former Vice President Walter Mondale talks about the race. Aug. 14, 2000: Former President Jimmy Carter discusses Gore and the Democrats. Aug. 11, 2000: Sen. Joe Lieberman discusses his nomination, religion and the campaign. Aug. 11, 2000: Examining Gore's economic plan.. Aug. 8, 2000: An historic choice. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of Politics and Campaigns and Election 2000.	JIM LEHRER: Now, Gigot and Oliphant, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot -- Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant, Mark Shields is on vacation. Paul, how do you read the fallout from this issue we just listened to -politics and religion?
	Religion and politics
	PAUL GIGOT: Jim, growing up in Green Bay, Wisconsin, I always thought God was a Greenbay Packer. Imagine my surprise to find out he's a Democrat. I think there is no downside to this for the Democrats, Jim, none whatsoever. They should hire Joe Esterhaus; they should hire Barry Lynn to go on the air every day and attack Joe Lieberman for talking about God. This is exactly what the Gore administration wanted - excuse me - the Gore campaign wanted. This is exactly... this is one of the reasons he picked Joe Lieberman was to send a message. The Democrats have been suffering all this last year on the issue of moral values. This goes right at the heart of that and tells average Americans look, we're not the libertines where anything goes. We're just like you. We go to church on Sunday. We care about moral guideposts. JIM LEHRER: Synagogues on Saturdays. PAUL GIGOT: Synagogues on Saturdays. In Joe Lieberman's case, so much the better. And religion provides for a lot of Americans a sense that there are moral guideposts and Democrats agree with it. It's very smart politics. JIM LEHRER: Smart politics? TOM OLIPHANT: From all the evidence since last weekend, overwhelmingly popular politics, as I think Senator Lieberman being an experienced politician knew instinctively, if not empirically, going into this. Having grown up on the lower East side of New York, where you were either ecumenical or you got in an awful lot of fist fights, one of the things that I learned is that the separation does not involve either a wall or hostility. And I thought in reading and rereading Senator Lieberman's remarks, looking for imaginary lines that might be crossed the way he was so careful to make the distinction between talking about what I bring to the public arena, my baggage, my beliefs, here's who I am, and whether I would use my religious beliefs to inform my policy choices where he drew a very explicit line, very much like the last sentence in John Kennedy's inaugural where he said on earth God's work must truly be our own. JIM LEHRER: So no downside. TOM OLIPHANT: Not that I can see. JIM LEHRER: No political fallout? PAUL GIGOT: To be attacked if you're a Democrat by the Washington Post editorial page - I mean, you know -- on the left and by figures in Hollywood - I mean, they're in heaven.
	The RNC attack ad
	JIM LEHRER: Speaking of heaven, let's move on to a storm surrounding that Republican ad that was released yesterday. Again, Kwame Holman reports. KWAME HOLMAN: The Bush campaign says it approved the new ad commissioned by the Republican National Committee. The 30-second TV spot offering up a mocking view of Vice President Gore was set to hit the airwaves today in 16 potential battleground states chiefly in the Midwest. AD SPOKESPERSON: Well, there's Al Gore reinventing himself on television again. Like I'm not going to notice? Who is he going to be today -- the Al Gore who raised campaign money at a Buddhist temple or the one who now promises campaign finance reform? Really. Al Gore -- claiming credit for things he didn't even do. AL GORE: I took the initiative in creating the Internet. AD SPOKESPERSON: Yeah, and I invented the remote control, too. Another round of this and I'll sell my television. KWAME HOLMAN: As news organizations spread word of the ad yesterday, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman responded on behalf of his running mate. SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: I'm very sad to tell you that today, rather than focusing on the serious issues before our country, our opponents have hit the airwaves with paid political negative personal attack ads. And that's wrong. CROWD: Booing. SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Today I'm sorry to say that Governor Bush's promise to change the tone of American politics has run into the reality of a troubled Bush- Cheney campaign -- (Cheers) because these new attack ads break his promise not to launch personal attacks in this campaign and they drag us back to the worst politics of the past. It seems to me today that Governor Bush has sadly changed his tune about changing the tone. KWAME HOLMAN: This morning aboard his campaign plane Governor Bush defended the ad. GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I thought the ad was tongue in cheek. I thought it was quite humorous and the American people will draw their own conclusions about the effectiveness of the ad. KWAME HOLMAN: The Gore campaign today postponed a new TV spot critical of Bush as well as plans to roll out a new campaign issue, as it awaits fall-out from the new attack ad.
	Just politics?
	JIM LEHRER: Tom Oliphant, is that an attack ad? TOM OLIPHANT: It is an attack ad. Now we're all adults here, and that is not a cause for grand jury action. I'm sure Paul has seen much worse. God knows I've covered a lot worse. But what crosses... What makes it cross into this territory, if Bush had said, in an ad, there's Gore again distorting my record in Texas. In fact health care is better than it's ever been, you know this, guy doesn't know what he is talking about. That's the raunchy give and take of American politics. But this was, in fact, an attack on Gore's character, honesty, integrity, essentially calling him a hypocrite, raising the stakes in the election, taking a very fateful decision to make this personal. That doesn't make it wrong. There's a case perhaps to be made in which case Governor Bush had better make it because in the absence of that case, the danger of the boomerang is present. JIM LEHRER: In other words, he has to follow up on this in a serious way? TOM OLIPHANT: This is a serious business. It's reflected in the fact... I perused 150 front pages this morning just to check to see if my reaction was borne out around the country and even in small newspapers around the country. This was a page one story; this one made it. And, as a result, if you are going to do that for 30 seconds, you had better be prepared to continue the conversation and make your point. JIM LEHRER: Does it rate the front page, Paul? PAUL GIGOT: I think it does. I think Tom, though, is arguing about how effective it is. And it would have been effective if the issue of credibility had been linked to a particular issue or two or three. You can argue maybe it would have. But if I think a lot of Republicans are going to say, about time George W. Bush got in the game. I mean, Al Gore has been taking the bark off him on his Texas record, on his choice of a vice president. JIM LEHRER: Unfairly? PAUL GIGOT: Look it, all that stuff is open game in politics. And I don't think you ought to whine about it. I don't think you ought to stand up and say I'm a boy scout - I don't do that -- which Bush had been doing. He has to go back. Let's look at what has happened since the Democratic convention. Gore has really elevated himself. He has broken free from Clinton in many respects, and he has reasserted himself as a credible messenger. Well, Bush has to remind people why did he have 45 percent negatives three weeks ago? One of the reasons is the Buddhist temple -- no controlling legal authority. Bill Clinton is one of our greatest Presidents. You know, I've been waiting for months for when this Gore's greatest hits parade was going to make its appearance. And the Buddhist Temple has only now reared its head. Bill Bradley used it in the primaries. So it's about time that it did make an appearance.
	Prepping for a Gore- Bush fight?
	JIM LEHRER: When you say boomerang, Tom, what are you talking about? How did this boomerang against George W. Bush? TOM OLIPHANT: Let me cite one of my favorite authorities on the so-called independent voter, or swing voter, to wit the good governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. After representing this constituency, being elected by it, talking to the country about it quite a bit in recent months, he takes the position that people who could go either way in this election, above all, want a detailed specific discussion about the matters facing this country in the future -- and that that is what is, in fact going to determine their choice in the end and the result of this election. I have talked to Republicans, Paul, in the last week, devout conservatives, who don't want to see Bush simply call Gore a name. They want to see him make the case for deep income tax cuts. They want to see him make the case for missile defense and for privatizing some of the entitlement programs, because these are things that they believe are important to the country, that he should be out there fighting for them -- in the same way that Gore portrays himself now as a fighter for working families. That would engage a campaign. It would be rough, but at least it would be about something that's more important. PAUL GIGOT: My impression is that that's stage two; that you have to reassert the doubts about his credibility and then link it to issues. I agree with you. If you're just going to say that you can't believe Gore, Bush is going to lose this by 15 points. JIM LEHRER: Is there a possibility there's a stage one and a half where things get really nasty before it gets into that... in other words, Gore comes back with something personal and that we get into that kind of fight this early? TOM OLIPHANT: It's very interesting -- the decisions that Gore has made in the last two weeks -- first of all, to speak more quietly at the convention. Remember his image was as of the kind of politician who does this. There were very clear decisions made going into Los Angeles and coming out of Los Angeles to stay away from this for the foreseeable future. They pulled an ad that was merely critical on Bush's record in Texas for next week. I think that the reaction and the planning of the Gore campaign shows a faith that this election on fundamentals cannot be disturbed simply by an attack on Gore's character. PAUL GIGOT: Well, I agree with that. Simply an attack on Gore's character, he can't win. Bush has to link it to the fact that you can't believe him when he promises you that you're going to get free prescription drug, that the premium Gore is proposing as part of that -- that's a tax increase and you're going to end up paying for that. He has got to take him on entitlements and say he's promising you the world on Social Security. They haven't done anything for seven years. TOM OLIPHANT: You have the debate that will engage the public. PAUL GIGOT: I agree with that and they have to do that. And Bush, frankly, has been off his game the last two weeks. There has been a sense I think since the convention that Bush hasn't figured out what's hit him. I mean, they made a very good case at their convention and made an argument about character and biography and no Clinton third term. Gore with the Lieberman pick, Gore with his convention speech and Gore with some other things has gone right at that and really undermined that. And Bush has been behaving as if nothing has changed.
	The politics of missile defense
	JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's change the subject to today to what we talked about at the beginning of the program tonight, President Clinton's decision on missile defense. He says now he's going to leave it to his successor, one of these two men we've been talking about. What are the politics of that, Paul? PAUL GIGOT: It fits right into the Bush argument this week and the Cheney speech this week, theme -- one of the main themes that Bush is making that they have let the readiness and ability of the American military flag during these eight years. It's a decent argument to make. Cheney is a credible carrier of the message as a former defense secretary. I was surprised therefore, today when this decision was made to see George Bush issue a fairly tepid statement. JIM LEHRER: He did repeat that charge. PAUL GIGOT: Yes, he did. You think... I would think that this is one of your four core planks of issues. The President decides he is not going to do it. You stand up and say Al Gore isn't going to do it either. If you want this, if you want missile defense, vote for me. TOM OLIPHANT: And yet what is interesting here is that afforded an opportunity to stand up for something he may believe in, Governor Bush issued a statement that does not indicate a belief in this. "I will act where they have failed, by developing and deploying effective missile defenses." There are hedges in his statement. There are people in the Bush campaign who are devoutly, almost religiously devoted to missile defense. There are skeptics also. He is preferring to walk... do something of a straddle in here as opposed to making the kind of vigorous case for a specific system that he favors along with cost details and other things. He keeps away from that. JIM LEHRER: A simple matter of politics. Is this a winning issue for anybody? Has this thing have traction with the American public? PAUL GIGOT: I don't think it's going to be the thing that determines the election, no. If you're going to run for President of the United States, you have to have something to say about foreign policy and defense and I think that there is a good argument to be made that that in fact the U.S. military isn't what it was eight years ago but I don't think this is in the forefront of the American electorate's mind. TOM OLIPHANT: This is a unique issue, though. We have been arguing about it in one form or another in the United States for 17 years. And I can't think of an issue that has remained so controversial for so long without any consensus about the underlying science and technological issues. It's almost -- you feel almost like Sisyphus-- with this issue -- just when you think you're getting somewhere, it goes backwards. There is no prospect that this issue is going to be resolved by this election or even necessarily by the next administration. PAUL GIGOT: You're saying the problem is, it's an issue where you're forced to make the argument that this administration is storing up trouble -- not that there's trouble at your doorstep. That's when foreign policy really cut is when people can see the whites of their eyes or the hostages in Iran or the soldiers in Afghanistan. That's not a situation we're in. TOM OLIPHANT: And for that you need a symbol and Clinton is able to say we've only had three of nineteen tests and two didn't work. Are there things going on in North Korea we're not sure about? There are still some possibilities diplomatically with Russia that haven't been explored. He was able to make a substantive argument that enhanced the political position of those who want to wait. JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, we're going to leave it there. Thank you both very much.