PBS NewsHour - 1996-02-28
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:08] Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the
[0:10] NewsHour tonight, yesterday's primaries
[0:12] as seen by Mark Shields and Paul Jiggo
[0:15] and Linda Dval. Some campaign themes as
[0:18] seen by four historians, regulars
[0:20] Michael Bloss and Doris Karns Goodwin,
[0:22] plus Paul Wattonabi and Alfred Echis.
[0:25] How the farm bill looks from the farm.
[0:27] Betty Anne Bowser reports from South
[0:29] Texas. And a new way into cyerspace.
[0:32] Internet expert Hoy Miner explains. It
[0:35] all follows our summary of the news this
[0:37] Wednesday. Major funding for the
[0:39] NewsHour with Jim Lera has been provided
[0:41] by the Archer Daniels Midland Company,
[0:43] ADM, Supermarket to the World,
[0:48] and by New York Life. Yet another
[0:50] example of New York Life's wise
[0:53] investment philosophy.
[0:56] and by the Corporation for Public
[0:58] Broadcasting and by the annual financial
[1:01] support from viewers like you.
[1:04] >> Steve Forbes and Bob Dole celebrated
[1:06] primary victories today. Forbes won
[1:09] yesterday's big win in Arizona,
[1:11] capturing all of the state's 39
[1:12] delegates to the Republican nominating
[1:15] convention. Dole was second, Pat
[1:17] Buchanan third, Lamar Alexander fourth.
[1:19] Dole's wins were in North Dakota and
[1:22] South Dakota. He took 42% of the vote in
[1:24] North Dakota. Forbes ran second,
[1:26] Buchanan third, Alexander fourth.
[1:29] Buchanan ran second to Dole in South
[1:30] Dakota. Forbes and Alexander came in
[1:32] third and fourth, respectively. The next
[1:35] Republican primary is Saturday in South
[1:37] Carolina. We'll have more on the
[1:38] primaries right after this news summary.
[1:41] In economic news today, the Commerce
[1:43] Department reported the US trade deficit
[1:45] for 1995 was 111 billion, a 4.5%
[1:50] increase over 1994. And the Labor
[1:53] Department reported consumer prices
[1:55] increased by point4% in January. That
[1:58] was the biggest monthly jump in two
[1:59] years. A rise in energy prices due to
[2:02] recent cold weather was the main cause.
[2:04] House Speaker N. Gingrich said he saw
[2:06] these economic numbers as bad news. He
[2:09] told reporters the economy is in poor
[2:11] shape and said the president should be
[2:13] receptive to a budget deal with
[2:15] Republicans. My sense in talking to the
[2:17] president on Monday was that uh there is
[2:20] an opportunity uh to keep working
[2:22] towards something. But frankly uh you
[2:25] know if if uh the Senate Democrats who
[2:27] seem to want to block everything and if
[2:29] the White House staff end up blocking
[2:30] it, I think we'll do the best we can and
[2:32] wait to get a president who's willing to
[2:34] sign things.
[2:35] >> Gen said he would consider attaching
[2:37] balanced budget legislation to a bill
[2:39] raising the nation's debt limit. The
[2:41] current debt ceiling will be reached
[2:43] March third March 15th. Senate Minority
[2:45] Leader Tom Dashel said Republicans a
[2:47] month ago promised a clean extension of
[2:50] the debt limit.
[2:51] >> I hope that we can hold them to that
[2:53] promise. I think there is an expectation
[2:56] that uh with or without any add-ons. We
[2:59] will deal with the debt limit in plenty
[3:02] of time prior to March 15th. Uh my
[3:05] preference would be to make it clean to
[3:06] ensure that that happens. But at the
[3:08] very least, I think it's important that
[3:11] we if anything is added that it not be
[3:13] controversial. And I can't think of
[3:14] anything more controversial than welfare
[3:16] and Medicaid.
[3:17] >> Medicaid and welfare reform were before
[3:19] the Senate Finance Committee today.
[3:21] Health and Human Services Secretary
[3:23] Donna Shala said the administration
[3:25] could not back the reforms proposed
[3:27] three weeks ago by the nation's
[3:29] governors. In Whitewater Matters today,
[3:32] Republicans in the Senate Banking
[3:33] Committee passed a resolution to extend
[3:35] Whitewater hearings indefinitely. The
[3:38] partyline vote was 9 to7. The resolution
[3:40] provides $600,000 to fund the special
[3:43] committee's investigation. Democrats and
[3:46] Republicans argue their differences.
[3:48] >> The fact of the matter is this isn't
[3:50] about a time certain. This is about
[3:52] getting the facts. When someone asks the
[3:55] interesting question, well, well, why?
[3:58] Well, why? Because that is our job. That
[4:00] is our duty.
[4:01] >> We've got a legislative function. We're
[4:03] not a grand jury. Uh we're not a a
[4:06] criminal investigation body here. We've
[4:08] got a legislative function as a
[4:10] legislative body. And after 47 days of
[4:13] examining all of this, let's move on. We
[4:16] can go on indefinitely. We can carry
[4:18] this through into next fall and hope
[4:19] something springs up because we haven't
[4:21] discovered something yet. Maybe
[4:23] something will happen. That's not a way
[4:24] to proceed.
[4:28] The resolution is expected to go to the
[4:29] Senate floor tomorrow. Democrats have
[4:31] vowed to block it with a filibuster. In
[4:34] response to the Cuba shootown,
[4:36] congressional negotiators reached
[4:37] agreement with President Clinton today
[4:39] on tightening economic sanctions against
[4:41] Cuba. The bill will permit Americans to
[4:44] sue foreign companies in Cuba if they
[4:46] are using property confiscated by the
[4:48] Castro government. Many Cubans fled when
[4:51] Castro came to power in 1959, leaving
[4:54] property behind. In London today, June
[4:57] 10th was set for starting peace talks on
[4:59] Northern Ireland. They will include
[5:00] Shinfane, the political arm, the Irish
[5:03] Republican Army, if the IRA resumes its
[5:06] 17-month ceasefire. That ceasefire was
[5:08] broken earlier this month with several
[5:10] bomb attacks in London. The announcement
[5:12] was made by British Prime Minister Major
[5:14] and his Irish counterpart John Brutin.
[5:17] They said they were committed to
[5:18] continuing the peace process.
[5:21] >> The Dockland's bomb and the appalling
[5:23] acts of terrorism which followed it have
[5:26] undoubtedly been a serious setback to
[5:28] the process.
[5:30] But they have emphatically not broken
[5:32] the process. And the British government
[5:35] and the Irish government are determined
[5:37] that they will not. Well, the Irish
[5:40] people of all political persuasions are
[5:43] determined not just to confine their
[5:46] response to this situation with
[5:49] condemnation or expressions of sympathy.
[5:53] They are determined to remove once and
[5:56] for all the causes which lead to this
[5:59] violence.
[6:00] >> Chenfain President Jerry Adams issued a
[6:02] statement which said a fixed date for
[6:04] talks was essential but enormous
[6:06] difficulties remained in rebuilding the
[6:08] peace process in Israel. Today Prime
[6:11] Minister Shimon Paris said the closure
[6:13] of the West Bank and Gaza will continue
[6:15] indefinitely. It began over the weekend
[6:17] after two suicide bomb attacks in Israel
[6:20] killed 25 people. The militant Muslim
[6:22] group Hamas claimed responsibility for
[6:24] the bombings. In a statement today, it
[6:27] also said it was a Hamas member who
[6:29] crashed his car into a Jerusalem bus
[6:31] stop Monday. One person died and the
[6:34] driver was killed by bystanders. Back in
[6:36] this country, Israeli and Syria
[6:38] negotiators began a third round of US
[6:41] brokered peace talks outside Washington
[6:43] today. At issue is Israel's occupation
[6:45] of the Golan Heights and disagreements
[6:47] over security arrangements and future
[6:50] relations. In business news, AT&T
[6:52] announced entrance into the online
[6:54] computer business. It will give new
[6:56] customers five free hours on the
[6:58] internet for 12 months. A monthly charge
[7:00] for unlimited access will follow that.
[7:03] We'll have more on this story at the end
[7:04] of the program tonight. Between now and
[7:07] then, analysis of yesterday's primary
[7:09] results, some historical perspective on
[7:12] the campaign, and the farm bill.
[7:28] Fallout from yesterday's primaries in
[7:30] Arizona and the Dakotas is first
[7:31] tonight. Our coverage begins with awami
[7:33] homeman report on what the candidates
[7:35] said and did today.
[7:38] Last night, Senator Robert Dole arrived
[7:40] in the nation's capital after winning
[7:42] primaries in North Dakota and South
[7:44] Dakota and losing in Arizona to Steve
[7:47] Forbes. Dole attributed his defeat to
[7:50] the millionaire publishers spending
[7:52] power. Forbes campaign spent $4 million
[7:55] in Arizona.
[7:56] >> We can't match that kind of spending.
[7:58] So,
[8:00] >> how will you combat that then if you're
[8:01] deal
[8:01] >> I don't know. I mean I you know if he
[8:03] wants to spend$100 $200 million it's
[8:05] pretty hard to we're going to reach our
[8:07] cap one of these days not very soon but
[8:10] his he doesn't have any cap $4
[8:13] >> Steve Forbes responded to that criticism
[8:15] this morning
[8:16] >> we've spent so far less in this race
[8:18] than Senator Dole did and we're not
[8:20] taking any taxpayer money but we're
[8:22] getting our message out there one way or
[8:24] the other whether it's through
[8:25] advertising directly meeting with the
[8:27] voters newspapers talk shows radio talk
[8:30] shows whatever say we're whatever way
[8:33] works, we'll do it.
[8:34] >> But Mr. Forbes, how much are you willing
[8:36] to put into this? Because these states
[8:38] get bigger.
[8:39] >> Well, I've made it very clear that I'll
[8:41] spend whatever it takes to get the
[8:43] message across, but being of Scottish
[8:44] descent, I won't spend a penny more.
[8:46] >> Political commentator Pat Buchanan, who
[8:49] came in third in Arizona, predicted the
[8:51] primaries in the coming week will narrow
[8:53] the contest to a three-man race. No,
[8:56] Charlie. I think the elimination process
[8:58] is really going to begin in earnest in
[9:00] South Carolina and next Tuesday,
[9:01] Georgia, Maryland, Colorado in the
[9:03] Yankee primary. And I think after that,
[9:05] the establishment is going to settle
[9:07] settle on Senator Dole. And we're going
[9:09] to find out how much Steve Forb's money
[9:11] can buy. And our populist insurgency is
[9:13] going to be the third powerful force in
[9:15] this race. Former Tennessee Governor
[9:17] Lamar Alexander, who placed no better
[9:19] than fourth in yesterday's primaries,
[9:21] was in Georgia today.
[9:23] >> And in Iowa and in New Hampshire, the
[9:25] Dole voters in increasing numbers came
[9:27] to me. And I think that's going to be
[9:29] happening in Georgia and in South
[9:31] Carolina, in Florida, and in the other
[9:34] states as we move along through the
[9:36] primary session. The next round of
[9:39] primaries begins Saturday in South
[9:41] Carolina where candidates will be
[9:43] battling for 37 delegates. Then on
[9:46] Tuesday of next week, eight primaries
[9:49] and a caucus in Georgia, Colorado,
[9:51] Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode
[9:54] Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and
[9:56] Minnesota. In all, 241 delegates will be
[10:00] up for grabs, the largest delegate total
[10:02] to date this primary season.
[10:05] Now, how yesterday's results look to our
[10:07] regular team of Shields and Jiggo,
[10:09] syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall
[10:11] Street Journal columnist Paul Jigo.
[10:13] They're joined tonight by Republican
[10:14] pollster Linda Dval, who had worked on
[10:16] the Graham campaign. Let's go through
[10:19] who won and lost what. First mark on
[10:21] Steve Forbes, a victory in Arizona. Is
[10:24] he now does that mean he's back as a
[10:25] serious contender?
[10:27] >> Steve Forbes, Jim has winnowed himself
[10:29] back in. He was almost winnowed out.
[10:31] It's one of the great advantages of
[10:33] having independent finances. Uh
[10:35] ordinarily two fourth place finishes in
[10:37] a row and you couldn't raise the money
[10:39] to pay the light bill, but uh he just
[10:41] wrote a check. And if Bill Clinton was
[10:43] the comeback kid in 1992, Steve Forbes
[10:45] is the comeback capitalist in 1996.
[10:48] >> Comeback capitalist. Linda, is that that
[10:50] is it? Is it his money? That's all this
[10:52] is about.
[10:52] >> Well, I think there are three things in
[10:54] Arizona that propelled him in the first
[10:55] place. I mean, $4 million did help. No
[10:57] doubt about it. But he showed some
[10:58] organizational smarts in terms of
[11:00] targeting the absentee ballot and the
[11:02] senior citizens. I mean, he got 30% of
[11:04] the vote with those over 60 years of
[11:05] age. In Iowa, he received only 9% with
[11:07] seniors. And number three, he had a good
[11:09] message. I mean, if you look at taxes,
[11:11] one out of four voters said taxes was
[11:13] most important to them. And he received
[11:14] about 70% of the vote with that group.
[11:16] >> How do you read Arizona, Paul?
[11:17] >> Well, I think Pat Buchanan's uh peasants
[11:19] turned out not to have pitchforks, but
[11:21] to have pocketbooks, and taxes was the
[11:24] defining issue. The voters uh who voted
[11:27] uh favored the flat tax 60 to 37. In
[11:31] other states, it's been split more
[11:32] evenly, 4545. And Forbes got the bulk of
[11:36] that vote. Uh he had a message that went
[11:38] right at Pat Buchanan's economic group
[11:41] of voters, but with a different message,
[11:43] a much more traditional Goldwater Reagan
[11:46] message of smaller government, more
[11:48] freedom, reduce taxes, reduce
[11:50] government. It seemed to work.
[11:51] >> Back in the race,
[11:53] >> I think very much so. back in the race.
[11:55] Very much so.
[11:56] >> All right, Bob Dole. Mark, uh, he won
[11:58] the Dakotas. And what does that mean for
[12:00] him?
[12:01] >> Well, Bob Dole's life has been
[12:03] complicated, Jim, by Steve Forb's
[12:05] reemergence. He was wanting to get this
[12:07] race down to a race between himself and
[12:10] Pat Buchanan. And Steve Forb's
[12:12] reemergence certainly complicates that,
[12:14] but he had two victories yesterday. He
[12:16] needed two victories, and there's
[12:18] there's no taking that away from him. uh
[12:21] still is sort of a secondg guessing
[12:23] because twice now in 1988 1996 after
[12:27] losing the New Hampshire primary Bob
[12:29] Dole who's supposed to be the
[12:31] experienced, thoughtful, responsible
[12:32] leader responded by firing his pollster.
[12:35] Uh and that doesn't look like stable,
[12:37] grown-up leadership.
[12:38] >> Yeah. But coming in coming in second to
[12:41] or being beaten by Forbes in Arizona
[12:44] does uh the winds in Dakotas offsets
[12:47] that do you think or just keeps things
[12:48] kind of even or how would you balance
[12:50] the two?
[12:50] >> Well no I I think that I think that
[12:52] Arizona became the focus. There's no
[12:54] doubt about it. It wasn't the same way
[12:56] Jim not to not to be mistaken with Iowa
[12:58] and New Hampshire where all the
[12:59] candidates are there. They're all in an
[13:01] adversarial setting. Uh Mr. Forbes spent
[13:04] more time obviously there than the
[13:05] others and more money. But uh I think I
[13:08] think that uh Bob Dole is is very
[13:10] confident coming in here. His people
[13:11] have tracking PS
[13:12] >> here being where you are right now which
[13:14] is in South Carolina the Saturday race
[13:16] here that his his folks have tracking
[13:19] polls which show him 30 points ahead and
[13:21] uh that would be an enormous victory for
[13:23] him.
[13:23] >> How do you assess the Dole uh element
[13:26] after yesterday? Well, first of all, not
[13:28] winning Arizona was a serious setback
[13:30] because it was win or take all and they
[13:32] had, I think, cast themselves in the
[13:34] light of being able to survive and
[13:35] overcome Buchanan and um they failed in
[13:37] that regard. Yes, they overcame them,
[13:39] but they didn't get that first place
[13:40] win. So, they have two golds and a
[13:41] silver to show for it. I think it puts
[13:43] even more pressure on them to win South
[13:44] Carolina. They clearly have the
[13:46] endorsements. They clearly have the
[13:47] organization. I don't think they yet
[13:49] have the message. Uh the debate Thursday
[13:51] I think is important because one of the
[13:52] reasons Bob Dole lost this election in
[13:54] Arizona was he was not apparent in
[13:56] Arizona the last three days of this
[13:57] campaign. He avoided the debate that was
[13:59] news throughout Arizona and throughout
[14:00] the West.
[14:01] >> That was a big deal, wasn't it? Wouldn't
[14:03] appear in the debate.
[14:03] >> And he had almost 30% of the people
[14:04] making up their minds the last three
[14:06] days of the campaign.
[14:06] >> Yeah, Paul,
[14:07] >> they are not going to make that mistake
[14:09] again from what I hear from the Dole
[14:10] camp. They are going
[14:11] >> there's another one in South Carolina,
[14:12] right?
[14:13] >> That's right. Tomorrow and they and they
[14:14] plan on being there at least as of now.
[14:17] Um South Carolina is critical for Bob
[14:19] Dole. He has to uh I think he has to win
[14:21] that. And the good news about yesterday
[14:24] was that he beat Pat Buchanan everywhere
[14:27] and he wanted to prevent Pat Buchanan
[14:29] from having any momentum moving into
[14:31] South Carolina, which is the entryway to
[14:32] the South.
[14:33] >> All right, let's talk about Buchanan.
[14:34] Bad day for Buchanan yesterday, right?
[14:36] >> I think it was um I mean obviously there
[14:39] was a third place that was close. Um but
[14:42] what happened is
[14:43] >> in Arizona
[14:44] >> in Arizona. But what Steve Forbes
[14:45] managed to do was steal one of the the
[14:48] elements of Pat Buchanan's
[14:49] attractiveness, which was the outsider
[14:51] label. Among those people who said they
[14:53] don't like Washington, they want
[14:55] somebody who's not a politician. Steve
[14:57] Forbes got the bulk of those votes. Uh
[14:59] the other thing that I think that Pat
[15:01] Buchanan has to be worried about is he's
[15:03] been trying to broaden his base. If he's
[15:05] going to win the nomination, you can't
[15:06] do it with 25 to 30% of the vote. You've
[15:10] got to expand. You especially if it gets
[15:12] to a two-man race. It looks and and
[15:15] Arizona should have been a state where
[15:16] his message, anti-immigrant mood,
[15:18] populist roots, it should have played.
[15:20] >> He worked hard in the
[15:21] >> he worked hard. He always works hard. He
[15:23] he did the same tactics, the talk radio,
[15:26] and he still got only 27%. I think this
[15:28] has to be a warning to the to the
[15:30] campaign.
[15:30] >> How do you read Buchanan Arizona
[15:32] results? Mark,
[15:34] >> Jim, I think if Pat Buchanan looks back
[15:36] on 1996 with regret, he will have more
[15:39] regret for the week between February
[15:42] 20th, 1996 and February 27th than any
[15:45] other. This was the week that Pat
[15:47] Buchanan had the eyes and the ears of
[15:49] the American political world upon him.
[15:51] Millions of Americans who had never
[15:52] thought seriously of him as a
[15:54] presidential candidate before after his
[15:56] New Hampshire upset looked at him with
[15:57] new eyes. And it was a chance for him to
[16:00] reassure them, to broaden that
[16:02] constituency from just the the base, a
[16:05] passionate base of pro-life voters, of
[16:07] gun enthusiasts, and those Americans
[16:10] most concerned about uh trade agreements
[16:12] and international tribunals. He should
[16:15] have done he should have made a
[16:16] thoughtful speech to a state legislature
[16:18] or a world affairs council. He should
[16:20] have cooled himself in his he became a
[16:22] hotter messenger with a hotter message.
[16:25] And I think it was a serious mistake. I
[16:27] think it was a chance for him to show a
[16:29] kinder, gentler side. Uh to spend an
[16:32] evening at a Salvation Army shelter, to
[16:35] do things that sent a message that
[16:37] beyond just this set of issues that he
[16:39] has become and I think it was a serious
[16:41] mistake.
[16:42] >> Linda,
[16:43] >> I think Mark raises a good point. I
[16:44] mean, Pepe Cannon reveled in going
[16:46] around Arizona with his black hat and
[16:48] being the cowboy renegade. And I think
[16:50] what's interesting about Arizona is I
[16:51] think it reveals three significant
[16:53] components in the Republican party. You
[16:54] have Steve Forbes who represents the
[16:56] economic growth wing of the party and
[16:58] has a vision. You have Pat Buchanan who
[17:00] represents the social, cultural,
[17:01] conservative front and in some sense
[17:03] wants to go back to the past. And you
[17:04] have Bob Dole that represents the status
[17:06] quo, the establishment who is the
[17:08] experienced figure. Nobody is in
[17:09] dominance at this stage of the game. And
[17:11] the interesting thing as we go through
[17:12] the next three weeks of the primary
[17:14] process is which one of these three in
[17:15] terms of the wings of the party they
[17:16] represent moves forward. So when
[17:18] Buchanan was going around Arizona in his
[17:20] black hat, holding the gun over his
[17:21] head, what he was doing was reinforcing
[17:23] the people he already had and not
[17:25] bringing anybody in and scaring them
[17:26] away. In other words, is what you're
[17:27] saying.
[17:28] >> I believe that's correct.
[17:28] >> All right. Now, the fourth person is
[17:30] Lamar Alexander. Uh Paul, how did uh how
[17:34] does where does he stand tonight as a
[17:36] result of yesterday?
[17:37] >> He suffered the most of anybody. I
[17:39] >> suffered the most of anybody
[17:40] >> of of anything. think he he finished
[17:42] behind Phil Graham who's out of the race
[17:44] in North Dakota in part because it was a
[17:46] rolling mail in primary so that the
[17:48] votes
[17:49] >> explain that people in uh in in North
[17:51] Dakota could have voted by mail up to 24
[17:54] hours before then they could cast the
[17:56] ballot but they they cast their these
[17:57] mail a lot of these mailin ballots
[17:59] before Graham got out right that's why
[18:01] he got
[18:02] >> but Graham got 9% and I think Alexander
[18:04] got seven six or seven something that's
[18:06] right go ahead I think the debate last
[18:08] week in Phoenix hurt him I think Forbes
[18:10] outperformed him. Uh that was the
[18:13] perception among most people in in
[18:14] Arizona and they've been fighting to see
[18:17] who would become the third candidate,
[18:19] who would be able to challenge Dole uh
[18:21] to be able to take on Buchanan who has
[18:23] this solid base. And it looks to me as
[18:26] if Steve Forbes had dislodged him. I
[18:28] think that Lamar Alexander next week uh
[18:31] it doesn't look like he's going to do
[18:32] well in South Carolina. So that means
[18:33] next Tuesday in some of the New England
[18:35] states and in Georgia and Colorado, he
[18:37] has to he has to get some wins. There's
[18:40] no tomorrow for him.
[18:41] >> What's your dope sheet on Alexander,
[18:42] Linda?
[18:43] >> Well, Lamar is still winless. I think he
[18:44] has to struggle to be able to stay in
[18:46] this thing through Super Tuesday, which
[18:47] is his strength on the calendar. And I
[18:49] think a lot of
[18:49] >> Why is that his strength?
[18:51] >> He's saying that he can do better in the
[18:52] southern states. I mean, that that's
[18:54] back home and that is his base. Um, but
[18:56] I think the most significant problem
[18:57] that he faces is this argument that
[18:59] Alexander beats Clinton. I mean, one of
[19:00] the things that the the exop polling
[19:01] data revealed across all three states
[19:03] was the voters believed only one
[19:04] candidate could defeat Bill Clinton, and
[19:06] that candidate was Bob Dole, not Lamar
[19:08] Alexander. Yeah, Mark, what you reading
[19:10] on Alexander tonight?
[19:12] >> Well, as Mr. Douly said, Jim, politics
[19:14] ain't bean bag. And one fella said to me
[19:16] today, Lamar Alexander says he can beat
[19:19] Bill Clinton and he can't beat Phil
[19:20] Graham, who's back in Texas running for
[19:22] re-election in the Senate. Uh, so it was
[19:23] an awful kick in the teeth to him, uh,
[19:26] he needs a victory in a hurry. His
[19:27] windows getting shorter and the task is
[19:29] getting steeper. And so that would you
[19:32] agree then, Mark, that what we're
[19:33] confronted with now or confronted
[19:35] presented with now uh is is uh it's it's
[19:39] a three-man race and it's a struggle
[19:42] between Forbes and Dole as to who really
[19:44] opposes Buchanan or is it that simple
[19:46] yet?
[19:46] >> No, I I think Alexander has a has a
[19:48] shot. I mean, certainly by a week from
[19:51] today, if he has not scored that victory
[19:53] and scored it in impressive fashion, I I
[19:56] think that uh we'll be getting ready for
[19:58] an exit uh strategy. But uh certainly
[20:01] Steve Forbes has climbed back into it.
[20:03] And Jim, it is an enormous advantage not
[20:06] to have your fate, fortunate, and future
[20:08] tied to any primary results. And that's
[20:10] the one position Steve Forbes is in.
[20:12] >> I mean, he, you know, he he can uh say,
[20:14] "Hey, I'm going to keep going." And New
[20:16] York coming up a week from Thursday
[20:18] next. And I'll tell you that that is we
[20:21] that is really uh the example of
[20:24] unintended consequences politically. The
[20:27] New York Republican bosses, led by
[20:29] Senator Alons Demato, are about as
[20:31] Democratic in letting candidates run as
[20:34] the Albanian government was from 1945 to
[20:37] 1995. They rigged the results so nobody
[20:40] could get on the ballot. Steve Forbes
[20:42] did. Uh he sued in court, the federal
[20:46] judge put him on and now Bob Dole is in
[20:49] the position of his people having
[20:51] transformed Steve Forbes into an
[20:53] underdog role, a position he's never had
[20:55] in life. Uh and I just I mean I this is
[20:59] that kind of a year.
[21:00] >> Yeah, this is that kind of a year.
[21:02] Linda, this uh Paul had said to me
[21:04] privately uh before we went on the air,
[21:06] this has been a bad campaign for pundits
[21:09] thus far because each week, each time
[21:11] there's a new a new thing happens that
[21:13] nobody expected. Do you expect this to
[21:15] continue?
[21:16] >> I have to say that what we've learned in
[21:17] this campaign is that each day brings
[21:19] something new and interesting to the
[21:20] scene that is totally unpredictable. U
[21:22] we we're dismissing Lamar Alexander. I
[21:24] think we have to be careful about that.
[21:26] >> That's what made me think of that.
[21:27] >> There's enough calendar remaining that
[21:28] people could still pick their places. I
[21:30] mean, Steve Forbes could probably
[21:31] leaprog the South and go to New York, go
[21:33] to the Yankee primaries and go to the
[21:34] Midwest and have money for California
[21:36] and nobody else may have the money to
[21:37] play the game that late.
[21:38] >> Yeah. Well, just in the question that I
[21:40] asked Mark uh Paul that if it's a three
[21:43] threeman race, uh both Steve, who if you
[21:46] use the three that I used, Forbes and
[21:49] Buchanan and Dole, two of those were
[21:51] written off right at the very beginning,
[21:53] Buchanan and Forbes, and now here we
[21:55] are.
[21:56] >> Sure. I mean, uh, there aren't a lot of
[21:57] people in the Forbes campaign who
[21:59] thought they were going to win Arizona
[22:00] until yesterday or the day before. I
[22:02] mean, there was a re I mean, a lot of
[22:04] them were pessimistic. Nobody really
[22:06] knows what's going to happen to this.
[22:08] It's it's it's up in flux. I think we
[22:10] have a wideopen race. We It's
[22:12] complicated by some of the regional
[22:14] strengths and weaknesses of the
[22:15] candidates. Steve Forbes may be stronger
[22:17] in the West, in the Northeast. Bob Dole
[22:19] has the organizational Republican party
[22:21] in the South. Buchanan has a better
[22:22] message for the South. And then there's
[22:24] money.
[22:25] >> Yeah. You know, nobody really knows
[22:26] what's going to happen.
[22:27] >> Well, Mark, it's great for people in our
[22:28] line of work as long as we don't predict
[22:30] anything. Right, Mark?
[22:31] >> Uh, Jim, I'm not even predicting there's
[22:33] going to be election here Saturday.
[22:34] >> Okay. Thank you all three very much.
[22:46] Still to come on the NewsHour tonight,
[22:48] some historical perspective on this
[22:50] presidential campaign, the farm bill and
[22:53] dialing cyerspace. Elizabeth Farnsworth
[22:56] has the campaign story.
[22:58] >> Two candidates addressing the economic
[23:00] insecurities of the middle class.
[23:02] Commentator Pat Buchanan and publisher
[23:04] Steve Forbes have had unexpected success
[23:06] in the early days of this campaign
[23:08] season. We get some perspective on this
[23:10] aspect of the presidential race to date
[23:13] from two NewsHour regulars. presidential
[23:15] historians Michael Bashas and Doris
[23:17] Karns Goodwin. They are joined tonight
[23:20] by Paul Watanabe, a political scientist
[23:22] at the University of Massachusetts and
[23:24] Alfred Ekus, a professor of history at
[23:26] Ohio University and former executive
[23:29] director of the House Republican
[23:30] Conference. Welcome to you all. Doris
[23:33] Karns Goodwin, let's talk first about
[23:34] Steve Forbes, who won the Arizona
[23:36] primary yesterday. He has spent about
[23:39] $25 million of his own money so far on
[23:42] this campaign. Is there any precedent in
[23:44] the history of the race for the
[23:46] presidency presidency that you can think
[23:47] of for this?
[23:48] >> Well, certainly the amounts of money are
[23:50] much greater than ever before, but the
[23:52] idea that people spend their own money
[23:54] on the campaign certainly surfaced
[23:55] during John Kennedy's campaign. In fact,
[23:57] there's this great moment when John
[23:59] Kennedy was able to joke later about all
[24:01] the charges that he was buying the
[24:03] presidency by saying that he got a
[24:04] telegram from his father in which his
[24:06] father said, "I don't want you to buy
[24:07] one more boat than vote than necessary.
[24:09] I don't want to buy a landslide." So
[24:11] clearly there's been that anger to some
[24:14] extent about people having money. But on
[24:15] the other hand, America is a funny
[24:17] country. We're the country that people
[24:18] came over from Europe with the paved
[24:20] golden streets. They want to be rich
[24:22] themselves, most people. So there's also
[24:24] a sense that if somebody's got their own
[24:25] money, they're not going to be beholden
[24:27] to special interests. So there's almost
[24:28] a respect for that at the same time as
[24:31] people don't get too happy about the
[24:33] idea that someone's spending millions of
[24:34] dollars to buy their vote. So it's very
[24:36] complex.
[24:36] >> Michael, do you agree with that? Do you
[24:38] think that in this time when many people
[24:40] say they're economically secure and yet
[24:42] some people are supporting Forbes, do
[24:43] you think that's why what what Doris
[24:45] just laid out?
[24:46] >> Well, I think the amazing thing is that
[24:48] there is not perhaps more resentment of
[24:50] a candidate with that kind of uh that
[24:53] degree of resources and who did not
[24:55] perhaps earn it himself. Throughout
[24:58] American history, the wealthy candidates
[25:00] who have tended to have an easier time
[25:02] have been, for instance, Andrew Jackson
[25:05] in the 1820s,
[25:06] uh, Wendel Wilkkey in 1940. These are
[25:09] people who represented themselves as
[25:11] self-made men. Perhaps second in order
[25:14] would be candidates like John Kennedy,
[25:17] as Doris mentioned. Robert Kennedy spent
[25:19] $5 million in his 85day campaign in
[25:23] 1968. Nelson Rockefeller spent similar
[25:26] amounts when he ran in 1964 and 1968.
[25:30] These were not self-made leaders, but
[25:32] they could at least say in Rockefeller's
[25:34] case, I've been governor of New York. I
[25:37] am not just someone who is beginning at
[25:39] the top with a lot of resources. The
[25:41] same thing was two true with the two
[25:43] Kennedys. I think there's been a
[25:45] difference in recent years which is that
[25:47] for the first time in the last few years
[25:50] we've seen a candidate like Ross Perau
[25:52] and now Steve Forbes in 1996 turning
[25:55] this really into a plus. John Kennedy
[25:58] and Robert Kennedy in the 1960s to some
[26:00] degree had to fight a degree of
[26:03] resistance to them as people who were
[26:05] wealthy candidates perhaps out of touch
[26:08] certainly able to pour in their own
[26:09] resources. It's really Perau and Forbes
[26:12] in the 1990s who for the first time are
[26:15] able to say this kind of money makes us
[26:17] unbought and unbossed.
[26:19] >> Um Mr. Ekus, what do you think about
[26:21] this? Forbes is addressing some of the
[26:23] same economic issues as Buchanan.
[26:25] They're both talking about growth or
[26:27] lack of growth and economic change and
[26:28] what needs to change. Do they represent
[26:30] two different approaches to economic
[26:32] change, the two of them?
[26:34] >> I think they do, Elizabeth. In my view,
[26:36] Forbes would represent the neocon wing
[26:39] of the Republican party, which is
[26:41] oriented to tax cutting. I think it
[26:44] follows in the tradition of Jack Kemp,
[26:46] and he might well have been the
[26:47] candidate had he chosen to be. On the
[26:50] other hand, Pat Buchanan, as I see it,
[26:52] represents the traditional wing of the
[26:55] Republican party and perhaps is more of
[26:57] a McKinley Lincoln Republican concerned
[27:00] about the interests, the national
[27:02] interest as opposed to international
[27:05] free trade, which seems to be one of the
[27:08] underlining and defining features of the
[27:10] Forbes program along with tax cuts. I
[27:14] think the
[27:15] >> Excuse me for interrupting. You think
[27:16] Buchanan represents the traditional
[27:17] Republican party? This is a different
[27:19] view than some would have.
[27:21] >> Yes. In in my review of history,
[27:24] Buchanan's position on the tariff, for
[27:26] example, is consistent with Abraham
[27:28] Lincoln and every Republican from the
[27:31] 1860s up until the 1930s. It was after
[27:35] World War II that the Republican party
[27:38] became a great advocate of international
[27:41] free trade. And indeed in Congress,
[27:44] there remained a strong traditional wing
[27:46] led by the father of former President
[27:50] George Bush, Prescott Bush of
[27:52] Connecticut.
[27:53] >> Paul Watanabi, do you have anything to
[27:55] add before we move on? We're going to
[27:56] talk more about Buchanan. Do you have
[27:58] anything to add on this question of
[27:59] using your own wealth to run for
[28:00] president?
[28:01] >> Well, I think that there seems to be no
[28:03] consensus in the electorate. Uh on the
[28:05] one hand, there are people who believe
[28:07] that wealth uh may mean that you can buy
[28:09] elections. On the other hand, there is
[28:11] this conception that uh if you have
[28:13] tremendous amounts of wealth, as has
[28:14] been pointed out, you can't be bought.
[28:16] One thing I I do think that is very
[28:18] clear that if elections are are are
[28:21] engagements in which people have to pass
[28:23] a judgment on individuals, you have to
[28:25] be seen so that people can pass that
[28:27] judgment. And there is no doubt in my
[28:29] mind that the wealth of somebody like a
[28:30] Steve Forbes or Ross Perau uh makes it
[28:33] possible for large numbers of people to
[28:35] see you. And that's a very important
[28:37] necessary condition before anyone can
[28:39] pass a judgment on you.
[28:40] >> Doris, let's move on to Buchanan and
[28:42] so-called populism. Would you define
[28:44] every many people are talking about
[28:46] Buchanan as a populist? Would you define
[28:48] populism for us and do you think he fits
[28:50] in that category? Well, I think populism
[28:52] traditionally has been a mass movement
[28:55] which somehow sees a struggle between
[28:57] ordinary people which they variously
[28:59] call plain people, real people, average
[29:01] people, the little guy versus an
[29:04] undemocratic elite which is variously
[29:06] defined as big business, international
[29:08] organizations, Wall Street, Harvard
[29:11] snobs. And what happens is that at
[29:13] certain moments in our history when
[29:14] there's real anxiety in the country,
[29:16] usually it's a moment of economic
[29:17] transition as it was in the 1890s. The
[29:19] farmers were feeling left out, their
[29:21] prices were lowering, they were having a
[29:23] very difficult time living, laborer was
[29:25] facing an economic recession or later
[29:27] was seeing it now that same kind of
[29:29] economic hardship. There seems to be a
[29:31] desire for an easy answer to the
[29:33] problems and the populace have
[29:34] traditionally provided enemies which
[29:36] gets people roused up. And I think what
[29:38] Buchanan has done is to organize that
[29:41] felt sense of anxiety by calling out
[29:43] enemies. In his case, his enemies are
[29:45] not only international bankers and
[29:47] globalists and Wall Street. They're also
[29:49] sadly immigrants, foreigners, the
[29:51] affirmative action problems, and certain
[29:53] almost he's gotten into creationism,
[29:55] which Brian was in. So I think where he
[29:57] fits in is by identifying the problem
[29:59] which is real which not all the
[30:00] candidates have talked about but then by
[30:02] providing a kind of passionate
[30:04] evangelical rhetorical answer to the
[30:06] problem rather than some real remedies
[30:08] that I think are out there but no one
[30:10] was talking about. There was a vacuum
[30:11] because not the Democrats either who
[30:13] should have been talking about these
[30:14] problems had really addressed them and
[30:16] Buchanan swooped right in.
[30:17] >> Alfred is uh Buchanan's populist
[30:20] movement does it remind you of any
[30:21] specific people in the past? Well, this
[30:23] afternoon I was reading a new book on
[30:25] populism by American University
[30:27] historial Masa
[30:29] and he makes the case that even uh
[30:32] Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and
[30:35] Abraham Lincoln were in some sense of
[30:37] the word populace. They certainly
[30:40] identified with the common person and
[30:42] indeed Abraham Lincoln and Teddy
[30:44] Roosevelt and others have taken on the
[30:47] bankers in Wall Street repeatedly in the
[30:49] past. It's part of the rhetoric of the
[30:51] campaign and I'm reluctant to see an
[30:54] individual candidate in the Republican
[30:56] party this year as an extreme candidate.
[30:59] I think they're seeking to mobilize an
[31:01] constituencies some of which have to be
[31:04] reached with code words. Some of which
[31:06] have to be reached with appeals to
[31:08] Christian fundamentalism. Some of whom
[31:11] are concerned about free trade. Some of
[31:14] whom are concerned about the World Trade
[31:16] Organization. Pat Buchanan is a master
[31:19] of the media, having been a product of
[31:21] it. And in that sense, I think he is
[31:24] showing some of the same skills that
[31:26] Theodore Roosevelt used in an earlier
[31:28] era when he knew how to use newspapers
[31:31] to get out his message.
[31:32] >> Michael Bash, as I remember from
[31:34] history, the original populists wanted
[31:36] government ownership of things like
[31:38] railroads, didn't they?
[31:39] >> Yes, they did. They were very worried
[31:41] about concentrated economic power. And
[31:44] on and off through history, they have
[31:46] embraced the idea that government could
[31:48] help uh the common people perhaps get
[31:51] the kind of rewards from this society
[31:53] that they deserve. That was very much
[31:55] what Huie Long was saying in the 1930s
[31:58] with his program of every man a king.
[32:00] The idea that this was a very rich
[32:02] society. You should confiscate wealth
[32:04] from the rich and give it to the poor.
[32:07] There is one element of Pat Buchanan's
[32:09] personal history that I think connects
[32:11] him very directly to the history of
[32:13] populism and that is you go back to 1968
[32:17] that as you remember was a year in which
[32:19] Richard Nixon ran against Hubert
[32:21] Humphrey they each got about 43% George
[32:24] Wallace governor of Alabama with a very
[32:27] populist message talking about law and
[32:29] order and uh generating this kind of
[32:31] resentment against elites who had he
[32:34] said exploited the common man and woman
[32:36] got about 10%. Richard Nixon after the
[32:39] 68 election set about acquiring that
[32:42] Wallace vote. He wanted to make sure
[32:44] that he would be reelected in 1972 and
[32:47] also helped to make the Republicans a
[32:49] majority party. One person very much at
[32:51] his side during those years was Pat
[32:54] Buchanan. He was the speech writer that
[32:56] Nixon called on to develop themes and
[32:59] language that would appeal to the
[33:01] Wallace voter. And to a great extent, I
[33:03] think it was during those years that Pat
[33:05] Buchanan ho honed the kind of appeal
[33:08] that allows him now to appeal in a way
[33:12] that is rather reminiscent to of Wallace
[33:14] in 1968.
[33:15] >> Paul Watonabi, you're skeptical, aren't
[33:17] you, about this whole labeling of uh
[33:20] Buchanan as a populist? Well, I think
[33:23] that uh while populism assuredly is a
[33:25] very popular political cons currency, uh
[33:28] a lot of the indications and the names
[33:30] that have mentioned even tonight in
[33:32] terms of individuals identified with the
[33:34] concept indicates that it is so overused
[33:36] that has been seriously devalued. I'm
[33:38] thinking just in recent times about
[33:40] individuals who themselves have
[33:42] described themselves as populist or
[33:43] commentators have decid described as
[33:46] populist in some way. And I think of N.
[33:47] Gingrich, you think of Bill Clinton, you
[33:49] think of Ross Perau, you think of Ronald
[33:50] Reagan, you think of Jimmy Carter, you
[33:52] think of George McGovern, you think of
[33:53] George Wallace, you think of Robert
[33:54] Kennedy, and you think of Joseph
[33:56] McCarthy. Now, the fact of the matter is
[33:58] is that all of those people claim the
[34:00] populist label. They can't all do so.
[34:03] And it seems to me that it is
[34:04] fundamentally a pretty meaningless
[34:06] concept now, especially if it's defined,
[34:08] has been pointed out, as individuals who
[34:11] are in favor and support the common men
[34:13] and women. That is a a concept where
[34:15] there's it's oppositionless. There's
[34:16] nobody on the other side. I it seems in
[34:18] modern politics who would take the the
[34:20] the opposite position.
[34:21] >> But Paul, do you think there's any
[34:22] evidence that Buchanan uh Michael was
[34:25] just talking about the what he learned
[34:27] from Wallace? Do you think there's
[34:28] evidence that he's looked at Father
[34:30] Coughlin for example or other people in
[34:33] the sort of history of this populist
[34:35] strain in American politics and that
[34:36] he's he's learned from them? Well,
[34:39] that's an interesting question because
[34:41] in in some ways for people like Father
[34:43] Coughlin or if it's somebody like
[34:45] >> tell us about Father Coughlin a little
[34:46] bit please.
[34:46] >> Well, you know, he was a one of the most
[34:48] traditional populist in the in the sort
[34:50] of the second phase of the populism into
[34:52] the early part of the 20th century and
[34:54] this was an you know individuals like
[34:56] him and many people have argued that the
[34:58] people who succeeded him uh people like
[35:00] Joseph McCarthy, people in the in the
[35:02] George Wallace tradition that these were
[35:04] individuals who in some respects claimed
[35:06] to be economic populists. if you will,
[35:09] but were actually radical social
[35:11] conservatives in economic populist
[35:13] clothing. That's the kind of judgment it
[35:15] seems to me is going to be made of
[35:17] somebody like a a Buchanan. Is this in
[35:20] some respects a a a social conservative,
[35:24] a radical social conservative, perhaps a
[35:26] demagogue in some people's view in
[35:28] populist clothing?
[35:29] >> And Alfred, what do you think about
[35:31] that? the the the some people would say
[35:33] demagoguery, but the dark strain in
[35:36] general that is is in the populist
[35:38] tradition.
[35:39] >> Well, it certainly is with some of the
[35:41] extreme groups like Father Coughlin and
[35:43] some others.
[35:44] >> He was anti-Semitic, for example.
[35:46] >> I think that was true, but I I don't see
[35:47] that in the current situation. Pat
[35:49] Buchanan has the support, as I
[35:51] understand it, of some rabbis in the
[35:53] Jewish community. There probably others
[35:55] who oppose him. I think he's seeking a
[35:58] broader constituency and my guess is
[36:00] over time he'll succeed in broadening
[36:02] that particularly if he focuses on the
[36:04] deficit issue. You know on March 15th
[36:07] the continuing resolution expires and
[36:09] the federal government has to have new
[36:11] funding and there's a great deal of
[36:13] anxiety. I think if he picks up on that
[36:15] issue he could easily broaden his
[36:17] constituency running against Washington.
[36:20] >> Michael, do you think that win or lose
[36:21] the Buchanan candidacy will change the
[36:23] Republican party?
[36:25] >> I think it will. And the amazing thing
[36:27] is that anything and I agree with Paul
[36:30] Watanabe that the word populism is
[36:32] immensely overused. And one of the most
[36:34] amazing and ironic things is that you
[36:37] see someone like Bill Clinton in 1992
[36:40] and people for him calling him a
[36:42] populist not thinking that populism
[36:44] throughout history has had so many of
[36:46] these ugly racist and bigoted strains.
[36:50] But the amazing thing in 1996 is that
[36:53] this populist movement, if we call it
[36:55] that, that that we're talking about,
[36:57] really comes out of the rib of the
[36:58] Republican party. In the late 1960s, it
[37:01] really came out of the rib of the
[37:03] Democratic party. And I think one thing
[37:05] this represents is the degree to which
[37:07] from the 1960s to the 1990s, the
[37:10] Republicans have gotten on the verge of
[37:13] becoming a majority party in this
[37:15] country. Doris, what do you think about
[37:17] the capacity of the Buchanan campaign
[37:20] themes to change the Republican party or
[37:22] to to really influence this election?
[37:24] Well, I think the really interesting
[37:25] question is maybe even more than the
[37:26] Republican party is will it influence
[37:28] the tenor of the whole campaign in the
[37:30] fall? Because it may be that by
[37:32] identifying these economic anxieties,
[37:33] which as I said the Democrats have
[37:35] really not focused on. When Robert
[37:36] Reich, the Secretary of Labor, used to
[37:38] talk about the need for some sort of
[37:39] social insurance for people who were
[37:41] losing their jobs, for health care, to
[37:42] take care of that anxiety, for worker
[37:45] retraining. They used to shush him up in
[37:46] the Clinton administration because they
[37:48] didn't want to get Wall Street upset and
[37:49] they didn't want to really get this
[37:50] whole balanced budget talk off the dime.
[37:53] So it may be that it will open up a
[37:54] whole debate for the general election.
[37:56] The real difference over time however
[37:58] that I think we got to figure out is
[38:00] that in the past the real populist
[38:01] movement in the 1890s was a grassroots
[38:03] movement. It was a people's movement
[38:05] that then found leaders to articulate
[38:07] its message. The difference between
[38:09] Buchanan and perhaps Wallace and perhaps
[38:11] certainly father Coughlin. They were
[38:13] people who were creating something out
[38:15] of whole cloth in a sense. They don't
[38:16] have a lot of movement out there. People
[38:18] that are organized together one another
[38:19] fighting for something from the bottom
[38:21] up. they are manipulating the media and
[38:23] using it in a certain sense to become a
[38:25] spokesman and that's a much less
[38:27] permanent kind of movement. The original
[38:28] populist movement had an enormous effect
[38:30] on the progressive campaign on
[38:32] government legislation during Teddy
[38:33] Roosevelt and Wilson and that's the hope
[38:35] you would have that these issues will
[38:36] have an effect but not unless there's a
[38:38] movement from the bottom up and that may
[38:39] mean the left better start thinking
[38:41] about populism as well as the right.
[38:43] >> Paul Watanabi, do you have anything to
[38:44] add to that? Well, I I think it's true
[38:46] that if the assumption is is that uh
[38:48] populism arises out of the excesses
[38:50] presumably of a capitalist society,
[38:53] unfettered capitalism, it seems to me
[38:55] both then and perhaps now is going to
[38:57] have some serious impacts. There are
[38:59] going to be people are going to be left
[39:00] out. They're going to be disillusioned,
[39:02] etc. uh the question is and I think that
[39:04] that's the debate about Buchanan whether
[39:07] in fact the state the government will be
[39:09] a me a mechanism by which to control
[39:11] that excesses of capitalism or whether
[39:14] in fact as Buchanan seems to suggest
[39:16] unlike the early populace that in fact
[39:18] government is the problem not big
[39:20] business. Thank you all very much.
[39:32] Now, farmers facing an uncertain future.
[39:34] Tomorrow, the House is expected to vote
[39:36] on a major overhaul of federal farm
[39:38] policy. Betty Anne Bowser talked about
[39:41] it recently with several South Texas
[39:43] farmers.
[39:50] It seems like morning starts slower and
[39:53] slower for LP Simmons.
[39:58] His body has 72 years. The pickup
[40:02] 160,000 miles.
[40:06] He's been farming in the Rio Grand
[40:08] Valley of South Texas since 1950 when he
[40:12] planted his first crop on a mere 24
[40:15] acres of rented land. Simmons has pretty
[40:18] much seen it all. Good crops, bad crops,
[40:21] hurricanes, tornadoes, and one of the
[40:24] things he says he's learned is you can't
[40:27] do much about all that.
[40:30] I've learned you can be a good farmer
[40:31] and have bad luck and go broke, but
[40:35] you've got to have some luck in farming
[40:37] because too much depends on forces that
[40:40] you have no control over.
[40:42] >> Like most valley farmers, Simmons grows
[40:45] a mix of crops because the land does not
[40:48] support just one commodity. The hot
[40:51] climate, dry soil, and unpredictable
[40:53] weather suit a combination of sugar
[40:56] cane, cotton, and grains. Throughout the
[40:59] years, as prices for those crops have
[41:01] gone up and down, Simmons has had some
[41:04] protection in the form of government
[41:06] farm programs.
[41:09] The government stepped into agriculture
[41:11] policy back in the 1930s when the Dust
[41:14] Bowl and the Great Depression caused
[41:16] thousands of farmers to go broke. The
[41:19] government bailed out farmers and
[41:21] stabilized prices. Here's how the
[41:24] federal farm program works. A farmer
[41:27] plants certain crops for which the
[41:29] government sets a target price. If the
[41:32] farmer can't get that price when it's
[41:34] time to harvest, the government makes up
[41:36] the difference. In return, the farmer
[41:39] has to follow government rules on how
[41:41] much land to plant and sometimes even
[41:44] which crops to grow. And while
[41:47] Washington has been cutting back on farm
[41:49] subsidies for years, this time around,
[41:52] the Congress is talking about phasing
[41:54] out federal price supports altogether
[41:57] and replacing them with fixed payments
[41:59] declining over a 7-year period.
[42:06] Santos is through Los and his
[42:09] >> Each morning before daybreak, Simmons
[42:11] meets with his two sons and son-in-law
[42:13] for coffee to discuss what needs to be
[42:16] done on their family farm.
[42:18] >> Simmons thinks it would be great if the
[42:20] federal government would get out of his
[42:22] life, but at the same time, he sees the
[42:25] need for federal farm programs. Well, I
[42:28] guess we need them to keep the price
[42:30] stabilized and it also keeps production
[42:33] down. I thought maybe one of these days
[42:35] there were going to be a such a few
[42:37] amount of farmers, they would get
[42:38] together and regulate the sales, but you
[42:41] can't do it. If uh if it looks like
[42:43] something's going to be good, price is
[42:45] going to be good. It's just we're greedy
[42:48] enough that we want all that we can get.
[42:51] >> How much help do you need from the
[42:52] government along with luck?
[42:56] Sometimes I think the government's more
[42:58] of a deterrent than it is a help.
[43:01] >> But uh how we do need
[43:04] >> how so?
[43:05] >> We have to go to school to get licensed
[43:08] to do things that we've been doing for
[43:09] 50 years
[43:10] >> like what?
[43:12] >> Well to apply insecticide. We uh they
[43:14] have a film that we have to go to. We
[43:17] have to get so many hours of school each
[43:19] year. And then this film, it shows you
[43:22] to wash your hands and things that you
[43:26] learned as a as a child. Uh to me, it's
[43:31] an insult. I've been doing this for 50
[43:34] years and never had anybody poisoned. I
[43:36] think you're a farmer because you want
[43:38] to be independent and that kind of
[43:40] aggravates you because you're not
[43:42] independent, too. You are dependent on
[43:45] someone else.
[43:48] >> He likes that, doesn't he?
[43:51] Mike England has a much smaller
[43:53] operation than Simmons, but he's equally
[43:56] divided on having the government
[43:58] involved in his farm.
[44:00] >> I hate to see the government involved in
[44:02] my business every day. Sometimes we feel
[44:04] like a puppet on a string being danced
[44:06] around told telling telling us what we
[44:09] can plant, where we can plant it, and
[44:10] how many acres and what day it's got to
[44:12] be destroyed and uh planted by. And it
[44:16] the paperwork is mounting. It almost
[44:18] takes a full-time secretary in order to
[44:19] keep up with it all.
[44:22] >> Tutor Yulhorn has a full-time secretary
[44:25] at his office downtown. With an MBA from
[44:28] Southern Methodist University, he is
[44:30] very much a farmer for the '90s.
[44:33] >> From this command post, Uhhorn mans
[44:36] three cellular phones, a two-way radio
[44:38] system to communicate with field crews,
[44:41] and a desk full of computers with up
[44:43] tothem minutee weather information.
[44:46] There's no mom and pop farming sitting
[44:48] in a farmhouse on the hilltop farming
[44:50] 250 acres anymore. Uh living the rural
[44:54] way of life that uh most Americans look
[44:57] to preserve is sort of a home base for
[44:59] the United States. Sort of our roots.
[45:02] One of the crops Yolhorn grows is sugar
[45:04] cane. Congress has traditionally
[45:07] protected it by putting quotas on
[45:09] imports. a policy critics say keeps
[45:12] sugar prices for consumers artificially
[45:15] high. But farmers like Ulhorn argue if
[45:18] the government pulls out of the sugar
[45:20] industry, it will put American growers
[45:23] out of business.
[45:24] >> Uh I can do everything exactly right and
[45:27] in 15 minutes in a hail storm I'm gone.
[45:30] Everything that we've produced in that
[45:32] year can be uh destroyed. Uh I try to
[45:35] give the example of if somebody's
[45:36] producing uh semiconductors all year
[45:38] long and they don't get to sell them but
[45:40] during two weeks of the year and they
[45:42] have to store them in a warehouse with
[45:43] no roof. If it rains during uh the time
[45:46] that they're shipping their
[45:47] semiconductors out that they built all
[45:49] year, they lose all of their
[45:51] semiconductor crop. And when you put it
[45:54] in a perspective like that, most
[45:56] businesses don't have to deal with that
[45:57] kind of risk. and most businesses don't
[45:59] have to deal with foreign competition,
[46:01] foreign subsidy like we do.
[46:04] >> Uh Horn doesn't want to lose his
[46:06] government subsidies. He's also
[46:09] convinced he will never lose the
[46:10] government regulations either.
[46:13] >> That's a fantasy that I'm going to have
[46:15] no intervention from the government.
[46:17] They're always going to be involved in
[46:18] what we do from a water quality and
[46:21] environmental standpoint. They've gotten
[46:23] so far in there now that to think that
[46:25] they're going to give that up uh is
[46:27] unrealistic.
[46:30] >> Farmers like Mike England have already
[46:32] started their planting in the Rio Grand
[46:34] Valley. Usually by now Congress has
[46:38] signed off on its farm programs that
[46:40] tell farmers what to plant, how much,
[46:43] and what the target price will be. But
[46:45] this year, the farm program has been
[46:47] tied up in Congress. Here we are into
[46:50] our crop year already already planning
[46:52] here and they still don't have a farm
[46:54] program for us.
[46:55] >> Does that make you uneasy? Does it give
[46:57] you a real nasty sense of uncertainty?
[47:00] >> Not so much uncertainty as mad.
[47:02] Everything I've got to do I've got to
[47:03] plan ahead for. Most of those people
[47:06] that are working on that farm program
[47:08] don't have uh anybody to answer to that.
[47:11] They can work on it. Right now it'll be
[47:13] into March before
[47:16] uh closest time will be in in March
[47:19] sometime that we even have a chance to
[47:20] get a farm program. Well, my crops are
[47:22] already planted by that by that time.
[47:24] >> Listen up, Mr. and Mrs. American Farmer.
[47:27] >> This afternoon, the House of
[47:29] Representatives began debating that same
[47:31] farm bill England is complaining about.
[47:34] A Senate version passed earlier this
[47:36] month. President Clinton has not said
[47:39] whether he will veto the legislation
[47:42] again as he did in December.
[47:53] >> Finally tonight, dialing cyberspace.
[47:55] Margaret Warner has that story.
[47:57] >> The world of cyberspace is coming a
[48:00] little closer to home. That at least is
[48:02] the intention of telecommunications
[48:04] giant AT&T. At a New York press
[48:07] conference yesterday, the company
[48:08] announced that beginning next month, it
[48:10] will offer AT&T's residential customers
[48:13] 5 hours of free internet access each
[48:16] month for one year. And for heavier
[48:18] internet browsers, AT&T has another
[48:21] plan, unlimited internet access for less
[48:24] than $20 a month. The question for AT&T
[48:27] and others is whether this familiar and
[48:29] friendly corporate face will entice
[48:31] millions of new people online. To
[48:34] explore that question, we're joined from
[48:35] San Francisco by Hollyy Miner, the
[48:38] founder and CEO of CNET, an online
[48:40] magazine that reports on the internet.
[48:43] Welcome, Mr. Miner. Tell me, why is AT&T
[48:46] making an offer like this?
[48:50] >> Mr. Miner, can you hear me?
[48:56] >> Good. Mr. Miner, thanks for being with
[48:57] us. Uh let me start with the question I
[49:00] originally started with you asking you
[49:02] is why is AT&T making an offer like
[49:05] this?
[49:06] >> Well, I think they've realized that uh
[49:08] being in the online service business is
[49:10] extremely uh important uh to them as a
[49:12] telecommunications provider. Um I think
[49:15] um you typically as a consumer associate
[49:18] uh telecommunications with AT&T. I think
[49:20] it's a perfect fit with who they are as
[49:22] a company. uh and I think part of the
[49:24] reason that they're making offers,
[49:25] they're a little bit late getting into
[49:26] the game and I think they wanted to make
[49:28] sure that they become a very big player
[49:30] uh very quickly.
[49:31] >> I want to turn to the consumer end, but
[49:33] first let me ask you just to describe
[49:34] very briefly for our audience what is
[49:36] the internet?
[49:38] >> Um the internet is really sort of no
[49:40] different than the telephone network. Um
[49:42] except uh rather than carrying uh voice
[49:45] traffic, it actually carries um uh
[49:47] pictures and and and graphics and text
[49:50] and and audio and even video. Um the
[49:52] other difference is rather than
[49:54] connecting with a telephone, you
[49:55] actually connect with your uh with your
[49:57] uh computer. Um the part of the internet
[50:00] that people hear the most about other
[50:01] than electronic mail is actually the
[50:03] worldwide web. Uh and that is a um a
[50:06] service on the internet which allows uh
[50:08] consumers to connect with u uh other
[50:12] companies uh with video, audio, things
[50:14] like that.
[50:15] >> All right, let's look at this now from
[50:16] the consumer's point of view. Do you
[50:18] think that AT&T offering this service
[50:20] will bring in a lot of new customers who
[50:22] have been either uninterested or maybe
[50:24] even intimidated by the internet in the
[50:26] past?
[50:26] >> Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean I I
[50:28] personally without sort of overhyping
[50:30] this, I believe that this is probably
[50:31] one of the most important announcements
[50:33] uh since the actual formation of
[50:35] Netscape. Uh what has happened is is one
[50:37] of the largest companies in the world
[50:39] and and one of the largest
[50:40] telecommunications uh players and also
[50:42] one of the trusted brand most trusted
[50:44] brands has just said that the internet
[50:46] is safe. uh that we're making the
[50:48] internet uh convenient uh and uh and
[50:51] that and that the internet is important
[50:53] uh and they're and they're and they're
[50:54] doing it by and they're doing it um
[50:56] under the guise of offering a completely
[50:57] free service to the consumer. Um so I
[50:59] think that's very important. I think the
[51:01] fact that um AT&T is guaranteeing for
[51:04] instance that anyone using their uh
[51:05] their credit card making a purchase on
[51:07] the internet um doesn't have to worry.
[51:10] Um and I think that they're also making
[51:11] software available that helps parents
[51:13] protect their kids from certain
[51:14] websites. I think is going to alleviate
[51:16] a lot of concerns uh that people have
[51:18] about the internet.
[51:20] >> It's not unlike the philosophy the
[51:21] telephone company used what some 70
[51:23] years ago which was to try to get
[51:25] everybody hooked up by making basic
[51:28] service very cheap.
[51:30] >> Would you agree? Well, I I would say I
[51:32] would say definitely and um you know
[51:34] that people have been saying for a long
[51:36] time that the power of the network is is
[51:38] the the square of the number of people
[51:39] who come on to it and obviously it gets
[51:41] more and more powerful as more and more
[51:43] people are there and you know that um if
[51:45] you send electronic mail to somebody
[51:47] that they will in fact be on the network
[51:49] um I don't think in the annals of
[51:51] telecommunications that anyone has ever
[51:53] um rolled out a service and priced it uh
[51:55] at for no money
[51:56] >> for free
[51:57] >> and I think you know I mean that's
[51:58] that's a new business model. I mean
[51:59] Netscape did that and and it was a it
[52:01] was a a master stroke.
[52:02] >> Explain briefly who Netscape is.
[52:04] >> Um Netscape is the leading producer of a
[52:06] browser which actually connects people
[52:08] to the internet
[52:09] >> to the worldwide web.
[52:10] >> Yeah. It it's actually if if the
[52:12] telephone is the way that you hear uh
[52:14] people over the phone system, Netscape
[52:16] is the way you see things uh on the
[52:18] internet. Um and their their business
[52:20] model was essentially to give the
[52:21] product away um and and get some people
[52:24] like corporations to pay for it.
[52:26] >> All right, let's introduce a little
[52:27] skepticism or caution here. How many
[52:29] people really now are on the internet?
[52:33] >> Well, you know, there are a lot of
[52:34] different numbers. Um, there Neielson,
[52:36] for instance, said that they believe
[52:38] that there's as many as 30 million
[52:39] people domestically who are on the
[52:40] internet. There are a lot of people who
[52:42] don't uh believe that number and believe
[52:44] it's more in the range of say 10 to 15
[52:46] million. Um, I personally believe that
[52:49] 30 million is probably high. Uh I do
[52:51] believe that um the number of people who
[52:54] are coming on is growing very very
[52:55] rapidly and we can see it in the number
[52:57] of people who access our services on the
[52:59] internet. Um and I also believe that
[53:00] with this announcement with AT&T
[53:02] offering free access, they're going to
[53:03] be a lot more people a lot sooner.
[53:05] >> And how much is AT&T going to have to
[53:07] invest financially to get this going?
[53:10] >> Well, you know, it's it's interesting. I
[53:11] mean, their strategy is uh to roll this
[53:14] service out for free to their current
[53:15] long-distance subscribers. Um, the idea
[53:18] is that if you have uh your if you have
[53:20] internet access through AT&T, which
[53:21] means that you have an AT&T mailbox,
[53:24] etc. So, I would be Hollyy at AT&T.com
[53:26] for instance, that it's going to make it
[53:28] a lot harder for people to switch
[53:30] carriers. So, if they can um if they can
[53:33] not have if they don't have to spend as
[53:35] much money uh to actually advertise to
[53:37] basically keep the same amount of market
[53:38] share, they can spend a tremendous
[53:40] amount of money.
[53:41] >> You're talking about their long-distance
[53:42] customers. It helps them hold on to
[53:43] those.
[53:44] >> Absolutely. I mean, the whole idea is is
[53:45] the notion of stickiness that if if uh
[53:47] if I'm a long-distance customer and I
[53:49] have AT&T's internet access service, I'm
[53:52] less likely to switch over to MCI.
[53:54] >> And finally, quickly before we go, there
[53:55] are a lot of other companies out of
[53:57] there out there like America Online and
[53:58] CompuServe who've been who've been
[54:00] offering internet access. What does this
[54:02] do to them? Can they compete?
[54:04] >> Well, I think it cuts two ways. I mean,
[54:06] first, if somebody's offering something
[54:07] for free and it's a company like AT&T,
[54:09] clearly that's a major competitive
[54:10] threat. Uh the good news however is that
[54:13] AT&T has just come in and endorsed the
[54:15] internet and that's a good thing.
[54:16] >> Mr. Miner, thanks for being with us. I'm
[54:18] sorry for our technical difficulties.
[54:19] Thanks again.
[54:20] >> Right.
[54:26] >> Again, the major stories of this
[54:27] Wednesday. Steve Forbes and Bob Dole
[54:30] celebrated primary victories. Forbes won
[54:32] yesterday's big one in Arizona. Dole won
[54:34] North and South Dakota. The Commerce
[54:36] Department reported the US trade deficit
[54:38] for 1995 was $111 billion and the
[54:42] governments of Britain and Ireland set
[54:43] June 10th for starting Northern Ireland
[54:46] peace talks. An editor's note before we
[54:48] go. We had planned to run a Pat Buchanan
[54:51] stump speech tonight, but we had some
[54:52] technical problems as we had earlier in
[54:54] the segment we just finished, but we'll
[54:56] have a stump speech tomorrow night
[54:58] instead. And we'll see you tomorrow
[54:59] night. I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good
[55:01] night.
[55:04] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim
[55:06] Lara has been provided by the Archer
[55:08] Daniels Midland Company, ADM,
[55:10] Supermarket to the World,
[55:14] and by New York Life, yet another
[55:16] example of New York Life's wise
[55:19] investment philosophy,
[55:22] and by the Corporation for Public
[55:24] Broadcasting, and by the annual
[55:26] financial support from viewers like you.
[55:43] Heat. Heat.
[56:07] Heat.
[56:12] Hey. Hey. Hey.
[56:23] Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim
[56:26] Ler are available from PBS video. Call 1
[56:29] 800 328 PBS1.
[56:37] This is PBS.
[56:47] Funding for local broadcast of the
[56:49] NewsHour with Jim Larer has been
[56:51] provided by a grant from ODS Health
[56:53] Plans, the group medical plans that meet
[56:55] the needs of Oregonians by providing a
[56:56] broad range of medical and dental
[56:58] coverage and responsive service and by
[57:00] the Collins Foundation. The Collins
[57:02] Foundation is dedicated to improving the
[57:04] quality of life in Oregon.
[57:22] A few scientists are making an
[57:24] extraordinary claim that they've
[57:26] discovered how to make safe nuclear
[57:27] reactors that can recycle the
[57:29] radioactive waste. Is the nuclear age
[57:32] really dead or just ready to begin? Next
[57:35] time on the New Explorers
[57:36] >> on OPB tonight at 8.