TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/election/80elect/80elect.008

Text File | 1992-08-29 | 27.6 KB | 530 lines

                                                                                September 8, 1980

NATION

The Great Debates Debate


Jockeying for advantage is the name of the game for all the
contenders


     Only twice in the television age, 1960 and 1976, have
presidential candidates formally debated, and it is an article of
political faith that in both those hairline contests the
encounters may well have decided the election. With all three
candidates this year having long since agreed to joust,
presumably a few aides should by now, with Nov. 4 only nine weeks
away, have settled the details for the great TV debates of 1980.
Quite the contrary. They are having surprising difficulties in
getting the show on the road.

     With Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Ronald Reagan
locked in a virtual tie in the latest opinion polls, and virtual
tie in the latest opinion polls, and with Independent John
Anderson desperately clamoring for equal public attention, the
squabbling has permutations that were not possible in the one-on-
one situations of the past. Publicly, this bitter campaign within
the campaign was pitched in terms of high principles. Privately,
each campaign was coldly determined to exploit what it saw as the
potentially decisive weaknesses of its foes, as well as to
capitalize on the strengths of its own man.

     Carter's strategists were pushing hard for as many sessions
as possible with Reagan and were insisting, quite stubbornly,
that the first one, which all agree could be crucial in making
vital impressions on viewers, should not include Anderson.
Carter's aides believe that Reagan is more likely to flub if he
is matched head to head with Carter and has to face tough
questioning on issues involving detailed knowledge of the
Government.

     Presidential Press Secretary Jody Powell argued for
excluding Anderson from the first debate on the ground that "it's
one thing to say Anderson should be heard, but quite another to
say he should be afforded the same status as the nominees of the
two main parties. That's just not defensible." The Carter
strategists do not want to cooperate in giving Anderson any wide
exposure, on the well-founded theory that it would help his cause
and thereby hurt the President's more than it does Reagan's,
since lately Anderson seems to be pulling far more votes from
Carter than from Reagan. But just as important, they want to
establish a clear-cut first debate contrast between the President
and Reagan; Anderson's presence, they fear, would cloud and
diffuse viewer judgments on the outcome of the Carter-Reagan
performances and reduce the President's chances of scoring a
clear win in the public perception.

     The Reagan plotters, on the other hand, were fighting to
give Anderson a chance to compete in the first one, although they
were willing to meet Carter alone later on. They also wanted to
limit the number of debates. "Frankly, I think there ought to be
two debates," Reagan said last week, "One domestic and one on
foreign policy." Why only two? Reagan's chief debate negotiator,
James Baker, contended that preparing for a greater number of
debates in various cities would take too much time away from
campaigning. Argued Baker: "We want to debate, but we don't want
to run around the country to win the debates but lose the
election."

     Despite the current closeness of the polls, Reagan's aides
figure he will regain a clear edge after the so called "halo
effect" of the Democratic Convention's wide coverage fades and
Carter's support drops. The Reagan strategists thus feel he has
far more to lose in the debates than does Carter, and lose in the
debates than does Carter, and they would really prefer to have no
debates at all. But they know that Reagan, as the challenger who
must demonstrate his presidential timber, dares not duck the
exchanges completely. While Reagan is confident that his relaxed
camera presence and soothing generalists' approach will prove
effective, his aides candidly concede that Carter will have an
incumbent's edge with his knowledge of Government. Admits one:
"Facts, numbers and the precision of his engineering mind will
make Carter a formidable opponent. Carter is a master at detail.
He is going to be very, very tough."

     As for Anderson, the Reagan aides contend publicly that
their sense of fairness precludes making any deal with Carter to
eliminate the Congressman from the debates. Insists Baker: "We
will not be a party to a device to carve up the turf and exclude
a viable candidate." The Reagan advisers want Anderson included
for the same two reasons that Carter's advisers want him out.
They too believe that, at least up to a point,if Anderson gets
stronger, Carter will suffer the most in voter preference. They
also agree that a three-man exchange makes it less likely that
Reagan will be seen as the clear loser if he has a bad night.

     In this jockeying for position and an edge, none of the
political pros involved was fooling any of the others. Said Baker
about Carter's people: "They're anxious to avoid Anderson at all
costs." Said Powell about Reagan's men: "They're afraid of a one-
on-one debate." Anderson's motives scarcely required any
analysis. Nothing could raise his stature more quickly than to be
seen by millions as just as competent in debate, or possibly even
more so, than the major-party candidates. Anderson angrily
accused Carter of taking a "narrowly partisan approach to the
public's right to know" and of "frantic behind-the-scenes
efforts" to rule him out of at least the first debate. He cited
polls by ABC News-Harris Survey and the Roper Organization
showing that more than 60% of Americans want to see a three-man
debate and vowed to take his case to "the court of public
opinion."

     With these conflicting interests in mind, the Carter and
Reagan teams feinted and parried last week about the ground rules
of the debates. The main battle was over the proposal by the
League of Women voters, which had sponsored in 1976 Carter-Ford
sessions. This time the League had drawn up a tentative schedule
calling for three presidential debates (in Baltimore, Cleveland
and Portland, Ore.) and one vice-presidential exchange (in
Louisville). The League decided that the first debate, originally
set for the week of Sept. 7, should include Anderson if the major
opinion polls showed that he was supported by at least 15% of
those surveyed. The League angered the White House not only by
failing to consult it about the plans but by delaying the first
debate until Sept. 18, thus giving Anderson more time to
establish his eligibility.

     Jack Watson, Carter's chief of staff, openly solicited other
groups to sponsor the debates by declaring publicly on TV that
"the League does not have any franchise on presidential debates."
Watson said that Carter would like to take on Reagan sooner than
the League had planned. Carter quickly accepted invitations from
the National Press Club in Washington, CBS's Face the Nation and
the Ladies' Home Journal, all proposing an early Carter-Reagan
face-off. But Reagan did not, claiming he was committed to the
League's sponsorship.

     That left the League as still the most likely debate
sponsor. Trying, but not too hard, to reach agreement, aides to
both Carter and Reagan sat down for 2 1/4 hours of bargaining
with League officials in their Washington headquarters. "It was
clear in ten minutes that nothing was going to come out of it,"
said one Carter participant. The Reagan team accepted the
League's invitation for the first debate, but both sides
complained of scheduling conflicts. The League officials settled
on Sunday, Sept. 21, following the telecast of a professional
football game that would help beef up the TV audience. The Carter
team pressed for the first debate to exclude Anderson. The League
refused to budge from its position that Anderson should be
included if he had a 15% ratio.

     For Reagan, Baker sought a free-flowing debate format
roughly akin to the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858.
Each contender would make an opening statement, then go at each
other with rebuttals timed by a moderator. Scoffed a Carter aide:
"Reagan wants to make speeches." The President, on the other
hand, wants a format in which experienced reporters ask questions
in their field of expertise and then pursue sharp follow up
quizzing.

     The impasse caused the League to canvass its board of
directors to reconsider its position. But the board stuck with
its conditions for Anderson's entry in the first debate and set
it for Sept. 21 in Baltimore. Stay tuned.

By Ed Magnuson. Reported by Laurence I. Barrett with Reagan and
Christopher Ogden/Washington.


September 22, 1980
NATION
Two for the Show


THE PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT THREE'S A CROWD IN THE FIRST DEBATE


     When the danger became clear, when they saw there was no way
between Scylla and Charybdis, the President and his men battened
down for the whirlpool of criticism they knew was coming. With
cold calculation, they had refused the League of Women Voters'
invitation to debate both Ronald Reagan and John Anderson in
Baltimore on the evening of Sept. 21. The alternative, they felt,
was a greater risk -- enhancing Anderson's stature as a contender
by appearing with him in the key first debate. Maybe so, but there
was also the risk that this time it was Carter who has shot
himself in the foot.

     Trying to explain who the decision was made, Presidential
Pollster Pat Caddell said, "There are no hard data. We just
assume Anderson's presence helps him, makes him more legitimate,
establishes him." Such added strength, they felt, would hurt
Carter far more than Reagan since Anderson has been getting most
of his support in the polls from disgruntled Democrats and thus
could give key states -- and the election -- to Reagan.

     "He just doesn't deserve it," Carter told aides after the
league invited Anderson to its forum. "It's a farce." Campaigning
in New Jersey, the President squashed some sour grapes as he
tried, with notable lameness, to defend his position. Said he: "I
think Anderson is primarily a creation of the press. He's never
won a primary, even in his home state. He ran as a Republican,
and he's still a Republican. He hasn't had a convention. He
doesn't have a party. He and his wife picked his vice
presidential nominee." Later Carter told reporters that his
professed willingness to debate all challengers is
"unprecedented,' but insisted, as he has since June, on first
going one-on-one with Reagan. "This is what we want," he said.

     That, however, is not what the league decided to offer. Last
week, its five woman debate committee announced that Anderson had
met the criteria of becoming a "significant" candidate-attaining
a 15% rating int the polls. (The four most recent surveys were
those of Yankelovich for TIME (15% for Anderson), Roper (13%).
Los Angeles Times (18%), and ABC News-Harris (17%).) Said League
President Ruth Hinerfeld: "Our task was relatively easy. Since
the polling data were clear and unambiguous, our decision was
unanimous."

     For Anderson the triumph was more than just the wondrous
possibility of prime time with Reagan and Carter. Simply being
invited boosted his status as a major candidate, and the
continuing controversy helped keep him in the news. Conferring
credibility is televisions' greatest power: "Television, ergo
sum -- I am televised, therefore I am," as Columnist Russell Baker
puts it. CBS has already committed itself to covering the
Anderson-Reagan duel live; NBC and ABC were still making up their
minds at week's end.

     The league's decision reached Anderson as he was sipping
coffee before holding a press conference in Hackensack, N.J. Two
aides suddenly appeared with fists raised. "We won!" they
shouted. "We're in!" Anderson strode into the press conference
with the good news. "As you can tell by the smile on my face," he
said, "I am certainly pleased to accept."

     Reagan was triply delighted by the league's decision: it
took the spotlight off his recent series of gaffes, it put Carter
in a bind, and it gave a boost to Anderson. Like Carter's,
Reagan's aides are convinced Anderson hurts the President more
than their man. When New York State's Liberal Party last week
endorsed Anderson and thus put him on the ballot where he could
coax more votes from Carter, one Reagan aide was so pleased that
he sent Anderson Strategist David Garth a bottle of champagne to
celebrate.

     Both Anderson and Reagan accused the President of avoiding
the debate for selfish motives. Robert Strauss, Carter's veteran
campaign manager, who was more nervous than the other aides about
the decision to decline, admitted that self-interest was the main
concern. Said he, "We have our selfish reasons. Reagan has
his selfish reasons. We all have our selfish interests. Let's
don't kid ourselves."

     With the cards thus laid on the table, representatives of
the three sides met with the league later in the week to try
again to reach a compromise. All the formulas failed. After more
than two hours, Hinerfeld came out to announce that no agreement
had been reached; Carter would probably be represented in
Baltimore by an empty chair. Joked White House Press Secretary
Jody Powell: "It'd be the only non-Republican item on the stage."
Upon reflection, however, the President's men were upset by the
prospect of the symbol of Carter's absence helplessly drawing the
fire of the two challengers. "I can't believe they'd really do
it," said one nervously.

     To prepare for Sunday's debate in Baltimore, both Reagan and
Anderson plan to take off the last three days of the week.
Reagan's strategy is to go easy on Anderson (after all, he may
be more friend than foe at the polls, to flog Carter's record and
to seek to project an image of confidence and common sense.
Adviser James Baker, who prepped Gerald Ford for the debates with
Carter in 1976, is leading a team that is compiling 30 short
papers on issues, which Reagan will study this weekend at his
temporary Virginia home. Says one adviser: "A debate of this kind
is based on style and a few facts. We know Reagan has the right
style. He'll be prepared on the facts too."

     Anderson is cutting this week's West Coast trip short to
study briefing books containing his own programs, his past
statements on issues, and his opponents' positions. Said he: "I
see the debate as an opportunity not so much to talk about
Carter's record or Reagan's, but to tell the public what I have
to offer."

     Anderson may also view tapes of three Republican primary
forums to see what worked for him and what did not: he had been
cool and persuasive Iowa, contentious and unconvincing in
Illinois. Anderson is now well aware that his style, developed in
the House, may be too "hot," in McLuhanesque terms, for
television. Says he: "There is a certain gladiatorial aspect to
such an affair, but I shall not come clanking onto the stage in
armor that evening. I would hope that I could come equipped with
a certain amount of discretion, humor, wisdom, and avoid what
some people say is a tendency on my part to preach and sermonize"

     As the week went on, Carter's advisers, reviewing their
daily telephone samplings, insisted that their stand was not
hurting them as much as had been reported. Says Caddell: "It's
the right position. we constantly review it, but every time we
come up with the same answer." His counterpart, Reagan Pollster
Richard Wirthlin, disagrees, saying that Carter "is wearing a
black hat" and will end up taking "a great deal of heat."

     A survey completed last week by Louis Harris revealed that
69% of those interviewed wanted a three-way debate. Says Harris:
"Carter's refusal to debate makes him the issue rather than
Reagan or Anderson. If there is an empty chair, it is going to
put Carter in a highly vulnerable position." Former Reagan
Strategist John Sears disagrees. Says he: "Carter's right not to
want to give Anderson that kind of exposure."

     Pollster Daniel Yankelovich thinks Carter is overly fearful
of Anderson. says he: "I really think they are exaggerating the
notion that Reagan is the beneficiary of an Anderson gain. And to
the extent that it may be so today, it may not be so tomorrow.
There are many people leaning toward Reagan who would normally
prefer Anderson because they are moderate Republicans."

     As this year's primaries have shown, debates can be
explosive issues in a campaign. For that reason, there have been
only two general election debates in the television era. Richard
Nixon agreed to face John Kennedy in 1960 because he felt certain
he could show up the Senator's inexperience; the Vice President
lost that bet. In 1976, trailing badly in the polls, Ford thought
that a debate would reveal Carter's naivete about the Government.
The Georgian got at least a draw -- and a draw for a challenger
is a win, as Carter knows all too well.

     Where negotiations on future debates will go from here is
still uncertain. Reagan has not yet turned down the three
invitations accepted by Carter from groups wanting to sponsor
head-on encounters. Says Wirthlin: "We're not of a mind to
preclude further debates." But Powell said last week: "There's a
growing feeling around here that there may never be a one-on-one
debate." The White House believes that Reagan, despite his claims
to the contrary, does not want to duel the President. If there is
no debate between Carter and Reagan this year, the voters will be
deprived of the opportunity of sizing up the two men, head to
head, as they project their personalities and discuss their
programs.

By Walter Isaacson. Reported by Christopher Ogden with Carter and
Eileen Shields with Anderson.


November 10, 1980
NATION
Now, a Few Words in Closing

ON BALANCE, REAGAN BENEFITS FROM THE BIG DEBATE


     It has been a long march from the snows of Iowa and new
hampshire, from the time when George Bush had the "Big Mo" and
Ted Kennedy seemed to have the Democratic nomination for the
asking, even from the balloons and ballyhoo of Cobo Hall and
Madison Square Garden. As Campaign '80 finally and mercifully
came down to a matter oF days, the end at last in sight, two
factors loomed as potentially decisive. One was the revival of
the hostage drama, the other the debate between Ronald Reagan and
Jimmy Carter. Both, coming so late in the game, threatened an
unwise and disproportionate impact on Election Day.

      There were only a thousand spectators in Cleveland's Music
Hall, but more than 100 million people watched the 90-minute
debate. The President, tightly wound and always on the offensive,
scored the most points on substance; Reagan, with a relaxed,
reassuring demeanor that belied the President's portrayal of him
as dangerous, came out ahead on style. When at the end, Reagan
bounded 15 ft. to Carter's lectern to shake hands, both men were
ready to take comfort, if not complete satisfaction, from their
efforts.

     Said Reagan afterward: "I've examined myself, and I can't
find any wounds." That, perhaps, was the biggest victory. Reagan
was the challenger, who by credibly debating the incumbent could
dispel lingering doubts about whether he was up to the job of
President. Said Senior Adviser James Baker: "We only needed a
draw to win." Reagan, in fact, did better than that. Said Carter
Pollster Patrick Caddell: "It seems basically a wash, with maybe
a slight edge for Reagan."

     Reagan Pollster Richard Wirthlin said his postdebate
sampling of viewers found Reagan to have won by 45% to 34%.
Independent polls done for CBS News and the Associated Press
supported those findings: CBS gave it to Reagan 44% to 36%, the
A.P.L. 46% to 34%. On perhaps the most important impact of the
debate, its effect on those voters who had not previously made up
their minds, the two polls diverged, CBS found Reagan picking up
the undecided by 2 to 1, the A.P. showed the candidates splitting
them evenly.

     The debate, while failing to bring out new positions of
either man on the issues, provided a clear contrast between their
personalities and basic beliefs. Reagan was tense at first, but
he soon regained his mellifluous stage presence. Asked whether he
was affected by sharing a podium with the President, Reagan
quipped: "No, not at all. I've been on the same stage with John
Wayne."

     Both candidates used the questions as excuses to pull out
time-tested stump speech material. For example, when asked about
international terrorists, Carter included a peroration on the
dangers of nuclear proliferation. He seemed to have a mental list
of topic he was going to get in, no matter the question or
Reagan's response. The President was constantly on the attack
with charges that Reagan's views on foreign policy and nuclear
arms were reckless. But the Republican proved adept at delivering
awshucks parries to Carter's thrusts. Indeed, Reagan had
carefully rehearsed them before the debate in the garage of his
rented Virginia estate, with Republican Representative David
Stockman of Michigan playing Carter's role. As Stockman zinged
charges, Reagan tried out two or three retorts before settling on
the one that he used most effectively. When Carter accused him of
opposing Medicare, Reagan, who did indeed contend that medical
care for the aged would be better left in the hands of private
insurers, acted as if Carter had again misstated his record. The
ex-actor gave a bemused smile, cocked his head to the side and
murmured: "There you go again."

     There were a few other memorable moments. One was when
Carter said that he had asked Daughter Amy, 13, "what the most
important issue was." Her answer: "Nuclear weaponry and the
control of nuclear arms." Later in the week, when Reagan in Fort
Worth declared that Carter acts "as if someone else was in charge
of the country the last four years," several people in the
audience chorused: "Amy! Amy!" Carter made only one conscious
attempt at humor. When asked about his opponent's weaknesses, he
poked fun at his own campaign excesses: "reluctant as I am to say
anything critical about Governor Reagan, I'll try to answer your
question."

     Carter scored many of his points on what his aides call the
war-and-peace issue. He cited Reagan's "disturbing and dangerous"
pattern of opposing all arms-control agreements, from the 1963
ban on nuclear tests in the atmosphere to SALT II. Carter,
however, passed up the opportunity to use the forum for a ringing
defense of SALT II's merits. Reagan responded by criticizing SALT
II, but also promised to sit down with the Soviets for "as long
as it takes" to get a real reduction in nuclear arms. He
misleadingly denied Carter's claims that he had said he would
"scrap" SALT II, that the U.S. should seek nuclear "superiority"
and that nonproliferation is "none of our business." But he
failed to make what could have been his most telling point:
asking Carter why, if SALT II was so critical, had Carter done
nothing for almost a year to get it passed.

     On domestic policy, Carter avoided politically uncomfortable
facts such as the current inflation rate, which he cited as 7%,
using this year's third-quarter average, and which Reagan put at
12%, the rate in September, the latest available monthly figure.
(The Administration also did not disclose the fiscal 1980 budget
deficit of $59 million, the second highest in history, until
after the debate.) Citing Reagan's proposed personal income tax
cut of 30% over three years, Carter warned that either Government
spending would have to be cut by $130 billion -- 21% of the current
federal budget -- or the nation would face runaway inflation.
Reagan, who at one point likened Carter to a "witch doctor," fell
back on rhetoric: "Why is it inflationary to let the people keep
more of their money and spend it the way they'd like, and it
isn't inflationary to let (the President) take that money and
spend it the way he wants?"

     A question on the Social Security system revived one of the
recurring issues of the campaign. Charged Carter: "Although
Governor Reagan has changed his position lately, on four
different occasions he has advocated making Social Security a
voluntary system, which would in effect very quickly bankrupt
it." In fact, Reagan years ago did suggest that the system be
voluntary, but he has lately dropped the notion.

     For all his predebate practice and coaching Reagan did not
entirely escape trouble. The most embarrassing instance came when
he began to answer a question about racial tension, saying: "When
I was young, and when this country didn't even know it had a
racial problem . . ." What he presumably was referring to was the
time before the 1954 Supreme Court decision on school
desegregation, the rise of the civil rights movement and
America's national efforts to redress racial inequality and lack
of opportunity. But it was not well put, and Carter quickly
riposted that those who suffered discrimination "certainly knew
we had a race problem." Carter made one verbal slip: he thanked
the residents of Ohio for being hospitable "during these last few
hours in my life," causing some jocular aides to wonder if he was
about to fall on his sword. Independent Candidate John Anderson
was not invited to the debate but voiced his views on a
malfunctioning hookup of Cable New Network, joking that he felt
"inadequate to compete with little Amy or a witch doctor."

     Hardly had the microphones been turned off in Cleveland than
both candidates encountered some last-minute unpleasantness. Much
to the Carter camp's chagrin, a critical report by Michael
Shaheen, head of the Justice Department's Office of Professional
Responsibility, on the department's investigation of Brother
Billy's dealings with Libya, leaked out. Three times last month,
the report says, Carter canceled scheduled interviews with
department lawyers. The White House also has been reluctant to
hand over requested documents. The report criticizes Attorney
general Benjamin Civiletti for "dissembling" at a press
conference at which he denied discussing the investigation with
the White House.

     The Reagan campaign suffered embarrassment from the forced
resignation of its chief foreign affairs adviser, Richard Allen,
after the Wall Street journal detailed a series of lucrative
deals that Allen had made as a private consultant from 1970 to
1972. The article implied that in making them, Allen had
improperly benefited from his position as a middle-level adviser
in the White House under President Nixon. The newspaper also
charged that he had leaked secret information about White House
deliberations on U.S. export policies to a Japanese business
associate. Damaging reports about Allen have been circulating in
Washington and among Reagan's entourage for some time -- all
denied by Allen -- but the candidate's top aides delayed acting
until it was clear that Reagan was being hurt by the disclosures.

     Still, the week's political events were overshadowed by the
fact that there had been a presidential debate at last. Although
neither man said anything particularly new or revealing, more
Americans than ever before were able to get a sense of the two
contenders, a feel for what they believe, and insights into their
underlying personalities. To that extent it summed up the flawed
campaign more fairly than many had feared might turn out to be
the case. For those tuning into the election for the first time,
what they saw was basically what the rest of the electorate has
been, getting all along.

By Walter Isaacson. Reported by Laurence I. Barrett with Reagan
and Christopher Ogden with Carter.