October 16, 1996

This weekly newsletter is being provided by the U.S. Information Agency's I-Bureau in an effort to explain the "how" and "why" in addition to the "who," "what" and "when" of the 1996 election campaign in the United States.

The issue includes:

-- Both Major Political Parties Targeting Ethnic Vote -- Gore, Kemp Debate Domestic, Foreign Campaign Issues -- Who Will Lead House International Relations Next Year? -- Officials of Both Parties Optimistic on Senate Races -- Political Campaign Industry Growing Rapidly, Faucheux Says -- FEC Lists 20 Presidential Candidates -- Campaign Trail Tidbits -- Journalistic Juxtapositions

Readers are encouraged to express their views on this product, and let us know if they believe there is anything we should add. Additional electoral background information is available at the USIA 96 Elections site on the World Wide Web at "http://www.usia.gov/elections/index.htm" or from the local USIS library or reference center.

BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES TARGETING ETHNIC VOTE By David Pitts

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are making an unprecedented effort during the 1996 campaign to win the ethnic vote, which could provide a crucial margin of victory, especially in the so-called Rust Belt states of the upper Midwest where many ethnic Americans live.

"We're making a bigger drive this year than ever before," said Tom Albert, the Democratic Party's director of ethnic outreach. "Our objective is not only to win the ethnic vote in this campaign, but to bring the ethnic vote permanently back to the Democratic Party."

Albert, who was named to his job last November, says his is the first full time staff position created within the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to reach out to Americans of European and Mediterranean descent during a presidential election.

Immigrants have come to America from all over the globe. But during most of the life of the Republic, they came preponderantly from Europe. It is their descendants who are most often referred to as ethnic voters, even though in recent years, large numbers of Asians and Hispanics from Latin America have settled in the United States.

According to the Ethnic Almanac, during the last 150 years, over 80 percent of the more than 60 million people who emigrated to the United States came from just ten countries, most of them European: Germany (14.8 million); Italy (11.1); United Kingdom (10.3); Ireland (10); Austria/Hungary (9.2); Canada (8.6); Russia (7.1); Mexico (4.1); West Indies (3); Sweden (2.7). There also are significant numbers of Albanian, Armenian, Croatian, Greek, Polish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Slovak and Ukrainian-Americans, descendants of immigrants from those countries.

Traditionally, the ethnic vote was mostly Democratic, explained Richard Engstrom, a political science professor at the University of New Orleans in Louisiana and an expert on ethnic voting patterns. Many ethnic voters lived in the large urban areas of the Northeast and the Midwest, worked in manufacturing and belonged to labor unions, key bases for the Democratic Party, he added.

But in the years after World War II, some ethnic voters defected to the Republican Party, especially during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Engstrom noted. "Many of the so-called Reagan Democrats (traditional Democrats who crossed over to the Republican Party to vote for Reagan) were ethnic voters," he said.

"The explanation for the defection is simple," said Edwin Derwinski, chairman of Ethnic-Americans for the GOP, an outreach effort within the Dole campaign -- "the Republicans were tougher on the Soviet Union, and even after the Cold War, the party has advocated a stronger foreign policy and a stronger defense."

Derwinski said that the first major defection of ethnic voters from the Democratic Party occurred even earlier -- "after (Democratic) President Franklin Roosevelt's agreement with Stalin at Yalta, which laid out the terms for the division of Europe after World War II." Many ethnic Americans felt the Democrats were not tough enough with the Communist regimes that took over in their former homelands, he explained.

Dole is making a particular pitch to Hungarian-Americans, Polish-Americans, and Czech-Americans on NATO expansion, Derwinski said. The Republican nominee is a "stronger and more energetic advocate of NATO expansion and his position appeals to Americans of Eastern and Central European descent in general," he added.

But Albert said that Clinton also has made a strong appeal to ethnic voters, "citing his foreign policy successes, including his support for NATO expansion; he is confident of winning the ethnic vote."

"Take his position on Ireland; that has had strong appeal" to 15 million Irish-American voters, Albert said.

"Ethnic voters, who were one of the original bedrock constituencies of the Democratic Party, are coming back; many who voted Republican didn't feel comfortable doing so," Albert noted. "The Republicans may have been seen as tougher on the totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, but now the Cold War has ended and the Republicans no longer have that issue with ethnic voters."

Asked if foreign policy is more important in general to ethnic voters, both Albert and Derwinski said yes, particularly among those groups that still follow events in their ancestral homelands.

In addition to the Midwestern states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan, large numbers of ethnic voters reside in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Florida. Current polls show Clinton ahead in these states, with the exception of Florida, where the race is currently too close to call.

Engstrom said that even in Florida, where Cuban-Americans traditionally vote for the Republican nominee, Dole has not struck as strong a chord with them as former Republican presidents Bush and Reagan.

Nevertheless, the Clinton administration is taking no chances and has given top-level attention to the ethnic vote. Clinton repeatedly has made campaign trips to the states where it is numerous, most of them considered swing states in presidential elections.

Even before the campaign began, the ethnic vote was never far from White House radar screens. Early in 1995, for example, Clinton flew to Cleveland, Ohio -- home to many Czech-Americans especially -- to address a White House conference on trade and investment in Eastern and Central Europe. Earlier this year, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton made a much-publicized trip to Eastern Europe.

Dole and his running mate, Jack Kemp, also have visited ethnic areas frequently, concentrating their attention on cities in the Midwestern Rust Belt region, which the Republican nominee must win to succeed in the general election.

But Dole and Kemp also have visited cities in the Northeast such as heavily Catholic Buffalo, New York -- home to many Polish-Americans. While there Dole strongly criticized Clinton for his position on partial-birth abortion, which many ethnic voters who are Catholics oppose.

Appealing to ethnic voters has a long tradition in American politics, but politicians, especially national leaders, cannot afford to tailor their policies too closely to the interests of particular ethnic groups for fear of offending other groups, or being seen as pandering, said Engstrom.

But all politicians, national and local, are required to pay homage to important ethnic traditions, whether it is showing up for the Pulaski Day Parade, or the wearing of the green on St. Patrick's Day. Both Albert and Derwinski, however, said that Dole and Clinton hope to win the ethnic vote in the 1996 election based on their overall records and policy proposals rather than through tailored appeals to particular ethnic groups.

Whatever the outcome of the election this year, Engstrom said he doubts whether the ethnic vote will ever again be a bloc vote permanently in the hands of any one political party. "It was never a completely bloc vote for the Democratic Party the way, for example, the black vote has been," he said.

"In addition, increasingly it is difficult to distinguish between the concerns of ethnic Americans and Americans in general. There now is much less spatial segregation of ethnics in residential neighborhoods, for example, and also much greater diversity of income and employment," Engstrom said. The major political parties will have to compete aggressively for the ethnic vote in future elections as well, he concluded.

(Previous Campaign Spotlights and The Washington File have carried stories on the Black vote and the Hispanic vote in U.S. elections).

GORE, KEMP DEBATE DOMESTIC, FOREIGN CAMPAIGN ISSUES By Stuart Gorin

When the two men -- friends, but also sharp political rivals -- came face-to-face, the phrase of the evening was "with all due respect."

Vice President Al Gore and his Republican opponent, Jack Kemp, used those words several times as they clashed on such issues as taxes, the economy and foreign policy, but in a gentlemanly way, during the vice presidential debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, October 9.

The debate, as Kemp suggested in the beginning, was one of "civility and respect and integrity and decency." They agreed to put personalities aside during the 90-minute nationally televised debate, but both closely followed the positions that President Clinton and Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole staked out in their own debate earlier in the week.

Gore attacked Dole's economic package as a "risky $550,000 million tax scheme" that would "blow a hole in the deficit." He said the proposal would "knock our economy off track, raising interest rates," and cause deeper cuts in such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment.

In contrast, the vice president said, the Clinton administration has a balanced budget plan that would protect these programs, has targeted tax cuts for middle-income families, and offers tax relief for college students and first-time home buyers.

Defending Dole's 15-percent across-the-board tax cut proposal, Kemp said "every time this country in the 20th century has cut tax rates across the board, revenues went up. The economy grew." He also said the capital gains tax should be eliminated in the inner cities "to put capital to work to make democratic capitalism and jobs available."

Kemp charged that the Democrats were practicing "demagoguery" by trying to scare older Americans with claims that the Republican plan would cause huge Medicare cuts. "It is disgraceful," he said. But Gore insisted that the Democrats would "save" the medical aid program.

On the issue of continuing federal government affirmative action programs that give preference to minorities in hiring, education and housing, Kemp said his life as a former professional football player, member of Congress and housing secretary "has been dedicated to equality of opportunity" but that quotas are against the American ideal, and "affirmative action should be predicated upon need, not equality of reward, not equality of outcome."

"With all due respect," Gore retorted, "I do not believe that Abraham Lincoln would have adopted Bob Dole's position to end all affirmative action." It is, he said, "one of the most important challenges that our country has to face in the future."

Speaking of President Clinton's foreign policy successes, Gore said, "There is great progress toward peace and reconciliation in Bosnia.... We have restored democracy to Haiti, with scarcely a shot being fired. We have seen movement toward reconciliation in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East." He also noted that before the United States launched air strikes on Iraq, "we did, of course, consult with our allies ... but sometimes the United States has to take unilateral action when our interests are at stake."

The vice president added that Clinton "showed bold and dynamic leadership" during the Mexican peso crisis.

"With all due respect to this administration," said Kemp, "they've got a foreign policy in disarray. They have a lack of credibility around the world." Kemp called Clinton's foreign policy "ambivalent, confusing." He said it is "sending strong signals to the wrong people." Concerning Mexico, Kemp said the administration caused the problem by forcing the peso devaluation which caused the economy to drop.

"We should have a foreign policy that's predicated upon trade, on spreading democracy by giving people opportunities to trade freely with us," Kemp added.

Clinton said after the debate that Gore had been "great," and Dole said he was "very proud" of Kemp.

Public opinion surveys taken by several news organizations immediately afterwards indicated that by a two-to-one margin, viewers believed that Gore "won" the debate. A group of school debating coaches who judged the debate for the Associated Press also declared the vice president the winner.

The vice presidential debate seemingly did nothing to help the Republican ticket, which continues to lag behind in the polls, but using a football analogy, the manager of the Dole campaign, Scott Reed, said Kemp's performance "continues to allow us to move the ball down the field."

WHO WILL LEAD HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS NEXT YEAR? By Ralph Dannheisser

Three main factors will determine the identities of the men and women who lead the International Relations Committee and all other committees of the House of Representatives in the new 105th Congress that organizes in January.

First, and from a policy standpoint most important, is the question of which party, the Republican or the Democratic, wins a majority of the 435 House seats up for election on November 5, and thereby gains the right to fill the chairmanships of all committees and subcommittees.

Second is the matter of which individual members will win their election campaigns, and so be available to be selected to those leadership positions.

And third is the issue of which legislators from among those eligible will actually be chosen by their party colleagues to the prized committee and subcommittee chairmanships.

On the first of those considerations -- party control -- the jury is still decidedly out. Congressman Martin Frost of Texas, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, predicts that Democrats will score a net gain of 30 seats -- more than enough to take over the House. Republicans, on the other hand, have insisted that they will maintain and even increase their majority. But their leader, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, has more recently expressed concerns that heavy advertising expenditures by unions could, indeed, produce a Democratic victory.

If the Republicans do remain in control, the committee lineup seems quite predictable: none of their senior members on International Relations face particularly strong challenges for their House seats. If re-elected, those who wish to continue in the same committee posts are likely to be returned to them.

Here is the rundown:

Representative Benjamin Gilman of New York is seen as an odds-on favorite against Democratic Yash Aggarwal. If re-elected, Gilman would almost certainly continue as chairman of the full committee.

Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, chairman of the Asia and the Pacific subcommittee, is favored over the Democratic challenger in his district, Patrick Combs.

In Florida, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the Africa subcommittee, should have little trouble defeating independent Richard Grayson.

In Indiana, Representative Dan Burton, chairman of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, should overcome the effort by both his challengers, Democrat Carrie Dillard-Trammell and Libertarian Fred Peterson.

Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, who heads the International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee, is favored to defeat Democrat Kevin Meara and three minor party candidates.

Only on the International Economic Policy, Trade and Environment subcommittee would a change in leadership be assured even if the Republicans retain control of the House.

That is because Toby Roth of Wisconsin, the former chairman, has retired from Congress. So has Jan Myers, the second ranking member of the panel, who most probably would have been picked to succeed him. The departure of Roth and Myers leaves as the senior Republican member, Representative Donald Manzullo of Illinois, who is expected to win in his re-election race against Democrat Catherine Lee.

And what if the Democrats take over Congress?

That would most likely return to the chairmanship Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who has served in Congress since 1965 and was chairman before the Republicans swept into power in the last election.

But Hamilton faces a strong re-election challenge in his home district from Republican Jean Leising. Hamilton scored only 52 percent of the vote -- his lowest share ever -- when Leising ran against him once before, in 1994. The House veteran is favored this time, due in part to the higher turnout expected in a presidential election year and to the fact that he is taking Leising more seriously, but the outcome is by no means certain in a district that leans Republican in most elections.

Should Hamilton lose even as the Democrats take over the House, that would put Representative Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut next in line for the committee chairmanship.

But Gejdenson is having his own problems in his bid for re-election to his House seat. His real challenge in a four-way race is from Republican Edward Munster, his opponent in 1992 and 1994 as well. In 1994, Gejdenson squeaked through to victory by only 21 votes.

As for selections to head the subcommittees, chairmanships are most frequently -- though certainly not always -- awarded to the senior members on each panel.

Representative Howard Berman of California ranks number one among Democrats on the Asia and the Pacific subcommittee, and could head that panel in the event the Democrats get to lead the House. He is favored in his home state election over Republican Bill Glass and two others.

Representative Gary Ackerman of New York is senior Democrat on the Africa subcommittee. He is favored to retain his congressional position in a three-way race, though a recent redistricting has made his seat just a bit less safe.

With Robert Torricelli of New Jersey having left the House to run for a Senate seat, Representative Robert Menendez of New Jersey should become senior Democrat on the Western Hemisphere panel -- assuming he fends off five challengers for his seat, including Republican Carlos Munoz.

Leadership of the International Economic Policy, Trade and Environment subcommittee raises a question mark in the event of a Democratic takeover as well, given the possible vulnerability of Gejdenson, the subcommittee's senior Democrat.

Right behind the Connecticut legislator in seniority is Matthew Martinez of California, expected to have little difficulty in his own re-election race. He could be in position to assume the subcommittee chairmanship in either of two eventualities if the Democrats take control: if Hamilton is defeated and Gejdenson is picked to chair the full committee, or if Gejdenson himself is defeated for re-election.

A Democratic victory could bring Representative Tom Lantos of California to the chairmanship of the International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee. Lantos is favored to retain his House seat in his race against Republican Storm Jenkins and two others.

There is a caveat: Lantos ranks just behind Hamilton and Gejdenson on the full committee, possibly putting him in line for the chairmanship in the unlikely event of a Democratic takeover coupled with losses by both senior legislators. His possible promotion could, in turn, open the way for Representative Cynthia McKinney of Georgia to head the subcommittee -- if she herself wins a tough race in her newly redrawn district.

OFFICIALS OF BOTH PARTIES OPTIMISTIC ON SENATE RACES By David Rabinowe

A clash of political philosophies was on display at a recent briefing at the National Press Club, when Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Director Steve Jarding faced off against Gordon Hensley, director of the Republican Senatorial Committee, and Jo Anne Barnhart of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The discussion was sponsored by the Regional Reporters Association and moderated by Ellyn Ferguson, president of the association.

Each side was allocated time to discuss why their political party was the voters' choice in each senatorial race, followed by panel members playing sample television advertising from selected Senate races, and then fielding questions.

In the Republican opening, Jo Anne Barnhart portrayed a very optimistic outlook for her party. She noted the sizable monetary advantage that the Republican Party enjoys because of its fund-raising abilities. She also questioned whether the Democrats would be able to stop the "hemorrhaging in the Deep South." She felt that all of the Republican incumbents were in position to win.

The Republican contingent was so confident of not only holding a majority, but reaching their goal of 60 seats, which could break any filibuster, that Democrat Steve Jarding quipped, "the way they tell it, we might as well all go home."

Jarding spent his opening remarks explaining why he felt the Democrats would be able to take back control of the Senate. He did admit that in his view the smart play is to "hedge your bet" because "anyone can win." According to polls, 14 Senate races are within 5 points or less and another 10 races have a margin between 5 and 10 points. In Jarding's view, these races are too close to call.

The differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties came through in the panelists' analysis of why their particular party was in a better position to win. The most glaring contrast came in the views of what issues ultimately would be key to this campaign season.

Jarding asserted that such traditional Democratic "bread and butter" issues as Medicare, Medicaid, health care, education and the environment were the key to winning the election.

Hensley and Barnhart countered with lower taxes, a balanced budget amendment, transforming welfare to workfare, and a plan to combat violent crime as the key issues.

Both sides downplayed the role of negative advertising during this campaign by arguing that attacks on opponents' public records were justified, and should not necessarily be construed as negative.

Both Republican advocates felt that the question of a "gender gap" and its effect on the election was overplayed. The two Republicans came to this conclusion by evaluating the gender gap's effect on a state-by-state basis rather than nationally. They believe its effect will differ depending on the state and particular race. Further, they likened the Democratic strategy to "the same failed liberal rationale that the Democrats centered their campaigns on in 1994, a rationale of fear, fiction and fantasy."

For his part, Jarding sees the gender gap playing a major role in the 1996 elections across the board, because of the differences in the issues of prominence in the campaigns.

All three participants believed the environment would be an issue, but that its role would be more important in Western and coastal states than across the rest of the country.

POLITICAL CAMPAIGN INDUSTRY GROWING RAPIDLY, FAUCHEUX SAYS By David Rabinowe

"The political campaign industry is a $8,000 million-a-year industry that is seeing rapid growth," says Ron Faucheux, publisher and editor of Campaigns and Elections Magazine.

This influx of money has led the industry to become more specialized and professional, he said at a recent briefing at the Washington Center, a non-profit educational organization. He gave as examples pollsters, who must be experts in writing questions and analyzing data; and direct mailers, who must be conversant in database management and postal laws.

On the average, Faucheux said, candidates for the House of Representatives must raise between $500,000 and $1 million to run a successful campaign. He said that Senate candidates must raise between $3 and $5 million, if they are from a small state, and between $10 and $15 million if they are running in a larger state.

Faucheux pointed out, however, that large sums of money did not always lead to victory. The most notable example, he said, was Michael Huffington, who spent $29 million two years ago in an unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate from California.

Faucheux said the main reason for the drastic change in the amount of funding necessary for a successful campaign is that it "takes money to reach people enmasse." Historically, candidates did not have the technological means to reach the large audiences that television and other mass media now give the venue, but at an expensive price to the campaigns.

Commenting on the 1996 presidential race, Faucheux said Republican nominee Bob Dole has three major problems in his campaign: his alignment with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, his long congressional record, and his age. Newt Gingrich has been portrayed as a activist and radical, Faucheux said, which does not help Dole with swing voters. Faucheux added that Dole's long record creates the perception of inconsistencies on issues, and his age is a factor because of a pronounced generational gap with a majority of the electorate.

Faucheux predicted that President Clinton will be re-elected, not necessarily because the people want him, but rather because they do not want his opponent. Faucheux asserted that the electorate does not trust candidates when they make campaign promises. The candidates themselves are aware of this, he said, and therefore do not feel obligated to fulfill their promises. This cycle has led to increased cynicism toward national politics on the part of the electorate, Faucheux added.

FEC LISTS 20 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

President Clinton, Bob Dole and Ross Perot may be the only ones receiving much national publicity, but the Federal Election Commission lists 20 people who will be on at least one state ballot running for the presidency in 1996.

Even this list was pared down from the 270 who originally filed an application with the FEC to run. Included in the larger number were Republican challengers to Dole who subsequently dropped out the race and many other smaller party candidates or independents who did not subsequently qualify for any state ballot.

Following is the list of those who did:

John Birrenbach Independent Grassroots Party On 1 state ballot -- Minnesota

Harry Browne Libertarian Party On all 50 state ballots plus the District of Columbia, however listing in Ohio and Tennessee is as an Independent

Bill Clinton Democratic Party On all 50 state ballots plus the District of Columbia, however listing in Minnesota is for Democratic-Farm-Labor Party and listing for New York includes additional line for Democratic/Liberal Party

Charles Collins Independent On 5 state ballots -- Arkansas, Colorado, Mississippi, Tennessee and Washington State

A. Peter Crane Independent On 1 state ballot -- Utah

Earl Dodge On 4 state ballots, representing the Prohibition Party in Arkansas and Utah; the Colorado Prohibition Party in Colorado, and as an Independent in Tennessee

Robert Dole Republican Party On all 50 state ballots plus the District of Columbia, however listing in New York includes additional lines for the Conservative Party plus the Freedom Party

Marsha Feinland Peace and Freedom Party On 1 state ballot -- California

John Hagelin Natural Law Party On 44 state ballots, 4 of them as an Independent

James Harris Socialist Workers Party On 11 state ballots, 1 of them as an Independent

Mary Cal Hollis Socialist Party On 5 state ballots, 1 of them as an Independent

Steve Michael Independent On 1 state ballot -- Tennessee

Jerry Milton Independent On 1 state ballot -- Florida

Monica Moorehead Workers World Party On 12 state ballots, 1 of them as an Independent

Ralph Nader Green Party on 22 state ballots, including 3 as an Independent and 5 representing other parties, such as the Liberty, Ecology and Community Party in Louisiana and the Pacific Party in Oregon

Dennis Peron Grassroots Party On 2 state ballots -- Minnesota and Vermont

Ross Perot Reform Party On all 50 state ballots plus the District of Columbia, however listing in 7 states is as an Independent

Howard Phillips U.S. Taxpayers Party On 39 state ballots, however listings include other parties, such as American Independent Party in California, Concerned Citizens Party in Connecticut, American Constitution Party in Colorado, and in 7 states as an Independent

Diane Beall Templin American Party and Independent American Party On 2 state ballots respectively -- Colorado and Utah

Jerome White Socialist Equality Party On 3 state ballots -- Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey

CAMPAIGN TRAIL TIDBITS

-- Clinton: The House Judiciary Committee has begun investigating whether federal laws have been violated by a series of large contributions to the Clinton campaign from people associated with wealthy foreign nationals, including $425,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from members of the Riady family, which controls the Lippo Group, a financial and real estate conglomerate based in Indonesia and Hong Kong. The group has large holdings in the United States. The White House describes the family as "longtime supporters of the president" and says there has been nothing improper and the Riadys have received no favors from the administration. Last month, the DNC had to return a $250,000 contribution from a South Korean business obtained by a man who once headed the Riady family's American business interests.

-- Dole: On the eve of the final presidential debate, Republican Bob Dole went on the offensive, accusing President Clinton of presiding over an administration that has abused power, broken laws and deceived the public. In campaign appearances in New Mexico and California, Dole acquiesced to Republican demands that he blast the president on the character issue -- something he originally refused to do. The Dole campaign also released a list of 30 administration officials who have resigned because of misconduct, have been convicted of felonies or have become targets of independent counsel investigations. Clinton is trying to ignore Dole's attacks personally; his aides are portraying them as the work of a desperate Republican campaign, and predicting they will fail.

-- Demographic trends: Demographics -- or data on a population's size, growth, density and distribution -- provide the "people dimension" of political issues in the United States, says Carol DeVita, an official at the Population Reference Bureau. Briefing journalists recently at the U.S. Information Agency's Foreign Press Center, she said the five major demographic trends "that will influence politics for many years to come" are "an aging population, increasing ethnic diversity, migration to the sunbelt and the suburbs, changing family patterns and greater income disparity." Focusing specifically on the area of elections, DeVita said, "These trends are important because they represent the changing influence that various interests will have on the shape of public policy."

Politics in Sports and Pets: In an effort to determine who sports fans want to win the presidency, ESPN, America's total Sports Network, has developed a political poll of avid fans, categorized by the four major sports -- Baseball, Football, Basketball and Hockey. Their figures show that President Clinton leads Bob Dole in all sports. For pet lovers, will this election go to the cat or dog? Both Socks the cat, the nation's first pet, and Leader Dole, Bob Dole's pet Schnauzer, have web pages. There is even a place to vote for your choice of first pet. Currently, Leader Dole leads the incumbent, Socks, 51 to 48 percent.

JOURNALISTIC JUXTAPOSITIONS

-- Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas: "Vice President Al Gore got an early pardon from Jack Kemp, and the Republicans' biggest issue -- character -- was taken off the table at the start of their debate last Wednesday.... In debating Mr. Gore with one hand tied behind his back, Jack Kemp fought a draw. Like Mr. Dole in Debate 1, he needed a knockout -- but didn't get it. Character is the Republican ticket's possible knockout punch -- but maybe nobody cares."

-- Baltimore Sun columnists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover: "No one who knows Jack Kemp was surprised by his Johnny-one-note focus on the tax issue during his debate with Vice President Al Gore. His remedy for a head cold is supply-side economics to expand the economy. In this case, however, Mr. Kemp's single-minded concentration was revealing in quite a different way. It showed that the Republicans really don't have any conventional issues they can use effectively against President Clinton."

-- Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory: "Rhetorically, Kemp bounced around, dashing down side streets and taking long detours. When asked about Haiti, he rambled off into a discussion about Mexico. When asked about affirmative action, he talked about the economy.... Nobody denied that Gore was infinitely better prepared than Kemp."

-- St. Petersburg Times writer Howard Troxler: "Call Wednesday night's debate between Al Gore and Jack Kemp a successful draw when it came to style and appearance. It was a high-minded performance, without rancor or misstep, by two men who genuinely seemed motivated by making things better. But Kemp was hard-pressed when he got into fact-fights and specifics with the vice president. He left with his reputation as an idea-driven optimist intact, but he hardly lived up to his billing as a Democrat-slayer and supposedly his party's best hope for the future."

-- Syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington: "Kemp brought passion to the debate but no moral urgency. Would it really have been uncivil to point out to the vice president, who was oozing self-satisfaction, that the middle-class families -- which seem to be his only preoccupation -- cannot insulate themselves from the violence and the social breakdown in our urban communities?"

-- Syndicated columnist George Will: "Wednesday night Kemp often seemed as unprepared as a man who overestimates his capacities is apt to be, and his performance further drained competitiveness from the 1996 race. However, it guaranteed fierce competition for the Republican nomination four years hence. The Kemp-Gore seminar was billed as a preview of October 2000."

Newsletter Editor: Stuart Gorin, I/TDHR Fax: (202) 619-6520 E-Mail: Gorin@USIA.Gov

NNNN

15