The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, going into the last weekend of the Presidential campaign, Vice President Bush talked of a financial mess in Massachusetts, Gov. Dukakis of closing in on Bush in the polls, and the nation's unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent in October. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the News Summary, we end our week with a look at the last week of the Presidential campaign. We'll hear both Bush and Dukakis on the stump, then we have reports from Correspondents Judy Woodruff and Elizabeth Brackett on what's going on around the stump, and finally our regulars, David Gergen and Mark Shields, weigh in. Then two experts tell us about the virus that struck thousands of computers around the country. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: This was the last Friday of the 1988 campaign for President. Vice President Bush spent it in Connecticut, Ohio, and Michigan, Gov. Dukakis in New York, Kentucky, and Illinois. In New York City, Dukakis said Bush was slipping in the polls while he was surging. He also mocked the Vice President for his recent use of populous themes.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Candidate: Yesterday, if you can believe this, Mr. Bush took a furlough from the truth by saying that he was on the side of working American families. Can you believe that? Four days before the election, after all the slogans and the symbols and the advertising, four days before the election, he tells you that he's on your side? Who's he kidding?

MR. LEHRER: The subject for Vice President Bush was the financial problems of Gov. Dukakis's State of Massachusetts. He spoke of them at a rally in Fairfield, Connecticut, where he displayed a recent copy of the Boston Herald Newspaper.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Candidate: There it is. "What a mess!" "Bank overdraft, bank overdraft, 373,000 in interest, an overdraft," and that's what's happening in what used to be called the Massachusetts miracle. Regrettably it turns out to be a mirage.

MR. LEHRER: There was good economic news today for voters to ponder. The unemployment rate for October was reported by the Labor Department to be 5.3 percent. It was 5.4 in September. The last time the rate was 5.3 was in June and before that, in May 1974. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Soviet Union said today it is temporarily suspending its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. We have a report from Roderick Pratt of Worldwide Television News.

RODERICK PRATT: Complying with the United Nations agreement negotiated last year, the Soviet Union had begun withdrawing its 115,000 troops from Afghanistan. By late September this year, its military backing of the Afghan Government against U.S.-armed rebels in the nine year old battle had been effectively halved. Phase 2 has now been put on ice. The Soviets want Pakistan and the United States to stop arming the Mujahadeen rebels. The guerrillas have gained strength since withdrawal began with the capture of several strongholds like Bericot, key to their arms supplied from Pakistan. Russia claims it must now keep soldiers in Afghanistan to counter the strong attacks. The decision comes hot on the heels of the introduction by Moscow of SS-1 Scud Missiles. Already one Mujahadeen base has become a target. Now more could come under fire.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Reagan today expressed disappointment over the Soviet announcement, but said it was important to note that Moscow has pledged to withdraw its troops by February 15th.

MR. LEHRER: British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher met with Lech Walesa today. It happened at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, where they laid a wreath to honor dead labor heroes. We have a report from Ian Glover James of Independent Television News.

IAN GLOVER JAMES: A thunderous welcome for Mrs. Thatcher in Gdansk, the Solidarity stronghold where she abandoned her official program and paid tribute to another face of Poland. With Solidarity Leader Lech Walesa at her side, Mrs. Thatcher heard the cries of Poles who fought for freedom but suffered suppression. It was here at years ago that Walesa led them on the strike which started Solidarity. Mrs. Thatcher laid a wreath at the Solidarity monument to workers shot by police in the 1970 food riots. Mrs. Thatcher had left government leaders outside the city and came here alone to meet Lech Walesa. And the people of Gdansk responded with their own message of defiance, slipping through heavily policed streets to turn out and shout for Mrs. Thatcher and Solidarity.

MR. LEHRER: Before she left Poland, Mrs. Thatcher held a news conference in Warsaw. She said Britain would help Poland reduce its foreign debt only if the government instituted economic and political reforms such as recognition of Solidarity. In this country, President Reagan today signed legislation making the United States a party to an international anti-genocide treaty. Mr. Reagan signed the bill at O'Hare Airport in Chicago, where he went today for a political campaign appearance. The measure passed Congress two weeks ago, where it had been pending since 1949.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Researchers have begun trying to track down a virus that infected thousands of computer systems around the country. In what experts are calling the largest assault ever, the virus slowed machines in universities, a NASA and nuclear weapons lab and other federal research centers linked by a Defense Department computer network. However, no work was destroyed. The virus is a computer program surreptitiously introduced into the networks of electronic machines. The New York Times reported today that a computer science student had apparently planted the virus on Wednesday, but hadn't anticipated the widespread consequences.

MR. LEHRER: Eastern Airlines said today it will go to court to contest a $1 million drug fine. U.S. Customs imposed the fine yesterday after finding 68 pounds of cocaine in Miami aboard an Eastern flight from Colombia. The cocaine was hidden in a box of ground coffee. Last week, Customs agents imposed an $896,000 fine when 46 pounds of cocaine were found on another Eastern flight. In that case, the government made the airline post the fine money to retain possession of the plane. That was not done in the second incident yesterday.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: An update on the failed coup attempt in the Maldives, that nation of small islands near Indiana. Several hundred mercenaries tried to overthrow the government yesterday, attacking the Presidential Palace and army headquarters. The Maldives asked India for help and it sent in paratroopers who put down the attempted coup. At least 12 people were reported killed in the battle. Some of the mercenaries escaped by boat earlier today, taking 20 hostages with them, but they are now reported to be surrounded by Indian Navy ships.

MR. LEHRER: There was more word from the Lebanon hostage takers today. A statement from the pro Iranian Islamic Jehad was delivered to a Western news agency. It accused the United States of delaying the release of U.S. hostages by reneging on pledges and promises. It was accompanied by a photograph of hostage Terry Anderson, the Associated Press Beirut Bureau Chief who has been a captive since March 1985. The photograph showed him about to cut a birthday cake. He was 41 years old October 27th.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's it for the News Summary. Still to come, the final week of the campaign, on the stump, reports from around the stump, and analysts about the stump. Then the computer virus. SERIES - '88 - ON THE STUMP

MR. LEHRER: This is the beginning of the last weekend in the race for President of the United States. We mark it with a look at what the candidates are saying and doing and why, plus some Gergen & Shields analysis. First, what Gov. Dukakis and Vice President Bush had to say today. We chose a Dukakis appearance in Queens, New York, where he spoke of negative campaign tactics among other things.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Candidate: You know, the Republicans have conducted one of the most cynical and one of the most distorted campaigns in history. Why? Why? They want the American people to forget that they have stolen from our children in running up some of the biggest deficits in history. They've stolen from our future by trashing our environment. They've even tried to steal our heroes. I was out at Independence, Missouri, the hometown of Harry Truman. You know, there were Republicans seriously suggesting that if Harry Truman were alive today, he'd be voting for Bush and Quayle. Can you believe that? [Outcry from Crowd]

GOV. DUKAKIS: Listen to what Mr. Bush had to say three days ago. He said, and this is the guy who's supposed to be running the war against drugs for the past eight years, he said, we've got to have rehabilitation, law enforcement, education, and interdiction, and we haven't really done that yet. Where's he been for the past eight years? You know, the other day Mr. Bush said that he would not cut off American aid to nations that refused to cooperate with us in a war against drugs, said there are foreign policy considerations that might interfere with that. Kind of sounds like Noriega again to me. Doesn't it to you? Says he doesn't want to make waves. I say there's nothing more important than stopping this tidal wave of drugs that's coming into this country and poisoning our kids. Of course, we're going to work with foreign leaders, of course, we'll work with foreign nations, and if they help us, we'll help them. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let them send that stuff into this country and poison our kids and destroy our neighborhoods. And that, and that is a fundamental difference between Mike Dukakis and George Bush, and don't you forget it, a fundamental difference. And if any drug kingpin thinks that they can do to Mike Dukakis what Noriega did to George Bush, if you think I'm going to risk the lives of our children by putting Dan Quayle in charge of the war against drugs, then people are going to be for a very big surprise on January 20, 1989. Lloyd Bentsen and I are going to work with you to take back our streets and neighborhoods from the crack gains and the drug dealers. We're going to take back our government from the influence peddlers and the sleaze merchants. We're going to take back America from dishonest contractors and polluters, and we're going to have an administration in Washington that stands for clean air and clean water and a clean government in Washington, D.C.

MR. LEHRER: Vice President Bush went next door to Dukakis's home State of Massachusetts to highlight some news that happened at a rally at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Candidate: The Governor says that he wants to do for the federal government what he has done for Massachusetts. And here is a headline from a Boston, Massachusetts, paper two days ago. And here's what it says. "What a mess!" [Crowd Cheering]

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: There it is. "What a mess!" "Bank overdraft -- bank overdraft, 373,000 in interest," an overdraft, and that's what's happening in what used to be called the Massachusetts miracle. Regrettably, it turns out to be a mirage. [Crowd Cheering]

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: You might say, how did that get into the mess, and it does have relevance for the American people and for the federal government, got into it by overspending. How did he get out of it, or try to? By raising taxes, a total of 180 million this year alone. But he hasn't been able to raise them fast enough and now he's borrowing like mad, writing checks that he doesn't even have enough money in the bank to cover. So in any event, that's enough about Massachusetts today. As we move into this four days before this election, what it boils down to is this. I am the one who represents the mainstream views of family, fate, neighborhood. These are American values and I stand with you and he is out in deep left field. [Crowd Cheering]

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: And what I am asking for the people of this great country to give me on November 8th, is not just a political victory but a mandate for the mainstream values of America. [Crowd Cheering]

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: And let me be clear -- let me be clear about what that means. You see, I do believe that a President's foremost responsibility is the defense and the national security of this great country. And if you give me, if you give me your vote Tuesday, you're giving me a mandate for realism, and seeing the world as it is, I don't think this is any time to gamble on total inexperience in foreign affairs. We're facing a changed world. We're in a changing world, there's change in the Soviet Union, and in Eastern Europe, and all around the Pacific Rim. And if we keep this country strong and negotiate from strength, I believe we have a great opportunity to say to the kids at this great university, you have a chance to grow up in a world freer of nuclear weapons and less concerned about war and more able to help your fellow man.

MR. LEHRER: We will end our stump speeches series Monday night, obviously, with another set of Bush and Dukakis appearances. Charlayne. '88 - ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now to how the candidates are doing. First is a report about what it's been like on the campaign trail by Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett, who spent the week with Michael Dukakis.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: There was a different Michael Dukakis on the campaign trail this last week of the campaign, a comfortable candidate reaching out to his supporters, a warmer, more relaxed candidate, clearly enjoying a free birthday celebration at a huge Milwaukee, Wisconsin, rally. There was a tougher candidate too - - in California, lashing out at Dan Quayle for his reported position on abortion.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Candidate: Dan Quayle last week told a 12 year old girl that even if she were raped by her father and became pregnant, the government had a right to force her to bear that child.

MS. BRACKETT: And Dukakis went after George Bush, trying to portray his opponent as a candidate of the wealthy.

GOV. DUKAKIS: He wants to help the people on easy street. We want to help the people on Main Street. That's what we're doing -- because Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen are on your side and on the side of average Americans all across this country. [Crowd Cheering]

MS. BRACKETT: His supporters say this is the candidate they have been waiting for.

IRV MALEC: He's hittin' back hard, and a lot of us wished he would have done it earlier and -- but that's it, he's hitting back on the distortions and the inaccuracies that have been laid out. And that's what's good.

DARRYL HOLTER: When Michael Dukakis started raising the important issues that working people and men and women that work for a living and get out and struggle every day are really thinking about -- and I think the campaign turned when he began to fight back and to take that message out to the people.

MS. BRACKETT: Reporters who have covered Michael Dukakis for the last year were amazed at the sudden change.

TOM OLIPHANT, Boston Globe: The difference is as between night and day, and the difference is so stunning to me that rather than focus sometimes on how excellent a campaigner he's been in the last week or so, it is hard not to just scratch your head and wonder what prevented this for long from happening. I thinkI understand, but it is an astonishing transformation in a short period of time.

MS. BRACKETT: Part of it was that the message was better coordinated. When Republicans called Dukakis soft on crime because of his Massachusetts furlough program, he fought back from the stump and with this tough new commercial.

DUKAKIS CAMPAIGN AD: Bush won't talk about this drug pusher, one of his furloughed heroine dealers who raped and murdered Patsie Pedrin, pregnant mother of two.

MS. BRACKETT: The message was also more clearly aimed at those who have formed a base of the traditional Democratic vote.

GOV. DUKAKIS: There's a fundamental difference between George Bush and me. He wants to help the people that already have it made. I want to help every American family make it in this country.

MS. BRACKETT: Again, a new round of commercials bolstered the message.

DUKAKIS TV COMMERCIAL:

GOV. DUKAKIS: I want to give every American a chance to build a better life. That's what being President is all about. [On Screen: MIKE DUKAKIS On Your Side.]

MS. BRACKETT: But the question continued to be asked, if this is such a good message, why did it take so long to develop. Top Dukakis Adviser Kirk O'Donnell.

KIRK O'DONNELL, Dukakis Adviser: It's probably a good question in that sense. I think the "on your side" message, it was probably first developed in Pennsylvania, or at a rally in Greensburgh, Pennsylvania, when he took on Vice President for wanting to do a great deal for the well-to-do with a major capital gains tax cut and not much for the rest of America, and we probably should have sustained that with greater strength following that Pennsylvania rally.

MS. BRACKETT: After settling on the "we're on your side" theme, even this week Dukakis did deviate. At the beginning of the week, he was suddenly calling himself a liberal, something he had avoided for most of the campaign. Some of his supporters were pleased, but he immediately took a beating from Bush and the press.

SAM DONALDSON: Bush says he's delighted you've now admitted you're a liberal and the debate ought to be between you and you.

MS. BRACKETT: Even some of his most well known liberal supporters wondered what was going on.

TOM HAYDEN, [D] California Assemblyman: Liberalism is 35 to 40 percent, 45 percent at best in a national election. You have to prove to people that you are a reformed liberal, that you know that --

MS. BRACKETT: Do you know something about that?

TOM HAYDEN: -- that liberalism is too expensive for the middle class.

MS. BRACKETT: Liberal was not heard from Dukakis's lips after Monday.

REPORTER: Governor, is there any reason you didn't use the word "liberal" today after using it all day --

MS. BRACKETT: But he did continue with the "we're on your side" theme. Top Adviser Paul Brountas said the message worked, because it was being delivered in a different way.

PAUL BROUNTAS, Dukakis Campaign Chairman: The biggest difference is Michael Dukakis taking his case directly to the people, letting the American voters see him not through the filter of a 30 second sound bite or somebody else's ad. I think the personal interviews that he has done, that he is now doing, the town meetings, are great forums for Mike Dukakis.

CNN INSIDE POLITICS DUKAKIS INTERVIEW SEGMENT:

BERNARD SHAW: Is being behind a kick in the butt?

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS: It's not a kick in the butt. It's a renewed commitment.

MacNeil/LEHRER NEWSHOUR DUKAKIS INTERVIEW SEGMENT:

ROBERT MacNeil: Can you still win this election?

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS: Yes, and as a matter of fact --

MS. BRACKETT: Dukakis did agree to extensive interviews on major news shows and the town meeting format was used throughout the week.

VOTER: How do you feel about Social Security, what are your future plans for it, and do you believe sincerely in Social Security?

MS. BRACKETT: Voters we talked to liked the unfiltered approach.

ROBERT LEE, Voter: I'm really tired of getting analysis from reporters on TV and I wanted to hear the candidates speak for themselves. And that's what he's done the last week, which has helped.

MS. BRACKETT: So as the candidate dashed from one critical battleground state to another with his sharper message and feisty new attack, reporters began talking of a surge.

BILL WHITTAKER, CBS News: There's definitely been a surge within the campaign. The candidate's message has gotten sharper, his delivery has gotten much better. The enthusiasm and size of the crowds have grown.

VOTER IN CROWD: [Talking to Dukakis] We're going to give you, Pennsylvania, Governor. We're going to give you Pennsylvania.

MS. BRACKETT: But despite the crowds, despite the enthusiasm, despite the new, feistier candidate, the campaign still could not move the national polls. By mid-week, the talk of the surge had begun to fade. The first blow came on Monday, when NBC gave Dukakis only four solid states. On Tuesday, CBS had him down by 12 points. Campaign advisers began spinning hard, talking about the importance of state polls, not national polls.

KIRK O'DONNELL Dukakis Adviser: We're in a situation where Pennsylvania's even, Michigan's even. This preoccupation with national polls as opposed to what's happening with people in the states is rather remarkable, as far as I'm concerned.

MS. BRACKETT: The candidate's energy kept spirits up, particularly for those working in the key states.

DON SWEITZER, Dukakis Campaign: I ran Fritz Mondale's campaign here in Ohio four years ago and at this time in the campaign, we knew it was over. We were going through the motions, nowhere near the same feeling here. This thing is, this thing is extremely doable in a real scrappy state, which is what this is.

MS. BRACKETT: But even if Dukakis wins all of the 10 battleground states he campaigned in this week, he would come up short, though Dukakis continues to push it to the limit and he won't quit until a final 3:30 AM Tuesday morning rally in Iowa. Then it's home to Boston to learn if the Michael Dukakis of the last week was enough.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now to Judy Woodruff's report. She spent this final week with George Bush.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Candidate: I will be an activist President. I want this job because I want to do things.

JUDY WOODRUFF: With only days to go before November 8th, and with his own poll showing victory well within his grasp, George Bush shed any reluctance to sound overconfident this week. It showed in his paid advertising and it showed out on the stump, where Bush began to talk in a general way about what he'd do once elected.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: I am prepared to meet with General Secretary Gorbachev at the earliest time that would serve the interests of world peace.

BUSH CAMPAIGN AD: Somebody is going to have to find out if Gorbachev is for real. Somebody is going to have to deal with him and look him in the eye and not blink.

MS. WOODRUFF: But even as he injected a rare forward looking note into what has been an extraordinarily negative campaign, Bush simultaneously continued to hammer away at the differences between himself and Michael Dukakis.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: This referendum, this national election, is a clear a choice as this country has ever had and I call it the great divide. It is the difference between me and my opponent on the great issues of the day. He is over here, way out on this lefthand side of the political spectrum and I am here, right in the mainstream, with you, the American people.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Vice President tried, as he has throughout the campaign, to portray Dukakis as a risky choice, and too far to the left to be acceptable to the American public.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: My opponent has opposed almost every defense system we've had for 10 years and now he's trying to correct all that by riding around in a tank for 10 minutes, and the American people aren't going to believe that.

MS. WOODRUFF: This dual strategy of not letting up on the attacks on Dukakis, while belatedly saying a few words about what Bush might do as President, is being played out primarily in one section of the country, the industrial Midwest. With polls showing most of the West and the electoral vote rich states of Texas and the rest of the South considered safely in the Republican column, Bush strategists calculate the only hope Dukakis has is a tricky scenario that includes sweeping the populous states of Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio. The Bush people say they are ahead even in those states, but just to take no chances, they have scheduled Bush to ignore most of the rest of the country and make almost one stop a day in each of these states in the waning hours of the campaign.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm glad to be back in Grand Rapids. It seems like I just left.

MS. WOODRUFF: During the three days we spent on the Bush campaign, there was a succession of carefully orchestrated rallies in seven different cities, many staged at suburban high schools, with an abundance of bands, balloons, and loud voices. For the most part, Bush's events, indeed, his entire campaign since the convention has seemed a textbook case in how to run for President. Reporters who follow Bush have been kept at a distance, rarely able even to see the candidate up close, much less ask questions. Even so, most of them give Bush's managers credit for maximizing their resources. The Los Angeles Times John Balzar.

JOHN BALZAR, Los Angeles Times: They have gone through polling data. They have gone through what works in focus groups. They have watched George Bush for nine and ten and twelve years on the stump and they know what he can do, and from that, they kind of extract, they distill out of that the best of it, and then they just stick with it and they repeat it over and over and over again.

MS. WOODRUFF: CBS's Bob Schieffer says the Bush strategists left nothing to chance when they mapped out the negative strategy that has come to dominate the campaign.

BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS News: Back during the summer, Lee Atwater and some of the other strategists on the Bush team went up to New Jersey and put together focus groups, they went into one focus group where I think there were thirty, if memory serves, who said they were for Michael Dukakis. They had researchers ask them questions about the Massachusetts furlough program, about the death penalty, about things like that. At the end of that session, it seems to me half the people then said they were for Bush. What they saw was a very volatile election, electorate out there, and they saw some techniques that could be used to sway them. And I think they feel very good about their techniques. I think they think they found a game plan and that it worked.

MS. WOODRUFF: Neither Schieffer nor Balzar sees any evidence the Bush managers feel any regrets about a campaign some have criticized for distortion and demagoguery.

JOHN BALZAR, Los Angeles Times: I think they're ecstatic. I think that they're proud of themselves, to take a guy from 17 points behind, who had the worst negatives of any candidate in modern history, worse negatives than Jesse Jackson, and now made him an invincible, can't lose kind of guy. They're ecstatic.

BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS News: Campaign managers don't take these jobs because they think it's their responsibility to educate America. They're being paid to win and that's what these people did. They're professionals, they're hired gunslingers, and I think that they feel that they've done their job.

CRAIG FULLER: I'm very proud of the candidate and I'm very proud of the campaign.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bush's Chief of Staff, Craig Fuller, says the unrelenting criticism of Dukakis was a strategic necessity.

CRAIG FULLER, Bush Campaign: I think we stood back and looked coming out of the California Primary and decided that we had an opponent who because of his contest before his convention was looked at or viewed as much more moderate than his record really suggested he was, and we looked at it tactically and said, our opponent cannot be allowed to run as a moderate; his record is something else.

MS. WOODRUFF: At the same time, Fuller insists the campaign has balanced the negative emphasis with a positive message as well. He says it's unfortunate that polls show ore than half the American public thinks Bush has run a mostly negative campaign.

CRAIG FULLER: We give the American people a lot of credit. I think they can sift and sort what they see on television, read in their newspapers or in their magazines, local news and national news, and we're pretty satisfied that our message, our positive message, got across.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Bush campaign might not be so satisfied, however, if they listen to the group of voters we talked to in Lansing, Michigan, this week. After the Vice President had made a brief stop in town to attend a rally at a Catholic high school here, we assembled a group of six Lansing residents, half of them leaning toward Bush, the other half toward Dukakis. The one thing they all seemed to agree on is that the campaign has not been very positive.

GERI SANBORNE, Bush Supporter: Negative, a lot of negative. You spend a lot of time deciphering what is the truth and what isn't. You listen to one and the other tells you that they're lying.

MELVIN SPARKS, Dukakis Supporter: I don't believe any of the candidates right now have really articulated really the real concerns that this country is facing right now.

MS. WOODRUFF: Two of the three who said they plan to vote for Dukakis said they earlier considered Bush, but both rejected him for the same reason, Dan Quayle.

JEAN TUBBS, Dukakis Supporter: If he could guarantee that he was going to live for the next four to eight years without a doubt, but the fact is he can't guarantee that, and what would we do, what will do if Sen. Quayle became President?

MS. WOODRUFF: Almost as troubling to Bush may be the refusal of even his supporters in this group to buy his characterization of Dukakis as a far left liberal, while Bush says he represents the broad mainstream.

PHIL BOOTH, Bush Supporter: I just don't believe that Dukakis is as liberal as Bush portrays him to be.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bush talks about this great divide, division between him and Dukakis, as if there were very distinct differences between them.

STEVE KINTZ, Bush Supporter: More electioneering I think than anything else.

MS. WOODRUFF: High school coach and history teacher, Phil Booth, who says he'll probably vote for Bush, reflected the ambiguity in most of these voters' minds.

PHIL BOOTH, Bush Supporter: I think what we need is a person with a Democratic heart and a Republican brain.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean by that?

PHIL BOOTH: It's got to be somebody that can function fiscally and do things and take some fiscal responsibility instead of giving money away, but I realize there are areas that some of those things have got to be done.

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally, there was the little matter of raising taxes, something Bush has pledged repeated he would not do. again, even his supporters were skeptical.

STEVE KINTZ, Bush Supporter: I look for the tax rates to be raised, if we're going to embark on a whole new range of social programs.

MS. WOODRUFF: The federal tax rates?

STEVE KINTZ: Surely.

MS. WOODRUFF: Even though George Bush has said, "No new taxes, read my lips, and no new" --

STEVE KINTZ: No new taxes doesn't mean that the existing structure can't be modified to produce more revenue.

PHIL BOOTH: I just kind of take the fact that there's going to be no taxes in an election as rhetoric. I mean, that's like saying, the city official saying we're going to build you this, we're going to build you that, we're going to build you this, and we're not going to tax you, and somebody being goofy enough to believe that that's going to happen.

MS. WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, George Bush continues out on the campaign trail to try to build up as large a lead as possible. His managers hope to take the edge off criticisms that his largely negative campaign could make him a President with no mandate, no clear marching orders from the voters.

MR. LEHRER: If it's Friday, then it must be time for Gergen & Shields. Indeed, it is. Our regular analysis team is here. David Gergen is Editor at Large of U.S. News & World Report. Mark Shields is a Syndicated Columnist for the Washington Post. Could George Bush win with no mandate?

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: Absolutely. He is. The Bush people say, and I think they have a point, that Bush has stood for certain values, that he has stood for lower taxes, he has stood against crime, he's going to be tough on crime, he's for education, he's for cleaning up the environment, but that's not a mandate in the traditional sense. Traditionally when we talk about a mandate in this country, we mean what is it a President is going to try to do, what are the initiatives he's going to try to undertake when he gets into office? And the Bush people have been very opaque on that question, so much so that there's a lot of talk now in the Bush campaign that if he wins that during the transition period, he might give some speeches laying out more completely before he is inaugurated, a real break from tradition, laying out what he wants to do as President.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mark, isn't it legitimate for George Bush to say, I have a mandate for a certain set of mainstream values, if, in fact, he wins by the margin that he's expected to win according to the polls?

MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: If he, in fact, does win, he certainly has a mandate against prison furloughs, capital punishment for those who don't do the Pledge of Allegiance. I mean, he has no specific mandate. I mean, David said they've been opaque. They've been vague too. The reality is that George Bush has laid out no specific plan, and the problem for the Republicans remains the same. They're losing Senate races in states where George Bush is ahead by considerable margins, in Ohio, in New Jersey, where they were expected, they had two Democratic incumbents who were in trouble, and the problem is that the message that David outlined, which is George Bush's, less taxes, less government, strong defenses, traditional values, works at the national level, but it breaks down at the Congressional level and the Senate level. It doesn't translate into a campaign where people are looking for a more activist government from their members of Congress.

MR. GERGEN: Well, I don't entirely agree with that, Mark. There are states, such as Florida, where that is working. We may have a Republican win in Florida in the Senate race. It's close -- it's close --

MR. SHIELDS: I'll bet you. I'll bet you.

MR. GERGEN: -- it's close but let's wait and see.

MR. SHIELDS: I'll bet Buddy McKay wins in Florida.

MR. GERGEN: But I do think that people are voting on more than the furlough program here. I think people are making up their minds on more than the furlough program and I do think that they - -

MR. SHIELDS: I didn't say they weren't making up their minds on more than that, David. I said as far as a mandate is concerned, specific endorsement.

MR. GERGEN: I think that a vote for Bush represents a vote for strong defense. A vote for Bush represents a vote for lower taxes or low taxes. I just think that's almost indisputable. What it does not do is represent a vote for what Bush might like to do once he becomes President in terms of specific things such as Reagan wanted to do. He wanted to actually make changes, legislate changes he wanted to get enacted, and he did get enacted in his first nine months.

MR. LEHRER: This -- Dukakis and his people are saying over and over again that they see in their polls a narrowing of the gap. Is that just something to say, or is that real?

MR. GERGEN: Well, in my judgment, there has been some closing. You know, in the report tonight, for instance, few days ago, the CBS poll had it 12 points out earlier in the week. Tonight they have a new poll out, it's 7 points nationally, and I think if you look across the nation, in certain key states, there has been a narrowing of the gap. As I count it right now, there must be about a dozen states, Mark, that he's either --

MR. LEHRER: The Michigan poll shows down to 4 percent.

MR. GERGEN: Right. There's about 12 states where either Dukakis is ahead or within good striking distance. The bad news for Dukakis is even if he wins all 12 states, he still doesn't get over the top in what he needs in the electoral college.

MR. SHIELDS: What's interesting is two things, and I think that they are not lying. There is a natural lift that comes to any campaign, especially a beleaguered campaign, when you get good crowds. He's been getting very good crowds. He's been getting good response. He's been a better candidate as Michael Dukakis. What's interesting is I saw Fritz Mondale get great crowds, I saw George McGovern get great crowds in the last week of 1972 and in 1984, campaigns that were about to lose overwhelmingly. And the difference is in both of those cases there was a core constituency that cared about them. I mean, in George McGovern's case obviously he had been an insurgent candidate against the war. There were people that felt passionately on that issue. And in Mondale's case he had been the long time champion of a number of constituencies, a number of causes, and people felt a loyalty. That's not the case with Michael Dukakis. Michael Dukakis is not someone who has inspired great personal loyalty or institutional loyalty, so the crowds take on maybe --

MR. LEHRER: They mean more, you think?

MR. SHIELDS: I think they mean more in 1988. And I'd say the other thing is that in two states, the two best big states for him right now, Jim, I think that most people would agree are New York and California. As he's been going with this populist message which is I'm on your side, and I'm going to fight for your jobs and against unfair foreign competition and so forth, one would think that that message would have a greater responsiveness and resonance in states that have been hurting economically, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and yet, ironically, the two states that are most prosperous, California and New York, are where it's struck --

MR. GERGEN: Mark, I have to give him credit. You know, he sort of adopted the Mark Shields strategy in the end, I'm on your side, it's us against them and it's starting to work for him. But I also think contrary to the Bush campaign that when he went out and said, I'm a liberal the last few days, you know, and he got that out of his system and finally dealt with it, that somehow it unlocked something within him, he started finding his voice once he sort of came out and said here's who I really am, and he's been a better campaigner as a result of that.

MR. LEHRER: The newspaper endorsements since we talked, a lot of them have come out.

MR. GERGEN: A lot of them haven't come out.

MR. LEHRER: A lot of them have not come out, and the Washington Post, your newspaper, Mark, particularly said, no, both of these guys are so negative, at least in our opinion, we're not going to endorse either one of them. And there's been the Washington Post editorial, David Broder in the Washington Post, everybody's talking about what a lousy Presidential campaign this was. But you'd look around the candidates, whether it's Dukakis or whether it's Bush, everybody there is having a really good times. They must be the only ones, David, is that right?

MR. GERGEN: There are a few things I'd note about these crowds. In both cases, particularly in the case of Dukakis, he's going to Democratic strongholds, so that you do get enthusiastic crowds, you get the partisans out there. The second thing is, as one of the reports just pointed out, as Judy's report did, you know, George Bush is also going to having a lot of high school students and college students in his crowds and you get a lot of buoyancy.

MR. LEHRER: I meant the pros around, I meant the people in the campaign. As Judy said, I mean, there is no apology from the Bush people. They're having a good time. They set out to do something and they accomplished it.

MR. GERGEN: You can understand that.

MR. SHIELDS: No, that's right. I mean, 17 points back and what did former President Richard Nixon say, that there were geniuses on the Dukakis campaign. They had a 17 point lead and they blew it to a 17 point deficit was his left handed needle. But even the Dukakis people, they are right now looking at the prospect, I mean, of defeat, but of having a candidate who'll get the highest percentage of the popular vote of anybody since Lyndon Johnson except Jimmy Carter. I mean, that they're talking about somebody doing that. The fellow on Judy's report, Phil Booth, the high school teacher, I mean, he had it complete. I mean, the miracle is looking for a Republican head and a Democratic heart in its leadership.

MR. GERGEN: That's why the Bush line about a kinder, gentler nation works for him, because it suggests that Democratic heart. I agree with that.

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. I would say it doesn't quite fit in the context. It's just savage Michael Dukakis, he's an unethical eunuch and a moral leper, and then he says, but I want a kinder, gentler nation.

MR. GERGEN: That's Tuesdays, and Thursdays and Sundays.

MR. LEHRER: But back to this unhappiness question, here we are on a Friday night before the election. I mean, shouldn't the election of a President of the United States be kind of a joyous celebration, event, in our country? What is all this dumping -- what's happened?

MR. SHIELDS: It's distressing in this sense. Let's just think back about a year ago. We were talking about 1988, all right, would be the first open election we'd have in this country since 1960.

MR. LEHRER: No incumbent?

MR. SHIELDS: No incumbent. You couldn't run against Jimmy Carter's record or whatever else -- that the candidates were going to be forced to address the future, they were going to have to deal with the future we're hitting on the threshold of the 21st century -- and the level of expectation and the disappointment that has followed, I think it's palpable.

MR. LEHRER: It was a routine Presidential election.

MR. SHIELDS: Even worse. They treated each other like they were unsuccessful --

MR. GERGEN: I think any time you begin to campaign essentially on the past on fairly trivial issues, and there has been a vituity to this campaign, I think personalities begin to dominate, it gets to be more negative, and people become more depressed about it. When it's really about the future and a serious discussion -- and I think the 1980 campaign, in fact, involved real clarification of what direction they would take. The word definite choice --

MR. SHIELDS: Absolutely.

MR. GERGEN: -- and there was more sense of uplift as a result of that. You know, I think the thing that's disturbing about this is one of these guys, probably Bush, is going to walk away with the election, but there is the same question we talked about recently, and what does it do for governance? When you have an electorate that is depressed as this, it tends to mean it's harder to govern for the next guy. He has a hard time getting the electorate up, getting the press up, getting the press up, getting the Congress. You know, we've got a lot of Democrats in Congress now who are resentful of the way this has been --

MR. SHIELDS: I talked to a few this week, and they really are. I mean, there's a real --

MR. GERGEN: There's still suspense about this election, let me just say. It's still important -- okay, maybe Bush is going to win -- but the size of victory is going to have a lot to do with his Presidency. Size of victory has a lot to do with the composition of the Senate.

MR. LEHRER: This is your last chance before to make a prediction, Mark. What do you think the results are going to be, and what by percentage point?

MR. SHIELDS: I think that George Bush will win. I think it'll be close. I think it'll be less than 53 percent, and I think those two questions will remain unanswered, who took Michael Dukakis's coat this week, and second, why has George Bush been seen more publicly with former President Gerry Ford than with Dan Quayle?

MR. LEHRER: David.

MR. GERGEN: I'd look at about 54, 55 percent to Bush. But I do think that Dukakis will take more states than Mondale took and do pretty, reasonably well.

MR. SHIELDS: One factor as you look at it, Jim, if you look at the election night and next Tuesday night, the country will be even outside of the South. The popular vote will be like the campaign of 1940.

MR. GERGEN: But it's going to be a wipe-out in the South.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. But I mean --

MR. GERGEN: It's going to carry Bush up.

MR. LEHRER: The South is part of the nation.

MR. SHIELDS: It's going to be fascinating.

MR. GERGEN: Yeah, it is.

MR. SHIELDS: No. No. I'm just saying that what 1940 was for the Democrats and Franklin Roosevelt --

MR. GERGEN: You're talking to a fellow from Texas --

MR. LEHRER: Got to go. Got to go. Thank you. FOCUS - TERMINAL CASE

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Next tonight we look at an illness that has struck thousands of computers around the country through a Department of Defense computer network. It's called a computer virus, a bug that is planted in a computer system, multiplies, and can damage the system the same as viruses in humans. In computers, these viruses can do everything from clogging systems, to destroying files, or just plain causing a nuisance like programming mischievous messages. One of the many computer systems hit by this current outbreak is Harvard University's. Clifford Stoll is a computer security expert at Harvard, and he joins us from WGBH in Boston. Also joining us here in New York is Steven Leibholz, President of Analytics Incorporated, a firm that specializes in computer security for private industry and the U.S. Government. He is also the author of the User's Guide to Computer Crime. Starting with you, Mr. Stoll, what is the difference between these viruses and the kind of mischief the kids from Milwaukee were doing not too long ago?

CLIFFORD STOLL, Harvard University: Well, a few years ago from Milwaukee people were breaking into computers and trying to steal a little bit of information or just have fun. These computer viruses are pure vandalism. They're undirected. They're directed at any computer at all, and they're not just some kid having fun; this is somebody planting something that goes from place to place to place, walking through our computers and bringing them to our knees, just destroying the computer's ability to think.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We'll get to who might have done this in a few moments, but first of all, how specifically and in terms that even a computer illiterate like me can understand, how did it get into the system at Harvard, and what kind of havoc did it do?

MR. STOLL: The virus got into Harvard's computer in the same way that it got into about a thousand or three thousand other computers across the country. It took advantage of a very very subtle hole in the operating system inside the mailer. Somebody sent a piece of electronic mail into our computer and instead of just sending that piece of mail in and us storing it away and forwarding it to a user, it went into the operating system and started copying itself. It didn't copy itself inside the computer. Instead, it copied itself to other machines, down the hallway, in another building, in another city.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How can that happen?

MR. STOLL: It happens because the virus is a program, itself. It links onto other programs and by crossing from one computer to another, it can very rapidly infest literally thousands of computers.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And that's what happened?

MR. STOLL: And that's what happened. We first detected this at about midnight Thursday morning, and for about the next 36 hours, I was up trying to at first understand what was happening, then try to protect our systems.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What was the first thing you saw? I mean, what was it that alerted you that the computer was sick?

MR. STOLL: The first thing that we saw was my computer came almost to a standstill. It was trying to run about a thousand different processes at once, one little computer trying to run a thousand processes. Each one of these jobs is trying to connect to another computer on the network, and that brought it to its knees quickly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How bad was the damage and how bad could it have been?

MR. STOLL: The damage in one sense was negligible. It did not erase any files.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What could it have done?

MR. STOLL: It could very easily have been programmed to erase all of our files or change some of the data. On the other hand, the damage was quite serious. It's wasted several thousands of people's time for the past two days, computer programmers, word processors who don't have access to their computers. It not only wasted their time but also took away their computers from them. It's as if somebody went in and took your work for the past two years and made it unavailable to you.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That system, as you said, affected thousands of systems, including, Mr. Leibholz, the one connected to the Department of Defense. What happened once the Department of Defense computers were exposed to the virus?

STEPHEN LEIBHOLZ, Computer Security Expert: Well, the only computers that were exposed were the ones that contain relatively insensitive information. So called Darbinet was the medium by which the virus was transmitted from place to place.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is that, Darbinet, briefly and simply?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: The Defense Department has invested in a network which have become a backbone of national research in which universities industries, and government laboratories are linked together so that it can exchange data and help each other solve research problems. It's a very large international network now.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, is there any question in your mind that sensitive national security information wasn't promised?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: I'm quite sure that no sensitive information was compromised because the systems that the government has which contain such information are protected by many rings of security, and a virus such as this one, which Cliff has very well explained, could not penetrate that kind of a system.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Not under any circumstances?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: Well, I would never say never, but it's most unlikely.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what is the thing then that worries you the most about these viruses?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: We've entered the first days of a whole new battle in the computer crime arena. Outsiders are now insiders. People who have never been to your computer system can enter it and wreak havoc with it and, indeed, have in about a dozen prior incidents.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because they can get ahold of your passwords and everything?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: That's right. Essentially, the virus which multiplies itself almost like a human virus carries with it a piece of code which may be malicious or not, usually malicious, and replicates itself inside your computer and then goes on the network and replicates itself in other computers, in other discs, and keeps expanding the range of which it is operating.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And this cannot get into a -- you're saying that it's not possible for this to get into -- or unlikely that it would get into the security system?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: Well, without going into a lot of detail, the sensitive computers, these highly classified computers, are not even connected to this network and they're protected by many rings of security, far more than the average industrial or university organization would be willing to invest in.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Stoll, who else is vulnerable in this whole thing? I mean, what about business and the private sector?

MR. STOLL: Good question. I'm concerned not just for the universities and military networks that carry, as we just heard, non-classified information. The concern is for groups that say carry financial information. There's a large network of electronic fund transfers that transfer money from one bank to another. a virus in such a network as that would be disastrous.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What could it do?

MR. STOLL: Imagine having your checks clearing instead of a day or two, clearing in a week or two because the network was brought down. Other --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about companies that bill you, like the telephone company, or systems like that, Con Edison?

MR. STOLL: Surely. Imagine a virus inside a telephone company cutting down the ability of the telephone company to switch telephone calls from one place to another, or worse than that, a virus that cut the ability of the phone company to make any phone calls at all. On the other hand, it's unlikely that a computer virus would damage the electric system. You don't have to worry about a virus hurting your power from the wall outlet.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, is there anything, Mr. Leibholz, that can be done for business, or universities, or any of these places that are vulnerable to attack? I mean, there are anti-viral medicines, aren't there?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: Yes. But they're only effective in about 30 to 50 percent of cases. The technology of making viruses is right now ahead of the technology of stopping the viruses, however, there are simple things which any organization can do to minimize its cost while it decides to invest in security. The fundamental solution is to invest properly in computer security, which many organizations are not willing to do; the government certainly is.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Can you protect yourself against this, this kind of thing, I mean, if humans can't protect themselves from viruses?

MR. LEIBHOLZ: Yes. If a system were sufficiently protected by rings of software, it would be very very difficult for a virus to enter the system, even with this virus which has plagued some of the networks in the last few days, which was, indeed, a very sophisticated virus, the problem is that people are not yet in an industry by and large willing to make this investment, and as long as they are not willing to make the investment, they should take certain simple precautions.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Namely --

MR. LEIBHOLZ: Well, for example, do what your mother told you. Don't take candy from a stranger. Don't take computer programs from a stranger. Know what data you're getting and if that data suddenly turns malicious, make sure that you have enough back-ups in your systems that you can shut down your computer and start over.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Stoll, you say that this came by electronic mail. You didn't have any choice in the matter but to take, receive the letter, right? I mean, do you see anything that can protect against that?

MR. STOLL: You've got it. That was just the problem. We had taken a great deal of security precautions in our system, yet, it came through a back door, not even a back door, through a hole in the foundation of our system. The Arpinet is a little bit like the interstate highway system. You can connect to almost any house in the country by way of the interstate highway system. Through the Arpinet, you can connect to, well, maybe not any computer in the country, but many thousands. To try to protect against this is very very difficult.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I hate to leave it on that note, but maybe there's been enough alertness about this that people will become more alert and we'll do some more programs on it. Thank you very much for being with us in Boston, Mr. Stoll, and Mr. Leibholz here in New York. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, the Presidential candidates spent the last Friday of the campaign hard at work. Vice President Bush said the financial affairs of Massachusetts under Gov. Dukakis were a mess. Gov. Dukakis said the polls showed him closing in on the Bush lead. And the nation's unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent in October. It had been that low in June, but before that, not since May 1974. Good night, Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's our Newshour for tonight. We'll be back on Monday. Have a good weekend. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Thank you and good night.