ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, July 21, 1996 TAG: 9607190009
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTONO
SOURCE: RICHARD L. BERKE THE NEW YORK TIMES
Ross Perot's folksy utterances may still get splashed on the front page and the evening news. His every public word is monitored by the minions of President Clinton and Bob Dole. And there remains a chance that he could single-handedly tilt the election results on Nov. 5.
Even so, all the hubbub over Perot's declaration that he will seek his Reform Party's nomination to run for president obscured a crucial reality: Perot is not the political colossus he was in 1992.
Then, he upended U.S. politics by taking nearly 19 percent of the popular vote, a better showing than by any third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket 80 years earlier. In all the yearning for an alternative, Perot was a refreshing face.
But he alienated many of his own supporters with his conspiracy theories and his decision to bow out of the race in the summer of 1992 - and just as hastily to jump back in. For some voters, fascination over Perot has turned to embarrassment. Perot likes to harp on the deficit as the crazy aunt locked in the attic; to his detractors, the Texas billionaire is the crazy uncle who broke out.
More substantively, the major parties have had some success in co-opting Perot's signature issue: deficit reduction. Four years ago, President George Bush was reluctant to talk about the deficit because his aides feared that he would be blamed for contributing to it. Likewise, Clinton avoided the topic because he did not believe that Democrats had credibility on the issue.
Now, the economy has rebounded, and voters are willing to give the Democrats and Republicans some credit, albeit not a great deal, for tackling the deficit. Perot's credibility on another issue he emphasized four years ago, trade, never recovered from his nationally televised face-off with Vice President Al Gore over NAFTA in 1993. And two national polls released earlier this month found that Perot's entry would not make a big dent in Clinton's lead over Dole.
``Perot was very much in '92 the creature of a particular set of institutional circumstances that made the deficit a really important issue that was not on the agenda of George Bush or Bill Clinton,'' said Henry E. Brady, a political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley. ``That constellation of circumstances just doesn't exist. To get out and say how terrible politics is is just not going to galvanize these voters. That's turn-off talk.''
James P. Pinkerton, who was a senior aide in the Bush White House, has completely lost patience. ``He's just a shyster and will be regarded as such,'' Pinkerton said. ``If he spends $600 million instead of $60 million, who knows what impact he'll have? But he's not going to win. He has nothing to say. He gets up there and rants.''
The timing of Perot's declaration in a television interview - he upstaged former Gov. Richard Lamm of Colorado, who had announced only two days before that HE was seeking the Reform Party's nod - only deepened suspicions that he was motivated by thirst for the limelight.
Lamm sees Perot's personality - or the caricature of it - as the billionaire's biggest liability. The Reform Party, Lamm said, ``needs a new face'' and a leader ``who doesn't lust for the office.'' But most political analysts expect Perot to win the the nomination next month, if only because his paid loyalists dominate the party's hierarchy - which some say is more of a vehicle for Perot than a true political party.
Perot should never be written off. The general election is almost four months away. And his showing four years ago surpassed most predictions: In the New York Times/CBS News polls from August 1992 until just before the election, Perot consistently drew several points less than his actual tally on Election Day.
Polls still show him drawing in the double digits - which could start to look threatening if the race tightens. He would have $32 million in federal subsidies at his disposal. And judging by the coverage of his long tease about whether he would run, it seems the press may still devote generous attention to Perot.
And he remains credible on campaign finance reform, an issue on which Clinton and Dole, for all their flirtation with the subject, have not delivered.
``We're within striking distance of 33 percent in a three-way race,'' said Russell Verney, the political director of the Perot drive, who added that ``with the train wrecks and gridlock'' there is still a craving for a Washington outsider.
At the very least, Perot, through his commercials and his participation in the political debates, could prove valuable in framing the debate - prodding Clinton and Dole on issues much as he did with the deficit last time.
The looming question is whether he could significantly chip away at Dole's or Clinton's support. Though polls show Perot would draw evenly from the two major parties, Republicans fear competition for the anti-Clinton vote. And as a fiscal conservative who also supports abortion rights, Perot might draw moderates whom Dole needs.
Most of the people who voted for Perot in 1992 were Republicans, and they flocked back to their party in large numbers in the 1994 congressional races. The most recent New York Times/CBS poll shows that in a two-person presidential match, those who backed Perot in 1992 would break for Clinton over Dole, 51 percent to 32 percent.
But polls show that those inclined to back Perot this year include more who would ordinarily vote Democratic.
White House officials, while generally relieved, are not ready to pronounce Perot a godsend. ``Things are so muddled on all this that we're not really into this whole third-party mode right now.'' said Douglas Sosnik, the White House political director. ``You can go crazy on this stuff. It's so unformed that it's not a productive use of energy.''
Perot's potential potency would also depend on how he conducts his campaign. Would he find a more dynamic running mate than the flighty Adm. James . Stockdale? Would he settle on new issues that could drive the campaign? Would he heed the advice of professional advisers, or run the show as he did last time?
The popular appetite for an alternative to the two major parties' offerings has surely not been exhausted. But the candidates who had demonstrated appeal to voters - Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Colin Powell come to mind - opted out of independent bids.
That leaves Perot, once again, or possibly Lamm, as the vessel for the cranky independent voter.
But the Texan, after months of insisting that ``this is not about me,'' seems happy to oblige.
LENGTH: Long : 117 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: color. KEYWORDS: POLITICS PRESIDENTby CNB