Two for the Show

By WALTER ISAACSON

The President insists that three's a crowd in the first debate

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

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

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

That, however, is not what the league decided to offer. Last week, its five-woman debate committee announced that Anderson had met the criteria of becoming a "significant" candidate--attaining a 15% rating in the polls.* Said League President Ruth Hinerfeld: "Our task was relatively easy. Since the polling data were clear and unambiguous, our decision was unanimous."

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

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

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

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

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

To prepare for Sunday's debate in Baltimore, both Reagan and Anderson plan to take off the last three days of the week. Reagan's strategy is to go easy on Anderson (after all, he may be more friend than foe at the polls), to flog Carter's record and to seek to project an image of confidence and common sense. Adviser James Baker, who prepped Gerald Ford for the debates with Carter in 1976, is leading a team that is compiling 50 short papers on issues, which Reagan will study this weekend at his temporary Virginia home. Says one adviser: "A debate of this kind is based on style and a few facts. We know Reagan has the right style. He'll be prepared on the facts too."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--By Walter Isaacson

Reported by Christopher Ogden with Carter and Eileen Shields with Anderson

* The four most recent surveys were those of Yankelovich for TIME (15% for Anderson), Roper (13%), Los Angeles Times (18%), and ABC News-Harris (17%).

With reporting by Christopher Ogden, Carter, Eileen Shields, Anderson

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.