Sharp-Edged Perot Appears Fuzzy on Ideas

WASHINGTON — Facing for the first time the sharp scrutiny routinely applied to full-fledged presidential candidates, Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot on Friday showed himself to be long on gritty charm but short on specifics and patience.

A 60-minute give-and-take between Perot and a panel of questioners at the American Society of Newspaper Editors convention here was marked by sometimes testy exchanges, prompting the possible White House contender to ask at one point: “Do we have to be rude and adversarial? Can’t we just talk?”

After another exchange in which Perot was prodded to spell out his ideas for reducing this year’s $400-billion federal budget deficit, John S. Carroll, executive editor of the Baltimore Sun, pointedly told the convention’s guest: “I haven’t heard an answer to the explicit question.”

Perot’s haziness on reducing the deficit was particularly striking because he has made that issue the centerpiece of his incipient presidential campaign, which he has said is contingent on volunteers qualifying him for the ballot in all 50 states.

And overall, Perot’s performance underscored the fundamental question about his prospective candidacy: Does it represent a solution to the alienation now gripping the nation’s voters or merely a symptom of their malaise?

In assessing the potential effect of Perot’s candidacy, University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan said: “He doesn’t seem interested in getting specific about issues or putting forward a clear vision for the future. But this is precisely what’s wrong with the political system that people are complaining about.”

When his session with the editors’ panel was over, Perot’s resolve to actually declare himself a candidate seemed somewhat shaken. “I’m not driven to do this,” he remarked. “Matter of fact, the more I’m in it, the less interesting it becomes.”

Perot, 61, has sparked a spectacular outpouring of support since suggesting a few weeks ago that he might seek the presidency. Hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country have flocked to his banner, apparently viewing him as a possible savior for the country’s gridlocked and discredited system of politics and government.

Telephone calls to the 800-number set up in his Dallas business offices to handle queries from would-be volunteers have been clocked at 90,000 an hour, Perot proudly noted Friday.

And an ABC News poll released Friday underscored how powerful the appeal could be: Perot did almost as well as Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, when matched against President Bush.

Bush was the choice of 38% of those questioned in the survey, followed by Clinton with 28% and Perot with 24%. A total of 1,009 randomly selected adults were interviewed April 8-9 for the poll.

Some analysts believe Perot can meld a potentially powerful coalition of voters, with his conservative business background appealing to Republicans while his support for abortion rights and gun control attracts Democrats.

“I think Ross Perot can win this election,” said Gerald F. Austin, who managed the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential bid and was a senior adviser to the recently suspended White House campaign of former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas. “There is no question that people are looking for outsiders at every level of government.”

Still, for all the interest in a Perot candidacy, the grilling he received at Friday’s editors’ convention served as a jarring warning that his honeymoon may be ending. Although the questioning was far milder than the Democratic presidential contenders faced during the recent primary campaign in New York, it raised questions about Perot’s ability--and willingness--to adjust to the bruising realities of the campaign trail.

His opening remarks were well received, with many in the audience finding Perot’s folksy wit and blunt manner engaging. “The theme of both parties this year is: ‘Can we buy your vote with your money? And by the way, we’d like to borrow $400 billion of your children’s money to buy your vote this year.’

“And my reaction has been: Do they really think we’re that dumb?” Perot then drew a gale of laughter with his punch line: “Their reaction is: ‘Gee, it’s always worked, maybe it will work again.’ ”

Yet when he was pressed to explain how he would eliminate the budget deficit, the panelists and some audience members clearly were not impressed by his response: Save $180 billion a year by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse,” gain another $100 billion by increasing the efficiency of the Internal Revenue Service, trim $100 billion from military spending overseas and get the final $20 billion by getting “folks like me who don’t need it” to give up their Medicare and Social Security benefits.

“What I’m curious about is the majority of the $400 billion, which comes under the what I consider quite vague description of fraud, waste and abuse,” said the Baltimore Sun’s Carroll. “But how do you actually do that? What specifically is this fraud, waste and abuse, and how can you get those huge amounts of dollars without cutting programs?”

Perot replied that he could not fully answer those questions until he had taken up residence in the Oval Office. “Then you’re in, you’ve got access to the details, then you have the plans . . . ,” he said. “You explain what this is and what you believe should be done about it and you build a consensus in grass-roots America to do it.”

The efforts of another panelist, Acel Moore, associate editor of the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer, to draw from Perot his proposals for curbing the scourge of drugs prompted the Texan’s “rude and adversarial” comment.

Perot vowed “almost a war” against drugs, which he seemed to indicate would go far beyond current efforts. “It won’t be pretty,” he said at one point, suggesting later, “This is kind of like getting the Orkin man.”

But he was not specific. When asked whether civil liberties would have to be violated he did not provide a clear answer.

“He doesn’t have any answers, or if he does he’s not sharing them with us,” scoffed Dan K. Thomasson, a Scripps Howard News Service executive.

Some journalists argued that Perot’s responses were no vaguer than those of traditional politicians. “I thought it was equal to George Bush,” Bill Kovach, curator of Harvard University’s Nieman Foundation and former editor of the Atlanta Constitution, said of Perot’s performance. “He has presidential qualities.”

But some scholars believe that as an anti-Establishment candidate, Perot can’t afford to be viewed as evasive on the issues.

“He’s got to come out with a sensible and plausible suggestion on the deficit,” said Cliff Brown of Union College, who was national research director for John B. Anderson’s 1980 independent presidential campaign. “And he is going to have to convince the public that he can be responsible on foreign policy. Ultimately, he is going to have to be persuasive and specific.”

Others contend that to have a chance to genuinely reform the political system, Perot can’t rely on a Lone Ranger approach. “To have a long-standing impact, he would have to help create a new political party,” said Emory University political scientist Merle Black. “But he doesn’t seem to want to talk about that much.”

As a President without a party following in Congress, Black contends, a Perot Administration would be crippled by a paralysis of government even worse than the Democratic-Republican gridlock he now inveighs against.