Debate Shows Dukakis-Gephardt Differences on Issues

The Democratic presidential campaign seems likely to heat up in the weeks ahead following the first nationally televised debate among the seven 1988 contenders here Wednesday night.

Although the two-hour session on public television produced few sharp exchanges between the participants, it began to illuminate differences on such issues as trade and energy, particularly between two of the leading contenders, Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis and Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt.

Gephardt’s campaign manager, William Carrick, Thursday vowed that his candidate would hit back at Dukakis in response to Dukakis’ criticism of Gephardt’s advocacy of an oil import duty. Dukakis is also critical of Gephardt’s amendment to the House trade bill that would mandate retaliation against Japan and other nations that run hefty trade surpluses against the United States.

Unmentioned Issue

Another issue sure to stir the Democrats was not even mentioned during the debate--President Reagan’s nomination of U.S. Judge Robert H. Bork to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Two of the 1988 contenders sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct hearings on the nomination--Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the committee chairman, and Illinois Sen. Paul Simon. Biden has already expressed “serious doubts” about the nomination because of Bork’s conservative views, and both he and Simon are likely to come under increasing pressure from liberal interest groups opposed to Bork.

“It’s going to be a divisive debate,” former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt told reporters here. “The activist groups will make (Bork’s nomination) a litmus test, and I believe a proper one,” added Babbitt, who said he is opposed to Bork because of his role in carrying out the dismissal of the Watergate special prosecutor during the so-called Saturday Night Massacre in 1973.

However, some candidates may be reluctant to oppose the nomination because of the widely held belief, particularly among conservative Democrats in the South, that a President has the right to choose justices whose ideological views are in accord with his own.

Regardless of how the argument over the Bork nomination develops, the differences between Dukakis and Gephardt over trade and energy taxes seem almost certain to cause a collision.

Advisers Still Smarting

Gephardt’s advisers here were still smarting Thursday from Dukakis’ criticism during the debate. In commenting on Gephardt’s advocacy of an oil import fee to make the nation less dependent on oil imports and to raise revenue, Dukakis said: “Why we need an oil import tax--and that is what it is, a tax--is beyond me.”

Without mentioning him by name, Dukakis criticized proposals such as Gephardt’s for retaliation against countries engaging in unfair trading practices.

Dukakis pointed out that the jobs of about 6 million Americans are dependent on imports, and he warned against a “trade war” that would threaten such employment.

“If every barrier to American goods came down, we’d still have a trade deficit of $125 billion,” Dukakis said. Instead of retaliation, he urged that the trade deficit be addressed through such measures as improving U.S. technology.

“Dukakis, in effect, endorsed Reagan’s trade policy,” Carrick said, adding that Gephardt would make that point on the stump in Iowa and elsewhere. Carrick said also that Gephardt would argue that Dukakis’ stands reflected his interests as a New England governor. An oil import duty could hurt New England consumers of heating oil, and raising trade barriers could hurt some high-technology firms in the region.

“He views everything from a regional perspective,” Carrick contended.

$4-Million Treasury

Carrick said he regarded Dukakis as the current front-runner. He pointed to his $4-million campaign treasury, topping all the other Democratic candidates, and the fact that the Massachusetts governor leads in most polls in neighboring New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary.

Dukakis also helped himself, in the view of some neutral politicians.

“In my opinion, he took the show,” said Alvis Howard, former Alabama coordinator for the Gary Hart presidential campaign and now active in a group of ex-Hart supporters who call themselves Uncommitted for President.

“His answers showed a command of issues that one doesn’t ordinarily expect a governor to grasp,” Howard said, referring to defense and foreign policy questions.

A group of 87 Iowans whose reactions were recorded electronically as they watched the debate also gave strong marks to Dukakis, and to Gephardt and Simon. The Iowans were chosen because they are uncommitted and intend to participate in the Iowa caucuses in February.

No Personal Criticism

Meanwhile, at a postdebate press conference here, Democratic National Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. said he was pleased that the candidates had avoided engaging in personal criticism during the debate. “If there are such differences, they ought not to be aired in the public domain,” Kirk said.

Kirk said also that Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder, who is considering entering the presidential race, would be invited to join in a candidates’ forum sponsored by the Democratic National Committee in October. Schroeder’s last-minute request to participate in the debate here was turned down because it was too late to film video segments of her.