Tensions Ignite, Tsongas Takes Heat at Debate

All week, tensions have been building among the five Democratic presidential contenders. At a debate here Saturday, they exploded.

In a series of electric--and at times extraordinarily personal--exchanges, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas was jolted by each of his rivals for his views on economic and energy policy, and gave back as good as he got.

In this first of three debates scheduled for this weekend, the clear focus was on Tsongas, whom polls show to be the front-runner in Tuesday’s Colorado primary. Tsongas, who on Friday called for a formal truce among the Democratic candidates, repeatedly found himself embroiled in the most acid confrontations yet seen among the Democratic contenders.

The most emotional moment came when Tsongas tried to cut off Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s criticism of his views on nuclear power by brandishing an article by environmentalist Jessica Tuchman Matthews, which he claimed backed his position.

“This is not somebody you can argue with,” Tsongas declared.

Visibly angry, Clinton cut back in, “No one can argue with you Paul, you’re always perfect.”

Barely missing a beat, Tsongas shot back, “I’m not perfect but I’m honest.”

The confrontation symbolized the intensifying pressure on all of the Democratic contenders as they face a furious succession of primaries and caucuses over the next three weeks that will select more than half of the delegates needed for nomination and will almost certainly doom several of their candidacies.

This tense atmosphere has inspired a series of increasingly belligerent encounters between Clinton, the former front-runner dogged by allegations of personal misconduct; Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, and Tsongas, who has accused his rivals of steering their campaigns by polling data, not policy convictions.

On Saturday, however, much of the debate’s raucous final half an hour centered on whether Tsongas was attempting to disguise a politically unpopular position of his own: support for nuclear power.

Citing a recent Time magazine article, Clinton opened the issue by maintaining that Tsongas supports the construction of “hundreds of more nuclear plants.”

Tsongas responded, “That is a lie, that is a lie, that is a lie.”

Clinton then cut back in: “You don’t want to build any more nuclear power plants? Say you don’t then. Let’s get you on record for the first time. Say it. Just say no.”

Tsongas then accused Clinton of misrepresenting his position, and added, “I have said repeatedly no more nuclear power plants of this generation, no more, none.”

Clinton then interrupted, “Of this generation?”

Tsongas never answered the question of whether he supported building more nuclear power plants of an advanced design. That provoked a sharp jab from Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, who said: “Paul you may be honest but I think you have been a little disingenuous with this crowd with your answer on nuclear. You are on record as saying we have to keep the nuclear option open and build smaller nuclear power plants. I’m sorry but that is a fact. You can’t escape that.”

In his campaign manifesto, “A Call to Economic Arms,” Tsongas argues that nuclear power must play a role in the nation’s energy policy. “There must be a major base load energy capability that is sustainable,” Tsongas wrote. “Inevitably that capability has to be nuclear.”

In the book, Tsongas calls on the government “to invest in developing . . . new prototypes” of nuclear power plants smaller than the current models.

Meeting with reporters after the debate, Tsongas said the government should do more research on these alternative plants, to keep nuclear power as an option for the future. But he again rejected Clinton’s assertion that he sought the “willy-nilly” spread of nuclear power plants.

Even before the debate intensified on energy policy, it regularly set off sparks on economic issues. For the first time, the other Democrats openly attacked the specifics of Tsongas’ program for rebuilding the economy--the centerpiece of his campaign.

As he has throughout the campaign, Tsongas insisted that the government’s top priority must be restoring the nation’s manufacturing base: “My economic program puts the money into the engine that drives the economy--manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing--small businesses, large businesses, so there is growth.”

That priority came under fire from Clinton and Harkin, who both insisted that investment in human resources--such as education and retraining--needed equal or greater emphasis than tax benefits for business.

“I hate to keep reminding our good friend Paul Tsongas that manufacturing is not the engine that drives our economy,” Harkin told him. “The engine that drives our economy are people, our human resources . . . that’s where we’ve got to start investing. Mr. Tsongas would just give more tax breaks to business and somehow that would help us.”

Tsongas responded to that jab--which echoed Clinton’s recent criticism that the former senator’s economic plan was “cold-blooded”--by insisting that his plan would provide workers, such as those recently laid off at General Motors, what they need most: a job.

That remark prompted former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. to ridicule Tsongas’ support for a broad-based capital-gains tax cut, one of the major components of his economic plan. “I don’t think a capital-gains tax will do anything for General Motors,” said Brown, who delivered perhaps his most forceful and controlled performance in any of the debates to date.

Kerrey jumped in at that point, questioning whether Tsongas understood economic development issues in the West. “You understand manufacturing in New Hampshire,” Kerrey said in a patronizing tone. “What gives me pause is whether you understand agriculture and Western interests.”

Earlier, though, Tsongas had questioned Kerrey’s understanding of Western economic interests. He challenged the Nebraska senator to broadcast in the export-oriented West a TV ad that he used in New Hampshire promising to get tough with Japan on trade issues.

Kerrey responded: “It was a lousy ad, I’m not going to put it on the air. I’m not going to put something on the air that didn’t work.”

Tsongas came back: “The issue is not whether it worked. The issue is what you believe in. . . . If you make one argument on the East Coast, bring it with your baggage to the rest of the country.”

Although he seemed to visibly stiffen at times under the sustained criticism, Tsongas attempted through most of the debate to strike a principled and above-politics stance. At one point, he challenged his competitors to raise their hands and pledge not to use any additional negative advertisements.

But that challenge was quickly washed away as the next wave of acrimony rolled over the combatants.

Times staff writer Jonathan Peterson contributed to this story.