Clinton and Perot Assail Bush Over Economy in First Debate : Campaign: President pushes his attack on Democratic rival’s anti-war activities. He says that if reelected he would name Baker head of economic team.

President Bush pressed his attack on Democratic rival Bill Clinton’s anti-war activities as a college student, but the first presidential debate of the 1992 campaign was dominated Sunday night by assaults on Bush’s own economic record by Clinton and independent Ross Perot.

In defending himself, Bush declared his own “revival” plan would provide a sufficient boost for the nation, announced that if reelected he would name White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III “economic coordinator” and pledged to “protect the American taxpayer against the spend-and-tax Congress.”

“This country is not coming apart at the seams, for heaven’s sakes,” Bush said.

Clinton and Perot repeatedly dismissed such statements as traditional GOP rhetoric and suggested the President does not recognize the magnitude of the nation’s problems. “We’ve created a mess, don’t have much to show for it and we have got to fix it,” Perot said.

Yet the debate’s most dramatic exchange came not over the core issue of the economy, but over Bush’s assault on Clinton’s anti-war activities: When Bush charged that Clinton’s conduct rendered him unfit to be commander in chief, Clinton accused the President of “McCarthyism” and invoked the memory of Bush’s late father--a Connecticut senator who played a prominent role in opposing the red-baiting tactics of the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin.

“When Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people’s patriotism he was wrong. He was wrong,” Clinton declared, gesturing with both hands. “And a senator from Connecticut stood up to him named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy; you were wrong to attack my patriotism. I was opposed to the war but I loved my country and we need a President who will bring this country together, not divide it.”

Bush insisted he was not questioning Clinton’s patriotism for taking part in anti-war protests in London while studying as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, but rather his “character and judgment”--matters he has sought to make central themes of his bid for reelection. “I just think it’s wrong,” Bush said.

Sunday’s nationally televised debate, held in the Washington University Field House, was the first of three among the presidential contenders scheduled within eight days. It was also the first ever to include a candidate other than the Republican and Democratic nominees, and Perot proved to be both a formidable debater and a thorn in the President’s side.

The Texas businessman, often making his points with homey analogies and pungent quips, continually ridiculed Bush’s record and presented himself as a candidate uniquely ready to cut through the political underbrush and solve the country’s problems.

“If you want to stop talking about it and do it, then I’ll be glad to go up there and we’ll get it done,” Perot said. “But if you just want to keep the music going, just stay traditional this time around. . . . “

Bush, who continues to trail badly in the polls and needs somehow to transform the terms of the race, harked back to appeals that worked unfailingly for Republicans in previous campaigns: Trust, character, judgment, military strength, world leadership, pride in America and warnings against “spend and tax” Democrats.

Clinton, for his part, reiterated his oft-delivered critique of the Bush economic record, relentlessly turned questions back to the twin themes of change and jobs and pointed to his own array of proposals for everything from taxes and growth to health care and crime. But he appeared to concentrate most on appearing calm, authoritative and in command.

Only time will tell what, if any, impact the debate has on the November election. But White House aides--while publicly confident--acknowledged privately that the exchange had not produced the kind of clear-cut victory they had sought. Said Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp: “Someone said (Bush) didn’t deliver a knockout punch. I agree with that, but I didn’t think he had to. He had to regain his momentum, which he did.”

Clinton aides expressed satisfaction with their candidate’s showing, and instant voter samplings suggested Perot had helped his cause, although his support remains only a pale shadow of what it was before he alienated many followers by dropping out of the race--temporarily, as it turned out--last July.

Perot’s presence was the first debate’s shaping element because his single-minded concentration on the nation’s economic problems buttressed Clinton’s arguments and made it all but impossible for Bush to shift the focus away from his own record. Even when the President raised Clinton’s Vietnam War-era activities, Perot turned the issue back on him:

Excusing Clinton’s conduct as that of a young man in his “formative years,” Perot suggested that Washington veterans such as Bush were guilty of something more serious: “When you’re a senior official in the federal government spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and you’re a mature individual and you make a mistake,” he said, “then that was on our ticket.”

Bush had contrasted his own World War II combat experience with Clinton’s record as a college student who traveled to Moscow and helped organize anti-war demonstrations abroad during the Vietnam War. “I think it’s wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country on foreign soil. I just think it’s wrong,” Bush said.

While some might say Clinton’s behavior was “a youthful indiscretion,” Bush said, “I was 19 or 20, flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be commander in chief of the armed forces and I’m sorry, but demonstrating--it’s not a question of patriotism. It’s a question of character and judgment.”

That led to the emotion-charged exchange over McCarthyism and Clinton’s thrust about Bush’s father.

Clinton charged that Bush was still impugning his patriotism and accused him of “McCarthyism.”

Bush tried to protest, but Clinton, speaking forcefully, said, “You even brought some right-wing congressmen into the White House to plot how to attack me for going to Russia in 1969-70 when over 50,000 Americans did.”

Clinton then made his comment about McCarthy “attacking people’s patriotism” and invoked Bush’s father as one who stood up to him.

Clinton’s remark referred to a speech Prescott Bush, a Republican senator from Connecticut, made two years after taking office, on Dec. 1, 1954, in which he accused McCarthy of having caused “divisions among the American people because of his attitude and the attitude of his followers.” The elder Bush also played a leading role in helping end McCarthy’s red-baiting crusade by helping to rally fellow Republican senators against it.

The White House meeting Clinton referred to occurred Tuesday and included Bush, White House Staff of Staff Baker and Republican Reps. Robert K. Dornan of Garden Grove and Randy (Duke) Cunningham of San Diego, both of whom urged the President to attack the Arkansas governor on the issues of his Moscow trip and anti-war activities.

The next day, Bush broached the issues during an interview on Larry King’s CNN talk show, criticizing Clinton for the war protests and calling on him to explain the Moscow trip.

In accordance with a format worked out over months of negotiations, Bush, Clinton and Perot answered questions posed by a panel of three reporters for 90 minutes. Much of the audience towered high above the candidates on gymnasium risers as they stood behind identical oak podiums on the auditorium stage. The crowd erupted several times in loud applause after crisp exchanges of rhetoric.

Perot, answering the debate’s first question about what distinguishes him from his two rivals, said he was unique because he was a candidate of neither major party and was put on the ballot by millions of people in 50 states.

“I go into this race as their servant and I belong to them,” he said. “So, this comes from the people.”

Clinton said, “The most important distinction in this campaign is that I represent real hope for change, a departure from trickle-down economics, a departure from tax-and-spend economics, to invest in growth. . . . Tonight I have to say to the President: Mr. Bush, for 12 years, you’ve had it your way. You’ve had your chance and it didn’t work. It’s time to change.”

The President, saying experience distinguishes him from the other two candidates, declared, “I think we’ve dramatically changed the world . . . the changes are mind-boggling for world peace. Kids go to bed at night without the same fear of nuclear war. And change for change’s sake isn’t enough. We saw the message in the late ‘70s when we heard a lot about change, and what happened, that misery index went right through the roof.

“But, my economic program is the kind of change we want. And the way we’re going to get it done is we’re going to have a brand new Congress. A lot of them are thrown out because of all the scandals. I’ll sit down with them, Democrats and Republicans alike and work for my agenda for American renewal, which represents real change.”

In seeking to turn the debate into an indictment of the Ronald Reagan-George Bush record of the last 12 years, both Clinton and Perot argued that the wealthy have benefited under the two Republican presidencies while the middle class and poor have suffered.

Perot landed the toughest punches. Countering Bush’s claim to the most experience, he said, “I don’t have any experience in running up a $4-trillion debt. I don’t have any experience in gridlock government where nobody takes responsibility for anything and everybody blames everybody else.”

For his part, Bush sought to deflect the criticism by arguing that the nation’s economy is the victim of a global slump, not government mismanagement. “In spite of the economic problems, we’re the most respected economy around the world. Many would trade for it,” he said.

However, his announcement of the top new post for Baker seemed to represent an acknowledgment of the widespread criticism that has been heaped on his current economic policy team -- Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady, White House Budget Director Richard G. Darman and White House chief economist Michael J. Boskin.

The Baker move involved an apparently abrupt change in plans. Only last week, Bush said in an interview that Baker would likely return to the State Department after the election. Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater said after the debate that Baker would “head up” coordination of domestic programs but would not say what his title might be.

Early in the debate, Clinton sought to preempt Bush’s attacks on him as a traditional tax-and-spend liberal by asserting that he was different from previous Democratic presidential candidates -- just as he is different from Bush himself.

“I represent real hope for change, a departure from trickle-down economics, a departure from tax and spend economics, to invest in growth,” Clinton said.

Later, Clinton provided slightly more detail about his plan for a middle-class tax cut than he has in recent months. He suggested that he would cut taxes for those making less than $60,000 a year. Last spring, Clinton had used that same figure, but backed away from a specific proposal later when questions were raised about his ability to finance it.

Perhaps the most sensitive question on economic affairs came when all three candidates were asked whether the Federal Reserve Board, the nation’s fiercely independent central bank, should be restructured and made more accountable to the White House and Congress. The Fed, which sets interest rate policy, has been in a long-running battle with the Bush Administration over how fast and by how much to cut interest rates.

For Clinton, the front runner in the campaign, the question on the Fed represented an important test of his credibility in the financial markets.

“Well, let me say that I think that we might ought to review the (Fed’s) terms and the way it works, but frankly I don’t think that’s the problem today,” he said. “ . . . Their policies so far, it seems to me, are pretty sound.”

Bush admitted that he has had disagreements with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, but said he believes the Fed should remain independent.

Bush and Clinton both challenged Perot on his budget-cutting program, which the Texan has made the central issue of his campaign. Clinton argued that Perot’s single-minded approach to deficit reduction was too harsh and would hurt economic growth.

Bush said Perot’s proposal for a 50-cent increase in the federal gas tax over five years to help cut the deficit would be an unfair burden on many workers and families.

“The question is fairness. I just disagree with Mr. Perot. I don’t believe it is fair to slap a 50-cent-a-gallon tax over whatever many years on the people who have to drive for a living, people that go long distances,” he said.

Clinton said the deficit cannot be cut as quickly as Perot wants without increasing unemployment and slowing economic growth.

Perot insisted the tough medicine was needed and to do less was irresponsible.

“I know it’s not popular,” Perot said. “Why do we have to do it? Because we have so mismanaged our country over the years and it is now time to pay the fiddler, and if we don’t we will be spending our children’s money.”

Perot’s folksy, plain-spoken style--and his penchant for zinging off one-liners--were the most colorful aspect of the debate, drawing frequent laughter and applause.

At one point, in a reference to one of his own prominent physical features, he said he was “all ears” to problem-solving proposals that did not require raising taxes. The remark won waves of laughter.

But he added sternly that it would take “stomach to fix these problems. I’m not playing Lawrence Welk music tonight,” he said.

When a questioner wondered if legalizing narcotics would help solve the drug problem, Perot suggested that tougher police crackdowns against traffickers was the best answer.

“There are guys that couldn’t get a job, (working) third shift in a Dairy Queen, driving BMWs and Mercedeses selling drugs. And these old boys are not going to quit easy,” he said to applause from the audience.

Jehl reported from St. Louis and Nelson from Washington. Contributing to this article were Times staff writers David Lauter, Doyle McManus, Jonathan Peterson, Art Pine, James Risen and David Savage.

RELATED STORIES: A22-27