Kennedy Makes a Goof

His attack on the Shah brings charges of misjudgment

It was the final interview of a long, exhausting day of campaigning by Senator Edward Kennedy. Reporter Rollin Post of KRON-TV in San Francisco was trying to draw him out on Iran without much success. For a parting shot, Post asked Kennedy what his reaction was to Ronald Reagan's argument that the Shah should be allowed to stay in the U.S. because he had been a loyal friend. Kennedy answered with an emotional attack on the Shah, who, he claimed, "ran one of the most violent regimes in the history of mankind." How can we justify taking in the Shah "with his umpteen billions of dollars that he'd stolen from Iran," Kennedy demanded, "and at the same time say to Hispanics who are here legally that they have to wait nine years to bring their wife and children to this country?"

After unburdening himself, Kennedy rushed off as if he had a cab outside with the meter running. KRON thought so little of Kennedy's attack that it snipped it out before broadcasting the interview, but other reporters heard about it, and the headlines flared. The news soon reached Tehran, where the newspaper Ettela'at misguidedly interpreted Kennedy's statement as suggesting a "fundamental shift in public opinion in to the enemy and conceivably even jeopardized the hostages.

State Department Spokesman Hodding Carter called Kennedy's remarks "unfortunate and not helpful." Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, said Carter, "regrets any such statement which shifts the focus of concern away from the hos tages and makes negotiations more difficult." Added White House Press Secretary Jody Powell, trying to sound restrained: "You can see how bloody my tongue is from being bitten."

Republicans were more outspoken. Said John Connally: "I am sure that Ayatullah Khomeini is pleased to hear Senator Kennedy's remarks." George Bush felt that the statement "might endanger the lives of the hostages" and raises "serious questions about Kennedy's judgment on foreign policy." Press comment was strongly unfavorable and occasionally stinging. The Washington Post: "It wasn't right, it wasn't responsible, and it wasn't smart." The Atlanta Constitution: "Kennedy, in a cynical campaign ploy against the incumbent President who cannot respond, has publicly sided with the Khomeini anarchy in Iran." The Houston Post: "Kennedy cannot be excused on grounds of inexperience. The incident is clear and will remain on his record."

Apparently surprised by the angry reaction, Kennedy issued a carefully worded statement trying to separate the issue of the Shah from that of the hostages: "Our firm national commitment to the safe release of the hostages does not and cannot mean that this nation must condone the Shah and the record of his regime." Calling for a public debate on whether to grant asylum to the Shah, Kennedy claimed not to be bothered by the hostile reaction: "I think quite frankly that I was right on the issue, and that's what is important." When Vance declared that Congress would be consulted before the Shah is granted asylum, Kennedy professed to consider the controversy ended.

That seems unlikely. The uproar over his Iranian observation was the latest in a series of mishaps that have troubled the start of his campaign. He entered the race earlier than he had planned, with his organization in disarray, but under the glare of constant publicity. From the start he had trouble dealing with abstract questions such as his idea of how to assert leadership. He explains: "There is a problem moving from the day-to-day life of a Senator, where you are involved in the details of legislation, to a campaign, where the expression of issues is quite different." On one occasion, he had to retape a TV segment, and when he was asked for the second time why he was running, he gave a rambling, less coherent answer. During a break in the filming, he quipped: "If another problem develops, let's go back to the first tape and use subtitles."

The unprepossessing start of the Kennedy campaign has been reflected in the lack of endorsements that might have been expected. A source close to New York Governor Hugh Carey, a Kennedy friend who has not yet committed himself, called the campaign "a plummeting star." In Arizona Kennedy told a crowd that he hoped to carry the state "with a little help from the Udalls." But Liberal Congressman Morris Udall introduced Kennedy only as "the man who some think might be the next President."

One of Kennedy's problems may be that he has been surrounded by young Senate staffers, and he has lacked the shrewd counsel of a political veteran to help deal with the constant crises that come up during a hectic tour. To remedy that, Campaign Manager Stephen Smith last week dispatched John Reilly, 51, a lawyer and longtime Kennedy crony, to inspect operations on the road.

To try to smooth out his jumbled syntax, Kennedy's staff has put together thick black briefing binders filled with direct, simple answers to questions that may arise. "I feel more comfortable on the podium now," says Kennedy and indeed he sometimes strikes a certain rhythm in his basic stump speech that can rouse an audience. "What we have now is not a malaise among the American people, but a malaise in the highest levels of leadership," he booms, slashing the air with one hand and flipping large note cards with the other. "A can't-do President won't do for the 1980s." But Historian James MacGregor Burns, who traveled with Kennedy last week, thinks that the candidate has yet to define the basis of his challenge. "Kennedy is implying he will be effective without saying how he will do so," says Burns. "The Kennedys feel they can charge the politcal system with enough voltage so that they can get things done. This is not adequate."

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