A Marriage of Convenience

By Laurence I. Barrett/Washington

Ross Perot was a bit tired. For months he had been traveling and making TV appearances at a more frenetic pace than when he was running for President, so he had been planning to take a break. Instead he abruptly decided to rush to Washington last Thursday to fulminate on the Capitol grounds against Bill Clinton's budget. The program was moving through Congress faster than Perot had anticipated, so he personally displayed a truckload of petitions -- bearing 2.5 million signatures by his count -- demanding that Washington cut spending before raising taxes. Minority leader Bob Dole gave Perot's show an unusual plug on the Senate floor. As Dole argued for his own doomed deficit-reduction plan, which contained no tax increases, he said, "Ross Perot has got the message . . . He's been out among real people." A dozen Republicans from both houses joined Perot's photo op. They were eager to be seen with the rebel who savaged their own presidential candidate last year but is now the enemy of their enemy.

Politicians sweating in the hot sun as they waited for Perot to appear were the latest weird scene in the marriage of convenience between the Dallas billionaire and the G.O.P. The alliance is an uneasy one. Many senior Republicans are worried that Perot's advocacy group, United We Stand America, is a powerful weapon that he may aim at them whenever it suits his purpose. Dole has warned associates that the mercurial independent is a threat to the G.O.P.'s status as the focus of opposition to Clinton. William Bennett, like Dole a possible presidential candidate in 1996, says, "It's a big mistake for Republicans to legitimize Ross Perot, because sooner or later we'll have to delegitimize him."

Yet as long as Perot's public standing remains robust, he is a magnet for politicians -- particularly those up for election next year. Association with him draws publicity, builds up an independent image and helps in courting his local supporters, who may be pivotal in some House and Senate races next year.

A TIME/CNN poll completed last week explains the eagerness of many candidates to cuddle with Perot. Since February his favorable rating has declined, from 58% then to 51% now, probably because his harsh attacks on Clinton's policies and persona make him seem too partisan to some people. But Perot's numbers remain strong compared with Clinton's wan ratings. Many voters are aware of Perot's foibles -- wobbling on issues and overreacting to criticism -- but they like his anti-Washington message anyway. As a potential presidential candidate, Perot has actually pulled ahead of Clinton. In the survey, 46% said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to vote for the Texan; for the President, the figure was 33%.

Months ago, the White House gave up its naive notion that Clinton might establish personal rapport with Perot. For the President to attack him frontally is also futile. So the Clinton circle is studying Perot's constituency with extensive polling and focus groups, looking for ways to win over a large segment of it. The main conclusion: only when Clinton demonstrates that he can lower the deficit and genuinely reform government will he get a hearing from Perot's minions.

The TIME/CNN poll, comparing those who voted for Perot last year with the rest of the public, demonstrated that the billionaire remains in tune with the disenchanted. Though Perotistas include many independents skeptical of both major parties, the group displays a Republican tilt on critical issues. Further, when asked their current party preference for Congress, they give Republicans an edge (40% vs. 32%), while other voters lean slightly toward Democrats (41% vs. 37%). Perot draws heavy support among men and younger voters, the same portions of the electorate that provided Republican majorities in the 1980s.

In interviews and at the mass rallies he has staged in two dozen states since January, Perot has sounded increasingly conservative. Talking about the immigrants of the early 1900s, he drew cheers from a Virginia audience by asking rhetorically, "Do you think they wandered around the streets of New York City saying, 'Is there some kind of welfare program that will take care of me?' No!" In the past Perot avoided making points at the expense of welfare recipients or recent immigrants. No longer. His platform last year called for tax hikes tougher than Clinton's and even some spending increases in critical areas, but these days he almost never volunteers such facts. Instead he gushes sympathy for angry taxpayers who yearn for smaller, cheaper government: "Money does not fall out of the sky. Money comes from the sweat of the brow of millions of hardworking Americans, right?"

Aside from appealing to diehard Republicans, that message also pleases many uncommitted people. Tom and Debbie Knight, both 38, paid their $15 to join United We Stand when Perot appeared recently in Fairfax, Virginia. She drives a school bus, he is a cabinetmaker, and neither had ever voted for President before Perot won their ballots last year. Why? "He's not a politician," said Debbie. "He's against government spending," said her husband.

The need to reach voters like the Knights has propelled a dozen Republican members of Congress, including House whip Newt Gingrich, to become dues-paying members of United We Stand. Perot is threatening to make his organization an active player in next year's election. "We have got to be the swing vote in every congressional-district race in 1994," he tells supporters. There are practical obstacles to that ambition. It is uncertain that Perot can plant functioning chapters in all 435 congressional districts, as he hopes to do. Moreover, United We Stand is applying for official status as a tax-exempt, nonprofit group of the kind barred from overt politicking in federal elections.

Still, his Texas organization provided what amounted to an endorsement of Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Republican who won a special Senate election in early June by a vote of 2 to 1. Perot now claims credit for the size of Hutchison's victory. Analysts, along with Hutchison's advisers, note that she was already far ahead when Perot announced that his members favored her. Nonetheless, Hutchison has joined United We Stand.

Many of next year's elections are expected to be genuine contests rather than easy calls. Thus small groups of motivated activists can have impact. Henry McMaster, the Republican chairman in South Carolina, observes that "Perot sounds more Republican every day." McMaster thinks Perot's minions could give the G.O.P. a shot at controlling the state's congressional delegation. In Florida operatives on both sides are compiling lists of Perot supporters to court.

Some incumbents now embracing Perot's movement acknowledge having reservations about the man himself. Republican Congressman John Doolittle of California, another member of United We Stand, says that signing up does not amount to an endorsement of Perot's own ambitions. "He's kind of an enigma to me," Doolittle says. "I'm not sure what he represents." But Doolittle got just 50% of his district's vote in 1992. Publicizing his membership in United We Stand is Doolittle's way of telling local Perot followers that he is sympathetic to their desires.

But because Perot's views follow no party line, an alliance with him is problematic for mainstream Republicans. From minority leader Dole to backbenchers like Doolittle, many Republicans support the pending North American Free Trade Agreement. Perot denounces NAFTA vehemently, even accusing lobbyists for the pact of "economic treason." On other major issues, Perot is also out of step with consensus Republican positions.

Some former Perot associates and admirers think his primal instincts are opportunistic and contrarian. Says John White, the Harvard professor who was Perot's chief economic adviser last year: "Sure he's sounding more Republican, but all he's doing is getting to the right of Clinton. If Bush were still President, Perot would be talking like Bill Clinton." Nothing about Perot's politics is simple except his determination to impose his agenda on the system. Doing that requires subtle maneuvers and temporary alliances, as those Republicans now dallying with him will discover when he tires of the romance.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

$ CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 901 adult Americans taken for TIME/CNN on June 17-21 by Yankelovich Partners Inc. Sampling error is plus or minus 3%.

CAPTION: Do you have a favorable impression of:

If Perot runs for President again, are you likely to vote for him?

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: 502 Perot voters and 765 adult Americans who did not vote for Perot in 1992 were contacted in this survey and in suulemental interviews. Sampling errors are plus or minus 4.5% and plus or minus 3.5% respectively.

CAPTION: Which goal is more important?

How much confidence do you have in the people who run our government?

Can the government be run like a business, or does it require different skills?

Should the government prohibit political contributions by special-interest groups?

Which party can do a better job of handling the nation's problems?

Which party can do a better job of handling the economy?

With reporting by Richard Woodbury/Houston