sharply

Lisa Berns, the niece of retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, passed by a newsstand in Los Angeles over the weekend and found herself reacting with dread and alarm to the news that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had just been assassinated.

The Orange County woman’s reaction surfaced again Wednesday, when her uncle announced he would not be running for President, a decision that, in Berns’ words, “hasn’t ruined my day. . . . It takes a lot of the pressure off of us. It takes the worry away.”

“People in public office just put themselves at risk every day, so I’m not unhappy that he decided not to run,” she said.

Lisa Berns’ mother, Marilyn Berns, whose only sibling is Powell, said she had never discussed the dangers of running for office with her brother, “But I know that it concerned us–my husband and our family. I think Colin’s decision was made prior” to Saturday’s tragedy in Israel.

“I wasn’t surprised [by Wednesday’s announcement] because Colin called me [Tuesday] night and told me what his decision was,” said Marilyn Berns, 64, a teacher at Martin Elementary School in Santa Ana until her retirement in June. “I’m pleased about the decision. It’s important to us that he do the thing he feels most comfortable with. . . . We were all getting very edgy about it.”

Berns said that her brother’s consideration of seeking the presidency had left his family subject to prolonged stress.

“There was this monumental decision that had to be made,” Marilyn Berns said. “Both of them [Powell and his wife, Alma], along with their kids, were just meeting and meeting and thinking it over. I didn’t realize until I spoke to him the gravity of what my brother was dealing with. That was very disturbing to me. I got a little teary over that.”

Elsewhere in Orange County, the response was less personal and more political as Democratic and Republican leaders found a common ground: Albeit for their own reasons, both parties agreed that Powell had done the right thing–the only thing he could do, really–in not seeking the White House.

But private citizens throughout the county reacted glumly, saying that Powell’s decision deprived American voters of a candidate whom many felt was potentially the best President of anyone in public life.

Others expressed relief, however, saying the timing just didn’t feel right.

Numerous political pundits said Wednesday that Powell’s wife had been “adamant” about having him decline, language with which both Berns women took issue.

Marilyn Berns said that her sister-in-law “has a lot of input” into her husband’s choices and that “they do things together as a team”–to a point.

Even if Alma Powell had strongly resisted her husband’s running, “she’s not the type of woman who is so forceful that she would ram her views down someone’s throat. That’s not Alma Powell’s style. She gives her input, and that’s it. She doesn’t beat a dead horse.”

“I haven’t talked to my aunt [Alma, Powell’s wife]. I don’t know that she’s adamant about him not running,” said Lisa Berns, a computer saleswoman in Orange County, “but I don’t think she’s got a burning desire for him to run.

“I don’t know what she feels precisely about Rabin’s assassination. I don’t know that it played a big part in their decision, but I will tell you this: I was in L.A. over the weekend visiting friends. I hadn’t been watching the news, or reading the newspaper.

“But at 5 o’clock when I walked by a newsstand and saw that Rabin had been assassinated, my heart sank. I don’t know if anybody else in the family had it cross their minds, but it certainly crossed mine.”

The Berns family is so concerned about its own privacy that both mother and daughter asked not to have published the name of the Orange County community where the family lives.

Despite her uncle’s decision, “I think he would have been great” as President, Lisa Berns said. “I think he would be good at anything he sets out to do. He’s obviously very bright, very well spoken, level-headed, cool. . . . He knows how to work under tremendous pressure in various capacities. He’s a fair person, an eminently decent person.”

On other fronts, Democrats and Republicans across the county were not about to try to persuade Powell to change his mind.

“If he had run, it would have made the Republican [presidential] race even uglier than it is already,” by pitting the moderate Powell against GOP conservatives, said Irvine attorney Jim Toledano, chairman of the Democratic Party in Orange County.

“The announcement comes as no surprise to me,” countered Thomas A. Fuentes, chairman of the Republican Party in Orange County. “I never met a party activist who was favorable to [Powell’s] nomination during all the time the press was touting it.”

It was always the media and never the GOP constituency who wanted Powell to run, Fuentes said, claiming the negative feeling was far more prevalent in the ultraconservative, Republican stronghold of Orange County.

“If there were ever a media-contrived candidacy, this was the best example,” Fuentes said. “To carry our banner requires some time of service to the party and also the full embrace of the values and ideals of the party–and that was lacking.”

Fuentes suggested that party regulars felt the would-be candidate had not yet paid his dues, noting that Powell’s most trusted advisers “obviously shared with him the reality that there was no Powell ground network. There has to be some structure, some network, some reality to a campaign. That not being in place, I think he just came to grips with reality.”

But some people reacted to Wednesday’s news with disappointment.

At the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace in Yorba Linda, about 150 people watched Powell’s announcement on a big-screen television. Many were both surprised and crestfallen at his decision. “I really thought he had the impetus and the appeal to win,” said 54-year-old Beverly Nocas of Pasadena. “He’s very articulate and I think he could have done a lot for us.”

Norma Canova, a 50-year-old resident of Yorba Linda, said, “I think he could have had a great role in healing racial problems in this country.”

But several onlookers, who had gathered to watch a fashion show called “Dressing the First Lady,” expressed relief.

“I couldn’t vote for him because I don’t know what he stands for,” said 81-year-old Henry Boney of San Diego. “I know that he’s a good salesman though. He created a lot of publicity for his book.”

Newport Beach resident Elaine Parks said she was “very impressed” with Powell, but was heartened by his decision to stay out of the race.

“It would have been divisive to the party, and we need complete unity to beat the current President, which I sincerely hope happens,” Parks said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply limited the reach of environmental impact statements in a victory for developers.

The justices said these claims of the potential impact on the environment have been used too often to delay or block new projects.

“A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process. A course correction of sorts is appropriate,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, speaking for the court.

He said procedural law has given judges and environmentalists too much authority to hinder or prevent development, he said.

“Fewer projects make it to the finish line. Indeed, fewer projects make it to the starting line. Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary,” he said. “And that in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like. And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.”

In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled for the developers of a proposed 88-mile railroad in northeastern Utah which could carry crude oil that would be refined along the Gulf Coast.

In blocking the proposal, judges had cited its potential to spur more drilling for oil in Utah and more pollution along the Gulf Coast.

Lt. Col. Oliver L. North’s passionate testimony before a congressional investigating committee may well have generated more public support for President Reagan’s efforts to provide U.S. military aid for the contras, the Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

But the charismatic Marine officer, while scoring a dramatic personal triumph, did not help Reagan’s personal popularity or the way people view his presidency, the survey showed.

In the largest poll yet taken concerning North’s testimony, which captivated millions of television viewers, people were evenly divided on the question of whether the United States should help the contras who are fighting a civil war against Nicaragua’s Marxist regime. The result was 42% to 42%, with 16% undecided.

By contrast, a Times Poll last February found Americans opposed to contra aid, 54% to 31%, with 15% undecided. Surveys by other polling organizations over the last two years have found people opposed to contra aid by ratios of 2 to 1 or more.

Although it is impossible at this point to measure the lasting impact on public opinion of North’s testimony, it is clear that many Americans currently believe he presented a persuasive case for himself regarding his role in the sale of arms to Iran and the diversion of profits to Nicaragua’s rebels.

An overwhelming number of people said they were favorably impressed with North (67%) and considered him to be a convincing witness (74%). They believed his assertion that he acted only under orders from superiors (68%) and said he was “right to follow orders without question, even though they may have been illegal or unethical” (61% to 30%, with 9% undecided).

Lying Supported

Smaller but still significant numbers of people agreed that “there are times when a government official is justified in lying to the American public” (49% agreed, 44% disagreed, with 7% undecided).

In his testimony, North freely admitted lying to Congress about the covert Iran-contra affair before it became public knowledge last November, but he fervently argued that the deception was necessary to protect the operation’s secrecy.

The nationwide telephone survey of 2,311 adults, supervised by Times Poll Director I. A. Lewis, began last Friday and ended on Monday night. The margin of error in the poll is 3 percentage points in either direction.

Reagan’s determination to bankroll the contras and supply them with arms has sparked some of the most divisive foreign policy fights of his presidency. Congress has reversed itself several times–a fact North repeatedly pointed out in his testimony–and faces another battle over the issue this fall, when $70 million in U.S. military aid and $30 million in non-military assistance are due to run out.

Congress had banned U.S. aid for the contras at the time North was involved in funneling profits from Iran arms sales to the Nicaraguan guerrillas. But North insisted to the investigating committee that he had done nothing illegal, declaring: “What we did was constitutional in its essence.”

The White House on Tuesday cited its own polling evidence that North’s testimony had helped to turn around public opinion on contra aid. Reagan’s private pollster, Richard B. Wirthlin, reported that, in a Monday night survey of 600 people, contra aid was slightly favored, 48% to 46%. A similar Wirthlin poll on June 27 found people opposing the aid by more than 2 to 1.

The Times survey showed that North has achieved a recognition most politicians would envy: 94% of Americans are familiar with his name. They describe him most often as “dedicated” and “a man who can get things done.” But only 4% think of him as “a hero,” a characterization applied by Reagan.

Evidence that North’s ardent advocacy of contra aid may indeed have swayed public opinion can be seen by examining the responses of people who said they paid “a lot of attention” to his televised testimony (52%) and those who paid “not much” or no attention (47%). People who paid a lot of attention favored contra aid by 49% to 38%. The figures were virtually reversed for those who paid little attention, 46% against to 34% for.

People who paid a lot of attention to the hearings agreed, more than the others, that a government official sometimes is “justified in lying to the American public,” that North acted under orders from his superiors and that he was right to “follow orders without question,” even if it meant committing “illegal or unethical” acts.

And people who paid a lot of attention to North’s testimony tended to form a more favorable impression of him than they had had before. Impressions became more favorable for 51%; less favorable for only 7%.

But the public had a mixed view of the congressional investigating committee. The characterization most often used was “doing its job.” But next came “politically motivated” and “nit-picking.” Only 6% thought the committee was “fair.”

And, by almost 3 to 2, those surveyed said Congress was “more to blame for the Iran-contra affair” than was Reagan, under whose Administration it occurred. (Congress was blamed by 43%, Reagan by 30%, 12% blamed both equally, and 15% were not sure.)

Another irony, given North’s immense popularity, is that, when people were asked “what upsets you most about the Iran-contra affair,” heading the list was the shredding of documents. North, by his own testimony, was the chief shredder.

Next, people objected to “helping the ayatollah” and “trading arms for hostages while telling our allies not to deal with terrorists.” The least objectionable aspect was “illegally diverting funds to the contras.”

Reagan’s strategy as North’s six days of testimony began unfolding on July 7 was to publicly ignore it. And he wound up not benefiting personally from the outpouring of public support that the articulate former aide generated.

Compared to previous Times surveys, Reagan’s standing did not improve on the measurements of job approval (50%) or the public’s impression of him (58% favorable). A majority believed the President “has lied about the Iran-contra affair” (52% yes, 30% no). And, in particular, they felt that he “knew about the diversion of funds” from the Iran arms sales to the contras (62% yes, 26% no). Reagan has insisted he did not know.

Fifty-nine percent said Reagan’s leadership had been “diminished” or “destroyed.” And 44% felt that at age 76 the President “may be getting too old to keep up with all his responsibilities.”

About half (48%) thought North was not guilty of a crime. Among the rest, 17% believed he was guilty and “should be sent to jail,” 13% figured he was guilty and “should be pardoned” and 22% were not sure. But 61% predicted that, regardless of his guilt or innocence, North would never spend time behind bars.

Also, just 50% felt North “had not lied under oath” to the investigating committee, despite his adamant vow to “tell the whole truth–the good, the bad and the ugly.” Among the rest of those surveyed, 28% said he had lied and 22% were not sure.

If he did lie, it was “to protect the President,” 47% said. Only 16% thought it would have been “to protect himself.”

The survey found great curiosity in the Iran-contra affair generally, with 77% expressing interest. Sixty percent described the congressional hearings as “valuable.” But nearly half also thought they were now “running out of steam.”

NORTH vs. THE COMMITTEE Would you say Oliver North . . .

Is dedicated 37%

Can get things done 27%

Can be bought 11%

Is dangerous 4%

Is a fanatic 4%

Is a hero 4%

Other replies 13%

Would you say the Iran-Contra Committee . . .

Is doing its job 28%

Is politically motivated 20%

Is nit-picking 15%

Is hostile to witnesses 8%

Is thorough 8%

Is fair 6%

Other replies 15%