In For Keeps, or Just for Kicks?

HE'S BAAAAAACK. ROSS PEROT WAS POISED LAST week to jump back into the presidential race he abandoned less than three months ago. Perot had been signaling the move for weeks with repeated -- and justified -- warnings that neither George Bush nor Bill Clinton is grappling with the nation's fundamental fiscal problems. But Perot is driven by two other forces: he is anxious to rehabilitate the reputation he tarnished by quitting the race in | July. And he seems to harbor a profound dislike of Bush.

What's still unknown is whether Perot would come in for keeps, or just for kicks. Perot met last week with White House chief of staff James Baker, in part to determine whether Bush might adopt Perot's own rigorous plan for fixing the nation's economic problems. Bush officials regarded that probe as a ploy. Said one: "He was just going through the necessary steps so he could say when he got in that 'Bush isn't serious about fixing the problem.' "

Perhaps not coincidentally, a hush seemed to fall over the campaign last week. Resting up for the final push, Bush took the better part of two days off -- a move that left Clinton's quick-reaction team without much to react to. Both campaigns put new negative ads on the air: Clinton's commercials attacked Bush's poor handling of the economy, while Bush's ads lampooned Clinton's enthusiasm for raising taxes in Arkansas. The race is sure to get nastier: both camps consider this first wave of negative spots to be in the kinder and gentler category.

The White House and Little Rock also continued to bicker over the terms of possible debates, with the result being that both sides now privately acknowledge that only a single debate is likely before the election. Bush refused to discuss a compromise on debate format because he believes that just by appearing on the same stage with Clinton he will narrow the "stature gap" he enjoys over the man he calls "the Governor of a small Southern state." As a Bush aide put it, "Win or draw, the first debate will allow Clinton to narrow the stature gap."

By stalling on debates, Bush and Baker run the risk of allowing Clinton to paint the President as a chicken for another week or two. But it is a risk Bush is willing to take if he can drive up Clinton's negatives in the meantime. "Baker is making a calculation that as long as we're going negative, and it's working, there is no reason to debate yet," the official said, adding, "And until we know what Perot's going to do, it makes sense to stand pat."

Maybe so, but Baker and his team have yet to make any dent in Clinton's lead, and some polls, including TIME's latest survey, suggest that the Arkansas Governor is actually pulling ahead. Such polls explain why some Bush aides now privately believe Baker needs to agree to a speedy debate in the hope that a strong Bush showing might "transform" the race. As one Republican analyst said, "The longer Bush's numbers don't move, the more skeptical the public becomes, not only of Bush's ability to win but also his ability to lead the country." (See related story on page 31.)

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 848 likely voters taken for TIME/CNN on Sept. 22-24 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 3%.

Shelly Katz -- Black Star for Time TIME Graphic

CAPTION: If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote?

And for whom would you vote with Perot on the ballot and actively running?