tv 1984 Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN March 20, 2016 10:00am-11:01am EDT
thursday, march 3. we are having a concert of early american music by the historic trumpets and flutes from the old guard. i hope you can attend that. thank you and have a good evening. you are watching american history tv. 48 hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. follow us on twitter for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. the 2016eek until presidential election, american history tv rings you coverage of our presidential races. next, the 1984 democratic debate. between former presidential nominee and the reverend jesse jackson.
the debate is best remembered for the question on the deaths of the policy proposals. he asked, where is the beef? the vice president finish the primary season with the lead in the delegates but he did not secure the nomination over senator hart until he democratic convention in july. he then lost the election to ronald reagan. the president one -- president won 49 out of 50 states. >> good afternoon. i'm the president of the league of women voters. as we have done in previous presidential years, the league of women voters is sponsoring a series of general election debates. so that you can make side-by-side comparisons of the
candidates and their views. john chancellor is our moderator for today's debate. >> thank you. ue, gentleman in the leag when they sponsored -- there were eight of you, and now there are only five. quach of you have not done as well as you would like. let me describe your positions. jesse jackson, if he doesn't get any percent of the vote, he will lose his eligibility for federal campaign matching funds. mr. mcgovern is down to one state. he may withdraw. mr. glenn has not scored a victory and the polls don't put him in a strong position. mr. mondale's hopes have not been for field. -- been for field -- been fulfilled. -- a man with ideas for the future but his opponents say it
is tinsel. lamer with no substance. now, onto the substance. you have a lot of experience in civil rights. now that your campaigning in the south, you have been hitting the civil rights theme very hard, saying that you're better than your opponents on that issue. does that tend to narrow your candidacy? there are a lot of white voters who did not rally. have you reached the point where your support will come exclusively from blacks? >> in new hampshire, i got better than four of my opponents. in vermont, we got 8% of the votes. we have focused on the question -- 90% charity. they can appreciate the fact that they will be driven out of business.
curb the military budget and use military sources to help end the deficit and revitalize the america. that affects everybody. the voting rights act is the most pivotal act of the century. there is a plan to enforce the voting rights act to win the primary. so the questions of social justice and peace and sharing power with women are critical to my agenda. >> thank you. mr. mcgovern, you have been critical of gary hart recently. he was your campaign manager when he ran for president. ure,is talk about the fut about the opportunities for a new generation, much different than what you were saying? i think if all,
trained gary too well. say, as one who is great special affection for gary hart and who will certainly support him if he is the democratic nominee, that i do think some legitimate questions have to be asked when the issue is posed. he says the election as a contest between the past and the future. now, i am not sure what the past means in those terms. i'm sensitive about this because i am an old history teacher. i have always revered the past. in closethe past george washington and thomas jefferson? is it includes kennedy and the human rights policy of president carter? if it does, i'm glad to come here and claim the past.
thank you. mr. glenn, we saw you in iowa. you described yourself as a businessman and an experienced senator. but last week, you seem to be describing yourself as a hero astronaut. you have been all of these things but can you really decide what sorts of person you have been? >> i don't think i have changed my views. what you are talking about is the experience factor. i have been 10 years in washington and have passed major legislation. i know how washington operates. who knows the best from the have started for small businesses of my own. international corporations. one third of our agricultural population -- it is so important for the future.
we talk about the future and i have been working in the future all my life. i was in the military, healthy to design the equivalent for the future. i think those are very valuable additions, in addition to just being lifelong political entities. that gives a dimension that would give a good dimension for the white house. >> thank you. mr. mondale, your new theme is, what you see is what you get. no hairspray. [laughter] >> you are saying, i am what i am. that approach may seem a bit short on actual issues and you to accuse your opponents of
running issue list campaigns. >> that is the point of the comment. substance is all that matters. are we right on the arms control issues? do we see that as a central issue of our time? do we have a strong plan to get the deficits down? and restore america's competitiveness? do we have the guts and the commitment to restore a sense of fairness? that is what i am trying to say. we don't elect images. we elect a human being. we need to pick someone who knows what he's doing. who is committed to the strongest elements and one who sees the experience and knows what he is doing. >> thank you. finally, mr. gary hart. one thing i hear people say is that i don't know much about him. i like his style and looks. isn't there some truth that your
campaign like his style and lo. isn't there some truth that your campaign is more impressionistic than theirs? you are spending more time just being gary hart than outlining things in your election? >> at is a good question at this stage in the race. let me point out to facts. i have been a united states senator for two years. hen george mcgovern said, doesn't know what the new ideas are, i have to remind him that last fall, i send them a copy of the book that i wrote and a stack of papers about that high. i have the campaigns of all these other people. the other thing is, these primaries are happening fast. i oppose the way they were set up. full, irecord, in the asked them not to do this. i wish i had three weeks to campaign in florida and georgia
and alabama, because i am convinced, the ideas that i have to move forward would sell down here exactly the way they have in the rest of the country. so i would hope in the future, when we nominate the president, and we give each candidate time to be known. >> thank you. i would like to go on to specific questionings. the figures on the american economy show that the country right now is having one of the best recoveries from the recession of the 1950's. the country is in better shape right now than it was four years ago. i base that on the misery index. expectation on inflation and unemployment. four years ago, it was in the 20's. today, it is down to 13. so i'm going to ask each of you in random order, why should somebody vote for the democrats? things are getting better. i would like to start with mr. mondale. the misery index was first used
in 1976. x as a matter of fact, i think it is now clear that we have a misery index that we haven't seen in a long time. we see the interest rates rising dramatically. we see the stock market going down dramatically. now we see a resurgence of inflation. we have a good chance, if this continues, to choke off economic growth. more than that, the effect of these economic policies has been to give us a word -- the worst year in the industry. a trade imbalance. jobs lost as a result of that. , as farormous deficits as the eye can see, it guarantees that long-term sustainable healthy economic growth is possible and we are loading our kids with a trillion
dollar bill that they have to pay with interest. it is the worst economic mistake of modern times. >> i will go to mr. gary hart. >> two points. as he has accurately stated, this generation and this government is doing something that we have not done for 200 years in this nation's history. that is to steal from our children's future. two, the misery indicator doesn't measure the anguish of our children who are desperately ,fraid of the nuclear holocaust of the woman in alabama who wrote to me saying that she fully supported my efforts to get from a marine's out of lebanon and her son was one who did not come back. the anguish of our citizens who are afraid of toxic waste polluting their water supply.
a job who don't have beyond that and the 9 million people who are unemployed fed ronald reagan has no plan whatsoever to put back to work. this president is not addressing the fundamental problems of the economy. >> why the democrats? >> the misery index of our children, i would like to know what that is going to be. we are talking $200 billion year deficit and we are letting that drive interest rates up and we're driving down escort -- down exports. we are increasing the misery index for our children. anyone can live on borrowed money for a while. but there are things that have to go into that index for the future. this administration has taken a short review on. this is caused by cutbacks in education. it goes beyond high school, getting a decent education. i have put forward a three-part young people being
assured of getting a college education. we are talking about the difficulty in investigating in new plant equipment here. arejapanese-germans increasing their research while we are cutting back. it is not just an economic matter. it is economic matters for the future that will cause our children to live in economic misery. we can do better than that. >> mr. reagan has done something that i didn't expect a conservative president to do. he has bought us an artificial recovery for some people. by spending $200 billion a year more than he takes in. i'm sure some of the viewers ingtening think we are mak partisan judgments here today about the president, but his own artisan judgments here todayan about the president, but his own
economic advisor, the chairman of economic advisers has said that this deficit is a time bomb that is going to go off after the election. it will drive interest rates through the ceiling and that is the end of the recovery. he has also said what is covering -- what is causing the withit is a wild inflation military spending. it goes way beyond any defense requirements that we have. and secondly, it is inefficient and unjust law that is permitting billions of dollars to go through the loopholes to the highest income corporations in the country. >> my concern is that we feel the tragic pain of the misery index rising but democrats will not make a difference if we go in the same direction, just a little slower. misery ofdd to the women who need to become empowered. rex could you go over that
again? >> what i'm saying is that our connection is not 50% female. 70% of all cultures live in a house with a woman. if they maintain a commitment to raise the military budget, they can do nothing about the deficit. they go in the same direction, just a little bit slower. i consider us spending $150 billion a year to help europe when they can defend themselves now, we are extending the misery. the misery index is on the ride. things may be looking better but the folks stuck at the bottom are saying things are much worse. >> let's get into a few minutes of freewheeling. you are at liberty to attack one another. let me try one thing. aren't most of you actually for an increase in tax spending?
rex i am not. withoutthis can be done touching anything that is important to our national defense. i am a bomber pilot in the second world war. i would not advocate anything that i thought touched the essential defense of this country. but some of the most thoughtful people have looked at the military budget and say it is loaded with waste and costs and noncompetitive bidding. if we had somebody like lee i toke up as the secretary of defense, and he would do for the pentagon what he would do for the chrysler motors, we could have a good tough defense for at least 20-25% less money. then you have the money to do other things. >> i suspect jesse jackson is not out of phase with that question. >> it requires that we at this point have some kind of congressional oversight that
allows us to become managed. right now it is unmanageable. ie no-bid contracts -- support the need for troops in europe. there are 50,000 troops in japan. this would help to share some of the burden. if we can cut the defense by at least 25%, the budget, not the defense, that is the money for new ideas. >> we have two cutters. i understand the position taken by the other three. this is for cutting what the president has requested in addition. but you still would favor a certain increase in the defense budget? am i right? >> let me answer this. i am for reducing the reagan military buildup right when
hundred 40-100 $50 billion in the next 4-5 years. i spell that out in great detail. i'm the only member of the group who has 10 years of experience in the armed services committee. i will to you why i disagree with george and jesse. one is that we have to increase over ronald reagan what we paying our military personnel to retain the most skilled personnel among other things to avoid going back to a very fear non-style draft. secondly, even after spending $650 billion in the last three years, the pentagon admits we have fewer combat ready divisions than we had in 1980 under the carter administration. that means ronald reagan is plundering the readiness counts of our conventional forces for a procurement those up which will make as weaker. >> before we go on, maybe we can
find a way to make this more understandable. you present is asked for a 13% increase this year in allocations for defense? that is a 13% increase? what would your figure b? in that context? >> minus three point 5%-4%. >> if we can keep it to that, it will make more sense. >> not to argue with senator hart -- >> why not? >> he wrote a dissenting opinion in which he seemed to say he wanted as much or more military spending as mr. reagan. but we make my point. one of the realities of the modern presidential leadership is that as much as we want to bring the defense budget down, and i do, as much as you want to get rid of weapons systems that don't buy us defense, as much as
we need a tough system of testing and warranties, as much as we need arms control to help bring down pressure, the inescapable fact is that the soviet union, it is a powerful military nation using its power irresponsibly in cambodia and afghanistan and elsewhere. and at present, the united states has you everything to manage the budget sensibly and wisely. he cannot fail to effectively discharge the national security interests of our country. that is a tough balance. but the president must do it. >> can you give me a percentage? >> about 4%. >> i am at about 6%. my two colleagues on the right feel here, that we could cut our defense establishment beyond all reality as far as keeping the
security of the country. i have proposed cutting $50 million out. i have specified where that would be. it would be in the rapid deployment force. for the soviets, it has been relatively. the former vice president would cut the cruise missiles and the foreign troops. he would cut the m1 tank. he would cut much of the volunteer army. i propose that would leave this country emasculated. the only thing to pull back from has been the trident missile and the cruise missile. -- thet opposed the patriot hellfire, the missiles, we've country program of leadership in washington that is taller than blur is better. rather than stressing our
technology. that is a fundamental difference between us. i'm saying that every single thing we put out there has to work and work properly. but we cannot go back to a smaller, simpler day warehouse we wind up matching our numbers of, versus the soviets, as opposed to using what we have done in every war, which is to use every technology to keep from using so many people out there. to put distance between the enemy with technology. i have fought in the wars. i know what it is like to want the best technology because my life depended on it. so i do not agree with these smaller and simpler approach. >> let me respond, if i may? >> now we have four out of five hand up. it goes gary hart, jesse jackson, mcgovern and mondale.
you are on. >> what senator glenn doesn't address is the need for more units of all these things. weekend afford more when the each cost $3.5 billion. we are behind the soviets and we are falling behind in almost every category because we are worshiping technology. i want to use our technological superiority to produce conventional weapons that work in sufficient numbers to defend the interests. it beingn make prepared to kill and be killed by the russians. traded andiated and use technology and we wouldn't have to prepare to fight, we could prepare to live.
they are alive because we decided not to kill them. it is uncivilized behavior. we need to begin to use our minds. we need to go another way. it is a waste of money killing people in the caribbean or central america or in lebanon. if we save the money we are used killing people there, we could cut the budget without cutting defense. use our minds and go another way. >> one thing that is clear here today is that there is no new idea coming from the side over here. >> what we've got is the same old argument. the russians are coming and there are about to jump on us. you can be very sure that the same argument is being made over there. the americans are gaining on us. both of these superpowers are literally scaring each other to death. each side is arming in the name
of defense. each side is piling up more and more of the weapons of destruction at a time when our society is deteriorating. knewdent eisenhower, who more about these matters than any other president since world war ii put it this way, if the military spends too much, it actually weakens the country. by depriving us of other sources of national power. education, housing, transportation. these are things that also have to do with our national strength. and i think we need a leadership that is trying to get the russians to the bargaining table trillion, we need the common sense to say we are ready to bargain right now. reagan has taken this unjustified buildup. they have walked out. on the arms negotiations.
>> i agree that the idea of building up arms to scare the russian so then they will agree with whatever we want will fail. i want to be understood as being totally committed. theannual summit conference efforts to reduce tensions, i couldn't agree with you more. on the other hand, and i don't want to misinterpret what you said. the soviets are using their power in the polls and in cambodia and in afghanistan. in syria and in ways that are irresponsible and are dangerous. >> harry going to stop that with another 4% in military spending? that won't change their relationship to poland or other areas. >> i think we need to have a sensible defense. it is a question of balance. the point i wanted to
respond to john glenn is that i am from a strong defense. let me give you an example. you have singled out my opposition. it has been a gross distortion. >> know it is not. i am for a strong defense. the b-1 which i opposed i support the south because it is a modern movement that will move us to the next century. most it it is probably the respected single specialist in armed services in our country. i am against the mx but i am for -- i think the navy has to be scaled to proper proportion and i would be for strengthening nato. those are strong and responsible positions. >> it reflects the realities of the world as i see them. >> make a response as brief as
possible. otherwise we could spend the whole day on this topic. >> i'm the only one who is put this forward as we try to scale arms down. nuclear act so we prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. it involves other weapons in the state. that is a five-point program. we had a debate which you will recall two years ago. he talks about the cheaper carrier. it shows a fundamental lack of understanding as how it works. the dots are you are trying to present airpower at sea. it comes to around a hundred $26 million per aircraft.
249 milliono dollars per gary's proposal. i won that debate decisively about two years ago. as a lack ofi see understanding when you do not have the experience and some of these areas. >> i believe the charge was fundamental lack of understanding. mr. hart jumped out of his chair. unless you want to sneak in before gary hart. >> everybody is making on gary. [laughter] argumenting about this about a strong defense, the more we talk about in terms of engaging in trade, the less we will have the tensions. president reagan is vulnerable. we talk in ways that confuse the people. that he has cut programs from children in lunch.
stamps.ut out food he cuts away food from children. he argues against premeditated prayer. here is a man who does not go to church talking about prayer. [laughter] [applause] >> what that says is that he has not prayed in so long he is forgotten the structure of a prayer. you do not pray for food that just left, you pray for food your about to eat. what we should do is pray to remove the man who was removing their food. vulnerable in the levels of the misery index. the people are hurting. the people are unless food and less medical care. let's talk about a strong defense, our domestic tranquility. to save the nation from the inside out. >> i want to ask just one
question. every gentleman on this platform knows that if we let fly just 10% of the nuclear weapons we have targeted on the susan -- on the soviet union, every person in the soviet union would instantly. what are we going to achieve, building further on that? what are we trying to do with a 4% increase? why not a cut in this enormous escalation the president has? >> let me respond. george is a former bomber pilot. you will agree between the difference in strategic or nuclear weapons and conventional ones. weaponsll bring nuclear down, we have to have adequate conventional forces and pay the people who run them. advocatesee paying an
-- an adequate wage to make a career of defending the country is threatening or fronting the russians. >> i agree. unless we can make modest increases in training and pay nuclear- if you cut the systems as substantially as they should be, they were be enough money to do the things you want to. >> why is john glenn attacking me for all of the cuts i want to make and you are attacking me for not cutting more? [laughter] >> the reason is that john glenn is further off than you are. [laughter] we could go on all day. last word on the subject. then we have to go on. >> just a little one pay the cost increase, and you pointed out about increase in nuclear. i do not think we need an increase in nuclear. what i support is the idea of upgrading and making certain our
conventional forces are adequate so we pray we never reach that nuclear threshold and have the 10 reputation on either side to go to nuclear warfare. >> we are now going to change the subject. [laughter] >> i want you all to listen to this, because you have all thought about sleeping in the white house. [laughter] 2:00 in the morning. you are sound the street -- you are sound asleep in the bedroom and the phone rings. an airliner from czechoslovakia, a communist country, antares to agreeairspace airbases. it is headed for the north american air defense command. american fighters have tried everything they can do, short of shooting it down, to stop it. they look in. the lights are on and it is full of people.
there you are on the phone at 2:00 in the morning. what will you do? hart: if the people had uniforms on, i would shoot the aircraft down. if they were civilians, i would let it keep going. >> i would share the same judgment. as we saw with the korean airline's situation, when you shoot down an innocent civilian aircraft -- these things have markings. you do not have a civilian aircraft with military potentials unless that is obvious. when that is the case, it seems you take every reasonable precaution to avoid the kind of crisis and embarrassment and humiliation on heart ache surrounding korean airlines. this could be a potential attack, that is something else. but what are the odds of your question ever occurring? do you really believe the soviet union was after us, they would
fire up an old 707 and go pu tting across the air? [laughter] >> or do you think they would take modern stuff and let it all go. i think it is a wonderful hypothetical, but ridiculous. [laughter] >> does anybody disagree? there is such a fundamental understand and some is understanding that you will peak in the windows to see if they are wearing military uniforms. >> he said you look in and see people. [laughter] >> that is what he said. you do not go up peaking in the windows of these airplanes. [laughter] i think one important element is very important. that is if we had an adequate intelligence service with --
which some of the others on the platform have supported cutbacks , then we would know more about with the soviets are doing if we expanded it. if we had an adequate satellite system that tells us where that airline came from, what information about what was what was the airplane, sent in to the base where it took off. it is not as simplistic as you make it. >> just briefly. -- you for the brevity of your response. i think what this hypothetical example points out, and all due respect to you, i think it is ridiculous, but what it points out as well as the korean jetliner incident, fundamentally, is the necessity of better medication between
washington and moscow. one of the great tragedies of the last three years is that the president of the united states has not even talked for 60 seconds for -- with the other leaders of the superpower. leaders have died without even meeting our president. if we had systematic, regular talks between the president of the u.s. and his counterpart in the soviet union, it is possible we could have avoided the korean jetliner incident and this hypothetical matter you have proposed. if world war iii columns, it will be because of a communications breakdown. >> you are all democrats. which means that you are the of franklinirs delano roosevelt. when he became president, the u.s. began to change. the federal government took over many of the responsibilities of
the states and cities. we have had half a century of continued federal involvement in people's lives. in --ms it has grown much since those years. republicans think the election of 1980 change that. if one of you wins the election, will there be less federal involvement or will it be a return to the way things were before reagan? mondale: it is a sexual the president lead us with a strong federal government to solve those problems he central to our future. the deficit down dramatically. if we do not do that, we cannot have a healthy economy. number two, have an assertive, strong american trade policy. farmers and industrialists through georgia and alabama -- alabama has 13.5% unemployment.
a lot of that is because of the trade disaster. we need a renaissance of education and learning in science. once tonext generation defend themselves, they need the support. finally, we need a president who leads us to justice. i mean and forcing the civil rights act, ratifying the equal , standing upent for social security and medicare. the country must be fair to the history of america is when a president lead us towards fairness and towards our future, it can be done. two comments, mr. chancellor. i have made an issue out of the ofd of a new generation leadership. i mean primarily those who have common to the political life and leadership in the past decade. that is because there is a strong antigovernment feeling. i fundamentally disagree with
ronald reagan when he says he loves our country but hates the government. i do not hate the government. we ought to have leaders who ask people what they can do for their country, using the best instruments of our government. that there is a fundamental difference between the vice president mondale and myself. that is i think we can meet the basic human needs and commitments of the people in this country by restoring entrepreneurship. jobs in this society have, from small businesses. democraticion of the party to minority should not just be jobs. it should be the opportunity to own and create businesses that create jobs. what is new about coming out for entrepreneurs? your new ideas, i am reminded of that at last "where's the beef?"
[laughter] >> let's keep going. [laughter] >> wait a minute, he is going to tell you where's the beef. i think you listen, would know it is here. one of the other differences is if a president goes back into office, and one of us must to save the country, you cannot go back. ofcommitted to a handful constituency groups that you cannot make this economy grow again, again a major difference between myself and mr. mondale. >> wait. i told you i would get the deficit down, educate the next generation. those are not special interest groups. i said i would stand for -- against special interests -- [laughter] support social security and medicare. what is wrong with that? >> nothing is wrong with that. >> i would like to move on. ckson: the role of the
government is to be a balance between egg labor and big management. the government has to assume basic responsibility for enforcing the laws. you cannot have the interest of the old weaver and the cotton. there are zero blacks in ,ongress, and the supreme court 14 years after the civil rights act. the government must enforce the law. equivocate in the case of local consideration. on the other hand, well we focus on what the government does, the has billionomy dollar tax perks to corporations. they must be obligated to reinvest in this economy and not
export our jobs to slave labor markets abroad. that is a strong, central government that is a balancing wheel. >>s when i was a boy, we had around 60% of people below the poverty level. fdr came in. for theame into work wpa. we estimated a few years ago only 9% of the people in this country were at or near poverty level. that is a record of social evolution that happened with good, solid democratic programs. we can be proud of those. we went a little too far and some of those programs. we have to correct those. now you're are talking about intrusion of government. there are areas where we have major differences. i spoke them out between myself and mr. hart a couple of days ago.
e.r.a.. i am proud of it. he said he would use the power of the federal government to withhold projects -- >> no i did not -- >> yes, you did. i will read it to you. i will read it, if i have enough time. >> you can read it on the next turn around. >> he said he would withhold federal projects. that is flat wrong. when you are going to intrude into people's lives in that basis with federal projects. he set an industrial policy that said he wanted to make choices in credit and allocate those things. and that intrudes the federal government into business. >> i am sorry. but if you can take that out of your closing statement -- we have not heard from george mcgovern about the federal role in megan life. : there are two them
types of concentration of power. one is too much federal concentration. the other is too much corporate concentration of power. on the federal side, president reagan has increased the percentage of gnp now being taken up by the federal government. the reason is obviously the traumatic increase in military spending. he has cut nutrition and education, the environment. things like that. those cuts are less than the increase in the interest rate in federal debt since he took office because of the escalating deficit he has brought on. on the corporate side, we have had more, huge corporate mergers anyhe last three years then previous time in american history. enormous oil companies taking over others to the point i think it is a call on all of us to see what we can do to strengthen antitrust laws. saying -- democrats,
think of the private sector can pick up the slack insert in federal governments'programs? private,k of that a healthy economy is indispensable to everything. if you do not have a growing, healthy economy with entrepreneurship and small businesses, we will not solve anything. thatey is to make syrup the prosperity and arch for sure to make sure that the entrepreneurship is found in minorities as well. there is a lot we can do through tax incentives, federal licensing laws, the small business administration to make sure more black, hispanic, women, and other minorities can participate in full in profit making. and through training and education make certain that people who are now being left the hind arm a of this process.
that depends on a private, healthy economy. that is why you have to get the deficit down and get going with an environment where we can prosper. >> when i was in operation .irst, reagan cut down on aid we began to move toward trade. river king, for example, made the judgment to build a plant in utah and alabama. they guaranteed a market of 5 million pounds of cucumbers a year. if a company does that, they get a tax incentive. if a corporation puts a day care center at its plant, which allows the mother to calm to work - to come to work. if there is a tax investment and forcerains our work rather than closing plants and sending workers abroad, these of
tax incentives as leverage for development is a creative use of leverage. hart.ator then after, we have time for one more response before i have to ask you to go into your closing statements. almost 10 in the years of the center for me, vice president mondale has pulled about half-dozen of my thousands of votes to say i am not for this or that. one was a vote for osha. vice president mondale knows i am as committed to a safe workplace as he is. it wase is this -- towards the big difference. it was to exempt from certain people work requirements. small businesses who have 10 or fewer employees. and farmers who employed fewer than five people. it was that bird is some bureaucracy and paperwork that drove the democrats out of
office in the 1970's. we can have a safe workplace for people without driving small business people and family farmers off their land or out of their business. neveraw the vote but have mentioned it. the what i talked about was, youe unlike some senators, refused to vote on a windfall profits tax, it is, if successful, would have given the oil $250 million. >> there you go again. >> secondly, i talked about your $10 a barrel tax. that is the worst idea in this campaign. it is the worst idea. carter is not for it. nobody except yours is for it, and you are not talking about it anymore it is so bad. half a million people lose their jobs. america will become the highest cost producing area in the country. talk about intrusion and
instruction of jobs in entrepreneurship. this is a disaster. i do not think you thought it through. >> let me respond. >> let me finish my point. >> this is a bad idea. [laughter] >> i am terribly worried. you have a choice. i am sorry, but the clock is inexorable. of having a chance to say what you want to say at the end or squeezing it at the very end. so senator, can you say in 25 words or less? >> i voted for a carter-mondale tariff on imported oil. who had thenators courage to support this administration. and i proposed a windfall oilits tax of 100% on old
owned by the big oil companies in this country. that goes beyond carter-mondale. >> this is a distortion of what he did -- cannot have 25 seconds? when we needed you, you were wrong. >> that is not right. >> i will ask you now, if we can get your closing statements. a breath.l take sorry, senator mcgovern but we have to do that. the first one we asked, preordained by lot, goes to senator hart. i have no idea how the primaries and caucuses will, out next tuesday or beyond. i obviously hope i will be several reasons. george mcgovern talked about the great leaders of our past, democratic or otherwise. as deeply rooted in those ideas as any person in
this country. it is interesting the leaders he mentioned represented something else other than ideas and principles. he represented change. when kind -- when this country had the change, came to this -- from those of us who had a vision of this country's future. that is what this campaign is about. we cannot go back. we must have new leadership and a new approach and a fresh start for the country. >> mr. jackson. mr. jackson: if we have new leadership to replace old leadership going basically in the same direction, not sharing the ticket with a woman, increasing the military budget, resisting a real commitment to enforcing the voting rights act, that is a new face or a new game on an old game.
our party has to be the party of conscience. 15% of our nation -- there must be a commitment to lift those votes stuck at the bottom. we must produce a military budget without reducing our military defense. to create aey future for our children that they may be able to late breaks and not throw them. we will suffer the breach in character -- we must pursue those values. >> mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: since gary and fred have been objecting to being called a front runner, i hope they will let me take that label back with me to boston. franklin roosevelt once said the presidency is free eminently a
place of moral leadership. that is true. that means the next president will have to seek our salvation from nuclear annihilation. learn to that, we have to to quit intervening in these third world revolutions, whether it is el salvador or nicaragua or lebanon or wherever, unfortunately. in the name of fighting communism, we have embraced virtually every scoundrel in the world willing to waive an anti-communist banner. [applause] >> the time has come for the united states to once again assert in foreign policy not what we hate and fear what -- but what this great country is for. that ought to be the goal of the next president. >> thank you. brought up weorge have not had more of an
opportunity to talk about foreign policy. that is so important. but i do not agree with gary that this is a generation gap of some kind. we go ahead as a nation and always have in the past. we have the best interest of all of our people. have concerns for everyone in our society. the south has the opportunity to set that course next tuesday. fors a unique opportunity our nation. i see myself as a moderate, the only moderate left. i do not believe in politics of momentum that seems to be abroad. politics of stampede. i hope the people of the south will slow down, think about the issues, and the position we have taken in the economy and education and research these things. then vote about what you know we have actually proposed. we can control the destiny of
this country. we can be number one again. did notcgovern said he want people to throw wore a their conscience. i say do not throw away your common sense either. iur vote next week -- guarantee you i will give you a presidency you can be proud of again. e: in the south and throughout the country, we are about to participate in super tuesday. the most important question is whether the president you want is someone who will ensure our national security and will work for peace. that takes someone who knows what he is doing. two man well now be a race between myself and senator hart. at the records, i think something is disclosed. a few days ago, senator hart said that if persian gulf oil were interrupted that the allies would be on their own and they could not look to us for help.
in my opinion, that is naive. us we must teaches stand together as an alliance and work together or the security of the western world. sometime back, he was asked whether cuba was a totalitarian state. he said no. that is wrong. it is a commie just dictatorship and the president must know the difference. he has a weak record on arms control. we need a president who will push forward and provide the leadership of this country needs for our national security and to achieve the peace. >> i want to thank you all. we have come to the end of this. did you not just a minute ago "suffering breeds discipline"? >> no, it breeds character. such turf orve all character because of the suffering have been through. the next league of women voters debate will take place in his
print april 5. we are not supposed to take sides on this. i think it would be nice if all five of you could join the league of woman's voters there. as you say, reverend jackson, "suffering breeds character." thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> up next on "american history discusses "thek army's forces," and in his thesis he argues that no one has previously done a detailed study of reinforcement policy in that replacement soldiers were often rushed to the combat line without proper training or equipment.