tv 1984 Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN April 1, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> good afternoon. welcome to the league's second presidential debate of 1984. as we've done in previous presidential election years, the league of women voters is sponsoring a series of primary and general election debates so that you, the voter, can make side by side comparisons of the candidates and their views. john chancellor is our moderator for today's debate. john? thank you. back in new hampshire, there were eight of you. now there are only five. you survivors look pretty chipper to me. and since then, four of you have not done as well, candidly, as you would have liked. let me describe your positions. jesse jackson, if he doesn't get 20% of the vote in a primary before april 6, he will use his eligibility for federal campaign matching funds.
mr. mcgovern is down to campaigning in only one state, massachusetts. and if he doesn't do well there, he may withdraw. plchl h m mr. glenn has yet to get a victory. mr. mondale's hopes for a quick and decisive lead in all of this hasn't been fulfilled. i believe i heard him use the word clobbered to describe one of his defeats. mr. hart has done well. he's presented himself as a man with ideas for the future, but his opponents say that's justin sell. glamour but no substance. well, on to the substance, ladies and gentlemen. mr. jackson, you've got a lot of frontline combat experience in civil rights. now that you're campaigning in the south where there are a lot of black vote, you've been hitting that civil rights theme very hard, saying in effect you're better than your opponents on that issue. does this tend, do you think to narrow your candidacy. there's a lot of white voters who didn't rally to your rainbow coalition. have you reached the point where your support will come almost exclusively from blacks?
>> number one in new hampshire, i got 6% of the vote, which is better than four of my opponents, three of whom have subsequently dropped out. in vermont, we got 8% of the vote so we had voting support in new hampshire. since we've come south, we've focused on the question of farmers, they'll have 90% parity or 100% charity. secondly, unless they cut the military budget and use those resources to help end the deficit and revitalize america, they represent a new present, but not a new direction. unless mr. hart an mondale have a plan to enforce the voting rights act they know our party deserve the votes.
>> thank you. mr. mcgovern you've been critical of gary hart. he was your campaign manager in 1972. is his talk about the future must different than what you were saying in 1972? >> first of all, i think i probably trained gary too well. i've been rethinking that whole business of '72. let me just say as one who has affection for gary hart and wh will certainly support him if he was the nominee, i do think legitimate questions have to be asked when the issue is posed, as gary has, he says the election is a contest between the past and the future.
i'm not sure what the past means in those terms. i'm sensitive about these, as gary know, because i'm an old history teacher. i revered the past. but does the past include george washington and thomas jefferson? does it include franklin roosevelt and john kennedy? does it include the human rights policy of president carter? if it does, i'm glad to come here today and claim the past and defend it as a good guide to the future. >> thank you. >> in the south this last week, you seem to be describing yourself as a hero astronaut and a tough marine. you've been all of these things, but can you really decide what shorts of person you'll be in different parts of the country? >> i don't think i've changed my views in any way, shaip or form. what you're talking about is the experience factor, which i have pointed out.
i know how washington operates? but in addition to that, who is going to provide the jobs in this country? who knows the best from the white house? someone who has been in business, started four small businesses of my own, was president of an international corporation, 1/3 of our agricultural production gets sent overseas normally. one out of every six american jobs depends on that. it's so important for the future. i've been working in the future all my life. i have experience in that area. i have experience in the arms control area. i have experience in the business area. those are valuable editions in addition to just being solely life long political entities. so i think i add that extra dimension to it that would give a good dimension to the white
house in making the decisions you have to make. >> thank you. your new theme is what you see in mondale is what you get. no hair spray. you're saying i am what i am. you say you've resisted suggestions to change your image. that approach, it seems to me, may be short on actual issue, yet you accuse some of your opponents of running issueless campaigns. >> that's the point of the comment, that i think substance is all that matters here. are we right on the arms control issue? do we see that as the central issue of our time? do we have a strong and sensitive plan to get those deficits down? restore america's competitiveness? do we have the agricultures an commitments backled up by the experience to get it done? that's what i'm trying to say.
we don't elect momentum, we don't elect images, we eelect a human being. and we better pick someone who knows what he's doing, who's committed to the strongest and most important elements, directed to our future and one who is seasoned and experienced and knows what he's doing. >> thank you. and finally, mr. hart, one thing that i hear people say is i don't know much about gary hart. i like his style, i like his looks. isn't there some truth to your opponent's charges that your campaign is more impressionistic than theirs, that you're spending more and more time just being gary hart than outlying specific things you would do if you were elected? >> well, that's a very good question at this stage of this race. when george mcgovern says he doesn't know what these new ideas are, i remind hem last fall, i sent him a copy of a
book i wrote and a stack of position papers about that high. as i think i have the qualm campaigns of all these other people. the other thing is, these primaries are happening awfully fast now, and i oppose the way this calendar was set up. ologied on the record, i told the opportunity commission not to do this. i wish i had three weeks to campaign in florida and three weeks to campaign in georgia and three weeks to campaign in alabama because i'm convinced the ideas that i have to put forward would sell down here exactly the way they have the rest of the country. >> thank you very much. i would like to go on to specific questions now. the figures on the american economy shows the country right now is having one of the best recoveries from a recession since the 1950s. the country is in better shape now than it was four years ago economically when the democrats
were in the white house. todayed mystery index is down to 13. i'm egoing to ask each of you in random order, we'll kip around, why should somebody vote for the democrats if things are getting better. >> i think it's now clear the reagan policies are about 206 give a mystery index that we haven't seen in a long, long time. we see the stock market going down dramatically. now we see a resurgence of inflation. they're now predicting maybe 8% by the end of yeert.
more than that, we have the worst trade year in american history, about $120 billion commercial trade imbalance. 3 million to 4 million jobs lost as a result of that. we're loading our kids with a bill they have to play with interest. '. >> two points, mr. chancellor. as fritz very accurately said, we've done something we haven't done in 200 years. and that is steal from our children's future to satisfy a ray dan election year recovery and a handful of people in this country.
are children are desperately afraid of a nuclear holocaust. a woman in alabama wrote ne saying she fully supported our effort to get our marines out of lebanon and her son was one that didn't come back. or the unemployed people that ronald reagan has no plan whatsoever to put back to work. >> mr. glenn, would you address the question that i posed. whthe democrats if things are doing well? >> the misery index of our children. i would like to know what that is going to be. we're driving down interest rates, we're cutting out jobs in this country of ours.
we're increasing the misery index for our children. anyone can live on borrowed money for a little bit. the misery index caused by cutbacks in education. the opportunity for our young people to go on to high school and beyond high school, get a decent education. we're talking about cutbacks in research. the japanese germans, french, increasing their research while we're cutting ours back.
>> mr. reagan 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 feel we're making partisan judgments about the president, but the chairman of the council of economic advisers has said that this $200 billion feoff sit is a time bomb that's going to go off after the election. it's going to drive interest rates right through the ceiling and that's the end of the recovery. it'sen inefficient and unjust tax law that's permitting billions of dollars to go through the loopholes for the
highest income corporations in the country. >> my concern is that we feel the tragic pain of the misery index rising under reagan, but then democrats will not make a difference if we go the same direction, but a little slower. they then add to the misery of women who need to become empowered. >> would you go over that again? i got kind of lost. >> our convention is not 50% female. women are seeking to become empowered. all of us lived in a house run by women. secondly, if they maintain a commitment to raise the military budget, they can do nothing about reagan's deficit. they're going the same direction, just a little slower. we're cutting aid to american education and extending aid to
el salvador, we are extending the misery. the misery index is on the rise. 34 million people now are in poverty. 41 million by the end of this year. the wall street down things may be looking better, but the boat stuck at the bottom, things are much worse. >> now we go to free wheeling where you're at liberty to attack one another. aren't you most for increased defense spending? >> i'm not. i'm for a 25% cut in the president's budget. and i think it can be done without touching anything. i would not advocate anything that touches the essential defense of this country. but some of most thoughtful people that look at the military budget say it's just loaded with waste and cost overruns and noncompetitive bidding.
if we had someone as lee iacocca as secretary of defense, we could have a good, lean, tough defense force for at least 20 or 25% less money. then you would have money to do some of these other things. >> i sense that jesse jackson isn't out of phase with that sentiment. >> cost overruns have some kind of congressional oversight committee that allows it to become managed. the no-ed by contracts and sole source contracts. i support the need of troops in europe and japan. they're better able to share some of the that burden now. that can be cut.
we've got two cutters. as i understand, the position taken by the other three, by mondale, by glenn and by hart, it's for cutting what the president has requested, in addition. but you still would favor a certain increase in the defense budget, am i right, all three of you? >> i think his hand was up first. >> i am for reducing the reagan military build-up in the next four to five years. and i spelled out in great detail, as i think the only group member of this group who has ten years of experience on the armed services committee, where those cuts must come. we have to increase even over above ronald reagan what we are paying our military personal to retain the most skilled personnel among other things to avoid going back to a very divisive vietnam-style draft.
even vf spending money under this administration, the pentagon itself admits we have fewer combat ready divisions than we had in 1980 under the carter/mondale administration. and that means even ronald reagan is bunderring the readiness accounts of our conventional forces for a procurement build-up which is going to make us bigger. >> isn't the president asking for allocations in defense, allowing for inflation? >> what about real terms. 17, i think. >> all right, you want to say 17 then. >> it is 17. >> what would your figure be? in this concontext, 4% increase? >> mine is about 3.5% to 4%. >> if we can keep it to that, maybe it will make more sense to the audience.
>> not to argue with senator hart -- >> why not? >> about a year and a half ago, he wrote a dissenting opinion in which he seemed to say he wanted as much or more military spending as mr. reagan, but let me make my point. as much as we want to bring that defense budget down, and i do, as much as we want to get rid of weapons systems that don't boy us defense, and i will, as much as we need a tough new system of bidding, of testing, of warranties, as much as we need arms control to help also bring down pressure, the inescapable fact is that the soviet union is a powerful military nation using its power irresponsibly, and the president of the united states has to do everything he can to manage that budget sensibly and
wise wisely but he cannot fail to discharge the national security interests of our country. >> will you give me a percentage figure? >> i would be at about 4%. >> i'm at about 6%. my two colleagues on the right here i feel, and i've been talking about this for the past week, would cut our defense establishment beyond all reality. i have prosecute opposed cutting about $15 million out. it would be on the division air defense of bradley fighting vehicle and rapid deployment for certain parts of that. the build-up of the soviets have been relentless since the cuban missile crisis days. the former vice president would cut the b 1, the trident, the cluz missile, the foreign troops. he would cut back, the m 1 tank, funds for the volunteer arm, i propose that would leave this
country immas cue lated. the only two he's pulled back from has been the trident missile and the submarine and cruise missile. mr. hart opposed the f-15, the f-18, the b-1, the nimitz carrier, the patriot heldfire. mlrs missiles and has gone to a program of leadership in washington of small er and simpler is bet rather than stressing our technology. i'm saying every single thing we put out there has to work and work properly. we can't go back to a smaller or simpler day. keep a distance between you and the enemy with our technology. i fought in those wars. i know what it's like to be up
there and want the best technology because my life depended on it. i do not agree with the smaller is simpler, better, cheaper, approach. i don't think many people across the south do either. >> let me just respond if i may. >> now we've had four hands up out of five. it goes in this order e, the order of your requesting time. hart, jackson, mcgovern, mondale. >> i may want to get back in. >> what senator glenn doesn't address is the need for more units of all these things. we cannot afford more aircraft carriers when each one costs 3.5 to $4 billion. we are behind the soviets and submarines by a ratio of 3-1. we're malling behind in numbers.
>> if we began to use more of our energy on talking and associating and engaging in trade and technology and agriculture and less preparing to fight, we can prepare to live. we can wipe out the soviet union with 300 warheads. we got 10,000. they're alive because we decide the not to kill them. we need to use our minds and not our whistle ps . we're wasting money killing people in the caribbean, in central america, in lebanon.
there's one thing that's really clear today. there's no new idea coming from this side over here. it's the same argument, the russians are coming after us. both of these superpowers are literally scaring each other to death. each sidearming in the name of defense. if the military spends too much, it actually weakens the country. by depriving us of other sources of national power.
these things also have to do with our national strength. and i think we need a leadership that instead of frying to get the russians to the bargaining table by $1.5 trillion military buildoff has the common sense to say we're ready to bargain right now. >> i agree the idea of building up arms i want to be understood as being totally committed to annual summit conferences, to arms control negotiations efforts to reduce tensions. i couldn't agree with you more. on the other hand, i don't want to misskberp rhett what you said, but the soviets are using their power in poland, in
cambod cambodia, in afghanistan, in syria, in ways that are irresponsible and dangerous. >> how are you going to stop that with another 4% of mill tar spending or another 40%? that's not going to change their relation to poland or afghanistan or these other areas. it's a question of balance and a sense of arms control. i'm for a strong defense. let me give you one ample kpp he singled out my opposition to the b 1. it's a grossiti distortion. i support the stealth because it's a modern advanced bomber that will take us into the next century.
i 578 against the administration x but i'm for the midge jell men. i would be for strengthing nato. it reflects the realities of the world as i see him. i em'm the only one here who put forth an arms control program trying to scale arms down so we don't have to be s h expenditures. enforcing the nuclear nonproliferation act to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world involve the other nuclear weapon states in those negotiations and overall arms control.
gary mentions the carriers. he and i had a debate two years ago on that. he talks about the cheaper carrier as a smaller one. but it shows such a lack of fundamental understanding of how c power works, because you have to have a whole task force that goes with any carrier that gets out there. and the facts are you're trying to present air power at sea and combat aircraft at sea, it comes out to around $126 million per aircraft with the big carrier, including the task force expense as opposed to 249 for gary's proposal. we argued this on the senate floor, debated it. i won that debate decisively about two years ago. that's what i see as a lack of understanding when you don't have the experience in some of these areas to now exactly how these things function. >> i believe the charge was fundamental lakt of understanding. mr. hart jumped out of his chair when you said that.
>> everybody want to sneak in on gary. the thing about this argument, pro and con obviously the more that we talk in terms of engaging in real trade, the less we have these tensions. reagan is vulnerable. and we keep talking in ways that i think kind of confuse the people. he's cut breakfast prachs out for children. he's cut back out on foot programs while he cuts away food from children, he is arguing about prayer, premeditated prayer. here's a man that doesn't go to church arguing about prayer. he's forgotten the structure of a pray. you don't pray for the food that just left. you pray for the food that
you're about to receive. what we really should do is pray to remove the man that's removing the food. he's vulnerable at the level of the misery index. i mean, people are hurting. they are more -- the people that are unemployed have fewer benefits and less food and less medical care. let's talk about a strong defense. but our domestic tranquility is saving our nation from the inside out. every gentleman on this platform knows that if we left fly just 10% of the nuclear weapons we have targeted on the soviet union, every single man, woman and child in the soviet union would die instantly.
why not a cut in this enormous escalation that the president has on the drawing board. >> let me respond. as a former bomber pilot, you will agree that there are differences between strategic or nuclear weapons and conventional ones. i don't think think maintaining e-if is threatening to russians. >> we can make moderate increases in training and pay scales. >> why is jon glenn attacking me
for all these cuts and you're saying you want more. >> because john glenn is further off than you are. >> last word on the subject. we have to go on. >> you point out very correctly jesse, or george, i guess it was, the comment about increase in nuclear. i disagree with the president that we're behind in that area. what i do support very firmly is the idea of upgrading and making certain our conventional forces are adequate so we pray god never reach that nuclear threshold and have any temptation on either side to go to a nuclear warfare. >> we are now, gentlemen, going to change the subject. i know you've all thought about sleeping in the white house. it's 2:00 in the morning you're
sound asleep and the phone rings. an airliner from czechoslovakia, a communist country, enters american air space on a course directly across from sac missile bases. it is headed for colorado springs and the north american air defense command. american fighters have done everything they can to stop it. they look in, the lights are on, it's full of people. and there you are on the phone at 2:00 in the morning, what would you do? i would like to start with senator heart. >> if the people they looked in and saw had uniforms on, i would shoot the aircraft down. if they were civilians, i would just let it keep going. as we saw with the korean aircraft.
you don't shoot down an aircraft that has a military potential unless that military potential is obvious. it seems you take every reasonable precaution to avoid the kind of crisis and the embarrassment and humiliation of the heart ache surrounding korean airlines. if in the judgment of president, this could be a potential attack, that's something else. what are the yods of your good question ever occurring? do you really believe if the soviet union was after us they would fire up an old 707 and go putting across the air? i think it's a wonderful hypothetical. it's ridiculous. >> does anybody disagree? >> there's such a lack of
misunderstanding saying you're going to peek in. >> that's what he said. that's what he said. >> you don't go up peeking in the windows. one important element here, and that is, if we have an adequate intelligent service with some of the others on the platform have supported cutbacks on in the past. i've wanted to expand our intelligent service. then we know more about what the soviets are doing. if we had an adequate satellite system that tell where is that airliner came from, what information is or about what was loaded on that airplane, what was sent into the base in which it took off. there's lot of information like that that goes into it. it's not just as simplistic as you make it.
>> i think the answer to that question was fritz's finest hour in three weeks. >> thank you for the impressivety of your response. >> with all due respect to you, i think it's ridiculous, but what it points out as well as the korean jetliner incident fundamentalty is the necessity of better communications between washington and moscow. the president of the united states hasn't even talked for 60 seconds to the leader of the other superpower. two of their leaders have died during the time president reagan was in office without ever meeting our president. if we had systematic regular talks between the president of the united states and his counterpart in the soviet union,
it's quite possible we would have avoided the korean jetliner incident and this hypothetical matter that you posed. if world war 30 comes, it will be because of a communications breakdown. >> gentlemen, you're all democrats, which means you are the political heirs of franklin delano roosevelt. half a century ago when he became president, the united states began to change. the federal government took over many of the responsibilities of the states and of the cities. we've had half a century of continued federal involvement with people's lives. and it seems to some of us, as though it's grown much in those years. if one of your wins the election, there will beless federal involvement or will it be a return to the way things were before reagan? >> i think it's essential that
the president lead us with a strong federal government to solve those problems that are essential to our future. number two, to have a strong new assertive american trade policy. this is the worst trade year in american history, all through georgia and alabama and florida. we need a renaissance of learning and education in science and training. if this next generation is going to be able to defend themselves and compete, they simply must have the support and finally, we need a form of justice. i mean standing up for st st and medicare. this country must be fair, and
the history of america is that when a president leads us, towards fairness, it can be done. >> i made quite an issue out of leadership. i mean those who have come out of the political life and leadership the past decade. and that's because there is a strong anti-government feeling out there. i fundamentally disagree with ronald reagan when he says he loves his country and yet he hates our government. i don't b hate our government. i think we ought to have leaders that ask people what they can do for their country, using the best instruments of our government. i think there is a fundamental difference between gofr nofr mondale and myself. we can meet the basic human needs and commitments of people in this country by restoring entrepreneurship.
i think the dedication shouldn't just be jobs. >> what's new about coming on from entrepreneurs. >> there are specific ways to do that. >> when i hear your new ideas, i'm reminded of that ad, where's the beef? >> wait a minute, he's going to tell you where the beef is. >> fritz, if you would listen for just a minute, i think you could hear. no, you haven't. one of the other differences, by the way, is if a president goes back into office and one of us must, i think to save this country, you can not go back.
>> wait a minute, wait a minute. i told you what i was going to do, get the deficits down, educate the next generation. those aren't special interest groups. i said i'm going to stand up for -- against special interest and i'm going to support social security and medicare. what's wrong with that? >> i would reich to move on, mr. jackson and mr. glern. >> government is a balancing wheel between big labor and big management. the government must enforce the laws. the voting rites act, for example, is not being enforced. democrats are reluctant because we want to reconcile the interest of the bo wefl and the wot ston. you can't have more. georgia 30% act, 18 years off the voting rights act, supreme court zero, 159 sheriffs, zero,
the government must enforce the law and not equivocate in the face of local considerations. on the other hand, we keep focusing on what will the government do. the private economy is $3 million. that's $700 billion tax break to corporations. they must be obligated to reinvest in this economy, retrain our work force, and export our jobs to slave labor markets abroad. >> we have 51% of the people at or below poverty level. my dad went to work on wpa. we had a lot of programs, but fha at that time, it helped a lot of people. we estimated just a few years ago.
communism happened with good solid democratic programs. we can be very proud of those programs. now along with that, we went a little too far in some of those programs. and we have to correct those. and now you're talking about intrusion of government. i e.r.a., he said he would lose that. he said that e.r.a., he would use the power of the federal government to withhold projects -- >> no, i didn't. >> yes, i dyou did, i'll read io you if i have enough time here. >> you can read it on the next turn around. >> i will. fine, but he said he would withhold federal projects. that's an intrusion as far as i'm concerned. i think that is flat wrong. when you're going to intrude into people's lives on that
basis with federal project, he's had an industrial policy that said you want to make choices in credit and allocate toez things. and that intrudes the federal government into business. >> if you continue we're going to take that out of your closing statement. >> we haven't heard from george mcgovern on the question of the role of federal government. >> i think there's two types of concentration of power we have to worry about. one is the danger of too much federal concentration and the other is too much corporate concentration of power. on the federal side to my surprise, president reagan has increased the percentage of gnp now being taken up by the federal government. the reason is the dramatic increase in military spending. he has cut nutrition, education, the environment and things like that. but those cuts are less than the
increase in the interest rate on the federal debts since he took office. i think it's a real call on all of us to see what we can do to strengthen our antitrust laws. >> do you democrats now think that the private sector can pick up the slack in certain federal programs going to people? this is open now, you can all talk for a few minutes. >> first of all, i think that a private, healthy economy is indispensable to everything. if you don't have a growing, healthy economy with entrepreneurship and small businesses we're not going to solve anything. the key here is to make certain that the prosperity and the entrepreneurship is found in
minority communities as well. there's a lot we can do through small business administration, tax incentives, to make certain that more black, hispanic, women and other minorities can participate in the fullness of the profit making. thirdly through training we can make people who are left behind a part of this process. >> when i was with operation push, we began to challenge corporate america. when reagan cut down on aid, we began a trade.
they gaurch tee a market of 5 million pounds of cucumbers per year. if they do that, they ought to get a tax incentive. if a corporation puts a day care center at its plant which allows mothers to come to work, that should be worth a tax incentive. if a company gets a tax investment and then uses that money to reinvest in this economy and retrain our work force rather than closing plant s the use of tax incentive as leverage for urban development is to create abuse of tax incentives and leverage. >> senator hart and after senator heart, i would warn you gentlemen, we have time for one more response on this before i'm afraid it's going terribly quickly, i have to ask you to go into your closing statements. >> i'll be brief. in almost ten years in the senate, i cast 5,000 or 6,000 votes. vice president mondale has pulled out about a dozen of those to attack me showing that i'm not for this and not for that. i'll give you one example.
one of those was a vote on osha. vice president mondale knows full well that i am absolutely as committed to a safe work place as he is. this illustrates a point in the difference. it was to exempt from certain paperwork requirements small businesses in this country who had ten or fewer employees and farmers who employed fewer than five people. it was that burdensome bureaucracy and paper work that drove the democrats out of office in the '70s. no uh, i think we can have a safe work place for people on farms and in vaktryes without driving small business people and family farmers off their land or out of their businesses. >> i saw that vote but i've never mentioned it. the one i talked about, where unlike senator nun and childs. you refused to vote a wind fall profits tax which would have given big oil $250 billion. >> there you go again.
secondly, i talked about your $10 a barrel tax. that is the worst idea in this campaign. >> it was a carter/mondale initiative. >> oh, no. i had nothing to do with that. it's the worst idea. carter is not for it. nobody except you are for it and you're not talking about it anymore because it's so bad. half a million people. half a million people lose their jobs. america will become the highest cost producing area in the country. talk about intrusion and destruction of jobs and entrepreneurship in international trade. this is a disaster and i don't think you thought it through. >> let me respond. let me rerespond. >> let me just finish my point. >> this was a bad idea. >> i'm terribly worried.
you have a choice, and the clock is inexrabble, having a chance what you want to say at the end or squeezing it there at the very end. senator, could you just say it in 25 words or less? could you it in 25 words or less. >> i was the only one of about 15 senators that had the courage to support this administration, and the second thing is, i proposed a windfall profit stack of 100% on old oil owned by the big oil companies in this country and that goes beyond the carter-mondale. >> this is a complete distortion of what he did. can i have 25 seconds? >> it is not a distortion. [ all speak at once ] >> when we needed you, you were wrong. >> no, that's not wrong. >> i'm going to ask you now if we're going to get your reasoned closing statements. we'll all take a breath. i'm sorry, senator mcgovern, but we've got to do that.
the this was preordained, but the first one who goes is senator hart. >> mr. chancellor, i have no idea how the primaries and caucuses are going to come out next tuesday or beyond. i obviously hope they will be successful. i hope so for several reasons. george mcgovern talked about the great leaders of our past, democratic and otherwise, and my vaults are as deeply rooted in those leaders and that past and those ideals as any person on this platform, indeed in this country. but it's interesting that the leaders he mentioned represented something else than just ideals and principles. they represented change. when this country has had to change, it came to this party, for those who had a policy and a set of ideas and a vision for this country's future. that is what this campaign is all about, and i think that's why people are responding to it all across this country. we cannot go back. to achieve the highest ideas, values and goals of this country, we must have new
leadership, and a new approach and a fresh start for this country. >> thank you. >> if we, in fact, have new leadership, that replaces old leadership, but basically going in the same direction, not sharing parity for farmers, not sharing with the woman, increasing the military budget, resisting a real commitment tos enforce the voting rights act, that's a new face on an old game. we need a new direction. our party must be the party of conscience. under reagan, there are five million more people who are poor, now 15% of our nation, it will be 41 million by the end of this year. we must commit to lift those votes that are stuck at the bottom. we must reduce the military budget, without reducing our military defense, use that money to, in fact, create a future for our children, that they might be able to lay bricks, and not
throw them. if we give our children a chance, they will give our nation a chance. we will suffer, but suffering breeds character, and character breeds faith, we must pursue those values. >> i hope that since gary and fred have both objected to being called the front-runner that they'll let me be the peace-maker and take that label with me back to boston when i go tonight. franklin roosevelt once said that the presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership. i think that's true, and i think it means the next president is going to have to seek, above all else, our salvation from nuclear anileation. but second only to that, we have to learn in this great country, to quit intervening in these third world revolutions, whether it's el salvador, or nicaragua or lebanon, or wherever it is, in the name of fighting
communism, we've embraced virtually every scoundrel around the world, who is willing to wave an anti-communist banner and i think the time has come for the united states to assert in foreign policy, not so much what we hate and fear, but what this great country is for. and that ought to be the goal of the next president. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chancellor. i do regret something george just brought up that we had not had more of an opportunity to talk about, foreign policy. because i think that's so important. what happens around the world. nuclear arms wise, as i mentioned earlier. but i do not agree with gary, this is a generation gap of some kind. we go ahead as a nation as we have in the past, when we have the best interest of all of our people, of the young, of the middle age, of the elderly, and concern for everyone in our society. the south has a unique opportunity to set that course next tuesday. a unique opportunity for leadership in the democratic party and for leadership for our
nation. i see myself as the moderate, the only moderate left here. i don't believe in this politics of momentum that seems to be abroad. politics of stampede. whatever you want to call it. i hope the people of the south will slow down, athink about th issues on foreign policy, and the economy and education, then vote on what we can control. we can control the destiny in this country. we can be number one again. george mcgovern said he didn't want people to throw away their conscience. i'd say don't throw away your common sense either. your vote next week, i'll give you a presidency you can be proud of once again. >> thank you, senator. mr. mondale. >> here in the south, and throughout our country, we're about to participate in super tuesday. the most important sing 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's doing. this may well now be a two-man race between myself and senator hart. >> disagree with that. [ laughter ] >> if you look 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 couldn't look to us for help. in my opinion, that is naive. all history teaches that we must stand together as an alliance and work together for the security of the western world. sometime back he was asked whether cuba was a totalitaryian state, he said no. that is wrong. it's a communist dictatorship and a president must know the difference. he's had a record on arms control which is weak, and we need a president who will push forward and provide the
leadership that this country needs for our national security and to achieve the peace. >> well, i want to thank you all. we've come to the end of this as i think the reverend jackson said, did you not just say a minute ago, suffering breeds discipline. >> no, suffering breeds character. and character -- >> you all have such terrific character. because of the suffering you have gone through. we thank you for being with us today. the next league of women voters debate is going to take place in pittsburgh on april 5th. we're not supposed to take sides in this. i suppose it would be very nice if all five of you were to join the league of women voters there, but who can say. as you say, reverend jackson, suffering breeds character, and this is a business that does it. thank you very much. [ applause ]
2016 election, road to the white house rewind brings you coverage of presidentialuracies. next, a 1968 campaign film created for republican richard nixon, showing him meeting voters in wisconsin and new hampshire. he would win primaries in both of the states on his way to securing the gop nomination, then defeated hubert humphrey and george wallace in the general election, winning 32 states. this half hour film is courtesy of the richard nixon presidential library and museum. >> in an age of impersonal political campaigns, new hampshire is one of the new places where people have a chance to meet the candidates as well as read about them. the new hampshire republican presidential primary, the start
of the 1968 campaign trail. from the beginning, the candidate who really has been seen and heard by the people of new hampshire is richard nixon. >> how did you fellas -- >> you're about to accompany richard nixon on the first leg of his 1968 new hampshire campaign. you'll be with the candidate, his family, and the nixon staff. you'll hear what richard nixon had to say and what people said to him. >> i heard all those tales about the woolies and everything. >> how are you? >> i'm glad to find some new hampshire people. >> well, arnold, how did you get up here? >> good to see you. >> how are the eagles going to do next year? >> we're going to keep fighting. >> richard nixon has talked about a new vision of america's future. he's said that 1968 is a