tv 1984 Presidential Candidates Second Debate CSPAN November 4, 2016 10:59pm-12:28am EDT
with just a few days before election day, the presidential candidates remain on the campaign trail. this weekend, donald trump has several stops planned, including one in tampa, florida. you can watch that stop live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and in the evening hillary clinton will speak at a get out the vote event in philadelphia, also featuring a performance by singer katy perry. watch that live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. election night on c-span. watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. be on location of the hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches in key senate house and governors' races starting live at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout the following 24 hours watch live on c-span, on demand at cspan.org or listen to live coverage using the free c-span radio app. leading up to the 2016
election, road to the white house rewind brings you archival coverage of presidential races, next, from 1984, the second and final presidential debate between incumbent president ronald reagan and his democratic challenger, former vice president walter mondale. the candidates answered questions on defense and foreign policy, cia activities in central america, nuclear arms negotiations with the soviet union and fighting terrorism in the broader middle east. ronald reagan and george h.w. bush defeated wa eed walter mond congresswoman geraldine ferraro winning the popular vote 59% to 41%. this debate from kansas city is just under an hour and a half. [ applause ] good evening.
good evening from the municipal auditorium in kansas city. i am dorothy raddings, the president of the league of women voters, the sponsor of this final presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between republican ronald reagan and democrat walter mondale. our panelist for tonight's debate on defense and foreign policy issues are georgi ann geyer, syndicated columnist for universal press syndicate. marvin kalb, chief diplomatic correspondent for nbc news. morton con drachky, executive editor of the new republic magazine. and henry truette, diplomatic correspondent for the baltimore son. edwin newman, formerly of nbc news and now a syndicated columnist for king features is our moderator.
ed? >> dorothy raddings, thank you. a brief word about our procedure tonight. the first question will go to mr. mondale, he'll have two and a half minutes to reply, then the panel member who put the question will ask a follow-up, the answer to that will be limited to one minute. after that, the same question will be put to president reagan, again there will be a follow-up and each man will have one minute for rebuttal. the second question will go to reagan first. after that the alternating will continue. at the end, there will be four-minute summations with president reagan going last. we have asked the questioners to be brief. let's begin, ms. geyer, your question to mr. mondale. >> mr. mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of central america. you and the democratic party have said that the only policy toward the horrendous civil wars in central america should be on the economic development and negotiations with perhaps a
quarantine of marxist nicaragua. do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there? do you really believe that there is no need to resort to force at all? are not these solutions to central america's gnawing problems simply again too weak and too late? >> that i believe the question oversirch phis the difficulties of what we must do in central america, our objectives ought to be to strength then the democracies, to stop communist and other extremist influences and stabilize the community in that area to do that, we need a three-pronged attack. one is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured. secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and sharper alternative to the
alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us and finally a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area. that's one of the big disagreements that we have with the president that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within el salvador or as between the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve peace. this brings up the whole question of what presidential leadership is all about. i think the lesson in central america, this recent embarrassment in nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals and the rest, all of this has strengthened our opponents. and president must not only assure that we're tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power.
we saw the same thing in lebanon where we spent a good deal of america's assets because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated and our opponents are stronger. the bottom line of national strength is that the president must be in command. he must lead. and when a president doesn't know that submarine missiles are recallable, says that 70% of our strategic forces are conventional, discovers three years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didn't know that most soviet missiles were on land, sneeze athese area president must know to command. a president is called the commander-in-chief. he's called that because he's supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation. >> mr. mondale, if i could broaden the question just a
little bit. since world war ii, every conflict that we as americans have been involved with has been in non-conventional or irregular terms. and yet we keep fighting in conventional or traditional military terms. the central american wars are very much in the same pattern as china, as lebanon, as iran, as cuba in the early days. do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time or react to in the those terms? >> we absolutely must which is why i responded to your first question the way i did. it's much more complex. you must understand the region, the politics, the area, you must provide a strong alternative and you must show strength and all at the same time that's why i object to the covert action in nicaragua. that's a classic example of a strategy that's embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition and
undermined the moral authority of our people and our country in the region. strength requires knowledge, command. we've seen in the nicaraguan example a policy that has hurt us strengthened our opposition and undermined the moral authority of our country in that regio region. >> mr. president, in the last few months it has seemed more and more that your policies in central america are beginning to work yet just this moment we are confronted with the extraordinary story of the cia guerrilla manual for the anti-sandinista contras which advocates not only assassinations of sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. is this not in effect our own state-supported terrorism? >> no, but i'm glad you asked that question because i know it's on many people's minds. i have ordered an investigation. i know that the cia has already
going forward with one. we have a gentleman down in nicaragua who is on contract to the cia advising on military tactics. and he drew up this manual. it was turned over to the agency head in -- of the cia in nicaragua to be printed. and a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge. and he sent it up near the cia where more pages were excised before it was printed but some way or another. there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for the printing process by the cia. those are the details as we have them. and as soon as we have an investigation to find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed we are going to do something
about that. we'll take the proper action at the proper time. i was very interested to hear about central america and our process down there and i thought for a moment that instead of a debate i was going to find mr. mondale in complete agreement with what we're doing because the plan that he has outlined is the one we've been following for quite some time, including diplomatic processes throughout central america and associated with the contadora group. i can only tell you about the manual that we're not the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt, but if guilt is established, whoever is guilty, we will treat with that situation then and they will be removed. >> well, mr. president, you are implying, then, that the cia in nicaragua is directing the contras there.
i'd also like to ask whether having the cia investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time. >> i'm afraid i misspoke when i said a cia head in nicaragua. there's not someone there directing all of this activity. there are as you know cia men stationed in other countries in the world and certainly in central america and so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered too. and he recognized that -- what was in that manual was direct contravention of my own executive order in december of 1981 that we would have nothing to do with regard to political assassinations. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal? >> what is a president charged with doing when he takes his oath of office? he raises his right hand and
takes an oath of office to take care, to faithfully execute the l laws of the land. the president can't no everything, but a president has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws. this manual -- several thousands of which were produced -- was distributed ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals and other forms of terrorism. some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. how can this happen? how can something this serious occur in an administration and have a president of the united states in a situation like this say he didn't know? a president must know these things. i don't know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it. and what about the mining of the harbors in nicaragua which violated international law? this has hurt this country and the president is supposed to
comman command. >> mr. president, your rebuttal. >> you've been all over the country repeating something that i will admit the press has been repeating, that i believed nuclear missiles could be fired and then called back. i never, ever conceived of such a thing. i never said any such thing. in a discussion of our strategic arm arms negotiations i said submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional type weapons not as destabilizing as the land-based missiles and they were also weapons or carriers that if they were sent out and there was a change you could call them back before they launched their missiles but i hope from here on you will no longer be saying that particular things which absolutely false. how anyone could think that any sane person would believe you could call back a nuclear missile, i think, is as riddi
ridiculous as the whole concept has been. so thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. i'm sure you will appreciate that. >> mr. kalb, your question to president reagan? >> mr. president, you have often described the soviet union as a powerful evil empire intent on world domination, but this year you have said, and i quote, "if they want to keep their mickey mouse system, that's okay with me." which is it, mr. president? do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detente or what goes for detente or do you really want to roll back their empire? >> i have said on a number of occasions exactly what i believe about the soviet union. i retract nothing i have that said. i believe that many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality that we have. but i also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world we have to live with each
other. and i told mr. gramiko, we don't like their system, they don't like ours. we won't try to change their system and they sure better not try to change ours. but between us we can either destroy the world or we can save it and i suggested that certainly it was to their common interest is along with ours to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the nuclear weapons and i think that perhaps we established a little better understanding. i think in dealing with the soviet union one has to be realistic. i know mr. mondale in the past has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves and if we were kind and good and did something nice they would respond accordingly and the result was unilateral disarmament. we canceled the b-1 under the previous administration. what did we get for it? nothing. the soviet union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man. at the same time that we tried
the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness, if you will, and now we are putting up a defense of our own and i've made it very clear we simply are going to provide a deterrent so it will be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. now, they claim they're not and i made it plain to them, we're not. but this -- there's been no change in my attitude at all. i just thought when i came into office it was time that there was some realistic talk to and about the soviet union and we did get their attention. >> mr. president, perhaps the other side of the corner, a related question, sir. since world war ii, the vital interests of the united states have always been defined by treaty commitments and presidential proclamations. aside from what is obvious such as nato, for example, which
regions in the world do you regard as vital national interests of this country? meaning that you would send american troops to fight there if they were endangered. >> now, you've added a hypothetical there at the end, mr. kalb, about where we would send troops to fight. i am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be but obviously there are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us, one is the middle east, and this is of interest to the whole western world and the industrialized nation because of the great supply of energy upon which so many depend there. our neighbors here in america are vital to us. we're working right now and trying to be of help in southern africa with regard to the independence of namibia and the removal of the cuban surrogates, the thousands of them, from
angola. so i can say there are a great many interests. i believe that we have a great interest in the pacific basin, that is where i think the future of the world lies. but i am not going to pick out one and in advance hypothetically say, oh, yes, we would send troops there. >> i'm sorry, mr. president, your time was up. >> mr. mondale, you have described the soviet leaders as, and i'm quoting "cynical ruthless and dangerous" suggesting an almost total lack of trust in them. in that case, what makes you think the annual summit meetings with them that you've propose willed result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country? >> because the only type of agreements to reach for the soviet union are the types that are specifically defined so we know exactly what they must do subject to full verificatioveri which means we know everyday whether they're living up to it and follow-ups wherever we find suggestions that they're violating it and the strongest possible terms. i have no illusions about the
soviet union leadership or the nature of that state, they are a tough and a ruthless adversary. and we must be prepared to meet that challenge and i would. where i part with the president is that despite all of those differences, we must as past presidents before this one have done, meet on the common ground of survival. and that's where the president has opposed practically every arms control agreement by every president of both political parties since the bomb went off. and he now complete this is term with no progress toward arms control at all but with a very dangerous arms race under way instead. there are now over 2,000 more warheads pointed at us today than they were when he was sworn in and that does not strengthen us. we must be very, very realistic in the nature of that
leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways to reducing these differences, particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of soviet power. there will be no unilateral disarmament under my administration. i will keep this nation strong. i understand exactly what the soviets are up to, but that, too, is a part of national strength. to do that a president must know what is essential to command and to leadership and to strength and that's where the president's failure to master, in my opinion, the essential elements of arms control has cost us dearly. he's four years -- three years into this administration, he said he just discovered that most soviet missiles are on land and that's why his proposal didn't work. i invite the american people tomorrow -- because i will issue the statement -- quoting president reagan. he said exactly what i said he
said. he said that these missiles were less dangerous than ballistic missiles because you could fire them and you can recall them if you decided there had been a miscalculation. the president must know those things. >> related question, mr. mondale, on eastern europe. do you accept the conventional diplomatic wisdom that eastern europe is a soviet spear of influence? and if you do, what could a mondale administration realistically do to help the people of eastern europe achieve the human rights that were guaranteed to them as a result of the helsinki accords? >> i think the essential strategy of the united states ought not accept any soviet control over eastern europe. we ought to deal with each of these countries separately, we ought to pursue strategies with each of them, economic and the rest, that help them pull away from their dependence upon the soviet union where the soviet union has acted irresponsibly, as they have in many of those countries, especially recently in poland. i believe we ought to insist
that western credits extended to the soviet union bear the market race, make the soviets pay for their irresponsibility. that is a very important objective to make certain that we continue to look forward to progress toward greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately. >> mr. president, your rebuttal? >> yes. i'm not going to try to respond to these repetitions of the falsehoods that have been stated here but with regard to whether mr. mondale would be strong as he said he would be, i know he has a commercial out where he's appearing on the deck of the "nimitz" and watching the f-14s take off and that's an image of strength. except that if he had had his way, when the "nimitz" was being planned he would have been deep in the water out there because there wouldn't have been any "nimitz" to stand on, he was against it. [ laughter ] he was against the f-14 fighter, he was against m-1 tank, he was
against the b-1 bomber, he wanted to cut the salary of the military, he wanted to bring home half of the american forces in europe and he has a record of weakness with regard to our national defense that is second to known. indeed he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the senate and he opposed even president carter when toward the end of his term president carter wanted to increase the defense budget. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal? >> mr. president, i accept your commitment to peace, but i want you to accept my commitment to a strong national defense. [ applause ] i propose a budget -- i have proposed a budget which would increase our nation's strength this real terms by double that of the soviet union. over 10 years ago i voted to delay production of the f-15. i'll the you why. the plane wasn't flying the way
it was supposed to be. it was a waste of money. your definition of national strength is to throw money at the department. my definition of national strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollar's worth of defense. there's a big difference between the two of us. a president must balance the budget. i will keep us strong but you can't do that unless you keep an eye on that budget and get the strength we need. when you pay $500 for a $5 hammer you're not buying strength. >> i would ask the audience not to applaud, all it does is take up time we would like to vote to the debate. >> mr. mondale, in an address earlier this year, you said that before this country resorts to military force, and i'm quoting "american interests should be sharply defined, publicly supported, congressionally sanctioned, militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny, and alert to regional history." now, aren't you setting up such
a gauntless of tests here that adversaries could easley suspect that as president you would never use force to protect american interests? >> no, as a matter of fact i believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country. and we can see that in both lebanon and in central america. in lebanon this president exercised american power but the management was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the soviet union became stwroonge stronger terrorists became emboldened and it was because they did not think through how power was exercised, did not have the american public with them on a plan that worked that we ended up the way we did. similarly in central america, what we're doing in nicaragua with this covert war skm whiwhi congress including many republicans have tried to stop
is ending up with the definition of american power has hurt us where we get associated with political assassins and the rest, we have to decline for the first time in modern history jurisdiction to the world court because they'll find us guilty of illegal actions and our enemies are strengthened from all of this. we need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength but we must understand that we are a democracy, we are a government by the people and when we move it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interest and end up with a stronger country behind us. it is only in that way that we can persevere. >> you've been quoted as saying that you might quarantine nicaragua. i'd like to know what that means. would you stop soviet ships as president kennedy did in 1962 and wouldn't that be more dangerous than president reagan's covert war? >> what i'm referring to there is the mutual self-defense
provisions that exist in the inter-american treaty that permits the nations, our friends that region will combine to take steps diplomatic and otherwise to prevent nicaragua when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her boarder to take those steps whatever they might be to stop it. the nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations and by working with the policies in the area, unlike the president said, they have not supported the nation, we will be much stronger because we will have the moral authority that goes with those efforts. >> president reagan you introduced u.s. forces into lebanon as neutral peacekeepers
but then you made them combatants on the side of the lebanese government. you were forced to withdraw them under fire and now syria, a soviet ally, is dominant in the country. doesn't lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a foreign policy vat gist and as commander-in-chief? >> no, morton, i don't agree to all of those things. first of all, when we and our allies -- the italians, the french and the united kingdom -- went into lebanon, we went in there at the question of what was left of the lebanese government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government but the first time we went in we went in at their request because the war was going on in beirut between israel and the plo terrorists. israel could not be blamed for that. those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently and israel chased them all the way to there then we went in with the
multinational force to help remove and did remove more than 13,000 of those terrorists from lebanon. we departed and then the government of lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of lebanon and then they could take care of their own borders. and we were succeeding. we were there for the better part of the year. our position happened to be at the airport or there were occasional snipings and sometimes artillery fire. but we did not engage in conflict that was out ofline with our mission. i will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them they can darn well shoot back. and this is what we did, we never initiated any kind of action, we defended ourselves there. but we were succeeding to the point that the lebanese government had been organized, if you will remember there were the meetings in geneva in which
they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and try to put together some kind of a peace plan. we were succeeding and that was why the terrorist acts began. there are forces there and that includes syria in my mind who don't want us to succeed, who don't want that kind of a peace with a dominant lebanon dominant over its own territory and so the terrorist acts began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in the suicide bombing of a building, then the multilateral force withdrew for only one reason, we withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in, but we went in in the interest of peace and to keep israel and syria if getting into the sixth war between them and i have no apologies for our going on a peace mission. >> mr. president, four years ago you criticized president carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in iran might be
taken hostage. haven't you done exactly the same thing in lebanon not once but three times with 300 americans not hostages but dead and you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists but doesn't our lack of response suggest that you're just bluffing? >> morton, no. i think there's a great difference between government of iran threatening our diplomatic personnel and there is a government that you can see and put your hand on. in the terrorist situation there are terrorist factions all over. in a recent 30-day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. the most recent has been the one in brighton. in dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not engadanger the lives of innocen civilians there in the various communities and in the city of beirut where these terrorists are operating.
i have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal along with our allies with this terrorist problem and it's going to take all the nations together just as when we banded together we pretty much resolved the whole problem of sky jackings sometime ago. well, the red light went on. i could have gone on forever. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal? >> groucho marx said "who do you believe, me or your own eyes?" and what we have in lebanon is something that the american people have seen. the joint chiefs urged the president not to put our troops in that barracks because they were undefensible. they went to them five days before they were killed and said please take them out of there. the secretary of state admitted that this morning. he did not do so the report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. that was the second time.
then the embassy was blown up a few weeks ago and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken and we were warned five days before that explosives were on their way and they weren't taken. the terrorists have won each time. the president told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. he didn't. they called their bluff and the bottom line is that the united states left in humiliation and our enemies are stronger. >> mr. president, your rebuttal? >> yes. first of all mr. mondale should know that the president of the united states did not order the marines into that barracks, that was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. that is one. the other things that you've just said about the terrorists, i'm tempted to ask you what you would do. these are unidentified people and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits because
they are suicidal individuals who think that they're going to go to paradise if their perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. we are going to, as i say, we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from and retaliation will be taken but we are not going to simply kill some people to say, oh, look, we got even. we want to know when we retaliate that we're retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts and terrorist acts are such that our own united states capital in washington has been bombed twice. >> mr. truette, your question to president reagan. >> i want to raise an issue i think has been lurking throughout for two or three weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. you already are the oldest president in history and some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with mr. mondale.
i recall yet that president kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the cuban missile crisis. is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances. >> not at all, mr. trewhitt and i want you to know i will not make age an issue in this campaign. i am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. [ laughter and applause ] if i still have time, i might add, mr. trewhitt, i might add that it was seneca or it was cicero, i don't know which, that said if it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state. >> mr. president, i'd like to head for the fence and try to catch that one before it goes over but i'll go on to another
question. you and mr. mondale have disagreed about what you had to say about recalling submarine launch missiles. there's another issue throughout that relates to -- it is said at least that you were unaware that the soviet retaliatory power was based on land-based missiles. is that correct? secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime? and, third is it even necessary for the president to be b so intimately involved in frstratec details? >> yes, this had to do with our disarmament talks and the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought the strategic nuclear weapons, the most destabilizing are the land-based. you put your thumb on a button and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. so we thought it would be simpler to negotiate first with those and then we made it plain a second phase, take up the submarine launch, the air born missiles. the soviet union, to our surprise and not just mine made it plain when we brought this up that they place, they thought, a
greater reliance on the land-based missiles and therefore they wanted to take up all three and we agreed, we said all right, if that's what you want to do but it was a surprise to us because they outnumbered us 64-36 in submarines and 20% more bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles than we had. why should we believe they had placed that much more reliance on land-based. but even after we gave in and said all right, let's discuss it all, they walked away from the table, we didn't. >> mr. mondale, i'm going to hang in there, should the president's age and stam a that be an issue in the political campaign? >> no, and i have not made it an issue nor should it be. what's at issue here is the president's application of his authority to understand what a president must know to lead this nation, secure our defense and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary. a minute ago the president
quoted cicero, i believe. i want to quote somebody a little closer to home, harry truman. he said "the buck stops here." we just heard the president's answer for the problems at the barracks in lebanon where 241 marines were killed. what about? first the joint chiefs of staff went to the president and said "don't put those troops there." they did it. and then five days before the troops were killed they went back to the president through the secretary of defense and said please, mr. president, take those troops out because we can't defend them. they didn't do it. we know what happened. after that once again our embassy was exploded, this is the fourth time this has happened, an identical attack in the same region despite warnings, even public warnings, from the terrorists. who's in charge? who's handling this? that's my main point.
now on arms control, we're completing four years, this is the first administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. we have an arms race under way instead a president has to lead his government or it won't be done. different people with different views fight with each other. for three and a half years this administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he came close to an agreement, at least in principle, on immediate yume weapons and we have this arms race underway and a recent book that just came out by perhaps the nation's most-respected author in this steefield, strob talbot, called "deadly gambit" which concludes the president has failed to master essential details needed to command and lead us both in terms of
security and terms of arms control. that's why they call the president a commander in chief. good intentions, i grant, but it takes more than that. you must be tough and smart. >> this question of leadership keeps arising in different forms in this discussion already and the president, mr. mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, among the more charitable phrases, weak i believe, it is a question of leadership and he has made the point that you have not repudiated some of the semidiplomatic activity of the reverend jackson, particularly in central america. did you approve of his diplomatic activity? and are you prepared to repudiate him now? >> i read his statement the other day. i don't admire fidel castro at all and i have said that, which he guevara was-- che guevara wa contemptible figure. i know the cuban state as a police state and i've demonstrated that.
but jesse jackson is an independent person. i don't control him and let's talk about people we do control. in the last debate, the vice president of the united states said that i said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in lech non. i demanded an apology from vice president bush because i had instead honored these young men, grieved for their families and think they were wonderful americans that honored us all. what does the president have to say about taking responsibility for a vice president who won't apologize for something like that? >> mr. president, your rebuttal? >> yes, i know it will come as a surprise to mr. mondale, but i am in charge and as a matter of fact we haven't avoided arms control talks with the soviet union very early in my administration. i proposed and i think something that had never been proposed by any previous administration, i proposed a total limb nation of
intermediate-range missiles where the soviet had better than a 10-1 advantage over the allies in europe. when they protested that and suggested a smaller number, perhaps, i went along with that the so-called negotiation that you said i walked out on was the so-called walk in the wood between one of our representatives and one of the soviet union and it wasn't me that turned it down, the soviet union disaviewed it. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal? >> there are two distinguished authors on arms control in this country. there are many others but two that i want to cite tonight, one is strobe talbot in his classic book "deadly gambit" the other is john new houhouse who is one the most distinguished arms control specialists in our country, both said that this administration turned down the walk in the woods agreement first and that would have been a perfect agreement if the
standpoint of the united states and europe and our security. when mr. nhtsa, a good negotiator returned, he was rebuked and his boss was fired. this is the kind of leadership that we've had in this administration in the most deadly issue of our time, now we have a run away arms race all they have to show for four years in u.s./soviet relations is one meeting and the last weeks of an administration and nothing before. they're tough negotiators but all previous presidents have made progress, this one has not. >> ms. geyer, your question to mr. mondale. >> mr. mondale, many analysts are now saying that actually our number one foreign policy problem today is one that remains almost wholly unrecognized, massive illegal immigration from economically collapsing countries. they are saying it is the only real territorial threat to the american nation staid.
you yourself said in the 1970s that we had a "hemorrhage on our borders" yet today you have backed off any immigration reform such as the balanced and highly crafted simpson-misoli bill. why? what would you do today instead if anything? >> this is a very serious problem in our country and it has to be belt with. i object to that part of the simpson mazzola bill which i think is very unfair and would prove to be so. that is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they're hired. i am convinced that the result of this would be that people who are hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent would find it difficult to be employed. i think that's wrong. we've never had citizenship tests in our country before and i don't think we should have a citizenship card today. that is counterproductive. i do support the other aspects of the simpson mazzola bill that
strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status. i have further strongly recommended this administration do something it has not done, and this is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers and to do so in a way that's responsible and within the constitution of the united states. we need an answer to this problem but it must be an american answer that is consistent with justice and due process. everyone in this room practically here tonight is an immigrant. we came here loving this nation, serving it and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams and
one of those dreams is justice and we need a measure -- and i will support a measure -- that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that i think is very serious. the second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. we cannot solve this problem all on our own and that's why the failure of this administration to deal in effective and good-faith way with mexico, with costa rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in central america has undermined our capacity to effectively to deal diplomatically in this area as well. >> sir, people as well balanced and just as father theodore hessberg at notre dame who headed the select commission on immigration have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions because it would be an unbalanced bill and there would be no way to reinforce it.
however putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any immigration reform because of the hispanic groups -- hispanic leadership groups who actually do not represent what the hispanic americans want because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of immigration reform can you say or how can you justify your position on this and how do you respond to the criticism that this is another -- or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special interest groups at the extense of the american nation? >> i think you're right that the polls show that the majority of hispanics want that bill so i'm not doing it for political reasons, i'm doing it because all my life i've fought for a system of justice in this country, a system in which every
american has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination this bill imposes upon imployers the response of determining whether somebody who applies a job is an american or not and just inevitably they're going to be reluctant to hire hispanics or people with a different accent. if i were dealing with politics the polls show the american people want this, i am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border and many aspects of the simpson mazzola bill but all my life i've fought for a theirer nation and despite the politics of it i stand where i stand and i think i'm right and before this fight is over we'll come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people. >> mr. president, you, too, have said our borders are out of control, yet this fall you allowed the simpson mazzola bill
which would have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the states for legalized aliens. given that, may i ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element? how sincere are you in your efforts to control, in effect, the nation state that is the united states? >> well, believe me, we supported the simpson mazzola bill strongly and the bill that came out of the senate, however there were things added in on the house side that we felt made it less of a good bill, as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill and in conference we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even senator simpson did not want the bill in the manner which it would come out of the conference committee. twlrp a number of things in there that weakened that bill. i can't go into detail about them here but it is true our
borders are out of control. it's also true this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of administrations and i supported this bill, i believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and have lived here even though some time back they may have entered illegally. with regard to the employer sanctions, this -- we must have that. not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens but also why some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldn't be so concerned about and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits we think are normal and natural for workers in our
country and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status, we don't think those people should be allowed to continue operating free and this was why the provisions we had in with regard to sanctions and so forth and i'm going to do everything i can and all of us in the administration are to join in again when congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that l give us once again control of our borders and with regard to friendship below the border and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that i know has established the relationship that we have with our latin friends, but as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment they are going to seek that employment across our borders and we work with those other countries. >> mr. president, the experts also say that the situation
today is terribly different, quantitatively, qualitatively different from what it nab the past because of the gigantic population growth. for instance, mexico's population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. many of these people will be coming into the united states not as citizens but as illegal workers. you have repeatedly said recently that you believe that armageddon, the destruction of the world may be imminent in our times, do you ever feel that we are in for an armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy regarding the population explosion in the world? >> no, as a matter of fact, the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated,or exaggerated. as a matter of fact there are some pretty scientific and solid figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people we can have. it's almost like going back to
the mall newsian theory when even then they were saying that each would starve with the limited population they have then. but the problem of population growth is one here with regard to our immigration and we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry hire in mexico where their population is increasing and they don't have an economy that can ab, so them and provide the jobs and this is what we're trying to work out not only to protect our own border bus to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal? >> one of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they don't come north come north despite all the risks and if we're going to find a permanent
fundamental answer to this it goes to american economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and get prosperity so they can have jobs for themselves and their people and that's why this enormous national debt edngineered by ths administration is harming these countries and fuelling this immigration. these high interest rates, real rates that have doubled ournd this administration have had the same effect in mexico and so on and the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship and hard ache and that drives our friends to the south up into our region and we need to end those deficits as well. >> mr. president, your rebuttal? >> my rebuttal is i've heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things but not for illegal immigration across our border and it has nothing to do with it. but with regard to these high
interest rates, too, at least give us the recognition of the fact that when you left office, mr. mondale, there were 21.5 the prime rate, it's now 12.25 and i predict it will come down more shortly so we're trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. >> mr. kalb, your question to president reagan? >> mr. president, i'd like to pick up this armageddon theme. you've been quoted adds saying you do believe deep down that we are heading for some kind of biblical armageddon. your pentagon and secretary of defense have plans for the united states to fight and prevail in a nuclear war. do you feel we are now heading perhaps for some kind of nuclear armageddon? and do you feel that this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity? >> mr. kalb, any what has been hailed i'm something as president discussing as
principle is just some philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the same things and that is the prophesies down through the years, the biblical prophecies of what would portend the coming of armageddon and so forth and the fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed that this was true, that the prophecies are coming together that portend that. but no one knows whether armageddon -- those prophesies mean that armageddon is a thousand years away or day after tomorrow. so i have never seriously said we must plan according to armageddon. now, with regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of a nuclear war, of course we would. but let me also point out that to several parliaments around the world in europe and asia, i have made a statement to each one of them and i'll repeat it here, a nuclear war cannot be
won and must never be fought. and that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage. but the deterrent -- and that's what it is for, is also led me to propose what is now being called the star wars concept but propose that we research to see if there isn't a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming missiles and if such a defense could be fund, wouldn't it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people? >> mr. president, when you made that proposal, the so-called star wars proposal, you said, if
i'm not mistaken, that you would share this very super sophisticated technology with the soviet union. after all of the distrust over the years, sir, that you have expressed towards the soviet union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of america's technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary? >> why not? what if we did? and i hope we can. we're still researching. what if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete? there has never been a weapon invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive counter weapon. but suppose we came up with that? now, some people have said, oh, that would make war imminent because they would think we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy. but why not do what i have offered to do and ask the soviet union to do say, look, here's
what we can do, we'll even give it to you, now will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these nuclear weapons? and free mankind from that threat? i think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon. >> mr. mondale, you've been very sharply critical of the president's strategic defense initiative and yet what is wrong with a major effort by this country to try to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming nuclear warheads as possible? >> first of all, let me sharply disagree with the president on sharing the most advanced, the most dangerous, the most important technology in america with the soviet union. we have had for many years understandably a system of restraints on high technology because the soviets are behind us and any research or development along the star wars steams would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, most advanced engineering and
the thought that we should share with this with soviet union is, in my opinion, a total non-starter. i would not let the soviet union get their hands on it at all. now, what's wrong with star wars? there's nothing wrong with the theory of it. if we could develop a principle that would say both sides could fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, i suppose it's a good idea but the fact of it is we're so far away from research that even comes close to that this the director of engineering research in the department said to get there we would have to solve eight problems, each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the manhattan project. it would cost something like a trillion dollars to test and deploy wednesday. the second thing is this all assumes that the souf yets wouldn't respond in kind, and they always do, we don't get behind, they won't get behind
and that's been the tragic story of the arms race we have more at stake in space satellites than they do. if we could stop right now, the testing and the deployment of these space weapons and the president's proposals go clear beyond research, if it was just research we wouldn't have any argument because maybe someday somebody will think of something. this time in their state would bring about an arms race is very dangerous in deed. the most dangerous aspect of this proposal is the fist time we would delegate the decision tooz whether to start a war. that was dead wrong. there wouldn't be time for a president to decide. it will be decided by these remote computers. might be an oil fire. might be a jet exhaust. the computer might decide it's a
missile and off we go. why don't we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free for more. >> in this general area of arms control. president carter's national security advisor said, quote, a nuclear freeze is a hoax, end quote. yet the basis of your arms proposals as i understand them is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. in your views which specific weapon systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze and which could not. >> every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations or an agreement. i would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved con duck on the part of the soviet union that we could verify every day.
i would not agree to any agreement in which the united states security interest was not fully recognized and supported. that's why we say mutual and verifiable freezes. now why do i support the freezes? because this ever rising arms race madness makes both nations less secure. it's more difficult to defend this nation. it is putting a hair trigger on nuclear war. this administration by going into the star wars system is going to add a dangerous new escalation. we have to be tough on the soviet union but i think the american people -- >> time is up. >> people want it to stop. >> president reagan, your rebuttal. >> yes, my rebuttal once again is this invention that's just been created here of how i would go about rolling over for the
soviet eun whereon, no my idea would be with that defensive weapon. that we would sit down with them and now say are you willing to join us? give them a demonstration and then say here's what we can do. approximate you're willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world then we'll give you this one so that we will both know that no one will cheat. and i never suggesting where the weapons should be or what kind. i'm not a scientist. i said and the joint chiefs of staff agreed with me that it was time for us to turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of a defensive weapon and suddenly somebody says oh it has to be up there and i don't know what it would be but if we could come up with one the world would be better off. >> your rebuttal.
>> that's what a president is supposed to know. where those weapons are supposed to be. if they're space weapons i assume they'll be in space. if they're anti-satellite weapons i assume they're going to be armed against anti-satellites. now this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. soviets try to spy on us and steal this stuff and to give them technology of this kind i disagree with. you haven't just accepted research, mr. president. you have set up a strategic defense initiative and agency. you're beginning to test. you're talking about deploying. you're asking for a budget of some $30 billion for had this purpose. this is an arms escalation and we will be better off, far better off if we stop right now because we have more to lose in space than they do. if some day somebody comes along with an answer that's something else but that there would be an
answer in our lifetime is unimaginable. why do we start things that we know the soviets will match and make us less secure? >> you say that with respect to the soviet union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze but you would give up the missile and the b-1 bomber before the talks have ever begun. now reaching an agreement with the soviets is the most important thing tin the world t you. >> as a matter of fact we have a vast range of technology and weapon ri right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we need and i support the air launch news missile, the trident sub marine and d-5 sub marine. the stelth technology. we have a whole range of technology.
why i disagree with the mx is its a sitting duck. lit draw an attack. it is a dangerous destabilizing weapon and the b-1 is similarly to be opposed because for 15 years the soviet union has been preparing to meet the b-1. the secretary of defense said it would be a suicide mission if it was built. and a weapon that will contribute to an incentive for arms control. that's why to build a stelth bomber that can penetrate the air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. a president has to make choices. this makes us stronger. the final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things
that we really need. our conventional strength in europe. we need to strengthen that in order to assure our western allies of the presence there and strong defense and to diminish and reduce the likelihood of commencement of war and use of nuclear weapons. it's in this way by making wise choices that we're stronger and we enhance the chances of arms control. every president until this one has been able to do it and this nation, or the world is more dangerous as a result. >> i want to follow up on his question. it seems to me on the question of verifiability that you have problem with the extent. testing would be difficult because the soviets encode it. it would be possible to verify by satellite an production of any weapon would be possible to
verify. now in view of that what is going to be frozen. >> i would not agree. it's not verifiable. let's take your war head principle. whenever a weapon was tested we count the number of war heads on it and whenever that war head is used we count that number of war heads whether they have that number or less on it or not. these are standard rules. i will not agree to any production restrictions or agreement unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. i don't trust the russians. i believe that every agreement we reach must be verifiable and i will not agree to anything. we cannot tell every day. and in order to stop this arm's madness we have to push ahead with tough negotiations that are
verifiable so that they're leading up to their agreement. >> i want to ask row about a question about negotiating with their friends. helping to undermine two dictators that got into trouble with their own people. and now there are other such leaders head r for trouble including the president of the philippines. what should you do and what can you do to prevent the philippines from becoming that. >> i did criticize the president because of our undercutting of what was an ally. and i am not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with his people or that they wanted that to happen. i did think it was a blot on our record that we let him down. have things gotten better.
whatever he might have done was building low cost housing and they can be land owners. things of that kind and we turned him over to a fanatic that slaughtered thousands and thousands of people calling it executions. and as a matter of fact the previous administration stood by and so do i. not that i could have done anything with my position at that time but for this revolution to take place and human rights free labor unions, free press. they ousted the other parties to the revolution. many of them are now -- they exiled some. they jailed some. they murdered some. and they installed a
totalitarian government and what i have to say about this is -- many times and this has to do with that so i know there are thing there is in the philippines that do not good look for us to the standpoint right now with democratic rights. what is the alternative. it was a large communist movement to take over the philippines. we have enough of a record of letting under the revolution someone that we thought was more right than he would be letting that person go and then winding up with it pure as simple as the alternative. and retain our friendship and help him right the wrongs we see. rather than throwing them to the
wolves and then facing a communist power in the pacific. >> mr. president since the united states has two strategically important bases in the philippine will it constitute a threat to vital merge interests and if so what will you do about it? >> we have to look at what an overthrow there would mean and what the government will be that would follow. and that will be a severe blow to our abilities there in the pacific. >> what would you do about it. >> sorry you asked the follow up question. your rebuttal. >> perhaps in no area do we disagree more than this administration's policies on human rights. i went to the philippines as vice president pressed for human rights and made progress that had been stalled on both the airfield bases. what explains this
administration after they took over? fortunately a democracy took over but this nation was embarrassed by this current administration's adoption of their policies. what happens in south africa where for example the noble prize winner two days ago said this administration is seen as working in that region of south africa. that hurts this nation. we need to stand for human rights. we need to make it clear we're for human liberty. national security and human rights must go together. but this administration time and time again has lost it's way in this field. >> president reagan yourrebuttal. >> the invasion of afghanistan didn't take place on our watch. i have described what has happened in iran and we weren't here then either. i don't think that our record of
human rights can be assailed. >> we have seen that human rights are across the world. he unveiled a plan to get the democracies to together and work with the hole world to turn to democracy and i was glad to hear him say that. that's what we have been doing ever since i announced to the british parliament that i thought we should do this. human rights are not advanced while at the same time you would stand back and say we didn't know the gun was loaded and you have another totalitarian power on your hands. >> in this segment because of the pressure of time there will be no rebuttals and no follow up questions. your question to president reagan. >> one question to each candidate. >> mr. president could i take you back to something you said earlier and if i'll misquoting
you please correct me but i understand you to say approximate the development of space military technology was successful you might give the soviets a demonstration and say here it is which sounds to me that you might be trying to gain the advantage which would enable you to dictate terms and then i would then suggest to you might mean scrapping a generation of nuclear strategy in which we effect hold each other hostage? is that your intention? >> well, i can't say that i have round tabled that and sat down with the chiefs of staffs but i have said that it seems to me that this could be a logical step in what is my ultimate goal. my ultimate dream and that is the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world and it seems to me that this could be an edge up or certainly a great assisting agent in getting that done. i'm not going to rollover and give them something that could be turned around and used
against us but i think it's a very interesting proposal to see if we can find first of all something that renders those weapons obsolete. incapable of their mission but he seems to approve mad. mutual assured destruction. meaning if you use nuclear weapons on us the only thing we have to keep you from doing it is that we'll kill as many people of yours as you'll kill of ours. i think to do everything that we can to find something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights. >> could i ask you to address the question of nuclear strategy and then -- i'm going to ask you to deal with it anyway. do you believe in mad, mutual assured destruction as it has been practiced? >> i believe in a sensible arms control approach that brings town these weapons to manageable
weapons i'd like to see their elimination and in the meantime we have to be strong enough to make certain that the soviet union never attempts this. now here we have to decide between generalized objectives and reality. the period president wants to eliminate or reduce the number of nuclear weapons but the last four years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race than in human history. he says he wants a system that will make nuclear arms wars safe so nobody is going to get hurt and maybe some day somebody can dream of that. but why start an arms race now? why threaten our satellites on which we defend a president defend this country and to get arms control must master what is
going on the hard reality is we must know what we're doing and pursue the objectives that are possible in our time. if you want a president that draws the line in the heavens. >> we arrived at the point in the debate where we call for closing statements. you have the full four minutes. you go first. >> i want to thank the voters and kansas city and president reagan for the debate this evening.
i believe we need to be strong and it will keep us strong. i think strength must also require wisdom and smarts in it's exercise. that's key to the strength of our nation. but a president must also have a vision of where this nation should go. tonight as americans you have a choice. your entitled to know where we would take this country if you decide to elect us. as president i would press for long-term vigorous economic growth. that's why i want to get these down and interest rates down and help rural america that is suffering so much and bring the jobs back here for our children. i want this next generation to be the best educated in american history. to invest in the human mind and
science again. i want this nation to protect it's air it's land it's water and public health. america is not temporary. and as americans our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. i want a nation of fairness where no one is denied the fullness of life or discriminated against and we deal compassionately with those in our midst who are in trouble. and i want a nation that's strong. since we debated two weeks ago united states the soviet union have built 100 more war heads. enough to kill millions of americans and millions of soviet citizens. this doesn't strengthen us. this weakens the chances of civilization to survive.
i remember the night before i became vice president. i was given the briefing and told that any time night or day i might be called upon to make the most faithful decision on earth, whether to fire these atomic weapons that could destroy the human species. that lesson tells us two things. one, pick a president that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must know because there's no time for staffing committees or advisors but above all pick a president that will fight to avoid the day when that awful decision ever needs to be made and america and americans decide not just what's happening in this country we are
the strongest and most powerful free society on earth. when you make that judgment, you're deciding not only the future of our nation in a very profound respect you're providing the future. deciding the future of the world. we need to move on. it's time for america to find new leadership. please join me in this cause to move most confidently and with a sense of assurance and command to build the blessed future of our nation. >> president reagan. >> here's my thanks to the panelists and moderator and to the people of kansas city for their harm hospitality and greeting. i think the american people tonight have much to be grateful for. an economic recovery that has become expansion.
freedom and most of all, we are at peace. i am grateful for the chance to reaffirm my commitment to reduce nuclear weapons and one day to he eliminate them entirely. the question before you comes down to this. do you want to see america return to the policies of weakness of the last four years? or do we want to go forward marching together as a nation of strength and that's going to continue to be strong. >> we shouldn't be dwelling on the past or the present. and whether we're going to provide the opportunity for all
the americans they need. it was to go into a time capsule and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened. one day my mind was full of what i was going to put in the issues that confront us in our tile and what we did about them. and one side of the highway shining and wondering if someone would be driving down the highway and see the sail thing and with that thought i realized what a job i had with that letter. i would be writing a letter to peel that know everything there is to know about us. we know nothing about them. and they would know all about our problems and they would know
how we solved them and whether our solution is benefitted down through the years and whether it hurt them. we also know we lived in a world of terrible weapons, nuclear weapons and terrible destructive power aimed at each other. capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we know it. and then i thought to myself what are they going to say about us? what are those peel 100 years from now going to think? they will know whether we used those weapons or not. well, what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep with destiny. will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one day down in history, 100 years or perhaps before someone
will say thank god for those people back in the 1980s for preserving our freedom. for saving for us this blessed planet called earth with it's grandeur and it's beauty. you know i am grateful for all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for four years and i seek re-election because i want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted four years ago. george bush who i think is one of the finest vice presidents this country has ever had, george bush and i have crossed the country and had in the last few months a wonderful experience. we have met young america we have met your sons and daughter. >> mr. president. i'm obliged to cut you off there
under the rules of the debate. i'm sorry. >> all right. [ applause ] >> perhaps i should come out that the rules under which i did that were agreed upon. >> i know. >> thank you mr. president. thanks to the panel. we thank you and the league of women voters asks me to say to you don't forget to vote on november 6th.