tv 1988 Presidential Candidates Second Debate CSPAN November 5, 2016 12:27am-1:57am EDT
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.
and the streets.com economics columnist. also congressional reporter for real clear politics looks at senate toss up races heading into he election day. cspan's washington journal beginning at 7:00 eastern saturday morning join the discussion. >> leading up to the 2016 election road to the white house rewind brings you coverage of presidential races. and massachusetts governor. the candidates took questions on taxes and defense spending and nuclear weapons stock piles and their choice of vice presidential running mates. the republican ticket defeated democrats in the general election. winning the popular vote 5 a3-46%. the debate from los angeles is about an hour and a half.
>> good evening. on behalf of the commission of presidential debates i am pleased to welcome you to the second presidential debate. i am bernard shaw of cnn. my colleagues are ann compton of abc news, margaret warner of newsweek magazine. and andrea mitchell of nbc news. the candidates are, vice president george bush, the republican nominee and governor michael ducaucus the democratic nominee. [ applause ]
for the next 90 minutes we'll be questioning the candidates following a format designed and agreed to by the representative of the two campaigns. however there are no restrictions to the questions my colleagues and i can ask this evening and the candidates have no prior knowledge of our questions. by agreement between the candidates the first question goes to governor dukakis. you have two minutes to respond. governor, if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor a death penalty for the killer? >> no i don't and i think you know that i oppose the death penalty all of my life. i don't see any evidence that it is a deturrent and there's
better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. we have done so in my own state and it's one of the reasons we have the biggest drop in crime in america and why we have the lowest murder rate of any state in america. but we have work to do in this nation. we have work to do to fight a real war and not a phony war against drugs. that's something we haven't had over the course of the past many years even though the vice president has been at least allegedly in charge of that war. we have much to do to step up that war to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere and i want to call a summit soon after the 20th of january as possible. and that's one of the things that i hope i can lead personality as president of the
united states. and be able to help them in the early elementary grades so we can fight this war and win this war and we can do so in a way that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers that have not been getting that support and do it in a way that will bring down violence in this nation. that will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs and will stop this avalanche of drugs that's pouring into the country and will make it possible for our kids and families to grow up in safe and secure and descent neighborhoods. >> mr. vice president your one minute rebuttal. >> well a lot of what this campaign about is it seems to me is to question values here i do have on this particular question a big difference with my opponent. you see i do believe that come crimes are so heinous and so brutal, so outrageous and i'd say particularly those that
result in the death of a police officer, those real brutal kiems i do believe in the telth penalty and i believe we need it and i'm glad that the congress moved on this drug bill and finally called for that. related to these narcotic drug kingpins so we just had an honest difference of opinion. i support it and he doesn't. >> now to you vice president bush. i quote to you this from article three. and woet if at the time fixed at the beginning of the term of the president, the president elect shall have died. the vice president he elect shall be president. and if you are elected and died
before inauguration day. automatically, automatically dan quail would become the 41st president of the united states. what have you to say about that possibility. >> i'd have confidence in him and i made a good selection and i have never seen such a rounding, an unfair pounding on a young senator in my entire life. and i have never seen a presidential campaign for the presidential nominee runs against my vice presidential nominee. never seen one before. so you know lloyd benson jumped on dan quail when he said he had roughly the same amount of experience. he had two terms in the congress. two terms in the senate serving his second term and he founded and authored the job training
partner and american men and wil loan out of work at no fault of their own and we need that kind of thing. he like my opponent is an expert in national offense. and these people over here and if i listen to him i would have never had a treaty. so i have great confidence in him. and it's turning around. the american people are fair. they don't like it when there's an unfair pounding and they want to judge it on the record itself and so i'm proud of my choice and i don't think age is the only criteria but i'm proud that people that are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that's going to be vice president of the united states of america. i made a good selection.
the american people are are seeing it and i'm proud of it. that's what i say and he can do the job. >> your one minute rebuttal. >> this was the first presidential decision that we were called upon to make. that's why people are so concerned because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. more than that it was the first national security decision that we had to make cht vice president talks about national security three times since world war ii. the vice president has to become the commander and chief. i picked lloyd benson because i thought he was the best qualified person for the job. mr. bush picked dan quail and before he did it he said watch my choice for vice president, it will tell all. and it sure did.
it sure did. >> thank you. mr. vice president yes we read your lips. no new taxes. but despite that sail pledge from president reagan after income tax rates were cut in each of the last five years some federal taxes have gone up on social security, cigarettes, liquor, even long distance telephone calls. that's money straight out of people's wallets. isn't the phrase no new taxes misleading the voters? >> no, because i pledged to that and yes some taxes have gone up and the main point is taxes have been cut and yet income is up to the federal government by 25% in the last three years. so what i want to do is keep this expansion going. i don't want to kill it off by a tax increase. more americans at work today than at any time in the history
of this country and greater percentage of the work force. and the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes and i don't want to do that and i won't do that. it's going to take discipline of the executive branch. it's going to take discipline of the congressional branch and that is what i call a flexible freeze that allows growth, about 4% or the rate of inflation but does not permit congress just to add on spending. i hear this talk about a blank check. the american people are smart. they know who writes out the check and they know who appropriates the money. it is the congress. and by 2-1, congress is blamed for these deficits and the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch by holding the line on taxes so i'm pledged to do that and those that say it can't be done i'm sorry i have a
fundamental disagreement with them. >> your one minute response. >> it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. if we continue with the policies plflt bush is talking about this evening, a flexible freeze. some describe it as an economic slurpee. he says he's not going to raise taxes though he has broken that pledge repeatedly. he says he wants to give the wealthiest 1% of the people in this country a five year $40 billion tax break and we're going to pay for it and he has been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions. if we continue with these policies this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt already added on the backs of the american taxpayer is going to increase even more and if we continue with this for another
four years then i'm worried about the next generation whether we can ever turn the situation around. we need a chief executive that won't blal the congress but will lead and bring down the deficit and make tough choices on spending. will go out and do the job we expect of him and do it with the congress of the united states. >> governor let me follow up on that by asking you said it many times that you balanced ten budgets in a row in massachusetts. are you promising the american people here tonight that within a four year presidential term you will balance the federal budget? >> no i'm not sure that i can promise that. there's no way of anticipating what may happen. i will say this that we'll set as our goal a steady gradual reduction of the deficit and requirement a strong rate of economic growth and a plan that
the president works out with the congress and it will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars of taxes owed not being paid in this country and that's grossly unfair. the average american paying his taxes and paying them on time doesn't have any alternative. and put the irs on every taxpayer. and we should be talking about average americans when there's billions out there. over a hundred billion dollars in taxes owed that aren't be paid. we work together and if you have a president that will work with the congress of the american people. we can bring that deficit down steadily. 25, 30 a year. build economic growth and a good strong future for america. invest in those things that we must invest in. economic development. good jobs. good schools for our kids. descent health care and affordable housing and clean and
safe environment. we can do all of those things and at the same time build a future in which we're standing on a good strong physical foundation. senator benson said as you recall that if you give any of us $200 billion a year we can create an illusion of prosperity but sooner or later that credit card mentality isn't going to work and i want to deal to the white house a strength and responsibility that will build a good strong foundation above which this country can move grow and invest people for our kids and our grandkids. >> mr. vice president, the governor has to balance the budget and it's state required by law. he raised taxes several tiles. i wish he would join me in appealing to the american people for the balanced budget amendment for the federal government. i'd like to have that line item
veto for the president because i think that would be extraordinarily and i won't be one other thing that he's had to do. $29 million out of his state pension fund. i won't do that. i'm still a little unclear as to whether he's for or against a tax increase. i have been off for the taxpayers billion of rights all along and this idea of releasing a whole bunch of army. a conventional force army of irs agents. he's against defense matters and now he wants abarmy of irs auditors going out there. i'm against that. i oppose that. >> i'm going to say this and i'm going to say it once to every person in this auditorium. what these candidates are about
is of upmost seriousness to the american voters. they should be heard and you should be quite. if you're not quite i'm going to implore the candidates to do something about quiting their own partisans but we can't get through this program with these out bursts. >> good evening. governor you won the first debate on intellect and yet you lost it on heart. you'll get your turn. the american public at admired your performance but didn't seem to like you much. now ronald reagan has found his personal warmth to be a tremendous political asset. do you think that a president has to be likable to be an effective leader? >> may i two back and just say to the vice president that i didn't raid the pension fund in massachusetts.
we didn't do that. as a matter of fact i'm the first governor in the history of my state to fund that pension system and i am very proud of that and no we did not. i have been in politics for 25 years. i've won a lot of elections and lost a few and learned from those losses. i won the democratic nomination in 51 separate contests and i think i'll a reasonably likable guy. now i'll serious. i'm a little more lovable these days than i used to be back in my youth when i began in my state legislature but i'm also a serious guy. i think the presidency of the united states is a very serious office and i think we have to address these issues in a very serious way so. i hope and expect that i will be liked by the people of this country as president of the united states. i hope i'll be liked by them on the 8th of november. but i also think it's important to be somebody that is willing
to make those tough choices. we just heard two or three times from the vice president he's not going to raise taxes. i repeat. within days after you made that pledge you broke it. you said well maybe as a last resort we'll do it and you supported legislation this year that's involved tax increases not once but twice so that pledge isn't realistic and i think the vice president knows it and i think the people of this country know it. the fact of the matter is that the next president of the united states is going to have to go to the white house seriously. he's going to have to work with the congress seriously. he can't turn to the congress and blame them for the fact that we don't have a balanced budget and we have billions of dollars in red ink. i'm going to be a president that is serious. i hope and expect will be liked by the american people but more than that to do the job that i'm elected to do and will do it with as much good humor as i can and in a way that will achieve the goals we want for ourselves and our people. a good strong future.
a future where there's opportunities for all of our citizens. >> one minute from the vice president. >> i don't think it's a question of whether people like you or not to make you an effective leader. i think it's whether you share the broad dreams of the american people. whether you have confidence in the people's ability to get things done or whether you think it all should be turned over as many of the liberals do, to washington d.c. i think it's a question of values. not likeability or loveability. in foreign affairs it's experience. knowing world leaders. knowing how to build on the superb record of this administration in arms control because you know exactly how to begin. you have to learn from experience that making unilateral cuts and defense system is not the way that you enhance peace. you have to understand it's only the united states that can stand for freedom and democracy around the world and we can't turn it over to the united nations or
other multilateral organizations. it's trying to understand the heart beat of the country and i know these campaigns get knocked a lot but i think i'd be a better president now for having had to travel to these communities and understand the family values and the important of neighborhood. >> margaret warner for the vice president. >> i would like to follow up on that mr. vice president. the tener of the campaign in terms of your issues and rhetorics surprised even some of your friends. senator mark hatfield knew your family a long time and your father and said if his father were alive today i'm sure his father would see it as a shocking transformation. is senator hatfield right. >> what was he referring to? >> your performance on the campaign. >> i think my dad would be pretty proud of me because i think we have come a long, long way. and i think, you know, three months ago i remember some of
the great publications in this country had written me off and what i have had to do is to define not just my position but to define his and i hope i have done it fairly and the reason i have had to do that is that he ran on the left in the democratic primary. ran firmly and ran with conviction and ran on his record. and then at
lts without explaining some of these very liberal positions. he's the one that said i am a traditional -- prozbrifs liberal democrat. he's the one that brought up the garner primary votes the whole question of the aclu and i have enormous difference with the aclu on their political agenda, not on their defending some minority opinion, on the right or the left. i support that, but what i don't like is this left wing political agenda and therefore i have to help define that and if he's unwilling to do it, if he says i'dology doesn't matter, i don't agree with it. >> i'm not surprised the labels, i guess the vice president called me liberal two or three times i was coming from the left, 1980 called you a liberal for voting federal gun control. this is something republicans have used for a long time, they
tried franklin roosevelt and john kennedy. it's not labeled. it's our vision of america. we have two different visions of america, vice president is complacent, means we ought to stick with the status quo, things are okay as they are. i don't. i think this is a great country do better, to make our country better, make our lives better. always been a nation which is ambitious for america and that's the kind of america i want. that's the kind of leadership i want to provide. i don't think these labels mean a thing and i would hope that tonight and of course the rest of this campaign we can have our good solid disagreement on issues, nothing to matter with that to stop labeling each other and let's get to the heart of the matter, which is the future of this country. >> andrea mitchell for the vice president. >> mr. vice president, governor, let me return for a moment to
the issue of the budget, because so much has already been put off limits in your campaign that most people do not believe that the flexible freeze alone will solve the problem of the deficit. so let's turn to defense for a moment, pentagon officials tell us that there's not enough money in the budget to handle military readiness, preparedness, as well as new weapon systems that have been proposed, as well as those already in the pipeline. you were asked at the first debate, what new weapon systems you would cut. you mentioned three that had already been cancelled. can you, tonight, share with us three new weapon systems that you would cut. >> if i knew of three new weapon systems which i thought were purely waste and weren't protected by the congress, they would not be in the budget. would you want one now, i'll give you one, that heavy truck that's cost $850 million and that pentagon didn't request it yet a member of congress, a very
powerful one, put it in the budget. i think we can save money through this whole very sophisticated concept, andrea, that i know you do understand of competitive strategies. it is new and it is very very different than what's happened. but it's not quite ready to be totally implemented, but it's very important. i think we can save through the packard commission report and i'm very proud that david packard, originator of that report is strongly supporting me. it's not a question of saying our budget is full of a lot of waste, i don't believe that. i do think this, we're in a serious stages of negotiation with the soviet union now on the strategic arms control talk, we're protecting a couple of options in terms of modernizing our strategic forces, my secretary of defense is going to have to make a very difficult decision in which system to go forward with, but we're protecting both of them, we're moving forward with the negotiations and you see, i
think it would be dumb negotiating policy with the soviets to cut out one of the other of the two options right now. the soviets are modernizing, they continue to modernize. and we can't simply say, we've got enough nuclear weapons, let's freeze. we can't do that. we have to have modernization, especially, if we achieve the 50% reduction in strategic weapons that our president is taking the leadership to attain. and so that's the way i would reply to it and i believe we can have the strongest and best defense possible if we modernize, if we go forward with competitive strategies and if we do follow through on the packard commission report. >> governor, one minute? >> landry, we had another example of why vice president mathematics doesn't add up. i think you know because you've covered these issues that there's no way that we can build all of the weapon systems, vice president says he wants to build
within the existing defense budget. everybody knows that including the people at the pentagon. now, might defense secretary is going to have to deal with some of those decisions, it's going to be the president that has to audibly decide before that budget goes to the congress, what weapons systems are going to go and stay. we're not going to spend the billions and trillions that mr. bush is going to spend on star wars. . weapon system we don't need, can't afford and won't help our defense posture at all. we're not going to spend hundreds of millions on a space plan from washington to tokyo, those are decisions that the chief executive has to make. yes, we're going to have a strong, incredible, we're going to go forward with the stealth, advanced cruise missile, but the next president of the united states will have to make some tough and difficult decisions. i'm prepared to make them, the vice president is known. >> andrea has a question for you. >> governor, continuing on that subject that you say that we have to do something about
conventional forces. you have supported the submarine launch missile that you just referred to. from jerry ford to jimmy carter to ronald reagan, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of modernizing the land-based missiles. you have ruled out the am ex, more recent some of your aids have hinted at some flexibility that you might show about some other new form of missile. can you tell us, tonight, why you have rejected the collected wisdom of people as diverse as sam, henry kissinger, people in both parties and what type of land-based missile would you consider? >> today we have 13,000 strategic nuclear war heads on land, on air and in the sea, that's an incredibly powerful nuclear deter rent. i don't love modernization, i know at the pentagon about a less expensive modernized land
based of the triad. there are limits to whoo we can spend. there are limits to this nation's anlt to finance these weapon systems. one of the things that the vice president either ignores or won't address, is the fact that you can't divorce our military security from our economic security. how can we build a strong america militarily that's teeter tottering on a mountain of debt. if we go forward, that debt is going to grow bigger and bigger and bigger. military security and economic security go hand in hand. we will have a stlong abdomen effective and nuclear deter rent, we'll have conventional forces that are well trained, well supported. and we have serious problems with our conventional forces at the present time. they'll get worse unless we have a president who is willing to make some of these decisions. we also have important domestic priorities and education and housing and health care and economic development and job training and the environment.
now, all of these things are going to have to be addressed. that's why i say, again, to all of you out there who have to deal with your household budgets and know how difficult it is that the next president has to do the same. i want the men and women of our armed forces to have the support they need to defend us, the support they need when they risk our lives to keep us free and to keep this country free. we cannot continue to live on a credit card and cannot continue to tell me the american people that we're doing to build all of these systems at the same time invest in the important things at home and be serious about building a strong and good america. that's the kind of america i want to build. >> one minute for the vice president. >> i think the far most -- start the clock over? i held off for the applause. >> you can proceed, sir. >> i think the foremost responsibility of responsibility
of president gets down to national security. the governor talks about limits, what we can't do, poses these two modernization systems. talks now about, we'll develop some new kind of missile, takes eight years, ten years to do that. he talked about a nuclear freeze back at the time when i was in europe trying to convince european public opinion that we ought to go forward with the deployment of the inf weapons and thank god the freeze people were not heard, they were wrong and the result is we deploy and the soviets kept deploying and then we negotiated from strength and now we have the first arms control agreement in the nuclear age to ban weapons. you just don't make unilateral cuts in the night you hope that the soviets are going to behave themselves. world peace is important and we have enhanced the peace. i'm proud to have been a part of administration that has done exactly that, peace through strength works.
>> and compton for governor. >> governor, today they may call them role models, they use to be called heroes, the kind of public figure who can inspire a whole generation, someone who is larger than life. my question is not who your heroes were, my question instead is, who are the heroes who are there in american life today. who are the ones that you would point out to young americans as figures who should inspire this country? >> well, i think when i think of heroes, i think back, not presently in, but there are many people who i admire in this country today and some of them are in public life, so my fellow governors who are real heroes to me, i think of those young athletes who represented us at the olympics were tremendously impressive, we were proud of them. we felt strongly about them and they did so well by us.
i can think of doctors and scientists -- who for example, discovered a vaccine which cured one of the most dread diseases we ever had and he's a hero. i think a classroom teachers, classroom teachers i have had. classroom teachers youngsters have today who are real heros to our young people because they inspire them, they teach them, but more than that, they are role models, members of the clergy who have done the same, drug council who is out there in the street who are providing help to youngsters and others ask for help and want help, doing the hard work, heroic work which it takes to provide that kind of leadership, that kind of counseling, that kind of support. i think of people in the law enforcement community who are taking their lives in their hands every day, going to one of the doors and kick it down and try to stop this flow of drugs into our our communities an kids. there are many many heroes in this country today, these are
people that give of themselves every day and week and every month, many cases there are people in the community who are examples and role models. i would hope that one of the things i can do as president is to recognize them, to give them the kind of recognition they need and deserve so that more and more young people can, themselves become the heroes of tomorrow, can go into public service, can go into teaching and drug counseling, go into law enforcement and be heroes themselves to generations yet to come. >> one minute for vice president bush. >>. [ applause ] i think teacher right here, largely hispanic school, teaching calculus to young kids, 80% of them going on to college. i think of a young man and now in this country viadreus who was released from cuban jail, came out and told the truth about what is actually happening in cuba. and i think of those people that
took us back into space again, rick and that crew, as people that are worthy of this, i agree with the governor on athletics, there's nothing corny about having sports heroes, young people that are clean and honorable out there setting a -- setting a pace. i think of dr., probably never heard of them, you did, he's a very fine research top doctor working hard doing something about research on this disease of aids. i think we ought to give a little credit to the president of the united states. he is the one who that has gotten us that first arms agreement and he's leading office with a popularity and an all-time high his american people. he is our hero. >> let's change the pace a little bit, in this campaign, sochl hard and very bitter things have been spoken by each
side about each side. if you would consider for a moment, governor in his years of public service, is there anything nice you can nice about him, anything you find admirable? >> listen, you're stealing my clothes, i had something very nice to say. >> barb and i were sitting there before that democratic convention and we saw the governor and his son on television the night before and his family and his mother who was there and i'm saying to barbara, you know, we've always kept family as a bit of an oasis for us. you all know me and we've held it back a little. but we use that as a role model, the way he took understandable pride in his heritage, but his family means to him. and we've got a strong family and we watch that and said, hey, we've got to unleash the bush kids. so you saw ten grandchildren there jumping all over their grandfather at the convention, you see our five kids all over
this country and their spouses. and so i would say that the concept of the family has my great respect and i would say that i know that's kind or not, it's just an objective statement and i think the man, anybody that gets into this political arena has to face you guys every day, deserves a word of praise because it's gotten a little ugly out there, it's gotten a little nasty, it's not much fun sometimes. and i would site, again, dan quayle, i've been in politics a long time and i don't remember that kind of piling on, that kind of ugly rumor that never was true, printed. now, come on, so some of it is unfair, but he's in the arena, teddy roosevelt use to talk about the arena, you know, daring to fail greatly or succeed, doesn't matter, he's in there. so i salute these things. i salute those who participate in the political process. sam had a great expression on this. you know, here are all these
sbek yules griping and complaining and seasoned egg us negative coverage and yeah, that guy never ran for sheriff. michael has run for sheriff and so has george bush. >> governor, a one minute response. >> that's not bad, that's true. >> doesn't that prove a point, george, which is values like family and education, community, decent homes for young people that family in long island i visited on monday, we're bought a house for some $19,000 back in 1962. we have eve had seven children, they can't live in the community and which they grew up in. those are basic american values and i believe in them. i think you believe in them. i'm not left or right, they're
decent american values. i guess the one thing that concerns me about this, ann, is this attempt to label things, which all of us believe in. we may have different approaches and may think that you deal with them in different ways, but they're basically american. i believe in them, george bush believes in them. i think the vast majority of americans believe in them. i hope, governor, the tone we've just heard might be the tone we have for the rest of the campaign. i think the american people will appreciate that. [ applause ] . >> vice president bush, abortion remains with us a troubling issue. i would like to explore that for a minute with you, you have said that you regard abortion as murder, yet you would make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. my question is, why should a woman who discovers through amniocentesis that her baby will be born with a disease, that the
baby will live at most two years and those two years in incredible pain, be forced to carry the fetus to term, and woman who becomes pregnant through incest. >> you left out one other exception, the health of the mother. >> laura and i lost a child, you know that. we lost a daughter, robin. we took -- we were out, i was over running records in west texas and i got a call from her, come home, went to the doctor. the doctor said, beautiful child, your child has a few weeks to live and i said what can we do about it. no, she has acute leukemia, few weeks to live. we took the child to new york, thanks to the miraculous sacrifice, the child stayed alive for six months and then died. but that child were here today, and i was told the same thing, my granddaughter, noel for
example, that child could stay alive for ten or 15 years or maybe for the rest of her life, and so i don't think that you make an exception based on medical knowledge at the time. i think human life is very very precious. and look, this hasn't been an easy decision for me to meet. i know others disagree with it. but when i was in that little church across the river from washington and saw our grandchild clisenned in our faith, i was very pleased, indeed, that the mother had not aborted that child and put the child up for adoption. so i just feel this is where i'm coming from. and it is personal. i don't assail him on that issue or others on that issue. that's the way i, george bush, feel about it. >> one minute for the governor. >> kitty and i had the same kind
of experience that the bushes had. we lost a baby. lived about 20 minutes after it was born. but isn't the real question we have to answer not how many exceptions we make because the vice president himself prepared to make exceptions, it's who makes the decision. who makes this very difficult, very wrenching decision. [ applause ] and i think it has to be the woman. in the exercise of her own conscious and religious believes that makes that decision. who are we to say while under certain circumstances, it's all right but other circumstances it isn't. that's a decision that only a woman can make after consulting her conscious and consulting her religious principles. i would hope that we would give to women in this country the right to make that decision and to make it in the exercise of their conscience and religious
believes. >> governor i would like to return to the topic of the defense budget for a minute. you have said in this campaign that you would maintain a staple defense budget, yet, you are on the board -- on the advice. >> incidentally may i say that's the decision of the congress and president concurred. >> yet, you are on the board of a group called jobs with peace in boston that advocates a 25% cut in the defense budget and the transfer of that money to the domestic economy, my question is, do you share that goal, perhaps, as a long range goal. if not, are you aware of why do you permit this group to use your name on letterhead for fund-raising. >> i think i was under the advisory committee, margaret. i don't happen to share that goal. it's an example we may be associated with organizations, all of whose particular decisions we don't support, even though we support in general the hope that over time, particularly, if we can get those reductions and strategic
weapons, if we can get a comprehensive weapon, if we can negotiate and bring down the level of convention forces in europe, yes, at some point, it may be possible to reduce defense out lies and use those for important things here at home, like jobs and job training, college opportunity, health and housing and the environment and the things that all of us care about. but i do think this, that the next president, even within a relatively stable budget. that's what we're going to have for the foreseeable future. we'll have to make the tough choices that i was talking about that mr. bush doesn't want to seem to want to make. and that really is going to be a challenge for the next president of the united states. i don't think there's any question about it. but i also see a tremendous opportunity now to negotiate with the soviet union to build on the progress we've made with the inf treaty which i zrongly supported and most democrats did to. get those reductions, to get test and to really make progress
on reduction of conventional forces in europe. if we can do that and do it in a way that gets deeper cuts in the soviet side, which is where they ought to come from. then i think we have an opportunity over the long haul to begin to move some of our resources from the military to important domestic priorities that can provide college opportunities for that young woman whose mother wrote me from texas just the other day from long view texas, two teachers, mother and father who has a child freshman in college, electrical engineering major, very bright student and they can't afford to keep that child in college, so i hope that we can begin to move those resources. it's not doing to happen over night. it will have to happen on step by step basis as we make progress in arm's control and in our introduction, certainly long-term goal of all americans and i think it is. >> governor, one minute for vice president. >> defense budget takes far less
percentage on gnp than it did for kennedy. i think we're facing a real opportunity for world peace. this is a big question. and it's a question as to whether the united states will continue to lead for peace. so, see, i don't believe any other country can pick up the mantle. i served at the u.n. i don't think we can turn over these kind of decision at the collective defense to the united nations or anything else. so what i'm saying is, we're going to have to make choices. i said i would have the secretary defense sit down. but while the president is negotiating with the soviet union, i simply do not want to make these unilateral cuts and i think those that advocated the freeze missed the point that there was a better way and that better way has resulted in a principle, asim me tri cal cuts. soviets take out more than we do and the principle of intrusive verification, and those two principles can now be applied to conventional forces, strategic
forces, provided we don't give away our hand before we sit down at the table. >> you're now facing that dreaded last resort, increased taxes. which tax do you decide is the least onerous. >> can i disagree with the premise of that question? >> for the sake of argument, no. >> as a matter of reality i'm going to have to, because we have had not one, but two detail studies which indicate that there are billions and billions of dollars to be collected that are not being paid in, these are not taxes owed by average americans. we don't have an alternative, we lose it when it's taken out of our paycheck before we even get it. it's the internal revenue service, which estimates, now, that we are collecting 100 being dollars or more in taxes ohhed in this country. and that is just absolutely unfair to the vast majority of americans who pay their taxes and pay them on time.
the task force which included two internal revenue commissioners, one republican, one a democrat. it was a bipartisan commission, studied by two respected economists, which indicated that we could collect some 40, 45, $50 billion of those funds. the point is, you've got to have a president who is prepared to do this and to begin right away and preferably a president who is governor of state who has had very very successful experience of doing this in my own state, we did it. in other states we've done it. and we've had great success, revenue and enforcement. now, the vice president will probably tell you it will take an army of irs collectors again. his campaign manager, who use to be secretary of treasury, is taking great credit about a year ago and asking and receiving from congress substantial, additional funds to hire agents to go out and collect these funds. i'm happy to join jim baker saying that we agree on this.
the fact of the matter is that this is something we must begin. it's going take the first year of new administration. the bipartisan task force estimate we can collect about 50, 105 billion over five years and that's where you begin. >> one minute response, mr. vice president. >> very good economist do support that concept. and i think where i differ with the governor of massachusetts is, i am optimistic. they jumped on me yesterday for being a little optimistic about the united states. i am optimistic and i believe we can keep this long expansion going. i was not out there when that stock market dropped, ringing my hands and saying this was the end of the world, as some political leaders were, because it isn't the end of the world.
and what we have to do is restrain the growth of spending and we are doing a better job of it. the congress is doing a better job of it. the dynamics work. but they don't work if you go raise taxes and then the congress spends it, continues to spend that. the american working man and woman are not taxed too little, the federal government continues to spend too much. >> hold it. mr. vice president, andre has a question for you. >> mr. vice president, you have ruled out any change in social security benefits, even for the wealthy. now, can you stand here tonight and look a whole generation of 18-34-year-olds in the eye, the very people who are going to be financing that retirement and tell them that they should be financing the retirement of people, like yourself, like governor duka kas, for that matter, people like ourselves
here on the panel. >> more so you than me. >> we could argue about that. >> you've got to go back to what social security was, when it was created. it wasn't created as welfare program. it wasn't created -- it was created as a whole retirement or supplement to retirement program. it wasn't created as welfare program. so here is what's happened. we came in to office and social security trust fund was in great jeopardy. and the president took the leadership working with the democrats and the republicans in congress some tough calls were made and social security trust fund was put back into sound solvent condition. so i don't want to fool around with it. and there are -- there's a good political reason. it's just about this time of year that the democrats start saying the republicans are going to take away your social security, it always works that way. i've seen it. in precinct politics in texas and i've seen it at the national
level. we have made the social security trust fund sound. and it is going to be operating in surpluses and i don't want the liberal democratic congress to spend out of that social security trust fund or go and take the money out for some other purpose. i don't want that. and i will not go in there and suggest changes in social security. i learned that the hard way. and the governor and i both support it, slipping it for one year. he supported the national governor's congress and i supported it in breaking a tie in a major compromised package and we got a sale il by the democrats and i'm going to keep that social security trust fund sound and keep our commitment to the elderly and maybe down the line. maybe when you get two decades or one into the next century, you'll have to take another look at it, but not now. we do not have to do it. keep the trust with the older men and women of this country.
>> governor, you have one minute, sir. >> andrea i don't know which george bush i'm listening to. george bush a few years ago said social security was basically a welfare system. in 1985 he flew back to the west coast to cut that. i voted against that at the national governor's association. we won majority. we didn't win what was necessary to pass that resolution, everybody knew what we were doing and i've opposed that. the reason that we raised concerns, not just in election year, but every year is because republicans, once they're elected, go in there and start cutting. you did it in 1985. the administration tried to do it repeatedly in '81, '82 and i'm sure you'll try to do it again. there's no way you can finance what you want to spend there's no way you can pay for that tax cut for the rich and still by
all those weapon systems you want to buy, unless you read the social security trust fund. >> there are three justices of the supreme court it's like the next president will get chance to put lasting mark on the spleem court. for the record, would your nominees to the supreme court have to pass something that has been called the kind of conservative ideological lit nas test will you give us an idea who two or three people on your short list are. i feel pretty confident tonight, not that confident. secondly i don't have any lit nis test, what i would do is appoint people to the federal bench that will not legislate from the bench who will interpret the constitution. i do not want to see us go to, again, i'm using this word advisedly, a liberal majority that is going to legislate from
the bench. they don't like the use of the word, but may i remind his strong supporters that it only last year in the primary to capture that democratic nomination, he said, i am a progressive liberal democrat. i won't support the judges like that. there is no test on any issue, but i will go out there and find men and women to interpret. and i don't have a list, but i think the appointments that the president has made to the bench, have been outstanding, outstanding appointments. >> if the vice president of the united states thinks that robert was an outstanding appointment, that is a very good reason for michael dukakis in november on the eighth of november. and i think mr. bush supported the nomination. mr. bush -- i've appointed over
130. i have a record. and i'm very proud of it. i don't ask people whether they're republicans or democrats. i've appointed prosecutors, defenders. i don't appoint people i think are liberal or people who i think are conservative. i appoint people of intelligence and who will be credit at the bench. those are the standards i would use in nominating people of supreme court of the united states. these appointments are for life. these appointments are for life. when the vice president talks about liberals on the bench, i wonder what he's talking about. is he talking about a former governor who was a former prosecutor and republican name earl warren. because i think chief justice warren was an outstanding and i think most americans do, too. >> ann has a yes for you. >> millions of americans are entitled to some of the protections and benefits of the federal government provides in
putting social security, pensions, medicare for the elderly, medicaid for the poor. in fact, there are so many millions of americans who are eligible that government just can't continue to pay for all of those programs as they're currently constituted. a blue ribbon panel shortly after the election is likely to recommend that you go where the money is when you make budget cuts that means entitlements, before the election, would you commit yourself to any of those hard choices, such as which one of those entitlements ought to be redrawn. >> andrea, why do people who want to balance budgets, bring the deficit down, always go to those programs which tend to benefit people of very modest. now, two-thirds of the people in this country who receive social security checks live entirely on that check, they have no other income, yet mr. bush tried to cut their cost of living increase in 1984. medicare is not getting less
expensive, medical care for the elderly is getting more expensive, greater deductibles, fewer benefits, the kind of things we've had under this administration, reduced the kind of benefits that yes now we have health care insurance, but it's going to cost. that's going to be an additional burden on elderly citizens. i suggest that we understand that those are going to be additional costs on senior citizens across the crown tri. i'm not going to begin and i'm not going to go to entitlements as a means for cutting that deficit. when we're spending billions on something like star wars, when we're building billions on other weapon systems which apparently, vice president wants to keep in his back pocket or someplace, if we continue to spend billions on them, will force us to cut social security, cut medicare, to cut the basic entitlements to
people of very modest means. now, there are some things we can do to help people who currently do get entitlements to get off of public assistance. i talked about the possibilities of helping millions and millions of welfare families to get off of welfare. i'm proud to say we have a welfare reform bill. the ruby sampson and dawn, hundreds of thousands of welfares in this country and my state across the country, today are working are earning examples, what can happen when we provide training for the welfare mothers, day care for their children so their mothers can -- that's the way you bring a deficit down and help to improve at the same time. >> one minute for the vice president. >> i think i've addressed it, let me simply say for the record, i did not vote to cut colas and i voted the same way he did three months before in a national governor's conference. he said at that time, quote,
this is a paraphrase, a phrase, that's easy. so i don't believe that we need to do what suggested here and i said i wanted to keep this social security entitlement, to keep that trust fund sound. but i do think there are flexible ways to solve some of the pressing problems, particularly, that effect our children and i have made some good sound proposals, but, again, we've got a big difference on child care, for example. see, i want the families to have the choice. i don't want to see the federal government licensing grandmothers. i don't want to see that the federal government saying to communities, well, you can't do this any more, we're going to tell you how to do it all. i want flexibility. and i do -- you know, these people laugh about the thousand points of life. you ought to go out and see around this country shs what's happening in the volunteer sector, american helping american, and i want to keep it alive in child care and in other entitlements.
>> margaret warner. >> governor, i'm going to pass on the question i originally planned to ask you to follow up on your rebuttal to question andrea asked and that involved social security. now, it is true, as you said, that originally you sought an exemption for social security in this national governor's association vote. when you lost that vote, you then endorsed the overall freeze proposal. what's more, you had great criticism of your fellow governors who wouldn't go along as political cowards. you said -- >> that is absolutely not true. >> you said it takes guts and will. >> that is not true. it had nothing to do with the debate on social security. i had to do with the discussion, over all question -- >> my question is, are you -- >> no, i have to -- i have to -- [ applause ] >> i just have to correct the record. that simply isn't true. we're not a particle men tri body the national governor's association. if you don't get a two-thirds, then your resolution doesn't
pass. but everyone knew that those of us who voted against freezing of it did so, we did so emphatically and i never made that statement and never would. the point is, that as we look at this nation's future and we have two very different visions of this future. i want to move ahead the vice president talks about a thousand points i'm interested in 240 million. i'm interested in 240 million citizens in this country [ applause ] who share in the american dream, all of them and every part of this community. . as we look at the decisions that the next president of the united states is going to have to make, i just don't believe the place you go first, those programs, those so-called entitlements, which provide a basic floor of income and a modest amount of medical care for the elderly, for disabled, for people who can't make their way on their own. and in many cases, have given a great deal of this country.
vice president did call on social security, a few years ago. basically, a largely welfare program. it's a contract between generations. it's something that we pay and do now so we can have a secure retirement and parents and grandparents will have a secure retirement. it's sacred and i believe in it. so that's not where we ought to go. there are plenty of places to cut. there's lots we can do with the pentagon where contract lining the pockets at the expense of the american taxpayer. we certainly -- >> governor. >> to give our farm families without spending 20 to $25 billion a year, i'm sure we can do that. that's where we ought to go and those are the programs we've got to do first. >> one minute for the vice president. let me take him up on this question of farm subsidies. we have a fundamental difference approach on agriculture. he favors the supply maintenance
or production controls. he said that. it's been out in the state saying that, midwest earn state, i don't. i think the farm bill that he criticizes is good legislation, outstanding legislation. and i believe the answer to the agri cultural economy is not to get the government further involved but to do what i'm suggesting, first place, never go back to that democratic embargo, that liberal embargo that knocks the markets right out from under us and when he -- how do i know you're reliable suppliers. we never should go back to that and we ought to expand our markets and grow it. we ought to have rural enterprise zones. we ought to move forward of ethanol, which would use more corn and therefore make creative bigger market for our agri cultural products. let's not go back and keep assailing a farm bill that passed with overwhelming democrat and republican support. >> mr. vice president. >> the farm payments are going
down because the agri cultural economy is coming down. >> here is a question for you, mr. vice president. >> mr. vice president, i would like to cover a subject that wasn't covered in the first debate. you have just said in this campaign, i'm an environmentalist and described yourself as having zero tolerance for polluters. your record does seem to suggest otherwise. when you were head of task force on regulatory relief. you did urge epa to involve the lift of gasoline, i believe you ordered spu intention of rules to treat toxic waste before discharging them in sewers and your group also urged osha to weaken the regulations requiring that workers be informed of dangerous chemicals at the work site. finally, i believe you supported the president's veto of clean water act. and my question is: aren't you -- how do you square your campaign rhetoric with this
record? >> 90% reductions in led since i chaired that regulatory task force, 90%. you remember that expression, get the led out. it's almost out. it's almost gone. clean water, i am for clean water. but what i am not for, what i am not for is measuring it the way that the democratic congress does. we set up a good bill on clean water, a sound bill on clean water, but the only way you can express your love for clean water is to double the appropriations for clean water. and then rant against the deficit. i am for clean water. i've been a sportsman all my life. i've been to these national park. i led for the bill or former dangle johnson. i headed the task force when i was a member of congress back in the late '60s on these kind of things on the republican side, i led for that. and so i refuse to measure once commitment is to whether you're
going to double the spending, that is the same old argument that gotten us into the trouble on the deficit side so i'll just keep saying, i am one. i'm not going to go down there and try to dump the sludge from massachusetts off the beaches off of new jersey. i'm not going to do that. that bill was excessive, can you add five seconds. come on, give me five. this is too much. but i'm not going to do that. i'm an environmentalist, i believe in our parks. i believe in the president's commission on outdoors and i'll do a good job because i'm committed. >> governor, you have one minute to respond. >> i'm not sure i can get all of this in in one minute. we have supply management today under the 1985 bill. secondly, if you are so oppose the grain embargo, why did you ask the god father of the
embargo to be one of your top foreign policies, and i'm also against the pipeline embargo which you attempt today impose, that was a mistake as well and cost thousands of jobs for american workers in the midwest and all over the united states of america. margaret, once again, i don't know which george bush i'm talking about here or looking at. george bush who was charter member of the environmental wrecking crew of washington at the early 80s did a job in epa or the one we had been seeing and listening to the past two or three months. let me say this, he spent millions and millions of dollars in advertising. boston harbor, i'm the first governor, no thanks to you -- no thanks to you, we've been cleaning it up for four years we passed landmark legislation in '84. you did everything you could to clean the water act to make it possible for states and local
communities to clean it up in rivers and harbors. >> i'm very -- mitchell has a question for you, mr. vice president. >> mr. vice president, jimmy carter has called this the worst campaign ever, richard nixon has called it trivial, superficial, and innate. whoever started down this road, first, of negative campaigning, the american people from all reports coming to us are completely fed up. now, do you have any solutions to suggest, is there time left to fix it, there are 26 days left, for instance, would you agree to another debate before it's all over so that the american people -- so that the american people will have another chance before election day to compare you two? >> no, i will not agree to another debate. the american people are up to here with debates. they had 30 of them. we had seven of them. now, we've got three of them.
i am going to carry this election debate all across the country in the last whatever remains of the last three-and-a-half weeks or whatever we have. and the answer is, no, i am not going to have any more debates. we don't need any more debates. i've spelled out my position. in terms of negative campaigning. i don't want to sound like a kid in the schoolyard, he started it. take a look at the democratic nr from boston chanting out there and the ridicule factor from that lady from texas that was on there. i mean, come on. this was just outrageous. but i'll try harder to keep it on a high plain. let me -- if you can accept a little criticism, i went all across central illinois and spoke about agriculture issues. we had some fun, and they got up and sang, went to little towns,
i talked agriculture, not one thing did i see, with respect on your network, about my views on agriculture and not one did i read in any newspaper, why because you're so interest in a poll that might have been coming out, somebody said something nasty about somebody else. i don't know what the answer is. i don't -- somebody hit me and said, you've got to caught on issues more, how could barry know whether i'm talking on the issues or not when we put out position paper after position paper. he puts out position paper after position paper and we see this much about it because everyone else is fascinated with polls and who is up or down today and who is going to be up or down tomorrow. so i think we can all share with respect in the fact that maybe these -- the message is not getting out, but it's not getting out because there are too few debates, there will be no more debates. >> governor dukakis, you have one minute to respond, sir.
[ applause ] >> i can understand that from vice presidential debate, why mr. bush would want no more debates. that's my five seconds. i think we both have a responsibility to try to address the issues. yes, we have fundamental differences, i think a great many of them come out today. if we get rid of the labels and i'm not keeping count, but i think mr. bush used the label liberal at least ten times. if i had a dollar george for everybody i would qualify for the tax breaks for the rich you want to give away. most americans believe in basic values. we have differences about how to achieve them. i want to move forward. i want this nation to move forward. i'm concerned about the fact the 10% of manufacturing and 20% of our banking nearly half of the real estate in the city of los angeles are in the hands of foreign investors. i'm concerned about the fact
that so many of securities because of these massive deficits. those are the issues on which we ought to be debating and just put away the flag factories and balloons and those kind of things an get on to the real discussions. >> governor, andrea mitchell has a question for you governor. >> we're talking about issues, so let's return to something you said earlier about the modernization of land-based missiles. you said you didn't rule it out. but there are limits to what we can spend you went on to talk a much more expensive part of our defense strategy. do you somehow see conventional forces as a substitute for our strategic forces and in not talking about the land-based missiles and not committing to mode modernizi modernizing, do you somehow believe we can have a survivable nuclear force based on the air and sea legs? >> i think we ought to be
looking at modernization. i think we explore less expensive ways to get it on land and we have to make sure that we effective and strong nuclear deter rent. we also need well equipped and well trained and conventional forces. every defense expert i know, including people in the pentagon itself, will tell you given the level of defense spending and defense appropriations which the congress is now proved the president to sign, there's no way that you can do all of these things and do them well. that's why tough choices will be required. choices i'm prepared to make, mr. bush is not prepared to make. i think we can go far beyond this, as well, we have opportunities now, step by step to bring down the level of strategic weapon, get a test band treaty, i would challenge the mr. to join us with in eliminating regional conflict in the middle east, central america, let's get him working
on sere yarks their client state and see if we can't get them to join israel and other arab nations, if at all possible, arab leaders and finally bringing peace to that arab region. that's why we need fresh leadership that can make progress of bringing peace to the middle east. let's go to work and endless ask, a failed policy, which is actually increased cuban and soviet influence. democratic leaders of central and latin america want to work with us. i've met with them. i know them. i've spent time in south america, speak the language. we want to work with them and build a new relationship and that, with us. but not a one of those key democratic leaders support our policy in central america. and we've got to work with them if we're going to create environment for people this heems fe hemisphere and that is the avalanche of the drugs that's pouring into our country and virtually destroying those countries. those are the kind of priorities for national security and
foreign policy that i want to pursue, mr. bush and i have major differences on this issue and hope very much to be president. >> mr. vice president, you have one minute. >> and in terms, regional tensions. we have, now, gotten the attention of the soviet union and the reason we've gotten is because they see us now as unwilling to make the very kind unilateral cuts that have been called for and to go for the discredited freeze. my opponent had trouble criticized us on our policy in angola. it now looks, because of steady negotiation that we may have an agreement that will remove the cubans from angola. the russians coming out of afghanistan, that would not have stopped if we -- would not have even started the soviets coming out if we had not been willing to support the freedom fighters
there. they came in and betrayed the trust of the revolution. they said it was about di mock kra si and they've done the domination over that country. >> ann compton for governor dukakis. >> nuclear weapons need nuclear material replenished on a regular basis. just this week we had another plant that was closed because of safety concerns. some of the pentagon fear that too much priority has been put on new weapons program, not enough on current programs and worry that the resulting shortage would be amounting to nothing less than unilateral disarmament. is that a priority that you feel has been ignored by this administration or pentagon is making too much of it. >> and think it's a great concern of mine and vice president can tell us what's been going on. this is another example of misplaced priorities which wants
to spend billions on weapons systems and now confronts us with a serious problem with plants that are suppose to be and providing necessary materials for existing weapons, yes, if we don't do something about it, we may find ourselves unilaterally, if i may use that term, dismantling who has been in charge, who has been managing this system. why have -- why are these planting bb closed down. i don't know what the latest cost estimates are, it's going to be in the range of 75, $100 billion. somebody has to be able responsibility for this. maybe the vice president has an answer. i'm somebody who believes very strongly in taking care of the fundamentals first, before you start new stuff. and that something which will be a priority of ours in new administration, without it we cannot have the effective and strong incredible nuclear deter
rent we must have. >> mr. vice president, you have one minute. >> that is the closest i've ever heard governor massachusetts come to support anything strog do with nuclear. that's about as close as i've ever heard it. yes this savannah river plant need to be made more safe. will he join me in suggesting we may need another plant maybe in idaho, to take care of the requirements, nuclear material requirements for our defense department. i hope he will. this sounds like real progress here because we've had a big difference on the safe use of nuclear power for our energy base. i believe that we must use clean safe nuclear power. i believe that we -- the more dependent we become on foreign oil, the less our national security is enhanced and, therefore, i've made some proposals to strengthen the domestic oil industry by more incentive going in to look for and find and produce oil, made some incentives in terms of
production, but we're going to have to use more gas, more coal and more safe nuclear power for our energy base, so i am one who believes that we can and must do what he's talking about now. >> ann compton has a question for you. >> mr. vice president, as many as 100 officials in this administration have left the government under ethical cloud, some have been indicted, some convicted, many of the cases have involved undue influence once they're outside of government. if you become president, will you lock that revolving door that have allowed some to come back and lobby the very departments they've manage. >> i'll apply to congress, too. i'll do both. you know, i am one who -- i get kidded by being old fashioned on these things. i do believe in public service. i believe that public service is honorable and i don't think anybody has a call on people in their administrations going astray. his chief education adviser is
in jail. he's in jail because he betrayed the public trust. the head of education. and yet this man, the governor, equated the president to a rotting fish. he said that a fish rots from the head down as he was going after ed, look, we need the highest possible ethical standards,ly have ethical officn the white house that will be under the president's personal concern. i will see that these standards apply to the united states congress. i hopely do a good job as one who has had a relatively clean record with no conflicts of interest in his own public life -- as has the governor -- to exhort young people to get into public service. but there is no corner on this sleaze factor. believe me. it's a disgrace and i will do my level best to clean it up recognizing you can't legislate morality. i believe with my record in congress having led the new
congressman to a code of ethics through a main emphasis on it in full disclosure that i've got a good report and there are more, if you want to talk about percentage appointments, more members of congress who have been under investigation percentage wise than people in the executive branch so it isn't one -- state governments have had a tough time. his. some of his college presidents aren't exactly holier than thou so let's not be throwing stones about it. let's say this isn't democrat or republican and it isn't liberal or conservative, let's vow to work together to do something about it. [ applause ] >> governor, you have one minute to respond, sir. >> i would agree sbeg ciintegri not a republican or democratic issue, it's an american issue. but, i don't know which george bush thing i'm listening to. was this mr. bush that supported mr. meese, called james watt an excellent secretary of the
interior? provided by support for some of these people, supported the nomination of robert bourque to the supreme court of the united states. we've had dozens and dozens of officials in this administration who have left under a cloud, have left with a special prosecutor in their arm. this isn't the kind of administration we need and one of the reasons our selection of a running mate is so important and is such a test of the kinds of standards we'll set is because it tells the american people in advance of the elections just what kind of people we're looking for. i picked lloyd bentsen, mr. bush picked dan quayle. i think that says a great deal about the american people about the standards we'll set and the quality of people we will pick to serve in our administration. [ cheers and applause ] >> to each of you candidates, regrettably, i have to inform you that we have come to the end of our questions. that's a pity.
before i ask the candidates to make their closing remarks, on behalf of the commission on presidential debates i would like to thank all of you for joining us this evening. governor dukakis, yours is the first closing statement, sir. >> 28 years ago i was a young man just graduated from law school and i came to this city, came clear across the country to watch john kennedy be nominated for the presidency of the united states here in los angeles. i never dreamed someday i would win that nomination and be my party's nominee for president. that's america. that's why i'm proud and grateful to be a citizen of this country. 26 days from today you and millions of americans will choose two people to lead us into the presidency and vice presidency of the united states. our opponents say things are okay, don't rock the boat, not to worry. they say we should be satisfied.
but i don't think we can be satisfied when we're spending $150 billion a year on interest alone on the national debt, much of it going to foreign bankers or when 25% of our high school students are dropping out of school or when we have two and a half million of our fellow citizens, a third of them veterans, who are homeless and living on streets and doorways in this country or when mr. bush's prescription for our economic future is another tax give away to the rich. we can do better than that. not working with government alone but all of us working together. lloyd bentsen and i are optimists and so are the american people. we ask you for your hands and your hearts and your votes on the eighth of november so we can move forward in the future. kitty and i are very grateful to all of you for the warmth and hospitalitity you've given to us in your homes and communities all across this country. we love you and we're grateful
to you for everything you've given to us. and we hope that we'll be serving you in the white house in january of 1989. thank you and god bless you. [ cheers and applause ] vice president bush? your closing statement, sir? >> sometimes it does seem that a campaign generates more heat than light and so let me repeat, i do have respect for my opponent, for his family, for the justifiable pride he takes in his heritage. but we have enormous differences. i want to hold the line on taxes and keep this the longest expansion in modern history going until everybody in america benefits. i want to invest in our children because i mean it when i say i want a kinder and gentler nation and by that i want to have child
care for the families, the parents have control. i want to keep our neighborhoods much, much better in terms of anti-crime and that's why i would appoint judges that have a little more sympathy for the victims of crime and a little less for the criminals. that's why i do feel if some police officer is gunned down, that the death penalty is required. i want to help those with disabilities fit into the mainstream. there is much to be done. this election is about big things. and perhaps the biggest is world peace and i ask you to consider the experience i have had in working with the president who has revolutionized the situation around the world. america stands tall again and as a result we are credible and we have now achieved a historic arms control agreement. i want to build on that. i'd love to be able to say to my grandchildren four years after my first term, i'd likeo