Skip to main content

tv   Reel America CBS Face the Nation with George Wallace - 1968  CSPAN  May 2, 2018 9:57pm-10:26pm EDT

9:57 pm
next week's guest this a moment. >> today on face the nation, governor ronald regan was interviewed. martin led the questioning, next week senator thomas dodd of connecticut and the president of the national rifle association will face the nation up next on reel america we continue our look back at the 1968 presidential campaign, george wallace ran as the nominee of the american independent party. he appeared on cbs's face the nation, the self-proclaimed law
9:58 pm
and order candidate discusses his views on segregation and the vietnam war. >> governor wallace, is it your ambition to win the presidency or to get enough votes to dictate who goes to the white house. >> my ambition is to win, if you followed me around and saw the reception that we are getting, you would see we have an excellent chance of winning the election at the polls. >> from cbs washington in color, face the nation, a spontaneous unrehearsed news interview with george wallace, presidential candidate of the american independence party. he will be questioned by cbs
9:59 pm
news, we shall resume the interview with governor george wallace in a moment. >> despite your optimism about your chances, every poll, every indicator of national opinion shows that you, yourself, have no hope to win the presidency, your critics contend that you are deliberately adopting the role of spoiler, trying to throw the election into the house of representatives. at least we have critics and they are paying attention to our movement. members of both parties have said we must join together to stop the movement headed by george wallace. but george wallace is one individual but i am speaking to millions of individuals in the country, there are many polls i win, radio and television polls from new bedford massachusetts to syracuse new york, i have won, the other polls that you
10:00 pm
are talking about show that we have doubled our strength since april of last year. we are just now getting into the campaign. if you follow me around the country, you would see we are having larnger clouds than the candidates for the two other existing marriage parties. witness our trip to ohio yesterday, we had larger crowds than those that came out to witness the arrival for candidates for the democratic party. we can win the election, that's the purpose of running, not to spoil anything other than to spoil the chances of the republican and democratic party, neither of them are giving the american people a choice. >> governor, you just said you thought you could win, indicate the states where you think you are going to win. >> i think that we are going to
10:01 pm
win every one of the southern and border states. missouri, oklahoma and the free state of maryland. we have an excellent chance in pennsylvania, new jersey, wisconsin, california, new jersey and michigan. states like nebraska and connecticut and new england. in fact we are running well in all of the states. even in the western states but i think that we are going to win the southern and border states and we are going to win several of the states in the midwest and a good chance to win california. we also have an excellent chance in new york, whether some people believe it or not. we received more mail from the state of new york than any state in the union. >> are there any conditions now under which you would withdraw from the race before november. >> there are no conditions
10:02 pm
under which i would withdraw from the race for the presidency, i said last year when i was trying to get on the ballot in california, that this ought to be a lesson to one of the two national parties, they ought to give the american people a choice, not only have they not given the american people a choice but party leadership joined together in the passage of the so called fair housing law, an attack on private property of the everyone looking for the democratic and republican party demonstration joined together to pass this antiproperty law, you would need a 180-degree alternate from the present position of both parties. >> this past we can, you have
10:03 pm
occasional yu said, this is not ang exact quote, regardless of what happens in november, we are going to change some trens. >> i am saying, the fact that we are having the largest crowds, we are having the most support for our attitude and philosophy throughout the country is today making the leadership of both national parties sit down and think, is making members of the congress wonder whether we are voting right or whether or not we must change our position, this movement is going to help change trends in the country. >> are you talking then about possible spoiling. >> no sir. change is trend is not going to spoil anything, is going to correct things, that is what we are in the race for, to change directions in our country because neither one of the two national parties are giving the people a choice this change of
10:04 pm
direction. >> governor, may i quote to you an observation you made yourself last february when you intended that your campaign role could be that of a spowler. >> who said that. >> this was this the new york times, he were quoted as having said that. >> i do not know all of the quotes that i made at press conferences and the context in which the statement was made. but let me say this, i am in the race to spoil but not to spoil in the sense that you are talking about. it's to spoil the chances of both national parties of electing a president, that's what we are doing. anybody who votes for the national republican or democratic party will be throwing their vote away if they think like we do. because you do not have a choice there. >> lets try it this way, you
10:05 pm
also said at that time, according to the new york times, if the election is thrown into the house, we, that is you, have all to gain and nothing to lose, you implied that, that kind of a dead lock could force important concessions. if you were thinking along those lines then, has your thinking changed. >> the context in which that statement was made came about as a result of a question from the member of the press in the audience, i have never voluntarily said we are going to three it to the house and that's our purpose but the question was asked, if, a speculative question, if neither one of the two parties get a majority, what is your position, i always answer the question by saying, if that happens and there is always that probability when there are
10:06 pm
three or more running because if you do not get a plurality of the popular vote which gives you a majority of the electoral vote. it would wind up in the house unless it was settled in the electoral college. they meet first, that would have the solution in the president, but i may be number one in the electoral college instead of number three but what i was trying to saw when you said we have everything to gain and nothing to lose, if i was not a candidate. one of the two major party candidates would win the election and they are tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. we have everything to gain and
10:07 pm
nothing to lose. >> lets ask another hypothetical question, what would you do about riots. >> the first thing i would say as the president, i give my moral support to police and firemen in the country, if the continuation of the breakdown of law and order continues to exist, just today we saw pictures of people murdered in the streets, i would use the office of the presidency to restore order this the district of columbia, if i had to call federal troops into the city, i would give my moral support to the police of the country, i would ask the congress to pass legislation that did away with the decisions of the courts that hand cuffed the police, i would say, we are going to have law and order. when i said that, my election was indicate that the politicians and leaders of the large cities of our country, especially, that the people are
10:08 pm
sick and tired of the breakdown of law and order and they in turn would tell the police to enforce the law, in my judgment, enforcement of the law would bring about a restoration of law and order in the country without the billions of dollars proposed by the social engineers. >> ud said one of the ways to stop a right is to hit someone on the head. >> when someone goes out and begins to loot and burn a building down which endangers the health and safety of everyone, that's a good way to stop it. if you let the police hit someone in the head who was assaulting a person on the street or throwing a fire bomb, i think he would be getting off light if someone hit him in the hez. if he was the president of the president of the united states,
10:09 pm
i would take what ever steps are necessary to prevent the stoppage of law and order. it's not a matter of race, it's a matter of anarchy, and the government has cow trntion owed to anarchists in the streets of the united states and we do not have safety in the streets of washington, dc. >> a lot of people feel that the result of your actions and the result of things you say is to speed up and accelerate the trends, a senator called you the chief aider and abettor of these civil rights laws you pretend tog against, his -- to be against. >> you are quoting something he said four years ago, he has not
10:10 pm
said that lately. >> i have a quote here. >> i would like to ask you, senator ervin, i think he is a fine man but do not tell mow i am responsible for what happened in los angeles and detroit. i was not there, i am not the chief aider and abettor. in alabama, contrary to what you might know, we did not have a breakdown of law and order. >> no breakdown of law and order in birmingham. >> we put some water on some people and arrested some folks. >> what happened after selma. >> a woman was shot on the highway by some thugs, people are shot in washington, dc and philadelphia everyday. >> governor, you cannot say no one got hurt during the march. >> eight people got hit in the
10:11 pm
head. >> i am talking about the march seventh march. >> who got hurt. >> i would estimate conservatively, 15 people were hurt. >> 15 out of 35,000. >> did one have to go to the hospital? >> yes, sir. >> how many. >> we are talking about five years ago. >> one person went to the hospital. eight got hurt at the selma bridge, then the next week, 50 people were killed in detroit and los angeles, a few people got their heads skimmed in selma with 35,000 people there and you call that the breakdown of law and order. when you talk on these programs, you talk about selma, lets take your word for it, 15 people got hurt, in six weeks, in washington, dc the other day, over 1,000 people got injured in one day, so the
10:12 pm
breakdown of law and order has not been in alabama. it's been in washington, dc and detroit and new haven and other places outside of alabama. i will take your figures. >> i am talking about one day. >> nobody was killed in the march. >> there were other killings. >> there was one that took place after it was over, when it was under the complete jurisdiction of the federal government. not under the jurisdiction of the state. one person was killed on the highway which is tragic but i compare that person with how many people were killed in washington, dc and detroit and los angeles. it's generally accepted in the press that we had peace in the south. >> that is the point senator ervin was trying to make, what followed after that was a
10:13 pm
violation of civil rights laws. >> you are quote the senator four years ago, over four years ago, going on five years. >> is it right or wrong what happened after that with the civil rights laws. >> every time someone wants a law passed, they go out and do something. they had martin luther king being assassinated and they used that as an excuse to pass the antiproperty laws, someone will always say that a reason exists for the passage of some law but ki say to you, if i become the president, we are going to maintain law and order in the nation's capitol. that's going to be a good moral support for law and order in the united states when women can walk the streets and people with ride the transit systems. >> you repeatedly objected to being called a racist.
10:14 pm
>> yes. i do not regard myself a racist. i think that the biggest racists are the ones that called others racist. my wife got more negro votes than others in alabama. negro citizens would not have voted for my wife if they considered me a racist. >> governor, today. >> i said that within the context of the public school systems, i again say that when i said i was honest and when i come to washington, dc and i see all of the folks that talk one way but move to virginia and maryland. when i see people expediting the rush from the city. >> what bridges. >> they have been here a while.
10:15 pm
you have a lot of them because you have to expedite the rush of people away from the nation's capitol. only six members got their children in the public schools in washington, dc. all of the pseudo ifnt elect yals are hypocrites. >> what do you mean that segregation was in the context of the public schools. >> you do not understand, there has been more mixing and more association and togetherness of the races in alabama than there has been in new york or in washington, dc. but we did have a social separation in the school system because the school systems of the rural south were the social center so we were canned it and honest and we said we will have a separate school system.
10:16 pm
>> nobody said you are not honest but i am talking about the meaning of separation. >> i am talking about the hypocrisy about the people saying that they are together. >> i would never teach segregation, i could care less what the people of california do in their school system, i say, you run your schools yourself but we are not going to use federal money to bus children in chicago, if you want to do it in chicago, do it. i would not advocate segregation, i advocate that these domestic institutions be run by the people in philadelphia and saint louis and los angeles and they have the type of schools that they want. >> we have federal laws. >> that is what i am arguing. >> what would you do about the law. >> we do not have laws that go
10:17 pm
as far as the guidelines, they transcend the civil rights law, we are going to obey the law but the law of the country does not say you have to transport little children from one area to another, the civil rights law prohibits that but the hew is going beyond what the law says, i would ask congress to change the laws that have taken over the public school systems in new york, philadelphia and chirks i do not want a separate -- chicago. i do not want a separate school system. we have more togetherness in alabama then in washington, dc, this is a segregated city because of the hypocrites that moved out. this is the hypocrite capitol of the world. >> you said you thought you had
10:18 pm
a chance to be president, less address ourselves to the questions that the president have to deal with, what is your approach to the nuclear arms ways, the nonproliferation treaty. >> i pray that the nondissemination of nuclear information is honest. >> not information. >> the weapons themselves, that should be an honest effort by the major powers. >> would you be in favor the signing. >> i would be in favor of that step provided we had adequate intekses programs and adequate safeguards to see that the treaty was not violated. >> does the treaty satisfy you as it's written now. >> i am not sure whether it satisfies me or not but its a step in the direction of some dialogue between the great
10:19 pm
powers and the great nuclear powers and the matter of the gefg of atomic nuclear weapons to other countries and to prohibit that is good provided we have adequate safeguards. >> do you think that the safeguards are adequate. >> i am not sure. >> that's one thing, of course we understand that on that treaty any nation can withdraw with certain notice to the other signers, that means that its not all that binding but i am for doing something real and concrete in the matter of the spread of nuclear weapons so we can have adequate safeguards to protect the national interests of the united states. >> around the campaign trail, people that support you say they like your stand on vietnam but your stand is simple.
10:20 pm
>> i have said there is no simple solution. it's an exasperating experience. we should not have gotten in by ourselves. we should have had a long talk with our european allies and our noncommunistation allies, they -- -- noncommunistcommunist asian countries, i pray for peace and diplomatic negotiations but if this fails, there is only one conclusion to rely upon, one method to rely upon, the joint chiefs of staff, if they thought that the
10:21 pm
would be could be concluded by the military with conventional weapons, that's what i support. >> right now we are in pass is, you -- paris, you have not mentioned whether or not the country should insist on recognition of the national liberation front. >> some places where you have coalition government, with the vietcong there, you lay the ground work for the take over of the communist. i am against the terrorist group, the viet t cong and the national liberation front. i do not think that they deserve to be in the government, if you let them be represented in the peace talks
10:22 pm
and set up a government with them having an equal voice, a voice with the other groups in south vietnam, you are setting the basis for a take over of the viet co thrks g for the government of south vietnam. >> do you see hope for a political sment. >> i did -- political settlement. >> i do not know, i do not think that the president knows or the republicans know, we have to wait and see what comes out of the peace talks, we can pray about it and hope about it but if they do do not get an honorable settlement, we should bring the american servicemen home and we should stop the folks in this country from
10:23 pm
advocating communist victory and building the moral of the coneu any of the. >> stop them how. >> by stopping the speeches, by the men that raise clothes and money for people on the campuses, you have a right to say get out of the war but you do not have to right to ask for a communist victory. >> governor we have run out of time. >> today on faws the nation, george wallace, former governor of alabama and presidential candidate of the american independence party was interviewed by cbs news correspondents face the nation originated in color from cbs washington
10:24 pm
sunday on q & a, author and former esquire contributor on rocket man. >> it was impossible to disregard the roles that the which was played. all three of them believed without their which was, they could not have pulled this off. apollo 8 was the move daring mission nasa had run, it looked like near deft, everything was for the first time. these men needed which was at home that were supportive but who also did not reveal to their husbands how much they were suffering. >> q & a, sunday night at 8:00
10:25 pm
even on cspan. we continue our series, 1968, america in ter moil with a look back at liberal politics 50 years ago, lbj's great society redefined the role of the government and challenged traditional values but the deaths of robert kennedy and martin luther king challenged the times. first we hear from senator robert kennedy, during his march 16th 1968 presidential campaign announcement. i have traveled and i have listened to the young people of our nation and felt their anger about the war that they are sent to fight and about the wormed that they are --


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on