Good evening from the Municipal Auditorium in kansas city. Im dorothy rattings, the president of the league of women voters, the sponsor of this final president ial debate of the 1984 campaign between republican Ronald Reagan and democrat walter mondale. Our panelists for tonights debate on defense and Foreign Policy issues are georgie anne geyer, norman kalb, Morton Kondracke of new republic magazine, and henry trewhitt, Diplomatic Correspondent of the baltimore sun. And ed newman is our moderator. Ed . Thank you. A brief word about our procedure tonight. The first question will go to mr. Mondale. Hell have two and a half minutes to reply. Then the panel who asked the question will have a followup. They will be limited to one minute. After that the same question will be put to president reagan, there will be a followup and each man will have one minute for rebuttal. The second question will go to president reagan first. After that the alternating will continue. At the end there will be fourminute summations with president reagan going last. We have asked the questioners to be brief. Lets begin. Your question to mr. Mondale. Mr. Mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of Central America. You and the Democratic Party have said that the only policy to the horrendous civil wars in Central America should be on the Economic Development and negotiations with perhaps a quarantine of marxist nicaragua. Do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there . Do you really believe that there is no need to resort to force at all . Are not these solutions to Central Americas gnawing problems simply, again, too weak and too late . I believe that the question oversimplifies the difficulties of what we must do in Central America. Our objectives ought to be to strengthen the democracies, to stop communist and other extremist influences, and stabilize the community in that area. To do that, we need a threepronged attack. One is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured. Secondly, a strong and sophisticated Economic Aid Program and Human Rights Program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us. And finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area. Thats one of the big disagreements that we have with the president , that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within el salvador or as between the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve peace. This brings up the whole question of what president ial leadership is all about. I think the lesson in Central America, this recent embarrassment in nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals and the rest, all of this has strengthened our opponents. A president must not only assure that were tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power. We saw the same thing in lebanon where we spent a good deal of americas assets, but because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated and our opponents are stronger. The bottom line of National Strength is that the president must be in command. He must lead. And when a president doesnt know that submarine missiles are recallable, says that 70 of our Strategic Forces are conventional, discovers three years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didnt know that most soviet missiles were on land, these are things a president must know to command. A president is called the commander in chief, and hes called that because hes supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation. Mr. Mondale, if i could broaden the question just a little bit. Since world war ii, every conflict that we as americans have been involved with has been in nonconventional or irregular terms, and yet we keep fighting in conventional or traditional military terms. The Central American wars are very much in the same pattern as china, as lebanon, as iran, as cuba in the early days. Do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time or react to it in those terms . We absolutely must, which is why i responded to your first question the way i did. Its much more complex. You must understand the region, you must understand the politics, the area, you must provide a strong alternative, and you must show strength and all at the same time. Thats why i object to the covert action in nicaragua. Thats a classic example of a strategy that embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition and undermined the moral authority of our people and our country in the region. Strength requires knowledge, command. We have seen in the nicaraguan example of a policy that actually hurt us, strengthen our opposition and undermine the authority of our country in that region. Mr. President , in the last few months, it has seemed more and more that your policies in Central America were beginning to work. Just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a cia guerrilla manual for the antisandanistas we are backing, but to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not our own supported terrorism . No, but im glad you asked that question because i know its on peoples minds. I have ordered an investigation. I know the cia is already Going Forward with one. We have a gentleman in nicaragua that is on contract with the cia. He drew up this manual. It was turned over to the agency head of the cia in nicaragua to be printed. And a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge, and he sent it on up here to cia where more pages were excised before it was printed. Some way or the other, there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for this printing process by the cia. Now, those are the details as we have them. And as soon as we have an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed, we certainly are going to do something about that. Well take the proper action at the proper time. I was very interested to hear about Central America and our process down there, and i thought for a moment that instead of a debate, i was going to find mr. Mondale in complete agreement with what were doing. Because the plan that he has outlined is the one weve been following for quite some time, including diplomatic processes throughout Central America. And working closely with the contaduria group. So i can only tell you about the manual that were not in the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt, but if guilt is established, whoever is guilty, we will treat with that situation then and they will be removed. Mr. President , you are implying, then, that the cia in nicaragua is directing the contras there. I also want to ask whether having the cia investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time. Im afraid i misspoke when i said a cia head in nicaragua. There is not someone there directing all this activity. There are, as you know, cia men stationed in other countries in the world and certainly in Central America. And so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered to. And he recognized that what was in that manual was direct contravention of my own executive order in 1981 that we would have nothing to do with political assassinations. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal . What is a president charged with doing when he takes the oath of office . He raises his right hand and takes an oath of office to take care, to faithfully execute the laws of the land. The president cant know everything, but a president has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws. This manual, several thousands of which were produced, was distributed ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals and other forms of terrorism. Some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. How can this happen . How can something this serious occur in an administration and have a president of the United States in a situation like this say he didnt know . A president must know these things. I dont know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it. And what about the mining of the harbors in nicaragua which violated International Law . This has hurt this country and a president is supposed to command. Mr. President , your rebuttal. Yes. I have so many things there to respond to, im going to pick out something you said earlier. You have been all over the country repeating something that i will admit the press has also been repeating, that i believed that Nuclear Missiles could be fired and then called back. I never, ever conceived of such a thing. I never said any such thing. In a discussion of our strategic arms negotiations, i said that submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional type weapons, not as destabilizing as the landbased missiles, and that they were also weapons that or carriers that if they were sent out and there was a change, you could call them back before they had launched their missiles. But i hope that from here on, you will no longer be saying that particular thing, which is absolutely false. How anyone could think that any sane person would believe that you could call back a nuclear missile, i think, is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. So thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. Im sure that you appreciate that. Mr. Kalb, your question to president reagan . Mr. President , you have often described the soviet union as a powerful and evil empire intent on domination, but this year you have said, and i quote, if they want to keep their mickey mouse system, thats okay with me. Which is it, mr. President . Do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detente or what goes for detente, or do you really want to roll back their empire . I have said on a number of occasions exactly what i believe about the soviet union. I retract nothing i have said. I believe many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality that we have. But i also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world, we have to live with each other. And i told mr. Gramico we dont like their system, they dont like ours. Were not going to change their system, and they sure better not try to change ours. But between us, we can either destroy the world or we can save it. And i suggested that certainly it was to their common interest, along with ours, to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the Nuclear Weapons. And i think that perhaps we established a little better understanding. I think that in dealing with the soviet union, one has to be realistic. I know that mr. Mondale in the past has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves, and if we were kind and good and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. And the result was unilateral disarmement. We canceled the b1 under the Previous Administration. What did we get for it . Nothing. The soviet union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man. At the same time that we tried the policy of unilateral disarmement, of weakness, if you will. And now we are putting up a defense of our own, and ive made it very plain to them, we seek no superiority, we simply are going to provide a deterrent so it would be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. Now, they claim they are not, and i made it plain to them were not. But there has been no change in my attitude at all. I just thought when i came into office, it was time that there was some realistic talk to and about the soviet union. And we did get their attention. Mr. President , perhaps the other side of the coin, a related question, sir. Since world war ii, the vital issues of the United States have been defined as proclamations. Aside of what is obvious, nato, for example, which regions of the world do you regard as vital interests of this country, meaning you would send american troops to fight there if they were in danger . Now, youve added a hypothetical there at the end, mr. Kalb, about where we would send troops in to fight. Im not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be, but obviously there are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us. One is the middle east. And that is of interest to the whole western world and the industrialized nations because of the great supply of energy on which so many depend there. Our neighbors here in america are vital to us. Were working right now and trying to be of help in Southern Africa with regard to the independence of namibia and the removal of the cuban surrogates, the thousands of them from angola. So i can say there are a great many interests. I believe that we have a great interest in the pacific basin. That is where i think the future of the world lies. But i am not going to pick out one and in advance hypothetically say, oh, yes, we would send troops there. Im sorry, mr. President. Your time was up. Mr. Mondale, you have described the soviet leaders as, im quoting, cynical and dangerous, assuming a complete lack of trust in them. In that case, what do you think the annual summit meetings with them that you have proposed will result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country . Because the only type of agreements to reach for the soviet union are the types that are specifically defined so we know exactly what they must do subject to full verification, which means we know every day whether theyre living up to it, and followups wherever we find suggestions that theyre violating it in the strongest possible terms. I have no illusions about the soviet Union Leadership or the nature of that state. They are a tough and ruthless adversary, and we must be prepared to meet that challenge, and i would. Where i part with the president is that despite all those differences, we must, as past president s before this one have done, meet on the Common Ground of survival. And thats where the president has opposed practically every arms control agreement by every president of both Political Parties since the bomb went off. And he now completes this term with no progress toward arms control at all, but with a very dangerous arms race underway instead. There are now over 2,000 more warheads pointed at us today than they were when he was sworn in, and that does not strengthen us. We must be very, very realistic in the nature of that leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways to reducing these differences, particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of soviet power. There will be no unilateral disarmement under my administration. I will keep this nation strong. I understand exactly what the soviets are up to, but that, too, is a part of National Strength. To do that, a president must know what is essential to command and to leadership and to strength. And thats where the president s failure to master, in my opinion, the essential elements of arms control has cost us dearly. These four years, three years into this administration, he said he just discovered that most soviet missiles are on land, and thats why his proposal didnt work. I invite the American People tomorrow because i will issue the statement quoting president reagan. He said exactly what i said he said. He said that these missiles were less dangerous than Ballistic Missiles because you could fire them and you could recall them if you decided there had been a miscalculation. A president must know those things. A related question, mr. Mondale, on eastern europe. Do you accept the wisdom that soviets fear influence, and if you do, what could we do to achieve the middle eastern people achieve the rights granted to them of the accords . I dont think we should except any soviet control over eastern europe. We should deal with these countries separately, we should make strategies with each of them that help them pull away from the dependence on the soviet union. Where the soviet union has acted irresponsibly, as they have in many of those countries, especially recently in poland, i believe we should insist that western credits assisted to the soviet union, make the soviets pay for their irresponsibility. That is a very important objective to make certain that we continue to look forward to progress toward greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately. Mr. President , your rebuttal . Yes. I am not going to continue trying to respond to these repetitions of the falsehoods that have already been stated here, but with regard to whether mr. Mondale would be strong as he said he would be, i know that he has a commercial out where hes appearing on the deck of the nimitz and watching the s14s take off, and thats an image of strength. Except if he had had his way when the nimitz was being planned, he would have been deep in the water out there because there wouldnt have been any nimitz to stand on. He was against it. He was against the f14 fighter, he was against the m1 tanks, he was against the b1 bomber. He wanted to cut the salary of all the military, he wanted to bring home half the military forces in europe, and he has a record of weakness with regard to our National Defense that is second to none. Indeed, he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the senate, and he opposed even president carter when, toward the end of his term, president carter wanted to increase the defense budget. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. Mr. President , i accept your commitment to peace, but i want you to accept my commitment to a strong National Defense. I propose a budget [ applause ] i have proposed a budget which would increase our nations strength in real terms by double that of the soviet union. Ill tell you where we disagree. It is true over ten years ago i voted to delay production of the f14, and ill tell you why. The plane wasnt flying the way it was supposed to be. It was a waste of money. Your definition of National Strength is to throw money at the defense department. My definition of National Strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollars worth of defense. There is a big difference between the two of us. A president must manage that budget. I will keep us strong, but youll not do that unless you command that budget and make certain we get the strength that we need. When you pay 500 for a 5 hammer, youre not buying strength. I would ask the audience not to applaud. All it does it take up time that we would like to devote to the debate. Mr. Kondracke, your question to mr. Mondale. Mr. Mondale, earlier this year you said before the country admits to defense, the country should be militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny and alert to regional history. Arent you setting up such a gauntlet of tests here that adversaries could easily suspect that as president you would never use force to protect american interests . No. As a matter of fact, i believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country. We can see that in both lebanon and in Central America. In lebanon, this president exercised American Power, all right, but the management of it was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the soviet union became stronger, terrorists became emboldened, and its because they did not think through how power should be exercised, did not have the American Public with them on a plan that worked that we ended up the way we did. Similarly in Central America. What were doing in nicaragua with this covert war, which the congress, including many republicans have tried to stop, has finally ended up with a republic definition of American Power that hurts us, where we get associated with political assassins and the rest, we have to decline for the first time jurisdiction to the world court because they will find us guilty of illegal actions, and our enemies are strengthened by all of this. We need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength, but we must understand that we are a democracy, we are a government by the people, and when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our National Interests and end up with a stronger country behind us. It is only in that way that we can persevere. Youve been quoted as saying that you might quarantine nicaragua. I would like to know what that means. Would you stop soviet ships as president kennedy did in 1962, and wouldnt that be more dangerous than president reagans covert war . What im referring to there is the mutual provisions that exist in the interamerica treaty, the socalled rio pact, that submits friends in that region are combined to take steps, diplomatic and otherwise, to prevent nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it. The nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. And by working with all of the nations in the region, unlike the policies of this administration, and unlike the president said they have not supported negotiations in that region, we will be much stronger because well have the moral authority that goes with those efforts. President reagan, you introduced u. S. Forces into lebanon as neutral peace keepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the lebanese government. Eventually you were forced to withdraw them in syria and now soviets run the country. Does it raise serious questions about your capacity as a Foreign Policy strategist and as commander in chief . No, morton, i dont agree to all of those things. First of all, when we and our allies, the italians, the french and the United Kingdom went into lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the lebanese government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government. Pardon me, the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in beirut between israel and the plo terrorists. Israel could not be blamed for that. The terrorists had been on their border consistently and they chased them away. Then we went in to help remove, and did remove, 13,000 terrorists from lebanon. Then the government asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the Foreign Forces all the way out of lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders. We were succeeding. We were there for the better part of a year. Our position happened to be at the airport where there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire. But we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. And this is what we did. We never initiated any kind of action, we defended ourselves there. But we were succeeding to the point that the lebanese government had been organized. If you will remember, there were the meetings in geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile, factional forces and tried to put together some kind of a peace plan. We were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. There are forces there, and that includes syria in my mind, who dont want us to succeed, who dont want that kind of a peace with a dominant lebanon dominant over its own territory. So the terrorist acts began and led to that one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. Then the Multilateral Force withdrew for only one reason. We withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. But we went in in the interest of peace and to keep israel and syria from getting into the sixth war between them. And i have no apologies for our going on a peace mission. Mr. President , four years ago, you criticized president carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in iran might be taken hostage. Havent you done exactly the same thing in lebanon not once, but three times, with 300 americans not hostages but dead. And you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but dont our lack of response suggest you are just bluffing . Morton, no. I think there is a great difference between the government of iran threatening our diplomatic personnel. And there is a government that you can see and put your hand on. In the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over in a recent 30day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. The most recent has been the one in brighton. In dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of beirut where these terrorists are operating. I have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal along with our allies with this terrorist problem, and its going to take all the nations together just as when we banded together, we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings some time ago. Well, the red light went on. I could have gone on forever. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal . Groucho marx said, who do you believe, me or your own eyes . And what we have in lebanon is something that the American People have seen. The joint chief urged the president not to put our troops in that barracks because they were undefensible. They went to them five days before they were killed and said, please take them out of there. The secretary admitted that this morning. He did not do so. The report following the explosives in the barracks suggested we did not take steps we should have taken. That was the second time. Then the embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again, the steps that should have been taken were not taken, and we were warned five days before that explosives were on their way, and they werent taken. The terrorists have won each time. The president told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didnt. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is, the United States left in humiliation and our enemies are stronger. Mr. President , your rebuttal . Yes. First of all, mr. Mondale should know that the president of the United States did not order the marines into that barracks. That was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based on what they thought was best for the men there. That is one. The other things you just said about the terrorists, im tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they are blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think that theyre going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as i say, were busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from and retaliation will be taken. But we are not going to simply kill some people to say, oh, look, we got even. We want to know when we retaliate that were retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. And terrorist acts are such that our own United States capitol in washington has been bombed twice. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to president reagan . I have a question thats been out there two or three weeks. You already are the oldest president in history, and some of your staff say you are tired after your most recent encounter with mr. Mondale. I recall yet that president kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances . Not at all, mr. Trewhitt, and you must know also i will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience. [ laughter ] [ cheers and applause ] if i still have time, i might add, mr. Trewhitt, it was senaco or cicero who said, im not sure which, if it were not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state. Ill go on to another question. You and mr. Mondale have already disagreed about what you had to say about recalling submarine launched missiles. There is another issue out there it is said, at least, that you were unaware that the soviet retaliatory power was based on landbased missiles. First, is that correct . Secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime, and third, is it necessary for the president to be so intimately involved in strategic details . Yes, this had to do with our disarmament talks, and the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought strategic Nuclear Missiles, you put your thumb on the button and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. We thought it would be simpler to first deal with those, and then take up the submarine launch of the airborne missiles. The soviet union, to our surprise and not just mine, made it plain when we brought this up, that they placed, they thought, a greater reliance on the landbased missiles and therefore they wanted to take up all three, and we agreed. We said, all right, if thats what you want to do. But it was a surprise to us because they outnumbered us 6436 in submarines and 20 more bombers capable of carrying Nuclear Missiles than we had. So why should we believe that they had placed that much more reliance on land based . Even after we gave in and said, all right, lets discuss it all, they walked away from the table. We didnt. Mr. Mondale, im going to hang in there. Should the president s age and stamina be an issue in the Political Campaign . No, and i have not made it an issue nor should it be. Whats at issue here is the president s application of his authority to understand what a president must know to lead this nation, secure our defense and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary. A minute ago the president quoted cicero, i believe. I want to quote somebody a little closer to home, harry truman. He said, the buck stops here. We just heard the president s answer for the problems at the barracks in lebanon where 241 marines were killed. What happened . First the joint chiefs of staff went to the president and said, dont put those troops there. They did it. And then five days before the troops are killed, they went back to the president , through the secretary of defense, and said, please, mr. President , take those troops out of there because we cant defend them. They didnt do it. And we know what happened. After that, once again, our embassy was exploded. This is the fourth time this has happened, an identical attack in the same region despite warnings, even public warnings from the terrorists. Who is in charge . Who is handling this . Thats my main point. Now, in arms control, were completing four years. This is the First Administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. We have an arms race underway instead. A president has to lead his government or it wont be done. Different people with different views fight with each other. For three and a half years, this administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he came close to an agreement, at least in principle, on mediumrange weapons, and we have this arms race underway and a recent book that just came out by perhaps the nations most respected author in this field, strobe talbot, called deadly gambit proves that this president has failed to master the essential details need to do command both in terms of security and arms control. Thats why they call the president commander in chief. Good intentions, i grant, but it takes more than that. You must be tough and smart. This question of leadership keeps arising in different forms in this discussion already. And the president , mr. Mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, and he has said you havent completed some of the activity in terms of Central America. Did you approve of his diplomatic activity and are you prepared to repudiate him now . I read his statement the other day. I dont admire fidel castro at all, and i have said that. Rivera was a contemptible figure in American History. I know the cuban state as a police state. And all my life ive worked to demonstrate that. But Jesse Jackson is an independent person. I dont control him. And lets talk about people we do control. In the last debate, the Vice President of the United States said that i said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in lebanon. I demanded an apology from Vice President bush, because i instead honored these young men, grieved for their families and think that they were wonderful americans that honored us all. What does the president have to say about taking responsibility for a Vice President who wont apologize for Something Like that . Mr. President , your rebuttal . Yes. I know it will come as a surprise to mr. Mondale, but i am in charge, and in fact we havent avoided arms control talks very early in my legislation. I proposed something never proposed by any administration. I proposed a total limitation of marine missiles where soviets still have a 101 advantage over the allies in europe. When they protested that and suggested a smaller number, perhaps, i went along with that. The socalled negotiation that you said i walked out on was the socalled walk in the wood between one of our representatives and one of the soviet union, and it wasnt me that turned it down, the soviet union disavowed it. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. There are two distinct authors in arms control in this country. There are many others but two i want to cite tonight. One is strobe talbot with deadly gambit. The other is an arms control specialist in our country. Both said this administration turned down the walk in the woods agreement first, and that would have been a perfect agreement from the standpoint of the United States and europe and our security. When mr. Nitza, a good negotiator, returned, he was rebuked and his boss was fired. This is the kind of leadership that weve had in this administration in the most deadly issue of our time. Now we have a runaway arms race. All theyve got to show for four years in u. S. Soviet relations is one meeting and the last weeks of an administration and nothing before. Theyre tough negotiators, but all previous president s have made progress. This one has not. Ms. Geyer, your question to the president. One issue today seems to be one totally unrecognized, Mass Immigration from many countries. Theyre saying it is the only real territorial threat to the american nations state. You yourself said in the 1970s that we, quote, had a hemorrhage on our borders, end quote, yet you have backed off of any Immigration Reform such as the simpsonmazzoli bill. Why . What would you do today, if anything . This is a very serious issue and needs to be dealt with. I object to the simpsonmazzoli bill. That is the part that demands employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before theyre hired. Im convinced the result of this would be that people who are hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent would find it difficult to be employed. I think thats wrong. Weve never had citizenship tests in our country before, and i dont think we should have a citizenship card today. That is counterproductive. I do support the other aspects of the simpsonmazzoli bill that strengthened support at the border, strengthened dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area, and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status. I have further strongly recommended that this administration do something it has not done, and that is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers, and to do so in a way thats responsible and within the constitution of the United States. We need an answer to this problem, but it must be an american answer that is consistent with justice and due process. Everyone in this room, practically, here tonight is an immigrant. We came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all our most bountiful dreams. One of those dreams is justice. We need a measure, and i will support a measure, that brings about those objectives but a voice in one aspect that i think is very serious. The second part is to maintain and improve relations to our friends to the south. We cannot solve this problem all on our own. Thats why the failure of this administration to deal in an effective and good faith way with mexico, with costa rica and the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in Central America has undermined our capacity to effectively deal diplomatically in this area as well. Sir, people as well balanced and just as father theodore hessberg at notre dame had pointed out repeatedly there would be no Immigration Reform without employer sanctions because there would simply be no way to reinforce it. Putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any Immigration Reform because of the hispanic groups, or Hispanic Leadership groups who actually do not represent what the hispanic americans want, because polls show they overwhelmingly want some kind of Immigration Reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this, and how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flipflopping and giving in to special Interest Groups at the expense of the american nation . Documented undocumented there would be simply no way to reinforce it. However, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any Immigration Reform because of the hispanic groups who do not represent what the hispanic americans want because they want some kind of Immigration Reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this, and how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flip flopping and giving into special Interest Groups at the expense of the american nation . I think youre right. The polls show the majority of americans want that bill. Im not doing it for political reasons. Im doing it because all my life ive fought for a system of justice. A system in which every american has the chance to achieve the fullness of life without discrimination. This bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an american or not. Just inevitably theyll be reluctant to hire hispanics or people with a different accent. If i were dealing with politics here, the polls show the American People want this. I am for reform in this area. For tough enforcement at the border and many other aspects of the bill. But all my life ive fought for a fair nation. I stand where i stand and i think im right. Before this is over, well come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people. You too have said that our borders are out of control. Yet you allowed this bill which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship. Because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the states for legalized aliens. Given that, may i ask what priority can we expect to you give this forgotten National Security element . How sincere are you in your efforts to control in effect the nation state that is United States . We supported the bill strongly that came out of the senate. However, there were things added in on the house side that we felt made it less of a good bill. As a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. And in conference, we stayed with them in conference all the way to even senator simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of conference committee. There were a number of things that weakened that bill. But it is true, our borders are out of control. This is a situation with our borders back through a number of administrations. And i supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and live here, even though sometime back, they may have entered illegally. With regard to the employer sanctions, this we must have that. Not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also, while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldnt be so concerned about. And these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into the country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals cant complain because of their illegal status. We dont think those people should be allowed to continue operating free. This is why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions and so forth. And im going to do everything i can and all of us in the administration are, to join in again when congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us once again control of our borders. And with regard to friendship below the border, and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that i know has established the relationship that we have with our latin friends. As long as it leaves so many in dire poverty and unemployment, they will seek that employment across our borders and we work with those other countries. Mr. President , the experts say that the situation today is terribly different, quantitatively, qualitatively different than the past. Because of the gigantic population growth. Mexico would go from about 60 million today to about 120 million at the turn of the century. Many, many of these people will be coming into the United States not as citizens but illegal workers. You have repeatedly said recently you believe that armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our time. Do you ever feel we are in for an armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy regarding the population explosion in the world . No. As a matter of fact, the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated, overexaggerated. As a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and Solid Figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people. It is like going back to the malthesian when they were saying everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. The problem of population growth is one here with regard to our immigration. And we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry here. In mexico where their population is increasing and they dont have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. This is what were trying to work out. Not only protect our own borders but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal . One of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they dont come north come north despite the risks. If were going to find a permanent answer to this, it goes to the economic trade policies to permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity so they can have jobs for themselves and their people. And thats why this enormous debt engineered by this administration is harming these countries and fueling this immigration. These high interest rates, real rates that have doubled under this administration, have had the same effect on mexico and so on. The cost of repaying the debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship and heart ache. That drives our friends to the south up into our region, and we noted to end those deficits as well. Your rebuttal . Ive heard the National Debt blamed for a lot of things but not for illegal immigration across our border. And it has nothing to do with it. But with regard to these high interest rates, too, at least give us the recognition of the fact when you left office, mr. Mondale, they were 21. 5, the prime rate is now 12. 25. And i predict it will be coming down a little more shortly. We are trying to undo some of the things your administration did. Your question to president reagan. I would like to pick up this armageddon theme. Youve been quoted saying deep down that you believe we are headed for some kind of biblical armageddon. Your pentagon and your secretary of defense have plans for the United States to fight and prevail in a nuclear war. Do you feel that we are now heading perhaps for some kind of Nuclear Armageddon and do you feel this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity . I think what has been hailed as something im supposedly as president discussing as principal, if it is a philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the same things, and that is, the prophecies down through the years, the biblical prophecies of what would portend the coming of armageddon, and the fact a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed that this was true. That the prophecies are coming together that portend that. No one knows if that means armageddon is 1,000 years away or day after tomorrow. Ive never seriously warned and said we must plan according to armageddon. Now, with regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of a nuclear war, of course we would. But let me also point out. To several parliaments around the world, in europe and in asia, i have made a statement to each one of them and ill repeat it here. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage. But the deterrent, and that is what it is for, also is what led me to propose what is now being called the star wars concept. But propose that we research to see if there isnt a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming missiles. If such a defense could be found, wouldnt it be far more humanitarian. When you made that proposal, the socalled star wars proposal, you said if im not mistaken that you would share this very he super Sophisticated Technology with the soviet union. After all the distrust over the years, sir, that you have expressed toward the soviet union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of Americas Technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary . Why not . What if we did . And i hope we can. Were still researching. What if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete. There has never been a weapon invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive counterweapon. Suppose we came up with that. Some people have said, that would make war imminent because they would think we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy. Why not do what i have offered to do and ask the soviet union to do. Say look, heres what we can do. Well even give it to you. Now will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these Nuclear Weapons . And free mankind of that threat. I think that would be the greatest use of a nuclear weapon. Mr. Mondale, youve been very critical of the president s strategic defense initiative. What is wrong with a major effort by this country to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming Nuclear Warheads as possible . First let me say, the most dangerous, the most Important Technology in america, sharing that with the soviet union. We have had for many years understandably a system of restraints and High Technology because the soviets are behind it. And any research or development along the star wars themes would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, most advanced engineering. The thought we would share this with the soviet union is in my opinion a total nonstarter. I would not let the soviet union get their hands on it at all. Whats wrong star wars . Theres nothing wrong the theory of it. If we could develop a principle would say both sides can fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, i suppose it is a good idea. The fact of it is, were so far away from research that even comes close to that that the sm research that even comes close to that that this factor of Research Department says that to get that we would have to tell it problems. Each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the project. It would cost Something Like a trillion dollars. To cast and play. Weapons the second thing is this assumes the soviets wouldnt respond in kind as they always do. I wont get, behind they wont get behind, and thats been the tragic story of the arms race. We have more into stake in space satellites than they do. If we could stop right now the testing, the deployment of the space weapons. It goes beyond research with Just Research we wouldnt have any argument that maybe someday somebody will think something. But to commit this nation to a buildup of any satellite with our brands in this time in the crude state would bring about the arms race that is very dangerous. One final point. The most dangerous aspect of the proposal is for the first time we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether to start a war. They wouldnt be time for president to decide. It would be decided by these Remote Computers like the might be oil fire, it might be in jet exhaust, the computer would decide its a missile and off we go. Why dont we stop this madness now and keep the heavens free for more. Mondale in this general area of arms control carters secured visors bring up pence keys saying nuclear arms is a hoax a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. In your view what specific weapon systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze and which could not . Every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations or agreement. I would not agree to any negotiations, or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the soviet union that we couldnt verify every day. I wouldnt agree to any agreement in which the United States security interests was not fully recognized, and supported. Thats why we see mutual, and verifiable freezes. Why do i support the freeze . Because this ever rising arms race than us makes both nations and less secure. It is more difficult to defend this nation. It is putting a here trigger on who is in the war. This administration going into the star system is going to add a new dangerous escalation. We have to be tough on the soviet union but the American People also wanted to stop president , reagan your rebuttal. Yes, my rebuttal once again is that this invention which was just created here about how i would go about rolling over for the soviet union, no, mr. Mondale my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then see now are you willing to join us. Heres what we give. Them we give them a demonstration and then we say here is what were going to do. Now if you are willing to join us and getting rid of all the Nuclear Weapons in the world that we will give you this one so that we would both know that no one can cheat. But of us have something that anyone could. Sheet star warring, it i never suggested what the weapons should be and what. Kind im not a scientist. I said the chief of staff agreed with me its our time to see if we cannot find this kind of a defensive weapon. Suddenly somebody says its got to be up there in star wars. I dont know what it would be. But if we could come up with one i think the world would be better off. Mondale your rebuttal. Thats what a president as opposed to now. Where the weapons are going to be. If the airspace weapons i assume we will be in space. If there i imagine that theyre going to be in anti satellites. Now this is the most Dangerous Technology that we possess. The soviets are going to spy on us and still the stuff. And to give them technology of this kind i disagree. You have just accepted you set up eight egypt defense initiative, an agency, we are beginning to test. Were talking about deploying. Youre asking for a budget of some 30 Million Dollars for this purpose. This is an armed escalation and we will be better off, better off if we stop right now because we have more to lose in space than they do. If someday somebody comes along with an answer that something else, that there would be an answer in our lifetime isnt a manageable. What do we start something that the soviets will be mad and make this all less secure. Thats what the president for. Mr. Your question to mr. Mondale. You say that you want to negotiate a mutual Nuclear Freeze but you will unilaterally before the talks have even begun. The most important thing in the world to. You are giving away half a stir before even sit down to talk . As a matter of fact we have the vast range of technology in weaponry right now which provides all the that we need. I support the air launched cruise missile, the trident submarine, the d five submarine, the Stealth Technology, we have a hall of technology. I disagree with imax because its a sitting duck in iraq. It put a here trigger, and its a these stabilizing weapon. The similarly to be opposed because for 15 years the soviet union has been preparing the secretary of defense said that it would be a Suicide Mission if it were. Built instead i want to build a middle man which is vulnerable and contributing to stability, and a weapon that will give us security and contribute to the center for arms control. Thats why but Stealth Technology that can build a stealth bomb that can penetrate the system without any hope that they can percy where it is because theyre writer system is frustrated. In other words a president has to make choices. This makes a stronger. Foul point is that we can use this money that we saved on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. Our conventional strength in europe is under strength. We need to strengthen that in order to assure our western allies of our presence there. Strong defense, but also the committees reduce the likelihood of a commendable or in the case of Nuclear Weapons. Its in this way, by making wise choices that we are stronger and enhance the chances of worms, every president until this one has been able to do it. And this nation and the world is more dangerous as a result. I want to follow up on question. It seems to me on the question i verify ability that you have some problems with the extent of the freeze. It seems to me for example that testing would be very difficult to identify because the soviets coating. We would be impossible to verify. Members of warheads would be impossible to verify except for inspection. A production of any weapon would be impossible to identify so in view of that what is going to be frozen . I will not agree to any arms control agreement is not. Verifiable lets tucker warhead. The warhead, theyve been candles for years. Whenever a weapon is tested you cant the number of warheads on. It whenever the warhead is used we count the number of warhead, whether they have that number or less on it or not. These are standard. I want to greet any production restrictions, agreement unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. I dont trust the russians. I believe that any agreement we reach must be verifiable, and i will not agree to anything that we cant tell every day, in other words weve got to be tough. But in order to stop this arms manus weve got to push ahead with tough negotiations that are verifiable so that we know that the soviets are agreeing and living up to their agreement. Mister president i want to ask your question about negotiating with france. You severely criticize president carter for undermining friendly dictators who got in trouble with their own people. The son of iran and Vice President of nicaragua. Now the president of chile and the president of millipedesurpn what can you do what did you do to prevent the philippines from becoming another nicaragua . I did criticize the president because of our undercutting which was a ally. Iran. Im not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with his people, whether they wanted that to happen. Did our bidding and carried our own middle eastern. Have things gotten better . Whatever he might have done, he is doing low cost housing, hes taken money away from and distributing it to the present so they could be landowners. Things of that kind. We turned it over to a maniacal fanatically slaughtered thousands and thousands of people, calling in executions. The matter of supposed, no, i never defended some mozilla. As a matter of fact the Previous Administration stood by him. So did i. Not that i couldve done anything in my position at that time. But for this revolution to take place, the promise of the revolution was free press, then Justice Castro done in cuba, send any stuff, austin the other parties to the revolution. Many of them are now other countries. They excel, some of the gel some. The murder. Some and they installed a marxist to teletherrien government. And what i have to say about this, is that many, times this also has to do the philippines, i know there are some things in the philippines that dont look to us in standpoint right now of democratic rights. But what is the alternative . Its a large communist movement to take over the philippines. They have been our friend sense they were a nation. I think that we have had enough of a record of letting under the guise of revolution someone that we thought was a little more ripe than we would be. Letting that person go, and then winding up with teleterrorism appearance implies the alternative. And i think that were better off for example in the philippines of trying to retain our friendship and help them right the wrongs that we have seen, rather than throwing them to the wolves and then facing the communist power in the pacific. Mr. , president since the United States has two strategic bases in the philippines, when the overthrow of president constitute a threat to vital american interests, and if so what would you do about it . As i, say we have to look at what overthrow there would mean and what the government will follow. Theres every evidence and edged indication that the government would be hostile to the United States. That would be a severe blow to the viability there in the pacific. And what would you do about it . Sorry. Mr. Mondale. A rebuttal. I guess know where do we disagree more than this policies this administrations policies on human rights. And made progress that had been stalled in both the sunni and our clerk bases. What explains the administrations cozying up with argentinian dictators after they took over. Fortunately a democracy took over. But this nation was embarrassed by this current administrations adoption of their policies. What happens in south africa, where example Nobel Prize Winner two days ago said this administration is seen as working with oppressive government of south africa. That hurts this nation. We need to stand for human rights. We need to make it clear that we are for human liberty. National security and human rights must go together. But this Administration Time and time again has lost its way in this field. President reagan, your rebuttal. The invasion of afghanistan didnt take place on our watch. I have described what has happened in iran. We want them either. I dont think our record of human rights can be assailed. I think weve done our best to see that human rights are extended through the world mister mondale recently announced a plan of his to get democracies together and work with the whole world to turn a democracy. I was glad to hear him say that because thats what we have been doing ever since we announced to British Parliament that we thought we should do this. Human rights are not advanced, but at the same time event stand back and then say oh we didnt know the gun was loaded and then you have another tally in power on your hands. In this segment, because of the pressure of time there will be no rebuttals, and there will be no followup questions. Mr. Truman, devotion to one questions each candidate. Mister president today to keep instantly said earlier and ivan misquoting you faced Mcneill Terry technology was successfully might give the soviets the demonstration and say here it is. It sends to me as if you might be able to gain the sort of advantage that would allow you to dictate terms, which would suggest to, me it might suggest in which we are in effect hold each other hostage. Is that what you are suggesting . I cant say that. I have to sit down with the chief of staff. It seems to me this could be a logical step in what is my ultimate goal. My ultimate dream. This elimination of Nuclear Weapons in the world. And it seems to me, this could be an adjunct, certainly a great assistant agent and getting that done. I am not going to roll over, as mr. Model suggests and give them something that could be turned around and used against us. But i think its a very interesting proposal, to see if we can find first was something that renders those weapons obsolete. Incapable of their mission. Mr. Mondale seems to approve mad. Matt is mutual assured destruction. Meaning if you use Nuclear Weapons on us as you killers. I think that we have to do everything we can to do as i Say Something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights. Mr. Mondale can i ask you to address the question of nuclear started. Gee its very arcane but im going to ask you to deal with it any way. Do you believe in neutral destruction, mutual destruction, as has been practiced in laos couple decades. I believe that the arms that brings down the, weapons manages their levels, i would like to see their elimination, and in the meantime we have to be Strong Enough to make certain the soviet union never temps us. Here we have to decide in the generalized objectives and reality. The president says he wants to eliminate number of Nuclear Weapons but in fact the last four years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race in the human history. He wants a system that will make Nuclear Armed wars safe, so nobody is going to get hurt. Well awfully some decent wouldnt dream of. That why start a arms race then. Why didnt ways our relationship . Why threaten our space satellites and which we defend. Why pursue a strategy that would delegate to computers the question of starting a war . A president , to defend this country, and to get arms control must master what is going on. We all accept his objective of his dreams. We all do. The hard reality is we must know what we are doing and pursue those objectives that are possible in our time. He has opposed every effort of every to do so and every magicians fell to do. So if you want a tough president who uses that strength to get arms control and draws the white in the heavens, both for mondale. We arrived at the point in the debate where we called for closing statements. You will full four minutes each of you. Mr. Mondale, will he go first . I want to thank the legal voters. The good citizens of kansas city. Reagan for agreeing to the debate this evening. This evening we talked about National Strength. I believe we need to be strong, and i will keep you strong. But i think strength may also require wisdom and smarts in its exercise. Thats key to the strength of our nation. A president much no the central fact essential to command. But a president must also have a vision of where this nation should go. Tonight as americans you have a choice. You are entitled to know where you could take the country if you decide to elect us. As president , i will press for long term vigorous economic growth. Thats what i want to get these deaths down, and these interest rates, restore americas experts. Help Rural America which is suffering so much, and bring the jobs back here for our children. I want this next generation to be the best educated in American History. To invest in the human mind and science again upfront. I want this nation to protect its, air its, water its land, and its public health. America is not temporary. We are forever, and as americans our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. I want a nation of fairness. Where no one is denied the fullness of life, were discriminated against. And we deal compassionately with those in our midst or in trouble. And above all i want a nation that is strong. Since we debated two weeks ago, the United States and the soviet union built 100 more warheads. Enough to kill millions of americans and millions of soviet citizens. This doesnt strengthen us. This weekend the strength of civilization to survive. I remember the night before i became Vice President. I was given the briefing. And i was told that anytime, night or, day i might be called upon to make the most fateful decision on earth whether to fire these atomic weapons that can destroy the human species. That listened tells us to things. One, pick a president that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must know. There will be no time for staffing committees, or advisers. A president must know right then. But the, pick a president who will fight for a day when that god awful decision effort needs to be made. And that is why this election is so terribly important. America and americans decide not just whats happening in this country. We are the strongest and most powerful free society on earth. When you make that judgment, youre deciding not only the future of our nation. In a very profound respect, you are deciding on the future of the world. We need to move on. Its time for america to find new leadership. Please join me in this cars to move confidently and with a sense of assurance and command to build the future of our nation. [applause] president , reagan your summation please. Yes my thanks for their warm hospitality and greet. I think the American People have watched to be thankful for. Economic recovery that has become expansion. Freedom, and most of all we are at peace. Im grateful for the chance to refer my commitment to reduce Nuclear Weapons, and one day, to eliminate them entirely. The question before you comes down to this. You want to see america return to the policies of weakness, of the last four years . Or do we want to go forward marching together, as a nation of strength, that is going to continue to be strong . We shouldnt be dwelling on the past, or even the president. The meaning of this election is the future, and whether we are going to grow and provide the jobs and opportunities for all americans that they need. Several years ago i was given a assignment to write a letter. It was go into a time capsule and read and 100 years when that tap capital was opened. I remembered driving down the california coast. One day might mind was full with what i was quick but in that letter with the problems and issues that confront us and this time, and what we did about them. But i couldnt completely neglect the beauty around. Lee the pacific on one side out there shining in the sun. The mountain coast range on the other side. I found myself wondering what it would be like wondering if someone hundred years from now driving down the highway, if they would see the same thing, and with that that i realized what a job i had that winter. And we writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. We know nothing about them. They would know all about our problems. They would know how we solve, them and whether our solution is beneficial to them down the years or whether or hurt. They would also know that we live in a world with terrible weapons. Nuclear weapons. Terrible destructive power aimed at each other, crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we know it. And then, i thought to myself what are they going to say about us. What are people hundred years from now going to think. They will know whether we used those weapons or not. What they say about as 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. Will we do the things that we know must be done, and know that one day down in history 100year before perhaps someone will save think got for people back in the 19 eighties for preserving our freedom. Perceiving for us this blessed planet called earth with all its grandeur and its beauty. You know, i am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for all these years and more than anything else i want to try to complete the new beginning that we charted four years ago. George bush who i think is one of the finest Vice President s this countrys ever had. George bush and i have crisscrossed the country and we have had in the past few months of wonderful past experience. We have mid young america. We have your sense and daughters. Mister president im obliged to cut you off there under the rules. Im sorry. Boo. [applause] all right. I should point out that the rules were agreed upon by the two campaigns. You know this. Thanks mister president , thanks mr. Mondale, thanks to the panel. Thanks to the audience. The league of women says dont forget the vote on november 6th. , first debate from the 1988 campaign between incumbent Vice President george will be bush, and Massachusetts Governor michael, the candidates took finish on taxes and the deficit. Nuclear weapons stockpiles and their choice of Vice President ial running mates. Thats all by the must debate of bill clinton and senator bob dole from the 1986 president ial bait. Watch tonight starting a pm. Eastern enjoy American History tv this week and every week on cspan 3. Ronald reagan accepted his parties president ial nomination at the convention in detroit. The former california governor called on americans to quote recapture our destiny and he pledged to cut taxes and increase the military spending, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.