tv 1984 Vice Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN October 2, 2016 11:34am-1:01pm EDT
h.w. bush and new york congresswoman geraldine ferraro. the candidates answer a range of topic questions including abortion and central america. the republican ticket of ronald reagan and george bush defeated democrats in the general election, winning the popular vote, 59% 41%. iris woman geraldine ferraro was the first woman to be nominated by a major party for the presidency or vice presidency. this debate is just under an hour and a half. [applause] dorothy s. ridings: good evening from the civic center in philadelphia, pennsylvania. i'm dorothy ridings, president of the league of women voters, the sponsor of tonight's vice-presidential debate between republican george bush and democrat geraldine ferraro. our panelists for tonight's
debate are john mashek, correspondent for u.s. news & world report, jack white, correspondent for time magazine, norma quarles, correspondent for nbc news, and robert boyd, washington bureau chief for knight-ridder newspapers. sander vanocur, senior political correspondent for abc news, is our moderator tonight. sandy. vanocur: thank you, dorothy. a few words about the order of our format tonight. the order of questioning was determined by a toss of the coin. congresswoman ferraro won the toss. she elected to speak last. therefore vice president bush , will get the first question. the debate will be built upon a series of questions from the four reporters on the panel. a reporter will ask a candidate a question, a follow-up question and then the same to the other candidate, then each candidate will get to rebut the other. the debate will be divided into
two parts. the first section on domestic , affairs, the second on foreign affairs. now the manner of address was decided by the candidates. therefore it will be vice president bush, congresswoman ferraro. and we begin our questioning with mr. mashek. mashek: john adams, our nation's first president, once said, today i am nothing, tomorrow i may be everything. with that in mind, i'd like to ask the following question vice , president bush, four years ago, you ran against mr. reagan for the republican nomination. you disagreed with him on such issues as the equal rights amendment, abortion, and you labeled his economic policies as voodoo. now you apparently agree with him on every issue. if you should be called upon to assume the presidency, would you follow mr. reagan's policies down the line or would you revert to some of your own ideas? bush: well, i don't think there's a great difference, mr. mashek, between my views and president reagan's.
one of the reasons i think we're an effective team is that i believe firmly in his leadership. he's really turned this country around. we agree on the economic program. when we came into office, why, inflation was 21 -- 12 -- 12.5% interest was wiping out every single american were 21 1/2 percent if you can believe it. productivity was down. savings was down. there was despair. in fact, the leadership of the country told the people that there was a malaise out there. and this president turned it around and i've been with him every step of the way. and of course i would continue those kinds of programs because it's brought america back. america's better off. people are going back to work. and why mr. monad can't -- mr. mondale can't understand that there's a new enthusiasm in this country, that america is back, there's new strong leadership, i don't know. he has one answer to the problem. raise everybody's taxes. he looked right into that lens and he said out there in san
francisco, he said, "i'm gonna raise your taxes." well he's had a lot of experience in that and he's sure gonna go ahead and do it. but i remember a statement of lyndon johnson's when he was looking around, why his party people weren't supporting him, and he said, hey, they painted their tails white and they ran with the antelopes. there's a lot of democratic white tails running with the antelopes. not one single democrat has introduced the mondale tax bill into the congress. of course i support the president's economic program and i support him in everything else. and i'm not sure, because of my concept of the vice presidency, that if i didn't, i'd go doing what mr. mondale has done with jimmy carter, jump away from him. i couldn't do that to ronald reagan, now, next year or any other time. i have too much trust in him. i have too much friendship for him. and i'd feel very uncomfortable doing that. mashek: well some republicans have criticized mr. mondale for
now claiming he disagreed privately with jimmy carter's decision to impose the grain embargo. have you ever disagreed with any decision of the reagan administration and its inner circles? and in following that up, where in your judgment does loyalty end and principle begin? bush: i owe my president my judgment and then i owe him loyalty. you can't have the president of the united states out there looking over his shoulder wondering whether his vice president is going to be supporting him. mrs. ferraro has quite a few differences with vice-president mondale and i understood it when she changed her position on tuition tax credits. they're different on busing, she voted to extend the grain embargo, he now says that he was against it. if they win, and i hope they don't, but if they win, she'll have to accommodate some views. but she'll give him the same kind of loyalty that i'm giving president reagan. one, we're not far apart on
anything. two, i can walk into that oval office anytime and give him my judgment and he might agree or he might not. but he also knows i won't be talking about it to the press or i won't be knifing him in the back by leaking to make me look good and complicate the problems of the president of the united states. mashek: congresswoman ferraro, your opponent has served in the house of representatives, he's been ambassador to the united nations, ambassador to china, director of the central intelligence agency and now he's been vice president for four years. how does your three terms in the house of representatives stack up against experience like that? ferraro: well, let me first say that i wasn't born at the age of 43 when i entered congress. i did have a life before that as well. i was a prosecutor for almost five years in the district attorney's office in queens county and i was a teacher. there's not only what is on your paper resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. it's how you approach problems and what your values are. i think if one is taking a look
at my career they'll see that i level with the people, that i approach problems analytically, that i am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and i can make the hard decisions. i'm intrigued when i hear vice-president bush talk about his support of the president's economic program and how everything is just going so beautifully. i, too, recall when vice president bush was running in the primary against president reagan and he called the program voodoo economics, and it was and it is. we are facing absolutely massive deficits, this administration has chosen to ignore it, the president has failed to put forth a plan to deal with those deficits and if everything believes that everything is corning up roses, perhaps the vice president should join me as i travel around the country and speak to people. people in johnstown, pennsylvania, are not terribly thrilled with what's happening
in the economy because they're standing in the light of a closed plant because they've lost their jobs. the people in youngstown, ohio, have stores that are boarded up because the economy is not doing well. it's not only the old industries that are failing, it's also the new ones. in san jose, california, they're complaining because they can't export their high-tech qualities goods to japan and other countries. people in the northwest in the , state of washington and oregon are complaining about what's happening to the timber industry and to the agriculture industry. so, so things are not as great as the administration is wanting us to believe in their television commercials. my feeling, quite frankly, is that i have enough experience to see the problems, address them and make the tough decisions and level with people with reference to those problems. mashek: despite the historic aspects of your candidacy, how do you account for the fact that a majority of women at least according to the polls favor the reagan-bush ticket
, over the mondale-ferraro ticket? ferraro: i don't. let me say that i'm not a believer in polls and let me say further that what we are talking about are problems that are facing the entire nation. they're not just problems facing women. the issues in this campaign are the war-peace issues, the problems of deficits, the problems of trade deficits. we are now facing a $120 billion trade deficit in this country. we're facing problems of the environment. i think what we're going to be doing over the next several weeks and i'm absolutely , delighted that the league is sponsoring these debates and that we are, we are able to now speak to the american public and address the issues in a way such as this. i think you're going to see a change in those polls. vanocur: vice president bush, you have one minute to rebuttal. bush: well, i was glad to get that vote of confidence from mrs. ferraro in my economic judgment.
so let me make a statement on the economy. the other day she was in a plant , and she said to the workers, why are you all voting for, why are so many of you voting for the reagan-bush ticket. and there was a long, deathly silence and she said come on, we delivered. that's the problem. and i'm not blaming her except for the liberal voting record in the house. they delivered. they delivered 21.5% interest rates. they delivered what they called malaise. they delivered interest rates that were right off the charts. they delivered take-home pay, checks that were shrinking, and we've delivered optimism. people are going back to work, 6 million of them. and 300,000 jobs a month being created. that's why there was that deathly silence out there in that plant. they delivered the wrong thing. ronald reagan is delivering leadership. vanocur: congresswoman ferraro, one minute rebuttal. ferraro: i, i think what i'm going to have to do is i'm going
to start correcting the vice-president's statistics. there are 6 million more people who have jobs and that's supposed to happen in a growing economy. in fact in the prior administration, with all their problems, they created 10 million jobs. the housing interest rates during this administration, for housing for middle-class americans, was 14.5%. under the prior administration, with all their problems, the average rate was 10.6%. if you take a look at the number of people living in poverty as a result of this administration, 6 million people, 500,000 people knocked off disability rolls. you know, it's, you can walk around saying things are great and that's what we're going to be hearing, we've been hearing that on those commercials for the past couple of months. i expect they expect the american people to believe that. i'll become a one-woman truth squad and we'll start tonight. vanocur: mr. white. white: congresswoman ferraro, i would like to ask you about civil rights. you have in the past been a
supporter of tuition tax credits for private parochial schools. and also of a constitutional amendment to ban busing. both these measures are opposed not only by your running mate but by about every educational and civil rights organization in the country. now that you're mr. mondale's running mate have you changed your position on either of those? ferraro: with reference to the busing vote that i cast in 1979, both fritz mondale and i agree on the same goal and that is nondiscrimination. i just don't agree on the same direction he does on how to achieve it. but i don't find any problem with that. i think that's been something that's been handled by the courts, and not being handled by congress and will not be handled by the white house. but we both support nondiscrimination in housing and integration of neighborhoods. the goals we both set forth. with reference to tuition tax credits, i have represented a district in queens which is 70 -- 70% catholic. i represented my district. let me say as well that i have also been a great supporter of public school education and that is something that fritz and i feel very, very strongly about
for the future of this country. and this administration over the past several years has gutted the educational programs available to our young people. it has attempted to knock out pell grants, which are monies to young individuals who are poor and who cannot afford to go to college. it has reduced by 25% the amount , of monies going into college education and by a third those going into secondary and primary schools. but fritz mondale and i feel very strongly that if you educate your children that that's an effort and the way that you build up and make a stronger america. with reference to civil rights i think you've got to go beyond that and if you take a look, also, at my record in the congress and fritz mondale's record, both in the senate and as vice president, we both have extremely strong civil rights records. this administration does not. it has come in in the bob jones on the side of segregated academies. it came in in the grove city
case on the side of discrimination against women, the handicapped, and the elderly. as a matter of fact, in the congress we just passed overwhelmingly the civil rights bill of 1984 and this administration, the republican-controlled senate, just killed it in the last week or two in congress. so there is a real difference between how the mondale-ferraro administration will address the problems of civil rights and the failure of this administration specifically in that particular area. white: in the area of affirmative action, what steps do you think government can take to increase the representation of minorities and women in the work force, and in colleges and universities, and specifically, would you support the use of quotas to achieve those goals? ferraro: i do not support the use of quotas. both mr. mondale and i feel very strongly about affirmative action to correct inequities, and we believe that steps should be taken both through government for instance, the small business administration. we have supported set-asides for minority and women's businesses.
that's a positive thing. we don't feel that you're in any way hurting anybody else by reaching out with affirmative action to help those who've been disenfranchised. on the contrary, if you have a growing economy, if you create the jobs, if you allow for small business the opportunity with lower interest rates to reach out and grow, there will be more than enough space for everybody. affirmative action is a very positive way to deal with the problems of discrimination. white: vice-president bush, many critics of your administration say that it is the most hostile to minorities in recent memory. have you inadvertently perhaps encouraged that view by supporting tuition tax credits, the antibusing amendment, and siding with bob jones university in a case before the supreme court, your original opposition to the voting rights act extension and so forth? bush: no, mr. white, i think our
record on civil rights is a good record. you mentioned the voting rights extension, it was extended for the longest period of time by president reagan. but we have some problems in attracting the black vote, and i think our record deserves better. we have done more for black colleges than any previous administration. we favor enterprise zones to give and it's been blocked by , tip o'neill and that house of representatives, those liberals in that house blocked a new idea to bring jobs into the black communities across the country. and because it's not an old handout, special federal spending program, it's blocked there a good idea. tried.d like to see that we've brought more civil rights cases in the justice department than the previous administration by far. we believe in trying something new to help these black teenage kids, the minimum wage differential that says, "look," to an employer, "hire these guys. and, yes, they're willing to
work for slightly less than the minimum wage. give 'em a training job in the private sector." we threw out that old ceta that didn't train people for jobs that existed, simply rammed them onto the government payroll, and we put in a thing called the job training partnership act. wonderful new legislation that's helping blacks more and more. we think of civil rights as something like crime in your neighborhoods. and, for example, when crime figures are going in the right direction that's good, that's a civil right. similarly, we think of it in terms of quality of life, and that means interest rates. you know, it's funny, mr. mondale talks about real interest rates. the real interest rate is what you pay when you go down and try to buy a tv set or buy a car, or do whatever it is. the interest rates when we left office were 21% percent. inflation is it a civil right to , have the going right off the chart so you're busting every american family, those who can
afford it the least? no, we've got a good record. we've got it on civil rights legislation, minority set-asides, more help for black colleges, and we've got it in terms of an economy that's offering people opportunity and hope instead of despair. white: along those lines, sir, many recent studies have indicated that the poor and minorities have not really shared in the new prosperity generated by the current economic recovery. was it right for your administration to pursue policies, economic policies, that required those at the bottom of the economic ladder to wait for prosperity to trickle down from people who are much better off than they? bush: mr. white, it's not trickling down. and i'm not suggesting there's no poverty, but i am suggesting the way to work out of poverty is through real opportunity. and in the meantime, the needy are getting more help. human resource spending is way, way up. aid for dependent children spending is up. immunization programs are up. almost every place you can
point, contrary to mr. mondale's -- i got a be careful but contrary , of how he goes around just saying everything bad. if somebody sees a silver lining, he finds a big black cloud out there. wine on, harvest moon i mean, , there's a lot going on, a lotta opportunity. vanocur: congresswoman ferraro, your rebuttal. ferraro: the vice president indicates that the president signed the voting rights act. that was after he was -- he did not support it while it was in the congress, in the senate, it was passed despite his opposition, and he did sign it because he was required to do so. in the civil rights cases that he mentioned, the great number of cases that they have enforced, the reason they enforced them because under the law they're required to do that. and i'm delighted that the administration is following the law. with reference -- vanocur: excuse me this will be out of my time, not
yours knowing and cherishing the , people of this city and knowing their restraint and diffidence about emotion especially of athletic contexts of which this is not one, i beseech you, try to hold your applause please. i'm sorry. ferraro: i just have to correct in my thirty seconds that are left the comment that the vice president made with reference specifically to a program like afdc. if you take afdc, if you take food stamps, if you take -- oh, go down the line on poor people's programs, those are the programs that suffered considerably under this administration's first budget cuts and those are the ones that in the second part of their part of their term, we were able to restore some of those terribly, terribly unfair cuts to the poor people of this country. vanocur: vice-president bush. bush: well, maybe we have a factual maybe we can ask the , experts to go to the books. they'll do it anyway. spending for food stamps is way, way up under the reagan
administration, afdc is up under the reagan administration, and i'm not going to be found wrong on that. i am sure of my facts, and we are trying to help and i think we're doing a reasonable job, but we are not going to rest until every single american that once a job, gets a job and until , this prosperity and this recovery that's benefiting many americans, benefits all americans. vanocur: miss quarles. quarles: vice-president bush, one of the most emotional issues in this campaign has been the separation of church and state. what are your views on the separation of church and state specifically with regard to abortion, and do you believe it was right for the archbishop of philadelphia to have a letter read in 305 churches urging catholics to fight abortion with their votes? bush: i do believe in pluralism. i do believe in separation of church and state. i don't consider abortion a religious issue.
i consider it a moral issue. i believe the archbishop has every right to do everything he wants in that direction, just as i never faulted jesse jackson from taking his message to the black pulpits all across this country, just as i never objected when the nuclear arms, the nuclear freeze or the antinuclear people many of those movements were led by priests. suddenly, because a catholic bishop or an evangelist feels strongly on a political issue, people are saying it's merging of church and state. we favor and i speak confidently , for the president we favor separation of church and state. we favor pluralism. now somebody says you ought to restore prayer in schools. you don't think it's right to prohibit a kid from praying in schools. for years kids were allowed to pray in schools. we don't think that's a merger of church and stare to have nonmandatory voluntary, nongovernment-ordered prayer.
and yet some are accusing us of injecting religion into politics. i have no problem with what the archbishop does, and i have no problem with what the evangelists on the right do and i have no problem what the priests on the left do. and it didn't bother me when during the vietnam war much of the opposition to the government democrat and republican governments was led by priests, , encouraging people to break the law and the adage of the you know the civil disobedience , thing. so our position, separation of church and stare, pluralism, so no little kid with a minority religion of some sort is going to feel offended or feel left out or feel uncomfortable. but, yes, prayer in school on a voluntary basis worked for many, many years until the supreme court ruled differently and i'm glad we got this question because i think there's been too much said about religion and politics. we don't believe in denominationally moving in. it wasn't our side that raised the question about our president
whether he was a good christian or not and so i, so that's our -- [applause] that's our position separation , of church and state, pluralism, respect for all. quarles: vice-president bush, four years ago you would have allowed federal financing of abortions in cases of rape and incest, as well as when the mother's life was threatened. does your position now agree with reagan who in sunday's debate came very close to saying abortion is murder? bush: you know, there has been, i have to make a confession, an evolution in my position. there's been 15 million abortions since 1973, and i don't take that lightly. there's been a million and a half this year. the president and i do favor a human rights amendment. i favor one that would have an exception for incest and rape, and he doesn't, but we both
only for the life of the mother. and i agree with him on that. so yes, my position's evolved, but i'd like to see the american who faced with 15 million abortions isn't rethinking his or her position and i'll just stand with the answer. i support the president's position, and comfortably from a , moral standpoint. quarles: so you believe it's akin to murder? bush: no, i support the president's position. quarles: fine. congresswoman ferraro, what are your views on the separation of church and state with regard to abortions, and do you believe it was right for the archbishop of philadelphia to have those letters read in the pulpits and urged the voters to fight abortion with their vote? ferraro: let me say first of all i believe very, very sincerely in the separation of church and state. i'm taking it from the historical viewpoint, if you go back to the 1600s when people came here, the reason they came to this country was to escape religious persecution, and that's the same reason why people are coming here today in the 1940s to escape nazism, now
in the 1980s and 1984 when they can get our of the country to escape communism so they can come here and practice their religion. our country is founded on the principle that our government should be neutral as far as religion is concerned. and what's happened over the past several years and quite frankly i'm not going to let you living on me the intrusion of the state politics into religion or religion into politics by my comments with reference to the president's policies. because it started in 1980 when this administration was running for office and the reverend jerry falwell became very very involved in the campaign. what has happened over the past four years has been i think a real fudging of the lawn with the separation of church and state. the actions of the archbishop let me say to you. i feel that they have not only a right. but a responsibility to speak up. and even though i've been the person that the pacific enough of that i feel that they do have the responsibility to do so and i have no problem with that no more than i did with the priest who watched in the town of vietnam and you know more than i
did at the time when morton luther king. tomartin luther king marched the civil rights marches. i have absolutely no problem with them speaking up i think they have an obligation as well as a right. but what i do have a problem with is when the president of the united states gets up and dow list and addresses a group of individuals and said to them anybody doesn't support his constitutional amendment for prayer in the schools. is intolerant of religion. there are numerous groups who don't support that. numerous religious groups. are they intolerant of religion is that with the president is saying? i also checked. when i'm told that the reverend falwell has been told that he will pick two of our supreme court justice. that's going all little bit far. and that is just let me say it is more than a fudging of the line it is a total intrusion. and i think that is in violation of our constitution. [applause]
>> as a devout catholic. does it trouble you that so many of the leaders of your church disagree with you and. do you think that you're being treated unfairly in any way by the catholic church. >> let me tell you that i did not come to my position on abortion. very lightly. i am a devout catholic. when i was running for congress in 1978 i sat and met with the , person i felt very close to a monsignor currently a bishop. i spoke to about my personal feelings that i would never have an abortion but i was not quite sure if i were ever to become pregnant as a result of a race if i would be that self-righteous. i then stuck to me said jerry that's not good enough. you know you can't support that position i said ok. that's my religious you i'll accept the teaching of the church but i cannot impose my religious views on someone else. i truly take an oath as a public official to represent all the people in my district not only
the catholics. if there comes a time where i cannot practice my religion and do my job properly. i will resign my job was -- my job. >> president bush, your rebuttal. >> i respect that statement. i really i really truly do. we have a different song. moral question here on abortion. i notice that mr mondale keeps. talking in the debate and now it's come up here about mr falwell. and i keep. i don't know where this canard could have come from about mr falwell picking the supreme court justice. ronald reagan has made one, said per, outstanding. the only one he's made. appointment to the supreme court. and that was sandra day o'connor. mr falwell opposed. her nomination. we still have respect for him but he opposed it. and so i hope this lays to rest. this slander against the president. we want justice is who will who will interpret the constitution. not legislate. >> your rebuttal. >> i still find it very difficult to believe because in the platform which this.
the republican party plan passed in dallas. one of the things they did was they said that the position on abortion would be a litmus test not only for supreme court justices but for other federal justices. that again seems to me a blurring of the lines of separation between church and state. >> the next questioning. for mr boies. >> like many americans. each of you has recently had an unhappy experience with the revenue internal service. i'm going to prolong her ordeal. congresswoman ferraro. you disagree with the rule that says that a candidate must report the income or assets of his or her spouse. if you get any benefit from them. your husband's tax return shows that you did benefit because he paid the mortgage on the property taxes on your homes. now the house ethics committee is examining this question ma'am but it won't report its findings until after the election. would you be willing to ask that committee which is controlled by democrats to hurry up its work and report before the election. i already did that. i had wanted them to move ahead. if you recall i stand.
about an hour and forty five minutes. speaking to two hundred reporters on august twenty first which is the day after i was required to file my. my financial statement. and i sat for as long as i had questions on the issue and i believe that they were satisfied i filed more information than any other candidate for national office in the history of this country. not only did i agree to file my tax returns and after a little bit of prodding my husband also agreed to file his with the. not only the ethics committee but with the f.e.c.. but the action that you're speaking about at the ethics committee was started by a right wing legal organization foundation. knowing that i would have to that there would be an automatic inquiry. we have filed a necessary papers i have asked them along. unfortunately that has i believe
people in a session today. so i don't know if they will move. but quite frankly i would like that to be taken care of anyway. because i just want to clear the. >> since that famous august twenty first press conference on your family finances. you filed a new report with the ethics committee. and this show that your previous reports were full of mistakes and omissions. for example you failed to report about twelve trips that were paid for by special interest groups. at least eighteen cases your holdings were misstated. do you think it showed good leadership or attention to duty to blame all this on. sloppy work by your account and -- accountant. i what it showed was that hired an accountant who had been with our family for well over forty years. he was feeling at the think forms. i did not spend the time with them. i just gave him my tax information and he did it. i have to tell you what we have
done since i have hired a more marvelous accountant. i've spent a lot of money having him go through all those extra ethics form. and he will be doing my taxes. over the next eight years while we're in the white house and the american public can be sure it's all going to be taking care of. >> president bush. last year you paid less than thirteen percent of your income in federal taxes. according to the i.r.s. someone in your bracket normally pays about twenty eight percent of his income. now what you did was perfectly legal but do you think it was fair and is there something wrong with our tax laws that allows such large deductions for wealthy taxpayers. >> what that figure in the way i kind of like the way mrs. ferraro and mr carro reported because they reported. federal taxes. state and local taxes. is people a clearer picture. that year i happen to pay a lot of state and local taxes which as you know are deducted from from the other and so i looked it up the other day. and we have paid i think it's forty two percent of our gross income in taxes by mr mondale
the other night took what i shall be honest i thought it was a cheap shot at me and we did a little looking around to say about his. we can't find is not a one thousand nine hundred eighty one tax return it may have been released maybe maybe my opponent knows whether i'm. mondale released it. but we did find estimates that his income for those three years. is a million four hundred thousand dollars. and i think he paid about the same percentages i did in intel taxes. he also made a reference that troubled me very much mr boyd he's talking about my chauffeur. you know what? i'm driven to work by the secret service. so is mrs ferraro. so is mr mondale they protected his life for for four years and now they've done a beautiful job
for barbara in mind they saved the life of the president of the united states. i thought that was a cheap shot. telling the american people call to try to divide class rich and poor. but the big question isn't whether mrs ferraro is doing well i think they're doing pretty well. and i know barbara and i are doing well and it's darn sure that mr mondale is doing well with a million for income. but the question really is have to get through this disclosure. is that tax cuts failure. are people getting a fair break in the answer is the rich are paying six percent more on taxes. and the poor are getting a better break those lower and middle income people that have borne the burden for a long long time. so yes i favor. disclosure. i've always disclose this year i had my taxes and and everything i own in a blind trust so blind blind in the president's where i didn't even sign my tax return. that they're saying to be an interest in it so we went to the government ethics committee. they agreed to change the trust the trust has been been revealed and i was sure glad to say that i had paid forty two percent of my gross income in taxes.
mr vice president. how can you claim that your home is in maine for tax purposes. and at the same time. claim that your home is in texas for voting purposes. are you really a texan or a new englander. i'm really a texan. but i got one house. and under the law. every taxpayer is allowed when he sells the house and buys taxes.
another house to get the roll over everybody it turns out and i may i may hire i know the she said she has a new good accountant to get his name and phone number. because i think i think. i think i paid too much in the way of taxes and residence. mr boyd legal residence for voting is very different. and the dumbest style i call that very different than the house. but they say you're living in the vice president's house.
therefore you don't get whatever. i got problems what other every taxpayer get i got problems with the i.r.s. but so do a lot of people out there. i think i paid too much nothing ethical. i'd like to get some money back. >> thank you. we now turn to foreign affairs. >> terrorism is very difficult to stop. we had an ambassador killed in lebanon some time ago. when you see the israeli building in lebanon, after the death of our marines, you see that hit by terrorism, the israelis with all of their experience fighting terrorism, you know it is difficult. when you see radical islam responding to government-sponsored t terrorists, it is very difficult. strengthene ought to
, and i believe we have the best foreign intelligence business in the world. but it is very difficult to get the source information that you need to go after something as shadowy as international terror. there was a different between iran and what happened in lebanon. in iran you had a government. holding up a u.s. embassy. the government sanctioning the takeover of that embassy. by those by those students. the government. negotiating with the united states government for their release in lebanon. in the terror that happened at the embassy. you have the government there. that wants to help fight against terrorism. that because of the melee in the middle east. it's there today and has been there yesterday and the day before that everyone has had experience in that area knows. it is a very different thing. so what we've got to do is use. absolutely the best security possible. i don't think you can go assigning blame the president of course is the best i've ever
seen of except being that he's -- accepting that. he's been wonderful about it in absolutely everything that happens. but i think fair minded people that really understand international terror. knows that it's very hard to guard against. and the answer then really lies in the middle east and terrorism happening all happening all over the world is a solution to the palestine question. the follow on to camp david. under the umbrella of the reagan september of one nine hundred -- 1982 initiative. that will reduce terror. it won't eliminated. >> you mention khomeini's some republicans charge the previous administration with being almost helpless against khomeini and libya's khadafi. why isn't your administration done something to take action against arab states that foment this kind of terrorism. iswhat we've done support arab states that want to stand up against international terror. quite different. we believe in supporting without jeopardizing the security of israel in any way because they are our one strategic ally in the area.
they are the one democracy in the area. and our relations with them as never been better. but we do believe in reaching out to the what they call a g.c.c. those gulf cooperative council states those moderate arab states. in that world and helping them with defensive weapons. to guard against international terror or radical islam perpetuated by commenee and because we've done that and because the saudis. chop down a couple of those intruding airplanes a while back. i think we have helped keep the peace in the persian gulf. congresswoman ferraro. you and former vice president mondale have criticized the president over the bombings in lebanon. what would you do to prevent such attacks? >> let me first say that terrorism is a global problem. and let me say secondly that mr bush has referred to the end the see that was held in iran. well i was at the white house
was,nuary, i guess it 1981, when this hostage is all fifty two of them came home alive. it was at that time the president reagan. gave a speech. welcome home is that america did we were so excited to see them back. but what he said was united states has been embarrassed for the last time. you're going to stand tall and it's hot this ever happens again. there's going to be swift and immediate steps taken to address the wrong that our country is founded -- suffered. 1983, i was in beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. two weeks later that embassy was bombed. at that time, you take a look at the crazy activities of terrorist you can't blame anybody. and they're going to do crazy things you just don't know what's going to happen. the following october. there was another bombing. and that bombing took place in the marine bomb.
barracks where there are two hundred forty two young men who were killed. right after that bombing occurred, there was a commission set up. long commission. that commission to study at the peak of the security arrangements. around where the marines were sleeping and found that there was negligence. that they did not have proper precautions to stop those trucks from coming in and so the long commission issued a report and president reagan got up and he said i'm commander in chief i take responsibility. and we all waited for something to be done when he took responsibility. well. last month we had our third bombing. first time the first embassy there was no gate up. the second time was our marines the gate was open. the third time the gate was there but had not been installed what was the president's reaction? well the security arrangements , were not in. our people were placed in that embassy in an unsecured time. and the marines were guarding it were left to go away and. there are other people held
guarding the embassy. again the president said i assume responsibility. i want to know what that means. are we going to take proper precautions before we put americans in situations where they're in danger. are we just going to walk away throwing around fifty or now quite a reversal from the first time and for the first time we say is going to do something or is this present going to take some action. >> some democrats cringe at the words spying and covert activity. do you believe both of them have a legitimate role in countering terrorist activity -- nd the world check the world? >> i think they have a legitimate role in gathering information. the cia in the last bombing had given information to our administration with reference to the. the actual threats that that embassy was going to bomb so
wasn't the cia was that fall. there's a legitimate reason for the the cia to the existence and that's to gather intelligence and information prosecuting. but when i see the cia i doing things like they're doing down in central america supporting a covert war. no i don't support that kind of activity. the cia is there to meant to protect our government. not there to subvert other governments. >> ice president bush. >> i'm surprised. i think i just heard mrs ferraro say that she would do away with all covert action. and if so that has very serious ramifications as the intelligence communityknows this is serious business. and sometimes it's quiet support for a friend. and so i'll leave that one there but let me help you what's the difference ms ferraro between iran and the embassy in lebanon -- iran we were held by a , foreign government. lebanon you had a washington , terrorist action where the government opposed it. we went to lebanon. to give peace a chance to stop the bombing of civilians in beirut. to remove thirteen thousand terrorists from lebanon we did. we saw the formation of a government of reconciliation. and for somebody to suggest is our two opponents have that
these men died in shame. they better not tell the parents of those young marines. they gave peace a chance. and our allies were with us. the british the french and the italians. >> let me just say first of all that i almost resent vice president bush your patronizing attitude that you have that foreign policy. i've been a member of congress for six years i was there when the embassy was held hostage in iran and i have been there and i have seen what has happened in the past several months -- seventeen months that your administration. secondly please don't categorize my answers either leave the interpretation of my answers to the american people who are watching this debate. and let me say for there that no one has ever said that those young men were killed. through the negligence of this administration and others. no one was a child who's nineteen or twenty years old with us on would ever say that
about the loss of anybody else's child. >> mr. white. >> you've repeatedly said that you would not want your son to die in an under cleared war from the uncertain cause. but recently your runningmate mr mondale has suggested that it may become necessary to erect a military. quarantined or blockade of nicaragua. under what circumstances would you advocate the use of military force american combat forces in central america. >> i would advocate the use of force when it is necessary to protect the security of our country. protect our security interest or protect our people or protect the interests of our friends unable. -- friends and neighbors. when president -- well, i jumping the gun to bet on i when when mr. mondale referred to the quarantined in central america, where he was referring
to was a last resort. after all other means of attempting to set. settle the situation down that region into account the world. had been exhausted. quite frankly. now what is being done by this administration is an american izing of a regional conflict and moving militarily instead of promoting the cogito our process which as you know is the process that is in place. with the support of mexico and colombia and panama on this whale. instead of supporting the process. our administration has in nicaragua. been supporting covert activities to keep that revolution going in orders overthrow the sandinista government. an el salvador was not pushing. the head of the government to move toward correction of the civil rights human rights problems that existed there. and now this is ministration
seems almost be fuddled. by the fact that nicaragua. is moving to participate in the content or process and el salvador through its president is reaching out to the guerrillas in order to negotiate a peace. what fritz mondale and i feel about the situation down there is that what you do is you deal first through negotiation. that's for us is not a first resort. but certainly a last resort. in any instance. follow please. many times in his history. the united states has gone to war in order to defend freedom. other lands. there's your answer mean that you would be willing to forego the use of military force. even if it meant the establishment of a soviet back. dictatorships. so close to our own borders no i think we have to do is work with the government i assume you're speaking about the government to nicaragua. >> work with that government to achieve a pluralistic society i mean they do have elections that are coming up on november fourth i think we we have to work with them to achieve a peaceful solution to bring about a
pluralistic country. no i'm not willing to to live with a force that could be a danger to our country. certainly i would see that our country would be there. putting all kinds of pressure on the neighboring countries of honduras of costa rica of el salvador. to promote its has decided that we can all live within security in this country. >> both cuba and nicaragua are reported to be making extensive preparations to defend themselves against an american invasion which they claim could come this fall and even some of your democratic opponents in congress have suggested that the administration may be planning a december surprise. can you tell us the under what circumstances a reelected. reagan administration would consider use of force in central america or the caribbean. >> we don't think we're to be required to use force. let me point out that there are
cuban military and seventy five 2000 so-called cuban advisors in hundred nicaragua. there are fifty five american military in el first through negotiation. salvador. i went down, under the president,s of the to speak to the common dantes in el salvador and told them that they had to move with mr mcgowan your then the president of el salvador to respect human rights. they have done that. they're moving well. i'm not saying it's perfect. but the difference between el salvador and nicaragua. is like the difference between night and day. el salvador went to the polls. mr durrant who was elected by seventy three percent of the people in a seventy percent voting in a certifiably free election. and nicaragua you have something very different. you have a marxist leninist group. the sandinistas that came into power. talking democracy. they have aborted their democracy. they have humiliated the holy father. they have cracked down on the
only press organ there la prensa censoring the press something that should concern every american. they have not had any human rights at all. it will not permit free elections. mr cruz who was to be the only viable challenger to nicaragua. he went down there and found that the ground rules were so unfair that he couldn't even wage a campaign. one country is devoid of human rights. the other is struggling to perfect their democracy. we don't like it frankly. when nicaragua exports its revolution or serves as a conduit for supplies coming in from such democracies as north korea, bulgaria, the soviet union and cuba. destabilize el salvador. yes we're concerned about that because we want to see this when
trend towards democracy continue. there have been something like thirteen countries since we've come in move towards a democratic ground. and let me just say, granito is not unrelated. when you gave those four tiny caribbean countries that chance. we saved the lives and most of those a thousand students said that they were in jeopardy. greneda was a proud moment because we did stand up for democracy. but in terms of threat of these i mean, nuclear weapons no there's not that kind , of a threat. it is mr mondale that proposed a quarantine not ronald reagan. >> considering this country's long respect for the rule of international law. was it right for the united states to be involved in mining the harbors of nicaragua. a country we're not at war with and subsequently refused to allow the world court to adjudicate that dispute in a complaint from the wrong. >> i support what we're doing it was supported to the congress under the law. i support it. my only regret is that the aid for the conferees the contras. those people that are fighting we call them freedom fighters.
they want to see the democracy perfected in nicaragua. am i to understand that no nowhere in the world would we do something that was considered. just off base by when mrs ferraro said she'd never supported it? yes, we are for the contras. and let me tell you another fact about the contras everyone that it's not for this everyone wants to let that sandinista government prevail just like that castro did. all of that. the contras are not so much for somoza. so most of these were people that wanted a revolution. these are people that felt the trend revolution was betrayed. these are people that support human rights. yes, we should support them. >> congresswoman ferraro.
>> i spent a good deal of time essential america in january and had not had to speak to the contras after being in nicaragua and el salvador. let me just say that the situation that exists now because of this initiations , policies, is not getting better. we're not moving towards a more secure area of the world as a matter of fact the number of troops that they send a nice to seven cumulated since the ministrations started. covert activities has risen from twelve to fifty thousand. and of course the number of sylvan in queue the cuban in sizes has also increased. i did not support the mining of the harbors and nicaragua it is a violation of international law. congress did not support it as a matter of fact just this week. the congress voted to cut off covert aid to nicaragua. unless and until a request is made. there is evidence of need for. and the congress approves again in march. congress doesn't get laid on the covertactivities which i oppose in nicaragua. those cia covert activities in
that specific. country are not supported by the congress and believe it or not not supported by the majority of people throughout this country. >> well. i would simply like to make the distinction again. between those countries that are searching for democracy. and the handful of countries thathave totally violated human rights and are going the marxist route. ortega. the commandante who is head of the nicaraguan sandinistas is an avowed marxist. they don't believe in the church they don't believe in the free elections they don't believe in all the values that we believe in. so, it is our policy to support the democracies there. and when you have freedom fighters that want to perfect that revolution and go the tema craddock route. we believe in giving them support. we are for democracy and them is fair. we are for negotiation.
three dollars out of every four that we've sent down there has been for economic aid to support the people's chance to eat and live in and be happy and enjoy life. and one fourth only was military. you wouldn't get that from listening to mr mondale. >> ms corals. >> vice president bush. the last three republican administrations. eisenhower nixon and ford. none of them soft on communism. met with the soviets and got agreements on arms control. the soviets haven't changed that much. can you tell us why president reagan has not met with the soviet ministers at all and only met with foreign minister grim eco less than a month ago. >> yes i can. you mention the gromyko meeting those were broken off kind of the carter mondale days. there had been three separate soviet leaders. that's in three and a half years, three separate leaders. the soviets have not been
willing to talk. soviet leaders. we are the ones that went to the table and i and if we had a good proposal a moral proposal. ban an entire generation of inner new intermediate nuclear force weapons. and if you won't do that. don't leave your allies in europe in a monopoly position the soviets. with twelve hundred of these things. and the alliance with none. we didn't think that's the way you deter aggression. and keep the peace. the first thing you did when he came into office was make a proposal on the most the stabilizing weapons of all start. and when the so the strategic weapon. and when the soviets said well we don't like that proposal we said or it will be more flexible. i as the urging of the president went to geneva and laid on the table. a treaty to ban all chemical weapons we don't want them to have a monopoly. but we said look let's come together. you come over here and say what we're doing. we'll go over there and see what you're doing. but let's save the kids of this world from chemical weapons. a brilliant proposal to get rid
of all of them. and the soviets. yet. and yet. and mutual balance force reduction. to reduce conventional forces. they're not even willing to tell us the base. mrs ferraro knows that of how many how many troops they have there's four sessions. we have had an agreement with them on the hotline. but the carter mondale but made an agreement. they were a democratic administration. the democratic senate wouldn't even ratify that agreement. it was flawed. it was unverifiable. and it was not good. our president wants to reduce. not just to stop. he wants to reduce dramatically. nuclear weapons. and when the soviets know they're going to have this strong president to deal with. and when this new administration. if they think the opposition before they sit down. going to give up the amex give up to be one. go for a freeze it locks and
inferiority in europe. all of these things unilaterally before they're willing to talk. they may just what are now for four more weeks who knows. >> you were once quoted as saying that a nuclear war is winnable. is that still your belief and. if not under what circumstances would you use nuclear weapons. >> no i don't think it's winnable. i was quoted wrong obviously because i never thought that the soviet planning i did learn that when i was director of central intelligence and i don't i don't think there'd be any disagreement is based on that ugly concept. but i agree with the president , it should never be fought. nuclear weapons should never be fought with. and that's that's that's our approach so therefore. let's encourage the soviets to come to the table as we did the gromyko meeting. i wish everybody could have seen that when the president. excellent. right on top of that subject matter and. i'll bet you that gromyko went back to the soviet union saying
hey listen. this president is calling the shots we'd better move. but you know what i think we'll get an agreement. because i think it is in the interest of the soviet union. to make it. just as it is in the interest of the united states are not deterred by rhetoric. i listen to their rhetoric for two years at the united nations i've lived in a communist country. it's not rhetoric that decides agreements. it's self-interest of the of the those countries. mr. mondale agree about nuclear freeze some democrats have said the verification. may not be possible. how would you there are five sets of an agreement and make sure that the soviets are not cheating. >> let me say first of all that i don't think that there is any issue that is more important in this campaign is the selection the issue for in peace. and since today's eleanor roosevelt's hundredth birthday let me quote her she said it is not enough to want peace. you must believe in it. not have to believe in it you must work for it. the last time i heard vice
president bush blame the fact that they didn't meet with the soviet leader and this is the first president in forty years not to meet with the soviet counterparts. he said the reason was because there are three soviet leaders in the past three and a half years. i went and got a computer printout. it's five pages of the leaders were leaders of the soviet leaders have met with and they're not little people they are people like the newest cyprus prince, and down the line, five pages. the people of the soviet leaders have managed to meet with and somehow they could meet with the president united states that addition to not meeting with the soviet counterparts. this is the first president you're right since the start of negotiating arms control agreements who has not negotiate an arms control agreement but not only has not negotiate when he's been opposed to every single one that every other president has negotiated including our eyes and there including ford and including
nexen. now let me just say that with reference to the vice president's comments about the intent and the desire of the united states in this administration the soviet union did walk out of the talks. i agree. it seems to me that when the 1982, administration presented it starts oppose them that it was not a realistic proposal and that is a comment that was made by secretary haig. after he left office because what it dealt with. was it dealt just with land based nuclear missiles which is where the soviets had the bulk of their missiles. but that aside, in 1982, i believe it was their own negotiator need to came out with a proposal. that proposal was turned down by the administration a proposal , presented by its own administrator.
i'm delighted that they met with mr. kimiko but they could have , had that opportunity to meet with him in 1982. put aaking of limits come limit on you. vice president bush. >> well i think there's quite a difference between mr competent prion new in cyprus and the leader of the free world ronald reagan. in terms of meeting in the soviet union. the soviet union. the soviet union will meet with a lot of different people. we've been very close touch with mr major on mr colin and others that have met with the leaders of the soviet union. but that's quite different than meeting with the president of the united states. the soviets say we'll have a meeting when we think there can be progress and yet they left those talks. i'd like to correct my opponent on the walk in the woods. it was the soviet union. that was unwilling to discuss the walk in the woods they were the ones that gunned down first and the record is very very clear on that. miss ferraro mentioned the
inflexibility of our position on strategic arms. yes we offered first to get rid of all those. you try to reduce the s.s.a. and those weapons. but then we said if that's not good enough. there is flexibility let's talk about the bombers in the planes. so that's a very important point. in terms of negotiation. >> you will have two minutes to rebut. forgive me. polls show that most feel that the democrats are better able to keep the us out of war. we've had four years of relative peace under president reagan. how can you convince the american public that the world would be a safer place under carter mondale. i think first of all you have
to take a look at the current situation we now have fifty thousand nuclear warheads. we have. we are building at the rate of five or six a day between us and we have been doing that since this is ministration came into office. and i think what you can do is look at what they've done and recognize that they're not going to do very much in the future. and so since they've done nothing. do we continue to build because an arms race doesn't lead to anything it leads to another arms race and that set by president mondale has indicated that what he would do first of all since he gets into office is contacted soviet counterparts. and set up an annual summit meeting. that is number one. i think first of all you have't negotiating until you start talking. secondly he would issue a challenge. the challenge would be in the nature of temporary mutual verifiable moratorium to halt testing in the air and the atmosphere. that would respond with a challenge from the soviet union. we hope to sit down and
negotiate a treaty. that was done in one thousand -- 1960. >> you have another minute. >> what that would do is it would give us the opportunity to sit down and negotiate a treaty. they aid is they issued a challenge to the soviet union. he said we will not test in space in the atmosphere. if you will not. they did not. in two months they sat down and they go see a treaty we do not now have to worry about that that type of testing. it can be done. there will be done, if only you have the will to do it. verifiable, mutual, and the challenge. >> our last series of questions on foreign affairs.
little or noad experience on military matters coming, you may want day find yourself commander of the forces. how would you convince potentially the enemy that you know what to do to protect this nation security. and do you think, in any way the , soviets might be tempted to try to take advantage of you simply because you are a woman. >> are you saying that i would have to have fought in the war in order to love peace? >> i'm not saying that. you know what i asked. >> all right. i think what happens is when you try to equate whether or not i've had military experience that's the natural conclusion. it's a bad a valid is saying that you would have to be black in order to despise racism. that you have to be female in order to be terribly offended by sexism. that is just not so. think, if you take a look at where i've been, both in congress, and where i intend to
go, the type of person i am, i think this country can rely on leader. that i am a quite frankly, i'm ready to do whatever is necessary in order to secure this country and make sure that security is maintained secondly if the soviet union were to ever believe that they could challenge the united states with nuclear forces, or otherwise, they can be assured that they would be met with swiss, precise, and swift retaliation. let me say one more thing. the most important thing that one has to do is get to the point where you are not put in that position.
the way you get to that position of moving away from having to make a decision is by moving towards arms control. that is not what has been done over the past four years. i think if you take a look at the failures of this administration, that would have to be number one. i will not put myself in that position. i will move immediately towards arms control negotiation. >> for my follow, i'm going to borrow a leaf from the sunday night debate between your principles and ask you what is the single question you would most like to ask your opponent here on foreign policy. >> i don't have a single most question. i guess the concern that i have this is a concern not only is the vice presidential candidate but a citizen in this country. my concern is that we are not doing anything to stop the arms race. and it seems to me that if we
keep talking about. military interiority which we do not have, we are at a comparable level with the soviet union in our joint chiefs of staff who said they'd never exchange our military power for their. i guess the thing that i want is a commitment that pretty soon they are going to do something about making this a safer world for all of us. bush, foursident years ago, president reagan insisted that a military build soviets toing the negotiate seriously. since then we have spent almost a trillion dollars on defense. but the soviets are still building their military forces as rapidly as we are. and there are no negotiations. was the president's original premise and his strategy wrong? >> no. i think his strategy not only was correct but is correct. you've got to go back where we were.
clearly when we came into office the american people , recognize that we had slipped into positions of inferiority on various things. some of our planes as the present points out were older than the soldiers in the pilots. ships that couldn't couldn't go out to sea and you had a you had a major problem with the military actually the morale wasn't very good either. so we have had to strengthen the military. and we're well on the way to getting that job done. america is back in terms of military strength. in terms of our ability to deter aggression and keep the peace is all of same time however we have made proposals and proposals and proposals. sound proposals on reducing nuclear weapons. the strategic arms reduction talks were good proposals. and it's the soviets that left the table. the intermediate nuclear force. talks for sound talks and i wish the soviet union had continued them. the chemical weapon treaty to ban all chemical weapons. it was our initiative not the soviets. and we wish they would think anew and move forward to verification. so that everybody would know whether the other side was keeping its word but much more
important, you would reduce the level of terror. we are reducing and trying to talk to them in are talking to them in vienna. we've talked to them about human rights. we mention and we try to do something about the human rights question. the suppression of soviet jews is absolutely intolerable and so we have to keep pushing forward on the on the moral grounds as well as on the arms reduction ground. but it is my view that because this president has been strong. and because we've regressed the imbalances and i think we're very close to having getting that job done. this soviets are more likely to make a deal. the soviets made it. a treaty when they thought we were going to deploy an a.b.m. system. so i am optimistic for the future. once they realize that they will have this strong principled president to negotiate with
, strong leadership, and yet with demonstrable flexibility on , arms control. >> and now i'll give you a chance mr vice president to ask the question you'd most like to ask of your opponent. >> i have none i'd like to ask ever but i'd sure like to use the time to talk about the world series or something of that nature. let me let me put it this way. i don't have any questions. we are so different. the reagan bush administration is so different from the carter mondale administration that the american people are going to have the clearest choice. it's a question of going back to the failed ideas of the past where we came in twenty one and after sending those rates interest inflation. despair. no leadership. blaming the american people for failed leadership. or another option. , keep this recovery going to lead benefits. absolutely everybody piece at -- absolutely everybody. peace at home.
peace of prosperity. opportunity. i'd like to hear a talk on those things but i think the yellow light is flashing and so we'll leave it there. >> nothing on the world series. >> i think the vice president's comment about the carter mondale administration is an indication of just and. it really to the size of this administration -- a strange look backwards not forwards into the future. and i say that i'm also tickled by their comments on human rights. the soviet union in one nine -- in allowed fifty one thousand 1979 people to immigrate because in the large measure this administration's policies over the past four years. thirteen hundred thirteen people 1 1984.n
we can now go to the closing statements. they will be four minutes in length. > we begin with the vice president. >> in three weeks, you will be faced with a choice. the clearest choice in some fifty years. and the choices do we move forward with strengths and with prosperity. or do we go back to weakness, despair, and disrespect? ronald reagan and i have put our trust in the american people. we've moved some of the power away from washington d.c. and put it back with the people we're pulling together. the neighborhoods are safer because crime is going down. your sons and daughters are doing better in school test scores are going up. there's a new opportunity lying out there in the future. science, technology, and space offering opportunity to to everybody. all the young ones coming up.
abroad, there's new leadership and and respect. and ronald reagan his clearly a strong leader of the free world. and i'll be honest with you. it's a joy to serve with a president who does not apologize for the united states of america. mr mondale on the other hand has one idea. flattened tax. the american people. and then he wants to repeal indexing to wipe out the one protection that those at the lower standard the economic scale have protecting them against being rammed into higher and higher tax bracket. we our country too much to go back to that kind of an approach. i'd like to say something to the young people i i started a business. i know what it is to have a dream and have a job and work hard to voyagers and really to participate in the american dream and some of you out there. you are finishing high school or college and some of your starting out in the working
place. and we want for you america's , greatest gift. that is opportunity. and then, yes, i did serve in combat. i was shot down when i was a young kid, and scared to death. and all that did saw friends die. but that heightened my convictions about peace. it is absolutely essential that we guarantee the young people that they will not know the agony of war. america's gift. opportunity and peace. now we do have some unfinished business. we must continue to go ahead. the world is too complex to go back to vacillation and weakness. we've had too much going on to go back to the failed policies of the past. the future is too bright not to give it our best shot. together we can go forward and up tohem -- lift america meet her greatest drains.
-- dreams. thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much. i must say now, in matters of equity you will be allowed , applause at the end of your closing statement so if you begin now please. >> i hope somebody wants to applaud. being the candidate for vice president my party is the greatest honor i have ever had but it's not only a personal achievement for geraldine ferraro and certainly not only the bond that i feel as i go across this country with women throughout the country. i would be standing here if it's party andurage in my if it didn't stand for the values that it does the values
of fairness and equal opportunity. those values make our country strong. and the future of this country and how strong will be is what this election is all about over the last two months i've been traveling all over the country talking to the people about the future. i think and talk and i spoke to the die has family he works as a for a car dealer and he's worried about the deficits and how high interest rates are going to affect his job. every place they go i see young parents their children they say to me what are we going to do to stop this nuclear arms race. i was in dayton ohio. week and a half ago and i sat with the alan family live next door to a toxic dump and they're very very concerned about the fact that those toxics are seeping into the water that they and their neighbors drink. those people love this country. and they're patriotic. that's not the patriotism that
you're seeing in the commercials. as you watch television these days their patriotism is not , only a pride in the country is it is a pride in this country that is strong enough to meet the challenges of the future. to know we find jobs. the eight and half million people who are unemployed in this country. you know will make our economy stronger. and that will be a patriotic act. when we reduce the deficit we cut interest rates and i know the president doesn't believe that but it's. because those interest rates young people can buy houses that's pro-family. and that will be a patriotic act and when we educate our children, that is a patriotic act. and we stop the arms race. you make this a safer saying a world. and that's a patriotic act. when we keep the peace young men don't die. and that's a patriotic act. those are the key to the future. and who can be the leader for the future. when walter mondale was attorney general of minnesota. he led the fight for a man who could not afford to get justice because he couldn't afford a lawyer but he was in the senate
before for child nutrition programs. he wrote the house that their housing act. he even he even investigated the concerns the abuses of migrant workers i wanted to do that. those weren't popular causes. you know no one ever heard of black clarence getting in the man without a lawyer children don't vote. and migrant workers aren't exactly a powerful lobby in this country but he did it because it was right for its mondale has -- right. mr. mondale has said that he'd rather lose the battle over in one overn whe self-interest. and i agree with in this campaign. born of terrors. we have just begun to fight. [applause] >> thank you very much. i would like to thank vice
president bush, congresswoman ferraro, the members of the panel for joining us in this debate. i would like to join you in thinking them and the city of philadelphia and the league of women voters. the next debate will take place in kansas city on october 21. the subject will be foreign affairs. it will begin at 8:00 eastern time. again, i thanks. we hope you join us on the 21st. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
pence and tim kaine. , live from longwood university in farmville, university -- in farmville, virginia. live coverage of the debate followed by a reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate. watch live on c-span. watch live at anytime on-demand at www.c-span.org. listen live on the free c-span radio app. tv,, on american history peter wood dell shares his paintings of 19th-century washington, d.c.. depictions include events at the white house, the capital building command -- the capital building, and george washington's home in mount vernon. it's about 20 minutes.