tv Reel America The Nixon Answer in Michigan - 1968 CSPAN October 28, 2018 4:00pm-4:57pm EDT
c-span3, the tenement museum in new york city. ladyt 8:00, former first barbara bush's grandchildren and laura bush reflect on her life and legacy. watch on "american history tv" on c-span3. 1968, richard nixon refused to debate democratic nominee hubert humphrey. a series ofppear in town hall broadcasts in key states. the programs were produced and directed by 28 year-old nixon campaign consultant roger ailes. next, "the nixon answer in michigan," a september 30, 1968 live campaign broadcast from
detroit. what on to win the three-wave -- nixon went on to win the election defeating humphrey and george wallace. >> the panel members are -- stanley -- editor of the news from detroit. mrs. janet claver, a housewife and former schoolteacher from ann arbor, a graduate student a dermatologist from grosse pointe park. relations counsel from detroit. that is our panel. and here is your moderator, beth wilkinson. now, it is my pleasure to
introduce a that i have known, respected, and admired for many years. richard nixon. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. hey, john. thank you very much. much.you very hank all of our television audience. i think it is good that we know little bit about you. but wilkinson does the commentating on abc sports.
i am he is on my team. a winnerlike we are in city. i was taking the tigers and the world series. the lions doing so well. let's hope a little of that rubs off on me. and two other celebrities in the audience i would like to introduce before get to our panel -- we have the governor of michigan, governor george romney. [applause] and then we have two of, i think, the greatest campaigners in the junta, mrs. george romney and mrs. richard nixon sitting on either side. [applause] the other day when i listen celtic city, i mentioned that general eisenhower once said he was talking about politicians on the fact that they were so different.
the resulting one thing he thought most successful politicians have in common, and that was the ability to marry about themselves. governor romney and i did that, of course. and then my two daughters, t ricia and julie. [applause] just arrived here from a campaign appearance in buffalo. they have a little heckling, but they learn to handle that. and anyone in our family learns how to be heckled. now we want to go directly to the questions. programs youwhich
will repeal? mr. nixon: i was talking about ones that deal with poverty in cities. many of the poverty programs, particularly the job corps program. i'm referring to some of the approaches to public housing, and i am referring to programs in the area of welfare. when you're talking about repealing, i am not saying we just vote down and cut out all of those programs. what i am suggesting is in the field of training for jobs, for example, and we pour billions of dollars into the job corps. it was a very well-intentioned program. but what happened? only two of 10 got jobs to which attributed the job torch coming in at cost $11,000 to train each one of them. i think the better approach is to give a tax credit to private enterprise to train me unemployed.
i would substitute that for a substantial part of the job corps program. let's take housing. substituting mandated federal housing, housing in which we in and theyke the tenants become a colony apart, a people apart from the rest. a number of democrats as well as republicans, people like chuck percy, the late robert -- robert kennedy has adjusted -- and i have recommended in which we for privateredit enterprise to build private housing that will be owned by individuals, but also the opportunity for people to live in high-rises. with that ownership will come the pride and the dignity you are not going to get living in public housing. this is the approach i am speaking of.
the past four years we have seen billions of dollars poured into programs where of the doubt -- a federal approach be the solution to our problems. what we need now is to move away from that of roche. in list private enterprise and providingin her prize up andining to move become owners and not just workers. approach i would take. mr. monroe? >> mr. nixon, you spent a number of years as the vice president of the united states and many lost an election, lost an election in california, and --ay the republican body
what is the differs between the new nixon and nixon? the new-- mr. nixon: nixon is a little older. he does not have quite as much hair. but i think the best answer to is when anon individual whether it is in politics or education, when he ceases to grow, to change to meet changing conditions, then he no longerre will be living with the generation of which he is part. i am very proud of this. over the last eight years, i have had a chance to travel through the world, study the .roblems of the world i believe i have found some solutions.
they are new solutions for the new world. they are not the only solutions of 30 years ago, most of which mr. humphrey is advocating. that i can bring these solutions to these problems, solutions to problems in our cities, solutions in the problem affairs, respect for law, respect for order, having that with justice and progress. that is what is different as i understand it. [applause] >> mr. nixon, because of widespread demonstrations and disruption on campuses there seems to be quite a bit of pressure to crack down on student rebels.
what is your view of this dissent in society and on the college campus. teresa: il -- mr. nixon: i am for it. i look back on our history and i is a greatissent instrument of change. it is an instrument of progress. that is what distinguishes a free society, to tell a terry and society. , we have to hand recognize it can be an instrument of destruction if it does not follow a certain rule that we should all understand, provided we look at our american system.l i have traveled to a number of campuses and i have had a number that there should be peaceful dissent and not breaking the law and they say,
don't you believe in the american revolution? i certainly do. participated had no peaceful way to redress their grievances. our founding fathers had the genius to set up a system that provides a method for peaceful change. only once an hour country did that not work and then we had to resort to warfare to resolve our differences. but when you have a system that provides a peaceful method to change what we don't like, i do not believe there is any cause that justifies breaking the law or in gauging and violence. i think we should get that across to all americans. getink it's essential to that across, particularly in the college campuses because those who come from the colleges and universities will be the thought leaders in the future. they have to go back to their communities and make clear that in vigorousieve dissent, on the other hand, when we engage in violence, break the system destroy the very
we are attempting to build. when we look at our colleges, universities, and campuses today, the great majority of students support the proposition i have set forth. i noticed yesterday in the paper, the violent demonstration in seattle, washington conducted by the students, and that was an appalling situation. some of those demonstrators demonstrated against me, too. that is something different. for the vice president of the united states to be submitted to to shutd of attempt down the media, that is the difference. if anyone wants to raise a question, heckle in the great american or british tradition, that's one thing. but when he shouts and shelton tries to deny the majority the right to listen, then you ought to stop him and stop them is
affectively and fairly as you can, that's what i think. as actively and fairly as you can, that's what i think. [applause] mr. nixon, i was invited here because i'm a senior citizen. i'm not retired. but i have worked with retired people. would be surprised at the letters that did come here. i am not going to read all of these letters, but i would like to read one. mr. next -- it is addressed to you. last week, vice president humphrey announced that if he were elected president he would increase social security by 50% across the board. it is suggested that these increased benefits may be considered by you and you might be a larger increase for the
lower and needy bracket in a reasonable increase for the balance. the amounts to be determined, of course, by the economic position of both. what do you think, she asks? let me say what i think about social security and then this proposition and what we can do and not to do. i could say let's raise social security benefits 100%. then it would cost $30 billion. neither is possible at this point. what is possible is this. we have got to stop the rise in the cost of living 20 million over 65. there are 20 million over 65. most live on pensions, life insurance, or social security. they have seen that opposed to someone for years ago who had
$10,000 -- that is cut to $9,000 the increase in inflation we have had in this country. i think we ought to have a new we stopolicy in which the rise in the cost of living so that when an individual earns a dollar and puts it into social security or life insurance or pensions then he gets a dollar's worth when he retires five or 10 or 15 years from now and that would be, it seems to me, the most effect of thing we could do for those living on social security right now. stop the rise in the cost of living and stop the reduction of capital in their pension. second, we ought to provide as the republican platform thecates, and this is result of mine and others who -- an automatic increase in social security benefits whenever the cost of living goes up. we should do that. when the economy of this country
gets to a place where we can afford to do more without destroying the value of our dollars, then of course, we should increase social security benefits. let's understand one thing. this is a rich country and this country should be generous with the aid. it should be generous with everyone who cannot care for themselves. but generosity, when it goes to the point of destroying the value of our dollars, when it raises the prices of the things that we buy, raises our grocery clothing bill,r that's not real generosity. that is robbing the poor. where we should reestablish the value of our dollars across the country. [applause] >> mr. nexen, many of my medicales in the
profession are greatly concerned about medicare and what it is doing to the medical profession. they are concerned, especially on the potential harmful effect it may have on the quality of medical care to the individual patient. my question is, what specifically is your stand on medicare, and do you intend to curtail it or increase it? be specific onme a subject of broader interest to your colleagues and other may be the subjects of medicare or other assistance. first, i support the medicaid program. i did in the eisenhower administration, and i support the medicare program. disagree with vice president humphrey on a key issue. on extending this principle of health insurance to everybody -- compulsory health insurance to everybody. i do not want to have happen to care inity of medical
the united states but is happened in britain. i made a study the other day of what happened in britain. medical school graduates left great britain to practice somewhere else because the quality of care had come down cause of their compulsory medical care program. i wanted to be good medical care. that is why i want to keep the doctors free from government control as much as we can. proposed to the extension to compulsory health insurance on that basis. the older people, i think it is appropriate and the kind of program i support. about how to extend medical benefits in this country, we have to recognize that before we do any further extending we have to look at the other end of the funnel. there's a shortage of 50,000
doctors, some the 5000 nurses, 600,000 hospital employees, and the reason for that -- and this was another figure that was rather astonishing to me -- in the last 10 years, the number of needs has a tenfold increase. we need a massive program for hospitalors, nurses personnel so we can provide for those who are on medicare. i do not want people to simply feel they have the right to go to a doctor and have had medical care. let's give them good medical care. that's the kind of program i would have. [applause] mr. nixon, i'm sure you know
that lots of people are concerned be are moving to another era of the repression of ideas, another search for the internal enemy, and i wonder as president what steps you could or would take to spare us another time of accusations, irresponsible accusations, hysteria and fear of the joe mccarthy time? in the in -- mr. nixon: first instance, you can only judgment by his record. i would point out that during the years i served on the house un-american activities committee, i conducted a major investigation, the hiss case. rated as ae that was fair, objective investigation. in my view, it's the responsibility of the president
see that states to this great engine of dissent is not suppressed, suppressed by choking it off for by the blanket of consensus because that's the only way we are going to get the spark of creative activity that we want and as i pointed out a few days ago, i felt the white house is itself should welcome, should go out and try to get differing points of view from people in all walks we can get a better mix of ideas and superior ideas by having them compete with each other. as regard to the basic question, whether the individual is engaged in activities that are aiding an enemy of the united states in a very specific sense? by that, i do not mean the
individual believes in marxism or communism or so forth. the teacherme that wants to talk about marxism or communism. we need to know more about marxism or communism. line, you see where the individual in effect says i am not just going to teach about that but advocate for the interest of a foreign government to be laced above the united states. then you have to look at the foreign governments involved in military activities across -- against the united states. [applause] mr. nixon, we have a division of the world into two ideological spheres. as a president, will you try to
keep this so-called talents of ,ower or raise the iron curtain like recently we had in the case of took us about you? teresa: as president, -- mr. nixon: as president i would do everything i could to lift that iron curtain a little bit, to give some opportunity for the freedom of choice to exist. you notice, i used economic and diplomatic -- a use that deliberately. one cannot, at this time, with facing nuclear giants each other, we cannot save the united states will move in with its forces in czechoslovakia to prevent what the soviet union did there. on the other hand, certainly the united states, when an incident like that occurs or is attempting to prevent such an , in terms ofrring
its trade policy, it's diplomatic policy has got to with the right of people to choose their own way. that is the reason that i took the position i did. i am against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. topresident, i expect implement it. in chucket troops are was a bach yet, they approve -- check was about yet, -- cz echoslovakia, that they approve of what happened there. that is where we can indicate .hat we have concern i remember, incidentally, the most emotional experience of all
my travels abroad. forget after my travels with mr. khrushchev. in warsaw. 150,000 polish people came out. ony've -- they took flowers the car. they started. they cried out long live the united states. that was 10 years after poland lifted the iron curtain. while we musttes, not do something that will set off a nuclear doctrine tatian, we must also make it clear that our thoughts are with them and we are going to use our economic and diplomatic strength to support their freedom of choice. that's what i believe in. that's the kind of administration we will have. [applause]
>> mr. nixon, you propose the asa of an all volunteer army opposed to the draft. i believe this has been rejected by the defense department as too expensive. and with this not preempt the united states from active involvement in world affairs? me explainxon: let my concept of an all volunteer army. first the timing, and the me tight. the department of defense traditionally opposes any step that would tend to reduce what they think -- and this is their job -- reduce what they think is their capability to defend the united states. it is i look at the world in the future, the united states is not going to be again involved and a korean,ld call
conventional type war. if war comes in the future, i believe it will be a nuclear war and that will be the job of the next president, his major job, to avoid that happening. the kind of war we have with vietnam. look at vietnam. governor romney has pointed out very eloquently on occasion, when you look at vietnam today is not a conventional war. it's primarily a war of people. a traditional draft army is not the best kind of army to do this job in vietnam. what you need is a highly trained professional force and in a highly trained civilian builders to work in other parts of the country. untild not take any step
after the war in vietnam was over. once it was over, i would get enough people in the army by raising the pay to competitive rate with what they might get an industry. it would cost money. i agree. it cannot come until after vietnam is over. this will be part of the peace dividend. but we would get a better army, needs,fitted for today's i highly trained, professional, ready to move. at the same time on the civilian side i would have a civilian for athat would be ready warlike situation. i believe that this would provide a better defense than the one the united states currently has. when you look on the plus side onet, if you look at million or two young americans, the fact that they cannot plan
their lives because of the possibility of the draft hanging over them. possibilities, things to be said for universal military training. but i think the rest system for the united states -- it will cost money, but the money will be worth it, in my opinion. [applause] >> mr. nixon. i am going to ask you a hypothetical question. president ago, vice herbert humphrey was making a speech on our nations cities and aroundioned the question demonstrating on the streets. recognize that this
is all america now. he only mentioned deed of people's names -- ralph brown carmichael. is he your believe they are responsible for all the unrest in america tonight? mr. nixon: of course not. the ralph brown's and stokely carmichaels are the spearheads of deep resentments that go beyond their way out revolutionary attitude. when you look at the resentments in america, for example in the black community, when you look at the resentment on the campuses, you cannot --racterize them in terms of there are some communists and it perhaps were people like the ralph browns and stokely carmichaels, is much bigger, no question. >> what would you do to eliminate that?
mr. nixon: what you have to do is this. you see, people like the browns , thearmichaels destructive revolutionaries -- plans.ve no you ask them what they are for. they are not for anything. they are just against. that is the modern trend. they are just against. what you must do is withdraw from them their spear carriers on the way you withdraw from them their spear carriers is to give them another cause, something which is meaningful, something where we can be for something. when we talk about law and order -- which i am strongly for, because i cannot think you cannot progress without order and i do not think you can have freedom without order -- you must couple that with justice read you must couple that with justice and progress.
the hope that the individual can get out of that ghetto, only if he has that hope that he is going to be less susceptible to the revolutionary elements of the ralph browns and carmichaels. you talk about the revolutionaries, they are saying to these young people, to black americans, mexican-americans, look, you have nothing to lose. the system is against you. that is not true. this is a great country. the system is not against you. if that works better, these revolutionaries are not going to have anybody to lead. [applause] >> mr. nixon, in michigan, and i suspect elsewhere, public education seems to be in dire straits financially. what would you do to alleviate the situation? certainly you are
right that not only is this true michigan -- i found this and all of the panel shows i have been on -- california, at one point or another, this question comes up. i favor the approach we suggested in our platform of luck grants to the states for education and other particular activities for which the state has major responsibility. i also favor if and when we get ae revenues for that purpose federal tax sharing with the states so the states will have more funds with which to handle education, the problems of traffic, many other problems, which you know are involved. favored in, i have
still do favor the federal programs for aid to education. recall the aid to higher education, the two elementary education. i feel very strongly that when the federal government does provide a that we must be extremely careful to make sure that federal control of what is taught in our schools is avoided. i want those decisions to be made by local school boards and not some eurocrats in washington, d c -- bureaucrat in washington, d.c. [applause] there seems -- mr. nixon, there seems to be a growing communist influence. if you were to become president, legislation would
you introduce to curb this communistic spread in our country? mr. nixon: i have given a lot of thought to this. i'm not an expert in this field. i do not see any specific legislation that would be helpful to curb this activity that would not get us into of goingy in the field over the line and suppressing real dissent. it is a fine line with your actions.bout ideas or i do think there could be enforcement of a law on the books. i should point this out. there was a law on the books that makes it a crime to go across state lines for the purpose of fomenting a riot and i think that that law could be very effective in curtailing this type of activity.
and that law has not been used effectively as yet. warren court has struck him most of the federal and state laws concerning the control of congress. andou become president chief justice warren retires, would you select a man with similar views? [laughter] well, anyway -- [applause] mr. nixon: i could see that he was a very direct man. well i had my disagreements with the chief justice on some cases most 5-4atter of fact, decisions like miranda. but i am not going to join the group that says impeach earl or
and or that sort of thing. he is certainly one who has interpreted the law he thought -- the way he thought it should be interpreted. my general standard -- and this is going to surprise you. felix frankfurter stated at best. he was a liberal, as you may remember, and yet felix frankfurter in his last 10 years on the court was a strict constructionist. it was his view that the congress has the right of responsibility to write the laws and it was the court's response ability to interpret the laws and he did not feel the court could rule in the legislating fields. am not so concerned about whether a man is a liberal or conservative. i am more concerned about his attitude toward the constitution. i believe our courts -- i believe very definitely in our
division of power. is the people's responsibility. [applause] bit.is goes back a you are talking about education. you have said that you are in favor of using federal funds to ,trengthen local police forces and i wonder if under those circumstances then the federal government would have some responsibility to see that the soal forces recruit and hire that they have fair representation of black officers ? and i also wonder if federal funding would be used for intensive training, if it is necessary to carry on this era of implementation? which camemy paper
out here sunday -- and i am delighted to see it was carried in the papers and that you read it -- my idea was for a broad federal report -- approach, but you may recall i also said, we do not want a federal police force. i do not want the federal government setting up a police force because the problems differ in different cities and i believe a portion of that the portion of-- that responsibility that can be to the people, the better. my idea is setting up a national council on law enforcement in which you have the attorney general and other cabinet officers working on this problem just as the national security foreignoperates on security problems. as far as training people is concerned, what i am recommending here is a national academy for the training of officers.
now, that would be available to police officials, state and local police officials from all over the country. it would give them the very best training. towould, of course, be open all individuals without regard to race and creed and color, just as we would do with any other federal government activity, and i believe by raising the level of training through this national academy, it would have a remarkable not only thesing quality of those serving in police forces, but also eventually their pay. it's a question of pay, it's a question of training, it is a question of quality. when we come down to the precise
question, should the government go to the city of detroit and say they do not have enough officers, no. then you are getting into heavy-handed decision-making by bureaucrats in washington. what you need to do is have your with anacademy absolutely open admission for bute who are trained their, i do not want the federal government to try to parcel out in each city how it is going to be broken down. >> you mean that all the way around? this.t i believe is the very fact that we have this national academy would without exception have the effect of not only upgrading the people in our police forces, but representing all segments of the community. let's face it. that many cities have put a number of knee grow police officers on the force. ro police officers on the
force? i believe that training and indoctrination at the federal level will have an effect. [applause] >> mr. nixon, what is your opinion about the resignation of the ambassador, especially while the general assembly is in session? [laughter] mr. nixon: well, i suppose, i am tempted to make a political ,omment here, but, after all the ambassador and had a distinguished record at the u.n. , and has a distinguished record in the practice of the law, and now that he has decided to be a subordinate on a political campaign, i think i will leave him alone. [applause] your point is with
regard to the u.n.? >> that's right. mr. nixon: i thought i might get into that. but the moment i say what others have been saying, that this was a very difficult time to leave the vacancy of the yuan, it would put me right in the arena -- he told me that some people said some unkind things about me. i am not going to judge him. i will say after i win the election in november, i hope he has a good law practice in new york. [applause] let's go over here again. >> thank you, mr. nixon. i am of the opinion we need a debate in this country. i think that you and mr. humphrey should get at the vietnam -- mr. nixon: i think mr. humphrey
debating a great time himself. >> you are prejudiced, mr. nixon. if you do not want to debate with the third-party candidate, whose name shall not be mentioned, when you get your friends in the house of apresentatives to pass special law permitting you and mr. humphrey to debate? mr. nixon: have you ever looked at the membership on the committee? people say, why don't i get the republicans to do something about the debate? let's remember. the senate is to do one democratic. let's also remember the house is three to two democratic. and anytime that hubert humphrey, with his great influence, wants to debate, i would think you would be able to to pass it.crats i think that my power in terms of what i can get the republican members in the house to do is greatly overestimated.
it is senate republicans as well as democrats insisting on the three-man debate. that's the question. i should not have mentioned his getting 21% of the polls. they are insisting that they cannot go back to their constituents unless they provide him an equal chance. >> but if you got your friends and mr. humphrey got his friends, surely you would have enough friends to bring this thing off? mr. nixon: i don't think he has that many friends. [applause] >> to get back to international and, how mr. specifically do you intend to do this? mr. nixon: first of all, we start with reestablishing the
statesh of the united targeting position and its credibility. i will make a major statement on nato, and here again you will feelsovernor romney strongly about it, too. friendsto talk to our before we are going to be able to have meaningful talks with the soviets. i think it has been a mistake to talk around the europeans. i think we can do that. we start with a program perhaps a have a communication and program and i begin with that. second, we have to ensure the military position of the united states is adequate that we are credible and we can go inotiates, as kennedy said his inaugural, we must never fear to negotiate, but we should never it negotiate in fear.
when we have done that, what we will find is it appears the soviet is really not wanting to talk about anything, because after all, let's look at it. uniontnam, the soviet than it is hurting us more it is hurting them. why should they talk about vietnam. when they look at the mideast, they have russians, these are gone -- the tsar than it is hurting them. gone, they have naval influence in the mediterranean. why should they talk about cooling it in the mediterranean? as for castro, he is cutting the money, but he's causing us trouble. east, the soviet nuclearoked around the gun barrels. i believe the soviet leaders do
not want either/or. once we have reestablished our be a verythere should carefully planned series of meetings between the president of the united states and the leader of the soviet union and that series of meetings should deal with all of these problems. you cannot settle them all in one summit. have in mind that they are all on the plates. if the soviet union sees the danger of their continuing to support forces of aggression in if they see the danger of a confrontation, they may hold back some, but they will not see that danger unless they hear it directly from us, in my opinion. in other words, the soviet union interest in avoiding a world war is greater than their interest communism, as great
as that is. we have to make it very clear to them if they continue to probe orareas like the mideast western europe, that the possibilities of world war a very great. i don't mean that in a threatening way. only by sitting across the table from them can this come across and then i think we can have a meaningful dialogue. >> mrs. claver, i think was up first. earliercorrect in your answer and what you have said now that your delay in signing the nuclear proliferation treaty is to use this as a bargaining tool with the soviets and to show solidarity with czechoslovakia? my main purpose in delaying signing the nuclear is theiferation treaty
soviet union, having just violated not only the treaty, but the whole sense of treaties generally and the u.n. charter, which has so much, having done all that, for the united states to put its arms around the soviet union and say we are for the nonproliferation pact, i think, would the widely misunderstood, not just in took was a voc you, but also all of western europe. the point that we have to make to the soviets is we will agree where our interests are reciprocal, but we are not going to ignore a breach of a treaty and then sign one with them. they have to indicate that they believe in treaties, that they
will, if they have one with us, are going to carry it out, and it. is my attitude toward i think they will understand that. former prime minister eaton put it very well when he said he learned in the 1930's that when such gross breaches of international agreements and simply go on as if they had not happened that you pay a very great price for it. [applause] mr. nixon, today, much attention, encouragement, and support are given to the indigent, the defectives, and the rehabilitation of the criminals. but middle-class people who represent hard-working, responsible, law-abiding covered productive people appear to be forgotten and they are burying -- they are burying the heaviest burdens and supporting the sector. now, if you became president, what attention, encouragement, and support would you give this
middle-class? after all, they are being suppressed by inflation and high taxes. me sayon: first, let that there are a lot of forgotten people in the united , and i would suggest those who are not making the law, those who do pay taxes, who support their churches and their schools, who believe in this country, and that includes black americans, white americans, the great majority of americans, are entitled to an accounting, and accounting as to why we cannot have the first civil right of all americans, to be protected from violence, why it is not possible that if we do work and save money, that when we retire five or 10 or 15 years later, that that money we saved is going to be worth what it cost us to earn it rather than changethe government
that. i think the president must represent all the people. think we have to -- i will make one thing very clear. dividingbelieve in americans against the breast. it's more in the interest of the whole country. if we do that we will have a much better government. mr. monroe, we will give you last question. >> if you were elected president of the united states, what do you intend senator -- to practice? [laughter] mr. nixon: when you mentioned i firstthurmond,
suggested both of our parties, the republican party and the democrat party, the northern and the southern representatives -- i just finished a picture the other day with hubert humphrey with his arm around mr. maddox in georgia, and i suppose that mr. maddox's views on civil rights are as different from mr. humphrey's as mr. thurmond's are for mine. one thing may i make very clear. as senator thurmond pointed out, he completely disagrees on my views on civil rights. i have always supported civil rights. i will continue to in the future. for vice president was ronald reagan. his second choice was senator tower. that in both of our
major parties, there should be room for individuals who disagree. i am glad that i have been able that we willther have disagreement and we will make -- we have governor rockefeller, governor romney, great for aggressive leaders in the party, -- great progressive leaders in the party, we also have senator thurmond. but one man has to make that decision. ,hen it comes to basic issues the president of the united states will make them. i want input from the whole country. black versus white, liberal versus conservative. you can get a better feeling of representation in this country and where we want to go. [applause] >> i would like to thank all of
you and the panelists. mr. nixon, we have time for one short question. coach, i would go in and i would ask about the complacency factor. what you think about that? thingxon: let me make one very clear. i have watched your teams. i've seen them play in the orange bowl. you're a great recorder team. not the first half. when it got to be third-quarter, fourth quarter, it didn't matter. ifc number comes them many times. now we are just entering the third quarter of the campaign. we will roll it up now. as far as complaints as he is if you liked duly in 1948, and somebody said humphrey is going to come back like truman did. well, i just don't believe it. matter of fact, a lot of things are different. it's one thing to give them hell. it's another to give them
humphrey. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] during the cold war, the u.s. information agency provided a number of things promoting american democracy around the world. oard,"t, "autumn & cardb narrated by actor lee marvin. this uses the color governor's race between ronald reagan and pat brown to show how every two years autumn is the season of campaigns and elections in the united states. -- uses the california governor's race between ronald reagan and pat brown. october begins the color and the competition. leaves compete with leaves as men compete with men. ♪