Debate 1988, President, 1st Des Moines Register Presidential Debate; Des Moines Register Presidential Debates; Michael Dukakis, D., and George Bush Sr., R.

To be the president it gets Conventional Forces in balance. I want to be the one to banish the chemical and biological weapons from the face of the earth. But you have to have a little bit of experience to know where to start. And I think I've had that Eleanor. Well first let me say with respect to the freezer back in the spring of 1992 Mr. Bush was a lot more sympathetic to the freeze and he seems to be today. As a matter of fact he said it was not and should not be a subject of partisan demagoguery because it was too important to the United States or for the world. I didn't hear John exactly what where he was going to cut and what he was going to do. But I know this. We have serious financial problems in this country we've piled up over a trillion dollars in debt and the next prez the United States is going to have to make some choices. Mr. Bush wants to spend billions in Star Wars. He apparently wants to spend billions on the AMEX on a railroad car as a weapon system we don't need and can't afford. I thought the administration was opposed to the mission. I thought the administration was at the negotiating table in Geneva suggesting that we ban mobile missile systems entirely.

But those are the choices the next pres the United States is going to have to make. I'm for the stealth of the five I for going ahead with the advanced cruise missiles but I don't think we need these other systems I don't think we need them to remain strong. We've got to move ahead with the arms negotiation process with a comprehensive test ban treaty and with negotiations leading to conventional force reduction in Europe with cuts on the Soviet side and Senator Benson and I will pursue that policy and grow a question for the vice president. Well Mr. Vice President you said you met with Secretary-General Gorbachev you have met with Mr. Shevardnadze. But for the last 40 years Americans have been taught to regard the Soviet Union as the enemy. Yet President Reagan assigned to arms control treaties and he's promised to share Star Wars technology with the very country he once called the Evil Empire. So perhaps you could tell us this evening. Should we be doing a lot to help the economics and social development of a country that we have so long regarded as an adversary. What I

think we ought to do is take a look at Perestroika and and glasnost. Welcome them but keep our eyes open. Be cautious because the Soviet change is not fully established yet. Yes I think it's fine to do business with them but I don't want to see us export ing are highly sensitive national security or security oriented technology to the Soviet Union. I don't want to see us making unilateral cuts in our strategic systems while we are negotiating with them. And so I'm encouraged by what I see when I talk to Mr. Gore what I hear when I talk to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze But can they pull it off. And when they have a they have a deals that are good for us as China started to do the changes in China since Barb and I live there is absolutely amazing in terms of incentive and partnerships and things of this nature. And now the Soviet Union seems to be walking down that same path. We should encourage that.

We ought to say this is good. But where I differ with my opponent is I am not going to make unilateral cuts in our strategic defense systems or support some freeze when they have superiority. I'm not going to do that because I think the jury is still out on the Soviet experiment. And the interesting place one of the things that fascinates me about this perestroika and glasnost is what's going to happen in Eastern Eastern Europe. You see the turmoil in Poland today and I think we have an enormous opportunity for trade I don't want to go back to the carter grain embargo on the Soviets where once again reliable suppliers and I would never use food as a political tool like our predecessors did. But this is an exciting time. But all I'm suggesting is let's not be naive in dealing with the Soviets and make a lot of unilateral cuts hoping against hope that they will they will match our bad look at the IMF treaty.

And if we haven't learned from the negotiating history on that we'll ever learn the phrase people were wrong. The Reagan Bush administration was right. Governor because it was a very different George Bush he was talking much more sympathetically about the freeze in the spring of 1992 than he is today and you were right then George when he said that it was no time for partisan demagoguery Nobody is suggesting that we unilaterally disarm somehow reduce our strength Of course not what we're talking about is a combination of a strong and effective and credible nuclear deterrent a strong well-equipped well-trained well maintained conventional forces. And at the same time a willingness to move forward steadily thoughtfully cautiously we have serious differences with the Soviet Union we have very fundamental differences about human rights democracy and our basic system our basic view of human beings and of what life is all about. But there are opportunities there now Senator Benson and I have a plan for the 1990s and beyond. Mr. Bush Mr. Quayle did not. And we want to pursue that plan in a way which will bring down the level of nuclear armament will build a more stable a

more peaceful world and we can do so while making choices here at home let's not forget that our national security and our economic security go hand in hand we cannot be strong militarily when we're teeter tottering on top of a mountain of debt which has been created in the past eight years. That's why we need a Democratic administration in Washington in 100 days. Yes Governor Dukakis speaking of seeming changes of position you have gone from calling the Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars a fantasy and a fraud to saying recently you would continue SDI research and might even deploy the system if Congress supported such move. Why the change of heart. There's been no change of heart I've said from the beginning that we ought to continue research into the strategic system and about the level it was at in 1983 that's about a billion dollars a year. But I don't know of any reputable scientists who believe that this system at least as originally conceived could possibly work this notion of

some kind of a Astrodome over ourselves that could protect us and to be attacked it makes real sense and as a matter of fact the system that the administration is not talking about is very different from the one that was originally proposed in 1983. So I'm for continued research but I also want strong conventional forces not the other day Mr. Bush said well if we continued with Star Wars Star Wars would have to cut someplace else and told us where we know where they're cut we know where you're cutting right now you're cutting into the fiber and muscle of our conventional forces you're cutting back on maintenance in equipment to an Air Force general not too long ago in Europe and so the pretty soon we do have airplanes without engines. Tank commanders we can't drive the tanks more than three quarters of a mile because they don't have enough fuel. Coast Guard cutters are tied up at the dock this summer not patrolling is supposed to be our first line of defense against drugs in the war against drugs because they don't have enough fuel. You have to make choices. We're not making those choices. And to spend billions and billions of dollars as Mr. Bush apparently wants to although

he himself has been all over the lot on this issue lately on Star Wars in my judgment makes no sense at all. We need a strong credible effective nuclear deterrent we have 13000 strategic nuclear warheads right now on land on sea and in the air enough to blow up the Soviet Union 40 times over they have about 12000. So we've got to move forward with those negotiations get the level of Tejas weapons down. But to continue to commit billions to this system makes no sense at all and I think Mr. Bush has been reconsidering his position over the course of the past few weeks less at least that's what I read maybe he'll tell us where he stands on it tonight. As vice president I'm now reconsidering my position two questions How do you deter. Nuclear attack without modernizing our nuclear forces when the Soviets are modernizing and how come you spend it willing to spend a dime on something that you consider a fantasy and a fraud. Those are two but rhetorical questions. He is a man on conventional forces that wants to eliminate two carrier battle groups. The armed forces the conventional forces

of the United States have never been more ready. Every single one of the Joint Chiefs will testify to the fact that readiness is an historic high. And secondly in terms of the cutting of the Coast Guard It was the Congress the Democratic controlled Congress so please help us with that. Who cut seventy million dollars from the Coast Guard out of the interdiction effort on narcotics. He's got to get this thing more clear. Why do you spend a billion dollars on something you think is a fantasy and a fraud. I will fully research it go forward as fast as we can. We've set up the levels of funding and when it is deployable I will deploy it. That's my position on energy and has never wavered a bit. Peter Jennings a question for Governor Dukakis or governor and vice President Bush you both talk tonight about hard choices let me try to give you one somewhere in the Middle East tonight nine Americans are being held hostage. If you are commander in chief and Americans are held hostage. What will be more important to you their individual

fate their individual fate or the commitment of the United States government must never negotiate with terrorists. And if any Americans are held hostage and you become president to what lengths would you go to rescue them. Peter it's one of the most agonizing decisions a president has to make. These are American citizens. We care deeply about them. Their families care deeply about them and want them back and understandably so. And we want to do everything we can to bring them back. But if there's one thing we also understand it is that you can not make concessions to terrorists ever. Ever. Because if you do it's an open invitation to other terrorists to take hostages in the blackmail. And that's the tragedy of the Iran-Contra scandal. As a matter of fact Mr Bush was the chairman of a task force an international terrorist which issued a report shortly before that decision was made and said and rightly so that we never ever can make concessions to terrorists and hostage taking. And yet after sitting

through meeting after meeting he endorsed that decision indorsed the sale of arms to the ayatollah in exchange for hostages. One of the most tragic one of the most mistaken foreign policy decisions we've ever made in this country and I dare say encouraged others to take hostages as we now know. So there can be no concessions under any circumstances. Because if we do it's an open open invitation to others to do the same. We've got to be tough on international terrorism. We've got to treat it as international crime. We But oh attack it at all points we've got to use undercover operations. We have to be prepared to use military force against terrorist base camps. We have to work closely with our allies to make sure that they're working with us and we with them. And we can give no quarter when it comes to breaking the back of international terrorism. Yes we should make every effort to try to help those hostages come home but it can never be because we make concessions that was a tragic mistake that we made a mistake that Mr. Bush made and others might and should never ever be made again.

As Vice President I wrote the anti-terrorist report for this government. It is the best anti-terrorist report written. Yes we shouldn't trade arms for hostages but we have made vast improvements in our anti-terrorism. Now it's fine to say that sometimes you have to hit base camps but when the president saw this state sponsored fingerprints of Moammar Gadhafi on the loss of American lives he hit Libya and my opponent was unwilling to support that action. And since that action that's not terrorists it's not terrorist action against the United States citizens have gone down. And I have long ago said I supported the president on this other matter. And I've said mistakes were made. Clearly nobody's going to think the president started out thinking he was going to trade arms for hostages that is a very serious charge against the president matters been thoroughly looked into. But the point is sometimes the end to the action has to be taken by the federal

government. And when we took action it had a favorable response. A question for the vice president Peter. It seems that perhaps a good subject. Mr. Vice President I wish to make the point that you've campaigned vigorously as part of a leadership team. But so far you won't tell the American people in considerable measure what advice you gave the president on issues including the sale of arms to Iran and what should have been done about the hostages. To the best of my knowledge there's no constitutional requirement which prevent you from doing so. Jimmy Carter urged his vice president Walter Mondale to tell the American people would you now ask President Reagan for permission to tell the American people what advice you did give him and if you don't how do we judge your judgment in the Oval Office in the last eight years. You're judged by the whole record. You're judged by the entire record are we closer to pace. Are we doing better in anti-terrorism. Should we have listen to my opponent who wanted to send the U.N. into the

Persian Gulf or in spite of the mistakes of the past. Are we doing better there. How is our credibility with the GCC countries on the western side of the Gulf. Is Iran talking to Iraq about peace you judge on the record. Are the Soviets coming out of Afghanistan. How does it look kind of program he called phony or some one of these marvelous Boston adjectives up there and about Angola. Now we have a chance now several Bostonians don't like it but the rest of the country will understand. Now we have a live. Ah now we have a chance. Now we have a chance. And so I think that I'd leave it right there and say that you had Judge on the whole record and let me say this. All he can talk about he goes around ranting about Noriega now I've told you what the intelligence briefing he received said about that. He can talk about Iran-Contra and also make a deal with you. I will take all the blame for those two incidences if you give me half the credit for all

the good things that have happened in world peace since Ronald Reagan and I took over from the Carter administration. Thank ya I still have it. I still have a couple of minutes left and there is a different principle here on are up in arms about solely on yellow Here wait a minute. Ah come on talking. I'm wrong go ahead. My apologies. Logjam. You said Nobody's perfect. Ah I said I wasn't perfect but I think you were. Where was my apology. Twenty fifth of December most of it was. Ha. Ha. Ha. I found a. Dollar. You can have another ten seconds he wants to. Now go. Yes uncle hit Iran. All right Governor you have a minute to respond.

Well a matter of judgment is very important and I think it's important to understand what happened here. A report on international terrorism chaired by the vice president was released and made some very specific record recommendations about how to deal with terrorism. They were ignored the vice president nor as mistakes were made. Very serious mistakes in judgement. He says well let's concede that the administration has been doing business with Noriega has made him a part of our foreign policy and has been funneling aid to the Contras the convicted drug dealers. I think those are very very serious questions of judgment which those of you who are watching us here tonight have a right to judge and review. We're not going to make those kinds of mistakes you cannot make concessions to terrorists. If you do you invite the taking of more hostages that's a basic principle that is ignored in that case. And it was a very very serious mistake in judgment.

It was a question from John Nash it goes to the Vice President Mr. Vice president Democrats and even some Republicans are still expressing reservations about the qualifications and credentials of Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana your chosen running mate to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. What do you see in him that others do not. I. I say I'm a young man it was elected to the Senate twice to the House of Representatives twice. I see a man who is young and I'm putting my confidence in a whole generation of people that are still in their 30s and in their 40s. I see a man that took the leadership in the job training partnership back and that retrains people in this highly competitive changing society where and so if a person loses his job he is retrain for a benefit for a work that will be productive and he won't have to go on one of these many programs that the liberals are talking about. I see

a young man who is a knowledgeable in defense and our three people on our ticket. Better knowledge on the whole and the race knowledgeable in defense and Dan Quayle is one of them. And I am one of them and I believe that he will be outstanding and he took a tremendous pounding and everybody now knows that he took a very unfair pounding. And I'd like each person to say did I jump to conclusions running down rumors that were so outrageous and so brutal. And he kept his head up and he will do very very well and he has my full confidence and he'll have the confidence of the people that are in their 30s and 40s and more so judge the man on his record not on a lot of rumors and innuendo and trying to fool around with his name. My opponent says J. Dan fourth quailed you know who Jay Danforth was. He was a man that gave his life and world war two so ridiculing a person's name is a little beneath this process

and he'll do very well when we get into this. Well when it comes to ridicule George you want to go medal I think we can agree on that. But did I. Did I sense a desire that maybe Lloyd Benson ought to be your running mate. He said the three people on your ticket. Now I think the debate ought to be between oh you know. I think the American people have a right to judge us on this question on how we picked our running mate. A person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. I picked Lloyd Benson a distinguished strong majority leader in the Senate somebody whose qualifications nobody has questioned the Bush picked Dan Quayle. I doubt very much Dan Quayle was the best qualified person for that job. As a matter of fact I think for most people the notion of President Quayle is very very troubling notion tonight.

I John will now ask a question of the governor it will be the last question and then the vice president will have a rebuttal. John. Well Governor you did select Lloyd Bentsen of Texas indeed and you have a lot of disagreement with him on fundamental issues including the Reagan tax cuts aid to the rebels in Nicaragua the death penalty gun control. Who's right. Ah. Well John I'm a man who's been a chief executive for 10 years I've picked a lot of people I've picked cabinets I've named judges. I know that the people you pick make an enormous difference in your ability to govern. I set high standards and I try to meet them and I insist the people who work for me meet them and if they don't they don't stick around very long. But I didn't pick Lloyd Benson because he was a cloying clone of Mike Dukakis. I picked him because he was somebody who would be a strong vice president somebody who would be an active vice president somebody who would come to me if somebody came up with a crazy idea that we ought to trade arms the ayatollah for hostages and say Mr. President that's wrong. We shouldn't do that.

That's the kind of Vice President I want he himself has said and rightly so that he'll be a strong vice president when the president makes a decision that will be his decision. I'm very very proud of that choice and I didn't pick him because he agreed with me on everything you know Sam Rayburn once said that if two people agree on everything then only one person is doing the thinking. The fact is that I've picked somebody who not only will be a great vice president. But if God forbid something happens the president could step into that office and do so with distinction and with strength and with leadership. I doubt very much I doubt very much that Mr. Bush's selection for the vice presidency of the United States meets that test by the president. We obviously have a difference. I believe it does meet the test we'll have an opportunity to see the two of them in action a friendly warm wonderful friendly fashion like like this I'd hope that this. I don't this had been a little friendly

or an evening I wanted to hitchhike a ride home in his tank with him but. I think now. We got the lines to two carefully drawn here. But you talk about judgment. I mean what kind of judgment. I mean jumping all over the president on his decision on one area of foreign policy what kind of judgment sense is as your chief education advisor now in jail in Massachusetts. I mean I don't think this is a fair argument but nevertheless I support my nominee for vice president and he'll do an outstanding job. Gentlemen I was given some bad word a moment ago. There is time for one more question. Get in my ear and Grover will ask Ann. He was president to to the governor's star I'm so sorry Governor Dukakis as many U.S. farmers face or undergo foreclosure. The United States is considering the possibility of forgiving a certain percentage of debt owed by Latin American and third

world countries. Do you favor giving these countries a break in their loans. And if so how do you explain that to the American farmers who are losing their land and livelihood. Well I think we have to go to work on the problem of third world debt and we've got to assist those third world countries in dealing with this massive debt which they currently that which they have incurred and which is burdening them and which we don't do something about it and assist them along with other nations around the world will destroy their economy destroy their future and at the same time will destroy markets that are important to our farmers. But I also believe that we need an agricultural policy which doesn't cost us the 15 to 20 to 25 billion dollars a year that it's been costing us over the course of the past three or four years under this administration. I think it's going to require good solid credit policies and thanks to the Congress we now have an agricultural credit bill which is helping and improving the situation with at least some of our farmers I think it's going to require a combination of both. Supply Management and reasonable price supports to make sure that our farmers get a decent price.

And I think it also is going to require an administration that understands that that there that there are tremendous opportunities out there for the development of new uses for agricultural products new uses which can help us to clean up our environment same time biodegradable plastic plastic gasohol which the vice president has been involved in road the ice is made from corn products I mean there are enormous opportunities out there to expand markets and to build a strong future for our farmers but I don't think there's anything it's mutually exclusive or contradictory about building a strong farm economy in this country and assisting our family farms and providing a good strong future for rural communities and for rural America. And at the same time working on Third World debt as a matter of fact. Mexico itself is one of our biggest agricultural customers so in the sense that we can work to help Mexico rebuild and expand and deal with its very serious economic problems we help our farmers sametime wristwatch grows.

I oppose supply management and production controls. I support the farm bill the 85 farm bill and its spending is moving in the right direction. I want to expand our markets abroad and as wide call for that first economic summit to be on agriculture. I will not go back to the way the Democrats did it and use food as a political weapon and strolled grain embargo on the farmers in this country. I want to see rural redevelopment. And I have been out front in favor of alternate sources of energy and one of them is gasohol and that comes from using your corn and I think we can do better in terms of bio degradable As for a lot of products. So I'm optimistic about the agricultural economy in terms of the Third World. I support the Baker plan. I want to see market economies spring up all around the world and to the degree they do we are succeeding. And I don't want to see the banks let off the hook. I would oppose that. But I think we're on the right track in agriculture and I am very very encouraged but let's not go back to that what they call Supply Management and

production control that will simply Price us out of the international market let's try to expand our markets abroad. Our dad really is the end. Let's go to closing statements. There will be they will be two minutes each and duration by agreement. President Bush goes first Governor Dukakis second. Mr. Vice President I talked in New Orleans about a gentler and kinder nation. And I have made specific proposals on education and the environment on ethics on energy and on how we do better in battling crime in our country. But there are two main focal points of this election opportunity and peace. I want to keep this expansion going. Yes we want change but we are the change. I am the change. I don't want to go back to Malays and misery index. And so opportunity keep America at work the best poverty program is a job with dignity in the private sector.

And in terms of pace we are on the right track. We've achieved an arms control agreement that our critics thought was never possible and I want to build on it. I want to see us finalized that START agreement and I want to be the one to finally lead the world to banishing chemical and biological weapons. I want to see asymmetrical reductions in conventional forces. And then it gets down to a question of values we've had a chance to spell out our differences on the Pledge of Allegiance here tonight and on tough sentencing of drug kingpins and this kind of thing I do favor the death penalty. We've got a wide array of differences on those. But in the final analysis in the final analysis. Person goes into that voting booth they're going to say who has the values I believe and who has the experience that we trust who has the integrity and the stability to get the job done. My fellow Americans I am that man and I ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Much too. This has been an extraordinary 18 months for Katie and me and for our family. We've had an opportunity to campaign all over this country to meet with so many of you in communities states and regions to get to know you. I'm more optimistic today than I was when I began about this nation providing we have the kind of leadership in Washington and work with you that can build partnerships that can build jobs in every part of this country not certain parts of this country. You know my friends my parents came to this country is as immigrants like millions and millions of Americans before them and since seeking opportunity seeking the American dream they made sure their sons understood that this was the greatest country in the world that. Those of us especially with the sons and daughters of immigrants had a special responsibility to give something back to the country that had opened up its arms to our parents and given so much to them.

I believe in the American dream I'm a product of it. I want to help that dream come true for every single citizen in this land with a good job a good wages with good schools in every part of this country in every community in this country with decent affordable housing that our people can buy and own and live in so that we end the shame of homelessness in America with decent and affordable health care for all working families. Yes it's a tough problem is just what it says but it's not an unsolvable problem it's one that we will solve and must saw with a clean and wholesome environment and with a strong America that's strong militarily and economically as we must be an America that provides strong international leadership because we're true to our values. We have an opportunity working together to build that future to build a better America to build a best America is the best America doesn't hide we compete for the best America doesn't waste we invest the best America doesn't leave some of its citizens behind we live. We bring everybody along.

Now the best America is not behind. The best America is yet to come. Thank you very much. Thank thank you you. Thank you thank you. Ooh. Not. Exactly following the date on stay there at the chapel at. Forest University. In Winston-Salem North Carolina joining me here are our regular political analysts for The

News Hour David Gergen editor at large of U.S. News and World Report and Mark Shields syndicated political columnist with The Washington Post. Gentleman was there a winner tonight Mark. Yes I think that Michael Dukakis tonight put himself right back squarely in the ballgame. It is a brand new campaign as of 9:30 Eastern Time. DAVID I think we saw tonight why George Bush was not anxious to debate. He made a lot of good points but there's it's just clear Michael Cox is a very good debater he's very effective on stage you get a wonderful closing statement points he needed to make tonight I agree with Mark totally. He's back in the game. Was it so much that Bush made mistakes Mark or was it that Dukakis bested him on some summits that well I think I think it's a combination of the two. The fact is that the. The question is who controls the debate. Dukakis did control the debate that Bush was responding to him that and vice versa. Who was on the defensive. Mr. Bush was on the defense of the good part of the evening. We didn't get to defense and foreign policy which is his strong suit. It will last through the debate and even then Michael Dukakis

was not was not in the position where one expecting to be. In a defensive crouch. I thought the vice president the language of the vice president's choice of language was not good it was not helpful. He would not get we talked inside the beltway sort of Washington jargon I wrote down WIC program a Kenny Bell buy into Medicaid a g f you that I mean these are these are terms that dead people on Capitol Hill who work there and work with these programs understand and is sort of a Washington shorthand that was just you know States I think or whatever I thought I think the vice president did do a very effective job mobilizing the normal with public and I think he spoke very effectively to conservatives. I think he helped the pain to the left and I thought I was surprised. Michael Dukakis left a lot of those charges unanswered. The ACLU ACLU charging what it stands for that out there. And but I do think that Governor Dukakis spoke effectively to the middle class and the lower classes I thought he painted the vice

president. Put him over the left over the lot I thought. Because this time the best person over is the defender of the well-to-do the business interests of the rich and the capital gains tax and so forth and I thought the Congress pretty effective at fighting back for the little old. That's where I think you scored points was that what it needed to be needed. I've said going in the need to bring the conversation and of this campaign back to the dinner table and I think he did and he gave it's absolutely right as his discussion is emphasis upon that health care plan. People being able to afford to buy a home educate their children of the concern that people have about their folks and catastrophic illness and the cost attendant upon it and I think in that sense he still is not somebody who is comfortable using anecdotes. He did talk about the 11 year old boy in Texas and the fact that he couldn't play sports which is in Texas as is the birthright of everybody because of the fact that his his parents couldn't get medical care from a medical insurance so I think in that sense Dukakis. Raised the issues and did bring that mean that

the conversation this campaign back to where he wanted to be I was surprised frankly that the. Got the best of the one liners. I think you have to concede that up front I think he has a very good look a lot about it and your answer is clear. I mean I was not only aware that it really scored a point. I thought a lot about you know if you're good. I'll take all the blame for the mistakes you give me half the credit for the process and far but what surprised me a little bit about his performance was he he seemed a bit more rattled than I expected a bit tighter and his thoughts were more disjointed than I expected. There's a Governor Dukakis poised. He had his thoughts together and I thought in that sense he was very effective. It just one missed opportunity at a cactus people had. Lloyd Benson should have been there. Lloyd Benson should have been the first person with Kitty Dukakis up on the stage because tonight I mean if especially in a foreign policy defense area it Dukakis immediately switched Dukakis Benson and Bush Playland put into what Mr Mr Bush under the fence. What if your questions are this so as we still don't know why Bush made an appeal to conservative values traditional

values a lot of the issues I think we were judged by a lot of Americans going to him because of that they were going to come to Bush like you know if I love people saying Bush won the debate on abortion and because of the values that he spoke about positions he took although I do think that as a as a debater. Also joining us tonight four top policy experts are here to discuss the issues raised in the debate on the domestic side. Martin Anderson he was chief economic and domestic policy adviser during the first Reagan term. He's now a senior fellow of the Institution at Stanford University. He joins us from the studios of the Stanford instructional television network. Stuart Eizenstat was former President Jimmy Carter's top domestic policy adviser. He now practices law here in Washington for foreign issues we have William Highland. He's the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine and formerly was deputy assistant to President Ford for national security and editor of Foreign Policy magazine formerly assistant secretary of state for international organization during the Carter administration. Bill Mazen Bill Hyland let

me come to you first didn't Dukakis do what he needed to do in terms of fending off the criticism that he is weak on defense that he is inexperienced in foreign affairs. The most important exchange on foreign policy actually took place during the discussion on domestic policy. The Governor Dukakis said. I resent that. With regard to the Pledge of Allegiance charge the reason I think that's important is the impression it was beginning to develop to Bush could simply push the carcass around. And I think it was very important for the for the caucus in a controlled way to make it clear that that he resented that he was going to stand up to the vice president and with that kind of man could belong in the White House. I thought that was the most important exchange in the in the debate on foreign policy. Well I think there were five issues that I wrote down as they arose and I think on at least four of them perhaps all five. Bush clearly scored heavily against a caucus I thought the governor was weak in his answers weak on substance.

BUSH I thought was very clear as to what he wanted what he charged to caucus with the charge and was avoiding the nuclear freeze. He charged him with wanting to spend a billion dollars for research for Star Wars. But being against the program he also charged him with not knowing what he was talking about on a number of weapons and defense. So I'm rather surprised to hear Gergen and she'll say that Dukakis won the debate I thought Dukakis lost the debate. I thought he was wooden throughout. His answers were pretty much the answers we've heard for about six months. And I thought Bush was a much more relaxed I think the Bush turned the whole debate around. When he said I'll take all of the blame for Iran Contra. If I can have half of the credit for what Reagan has achieved in foreign policy and of course he got a great hand from the audience what you said there were five issues of war and you said they were for you thought Bush had scored on what what with the other she said the nuclear freeze the Star Wars our wars Noriega I thought that Noriega was an issue mentioned early

on and I thought Bush did well to say something administrations have done business with the leaders of Panama including Noriega and that it was a little unfair to constantly hear this charge that the Bush Reagan administration was dealing with drug dealers. So I thought he put that away fairly well too. I also thought Bush answered the question about Third World debt referring to the Baker plan which is a plan for the banks to deal with the problem with Third World debt. And I don't think the caucus knew what he was answering he was talking about things that had very little to do with the Third World that he was talking about agriculture. I disagree with totally I mean I think the vice president showed he didn't know what he was talking about because the Baker plan is as dead as a dodo and even Baker has acknowledged. This is a third world third world debt issue. The Baker plan failed. It was the US banks were unwilling to pony up the money that the Baker plan assumed they would

pony up. We're now looking at what else can be done I would agree that neither candidate proposed an answer to that. They both admitted it was a problem. Bush claimed the Baker plan was an answer but it isn't an answer. What about the other points that Bill Holland mentioned Noriega the. Star Wars. Nuclear Well that's when I go down this list I mean Bush accused Dukakis of being against an all weapon system including the modernization of the nuclear deterrent. In fact I thought Dukakis had an answer for that. I don't think he was as forceful as he could have been I think he should've come back right away and said I'm for the stealth I'm for the D5 I'm for the advanced cruise missile. These are all weapons that are going to modernize our nuclear deterrence. Mr. Vice President you are wrong in what you say about me. He did come to that but it was after an extended discussion so I don't I don't think he made the point as forcefully as he could but I don't agree with Bill that Bush blew him out of the water on this he had an answer to the question. Bill you got to come back.

Jesse did have an answer to the question and Bill Major's quite right that he it came to his mind quite late in the course of that exchange. But I thought there was a more fundamental division running throughout the debate including on foreign policy and that was one of philosophy I think Bush was saying that basically governor the caucus is a liberal and he does have a liberal foreign policy. He doesn't have a conservative foreign policy. Bush was trying to spell out and I thought he was fairly effective in spelling out a conservative domestic and foreign policy. And I thought one of the points was that when Peter Jennings asked Where are you going to get the money for this caucus in effect had no real answer or the one he's been giving on the campaign and that I think that is going to be an important issue and it's an important issue in the remainder of this campaign. Where does the money come from to support both the defense programs that the two candidates are for and all of the domestic priorities that they seem to be emphasizing and I do think at that point you have

a real split in philosophy as to whether the federal government should do it all or whether a state government should. Or private enterprise. Well let's turn to some of those domestic question Stu Eisenstadt What about that how do you think the Packers handled himself and specifically on the point that you just raised about the money where's it going to come from. Judy. DUKAKIS really had to do three things in this debate on domestic policy and I think he did all three. The first is he had to rebut the charges that have been made against him on the pledge and the other patriotic themes he had to reassure people that he was the same Michael Dukakis that people had seen at the convention in July and not the one that's been painted and I think he did that by that very strong comeback on patriotism or his parents on his love for the country and his belief in the country the second thing he had to do is he had to demonstrate that he had presidential leadership qualities. And I think he did that as well. He did that back in tenderly talking about his willingness to make tough choices the tradeoffs between domestic and foreign policy spending. And I think by continuing to

talk about President denture leadership and those choices he came across very strongly on it in the third and perhaps most important thing he had to do domestically. Yes to demonstrate a convincing reason for change after all he's the challenger. Why should we change. Why not simply keep the status quo and that yes he did in Vero he continually came back time and time again to the unmet domestic economic needs of the middle class. Affordable housing affordable health care job training better education. And by hammering at those economic issues he rebutted Bush's attempt to appeal to the middle class by the buzz words by the crime and the furlough and the pledge by continuing to come back to those lunchpail issues. I think he very convincingly made the case that it is time for a change not the past eight years have been a disaster. But it's time to move to a new agenda and meet some of these unmet domestic needs that have gone on attended for eight years. Martin Anderson do you see that the same way.

Not quite I think when you look at the polls tomorrow morning you're going to see that George Bush won by a substantial margin. He was strong he was confident he was humorous. He had a good time out there. I think of one of the big winners tonight was the actual debate itself. I think it proved once again that this campaign is about issues. About 90 to 95 percent of the time between the candidates was spent talking about the key major issues of the American people are interested in. And what was painted was a very stark dramatic contrast between two different kinds of visions for America. One clear vision is the liberal vision. In fact I was little surprised to find a caucus even a little bit to the left of Jimmy Carter and maybe even Teddy Kennedy on those are not what we're what are you referring to in terms of his positions and defense policy and in economic policy. And when Bill Allen raised a question about were you going to get the money from. I think George Bush probably had the most memorable one liner of the night that will be remembered which is I will not raise taxes. And I think the

American people are going to remember that one. I think that when Bush makes these categorical statements about not raising taxes it flies in the face of what the American people realize are some tough decisions are going to have to be made and it flies in the face Judy of the record of the Reagan administration has raised taxes five separate times because they felt fiscally that they had to do it. But the important thing it seems to me is that by moving the debate away from these fringe issues and to the basic gut economic issue I mean the pledge of allegiance pledge and all of these so-called patriotic issues the buzzwords this debate domestically which took by the way two thirds of the entire time and that was also a benefit were 15 Dukakis and the more they got and that helped a caucus because it took him on his strong suit which is domestic policy. But by focusing on those issues how are we going to deal with the 37 million working people who don't have insurance. How are we going to provide affordable housing to young people. How are we going to train and educate people. Those were the key

issues that the debate focused on and that was high watermark. I think for Michael Dukakis and Martin Anderson you don't think the governor effectively raised those points. Oh I think the governor of selectively raised the points I think you get it an excellent job and I think what he's proven dramatically and we laid out it was a very crystal clear choice. We have a choice between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican and that's a wild predicted tomorrow morning the polls will show that George Bush substantially won not because anybody here in this program is. Super qualified the judge who wins or loses. But I think the American people by a large will support the vision that George Bush put forth a ceiling. I think you all are very qualified to judge this to just one last word on this liberal issue. It is true that if you ask people in general do you support a liberal people will say no but the American people have always program magically supported specific liberal governmental initiatives. And what Michael Dukakis accomplished is moving away from the general categorization of

being some kind of a loony left winger and instead by focusing on these key economic and social issues like housing and healthcare and education he came to the point that the American people support they do support more effort by government and states and the private sector and those in those areas and therefore program magically. He showed people a reason for change. David Gergen how do you respond to what we've heard from Bill Hileman and now from Martin Anderson. I think you make some good points let me just say I agree that on one fundamental point and that is I think George Bush had a very good job tonight making it clear that there is a philosophical choice between these two can of the Seas and the past several elections when a Republican candidate has successfully made that case. He's generally won in that sense I think Bush helped him sell tonight not tonight. I do not think Bush did as well as he might have been identified with the middle class and identify with people in their home. Was that something I think he needed to do. Well I think it's I think it's a gift that Ronald Reagan had that he could reach out to people through the television set it to be a

living room and talk to them at their level. I thought Bush spoken to bureaucracies which was unhelpful to his case. I think substantively Bush had a very strong case against Dukakis. I didn't think he made his case quite as clearly as in like I thought the caucus even though he did the left did a better job politically Odetta fine with the middle class and the concerns of the class and is that in that sense not philosophically not on the substance. There's a political matter I thought the caucus helped himself to some of what you're addressing is the presentation you're saying you know that Bush began to make good mornings but didn't follow I think. But I think it looks at a very good case. I think Bush sounded a lot of the themes that are going to rally the conservatives. I think you did very well with that. I thought the caucus did a better job and he did it get into the middle class and getting to the middle and I think that's I think in that sense the caucus help himself tonight. Martin Anderson you want to respond to that. Well first I want to say that I I agree with Stu Eizenstat I don't think Governor Dukakis is part of the loony left. He's part of the smart left wing and it became very clear that what he intended to do and now the American people know the mask has been ripped off and I think it's a wonderful thing that the debates have

done and the marshals but I think there's two things a bill Hyland point about the SDI he has a very good one and that was the worst dancer in the best question put by George Bush. If it's such a fantasy the SDI Why do you want to spend a nickel on or a dime on it. But I think that is a point that Stu Eizenstat makes that is it needs underlining the American people are philosophically conservative but we are operationally liberal. You ask Americans the abstract what about the federal government's a pain in the neck too much red tape get him out of my hair out of my pocket. However when it comes down to questions of what about educating your child and child your children there are very few Americans who want to abolish state universities. There are very few Americans who want to abolish Medicare. There are very few Americans want to abolish Social Security. So we are operationally liberal and Stu is absolutely right. George Bush didn't close the gap and Michael Dukakis talking about. College tuition talking about catastrophic medical TED talk about the cost of housing. He closed it by talking about the Pledge of Allegiance and items like that and I think tonight we chant we shifted the focus and that has to work because you see Judy what Bush should have done is he should

have said yes I am for child care but I have a different way of doing it. I want to do it through a tax credit yes I am for more housing but I have a different way of doing it. Instead he took a very traditional conservative Republican view which is let the marketplace deal with let states deal with it let anybody deal with it except the government and that is not convincing. So again the hardest challenge I think at the caucus here is to make a convincing case for why there should be a change and by focusing on these unmet got middle class issues. He really underscored the fact that there is going to be a difference in Marty's right. There is going to be a difference. This will be an administration with a caucus that will provide health care and better opportunities for housing and better education. And that's what the American people heard him say I think I thought of Judy. Yes is that this is a lone voice from the yes. Have at it. Well I don't think that the Dukakis did what does do as that is claiming. Bush in effect has been campaigning by saying

Don't let them take it away from you. In a fact you've never had it so good we've got peace which is what he emphasized in his closing statement. We have economic opportunity Higham employment and so forth. And he keeps emphasizing. Don't let them take it away from you. I don't understand why Stuart thinks that. Tonight the caucus made its case for taking it away from them. I admit he made a case in an appeal to the middle class that was evident in his references to 37 million people etc. but I don't see it on policy where I was paying most attention or on domestic policy that he made such an effective case that that 20 to 30 percent of the voters who were on the fence are now going to say oh yes it's time to get rid of Reagan Bush and go for Dukakis Bentsen. I simply was not persuaded by the hour and a half debate. Marcelo if you want this election if you were for George Bush and you want this election 100 to be

a referendum on the past. All right. For the past eight years work out if you're Michael Dukakis you want to be have we done what we need to do. What about the future. What lies ahead. I think the debate tonight just focused on the future and as it's been put the unmet needs. And Judy I think your 14 point in rebuttal to what Bill just said. The argument that's been used against Democrats effectively by Ronald Reagan is they're going to take it away from you mean the middle class and give it to the poor. That's not the point that Dukakis was making he was talking about middle class needs not poor people's needs he wasn't talking about taxing the middle class to benefit the poor he was talking about what resonates to the American people in the middle class educating their kids and getting them through college having good health care on the job and that's the difference that's why that argument won't walk. Good morning Anderson. The lonely voice and let me just say that I think that one of the things that resonated from everything Dukakis said tonight was I'm going to raise your taxes. He had a wonderful opportunity if he was not going to raise taxes this

and I think this is going to be the overriding dominant domestic issue as we move into the fall campaign. It I mean I think where he's got a good point I mean just actually that you know in your new book you make a very strong case for why the Reagan administration has helped the middle class so much and how much they have and how much they've prospered as a result of Reaganomics did you think Bush made a full that full argument tonight. No I thought he was saving that for the second get pain but he did not. I need a second debate. I'm going I said as I will I'm going to throw Bill mains a no on foreign policy question and that is Dan Quayle how did Dan Quayle come out of all this debate tonight. I think I think Bush was hurt by that because of the question more than by and by Dukakis is answer the question was particularly sharp and I think made it difficult for for Bush to answer it. And I also would he kept in talking about Quayle he kept saying to this young man this young man kept saying peevishly on there it isn't Ford I would argue that most Americans are not all that.

Calm about the idea of a quote young man in charge of the national security of the country I think that's the you know qualified man. A man who's learned a lot in the Senate who is. Who's up with his peers any of that kind of phraseology is better than what Bush. A young man is the wrong image I think for this bill Hyland How did you respond on that. Well I have to agree that Quayle is a tough problem for Bush he did the best he could with his answer. And so that's a weakness he has to bear throughout the campaign but one of the things about this debate I found interesting is that at the end of it in my own mind I was eager to see another round that this debate was not a home run for for one side or the other and that it hadn't settled all the issues now and that the second debate between the presidential candidates and perhaps even between Bentsen and Quayle it takes on a much greater significance. Stu I think one of the important things we also ought to focus on is that Bush has talked about the caucus thing a pessimist about being negative. He was very

upbeat. He talked about unmet needs but in a positive way and his close was a very rousing close appealing to a better America not that the America we have is bad but that we can do better. And that litany at the end of the best America was very appealing and I think demonstrated a real vision for the future. Mark tomorrow in a very tactical political question tomorrow President Bush and Senator Quayle going to campaign together. If I were going to caucus I would break Lloyd Benson schedule and have him with me. So I think that's where if you want to the day after a story to be fixed if you're Dukakis on the Dukakis Benson ticket as contrasted with the Bush-Quayle ticket. David another question about just questions surely on the the presentation and the extent to which each man was comfortable up there how do you how do you rate them. I thought both men started a little looking a little tight a little rattled I thought they said that the caucus settled down a little more rapidly. I come back to the point I think when you look at the reruns of this

debate. George Bush is going to has a very good moment because he did have some very very good one liners I think that would help him. As this plays out I thought in general. Governor Dukakis seemed more comfortable I think of it. You know George Bush sort of seemed to have accepted this idea is not quite he called me you know I'm not perfect at this and that sort of thing and I think George Bush is in effect admitted I hate my policies are but of my presentation. But I've got much better a much better philosophy. I thought George Bush had the most graceful gesture and even I think if he had more of them he would get better when he has to question the homeless his answer. He started off by saluting Mrs. Dukakis that we have right here and it's a lot of little touch. And there was enough of it. I think that he tripped himself up in the number of times not only by the syntax and and talking sort of government ease as David has said but also by some serious factual errors for example. He talked twice about seven administrations dealing with nor Yang and I would take you back to Harry Truman or yank has only been in power for a few years and he kept repeating that and that was only one of several

mistakes. Three on my ticket for example who were first relatively gentle and this is one will be coming back to examine over and over again we thank you all for being with us Bill Hyland we thank you Martin Anderson Bill mains Mark Shields David Gergen and Stu Eizenstat and we thank all of you for joining us this evening. Thank you for being with us. Funding for the special election 88 program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and this and other public television stations are.