thumbnail of Debate 1980, President, Republicans; 
     The Six Gop Candidates Were Rep. Phil Crane Of Illinois, Senate Minority
    Leader Howard Baker Of Tenn., John Connally Of Texas, Sen. Robert Dole Of
    Kansas, George H.W. Bush Of Texas, And Rep. John Anderson Of Illinois. A
    Seventh Candidate, Ronald Reagan, Turned Down The Offer To Debate.
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
Will send a gallon gasoline tax to cut consumption and reduce oil imports with the revenues as you mentioned to be used to reduce Social Security taxes. That's quite some of the proposal of President Carter considered and dropped after the leaders of Congress told him that they couldn't possibly get it passed. How could you as a Republican president get such a tax and active and more generally what can a new Republican president do about energy that hasn't already been tried by Presidents Nixon Ford and Carter. Well I think there are a lot of things Walter that a Republican president can do that have not been tried first of all he can give this country a clear consistent common sense energy policy. This this administration has failed now for three years to do. Now with reference to the 50 cent a gallon tax that I've proposed an emergency excise tax. I think this is a clear example of a situation where if the president had provided the kind of leadership that he could following the Iranian crisis that began on the fourth of November he could
have called on the American people. For some sacrifice in order to relieve our dependence on imported oil the whole lesson of Iran ought to be the whole question of the Middle East and our future is bound up with the question of our continued dependence to the extent of almost 43 or 40 percent 44 percent on importing foreign oil much of it from the Middle East. And I think the president lost a golden opportunity in in that particular situation. He could have called on the American people at that time and I think they would have been willing to come forth with a measure of sacrifice that that would have required now actually the offsets that I have prescribed or. Offered in the way of a 50 percent cut in Social Security taxes means that for the average worker in this country today he would get a $600 tax cut. Six hundred twenty six dollars to be exact in one thousand eight hundred eighty if it became effective this year and that would offset about 18 or 20000 miles of driving. But I think a
lot of workers I think a lot of workers in this country if they had that $600 reduction in Social Security taxes would find with typical Yankee ingenuity and resourcefulness that there were ways and means that they had to cut down on some of the usual driving that they have been doing so that they could spend that money for other purposes for recreation for food and clothing and so on. I think once the program is explained it can get support in the Congress. Governor CONNALLY. How would I get an IQ to 50 cent a gallon tax. I wouldn't I wouldn't try. I think it's a mistake. I don't know of anything could be more oppressive to the working people of this country the poor people of this country. I wouldn't even think about it. What can a Republican president do that hadn't been tried. I think we need a simplified program recognizing the facts of life. And Republican presidents going to have to do what anyone else he has to go to the American people explain it very simply and say to them that solar energy geothermal fusion fast breeder reactor all of these things are in the future. Wind Wave action
and so forth there in the future. What we're going to have to deal with for the next 15 or 20 years is very simply stated we have to mine more coal and burn more coal and explore for and develop more oil and gas and build more nuclear power plants. Just that simple. He has to make an issue of it and he and frankly he has to get the support of the American people to override a recalcitrant Congress that has for seven years now done nothing but make energy a political football to the detriment of this nation. Senator Dole. Well the reference to 50 cent gas tax I just don't think there are enough members retiring or enough members of Congress who want retired to pass that legislation. And so I would say the chances of that happening are next to nothing. But beyond that we have great opportunities. I'm the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee I was a manager that was so-called windfall profits tax bill on the floor. We have 30 billion dollars in that proposal for tax credits for conservation to business and individuals. We
have production credits for shale oil for gasohol for geothermal. We can produce our way out of this crisis if we get off the backs of some of those who are in the production business. And it seems to me the last thing we do is impose a very heavy tax on the individual. We can do it through conservation through tax credits through production the tax credits and we can take all that money away from the oil companies and then go out and produce more energy. Ambassador Bush I opposed the 50 cent a gallon tax. I have heard programs where you're going to raise all this taxes and then you're going to give it back out of the other hand I don't believe it. I don't believe that that's what we need as prices have gone up. Conservation is taking place. What do I favor I favor less control I favor decontrol I favor shifting to alternative sources. I would support a windfall profits tax but only if it were coupled with a plough back provision. I don't want to see more government in the energy business. And I agree we need to use the tax system to encourage
conservation and to encourage increases in alternate sources of production. And lastly I believe in mobilizing the free world the best minds in the free world for research in terms of the out year use of solar. But until then we must go forward with alternate sources synthetics coal nuclear whatever it may be. Congressman Crane President Carter proposed a 50 cent a gallon tax on gas back in 1977 and his own spokesman before our ways and means committee testified that this would have an in consequential impact on consumption if we were to assess that kind of tax. So it was concluded by the committee and by the Carter administration both that it was self-defeating Europeans have been paying two and $3 a gallon for gasoline for years and they still drive. I think the answer is immediate and total deregulation no so-called When fall profits tax as they are in fact excise taxes not when fall profits taxes we should pair that with Kemp-Roth to cut
taxes because of any short term impact on the price upward. We should burn call put a moratorium on our environmental regs until we get domestic gas and oil production up to get out from under this horrifying dependence. And indeed we should go forward with no clear which to date still has proven to be the safest and the cleanest and the cheapest form of new energy to come on stream in this country. Senator Baker. Well to begin with I do not favor a 50 cent tax on gas I think it discriminates against those states where you have to drive where you can't take a subway if you wanted to or in many other cases any kind of public transportation. You got to drive your car and I think it's unfair from that standpoint. What can a Republican president do. I like a lot better. The principal problem with the Carter administration's energy program is that we're on their third program. President Carter started out as a candidate for deregulation and day control and he changed his mind and went for controls at very high prices. And then he changed his mind again. We've got to get the energy business back into furred the free
enterprise creative sector of the American economy. But we've also got to have a windfall profits tax to cushion that impact on people who will be most affected by the huge increases in prices that will occur and to provide a disincentive provide a reason for people not to get out to the public. Our next question which will be the final question from the panel will be from Mr. Hanson to Governor Connally Governor Connally. Last August you suggested that Senator Kennedy would be condoning and I quote a double standard of morality close quote if you did not instruct his draft Kennedy movement to abide by campaign financing limits. Now you've said you won't abide by campaign spending limits and several states in your effort to win the Republican nomination. Is that a double standard of morality. Absolutely not. Those are two entirely different things. When I made the statement about Senator Kennedy last August
he had so-called volunteer groups all over this country working to further his campaign. Under the law those particular organizations. We're operating totally without any constraints of the federal law that Senator Kennedy is supporting sponsored and voted for that restrained what people could do in a presidential campaign. So that's entirely different from what I did. What I said was that I don't believe in federal financing of presidential campaigns and I don't believe in federal financing of congressional campaigns. I think the these proposals are frankly for the benefit of perpetuating incumbents in office. And I'm opposed to them and I've said that I'm not going to take taxpayer dollars to run my campaign with you know there's nothing wrong with that. I just said if I can raise the money I can win anyway. And I think all of us ought to be out raising our own money and I challenge all of my
colleagues here on the podium this evening to do the same if they think it's such an enormous advantage. For me not to take taxpayers dollars to run my campaign on. Then they can join me. They they have that option. And let me make it clear that all of all that we do we are relieved of the spending limits the same laws apply still applied to us with respect to contributions. No one can contribute any more to me than can contribute to and by Mr. Bush who's going to take matching funds and he's a qualified apparently for eight hundred fifty nine thousand dollars. Within the last week and but I'm on to this my contributors are under the same constraints as his contributors. I'm just not taking taxpayer dollars and I invite all of our colleagues to join Senator Dole. Well if I can figure out a way to get party or matching money I would be happy to make the application but I understand it wouldn't be permissible and I don't have any qualms Governor
Connally that's his right. That's the way the law is drafted. Many of us voted for it. It is tougher though for some to raise money particularly those who are employed and. Time in a Senate on a full time basis I left there with a 93 percent plus of voting in attendance record this year. I felt a responsibility to do my job when you're there working every day you just can't be and are somewhere else and I used to say about Governor Connally. He went through town with a vacuum cleaner. I came along with a whisk broom trying to sweep up the crumbs but that's his right. He's a good money raiser and when he drops out later on I hope he's going to help me raise some money. Ambassador Bush I agree that Governor Connally should do exactly what he wants he is right within the law. I will accept matching funds we've worked hard it's been difficult to raise money. But as the campaign has begun to move forward money comes in better and you can get it. And I don't believe I need to spend more in Iowa then
than the law permits if I take matching funds and I believe more in building organization endorsement today by Congressman talking and yesterday by Congressman Leach these are more important to me than being able to spend more heavily than the law permits. If I accept matching funds so it's dealer's choice. He'll do his thing I'll do mine. Congressman Green I totally respect the decision that Governor Connally has made with regard to the question of matching funds. I personally have objections to the concept of public financing of campaigns but I acknowledged at the outset of my campaign that with the simultaneous limitations on the amounts individuals can give I would take matching funds rather than jeopardize my campaign. And if anyone is prepared to repeal all the laws on that subject which I voted against and I still think are both unconstitutional and unfair I will happily join him. I must confess that there is a handicap in working then within the constraints if you take
matching funds of the total amount you can spend in a state. But I do believe that the most invaluable contribution in any campaign are those workers at the precinct level and they're giving you the most precious thing any person can give and that's time out of their lives. And so I welcome the support of all of those volunteers and I need them desperately here in Iowa. Senator Baker. There's no saying that there isn't much difference between enough money and all the money in the world but there's a whale of a difference between not enough money and enough money. I don't like it takes an unlimited amount of money to do well in a political campaign. My own judgment is that the will of the country and of the people of Iowa is to see some sort of reasonable limitation on expenditures. My friend John Connelly is entitle to abide by that section of the statute which permits him to refuse to take federal funds and then to escape the expenditure limitations. But I think it's a mistake and I think it will have political impact and political implications. Now that's a judgment Fortunately that the people of
Iowa and the United States will Mike and that John and I can disagree on. But I think it has political implications beyond just the dollars involved. And I made a contrary judgment. I'm willing to accept the limitation and I therefore accept the federal fund. Congressman Anderson. Well I disagree with Mr. Connelly on his unwillingness to abide by campaign spending limits I think 15 or 16 million dollars for a campaign for a presidential campaign in the primaries ought to be enough for any man. Those are not tax dollars that he's talking about those are dollars that have been checked off voluntarily by taxpayers when they file their federal income tax form. And I agree with the former chairman of Common Cause John Gardner that quiet revolution was wrought in the manner of financing presidential campaigns when in 1976 for the first time we made the matching fund provision available to presidential candidates. I would like to see it extended to congressional and senatorial campaigns. He says it's an incumbent protection act. Believe me if that were
so those fellows down there would have passed it a long time ago because they found plenty of other ways to vote themselves perquisites of office. Thank you gentleman our time for the panel questioning period has now expired and we will turn to questions from the audience. The first two questions from the audience will be posed by two Iowa high school students. Who are the winners of a contest sponsored by the register and Tribune. We asked the students in all of the high schools of Iowa to submit the questions that they would like to ask the candidates and the two students with us tonight are the winners in that contest. Each student will state to his or her question and each of the six candidates will have one minute to respond. We will begin with Kerry Munns of early Iowa a junior at Crestline high school. Miss Munns your question please.
In your opinion how does our military strength rank in comparison to other countries. Also what do you concern in reinstatement of the draft. Congressman Crane in my estimation our military capability has fallen behind the Soviets in both conventional and strategic weapons that's why I have been a very outspoken opponent of salt. So it would be disastrous to our national security interest and I think the president of a truly believed what he said last night that it would promote stability and peace not withstanding a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that he shouldn't have talked about shelving at the fact is that he knows the votes aren't there and thank goodness the American people know that it is not in our national security interests. The draft I worked very hard for a volunteer military because I believe in the principle of voluntourism. I believe the concept is still workable but we do have needs in terms of our Ready Reserve. Clifford Alexander secretary of the Army told me about three hundred million dollars increase spending in behalf of our Ready Reserve would it bring it up to speed.
But I do feel that in peacetime to the extent we can continue to work with a volunteer military concept we should. Senator Baker. I think the United States is still militarily stronger than the Soviet Union. But I don't think we'll be much longer unless we reverse some of the decisions that have been made by the Carter administration in the last two and a half years. I think as an example that the president made a serious mistake when he canceled a production of Our only advanced manned bomber the B-1 when he reduced by 50 percent the size of the Navy ship building program when he delayed the deployment the development of deployment of the MX missile and so on the list goes we'll pay the price for those things in the 1980s. And we will still have a serious challenge in the 1980s as to whether we can maintain even parity with the Soviet Union. I hope we can by reversing some of those policies. I do not now favor the resumption of peace time conscription. I don't rule out that prospect in the face of great international danger. I do not support it at this time.
Congressman Anderson I would be opposed to the reinstatement of the draft I voted for and strongly supported the creation of a voluntary army. I do not believe that we have become a weak and pitiful giant. I do not think that we are number two militarily in the world. This is not to say that we cannot design perhaps a leaner tougher better fighting force than we have today that our general purpose forces could not be improved. That some components of our Navy should not be strengthened but to suggest that is one element of this program we ought to invest not thirty five billion as the administration said but 55 billion in an M-x missile is to me not the wisest most judicious use of our nation's resources because without salt too. It is clear that even the forty six hundred multiple protective shelters that would be necessary to complete that system they would not be enough to really add to the defense of our country. I think that particular expenditure would be
unwise foolish and unnecessary. Governor Connally when you speak of the military strength of the United States versus the Soviet Union I think you have to divide it into two categories. First in conventional weapons there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. What the Soviet Union has achieved a superiority over the United States and conventional weapons. I think we're still on a parity perhaps with the Soviet Union and strategic nuclear weapons. But that's going to change because the very things that Senator Baker talked about we didn't build to be won we didn't build them X we stretched out the cruise missile and so forth. And the time frame 1982 to 1983 the Soviets would have perfected the multiple re-entry warheads which they're working on they would have increased their accuracy to where they would have achieved at least parity if not superiority and there's not a thing in the world we can do about it at this point. But we should start right now correcting the imbalance that is going to occur in the 1980s because it'll take us six to seven to 10 years to get a new weapon
system in production. If we started tomorrow with respect to the draft I don't think any of us want to return to the draft unless we feel it's absolutely essential in the interest of this nation. Senator Bill first of all I'm opposed to reinstatement the draft and I don't even see any need at this time for peacetime registration. What we need to do is to beef up our Selective Service System and and computerize our regions as like the service system with reference to defense. I still believe that we're number one in the world. I still vote as I voted in the past 19 years to remain number one in the world for the sake of peace. We just conclude an agreement with countries with reference to cruise missile and so-called purging to missile. It does a buttress our defense there. We still have the ability. We've gone downhill since President Ford left office by about sixty eight billion dollars in defense spending over coming back up that hill because members of Congress Democrats and Republicans alike have gotten a
message from back home. We want to be strong strong for the sake of peace. Ambassador Bush for one fascinating year I had the responsibility 1976 of telling the president what the relative force balance was in this country because of a the Soviet Union. And it opened my eyes a lot. We are not inferior to the Soviet Union in some categories and strategic weapons they're moving ahead of us. They're moving more rapidly than we would have thought in terms of missile accuracy for example in conventional forces. There is a slight imbalance in favor of the Soviet Union. But this can be changed by reversing back in some of the things that many of the things that President Carter cut out of Ford's budget and now three years later wakes up and kind of says well I was wrong you can't trust the Russians we're going to have to change them. I favor registration this the call up time is too long.
It should be done. I supported as a member of the Congress the volunteer army concept. Some of the things about it troubled me. I don't believe yet. We need a draft but if we do as president I'll say this we need a draft. It's going to be a fair draft. Some ghetto kid is not going to be urged to carry the rifle while some wealthy kid studies to get a Ph.D.. And what's wrong with the concept of service to the United States. Thank you. Our second question is from Gary Forsyth of West Bend Iowa. A senior at West Bend Community High School Mr. Forsyth your question please. Living here in the bread basket of America is hard for others and myself to understand the impact other countries have with oil. While we carry little influence with our food therefore would you be in favor of a food for crude policy. If I thought it was workable Yes and data would favor it. The unfortunate thing is even
if we could put together a coalition between the United States Canada Argentina and Australia if you look at some of the major oil producing countries and Saudi Arabia is a good example it's a country of about four or four and a half million people approximately lay a Chicago population. There are enough alternative sources for food to offset the leverage that putting that kind of a food cartel together might try and wield that I don't think we'd be successful I think the better answer than getting into cartel formation and that kind of international trade warfare is to increase the production of energy get ourselves out from under this dependency we have the capability the resources here at home if we will just turn those creative talents and restart the climate once more to be productive. We don't have to talk in terms of creating international cartels to fight back against other nations in this world. Senator Baker I honestly don't agree with the idea of food for a crude
policy. I don't think that the sale the supply or the withholding of food stuffs to other nations of the world is a useful effective or appropriate technique of foreign policy for this country. I think if we go down that road where do you stop. You decide to starve this country or to supply that one. I think it doesn't make any difference whether it's crude today and something else tomorrow that it is unseemly for the United States to take the position that starvation should be an element of our foreign policy technique. That's what we criticized so roundly in Cambodia. I think it is not suitable to our national personality. Besides I don't like it a war. Congressman Anderson even though I do support the use of food in connection with the message that I think it is imperative we send to the Soviet Union to forestall further aggressive actions on her part that might well lead to World War Three. This does not mean that I would embrace that
concept on each and every occasion and I would have to agree that with respect to open back I do not believe that it would be an effective weapon. However this does not mean that I am opposed to using our agricultural abundance and our food as a weapon. I think we ought to use it as a weapon to fight world hunger. We just had a report from the president's commission on hunger illustrating for us just how deep that need is and still remains. And I would be very much in favor of taking as much of that 17 million metric tons that will not go to the Soviet Union as possible and buy concessional sales by grant aid making sure that it reaches the hungry people of the world. Governor CONNALLY. I know it's tempting to talk about food for crude. I agree with those who've already spoken that it won't work because of the nature of the countries where the most of the crude is produced.
And it also as Senator Baker says violates one of the basic precepts of this country we don't believe in the formation of cartels even to break cartels all pack is a cartel. But how do you break it you break it not by organizing other cartels. You break it frankly by developing the energy resources we have at home. We have the oil shales. We have nuclear power. We have oil and gas. We have coal in abundance. We're not short of energy resources we're short of energy usable energy and that's our fault. That's not OPEC's fault. We're a hostage in their hands because we failed to live up to the responsibilities that we should've recognized long ago. And so I don't. I don't think that the policy of food for crude will work. The only answer is to produce from domestic sources the energy that we need and we have right that cartel. Senator Dole. Well it's not realistic. I mean it sounds good and I've heard the song but it's not realistic. It seems to me that we get back to the basic question we've just most of us have condemned the
embargo would in effect be imposing selective and bar goes the most of us say we don't support. But I do believe that we have a great opportunity through our Food for Peace program as I said earlier which was an Eisenhower program Republican program passed in one thousand fifty four. We've dispensed over 35 billion dollars in food around the world. We have an opportunity as I said earlier on to take some of this 17 million tons. It's not going to go to the Soviet Union and help the needy and in the world through going into concessional sales soup for 80. That embargo alone will cost the farmers of Iowa over two hundred million dollars. It's going to cost the American farmer in the next five years by conservative estimates some 20 billion dollars so we can use our food in the right way. I don't think the crude for food IS THE RIGHT WAY. Ambassador Bush. Well I agree food for crude is not viable. Congressman Crane spelled out
the major economic reasons for that. I do think that there's a way to break the cartel. Governor Connally pointed to part of it in another part of it is this that the moderate Arab countries are. Increasingly concerned as they see action in the Middle East that they think risks overthrowing them and their interests. And so I think we need to shift our foreign policy to assure our friends that we plan to be committed be constant and our foreign policy can be depended on. And then once you once they believe that you can sit down with them not on food for crude but on a wide array of things they need from the west. And I think polos moderate Arabs hopefully away from that cartel action. Thank you. We will turn now to questions from members of the audience chosen at random. These questions will be addressed to one candidate only and he will be allowed up to one minute to respond.
There will be no responses from the other candidates. We ask the questioners to give their names and their hometown and to state their questions briefly. We will go to microphone A For the first question which will be addressed to Senator Dole where we left off with the panel questioning earlier the question please for Senator Dole. I am Craig Fitzgerald from Collins Iowa. And I would like Senator Dole to tell me aboard federal legislation calling for uniform weights and sizes on trucks and tractors throughout the United States. I would support such legislation. I've seen trucks go through this country with going down back roads to avoid main highways paying fees in every state across this country. Increasing the cost again of the free enterprise trucker and I think it's time we address that either through an
interstate compact or through legislation. Thank you. Our next question will be for Ambassador Bush your question please join logons Des Moines Iowa President Carter has shown considerable concern about the number of undocumented workers in our country. What are your views about undocumented aliens. My views about undocumented aliens is that we have made illegal. People that do perform a service that others are not unwilling that are not willing to perform. And so I favor a return to some kind of documentation so on a selective basis not year round not always here but so that these people are not compelled to enter this country illegally. I think you have to look at the numbers so that you don't deprive
people in this country of jobs. But the idea that you should not permit some people to come into this country for selective labor simply does not have any appeal to me. So I favor a return to some kind of documentation like we had in the past. Thank you. Our next question will be for Congressman Crane. Your question please. I'm Dan Jepson from aching Iowa. Representative crane as a former college professor what do you see is the major flaws in our educational system and what would U.S. president do about them. You've got my favorite subject now. You know we've had declining S.A.T. scores for about 15 consecutive years after spending more money on higher education in the post-World War 2 era than we spend in our entire national experience before we've reached the exalted state where we teach remedial reading at the college and university level. I'll tell you frankly one thing that we must do is go back and start teaching basics
at the early primary grade level mastery of reading skills is absolutely essential. You can teach yourself a lot in life but you can't if you don't know how to read. And we're creating functional illiteracy. Secondly I think we've got to go back and put a greater emphasis on vocational technical training so that those people who are brought up under adverse circumstances can begin to acquire the skills that can be translated into job opportunities. We have locked many people in the inner cities into a situation where there is absolutely no help. Nothing but desperation because they have not been taught how to read and they've not been taught functional skills. And that has been in part I think a degree of a little bit of intellectual snobbery on the part of some who said a liberal arts education is the only important education. Thank you. Our next question will be for Senator Baker. State your question please. Linda Faber Des Moines Iowa Why has the Senate Finance Louis nuts in nothing to reduce the current tax brackets. Most middle class families need two
incomes to exist in by exist I mean buy hamburger every other week yet they're being forced into tax brackets where they don't belong. And the UN United States government is reaping in more money now than ever before. There's no doubt on earth but that one of the cruelest aspects of inflation is the effect it has on the tax rate and the tax bill that the average citizen must pay in this country and inflation has escalated. People in low and middle income brackets two brackets they never dreamed of paying taxes in before. But the answer is not in my judgment to index the tax brackets or even to change the effective tax schedule but rather to conquer inflation. And I honestly believe we can do that. It'll take a little while it'll take a lot of tough decisions. But President Gerald Ford did that. He took office with inflation running at double digit rates and he wrestled it to the ground it was four point eight percent in the last quarter when he left office as president of United States. That is the answer is to control and contain inflation. President Carter came to
office with a four point eight percent inflation rate. He let that animal out of the cage and the next president is going to have to put it back. Thank you we will go now to a question for Congressman Anderson. Go ahead please. Congressman Anderson My name is Rick Philips and I hail from this great city of Des Moines Iowa. It's been obvious that the public sector has been unable to deal effectively with inflation and our economy. My question is this. What do you feel the private sector's role should be in regards to our economy. Well clearly the private sector does have a responsibility. I think it has a responsibility both labor and management have a responsibility to hold down wages and prices during a period when inflation has reached double digit levels I think also probably in the productivity area. The fact that we have had at least two straight years now of declining productivity last year the Japanese had a
productivity increase of 10 percent. And in this country of course it was practically a negative rate. So we aren't doing the things I think in the private sector that we should to replace machinery plant equipment with new and more innovative and productive technology now government has a role in that but I think we've got to have some innovation we've got to have some willingness on the part of both labor and management to participate in this tremendous job of increasing the productivity of our of our country. We will take a question now for Governor Connally. Go ahead please. Stuart again the morning Governor Connally in response to an earlier question. When your colleagues made reference to the fact that he felt we had too much regulation in this country deregulation has already taken place within the airline industry and the move is currently underway to deregulate other industry. What is your position on deregulation of such industry and in particular the deregulation of the trucking industry and interstate
commerce. I think the deregulation of the airline industry has been a mixed blessing. I'm one of those who believe that there's too much regulation in this country and almost every industry at almost every level. I don't usually question about it. When you look at the problems of the government you have priorities. And when you look at the priorities of this country when you talk about the need to increase our preparations for defense when you talk about the fight we have to make against inflation to slow the rate of federal spending to balance this budget to curb the bureaucracy to provide for equality in the marketplaces of the world and terms of our trade to develop an energy policy all of these things have a much higher priority than 80 program it seems to me to deregulate the trucking industry you know there's an old saying If it ain't broke don't fix it. And you know the trucking industry is doing a great service in this country. Of all the things that
we don't need to get into at the moment it seems to me it's a trucking industry and I wouldn't. Put the deregulation of the trucking industry high on my list of priorities. Thank you. Well we turn now for another question for Senator Dole. Go ahead please. And Steve are you from Corning Iowa. And I would like to ask Senator Dole what he would plan to do to help out their own industry. About three weeks ago in the Congress in the Senate we adopt an amendment that I co-sponsored which would provide about one billion dollars to help the beleaguered railroad industry. I've studied carefully the problems in the state of Ohio with the walking in the rock out on railroads both in bankruptcy. It seemed that we must address the problem because they are now under a directed service order and there has been a plan presented as recently as
last week a core plan which would put the railroads back into action. I don't believe we should let some company commander just buy up the best part of the rocket and railroad. We may have to get into an area where we at least with some federal funds improve the road beds. I'm opposed to nationalizing the railroads or government takeover of railroads. But let's face it again the farmers get it on the chin. They raise the commodities they harvest the commodities and they can't get in the market. We have to improve the transportation system in the Midwest. We have time for one more question. This final question will be for Ambassador Bush. Go ahead please. John Zimmer Des Moines Iowa and bashing of Bush Cerf elected president knighted States and with a high level of immorality in our country as president would you do what would you do to contribute to the the moral fiber and the moral stability of our country and how do you feel about gay rights pornography and other forms of immorality.
Well I do believe that we're a moral nation. I believe the emphasis on family and free choice of our religious preference these kinds of things concepts of neighborhood these are important things to us. I don't believe that morality can be legislated. I think. Moving the breaking up a family can be legislated against in a sense some legislation that compels a man or woman to live apart so that they can do better on aid for dependent children for example. Those things should be changed but I believe in separation of church and state. I don't remember the last two and two parts of your question if you don't mind repeating them I think I remember one. But what was the other gay rights and morality and pornography and other forms of immorality. Well I believe that pornography and those matters are best controlled but the state level. I believe that I do not favor codification of gay rights in the law
and yet I don't favor harassment of an individual for that basis or anything of that nature. I just don't want to see our society undermined by kata finding that as as normal I'm sorry I don't accept it. Is that fair. Thank you gentlemen our time for audience questions has now expired and it is time for closing statements from each of the candidates who would like to remind the candidates that the closing statements are limited to three minutes. We will begin with Congressman Crane. I would like first of all John to congratulate you as the man who inspired this program. I would like to congratulate also the Des Moines Register trivia for having been the official sponsor and host of the Save ning. I would like to congratulate for their public service broadcasting for covering this and its entirety and I understand CBS is doing likewise for a delayed broadcast. And I thank the panelists here Walter and George and Mary and Richard and all of you folks in
the audience and all of that viewing audience are to be congratulated. I think it is a major public service that has been performed it is unique in the annals of politics and I doubt we're going to see this aften again in this campaign. It's been a fun experience and I have enjoyed sharing this platform with my distinguished colleagues who are here tonight. Let me comment on just one thing and some mission here. You know Frederick Douglass the famous black civil rights leader in the post-Civil War era. Frederick Douglass was a man born in slavery became a very outspoken advocate of civil rights he was a man who was a great author and orator as well. He said I am a Republican a black Republican dyed in the wool. And I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. I think the bottom line of what we as Republicans have stood for what I believe in personally what has been the foundation of this nation's greatness and will continue to be the foundation of this nation's greatness is freedom as a
precondition for its natural corollary progress that to go hand in glove. Frederick Douglass was a man who understood that profoundly having been born in slavery. And I would argue that those who don't appreciate the importance of fighting this battle to preserve freedom should have had the opportunity to talk to a man who was born in slavery but they're not denied the opportunity because you can talk to the boat people you can talk to those in our society who fled from the butchery a boat a past when the Soviets crushed the uprising in 56 are those who managed to get out of Prague in 1968. We still are fighting that eternal battle and we will ever be fighting the eternal battle. Now there are certain things that I was brought up to believe and on the South Side of Chicago growing up out there by the steel mills in a not affluent environment during the Depression years and that was that way started out each day in school with a prayer because we acknowledge that this nation was founded under God and it is
upon that promise that our freedoms ultimately rest. Secondly we pledged allegiance to that flag which we honored as all of you honored because we know it was a symbol of that blood and treasure invested by Americans every generation to preserve this the world's last best hope. That's the special mission harking back to a question earlier this evening that we have as a nation. It's a mission we can fulfill on in the process realize that grand dream expressed so eloquently by Abraham Lincoln that this nation under God would have a rebirth of freedom and the government of the people by the people and for the people would not perish from the earth. Senator Baker. Mr. Gannon thank you very much and I join Congressman Crane and paying my respects to you and to the register Tribune Company for their sponsorship of this event. It's been a privilege for me to appear on this platform with five distinguished Republicans. I think this is proof of the fact that the Republican Party is vital that we're willing to
discuss to compare notes and to ventilate our ideas and our differences in public. And that we have an understanding then that we acknowledge that politics is an important secular undertaking in this country that politics is the mechanism by which men and women in this country formulate their future public policy. Politics is not just a game. Politics is not. But neath us. It's not something to shy away from. It is the way we will decide the future of this nation. And I'm happy Mr. Gannon to be on this platform tonight with these fellow Republicans and to share this opportunity that you've made possible. There are great decisions that the country must make in the campaign of 1980 and no place in the United States will you find more leverage residing in the hands of the citizens of a single state than you do in the state of Iowa. Far more than in 1976 the people of Iowa will have a profound impact on the choice of the next president of the United States because it's here where
early momentum will be developed for the sorting out process will begin in both parties. And it is important then indeed it is vital that the outpouring of participants in the Iowa caucuses on January 21st be so large that it becomes the functional equivalent of a primary a broad base of participation. And I will happily abide by the judgment of the people of Iowa in that respect. But the judgments and the decisions to be made are in two great categories of foreign policy of economic and social policy. It grieves me to say but I must say in the context of political responsibility that the United States now has it is witnessing a failed foreign policy that Iran Afghanistan South Yemen combat troops Russian combat troops in Cuba Somalia Ethiopia. All of these things are symptoms of the fact that the United States is no longer thought of as a
strong deterrent force to aggression by any other country or as a threat to freedom. Our policy has been characterized as one of too little too late. We've lost our margin for error in foreign policy and we must change it. And to do that in my view we must change our president in the second category inflation. We've spoken of at length the fact that President Ford wrestled it to the ground. We can do it again. And I believe every one of us will pledge ourselves to a reiteration in the belief of the free enterprise system of the private market system and the ability of America to produce new wealth for the benefit of mankind. Congressman Anderson but again I too am grateful to you on the Des Moines Register for this opportunity to participate in the debate tonight. You know I would agree with what has just been said that respect for the United States has declined around the world that we have suffered a loss of prestige and yet the central thrust of my campaign for the presidency has been
this. I think that has happened because the dollar has become a mere tattered symbol of what it once was. I think it has happened because we have not have the self discipline here at home to deal with the problem of inflation. I think it has happened because here at home we've had what I said in response to that young man's question a moment ago. We've had a decline in productivity and we no longer seem to be on the cutting edge of that kind of progress and innovative and high technology that we once were. And I think all of these things have happened and yet. Why am I different I didn't get to answer Miss McCrory's question. Quite to her satisfaction earlier. What makes you John Anderson think that you are different from these others who are competing with you for the nomination. It seems to me that for the most part they are seeing the problems of America in the context of power whereby we flex our muscles and with bigger budgets for defense and with more military spending and with trying to project our power around the world this is going to solve the problem.
You know one my father my Swedish father journeyed as an immigrant to this country almost 80 years ago. He didn't come because he thought that life would be easy. He came because he knew this country stood for hard work it stood for opportunity it stood for individual freedom it stood for basic moral courage. A lot of Americans today are wondering my generation and younger generations in this audience everywhere across the country are wondering about the future of this country because they see that inflation they see the mounting deficits they see the weakened dollar they see the economic subservience the oil cartel. They worry about the decline in our international position and yet they see the politicians by and large playing the game the same old way it's the same all politics will come out here to Iowa and we won't talk to the Iowa farmer and tell him we're going to expect some sacrifice maybe from him in the way of supporting this effort that we're now making to tell the Russians that we draw a line and are not going to go on with
the kind of conquest that they have just practiced in Afghanistan. I'm afraid that there is too much old politics being practiced even among Republicans today and I say that even though I respect and admire every one of the men in this group tonight and yet I think the country is looking for something different. Every one of them has already killed my plan to go to the American people and tax them 50 cents a gallon for gasoline and redistribute that among the workers of this country by cutting their Social Security taxes. And yet I haven't heard other than in vague generalities what they would do to solve the energy problem and that's the meaning of Iran that's the meaning of Afghanistan that's the meaning of the instability of the Middle East today. It is this awful dependence on the part of the United States on foreign oil. We've got to pull up our socks in this country. We've got to be willing to sacrifice something today in order to secure a better future and a better tomorrow. It's not going to be easy. Thank you. It wasn't easy for my father. It won't be
easy for us but we can do it. Thank you Congressman. Governor CONNALLY. Mr. Gannon thank you very much thank the Des Moines Register Tribune. I want to express my personal thanks to members of the panel who have been with us this evening and I want express to all of you and all of those in the audience that I've enjoyed being here this evening. I've been interested in the statements of the other candidates made at least those who cared enough to come tonight. But in these closing moments I think we need to focus on what's happening in this world the effect it is going to have on the lives of Iowans and Americans. I think in the next decade we're going to face the greatest crisis that this nation has faced since World War Two and perhaps one of the most serious of IN THE ENTIRE life of this nation. We have been blessed with freedom and security because of our military strength.
We've been blessed with opportunity in America because of our economic strength. We've been protected throughout all the life of this nation by time and distance those were our two great allies. But since World War 2. They have disappeared. Time and distance are no longer our allies. The 1980s is going to be a time when we will witness a changing world it's going to be a different world it's going to be a dangerous world we're going to be living in a world with many strange paradoxes we're going to be living in a world where a Chrysler Corporation is on the verge of bankruptcy and and a Ford Motor company closes 13 plants and lays off tens of thousands of workers in the last few weeks at the same time we continue to import more and more Japanese automobiles where we're living at a time when the Prez of the United States is going to short change islands by withholding grain without any without a firm commitment from Canada and Australia and Argentina that they're going to join. And this embargo where we're going to we're living in a time when we're going to deny high technology
and sophisticated equipment to the Soviet Union without receiving assurances from France and Italy and Germany and Britain and Japan our principal trading partners and allies around the world that they won't fill a void that they will rush in and add sell what we have refused to sell. We're witnessing a time when Americans all Americans. Not just those few hapless people in Tehran in that embassy but all Americans today are hostages were hostages to the countries of the world because we failed to live up to the opportunities and responsibility to use the resources that we have in the United States to achieve a security and a self-sufficiency in energy resources. We see it we live in a world where gold hits over 600 dollars an ounce up from $35 an ounce just a few years ago. We had a world where the dollar deteriorates almost every single day that passes why because of a lack of confidence and faith in the American economic system which that dollar reflection. We live in a world where we have fewer and fewer allies and friends throughout this world
and for the first time in 200 years foreign events are impacting this nation our lives our security our standard of living. Now how did this all happen. It happened for many different reasons. Governor I don't think you're going to have time to tell us how it all happened because your time is expired. Thank you Senator Dole. Thank you very much. I appreciate very much the audience being air and I recognize a governor a and Bill in the audience and we're always happy to see the governor we always mention the governor as they travel around I with an 83 percent approval rating. We all do it. We're proud of Governor Gray. And I say that very sincerely. I'm from Kansas. I'm the only Midwesterner in this race. I love my country I love politics I love the Republican Party. The real man who asked that is.
God. And I've been wondering for some time. As I stood on a Senate floor day after day after day it's the voters and I really appreciate in my 19 years experience in the house in the Senate. I've wondered from time to time whether IRA voters were aware of my role in World War Two and the strengths I have gained through adversity. I've wondered sometimes the voters knew about my German Shepherd the Republican Party. I worked in the party and my campaign with Gerry Ford in 1976. Oh I could say the Carter record is dismal and it is got a lot of problems we discussed in the night. What am I going to do about it. We can all stand here and criticize and say how bad it is. But what will Bob Dole do about it.
Who is the best qualified candidate here tonight. Well the best qualified candidate tonight period. I think I am. I say that modestly I hope as a ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. We talk about a balanced budget I've been there I'm trying for a balanced budget I'm trying to limit spending and taxation. I always talk about the middle class and middle America. But one of us has seriously proposed to index a federal tax system like you've done in Iowa and one of us has introduced a bill to provide catastrophic coverage for serious illness and everybody talks about agriculture in Iowa but who's been on the Ag Committee in the House for eight years in the Senate 11 years who knows it like the back of his hand. Oh there's much talk about the energy crisis. But only one of us supported a realistic windfall profits tax a new incentive for energy conservation including gas all we talk about American strength but only one of us
voted against the Panama Canal giveaway. But in the end you make the decision on your perception of the candidate. Has this man grown in public service has he demonstrated Commanche compassion commitment confidence. And I just say to the voters of Iowa look at my record it's there to see examine it carefully and help me on January 21st. Thank you Ambassador Bush. Well I too am grateful to the sponsors. I want very much to win the Republican nomination. I've worked hard. I've been to Iowa many times in other states across this country. I believe I have a breadth of experience fighting for my country in war time building up business excellence in education. Membership in the United States Congress and Bassett are in China ambassador in the United Nations running the Central Intelligence Agency and running the national party that qualifies me for this. Big
job but much more important than these qualifications I think I have demonstrated leadership in tough assignments and I know that I have emerged with my integrity totally intact and with the integrity of the organizations that I headed in tact. I was lucky. I've had a strong family. I have had a father that in call catered into his sons a sense of service. I believe in the fiber in the integrity and the honor of this country. I am sick and tired of apologizing for the United States and hearing us wring our hands about our weaknesses. I want to be a part of the answer not a part of the problem. And that's why I need your help as we go into these Iowa caucuses on January 21st thank you very much. Yes. Perhaps Thank you gentleman
for whom that complete that completes our form. We're very grateful to each of the candidates for being here tonight and for their kind words and we thank the panel and the audience for their participation. And now good night from them or not. Thank you for having been watching what many would consider the serious opening salvos in the presidential election. Nineteen coming to you from the Civic Auditorium and a debate or more properly as the organizers called it a forum among six Republican candidates a seventh and the one considered by many the front runner here for the Iowa caucuses. Former Governor Reagan of California was invited to participate but he declined and was the subject of many pointed remarks for that absence by many of the candidates this evening. How an event like this will be perceived can profoundly affect what
Debate 1980, President, Republicans
The Six Gop Candidates Were Rep. Phil Crane Of Illinois, Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker Of Tenn., John Connally Of Texas, Sen. Robert Dole Of Kansas, George H.W. Bush Of Texas, And Rep. John Anderson Of Illinois. A Seventh Candidate, Ronald Reagan, Turned Down The Offer To Debate.
Contributing Organization
Iowa Public Television (Johnston, Iowa)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/37-569325t0).
Part 2, Note: Not certain which candidates appeared. Transfer date: 3/10/86, Rec. Engr. RF, VCR 5, UCA-60
Created Date
Asset type
Politics and Government
IPTV, pending rights and format restrictions, may be able to make a standard DVD copy of IPTV programs (excluding raw footage) for a fee. Requests for DVDs should be sent to Dawn Breining
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Iowa Public Television
Identifier: 41-C-4 (Old Tape Number)
Format: U-matic
Generation: Master
Duration: 01:00:00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Debate 1980, President, Republicans; The Six Gop Candidates Were Rep. Phil Crane Of Illinois, Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker Of Tenn., John Connally Of Texas, Sen. Robert Dole Of Kansas, George H.W. Bush Of Texas, And Rep. John Anderson Of Illinois. A Seventh Candidate, Ronald Reagan, Turned Down The Offer To Debate. ,” 1980-01-05, Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed November 28, 2021,
MLA: “Debate 1980, President, Republicans; The Six Gop Candidates Were Rep. Phil Crane Of Illinois, Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker Of Tenn., John Connally Of Texas, Sen. Robert Dole Of Kansas, George H.W. Bush Of Texas, And Rep. John Anderson Of Illinois. A Seventh Candidate, Ronald Reagan, Turned Down The Offer To Debate. .” 1980-01-05. Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. November 28, 2021. <>.
APA: Debate 1980, President, Republicans; The Six Gop Candidates Were Rep. Phil Crane Of Illinois, Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker Of Tenn., John Connally Of Texas, Sen. Robert Dole Of Kansas, George H.W. Bush Of Texas, And Rep. John Anderson Of Illinois. A Seventh Candidate, Ronald Reagan, Turned Down The Offer To Debate. . Boston, MA: Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from