Iowa Press; Presidential Hopeful Sen. John Glenn

Do you decide what price one thousand one hundred eleven recorded twelve sixteen eighty three. Major funding for Iowa press was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. This is on a what press a weekly news interview program produced for Sunday

December 18th this week. Presidential politics with Senator John Glenn. Here is Dede Borg. Good evening the week began with John Glenn charging that Walter Mondale was quote promising everything in his campaign to secure the Democratic Party's nomination for president. And the week ended with the manager of Alan Cranston's Iowa campaign charging that Mondale supporters were behind a lawsuit challenging the date I was precinct caucuses. In between all that Cranston claimed that Mondale's campaign suffered from what he called a passion gap. Gary Hart charged the National Organization for Women had quote eroded some of its moral authority when it endorsed Mondale. Jesse Jackson and George McGovern criticized the Reagan administration and Ernest Hollings criticized the press for covering the campaign as if it were a two way race between Mondale and Glenn. Well this week we're going to be examining the campaign of one of the so-called front runners. Beginning with a background report from Sid Sprecher.

Yes. The warmth and harmony of October's Jefferson Jackson Day Democrat love fest is now also coming to the harsh realities of Iowa caucus politics. Already the field of presidential hopefuls has begun to separate. There are those in the pack. And there are the perceived front runners while Senator John Glenn. California Senator Alan Cranston. And former Vice President Walter Mondale. Mondale strength in Iowa is tied to his Minnesota home and endorsements of national labor and educational leaders who are gearing up and I want to support the Mondale effort. The concern among Glyn's Iowa supporters like a state campaign chairman Lieutenant Governor Bob Anderson is it Mondale's organizational strength believe the glim candidacy out in the cold especially when the contest is in a caucus instead of a primary election. It certainly favors that candidate who has that that long relationship with the most active people within the party.

It is not like a primary in the sense that a primary turns out larger percentages and a larger cross-section of of Democrats. But it. Thank you a great deal more by those organization labor leaders in those people who have that kind of organizational advantage. When the senator first went to election to the Senate he had the similar situation in his own party where a lot of the bosses in the political establishment were against him or a lot of them were aligned with his opponent. And he appealed to the rank and file blue collar worker he appealed to the small businessman and to the farmers and his own state on a really personal basis. And he was able to be successful within his party. I think he's a proven winner in the Democratic Party and I think that will come out here to do that.

The green campaign is reorganized his priorities nationally and his staff in Iowa. It's moved its state headquarters to larger quarters in Des Moines and will soon boast seven offices around the state to house 25 full time paid staffers including a new and more seasoned campaign director and press secretary. What's happened in Iowa as has been part of the changes at the national level. We we were able to convince the National Glenn campaign that they ought to really focus attention on Iowa and he has ample funds to do that. Having raised four point three million dollars by last September the strategy in Iowa will be as it is elsewhere to portray John Glenn as the citrus candidate who can win votes from Ronald Reagan. Will we offer a party that derides the Reagan policies of the 1920s and promises to replace them. With the programs of the 1960s. If that's the alternative we offer to the American people.

I tell you we will meet exactly the same fate in 1984 that we did in ninety eight. In recent weeks the senator has increased the number of personal appearances in the state campaigning in Iowa on Friday and Saturday of this week and to accommodate his schedule Senator Glenn taped the interview for this program on Friday evening. He'll be questioned about his campaign for the caucuses by our regular I will press panelists David with the Des Moines Register and via John McCormack a columnist for the Harris newspapers. Senator Graham the Iowa caucus on February the 20th if the date doesn't change again is the 20 second anniversary of your space. Right and we all remember the trouble they had getting that rocket off the ground. There's a lot of talk about you having the same kind of trouble getting your Iowa campaign. Do you feel the same kind of frustration you must have been on that day and I love that analogy John because I'd like to think that this effort here and I was going to be just as successful as I was February 20th 22 years ago too.

But what I want to simulate a time some trouble Liane and there's talk of trouble now and you're running according to most analyses behind mine. Oh you know I think Vice President Mondale. He's gone out and gotten a lot of leadership and Doris Mintz. But you know we get to the caucus is going to be the people that are out there voting. And I think the promises that he has had to make to get leadership to go along with him in this is very I think it's very useful to look at that because he's promised so many things to so many leaders for their particular organizations that it's unreal and you start totalling up these bills whether it's the 19 billion for social and economic programs or the 20 billion dollar jobs abilities he's promised which is our cheapest estimate of what it could cost. The promise to match subsidy for subsidy dollar for dollar in foreign countries in their trade programs that Ruben ask you has estimated at one hundred thirty billion dollars and Ruben was a special trade representative you should. He's had lot of experience in that area so you know I think when you and then

you start totaling these things up and it means instead of controlling our economy and having a tax program or something else to take care of all those additional expenditures between 90 and 170 billion that. This just promises promises and I've been pointing that out and challenging him to say how he's going to pay for these things and he hasn't done that yet so I think when people start looking at that and focusing in on this during this time period of the four to six weeks four or five weeks in which they make up their mind ahead of an election in long in February in mid January to to February up to the election date then I think they're going to decide on what is responsible what's courageous and honest and responsible for the future of the country. Senator take some time to build an organization I wonder what happened in your campaign that you didn't get going what's been the problem here. And do you have enough time to get your organization going it will certainly we do and I you know. We never planned to have a huge organization here away last year say it's a year ago that I made up my mind to run. And I think this whole thing has been lengthened out so much

you know in normal years past we would just now having people be having people declaring their candidacies in December or maybe even up into the first of next year. This is now gone on for a two or three year presidential campaign. I made my decision about a year ago and we decided that late this year is when we would really expand the operation here beef it up as we have done expanded. We now have a headquarters opening up and it's going to be in good shape to move right up into that time period coming up to the election. Senator what. Are you doing Ronald Reagan's work for him. Is Walter Mondale doing Ronald Reagan's work for it. Are the attacks the two of you are into here in this race you've already. Criticized Vice President Mondale here. Is that going to harm the election chances of one of you. No I don't think it will and I think to say that to take the other tack and say that we should never point out differences in the election campaign just defies what an election is all about his choices between different things and different approaches to how we're going to run this country or how we would

what our goals are going to be for the future. If we were to promise everything in sight then they're going to be a lot of promises on that. Are you going to be broken promises or broken bank a broken tracery one of the other. And on the other hand if we can set goals objectives get the economy under control control our foreign policy. That's what I want to do. If we are to see the politics of the past where a few leaders of organizations can endorse and then there are the power brokers and they tell all the people down the line how they you are going to vote. I think we're past that. I really do. I've had so many union members come up to me and say I don't care what those guys did down in Miami. I know what I'm going to do I'm going to make up my own mind I'll consider what they said but I'm going to make up my own mind and people watch programs like this they read the newspapers they listen to radio they watch TV. I think that the average Democrat is fully capable of making up his or her own mind about whom they for John McCain if you can if you can get the nomination which I know you're confident you will and if you can never whip those powerbrokers and party

establishment and have labor endorsement and come out with the nomination and the election. You're going to be in the same position Jimmy Carter wife when he became president over the objection of an awful lot of powerful Democrats who then proceeded to cut him up pretty well starting almost immediately how are you going to avoid that kind of thing if you be becoming the president at the point you were going to station didn't choose and yeah I think that most Democrats and leaders of these organizations are concerned enough about Reagan and about changing the policies of Ronald Reagan the economics of the Paul that have given us still have close to 10 million people unemployed in the country over 9 million. I think they're concerned enough about getting Reagan out of there that I think we can get this whole thing back together and in good shape. I hope that the nominating process decides very early on who's going to be the the nominee because that will let us have plenty of time to get this back together whatever the merits of their disagreements one and one of the

early tag an instant constant antagonistic played card which was Senator Kennedy. He's been awfully quiet lately and. I know you had some close relationship Kennedy family in years past. You expect your support of Senator Kennedy as any possibility of an endorsement. Oh I suppose we had lost a bill that would rule that out but I would imagine that Ted Kennedy is probably going to remain neutral through this you don't think he will endorse. Change your mind. President Mondale. Oh I I would be surprised if he if he moved I guess but. Well I don't know I've had no indication that he's going to be any happier to get a match against a poil I guess I'll give him you know a ration shampoo to Kennedy's. I have talked to him and I think Fritz just I'm sure every single candidate he has met with Ted talking about that Senator why would you be a better president for I were farmers than Walter Mondale. You know the agricultural program that I have put forward as I guess it would fall down

into basically summarized into four different areas one the expansion of markets. I think that's so important we now spend about a third of our produce abroad. We should be doing more than that. I think we should make reliable contracts be a reliable supplier not use food as a as a weapon as a diplomatic tool if you will. The general state of the economy as far as interest rates go affect this very much that's the importance of getting control of our national economy so we get interest rates down and we can do that. And that's so important because as long as interest rates are as high as they are the dollar remains too strong versus other currencies and so it means that they're less likely to buy more from us. It was so if we get that under control we can possibly expand markets abroad and I think we can do that. The area of price stability is a secondary in this country the reduced acreage programs and they set aside programs I have backed those because I think that gives us a chance to have stability in farming not to be bringing out programs at the last minute even after crops were planted in this

administration one year they brought out a new program after the cops were actually in the ground what you're proposing there require more spending more federal spending. We're going to require some and I've proposed that but kept my proposals within what I would cut over in defense the 12 or 15 billion they're going to get the markets the stability in the program the conservation is another area that needs emphasis we have some hundred forty six million acres I believe it is in danger of being seriously eroded away and going out of production. And then a fourth theory is trying to do the things that would help the family farm using some of the emergency loan programs the president has had available to him for instance so that's of basic four point program we can lend to a lot of details under each one of his set but the farm problem has been a round for decades. Is what you were going to do there what you're proposing going to sold it that hasn't been already tried and don't like I can't guarantee solutions but I can guarantee that we're certainly going to try and I would concentrate in those four areas.

Senator how do you differ from many of the other Democratic candidates on foreign policy questions I've heard a lot of talk about Hegde policy and I hear every other candidate saying stary similar things. I don't think you have who talk about improving exports and the dollar being too strong and getting interest rates down I think that's almost every Democratic candidate on the maybe even the Republicans on the market's true but the other things we go into details of what I propose with regard to agriculture and several very detailed speeches both here and in other states I think it's in more detail than anyone else has put out a really do you know that of a good administration despite its claim to conservatism is it is ending something like five or six times as much federal money on climate change as the criterion education of any Democratic administration of the day and I would define it want to go back shoot Sadek lies in the back of a Democrat well you can't promise to outspan and then they go oh yeah I won't promise to outspend but I think some of the things you're talking about are things that were bound up in the pic program and that is a single one year program and I think proposals

consideration and make that a multi-year program I don't think are feasible you know I had it because it to one year program and because of other of other developments is that the president in 1085 and I know who he is going to be faced with. When to ship places again and what can you do in the way of immediate action you know to avoid me. Well that's where the acreage control programs reduced acreage programs are they the set aside programs I have favored in the past I think that's what we should be moving into now so we prevent some of those huge surpluses. But you know the marketing abroad is one that is just a tremendous thing if we can move into that area we have such big surpluses but we're not going to do it as long as the economy is as far out of whack as it is and interest rates remain as high as they are when you're here I'll tell you all of the strength for you in your AG program would come from some cuts in defense spending. I'd like to take you in to defend So wait no I didn't say that cuts in defense spending all would go directly

into the AG program. What I said was that all of the different things I propose whether food nutrition programs. Making sure that no Americans are hungry a food program for children in particular and the pregnant women that now are not covered under some of the AFDC program I've proposed some things there but I've been careful that whatever the program was I was proposing whether it's in food or agriculture or education for our young people that all of these things did not exceed what I would be cutting over here on another part of the budget. That's what I mean where are those cuts in defense spending that you didn't mention where would they come. We have four different areas that I think are where I would I would propose cuts that would in no way reduce our defense capability. I would I have been an opponent of the M-x. Since way back I led the fight against that on the Senate floor three years ago the M-x to me to Rick to say that we have silos out here that are vulnerable. And so we're going to correct some of that by by building a new missile and we build a 190 2000 pound missile that can only

sit out there and be an even more attractive target doesn't make much sense. I think we'd be far better off with a small mobile so you don't know where to shoot a four starts that has a better deterrence at a cheaper cost. So I'd cut that. The rapid deployment force is a misnomer. It's not rapid not deployable not a force. What it is basically are supply dumps out ahead of the troops in different parts of the world and so I just think that's the wrong way to go them. That's putting supply dumps out ahead of the troops and more stars and expect them to be there when the troops arrive. So I've never liked that concept. The Bradley fighting vehicle is over budget under performance Same thing with a divot division air defense. You put all those together it's about 12 to 15 billion. I don't think we'd lose any substantial security for this nation and we'd have that 12 or 15 billion to to match off against some of these other meteor our media to front and that is Lebanon right now are the Marines being misused in Lebanon where they're being used as political pawns in a situation where the military definition of what they're supposed to accomplish here is very very vague.

We went in with a you know the first thing I learned in my 23 years in the Marine Corps is you size the used carefully define the objective then you size the force and equip the force to accomplish that objective without fail. And we did that when we went in to get the PLO out. And then we came back in again a second time for after the massacres at the Sabra and should tell the camps and. But then things started getting very vague. We were asked to stay and then our objective became a Marine presence. That's in the orders a Marine presence in Lebanon to help provide a situation where we could help provide the air for eventual internal security of Lebanon. That's something the Lebanese government has had only rarely in all of its 40 year history there always been armed groups that control local areas better than the central government. What I think we have to do now and that's an impossible situation because what we have are sixteen hundred Marines 50000 Syrians already in country backed up by several hundred thousand reservists now mobilized across the border. The Soviets supplying them with equipment

as long as we let this rhetoric continue upwards a U.S. and Syrian confrontation that's fraught with the utmost danger and what I would do in that situation is I would get the multinational force back together. The French the Italians the British and our forces and give them a specific objective right there with that 5000 person force bring up the UN the UNIFIL troops 7000 of them have been in southern Lebanon for for several years. And make them part of that force if we can do that. That would give a 12000 person force and then we either stay in and accomplish our objective as an international force or we get out as an international force. Once we've established that also it means then that since we are the symbolic targets for everyone the terrorist group over there that wishes to do us ill. We're the great Satan over here because of our our movies are over there and drinking and it's against Islamic law and sex and all the things that they see as pornography. We're the ones that are targets for them for religious reasons as well as the Lebanese situation. Then we could start replacing some of our troops with others if we get it back as part of a multinational force.

Thank you Senator John Sander despite your suggestion of cuts in various weapons. You are perceived as probably the strongest pro defense tough security candidate among the Democrats. And and also you have a military background. Which theirs has. What does the voter who is concerned about Reagan to do military to trigger happy to to happen to use military force How is he going to make a choice between the two of you what's that. I used to Democratic Reagan when it comes to strong defense and use of the military. My experience with the military in 23 years in the Marine Corps was in two wars and it was not making movies on the 20th century a lot. It was not in Hellcats for the Navy I was flying them. And out of that background of two wars I think comes of a good definition or good background to make the judgments on what we truly need in our military not what the last salesman was selling it came up the mall entrance steps of the Pentagon

and now that comes something else out of those two wars I came back for more missions and I like to remember and had to sit down to write next of kin letters back to the states and I think those who look at some of us have had a lot of combat as being too pro hawkish military or just wrong. Because I know of nobody that is any more peace loving in those that have really been in combat I mean where you've really been in it and had to come back and write some of those next of kin letters at the University of Iowa. Earlier today I laid out a five point program of how I would go about negotiating peace in arms control in this country and limiting the spread of nuclear weapons how to go about reducing and preventing the spread to other nations involving the other nuclear weapons states in this whole thing and overall arms control. I started working on this when I first got to the Senate. No one else was doing much in this area and it wound up with me being the principal author of the nuclear nonproliferation act of 78 because I was so utterly concerned that the devastation I'd seen at a conventional war. Was never expanded in that nuclear area so no

one is going to work any harder toward that area than I am. Senator given your position on these issues inside your party and you talked earlier about party bosses not wanting to dictate to people it seems to me that the Democratic activists are more liberal unquote than you are. How do you how do you get a nomination by not appealing to some of these various groups that seem to in all be endorsing your opponent. Oh I think we appeal to the groups. What I have not done is just go to leadership and say that they then will bring along all the x thousands of people with their money in the phone banks and delegates and rank and file doesn't do that. Oh rank and file are the ones that are going to be out there voting and I can tell you rank and file does not always agree with their own leaders in fact a lot of the rank and file and labor for instance is very resentful of the fact that. They see their dues money being used for Democrats to fight Democrats and when national polls run in union households there was a fairly even split between Mondale and myself and yet Labor

leadership went to Miami and voted some 91 percent in favor of Mondale in the room or the reports in the paper are that that will carry along with it some 10 to 12 million dollars of support for Democrats to fight Democrats what we should be looking at is who can beat Reagan in the November and I've consistently run better than anyone else in that department. They can add I mean how how you going to heal up on some of the will and should I be open here I had to go back to the campaign rhetoric and you you've been saying many harsh things about Jimmy Carter and is there any are you keeping our lines of communication open that you know I sure know I haven't said anything the only thing I've said about Carter in fact I'm an admirer of the Carter administration I think history will treat his administration far more kindly than they have to date he can ask the hard right what we are going to the Energy Department of Education. His emphasis on human rights around the world I think that his what he did with Camp David in getting. Process for peace started in the Mideast but could he could he be used by a

patron Glahn as as a Mideast envoy let me just continue a second job because I think one of the strengths. Of the Carter administration was not the handling of the economy. That's what's at issue here right now. When that resulted in 21 percent interest rates and 17 percent inflation rates and Mr. Mondale was critical of me for some of my votes in the Senate after we had lost the White House we lost control of the Senate as largely as a result of those those policies out of those Carter years than what we had a choice to do was we were going to go with those old policies that had just lost us the Senate and the White House. Are we going to go with a better Democratic proposals or with Reagan. We didn't want to go with the old policies we couldn't get any of ours through I had some I proposed on the floor. We had a choice and we were going to vote for change or not for change. We've 80 percent of the Senate Democrats voted just as I did we voted for change because we didn't want to go back to policies that had given us 21 percent interest rates and 17 percent

inflation added the economy and it's a vital issue but one is one of the great old issues that always hangs around these campaigns and it is the Federal State Question Man and example have at the end of day the president's own commission recommended and national minimum drinking age. You know what. Tasing immediately said well fine but the states should voluntarily do that. Now if something like that is of vital importance to the nation shouldn't have a strong national Washington that a strong president use federal power and put out my pad in the might be and I don't rule that out. I haven't really studied that commission report came out just a few days ago. But I can tell you that this tragedy of drinking and driving has gotten beyond just the stage where we can ignore it. We lose annually in this country about 50000 people and automobile deaths that's almost the same number that we lost in all the years of Vietnam and half of those deaths have some connection with drinking. And that's a national tragedy we can't

ignore serious international responsibility Well it's become a national tragedy and if we have to have a national law I might before that I haven't had a chance to look at the commission's report. But I know we can't go into the future just killing that number of people every year not doing something about it. Senator your communications director Greg Snyder says that you probably will not show up for a debate sponsored by the farm unity coalition. Vice President Mondale has said he will Are you afraid to debate. I suppose it might help you form a question about all that that I've got coming to the farm debate. Oh because we already are and I think it's we've accepted eight or nine different forums and debates and I think we had a conflict that we didn't feel we could cancel for that I think that was the only reason. If we resolve that conflict will probably be there because we've accepted every other one. I might add that Mr. Mondale has opted not to be in one that he's catching the dickens for over on his side. Because he apparently has a conflict one where he's refused to be there and so you know these we can't all be

everywhere and we've already been through. I think it's what seven or eight forums or nine forums I believe already I'm already committed to another seven or eight that'll make 15 or 16. You and I have put out as as as complete a foreign policy as anyone we have either in second not afraid to debate one side every time they had like about 5 Signs Your Thank you that you hold dictation contest will be decided early on. However if you think it will be the Sakho I have no idea but I would hope somebody would come out with a larger decided leader hopefully as early as possible hopefully it's me. All I wanted before we quit here you know there's a time for politics. Time for looking at goals for the future of this country there's also a time for family for home and hearth and religion and church. And we're in that holiday season right now and I want to wish everyone a very happy holiday season and Merry Christmas. Well thank you. Thank you very much that was blind Yes right. But oh I'll do that for us all in just a minute. Thank you very much for being our guest today and I will press that's all for this week we will be taking a break next week on Christmas Day and we'll be back on New Year's Day with another

edition of I will press at that time until then for Davey ups and John. And Senator John Glenn thanks for joining us today. And as he said earlier I have a very good holiday. Major funding for Iowa press was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. Why. Do

I want to press 11 13 recorded six one six eighty four day. D Major funding for Iowa press was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. D. This is audio will promise a weekly news interview program produced for

Sunday Jan. 8 this week. Presidential politics in Iowa with George McGovern. Here is Dean Borg. Good evening politics this week was dominated by the kind of media attention any candidate would like to receive front page headlines with positive prose about the Reverend Jesse Jackson's diplomatic success in Syria. It overshadowed the efforts of other candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president and raised again as a political issue. The presence of U.S. Marines in Lebanon since he began his campaign Senator McGovern has been opposed to that idea. His rhetoric sounding similar to that which he used when he ran for president in 1972 campaigning for America at that time to come home from the Vietnam War. His quest for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination is profiled by Nancy Crowfoot in this report. That's it. Thank you.

To a lot of other things have changed since George McGovern last sought the presidency. The Vietnam War one of his strongest rallying points ended the public furor over American military involvement overseas subsided and in 1980 McGovern was voted out of a job. Losing the South Dakota Senate seat he had held since 1962 which was where if you have any attention or right or wrong that has not been done to myself. As time has passed. Issues have changed many of who once supported McGovern are now supporting someone else. All of that raises questions about George McGovern's ability to recapture the Democratic support he needs to win the nomination. He admits he is a long shot. If lightning strikes and I become the Democratic nominee and President of the United States he began his campaign just last September far later than most of his opponents. But by being a long shot and by not currently holding public office. McGovern is

free from much political pressure of a constituency. Consequently he says what he thinks and has made very strong and firm campaign promises. Time running your. Point program with you. Media determination by military operations in Central America. That includes second layer may bring the Marines out of Lebanon where they never should sound in the first place. He also calls for a 25 percent cut in the military budget and a nuclear freeze. It is clear that there is some agreement with these positions as there is an affinity among Democrats for their 1972 standard bearer. Whether there is political support is another question. Nationally his staff says the campaign's financial condition has improved with one hundred eight thousand dollars cash on hand today compared to just over 37000 last September. But his popularity among Democrats at least in Iowa is wavering.

In the copyrighted Des Moines Register Iowa poll of Democrats taken in December McGovern remained a firm fourth place with 5 percent down 3 percentage points from a similar poll taken in October. That however doesn't bother McGovern or his organizers in Des Moines who are confident that there is plenty of time to gain the necessary support to win. What we find when we travel throughout Iowa is that a goodly number of people remain uncommitted. They're just not ready to make up their minds as to whom they're going to support at a caucus. So we do believe that there is time to move ourselves out in the polls. I thank you for day one of the results roll in here in the Iowa caucuses in February that McGovern forces are going to surprise this whole country. Will people be surprised on February 20th will find out this week from Senator McGovern himself. This week on I will press to accommodate his schedule the senator taped the interview for this program on Friday evening. The big question about his

campaign for the caucuses by all regular I will press panelists David with the Des Moines Register. John McCauley a columnist with the Harris newspapers. Well Senator McGovern here you are back where you are drive successful drive for the nomination started in 1972 a dozen years ago. And I wonder as you sit here this evening what how you perceive the political landscape so many of so many of the things seem to be echoes of one hundred seventy two that. Have there been changes or I Wiedmaier it in the same kind of problems that you addressed then. Well I see a lot of similarities in 1972 when I came to I was seeking votes in the caucuses 12 years ago. We were mired down in the Vietnam conflict most Americans by then thought it was a mistake that we are ever got there. But a lot of people were saying Nevertheless we made the commitment we have to stay. I see the same thing going on today in Lebanon.

Here we are with probably sixteen hundred Marines it's a little hard to find out exactly how many are there. Most Americans I think recognize that it was a mistake to send those Marines to Lebanon I said so at the time they were sent there I've been saying it every time I come to Ohio. Ever since last October. So that's a similar situation to what we faced in Vietnam. It makes me wonder you know you're campaigning against the war now if you would in your campaigning to cut the defense budget now as you would in your campaigning to be more help for the poor and unemployed as you would in your charge and the sitting president with certain shortcomings he would then people then buy it from me then what makes you think they will buy it now. Well John they did buy it in the bid for the nomination. I came from behind to win a sensational victory in 1972 keep in mind if we were sitting here at the same table in January of 72

the polls would have shown me at 4 percent. I noticed on the screen here a moment ago they had me at 5 percent. So even that's not too different. But we went on to come in second in the Iowa caucuses and then went on to win the nomination it's true that I lost the election overwhelmingly to Richard Nixon in the fall. But how many people are happy about that. Looking back on it I think a good many people would like to have those votes back. And I'm going to give them another chance. Beginning with the Iowa caucuses on February 20th. Senator a lot of people who know some people who will be eligible to participate in those caucuses were only about six years old in 1972. I guess I want to back up a little bit farther and ask why are you running these this time and what do you say to people who don't give you a chance. You know I'm running basically for the same reasons I ran in 72. I'm very disturbed about the direction this

country is pursuing. I really believe if we elect Ronald Reagan for another four years we're going to go to war. We may be at war before the 1984 elections. But the whole drift of administration policy is towards confrontation and Central America confrontation in the Middle East confrontation with the Soviet Union. I read the other day a statement by George can and perhaps the American who knows the most about Soviet American relations he says that he doesn't know any previous instance in history. We're two countries relations deteriorated to the point where Moscow and Washington are today without that resulting in war. I couldn't sit on the sidelines and do nothing about this I'm not in the United States Senate anymore. The best forum for me to be in right now as a former nominee of my party is to try again for the presidency I think I have a shot at the nomination. I think there's a chance I can win but win or lose this is the place where I belong at a

time when the country's in trouble. Senator you we mentioned in the introduction to this program your ten point plan and we reviewed it. It was but I wonder if you could discuss for some of these 10 points that your campaign surely I can give them to you in just very short order get out of Lebanon today terminate military operations in Central America the day a nuclear phrase no more nuclear weapons. An effort to negotiate a similar agreement with the Soviet Union including a cutback on our side of about one fourth in what we're now spending on military operations. We have too many troops overseas we're wasting money on redundant weapons systems. I'm the only one of the eight candidates calling for a substantial cut in military spending for it use the savings to put people back to work building up the railways building up the roadways the bridges and so on the infrastructure of the country. A new tax system to

replace the unfair and excessively complicated system that we have now that is loaded with loopholes and rip offs for the highest income people in the country a mortgage loan program that's reasonable to enable people to buy homes once again to get the housing industry going. Student loans with an arrangement that they would be paid back through the tax system the government wouldn't lose money because it would collect it with tax withholding. A program to encourage farmers. With a fair price on the things that they produce at least on the portion that's consumed here at home and an expansion of our efforts to end hunger both here in the United States and abroad. That's a broad program. John you want to word what I said before before you could address that program as you remind us surely you've got to get the nomination. Now I remember in 72 your nomination was partly the product of some drastic rule changes

which you have to think about in the party structure and nominate procedure. Jesse Jackson is complaining now that had he shot out as you were shut out prior to those rule changes and in 72 there's the same kind of complaint going on. Does Jesse have a good case. Yeah absolutely has a good case these rules changes that were made under the Hunt Commission were designed to stack the nomination against everybody except the best financed front runners. The fact that we're going to have 10 primaries and caucuses on one day on March 13th means that the candidate with the most money and the biggest organizations behind him has an enormous advantage. You can't be in 10 states at once unless you've got the money to saturate television the radio and the press. And that's why I think these rules are unfair. Now where I would disagree perhaps with Jesse Jackson is that I don't want to get into a big fight over the rules in the middle of the

campaign. We change the rules in one thousand sixty nine thousand nine hundred seventy. Long before I became a candidate for the presidency everybody knew what the rules were and I respected them I stayed with them. I frankly have never accepted the view that those rules and 72 had much to do with my nomination. I won the nomination because I won 10 primary elections including the two biggest states in the union New York and California where even if you went to nomination again I'd come back to this question of the electorate. Now you said a while ago that people probably regret voting for Richard Nixon but people show that you didn't go to Richard Nixon and I wonder how you view and how you evaluate this electorate which. We're led to believe now that there's a great sense of pride in what we did. Good aid. How do you how do you approach an electorate that has that kind of sense of values in this country.

Well it's troublesome. Let me tell you that I think the Grenada invasion is going to look very bad in the light of history. I don't understand the reason for it. The president told us the night of the invasion that it was to save the American medical students who were in school there. I've never seen any evidence that any of them were endangered. They might have been in danger after the invasion got underway. So I recognize that you do have problems signing whatever to validity of your of your assessment. It appears that a good one a considerable political triumph with that that the people like that now how does it how does a George McGovern appeal to the kind of people I accept the validity of your point is well taken you know voters are not always right. And I'm going to try to work in the time between now and the day when they start making their choices to show that some of these foreign policy initiatives that they're now applauding are not in the interest of the country. One more one more question on that point I guess I'd like to ask you Do you feel

again comparing this to 972 that there has been a growth of every sort of militaristic spirit. Over what it wasn't in that heaven. I mean I'm not sure there's been a growth in the militaristic spirit I think what there has been is a growing frustration that American arms haven't prevailed. So when we finally won one in Grenada a lot of people applauded. I think when they come to look what really happened there they're going to realize that it was a great mistake that it was unnecessary. But there was no American interest jeopardized there. We sacrifice the lives of 18 young Marines we accidentally blew up a mental hospital killed a lot of innocent patients probably 200 civilians got killed. Well I'm going to try to do in this campaign is to provoke Americans into a little more serious thinking about the direction this country is going. What kind of an America do we want. What kind of priorities do we want to set here at home. And that's the reason I'm in this race.

You're a teacher by training. Correct I am indeed. Well that sounds like you're trying to educate an electorate as opposed to winning an election. Can you do both. You do have to do both. I think I have been a teacher in fact all the years I've been in politics. But keep in mind I haven't always lost elections. I ran as a Democrat in one of the most Republican states in the union back in the 1950s and I got elected. And I kept getting elected through the 60s and the 70s and on up to 1980 and I think the reason I got elected is that I helped my constituency understand the problems that face this country that's what I'm trying to do now on a national scale. All right. Your program though sounds much of it sounds like the old liberalism that the voters rejected in 1980 both on a national level and in South Dakota. How do you respond to that I don't think the voters were rejecting the old liberalism in 1980 I think they voted against on the national scene. Frustration over the hostages in Iran they voted

against inflation. They voted against high interest rates they voted against unemployment. A lot of those things are still with us today after three years under Mr. Reagan. But I've never seen the evidence that the American people rejected the kind of positive programs that began with the New Deal. That was one of the really brilliant attractive chapters in American history and it's not an accident that the man who engineered it is the only man in American history elected president four times he won in a landslide every time he ran. Senator I'd like to go back to one of your positions you mentioned earlier and that is the 25 percent cut in military spending. No other candidate is talking about that because they all say that it's unrealistic. Can't be done would send the wrong signals to the to the rest of the world. Would weaken US military. How do you respond I disagree with all those arguments. The Peter Grace Commission which is a group of tough minded Republican businessmen appointed by President Reagan to look at the problem of waste in the military

concluded that you could save 98 billion dollars in the Pentagon over the next three years now I haven't proposed to cut that big. I propose to cut between 60 and 70 billion dollars in a budget that President Reagan thinks they ought to be two hundred seventy five billion. There is an enormous amount of waste in the way we're now procuring weapons. I've tried to bring it down to earth by picking out homely items like screwdrivers and hammers because billions of dollars boggle the mind. But it's it's disturbing to me to find that a hammer that you and I can buy for six or seven dollars here and a mine in a hardware store the Pentagon orders custom made for $400 apiece and they do the same thing on these gold plated multibillion dollar weapons system and that's what I'm trying to get at. You know what you see that kind of money even with with those sorts of cuts you can indeed I think five percent. I think you can save 25 percent of that. Two hundred seventy five billion dollar the dollars the president is asking for let me put it to you this way.

If I were president of the United States I would call on Lee Iacocca to be my secretary of defense and I'd tell him to do for the Pentagon what he did for the Chrysler Corporation and you'd be surprised how much money we'd say and we wouldn't weaken the essential defense of this country Johnny of course I would think you and Lee Iacocca would run into Would you it is the Red Scare of the nation that why nobody cares how much this guy would cost because they wave the red flag and say the Russians are going to get us. Yes but it is what about this Russian threat. It is real and and what what kind of pleasantly doubling do do to. Dampen that the anxiety and fear that stood out about the Russians. Well I would take a different view than President Reagan who keep telling the American people that we're behind in the arms competition with the Soviet Union that's a fault. We've got a stronger air force than they have we've got a much better navy. If you can find me an admiral or a general anywhere in this country.

Who has the sound of the. Who will say publicly that he'd rather have the Soviet Air Force than ours or he'd rather have the Soviet navy than ours I'd like to meet that gentleman. We've got a better overall strategic nuclear system than the Soviets have. The American people need to be told that instead of being told day after day that were we that the Russians are ahead of us they ought to be told the facts which is that in every category of significant military power were ahead of the Soviet Union each side has far more nuclear power than they need. Why then are we going ahead with the M-x missile the B-1 bomber deploying a new generation of missiles in Western Europe all of which makes the world more dangerous rather than a safer place in which to bring it down from philosophy or something that we know has happened. President Reagan accepting the responsibility for the bombing of the barracks in Beirut said that the military can't be held responsible there because. We're

dealing with a new kind of terrorism that we don't we really aren't prepared to fight. I don't know if you accept that answer or not but how would you deal with a new type of terrorism that we're seeing in the Senate is different from when you were there in security in the White House and is now too. How would you deal with this international bombing terrorism. Well first of all I would not rely on military methods to deal with what is essentially a diplomatic and political problem and that's what the president's own military senior officials said when they completed their report on the terrorist bombing of Beirut. They said there was an excessive reliance on military approaches to something that was basically a diplomatic and political problem. If I were the president the United States I'd be very embarrassed if what my senior military men had to tell me I was using them too much and not using diplomats and political intelligence enough. So we ought not to have our Marines exposed to the kind of terrorism that confronts in the Middle East. They shouldn't be

exposed to the terrorism that's in El Salvador and Nicaragua and other third world countries where terrorism has become the new weapon. But we have embassies there if the Marines aren't there there are still embassies American presence to be attacked. We do have American embassies there and it's interesting that this terrorism has increased in the very administration that said that fighting terrorism was going to be their top priority you remember the first weeks of this administration three years ago they said that combating terrorism was their number one foreign policy objective. One of the reasons that terrorism is on the increase is that we've followed the kind of interventionist. Confrontational foreign policy that has invited us to be on the receiving end of this third world anger and frustration. I think a different kind of approach to these revolutionary movements around the world would reduce the amount of terrorism that's directed at us. You know Senator you come across now as you did in 72 of the PC could have ended in the military and I interrupt you there a moment you know that Barry

Goldwater has the same position I do on the Middle East he says that everybody in an American uniform are to be put on the boats and brought home that day I don't think anybody thinks Barry Goldwater's a dub. But I hear he does say what he thinks and he thinks the same as I do about what we ought to do with the situation what my question was sort of leading up to the one about that anomaly because isn't George McGovern in addition to being a history teacher as David pointed out you know Obama a pilot who got shot down a couple of times. How that how do you explain you having what you more peaceable attitude toward the use of the military aid and leg. Well it's an interesting observation to me that some of the biggest hawks in the country have never heard a gun go off their knowledge of warfare is what they've learned in Hollywood or what they've learned on the movie screen or in television they've had no firsthand experience with war I did fly 35 combat missions in World War Two.

I saw most of my close friends killed in that war. And I want this country to be strong I want us to be adequately defended. But I think anybody who has had firsthand experience with war does not think lightly about the commitment of American forces abroad. We made a mistake committing these Marines to Lebanon why don't we met and met it before another 241 are killed in needless attacks and needless confrontations. Senator be remiss if we didn't discuss agriculture for a minute before we have to leave. I'd like your thoughts on what's the problem with American agriculture you served on that committee in the Senate. You represented South Dakota. What's the what's the problem here and what do we got to do to solve this ongoing recurring problem of surplus. I think there's several steps we have to take number one there ought to be a good strong price support or target price system. For that portion of our crop that we consume here in the United States we can afford to pay the farmers a decent price for what they produce. And that target price or pray

support system ought to guarantee that. Now in return for that farmers are going to have to agree to your production allotments that stay within reasonable guidelines. We also need a conservation component in that program so that part of the land is set aside for conserving purposes for wetlands for wildlife for building up the nutrients in the in the soil. We need a grain reserve that he's isolated from the commercial markets and I need a drink of water to clear my throat. But this is what happens when you speak in 10 towns in two days. But in any event. We need a grain reserve that's carefully isolated from the market just like we need a petroleum reserve against emergency situations. And instead of cutting back our food programs for the hungry in this country and abroad we ought to be expanding them. That's good business for agriculture it's good business for the retail grocers it's good business for the food

processors and it's good morality. I would call it in the 60s you were right in Kennedy's head of the Food for Peace program which I think was original at that time and and that has fallen into disuse and used a place for resurrecting that kind of program. Absolutely because we could do more to dry up the swamp lands in which communism breeds abroad by the intelligent use of American food than with all the military hardware we're shipping to these poor countries abroad. We've demonstrated during the Kennedy administration when I ran the Food for Peace program that we could triple what we were doing with food without disrupting markets and in helping hungry people stabilize their lives and stabilize their societies. We ought to be doing that again. Stators this race over. It was all over. People say it is. Well they haven't been out across the country that if they say that because about eight out of 10 rank and file Democratic voters don't know today who they're going to vote

for in the Iowa caucuses on February 20 of the same thing is true in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. These other state. Final question to you the overriding issue remains and one of the nuclear threat of nuclear war I know any circumstances you know what I just circumstances in which you have placed it would use nuclear weapons. The only possible excuse for ever using nuclear weapons is if we were hit with nuclear weapons by the opposition we have to maintain our deterrent. We have to make clear that if through some wild paranoid act we're attacked with nuclear weapons that we're going to respond. There's no other use for it to be sponsored you know if we don't have a hint that both sides lose there's no victory a nuclear war that's why the late President Eisenhower was right on target when he said the alternative to coexistence is no existence at all. We have no time right now. We're out of time thank you very much Senator McGovern for being our guest this week and I will press that's it for this edition. Until next week for a debut absent John

McCauley. I'm Dean Borg thank you for joining us this week and have a good week. Major funding for Iowa Rice was provided by friends of my well public television. Why.