Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History (47 page)

[
NIXON
: ] Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Senator Kennedy, first of all I think it is well to put in perspective where we really do stand with regard to the Soviet Union in this whole matter of growth.

The Soviet Union has been moving faster than we have, but the reason for that is obvious. They start from a much lower base.

Although they have been moving faster in growth than we have, we find for example today that their total gross national product is only 44 percent of our total gross national product. That’s the same percentage that it was twenty years ago; and as far as the absolute gap is concerned, we find that the United States is even further ahead than it was twenty years ago.

Is this any reason for complacency?

Not at all, because these are determined men, they are fanatical men, and we have to get the very most out of our economy.

I agree with Senator Kennedy completely on that score.

Where we disagree is in the means that we would use to get the most out of our economy.

I respectfully submit that Senator Kennedy too often would rely too much on the federal government on what it would do to solve our problems, to stimulate growth.

I believe that when we examine the Democratic platform, when we examine the proposals that he has discussed tonight, when we compare them with the proposals that I have made, that these proposals that he makes would not result in greater growth for this country than would be the case if we followed the programs that I have advocated.

There are many of the points that he has made that I would like to comment upon; the one in the field of health is worth mentioning.

Our health program, the one that Senator Javits and other Republican senators as well as I supported, is one that provides for all people over sixty-five who want health insurance—the opportunity to have it if they want it. It provides a choice of having either government insurance or private insurance, but it compels nobody to have insurance who does not want it.

His program under Social Security would require everybody who had Social Security to take government health insurance whether he wanted
it or not, and it would not cover several million people who are not covered by Social Security at all.

Here is one place where I think that our program does a better job than his.

The other point that I would make is this: this downgrading of how much things cost, I think many of our people will understand better when they look at what happened when during the Truman administration, when the government was spending more than it took in.

We found savings over a lifetime eaten up by inflation. We found the people who could least afford it, people on retired incomes, people on fixed incomes, we found them unable to meet their bills at the end of the month.

It is essential that a man who is president of this country certainly stand for every program that will mean growth, and I stand for programs that mean growth and progress.

But it is also essential that he not allow a dollar spent that could be better spent by the people themselves.

[
SMITH
:] Senator Kennedy, your conclusion.

[
KENNEDY
:] The point was made by Mr. Nixon that the Soviet production is only 44 percent of ours. I must say that 44 percent in that Soviet country is causing us a good deal of trouble tonight. I want to make sure that it stays in that relationship. I don’t want to see the day when it’s 60 percent of ours and 70 and 75 and 80 and 90 percent of ours, with all the force and power that it could bring to bear in order to cause our destruction.

Secondly, the vice-president mentioned medical care for the aged. Our program was an amendment to the Kerr bill; the Kerr bill provided assistance to all those who are not on Social Security. I think it’s a very clear contrast.

In 1935 when the Social Security Act was written, 94 out of 95 Republicans voted against it. Mr. Landon ran in 1936 to repeal it.

In August of 1960 when we tried to get it again, this time for medical care, we received the support of one Republican in the Senate on this occasion.

Thirdly, I think the question before the American people is, as they look at this country, and as they look at the world around them, the goals are the same for all Americans; the means are at question; the means are at issue.

If you feel that everything that is being done now is satisfactory, that the relative power and prestige and strength of the United States is increasing in relation to that of the Communists, that we are gaining
more security, that we are achieving everything as a nation that we should achieve, that we are achieving a better life for our citizens and greater strength, then I agree. I think you should vote for Mr. Nixon.

But if you feel that we have to move again in the sixties, that the function of the president is to set before the people the unfinished business of our society, as Franklin Roosevelt did in the thirties, the agenda for our people, what we must do as a society to meet our needs in this country and protect our security and help the cause of freedom—as I said at the beginning, the question before us all that faces all Republicans and all Democrats is, Can freedom in the next generation conquer, or are the Communists going to be successful? That’s the great issue.

And if we meet our responsibilities, I think freedom will conquer. If we fail—if we fail to move ahead, if we fail to develop sufficient military and economic and social strength here in this country, then I think that the tide could begin to run against us, and I don’t want historians ten years from now to say these were the years when the tide ran out for the United States. I want them to say these were the years when the tide came in, these were the years when the United States started to move again. That’s the question before the American people, and only you can decide what you want, what you want this country to be, what you want to do with the future.

I think we’re ready to move. And it is to that great task, if we are successful, that we will address ourselves.

J. Danforth Quayle, forty-one, second-term senator from Indiana, was Vice-President George H. W. Bush’s surprise choice for a running mate on the Republican ticket in 1988. Lloyd Bentsen, sixty-seven, fourth-term senator from Texas (who defeated Bush for a Senate seat in 1970), was the choice of the Democratic candidate, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.

The fall campaign began with Dukakis-Bentsen in the lead, but Bush-Quayle quickly caught up and surged ahead. By early October, the Dukakis camp was relying heavily on the assertion that its vice-presidential candidate was better qualified for the presidency than the young man who was chosen by George Bush and who was unprepared at first for the savage onslaught of the media.

On October 6, 1988, Bentsen and Quayle met in a panel debate moderated by Judy Woodruff of PBS. Senator Quayle looked young up against the veteran Bentsen, who was determined to exploit the Republican’s relative inexperience. The youthful Republican was not above taking an adept pop at the older man: when the sound system had some difficulty, Senator Bentsen said to a panelist, “John, we can’t hear you,” and Senator Quayle volunteered, “I can hear you okay.” The panel of reporters helped Mr. Bentsen by concentrating on the subject of personal preparedness, and—when Senator Quayle mentioned he had as much experience in the Congress as former President John F. Kennedy did when he sought the presidency, Senator Bentsen delivered with the most effective single punch in the history of televised presidential debates. The four simple declarative sentences, each with “Jack Kennedy” in them, built to a stunning rhetorical climax that charged effrontery in evoking the name of a Democratic icon. Quayle could say
only that the shot was “uncalled for”; he could not then point out that he had been comparing experience before running for president and that his opponent had escalated his remark to a comparison with the martyred president in his totality.

This moment was Mr. Bentsen’s high point and Mr. Quayle’s low point in life; the issue of vice-presidential experience was seen to be minor, and Bush-Quayle went on to defeat Dukakis-Bentsen in a landslide.

***

[
QUAYLE
:] The question goes to whether I am qualified to be vice-president, and in the case of a tragedy whether I’m qualified to be president. Qualifications for the office of vice-president or president are not age alone. You must look at accomplishments, and you must look at experience. I have more experience than others that have sought the office of vice-president. Let’s look at qualifications, and let’s look at the three biggest issues that are going to be confronting America in the next presidency.

Those three issues are national security and arms control, jobs and education, and the federal budget deficit. On each one of those issues I have more experience than does the governor of Massachusetts. In national security and arms control, you have to understand the relationship between a ballistic missile, a warhead, what throw weight, what megatonnage is. You better understand about telemetry and acryption, and you better understand that you have to negotiate from a position of strength. These are important issues because we want to have more arms control and arms reductions.

In the areas of jobs and education, I wrote the Job Training Partnership Act—a bipartisan bill, a bill that has trained and employed over three million economically disadvantaged youths and adults in this country.

On the area of the federal budget deficit, I have worked eight years on the Senate Budget Committee, and I wish that the Congress would give us the line item veto to help deal with that.

And if qualifications alone are going to be the issue in this campaign, George Bush has more qualifications than Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen combined….

[
BENTSEN
: ] This debate tonight is not about the qualifications for the vice-presidency. The debate is whether or not Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen are qualified to be president of the United States. Because, Judy, just as you have said, that has happened too often in the past. And if that tragedy should occur, we have to step in there without any margin for error, without time for preparation, to take over the responsibility for the
biggest job in the world, that of running this great country of ours—to take over the awesome responsibility for commanding the nuclear weaponry that this country has.

Now, the debate tonight is a debate about the presidency itself and a presidential decision that has to be made by you. The stakes could not be higher….

[
Q
: ] Senator Quayle, I want to take you back, if I can, to the question Judy asked you about some of the apprehensions people may feel about your being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

And let us assume, if we can, for the sake of this question that you become vice-president and the president is incapacitated for one reason or another and you have to take the reins of power. When that moment came, what would be the first steps that you’d take, and why?

[
QUAYLE
:] First I’d—first I’d say a prayer for myself and for the country that I’m about to lead. And then I would assemble his people and talk. And I think this question keeps going back to the qualifications and what kind of a vice-president and, in this hypothetical situation, if I had to assume the responsibilities of president what I would be.

And as I have said, age alone—although I can tell you after the experience of these last few weeks in the campaign, I’ve added ten years to my age—age alone is not the only qualification. You’ve got to look at experience, and you’ve got to look at accomplishments. And can you make a difference?

Have I made a difference in the United States Senate, where I’ve served for eight years? Yes, I have. Have I made a difference in the Congress that I’ve served for twelve years? Yes, I have.

As I said before, looking at the issue of qualifications—and I am delighted that it comes up, because on the three most important challenges facing America—arms control and national security; jobs and education, and budget deficit—I have more experience and accomplishments than does the governor of Massachusetts.

I have been in the Congress, and I’ve worked on these issues. And believe me, when you look at arms control and trying to deal with the Soviet Union, you cannot come at it from a naive position. You have to understand the Soviet Union; you have to understand how they will respond. Sitting on that Senate Armed Services Committee for eight years has given me the experience to deal with the Soviet Union and how we can move forward.

That is just one of the troubling issues that’s going to be facing this nation. And I’m prepared….

[
Q
: ] Senator, I want to take you back to the question that I asked you
earlier about what would happen if you were to take over in an emergency, and what you would do first and why. You said you’d say a prayer, and you said something about a meeting. What would you do next?

[
QUAYLE
:] I don’t believe that it’s proper for me to get into the specifics of a hypothetical situation like that. The situation is that if I was called upon to serve as the president of this country or the responsibilities of the president of this country, would I be capable and qualified to do that. And I have tried to list the qualifications of twelve years in the United States Congress. I have served in the Congress for twelve years. I have served in the Congress, and served eight years on the Senate Arms Services Committee. I have traveled a number of times. I’ve been to Geneva many times to meet with our negotiators as we’re hammering out the INF treaty. I’ve met with the Western political leaders: Margaret Thatcher, Chancellor Kohl. I know them. They know me. I know what it takes to lead this country forward. And if that situation arises, yes, I will be prepared and I’ll be prepared to lead this country if that happens.