President ial mummy George Mcgovern, and the reverend jesse jackson. The debate is best recovered for mondales question. He asked wheres the beef . Vice president mondale finished the primary season with the lead in delegates, but he did not secure the nomination until the Democratic Convention in july. He then lost the general election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, with the president winning 49 out of 50 states. Our coverage of this hourlong debate is courtesy of the league of women voters. Good afternoon, i am dorothy. Look into the leagues second debate of 1984. As we have done in previous president ial election years, the league of women voters is sponsoring a series of primary and general election debates so that you, the voter can make sidebyside comparisons of the candidates and their views. John chancellor, a distinguished journalist and commentator is our moderator for the debate today. John . John thank you. Gentlemen, there were eight of you and now, they are only five. I must say, you survivors look pretty chipper to me. Since then, four of you have not done as well as you would have liked. Let me describe your positions. Jesse jackson, if he does not get 20 of the vote, he will lose its eligibility for federal campaign matching funds. Mr. Mcgovern is down to one state, massachusetts. If he does not do well there, he may withdraw. Mr. Glenn has not scored a victory and the open in polls do not put him in a strong position. Mr. Mondales hopes for a quick and decisive lead have not been fulfilled. Mr. Hart has done well and he has presented himself as a man with ideas for the future, but his opponents say that is just glamour with no substance. Well, on to the substance, ladies and gentlemen. Be jackson, you will frontline combat experience in civil rights. Now that you are campaigning in the south where there are a lot of black vote, you have been hitting that civil rights thing very hard, saying that you are better than your opponents on that issue. Does that tend to narrow your candidacy . There are a lot of white voters who did not rally to your rainbow coalition. Have you reached the point where your support will come exclusively from blacks . Hampshire, i got 6 of the vote, which is better than four of my opponents. In vermont, we got 8 of the votes. We have focused on the question. Thatn appreciate the fact these farmers will be driven out of business. Secondly, we want to cut the military budget and use those resources to help and the deficit and revitalize america. We represent a new presence, but not a new direction. That affects everybody. As does the civil Voting Rights act. It is the most pivotal act of this century. There is a plan to enforce the Voting Rights act to win the primary. So the questions of social peace, and sharing power with women are critical to my agenda. Thank you. Mr. Mcgovern, you have been critical of gary hart recently. He was your Campaign Manager when he ran for president in 1972. [laughter] is his talk about the future really much different from what youre were saying in 1972 . John, first of all, i think i probably trained gary too well. [laughter] i have been rethinking that whole business of 1972. To me just say as one who has great special affection for gary hart, and you will certainly support him if he is the democratic nominee, that i do think some legitimate questions have to be asked when the issue is posed as gary has. He says the election is a contest between the past and the future. Now, im not sure what the past means in those terms. I am very sensitive about this, as gary knows, because i am an old history teacher. I have always revered the past. Georges the past include washington and Thomas Jefferson . Does include Franklin Roosevelt and john kennedy . Does it include the human rights policy of president carter . If it does, i am glad to come here today and claimed the past and defend it as a good guide to the future. Thank you. Mr. Glenn, we saw you in iowa and in New Hampshire describing yourself as a businessman and inexperienced senator. But in the south this last week, you seem to be describing yourself as a hero, astronaut, and marine. You have been all of these things, but can you really decide what sort of person you have been . I dont think i have changed my views. What you are talking about is the experience factor. Which you have pointed out. I have been 10 years in washington and have passed major legislation, such as the nonproliferation act. In addition to that, who is going to provide the jobs in this country . Who knows the best from the white house . Someone who has been in business as long as i have. I was the president of international corporation. 1 3 of our agriculture population gets sent overseas. I have been in the research area. We talk about the future, i have been working in the future all my life. I was in the military, helping work on designing some of the agreement for the future. I have experience in the area, i have extremes in the arms control area, i have experience in the business area and i think those are very valuable additions, in addition to just being solely lifelong political entities. I think i have that extra dimension. Good dimension to the white house. Thank you. Mr. Mondale, your new theme is, what you see in mondale is what you get. No hairspray. [laughter] you are saying, i am what i am. You seem resistant to change her image. The approach seems to me a bit short on actual issues and you accuse your opponents of running issueless campaigns. That is the point of the comment. Substance is all that matters. Are we right on the arms control issues . Plan tove a strong get that deficit down . Will we educate this next generation . Do we have the guts and commitment to restore a sense of fairness in american life, backed up by the experience to get it done . That is what i am trying to say. We dont elect momentum. We dont elect images. We elect a human being. And we better pick someone who knows what he is doing, who is committed to the strongest and most important elements, directed to our future, and one who is seasoned and experienced and knows what he is doing. Thank you. And finally, mr. Hart. One thing i hear people say is, i dont know much about gary hart, i like his style and his looks. Isnt there some truth to your opponents charges that your campaign is more impressionistic than theirs . That you are spending more time tha just being gary hart then outlining what you will do when you are elected . That is a good question at this stage in the race. Let me point out two fax. I have been a United States senator for two years. When George Mcgovern says he does not know what these new , lastare, i remind him fall i sent him a copy of a book that i wrote and a stack of physician papers about that high. The other thing is, these primaries are happening off with awfully fast now. I oppose the way this calendar was set up. In the fall of 1982, i told the Democratic National committee not to do this. I wish i had three weeks to campaign in florida and three weeks to campaign in georgia and three weeks to campaign in alabama because i am convinced the ideas that i have to put forward would it still down here exactly the way they have in the rest of the country. So i would hope in the future, when we nominate the president , that we give each of the candidates time to become better known in each of these states. Thank you. I would like to go on to some specific questionings now. Gentlemen, the figures on the American Economy show that the country right now is having one of the best recoveries from the recession since the 1950s. The country is in better shape right now than it was four years ago economically when the democrats were in the white house. I base that on the misery index. The publics expectation on inflation and unemployment. Four years ago, the mystery index stood at 20 and now, it is down to 13. I am going to ask each of you in random order, why should some of the vote for the democrats . Things are getting better. I would like to start with mr. Mondale. The mystery index was first used by the cartermondale ticket and 9076 as an indicator of how people feel. Thinka matter of fact, i it is now clear that these reagan policies are about to deliver a mystery index that we have not seen for a long time. We see the Interest Rates rising dramatically. We see the stock market going down dramatically. Now, we see a resurgence of inflation. They are now predicting maybe 8 by the end of the year. Weve a good chance if this continues, to choke off Economic Growth. More than that, the effect of these policies has been to give us the worst trade year in american history, about a 120 3llion trade imbalance, some million jobs lost as a result of that. These enormous deficits of 200 billion each year as far as the eye can see guarantee that longterm sustainable healthy Economic Growth is impossible and we are loading our kids with theyllion dollar bill that have to repay with interest. It is the worst and labor economic mistake of modern times. Im going to call on mr. Hart. Two points, mr. Chancellor. This government is doing something we have not done for 200 years in this nations history. And that is steal from our childrens future to satisfy a the greed of a handful of people in his country. What that mystery indicator does not measure is the anguish of our children, who are desperately afraid of a nuclear inocaust, of the woman alabama who wrote me saying she fully supported my efforts to get the marines out of lebanon her son was one that did not come back the anguish of our citizens who are afraid of toxic waste polluting their water supply, young people who do not know if they have a future education or a job beyond that, or the 9 million structurally Unemployed People that Ronald Reagan has no plan whatsoever to put back to work. This president is not addressing the fundamental problems of this countrys economy. Mr. Glen, would you address the question i have posed. Why the democrats . The mystery index of our children, i would like to know what that is going to be. Billion yearg 200 deficits and we are letting that drive Interest Rates up and we are driving exports down. We are increasing the mystery index from our children. Anyone can live on borrowed money for a while. But there are things that have to go into that index for the future. This administration has taken a short view on also. The mystery index caused by cutbacks in education. The opportunity for our young people to go beyond high school, get a decent education. I have put forward a threepart program of volunteers for america. Young people can be assured of getting a college education. We are talking about the difficulty in investing in new plants and equipment here. We are talking about cutbacks and research. Arejapanese and germans increasing the research, while we are cutting hours back. It is not just an economic matter. It is economic matters for the future that will cause our in economiclive missouri. That should not be their lot. We can do better than that. Mr. Chancellor, mr. Reagan has done something i did not expect a conservative president to do. He has bought us an artificial recovery for some people. He has done that by spending 200 billion a year more than he takes in. Now, i am sure some of the viewers listening to the five of us think we are making partisan judgments today about the president , but his own economic advisor, the chairman of the council of economic advisers, has said that this 200 billion deficit is a time bomb that is going to go off after the election. It will drive Interest Rates through will drive Interest Rates right through the ceiling. He also said that what is causing this deficit is the wild inflationary and extravagant military spending that goes way beyond any defense requirement we have. Secondly, it is an inefficient and unjust tax law that is permitting billions of dollars to go through the loopholes from the highestincome corporations in the country. My concern is that we feel the tragic pain of the misery index rising under reagan , but it will not make a. Ifference mondale would mr. Not show the ticket with a woman, they deny women who need to become empowered. John would you go over that . I am lost. Mr. Jackson our convention is now 50 female. Unless we do not empower women, they will be more miserable. If they maintain a commitment to raise the military budget, they can do nothing about reagans deficit. They are going the same direction. We are cutting aid to American Education and extending aid to el salvador. We are extending that misery. The misery index is on the rise. Wall street may be looking better, but at the bottom, things are looking much worse. Now a few minutes of freewheeling in which you are at liberty to attack one another to one another. Let me just try one thing. Arent most of you for an increase in defense spending . I am not. Cut in the25 president s budget. I think it can be done without touching anything important to our national defense. I was a bomber pilot in the second world war. I would not advocate anything that i thought touched the essential defense of this country. Some of the most thoughtful people say that it is just loaded with waste and cost overruns and not competitive bidding. If we had someone like lee iacocca as the secretary of 25 nse, he could work out less money and then you could do other things. Thatsense that said mr. Jackson is not on point. Mr. Jackson we need some force that allows it to become managed. Right now, it is unmanageable. Is, i support the need for troops in europe or japan. 50,000 troops in europe, in japan, they will help share some of the burden. They can be cut. If we can cut the defense by at , that is the money to implement the new ideas. John now we have two cutters. As i understand the positions isen by the other three, it for cutting what the president has requested. You still favor a certain increase in the Defense Budget. Am i right . Sen. Hart i am for reducing the billionuildup by 140 over the next five years. I have spelled out in great , as i think i am the only member of this group who has 10 Years Experience on the Armed Services committee, where the cuts come from. I will to you why i disagree with george and jesse. We have to increase what we are paying our military personnel to retain the most skilled personnel and avoid going back to a very divisive, vietnamstyle draft. Second, even after spending 650 billion in the last three years under this administration, the pentagon itself admits we have fewer combatready divisions than we had in 1980 under the cartermondale administration. Ist means even Ronald Reagan plundering the readiness of accounts for conventional forces, which will make us weaker. John maybe we can find a way to make this more understandable to the audience. Isnt it true that the president has asked for a 13 increase in the allocations for defense . 17 , isnt it . John 17 then. What would be yours . Mine is about 3. 5 4 . Not to argue with senator hart. About 1. 5 years ago, he wrote a dissenting opinion from mr. Reagan. Let me make my point. One of the realities of modern president ial leadership is that as much as we want to bring the Defense Budget down, and i do, as much as we want to get rid of weapon systems, and i will, as much as we need a tough new system of bidding, testing, warranties, as much as we need arms control to also help ring down pressure, the inescapable fact is that the soviet union is a powerful military nation using its power irresponsibly in cambodia and afghanistan and syria and elsewhere. The president of the United States has to do everything he can to manage that budget sensibly and wisely be but he cannot fail to effectively discharge the National Security interests of our country. That is a tough balance. But a president must do it. Would you give a percentage figure . Mr. Mondale i would be at about 4 . My two colleagues would this would cut our defense establishment beyond our all reality as far as keeping the security of this country. I have proposed about 15 billion. The rapid be on deployment and certain parts of that. The former Vice President would cut the b1, which carried cruise missiles. He would cut foreign troops and the m1 tank. Oppose procurement of the f14. I propose that would leave this country emasculated. The only two of those he has pulled back from has been the trident missile and suffering. Senator hart has gone to a program of leadership and smaller and simpler is better rather than stressing our technology. That is a fundamental difference between us. I am saying that everything we put out there has to work properly. To thecannot go back smaller, simpler day, or we wind up matching our numbers for numbers of troops versus the soviets as opposed to using what we have done in every war, and that is using our technology to keep from using so many people out there. Keep a distance between you and the enemy with our technology. I fought in those wars. I know what it is like to want the best technology because my life depended on it. I do not agree with this smaller and simpler is better and cheaper approach. I do not think most people across the south do, either. John now we have had four hands up out of five. It goes in the order of your requesting time. Hart, jackson, mcgovern, mondale. I may want to get back in, to o. Sen. Hart we cannot afford more aircraft carriers when each one cost 3. 5 billion. We are behind the soviets in submarines by a ratio of 3to1. We are falling behind almost every category of weapon systems in numbers. I want to use our technological superiority to produce conventional weapons that work in combat in sufficient numbers to defend this countrys interest. Mr. Jackson preparing to kill and be killed by the russians. Use more of our energy in talking and negotiating and engaging in trade and technology and agriculture, we could prepare to live. The fact is, we can wipe out the soviet union with 300 warheads. We have 10,000. Notonly reason they decided to kill us last night is because we decided not to kill them. That is uncivilized behavior.