Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Hubert Humphrey.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526143
label
Campaign Kickoff Dinner for Sam Nakasian, 25th District GOP Candidate for Congress, Tarrytown, NY, June 22, 1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526143
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Campaign Kickoff Dinner for Sam Nakasian, 25th District GOP Candidate for Congress, Tarrytown, NY, June 22, 1968
description
This file contains material relating to Hubert Humphrey.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
Crime
Federal budget
Presidential campaigns
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526143
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-06-30
month
6
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-06-01
month
6
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
f062e320e9fd2384
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D25, folder "Campaign Kickoff Dinner for Sam
Nakasian, 25th District GOP Candidate for Congress, Tarrytown, NY, June 22, 1968" of
the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D25 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
OfficeCapy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR USE IN SUNDAY AM's--
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., House Republican Leader, at
a Campaign Kickoff Dinner for Sam Nakasian, GOP candidate for Congress in New
York's 25th District, at 8 p.m. Saturday, June 22, 1968, at Tarrytown, N.Y.
Are you happy with what is happening in America today? Are you happy with
what has happened to America at home and abroad in the last several years?
Of course not--and neither is anyone else.
Never was it more true that an individual American can do something to change
the course of his country. And never was an election more crucial to the future of
America than the balloting which will take place November 5.
You can do something about the mess America is in. You can do it by working
for a Republican victory between now and November. You can do it by helping to send
Sam Nakasian to the United States House of Representatives--to a seat where he can
help steer this Nation in a New Direction, toward peace and genuine prosperity,
toward equal justice and progress for all.
One of Lyndon Johnson's favorite expressions is "let us continue."
Shall we continue the Johnson-Humphrey inflation that is eating away at the
dollar each day?
Shall we continue the sharp rise in the national crime rate that has climbed
88 per cent since 1960?
Shall we continue to let the Mafia and other crime syndicates operate
without any fear of electronic surveillance?
Shall we continue to encourage riots by letting arsonists and looters think
they can get away with it?
Shall we continue to encourage violence by sanctioning civil disobedience as
a weapon of social action?
Shall we continue the federal spending explosion which has forced a Johnson-
Humphrey tax increase upon the American people?
Shall we continue the Johnson-Humphrey political approach to poverty which
has produced a Resurrection City in the heart of the Nation's capital?
Shall we continue the Johnson-Humphrey grantsmanship which has poured billions
of taxpayer dollars into America's problems without solving any of them?
This is the Democratic Party status quo that Lyndon Johnson would have us
FORD
continue. I'm strongly opposed to that status quo and so is Sam Nakasian.
GERALD
LIBRARY
(more)
-2-
The status quo is the Democratic mess--the mess of a no-win war in Vietnam,
a dollar that has dropped to 83 cents in value since Dwight D. Eisenhower left
office, inflation that has hurt all Americans and has hurt the pensioners and the
poor the worst, lawlessness that is buffeting Americans with a tide of turmoil and
fear.
This week the Congress acted to meet one of the crises created by the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration--the crisis of our deteriorating dollar, a dollar
in which Europeans have lost confidence, a dollar which no longer is as good as gold.
I and other Republicans felt that Democrats in the Congress should vote to
clean up the mess they have made, the mess their party has produced by piling up
$60 billion in deficits since 1960. We felt that every Democrat was morally bound
to vote for the Johnson-Humphrey tax increase, the Democratic Party's tax increase.
Yet seventy-seven Democrats, including your congressman, voted "no." They not only
voted against paying the bill for the spending they had been happy to vote for in
the past, they also voted against the spending cuts that were part of the tax bill
package. So they were voting for continued huge deficit spending; they were voting
for continued fiscal irresponsibility, galloping inflation and sky-high interest
rates. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Now, how do we change all this? How do we put this country on the road to a
sound dollar, genuine prosperity and durable peace? It can only be done with New
Leadership in the Congress. That is why it is so important for you to help elect
a Republican House of Representatives in November, to give a new Republican Presi-
dent a Republican House to work with.
You have a splendid candidate here in the 25th District. I have made it my
business to acquaint myself with Sam Nakasian's life and record, and I think he's
just a great guy.
This is the kind of man we need in the Congress of the United States today.
He is ideally suited for the office. A self-made man, he knows what it means to
earn a dollar and he will spend the taxpayer's dollar as though it comes out of his
own pocket. With his expertise in economics he can help us solve the complex
fiscal problems that beset us in Washington.
Give us Sam Nakasian and other men like him and we will make Americans proud
of their country again.
######
Distribution: 20 Copies Mr Ford
mailing 6/22/68
Moffice Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR USE IN SUNDAY AM's--
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., House Republican Leader, at
a Campaign Kickoff Dinner for Sam Nakasian, GOP candidate for Congress in New
York's 25th District, at 8 p.m. Saturday, June 22, 1968, at Tarrytown, N.Y.
Are you happy with what is happening in America today? Are you happy with
what has happened to America at home and abroad in the last several years?
Of course not--and neither is anyone else.
Never was it more true that an individual American can do something to change
the course of his country. And never was an election more crucial to the future of
America than the balloting which will take place November 5.
You can do something about the mess America is in. You can do it by working
for a Republican victory between now and November. You can do it by helping to send
Sam Nakasian to the United States House of Representatives--to a seat where he can
help steer this Nation in a New Direction, toward peace and genuine prosperity,
toward equal justice and progress for all.
One of Lyndon Johnson's favorite expressions is "let us continue."
Shall we continue the Johnson-Humphrey inflation that is eating away at the
dollar each day?
Shall we continue the sharp rise in the national crime rate that has climbed
88 per cent since 1960?
Shall we continue to let the Mafia and other crime syndicates operate
without any fear of electronic surveillance?
Shall we continue to encourage riots by letting arsonists and looters think
they can get away with it?
Shall we continue to encourage violence by sanctioning civil disobedience as
a weapon of social action?
Shall we continue the federal spending explosion which has forced a Johnson-
Humphrey tax increase upon the American people?
Shall we continue the Johnson-Humphrey political approach to poverty which
has produced a Resurrection City in the heart of the Nation's capital?
Shall we continue the Johnson-Humphrey grantsmanship which has poured billions
of taxpayer dollars into America's problems without solving any of them?
This is the Democratic Party status quo that Lyndon Johnson would have us
FORD
continue. I'm strongly opposed to that status quo and so is Sam Nakasian.
GERALD
LIBRARY
(more)
-2-
The status quo is the Democratic mess--the mess of a no-win war in Vietnam,
a dollar that has dropped to 83 cents in value since Dwight D. Eisenhower left
office, inflation that has hurt all Americans and has hurt the pensioners and the
poor the worst, lawlessness that is buffeting Americans with a tide of turmoil and
fear.
This week the Congress acted to meet one of the crises created by the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration--the crisis of our deteriorating dollar, a dollar
in which Europeans have lost confidence, a dollar which no longer is as good as gold.
I and other Republicans felt that Democrats in the Congress should vote to
clean up the mess they have made, the mess their party has produced by piling up
$60 billion in deficits since 1960. We felt that every Democrat was morally bound
to vote for the Johnson-Humphrey tax increase, the Democratic Party's tax increase.
Yet seventy-seven Democrats, including your congressman, voted "no." They not only
voted against paying the bill for the spending they had been happy to vote for in
the past, they also voted against the spending cuts that were part of the tax bill
package. So they were voting for continued huge deficit spending; they were voting
for continued fiscal irresponsibility, galloping inflation and sky-high interest
rates. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Now, how do we change all this? How do we put this country on the road to a
sound dollar, genuine prosperity and durable peace? It can only be done with New
Leadership in the Congress. That is why it is so important for you to help elect
a Republican House of Representatives in November, to give a new Republican Presi-
dent a Republican House to work with.
You have a splendid candidate here in the 25th District. I have made it my
business to acquaint myself with Sam Nakasian's life and record, and I think he's
just a great guy.
This is the kind of man we need in the Congress of the United States today.
He is ideally suited for the office. A self-made man, he knows what it means to
earn a dollar and he will spend the taxpayer's dollar as though it comes out of his
own pocket. With his expertise in economics he can help us solve the complex
fiscal problems that beset us in Washington.
Give us Sam Nakasian and other men like him and we will make Americans proud
of their country again.
######
M-affice Copy
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
NAKASIAN "KICK-OFF" DINNER
HILTON INN, TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK
Saturday, June 22, 1968
San Nekasian ought to be the next Congressmen from this Congressional
District.
You had an election in the State of New York last Tuesday. I am not
precisely clear on what that primary revealed on the national level but I did
deduce these thoughts. Despite the popular candidacy of Senator McCarthy, it
appears that a combination of four forces will decide the nomination of Vice-
President Humphrey for the Democrats. This is a paradoxical combination on
the surface and even more complicated below the surface. First the Vice-
President's own capabilities within the Democratic party; second, the assistance
of the President himself, which is not inconsiderable in today's political
areas; third, the influence of George Meany in the labor movement; and finally,
the power of the entrenched Southern democrat politicians. It is a paradomical
and incongruous allignment. How can it give this country the kind of leadership
that we need in this time of crisis?
Despite what I just said about the Vice-President, I have great personal
admiration for him. You know, you can't help but admére a first-mate of a ship
who stands on the burning deck after every member of the crew from captain to
cabin boy has fled the ship. But, how anybody, under the circumstances, can
extract a campaign theme of happiness and joy, is beyond comprehension.
A few months ago I was on a program with the distinguished Vice-President
and, as you know, he's very glib and has a ready wit. That's not one of my
fortes. In order to set the stage properly for my point of véew, I said:
"Matching me for laughs against Hubert Humphrey is like matching Twiggy against
Zsa Zsa Gabor." Mobody could really be mad at Hubert -- after all, he is sort
of a Pagliacci of politics in 1968.
But, as we well know, Hubert Humphrey is really going to ask the American
people in 1968 to continue the status quo -- he will insist that we have never
had it better and that we continue. And I ask all Americans under these
FORD
circumstances to take a good, hard look at whether or not under the conditions
878917
we face as a nation, we WANT to continue what we've had for the past four years?
I know the Presidential Sweepstakes of 1968 has been a year of latecomers
-2-
and dropouts, and I suspect that anyone who looks into his crystal ball and
trys to make any firm predictions between now and November 5th is either a
fool or a Washington columnist -- or maybe both. But the facts are that we, as
the opposition party, can count on Mubert Humphrey being the opposition. I
welcome that opportunity.
Mr. Numphrey totally represents this administration as a result of the
alleged withdrawal of the President from the campaign of 1968. What is the
record that the American people have to analyse?
First, by any objective analysis, we as a country, are on the brink of
the most serious fiscal and economic efisis that w've faced since the 1930's.
Secondly, just a day or so ago the Viet Nam War became the longest war
in the history of the United States.
Thirdly, the statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate
that in the last seven years the United States with a population increase of
about 10% has had an 88% increase in major crimes. Moreover, if we look at
the last 12 months, this administration must be identified with the most
accelerated increase in crime in this country's history.
So whether you look at the fiscal and economic problems or whether you
look at your responsibilities and prestige internationally, militarily and
diplomatically, or whether you look at peace and tranquility and progress at
home, this administration hasn't done well by the American people. And to ask
us to continue the status quo is an insult to 200 million Americans.
But let me talk first hand about your incumbent Congressman in relation-
ship to one of the problems that I mentioned a moment ago. We had a crucial
vote in the House of Representatives last Thursday. In my nearly 20 years in
the House of Representatives I don't think I have ever faced any crisis which
meant so much to the strength and stability of our country than that vote last
week. It was a vote that called upon every member of the House of Representatives
to stand up and be counted, tto vote for a tax increase to save this country
from a financial disaster. Not on a partisan basis, but on the basis of what
is right for America. Ogden Reid voted for the increased tax to save our
American economy. Your incumbent Congressmen voted "No" when the national
interest demanded that he vote "Yes."
Now let me go back just a minute because I think it relates to the vote
that was taken in the House last week. Your incumbent Congressman was elected
in the 1964 landalide victory of President Johnson. He was one of 295 Democratic
-3-
members of the House dragged in by the President. The Republican ranks were
decimated to 140. The net result was that with a strong professional
politician in the White House, the majority in the House became supine and a rubber
stamp for the Executive Branch. Your incumbent Congressman was part of that
majority.
Many of us in the minority during the trying times of 1965 and 1966 tried
to point out on a day-to-day basis that the elected representatives of the
American people were not performing their responsibilities as a co-ordinate,
co-equal branch of the Federal Government. And many of us sought to advine the
American people that as a consequence, things were being done to our financial
stability and to our form of government that were contrary to the best traditions
of our way of life.
One of the wisest Democrats in the Congress of the United States, Senater
Mike Mansfield, spoke frankly and henestly in an interview with Arthur Krock of
the New York Times. Nine months after the insuguration of the unlamented 89th
Congress, Senator Mike Mansfield gave his appraisal of the first session of
that Congress. Let me quote his statement: "We have passed a lot of major bills
in this session, some of them very hastily, and they stand in an extreme need of
# goingOover for losp-holes and rough corners and particularly for an assessment
of current and ultimate costs in the framework of our capacity to meet these
costs." No Republican feels more strongly about this problem then the Democratic
majority leaders who, when asked, "what should the second session of this Congress
do?" answered: "The second session of the 89th Congress in 1966, should have
spent less time with new legislation and more time correcting oversights in
the legislation that just passed." Regretably, Congress did not carry out this
formula, and your incumbent Congressman did nothing to rectify the oversights,
rough corners and loopholes that he helped to create in the first session of the
89th Congress. Furthermore, your incumbent Congressman has done nothing to
remedy his failure to realise that they had not considered the current or ultimate
cost of many programs that were enacted into law. Because of that, the Congress
and the administration, and America, today are on the brink of financial and
economic difficulties comparable with the 1930's. I hope and trust that what
was done Thursday and Friday of this week in the Congress will get us over the
hump. I regret that your incumbent Congressman didn't stand up and face the
financial crisis which he helped to create. I can understand somebody who voted
against the tax increase who had consistently voted against all of these Great
-4-
Society spending programs rammed through the Congress by the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration. I understand that he could say to his constituents: 'Well, I
didn't vote for those programs; let the members of Congress who voted to spend
billions and billions of dollars stand up and impose new taxes on the American
people.
That's an understandable point of view, and I must say, that if I had
looked at my own record and didn't have responsibilities as the minerity leader
of the House, I might have been sympathetic to that point of view myself. But
under no circumstances can a man with integrity who has voted day after day
after day for spending programs duck the responsibility to impose taxes on the
people to pay the bill.
I know politics ard sometimes hard to understand, but there are some simple
formulae that if you vote to spend money, you should have the courage to stand
up and pay the bill with additional taxes. That's fundamental. I think from
what you've heard from the people who have spoken before me, that Sam Nakasian
would, in the first place, use better judgment on where we ofght to make our
commitments at home and abroad, and then, which the chips are down, he will
face up to a solution that is in the best interests of the American people.
He won't quirm and squeal to duck responsibility. Therefore I urge with all my
heart and with all my sincerity that you elect Sam Nakasian the next Congressman
from this Congressional District.
I mentioned a word or two about crime and civil disobedience. Let me be
a little more specific. The American people expect that those who violate the
law will be called before the courts so that the judges and the juries will pass
judgment on any alleged crime and that there will be justice meted out to those
who are guilty. And I think that the record I indicated a few membits ago of crime
going up 88%, while our population has increased only 10%, indicates clearly that
we need new leadership at the highest level to implement and execute these pro-
grams that are so essential for the protection of the majority of our citizens
who are law-abiding.
Just a week or so ago, the Congress approved an anti-crime bill which bore
little resemblance to the impotent legislation recomended by the President about
18 months ago. It was legislation which gives to the executive branch of the
Federal Government new tools to attack the problems caused by organized crime.
It was unbelievable that the U. S. President just several days ago, in the
process of signing this legislation, said that he was reluctantly approving it.
-5-
But to add further insult, the President of the United States said, in effect,
I have ordered my Attorney General and the Department of Justice not to use
some of the legislative tools that the Congress made available to him for the
purpose of prosecuting organized crime in America. What kind of an administration
do we get when the Chief Executive will not use the tools that the Congress
gives him and will not undertake the prosecution of organized crime? I cannot
believe that the substitution of Hubert Numphrey will make one iota of change
in this important attitude.
Ladies and Gentlemen -- I do not believe that we, as a politecal party,
can reagyon the errors and omissions and failures of the opposition to justify
us as a Republican party given the stewardship of the White House or control of
the legislative branch. I feel that the Republican party -- en order to
justify this responsibility for the next four years -- must earn it. Earn it
on records, on programs that we espouse -- Oh, I know that there maybbe somp
people in our midst, Republicans, who say: "Well, let catastrophe at home or
abroad hit America and then after these dire events have taken place, the
American people will turn to the Republican party, and we, as the party in power,
can pick up the pieces and build from the shambles."
Ladies and Gentlemen, that is not thehheritage, the tradition, of the party
of Lincoln and Eisenhower. We, as a Republican Party, have a philosophy that is
different from our Democratic friends.
It is a philosophy that can, if implemented, meet the problems both at
home and abroad. And I emphasize that this philosophy can do more to correct
the problems than that of the Democratic Party. And what is the basic difference?
A President sends message after message presenting problems to the Congress and
recommending selutions. Under this administration, we had a flood of messages --
and the thread that ran through every solution under this Democratic admini-
stration was three-fold: First, we should spend more Federal money; Second, we
should add substantially to the number of Federal employees; and Third, that
there should be further encroachment by the Federal government on the state, county
and city governments. Of course they had to hang out a little bait to some
sigment of our society in order to get some Congressional approval of this
FORD
Democratic approach.
LIBRARY
What bothers me is that the Democrats never tell the American people where
they are taking them. It's deceptive the way they sell it, but here is what
they really mean -- a government big enough to give us everything is a government
-6-
big enough to take away everything that we have.
Now, I am proud to say that the Republican philosophy that I espause and
that our candidates for President believe is one that puts a different emphasis
on our blueprint for the solution of these problems. We have on the record that
the private sector in combination with state and local governments is a better
way to handle these problems in our great country.
And I think our record in the Congress is clear. We not only talk it;
we vote it. Problems of education, problems of air and water pollution. There
is a Republican selution for these problems. We must employ the greater
intelligence and drive of the free enterprise sector. This turns over to people
like your Governor or your mayor, Jim O'Rourke, the responsibility of actually
handling the problems at the local level. This is the way to get progress, to
get solutions. And I know that with a Republican President and a Republican
House and added strength in the Senate, we can get the job done with less cost
to the American people.
One final observation. I'm here for one simple reason. It's needed, it's
eseential that the House of Representatives have a Republican majority in the
next Congress. We need a net gain of 31 seats for the Republicans to have a
majority in the Mouse of Representatives. We made a net gain of 47 House seats
in 1966. That was a big increase, and I know that there are some skeptics and
cynics who say you can't get 31 more. My answer is very simple. If we can
make a net gain of 47 with conditions as they were in 1966, we ought to pick
up at least 31 more in 1968.
You have a splendédecandidate here in the 25th District. I have made it
my business to acquaint myself with Sam Nekasian's life and record.
This is the kind of man we need in the Congress of the United States today.
He is ideally suited for the office. A self-made man, he knows what it means
to earn a dollar, and he will spend the taxpayer's dollar as though it comes
out of his own pocket. With his expertise in economics, he can help solve the
complex fiscal problems that beset us in Washington.
Give us Sam Nakasian, and we will make Americans proud of their country
again.
FORD
s # e
a-Office Copy
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
NAKASIAN "KICK-OFF" DINNER
HILTON INN, TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK
Saturday, June 22, 1968
San Nekasian ought to be the next Congressmen from this Congressional
District.
You had an election in the State of New York last Tuesday. I am not
precisely clear on what that primary revealed on the national level but I did
deduce these thoughts. Despite the popular candidacy of Senator McCarthy, it
appears that a combination of four forces will decide the nomination of Vice-
President Humphrey for the Democrats. This is a peradoxical combination on
the surface and even more complicated below the surface. First the Vice-
President's own capabilities within the Democratic party; second, the assistance
of the President himself, which is not inconsiderable in today's political
arean; third, the influence of George Meany in the labor movement; and finally,
the power of the entrenched Southern democrat politicians. It is a paradomical
and incongruous allignment. How can it give this country the kind of leadership
that we need in this time of crisis?
Despite what I just said about the Vice-President, I have great personal
admiration for him. You know, you can't help but admère a first-mate of a ship
who stands on the burning deck after every member of the crew from captain to
cabin boy has fled the ship. But, how anybody, under the circumstances, can
extract a campaign theme of happiness and joy, is beyond comprehension.
A few months ago I was on a program with the distinguished Vice-President
and, as you know, he's very glib and has a ready wit. That's not one of my
fortes. In order to set the stage properly for my point of véew, I said:
"Matching me for laughs against Hubert Humphrey is like matching Twiggy against
Zsa Zsa Gabor." Nobody could really be mad at Hubert -- after all, he is sort
of a Pagliacci of politics in 1968.
But, as we well know, Hubert Humphrey is really going to ask the American
people in 1968 to continue the status quo -- be will insist that we have never
had it better and that we continue. And I ask all Americans under these
circumstances to take a good, hard look at whether or not under the conditions
we face as a nation, we WANT to continue what we've had for the past four years?
I know the Presidential Sweepstakes of 1968 has been a year of latecomers
-2-
and dropouts, and I suspect that anyone who looks into his crystal ball and
trys to make any firm predictions between now and November 5th is either a
fool or a Washington columnist -- or maybe both. But the facts are that we, as
the opposition party, can count on Mubert Humphrey being the opposition. I
welcome that opportunity.
Mr. Humphrey totally represents this administration as a result of the
alleged withdrawal of the President from the campaign of 1968. What is the
record that the American people have to analyse?
First, by any objective analysis, we as a country, are on the brink of
the most serious fiscal and economic cfisis that we've faced since the 1930's.
Secondly, just a day or so ago the Viet Nam War because the longest war
in the history of the United States.
Thirdly, the statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate
that in the last seven years the United States with a population increase of
about 10% has had an 88% increase in major crimes. Moreover, if we look at
the last 12 months, this administration must be identified with the most
accelerated increase in crime in this country's history.
So whether you look at the fiscal and economic problems or whether you
look at your responsibilities and prestige internationally, militarily and
diplomatically, or whether you look at peace and tranquility and progress at
home, this administration hasn't done well by the American people. And to ask
us to continue the status quo is an insult to 200 million Americans.
But let me talk first hand about your incumbent Congressuan in relation-
ship to one of the problems that I mentioned a moment ago. We had a crucial
vote in the House of Representatives last Thursday. In my nearly 20 years in
the House of Representatives I don't think I have ever faced any crisis which
meant so much to the strength and stability of our country than that vote last
week. It was s vote that called upon every member of the House of Representatives
to stand up and be counted, tto vote for a tax increase to save this country
from a financial disaster. Not on a partisan basis, but on the basis of what
is right for America. Ogden Reid voted for the increased tax to save our
American economy. Your incumbent Congressmen voted "No" when the national
interest demanded that he vote "Yes."
Now let me go back just a minute because I think it relates to the vote
that was taken in the House last week. Your incumbent Congressman was elected
in the 1964 landslide victory of President Johnson. He was one of 295 Democratic
-3-
members of the House dragged in by the President. The Republican ranks were
decimated to 140. The net result was that with a strong professional
politician in the White House, the majority in the House became supine and a rubber
stamp for the Executive Branch. Your incumbent Congressman was part of that
majority.
Many of us in the minority during the trying times of 1965 and 1966 tried
to point out on a day-to-day basis that the elected representatives of the
American people were not performing their responsibilities as a co-ordinate,
co-equal branch of the Federal Government. And many of us sought to advise the
American people that as a consequence, things were being done to our financial
stability and to our form of government that were contrary to the best traditions
of our way of life.
One of the wisest Democrats in the Congress of the United States, Senater
Mike Mansfield, spoke frankly and honestly in an interview with Arthur Krock of
the New York Times. Nine months after the insuguration of the unlamented 89th
Congress, Senator Mike Mansfield gave his appraisal of the first session of
that Congress. Let me quote his statement: "We have passed a lot of major bills
in this session, some of them very hastily, and they stand in an extreme need of
a goingOover for loop-holes and rough corners and particularly for an assessment
of current and ultimate costs in the framswork of our capacity to meet these
costs." No Republican feels more strongly about this problem than the Democratic
majority leaders who, when asked, "what should the second session of this Congress
do?" answered: "The second session of the 89th Congress in 1966, should have
spent less time with new legislation and more time correcting oversights in
the legislation that just passed." Regretably, Congress did not carry out this
formula, and your incumbent Congressman did nothing to rectify the oversights,
rough corners and loopholes that he helped to create in the first session of the
89th Congress. Furthermore, your incumbent Congressman has done nothing to
remedy his failure to realize that they had not considered the current or ultimate
cost of many programs that were enacted into law. Because of that, the Congress
and the administration, and America, today are on the brink of financial and
economic difficulties comparable with the 1930's. I hope and trust that what
was done Thursday and Friday of this week in the Congress will get us over the
hump. I regret that your incumbent Congressmen didn't stand up and face the
financial crisis which he helped to create. I can understand somebody who voted
against the tax increase who had consistently voted against all of these Great
-4-
Society spending programs rammed through the Congress by the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration. I understand that he could say to his constituents: 'Well, I
didn't vote for those programs; let the members of Congress who voted to spend
billions and billions of dollars stand up and impose new taxes on the American
people.
That's an understandable point of view, and I must say, that if I had
looked at my own record and didn't have responsibilities as the minerity leader
of the House, I might have been sympathetic to that point of view myself. But
under no circumstances can a man with integrity who has voted day after day
after day for spending programs duck the responsibility to impose taxes on the
people to pay the bill.
I know politics ard sometimes hard to understand, but there are some simple
formulae that if you vote to spend money, you should have the courage to stand
up and pay the bill with additional taxes. That's fundamental. I think from
what you've heard from the people who have spoken before me, that Sam Nakasian
would, in the first place, use better judgment on where we ofght to make our
commitments at home and abroad, and then, which the chips are down, he will
face up to a solution that is in the best interests of the American people.
He won't quirm and squeal to duck responsibility. Therefore I urge with all my
heart and with all my sincerity that you elect Sam Nakasian the next Congressman
from this Congressional District.
I mentioned a word or two about crime and civil disobedience. Let me be
a little more specific. The American people expect that those who violate the
law will be called before the courts so that the judges and the juries will pass
judgment on any alleged crime and that there will be justice meted out to those
who are guilty. And I think that the record I indicated a few mombits ago of crime
going up 88%, while our population has increased only 10%, indicates clearly that
we need new leadership at the highest level to implement and execute these pro-
grams that are so essential for the protection of the majority of our citizens
who are law-abiding.
Just a week or so ago, the Congress approved an anti-crime bill which bore
little resemblance to the impotent legislation recommended by the President about
18 months ago. It was legislation which gives to the executive branch of the
Federal Government new tools to attack the problems caused by organized crime.
It was unbelievable that the U. S. President just several days ago, in the
process of signing this legislation. said that he was reluctantly amerowine it
-5-
But to add further insult, the President of the United States said, in effect,
I have ordered my Attorney General and the Department of Justice not to use
some of the legislative tools that the Congress made available to him for the
purpose of prosecuting organized crime in America. What kind of an administration
do we get when the Chief Executive will not use the tools that the Congress
gives him and will not undertake the prosecution of organized crime? I cannot
believe that the substitution of Hubert Humphrey will make one iota of change
in this important attitude.
Ladies and Gentlemen -- I do not believe that wa, as a politecal party,
can reagyon the errors and omissions and failures of the opposition to justify
us as a Republican party given the stewardship of the White House or control of
the legislative branch. I feel that the Republican party -- én order to
justify this responsibility for the next four years -- must earn it. Earn it
on records, on programs that we espouse -- Oh, I know that there maybbe somp
people in our midst, Republicans, who say: "Well, let catastrophe at home or
abroad hit America and then after these dire events have taken place, the
American people will turn to the Republican party, and we, as the party in power,
can pick up the pieces and build from the shambles."
Ladies and Gentlemen, that is not thehheritage, the tradition, of the party
of Lincoln and Eisenhower. We, as a Republican Party, have a philosophy that is
different from our Democratic friends.
It is a philosophy that can, if implemented, meet the problems both at
home and abroad. And I emphasize that this philosophy san do more to correct
the problems than that of the Democratic Party. And what is the basic difference?
A President sends message after message presenting problems to the Congress and
recommending solutions. Under this administration, we had a flood of messages --
and the thread that ran through every solution under this Democratic admini-
stration was three-fold: First, we should spend more Federal money; Second, we
should add substantially to the number of Federal employees; and Third, that
there should by further encroachment by the Federal government on the statd, county
and city governments. Of course they had to hang out a little beit to some
sigment of our society in order to get some Congressional approval of this
Democratic approach.
What bothers me is that the Democrate never tell the American people where
they are taking them. It's deceptive the way they sell it, but here is what
they really mean -- a government bis enough to give us everything is a government
-6-
big enough to take away everything that we have.
Now, I am proud to say that the Republican philosophy that I espuuse and
that our candidates for President believe is one that puts a different emphasis
on our blueprint for the solution of these problems. We have on the record that
the private sector in combination with state and local governments is a better
way to handle these problems in our gount country.
And I think our record in the Congress is clear. We not only talk it;
we vote it. Problems of education, problems of air and water pollution. There
is a Republican solution for these problems. We must employ the greater
intelligence and drive of the free enterprise sector. This turns over to people
like your Governor or your mayor, Jim O'Rourke, the responsibility of actually
handling the problems at the local level. This is the way to get progress, to
get solutions. And I know that with a Republican President and a Republican
House and added strength in the Senate, we can get the job done with less cost
to the American people.
One final observation. I'm here for one simple reason. It's needed, it's
essential that the House of Representatives have a Republican majority in the
next Congress. We need a net gain of 31 seats for the Republicans to have a
majority in the House of Representatives. We made a net gain of 47 House seats
in 1966. That was a big increase, and I know that there are some skeptics and
cynics who say you can't get 31 more. My answer is very simple. If we can
make a net gain of 47 with conditions as they were in 1966, we ought to pick
up at least 31 more in 1968.
You have a splendédecandidate here in the 25th District. I have made it
my business to acquaint myself with Sam Nekasian's life and record.
This is the kind of man we need in the Congress of the United States today.
He is ideally suited for the office. A self-made man, he knows what it means
to earn a dollar, and he will spend the taxpayer's dollar as though it comes
out of his own pocket. With his expertise in economics, he can help solve the
complex fiscal problems that beset us in Washington.
Give us Sam Nakasian, and we will make Americans proud of their country
again.
# # #
GERALO FORD