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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1672851
label
Second Debate, 10/6/76: Comment and Analysis
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1672851
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Second Debate, 10/6/76: Comment and Analysis
citationUrl
collections
Michael Raoul-Duval Papers
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter Debates Files
subjects
Debates and debating
Presidential campaign, 1976
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1672851
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c8751fc398abe58f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 27, folder "Second Debate, 10/6/76: Comment
and Analysis" of the Michael Raoul-Duval Papers 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. Michael Raoul-Duval 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United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives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.
2
uddebate
CANDIDATE
QUESTIONER
QUESTION TIME
RESPONSE TIME
SUBJECT
CARTER
FRANKEL
:42
2:48
DEMO FOREIGN
POLICY
FORD (R)
2:00
FORD
TREWHITT
:31
3:00
LOSING TO USSR
CARTER (R)
1:51
CARTER
VALERIANI
:31
2:50
NATIONAL INTEREST
CARTER
VALERIANI
:10
1:28
FORD (R)
2:07
FORD
FRANKEL
:53
3:03
RELATIONSHIP
WITH RUSSIA
FORD
FRANKEL
:20
:56
EASTERN EUROPE
CARTER (R)
2:08
CARTER
TREWHITT
:33
2:05
WITHHOLD GRAIN
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
CARTER
TREWHITT
:15
:26
FORD (R)
2:02
FORD
VALERIANI
:28
1:39
CHINA
FORD
VALERIANI
:04
:29
CARTER (R)
1:25
CARTER
FRANKEL
:42
2:56
ARMS SPENDING
CARTER
FRANKEL
:21
:53
FORD (R)
2:05
FORD
TREWHITT
:41
3:03
SALT
FORD
TREWHITT
:30
1:21
CARTER (R)
2:05
CARTER
VALERIANI
:19
1:50
AMERICAN
STRENGTH
-2-
CANDIDATE
QUESTIONER
QUESTION TIME
RESPONSE TIME SUBJECT
FORD (R)
2:02
FORD
FRANKEL
1:17
3:03
MORALITY
FORD
FRANKEL
:19
2:00
CARTER (R)
2:12
CARTER
TREWHITT
:20
1:25
PANAMA CANAL
FORD (R)
1:07
FORD
VALERIANI
:17
2:13
MAYAGUEZ
CARER (R)
1:27
CARTER
FRANKEL
:10
1:18
ARAB BOYCOTT
FORD (R)
2:10
FORD
TREWHITT
:10
:37
MIA
CLOSING STATEMENT: CARTER 3:15
FORD
1:08
FORD & LIBRARY 938870
Average length of first question:
39.7 seconds (10 questions)
Average length of follow-up question:
17 seconds (7 follow-ups)
Average length of answers to first question:
2:38
Average length of answers to first question (Ford) :
2:46
Average length of answers to first question (Carter) :
2:30
Average length of answers to follow-up question:
1:03 (7)
Average length of answers to follow-up question (Ford) :
1:11 (4)
Average length of answers to follow-up question (Carter) :
55.6 (3)
Average length of rebuttal:
2:00
Average length of rebuttal (Ford) :
2:03
Average length of rebuttal (Carter) :
1:56
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
October 22, 1976
Mike Duval
Attached is a roughtcut at an assess-
ment of the second debate which I
did last night. I have sent a copy to
Jim Reichley and will follow with
Brent and Bill's edits early today.
Bud
1080 LIBRARY in GERALA
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Assessment of the Second Debate
The second debate on foreign and defense policy presented
a striking contrast between the two candidates. This contrast --
drawn between President Ford's experience, his record of solid
accomplishment and the specific measures he proposes for the
future versus Mr. Carter's preoccupation with style and refusal to
present substantive positions -- was framed in the opening question
by Mr. Frankel. Mr. Carter was asked whether he would quarrel
with a record that includes great progress toward peace in the
Middle East, positive peacemaking initiatives in Southern Africa,
significant achievements in strategic arms control negotiations,
the end of our involvement in Vietnam and the termination of the
draft. Mr. Carter did not criticize these measures except to say
-- incredibly -- that they represent style and not substance.
Faced with the President's unchallengeable past record
Mr. Carter was no more successful in articulating coherent policies
for the future. His remarks presented a series of contradictory aims
-- He asserted the need to "increase our (military) capa-
bilities to meet any potential threat" but at the same time:
acknowledged that "our defense capability is second
to none"
proposed cuts in the defense budget of billions of dollars.
- 2 -
-- He stressed the need to strengthen relations with allies
but proposed:
withdrawals of US forces from Korea and Europe
sympathy for communist participation in NATO
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
governments
peremptory unilateral actions against nuclear policies
of France and Germany
termination of arms sales to good friends
-- He promised openness in the policy process, contradicting
his earlier suggestion of "unpublicized talks" with the Soviet
Union in the Middle East.
In addition to being unable to reconcile these contradictory
proposals, or to present coherent policy proposals, Mr. Carter
resorted to deliberate distortions or erroneous representations of fact.
-- He falsely charged complicity of the Ford Administration
in the Chilean coup -- an event which took place almost a year
before President Ford took office, and in which the Church
Committee concluded the former administration was not
involved.
-- He asserted that President Ford's successful efforts over.
the past 10 months to establish negotiations toward a peaceful
evolution in Southern Africa represented last minute election
policies.
-- He denied statements which are on the public record such
as his March 1975 proposal for a $15 billion cut in the defense
- 3 -
-- He quoted grossly inflated figures on Middle East arms sales
and stated falsely that the majority of recent deliveries have
gone to Arab countries. The facts are:
1964-68
1974-76
Israel
58%
61%
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Arab Countries 42%
39%
On the few occasions when Mr. Carter made specific proposals,
they reflected a shocking lack of understanding of fundamental diplomacy.
- - He stated that he would meet any future oil embargo. with a
comprehensive counter embargo of all goods and services,
failing apparently to realize that:
To be effective, it would have to be supported by the
industrialized deomocracies of Europe and Japan to
foreclose alternative sources. Such cooperation by
nations whose reliance on Middle East oil reaches 90%
is by no means certain.
Even if supported by these countries, a counter embargo
would cut off goods far less critical to Arab states than oil
to the industrialized states.
Such a move would provide a strong push toward the Soviet
Union for the Arab states.
Such a move would shatter hopes for further progress
toward a Middle East peace settlement.
- 4 -
In contrast to Mr. Carter's failure to define constructive
policies or to reconcile repreated inconsistencies, President
Ford presented a solid record of accomplishment and a positive
Froma & LIBRARY GERAL
program for dealing with the complex problems before us. The
President elaborated his policies for the next four years.
-- His intention to assure a strong national defense based upon
unchallengeable strategic and tactical forces in the Army,
Navy, Air Force and Marines.
4- The closest possible relations with our allies
- - Continued efforts to reduce tensions with adversaries
-- Continued peacemaking efforts to assist in relieving
human suffering and ending age-old conflicts, such as in the
Middle East, and in Southern Africa. Determined efforts to find
constructive
solutions to the new agenda of critical issues
before us -- increased production of food, cooperative solutions
to environmental concerns, population growth, stable economic
development and resource shortages.
This is a contrastof unmistakable impact. It is a clear
reflection of experience versus experiments, of performance versus
promises. President Ford's record of accomplishment and specific
program for assuring peace and progress in the years ahead is on
the record. It is deserving of a renewed mandate.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 9, 1976
TO:
MIKE DUVAL
FROM: JOHN O. MARSH, JR Jack
For Direct Reply
For Draft Response
X
For Your Information
Please Advise
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
OCT 8 1976
TO Mike
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
MILT MITLER
that
Jack, 100 law students at George Washington were
polled on the last debate and came up with the
following responses:
- On the win/lost factor, it was close but with
a slight edge to Carter although on dissemination
of facts and information the President got the
votes.
- The greatest mistake made by the President was to
remain on the defensive throughout.
- The President should answer Carter's allegations
and fabrications. But, he should answer them
quickly and decisively and then move to a positive
position.
- When the President enters the stage and settles
behind the podium, he should immediately write on
his pad "Watch the Red Light", "Take the Offensive"
and "Smile and Change Voice"!
- The President should take notes and read them.
- The President does not need to keep talking without
a pause. Pausing would give him the time to consider
what he is to say next - to muster his thoughts.
- Carter's cynicism will lose him support in the long run.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Sile
October 16, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM
: MIKE ROB QUARTEL DUVALL Robefuantes
SUBJECT
: SECOND DEBATE ANALYSIS
I am forwarding an analysis of the "image" communication
of the second debate, conducted by Goldgaver at SUNY, for
your information. There are several interesting points.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
State University of New York at Buffalo
UNIVERSITY INFORMATION SERVICES
October 14, 1976
TO:
All Interested Media
FROM: James R. De Santis, Director
Information Services, SUNY/Buffalo
RE:
Communication Analysis of the Ford/Carter Debates
Enclosed is a report on a communication analysis of the Ford/Carter
debates done by members of the Department of Communication of the State
University of New York at Buffalo.
Should you require further information or personal interviews,
the individuals involved can be reached at the following phone numbers:
Dr. Gerald M. Goldhaber
(716) 831-1607 (office)
(716) 634-9254 (home)
Dr. D. Thomas Porter
(716) 831-1607 (office)
(716) 691-7109 (home)
Dr. Jerry K. Frye
(716) 831-1607 (office).
If we in University Information Services can be of assistance,
you can reach us at (716) 636-2626.
JRDS/km
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
THE CROFTS BUILDING AMHERST, NEW YORK 14260 TEL.(716)636-2626
THE IMAGE OF THE CANDIDATES:
A COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS OF
THE FORD/CARTER DEBATES I AND II
by
Gerald M. Goldhaber, Ph.D.
Jerry K. Frye, Ph.D.
D. Thomas Porter, Ph.D.
Michael Yates, M.A.
October 14, 1976
Department of Communication
State University of New York at Buffalo
After 500 combined hours of analysis, Professors Gerald M. Goldhaber,
Jerry K. Frye and D. Thomas Porter, together with research fellow, Michael
Yates, all from the State University of New York at Buffalo, Department of
Communication, have discovered major verbal and nonverbal communication
differences between the candidates in the first two Ford/Carter debates.
The research was based upon an analysis of 4,458 specific nonverbal behaviors
and 628 verbal references found in the 20,459 word transcripts. The researchers
found differences in eye gaze, mouth expression, shoulder and head movements,
speech rate, nonfluencies, use of specific supporting materials and character
references.
Since most viewers in national surveys conducted after the first two debates
were unable to identify specific reasons why Ford or Carter "won," this research
may provide useful clues for the study of candidate image in the remaining days
of the campaign and in the third debate. Most of the surveys indicated that
Ford "won" the first debate and Carter the second.
National Surveys
Debate I
Who won?
Debate II
Ford
Carter
Ford
Carter
AP
34.4
31.8
34.6
38.2
Roper
39
31
30
40
Harris
40
31
(not available)
"
"
Gallup
38
25
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 2 -
It is likely, therefore, that the candidates' personal communication behavior in
the debates influenced the perceived images of them formed by the TV viewing
audience. Based upon an intense content analysis of the written transcripts
and videotapes of the first two debates, the major findings of this research are:
1. Both candidates dramatically increased their amount of direct eye
contact with the TV audience, with Carter looking at the TV cameras
85% of his time to Ford's 69%. Carter changed his direction of eye
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
contact 3 times more often than Ford in both debates.
2. Both candidates doubled their amount of head movement and activity
from Debate I to Debate II. In Debate I, Ford's head moved more than
Carter, while in Debate II the reverse was true. Carter's head movements
were more likely to be associated with tension than Ford's "expressive"
movements.
3. Both candidates were expressionless for most of the time in both debates.
While Ford smiled more in the second debate than he did in the first,
Carter smiled twice as often as Ford in both debates while reducing the
time he nervously pressed and licked his lips.
4. Ford moved his upper body from 3-5 times more than Carter in both debates.
Both candidates reduced the average duration of these movements from about
8 to 2 seconds per movement. Ford's athletic build may have helped enhance
his image as the more mature, self-reliant and stronger candidate, while
the smaller, more slender Carter may be perceived as a more ambitious,
thoughtful and sensitive person.
- 3 -
5. Carter spoke about 163 words per minute (WPM) during both debates while
Ford dropped from 133 to 128 WPM in the second debate. Carter's higher
speaking rate, coupled with his frequent use of statistics, examples and
high rate of nonfluencies may have decreased his effectiveness in the
first debate. In the second debate, however, his fast speech rate, coupled
with his increased generality and decreased nonfluency, may have contributed
to his effectiveness and overall positive image (as measured by the polls).
6. In the second debate, Carter dramatically reduced his rate of nonfluencies
from 9 to 2 per minute, while maintaining his faster speech rate. Ford's
constant low rate of nonfluencies may have contributed to his high public
ratings on knowledge and competence, whereas Carter's higher (in the first
debate) nonfluency rate may have indicated more tension but also have
positively influenced his high ratings for sincerity.
7. Ford, relying heavily upon detailed examples, was more specific than Carter
in the second debate. Whereas in the first debate, both candidates used
many statistics, very few were used in the second debate and comparisons
and authority references were not used much in either debate. Ford's use
of specifics may have helped his image as "competent" and "knowledgeable"
while Carter's use of generalities (in the second debate) may have helped
his positive ratings on "style" and "attitude."
8. In both debates, Ford relied more heavily on image-building positive
references to his own character, reputation and experience while Carter chose
to directly attack Ford rather than building his own personal image. Carter
attacked Ford personally 2 to 3 times more than Ford did Carter, helping
to place Ford on the defensive. (See Figure 1.)
- 4 -
Goldhaber, Frye, Porter and Yates conclude that their research is largely
descriptive, but that it should provide a useful foundation for their subsequent
analysis of the third presidential debate. They suggest that as you view the
third debate, watch for the following:
1. Who looks more directly at you, the television viewer?
2. Who moves his head more often?
3. Who smiles more?
4. Who shifts his body more often?
5. Who speaks faster?
6. Who speaks more fluently?
7. Who is more specific?
8. Who builds his image more? attacks his opponent more often?
The answers to these questions may provide a useful index of who will make
the best television impression in the third debate in terms of the candidates'
composure, debate strategy, sincerity and dynamism in short, his image as
perceived by the American voter.
FORD is LIBRARY 0ERALD
- 5 -
Eye Gaze
Eye contact and eye contact shifts are associated with a communicator's
directness (trustworthiness, honesty, competence) and a communicator's ability
to put his thoughts into words. Increased eye contact can indicate individual
ability to communicate meaning directly. Eye contact also gives an indication
of the nature of the relationship desired by the communicator. Typically, a
speaker who desires a close relationship with his listener will gaze more
directly and more often at his listener.
In Debate I Carter changed gaze direction almost 4 times as much as Ford,
and Carter spent the majority of his time switching gaze direction from the
podium to the panel to the TV cameras while Ford maintained almost constant eye
contact with the questioners (about 90% of the time), virtually ignoring the
TV camera (representing an estimated 100 million voters). In Debate II there
was a dramatic change. Ford increased his eye contact with the viewers (camera)
from about 10% of the time to almost 70% in Debate II. Carter also increased
eye contact with the TV camera, from about 26% in Debate I to 85% in Debate II.
Another implication of this finding is that as one increases eye contact with
the TV camera, the person at home may feel that the candidate is speaking to
them directly rather than merely being an observer to an "over-heard" discussion
between the press and a candidate. Overall, Carter maintained direct eye contact
with the TV camera more than Ford (Ford: 10% to 69% -- Carter: 25% to 85% of the
speaking time). Carter changed his direction of eye contact 3 times more often
than Ford in both debates. Both candidates thus dramatically increased their
amount of direct eye contact with the viewers with Carter looking at the audience
85% of his time with Ford at 69%. (See Table 1 and Figure. 2 for data and
illustration.)
- 6 -
Head Movement
Head activity is typically an indication of a speaker's expressiveness or
an indication of tension in a communicative situation. In Debate I, Ford's
head moved more than Carter while in the second debate, Carter's head moved
more than Ford. Both candidates doubled their amount of head activity from
the first to the second debate. Both spent about 1/4 of their speaking time
in the first debate moving their head at an average of 17 seconds per movement.
In the second debate, both doubled the amount of head movement by reducing average
duration from 17 seconds to 3 seconds per movement. Thus, in the second debate
both candidates exhibited short, rapid head movement. Coupled with other nonverbal
characteristics (fluency, speaking rate, eye gaze) we interpret these data to
mean that Ford's head movement suggested expressiveness while Carter's movement
indicated tension. (See Table 2 for the data.)
Mouth Expression
The expression on the mouth of a communicator (smiling, frowning) indicates
several dimensions of emotion. Both candidates were largely expressionless with
reference to the mouth. For example, in Debates I and II, Ford was expressionless
about 95% of the time. Carter was expressionless about 80% of the time in Debate I
and 85% in Debate II. Carter's famous "broad smile" occurred less than 2% of the
time in Debate I and 1% in Debate II. Both Ford and Carter increased the number
of "slight smiles" in Debate II (Ford: from 1% to 4%; Carter: from 7% to 10%).
Ford "pressed and licked" his lips (a possible sign of tension) much less than
Carter. In brief, Ford increased the number of smiles in Debate II, but Carter
still smiled more in both debates. In fact, Carter increased the number of
slight smiles by almost 100%. (See Table 3 and Figure 3 for the data and
illustration.)
- 7 -
Upper Body Movement
The manner and amount that a person moves his body communicates much about
his self-confidence, energy or fatigue, status, defensiveness, and nervousness.
As tension increases, body movements tend to be viewed as symptoms of several
inner states.
The shape of a person's body has a definite impact upon body movement and
the perceptions of people about a communicator's credibility (e.g., "tallness").
In addition, body shape is often related to the temperament of the individual.
No one person fits perfectly a given theoretical body type, but considerable
information can be gleaned from just such an analysis. For example, Ford,
whose body type is close to the "athletic" type, will probably be viewed as
stronger, more masculine, better-looking, more mature, and self-reliant. Carter
has a relatively "slender" body type which would be viewed probably as ambitious,
younger, tense, cautious, thoughtful, sensitive, and gentle. These perceptions
often play an important role in the development of a candidate's "image" and thus
have a part to play in how votes are cast.
Dispelling the "wooden Indian" image, Ford moved his upper body more than
Carter in both debates. Ford decreased, however, his movement in Debate II.
Carter's movement stayed relatively the same. In terms of the average length
of movements, Carter and Ford reduced this length dramatically from 8 to 2 seconds.
Carter stood erect about 90% of the time in both debates. (See Table 4 for the
data.)
- 8 -
Speech Rate
The average speaking rate of most Americans ranges from 125 to 150 wpm
(words per minute). Speaking rate is related to the amount of information
transmitted and perceptions of the competence and spontaneity of the communi-
cator. Throughout the first debate Carter maintained a 164 wpm speaking rate
compared with Ford's slower rate of 133 wpm.
Neither candidate changed his speaking rate significantly from the first
to the second debate. Because of Carter's faster speaking rate, he was able
to use 15% more words than Ford with 10% less time (Debate II). Carter's
fast rate of speaking apparently dispels the muth that all Southerners speak
more slowly than other Americans--at least this is true with respect to Carter.
Ford tended to speak faster when responding to Carter than when answering
questions from panelists. This increased rate may indicate more tension.
Carter, on the other hand, had varied speaking rates within the debates, but
they were not functioned by the type of response (to panelists or to Ford).
The rate of speaking and listener comprehension tend to be related.
When specifics such as statistics and detailed examples were used in Debate I,
Carter's faster rate of speaking may have been a disadvantage. In the second
debate, however, in which Carter used fewer specifics, his faster rate may
have increased comprehension. Ford's slower speech rate tended to be related
to his use of fewer facial and head movements. Similiarly, Carter's faster
speech rate tended to be related to his more frequent use of facial and head
movements. (See Table 5 and Figure 4 for illustration and data.)
Non-Fluencies
Non-fluencies tend to indicate a speaker's state of tension as well as
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
influencing the way he is perceived by the audience. For example, more
non-fluent speakers tend to be perceived as less competent and dynamic, but
not necessarily less trustworthy.
- 9 -
Non-fluencies are those breaks or substitutions which interrupt the normal
communication flow (e.g., "repetition, tongue slips, er, ah, em"). In Debate I
Carter had 3 times more such non-fluencies than Ford (averaging about 9 non-
fluencies per minute compared with Ford's 3½ non-fluencies per minute). In
Debate II, however, both candidates had the same number of non-fluencies,
averaging about 2 per minute. Carter's improved fluency in the second debate
may indicate a more relaxed state; this is particularly so given that he
maintained his faster speech rate throughout the second debate.
While Ford's rate of non-fluencies tended to be evenly distributed
throughout the debates, Carter was more non-fluent when responding to Ford
than when answering panelist questions.
In brief, Ford's low rate of non-fluency may have contributed to his
high public rating of competence and knowledge while Carter's higher rate
(in Debate I) may have contributed to his higher ratings on sincerity; that is,
his communication appeared to be spontaneous. (See Table 6 and Figure 5).
- 10 -
Use of Supporting Materials
Supporting materials are those forms of evidence or explanation which
help a communicator clarify or support arguments. Supporting materials
include statistics, examples, authority references, and comparisons. The
extent to which the use of supporting materials is related to voting beha-
vior is functioned by the particular desires of the individual voter; some
people vote on the basis of well-documented arguments while others vote
on the basis of their perceptions of the candidate's honesty and character.
Both candidates relied heavily upon statistics in Debate I (economic
and domestic affairs). Ford, however, tended to use more words in his
statistical evidence. Carter, who used more overall supporting materials
than Ford in Debate I, relied most heavily upon detailed examples. Neither
candidate used many statistics in the second debate, where Ford, primarily
through his use of examples, was the more specific of the two debaters.
Carter, in fact, used specifics for only 22% of his time compared to Ford's
use of specifics for 37% of his time. Ford's greater use of specific supporting
materials in Debate II may have contributed to his high public ratings of his
"experience and knowledge" while Carter's lack of specifics may have influenced
his high ratings on "style and confident attitude." An Associated Press
survey conducted immediately after the second debate stated that "more than
40% of those who said Ford won cited his experience and knowledge" as the
reason for their decision. In contrast, "about 25% of those who said Carter
won cited his style, particularly his confident attitude." (See Table 7
and Figure 6 for data and illustration.)
- 11 -
Character References
Character references help a communicator to build a positive image for
himself by association. Character references with negative connotations are
often used to attack an opposing candidate.
In both debates Ford spent about 25% of his time using image building
self-references ("As President, I recommended "). Carter used this
technique ("As Governor, I did " or "Harry Truman used to say...") half
as much as Ford, relying more in both debates on negative references to Ford.
Carter used this technique (attacking Ford) 3 times more than Ford referred
negatively to Carter, helping put Ford on the defensive. Again, Carter tried
to associate himself positively with former Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and
Truman while Ford praised the efforts of others like Dr. Kissinger.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
TABLE 1
DIRECTION OF EYE GAZES
President Ford
Governor Carter
Debate I
Debate II
Debate I
Debate II
No.
Avg.
Gazes
: of
No.
Avg.
Gazes
08
of
Type of
No.
Avg.
Gazes
% of
No.
Avg.
Gazes
in of
Eye
Lngth
Per
Spkng
Eye
Lngth
Per
Spkng
Eye
Eye
Lngth Per
Spkng
Eye
Lngth
Per
Spkng
Gazes
Gaze
Min.
Time
Gazes
Gaze
Min.
Time
Direction
Gazes
Gaze
Mine.
Time
Gazes
Gaze
Min.
Time
36
6
1.11
10.5%
40
37.5
1.11
69.0%
a
TV Camera
83
6
2.59
25.8%
106
16.9
3.05
85.0% .
54
32
1.66
88.9%
40
16.2
1.11
30.0%
&
Panel
153
6
4.78
48.69
44
3.6
1.27
8.0%
1
I
.03
0.19
3
.2
.08
0.1%
o
to
Opponent
2
1
.06
0.1%
5
204
-14
0.9%
6
1
.18
0.5%
4
.5
.11
0.2%
$
Podium
138
3
4.31
21.0%
88
1.3
2.53
6.0%
0
0
0.00
0.0%
5
2.1
.14
0.7%
Ceiling
15
6
.47
4.5%
3
2.0
.09
0.1%
97
2.95
-
100.00
92
2.61
-
100.0%
Totals
391
1199
-
100.0%
246
7.68
-
100.0%
Note: Avg. Lngth Gaze (Average Length of Gaze) is expressed in the number of seconds.
Table 2
Head Movements
President Ford
Governor Carter
Debate IN
Debate II
Debate IN
Debate II
No. Avg. No. of is of
No. Avg. No. of % of
No.
Avg.
No. of
% of
No.
Avg.
No.
of
% of
of
Ingth Moves
Spkng
of
Lngth Moves
Spkng
of
Lngth Moves
Spkng
of
Lngth Moves
Spkng
Moves Moves Per Min. Time
Moves Moves Per Min. Time
Moves Moves Per Min. Time
Moves Moves Per Min. Time
76
18
2.31
71.29
117
13.2
3.31
73%
Level
186
8
5.70
77.1%
100
12.7
3.12
66.0%
75
17
2.28
28.89
157
3.6
4.45
279
Moving
81
17
2.48
22.99
156
4.2
4.87
34.0%
151
-
4.59
100.09
274
-
7.76
100%
Totals
267
-
8.18
100.0,
256
-
7.99
100.0%
Note: Avg. Lngth Moves (Average Length of Movements) is expressed in seconds.
GERALD
R.
FORD
LIBRARY
TABLE i
MOUTH EXPRESSION
PRESIDENT FORD
GOVERNOR CARTER
DEBATE # 1
DEPATE "2 2
DEBATE #1
DEBATE :: =
No.oF Rate Avg. %of
No. oF Rate Ava.
%F
in
No.
Rate
AVA.
%of
Exprs. pr/min Length
No. of Pate Ave. % of
Expres.
per/min
Length
Sph.Time
exers.
Permin
conts
SpriTime
Expre
Perform
Spritime
56
1.7
30sec
94.8%
95
2.69
21sh:
94%
NO EXPRESSION
170
5.21
isec
798
66
5.18
9/25
83%
0
--
;
-
4
9%
BROAD
.11
3sec
10
31
4sec
1.8%
14
44
2sec
1%
SMILE
8
.21
2sec
9%
42
1.19
250c
4%
SLIGHT
49
1.5
3sec
6.9%
95
2.17
2sec
10%
SMILE
3
.09
2sec
3%
4
11
Isec
1%
FROWN
13
4
3sec
1.8%
7
22
2sec
1%
3,
1%
PRESS &
2.9
N)
5%
33
10
Lsee
4%
42
19
4sec
86
2.64
2sec
9.4%
93
4sec
LICK
-
LIPS
100
3.04
-
100%
187
5.3
-
100%
TOTALS
328
10.06
-
100%
362
11.9
-
100%
TABLE 4
UPPER BODY MOVEMENT
PRESIDENT FORD
GOVERNOR CARTER
DEBATE #1
DEBATE "2
DEBATE
DEBATE 2
No.of Rate
Avg.
%of
No.of
Rate
CATEGORY
Avg.
% of
No.of
Rate
Avg.
%of
No.of
Rate
Avg.
%oof
Moves
per/min
Length
Spk Spkiline Time
Moves
per/min
Length
SpeTimes
Moves
person
Lenjth
Sple.Time
Moves
perform
Length
Spk.Time
MOVE
201
3,74
8sec
34.77
300
8.5
2sec
26%
54
1.66
7sec
10%
128
4.0
1200
9%
ERECT
123
6.11
21sec
45.3
220
6.23
7/2sec
74%
37
1,13
49sec
90%
66
2.0
26/2500
91%
324
9.85
-
TOTALS'
100%
320
19675
-
100%
11
2.77
-
100%
194
6.0
-
100%
TABLE 5
SPEAKING RATE
PRESIDENT FORD GOVERNOR CARTER
DEBATE"1 DEBATE"2
DEBATE I
DEBATE"2 2
TOTAL
NUMBER
4885
4528
5824
5222
OF
WORDS
TOTAL
32ming
35 min,
32 min,
32 min,
SPEAKING
52sec.
19 sec.
36 sec.
1sec.
TIME
WORDS
PER
133.8
128.2
163.8
163.1
MINUTE
TABLE E 6
NONFLUENCIES
PRESIDENT FORD
GOVERNOR CARTER
DEBATE it 1
DEBATE # 2
DEBATE it 1
DEBATE #2
RATE
RATE
RATE
RATE
TYPE
NUMBER
PER
NUMBER
PER
NUMBER
PER
NUMBER
PER
MINUTE
MINUTE
MINUTE
MINUTE
UH's
89
2.4
59
1.67
174
5.34
44
1.37
NON-UH's
34
1.0
17
.48
109
3.3
32
1.0
TOTAL
123
3.74
76
2.15
283
8.6
76
2.37
GERALD
R.
FORD LIBRARY
TABLE 7
USE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS
President Ford
Governor Carter
Debate I
Debate II
Debate I
Debate II
No. of
Rate
%
No. of
Rate
%
No. of
Rate
%
No. of
Rate
%
Refer-
Per
Speaking
refer-
Per
Sp
refer-
per
Spk
refer-
per
Spk
ences
Min.
Time
ences
Min.
Time
ences
min.
Time
ences
min.
Time
STATISTICS
41
1.25
18.5%
13
.37
7.6%
74
.74
13.2%
11
.34
4.2%
EXAMPLES
28
.85
8.6%
23
.65
26.3%
59
1.81
26.8%
18
.56
9.8%
AUTHORITY
5
.15
5.4%
17
.48
1.7%
10
.31
1.7%
16
.50
1.9%
COMPARISON
2
.06
1.8%
1
.03
.95%
6
.18
3.0%
11
.34
6.4%
TOTALS
76
2.31
34.3%
54
1.53
36.6%
99
3.04
44.8%
56
1.75
22.4%
TABLE 8
CHARACTER REFERENCES
PRESIDENT FORD
GOVERNOR CARTER
DEBATE # 1
DEBATE #2
DEBATE 1
DEBATE "2
TYPE
NUMBER
RATE
PERCENT
NUMBER
KATE
PERCENT
NUMBER
RATE
PERCENT
NUMBER
RATE
PERCENT
OF
OF
PER
OF
OF
PER
OF
PER
OF
PER
OF
TOTAL
OF
OF
REFERENCE
REFERENCEMINUTE
REFERENCE
MINUTE
TOTAL
TOTAL
SPEAKING
REFERENCE
TOTAL
MINUTE
REFERENCE
MEANING
MINUTE
FREAKING
SPEANING
TIME
TIME
TIME
TIME
SELF
54
1.64
27%
25
.71
21%
14
43
9%
8
25
13%
OPPONENT
22
.67
8%
17
48
8%
28
.86
12%
45
1.41
22%
POSITIVE
REFERENCES
5
15
17%
25
71
17%
9
28
2%
20
.62
4%
TO
OTHERS
NEGATIVE
REFERENCES
TO
23
70
14%
8
23
1%
26
.80
13%
14
43
5%
OTHERS
TOTAL
104
3.16
51%
75
2.12
48%
47
2.36
36%
87
2.72
34%
GERALD.R.
FORD
LIBRARY
RESPONSE SCRIPT
DEBATE #1
DEBATE #2
1A Carter responds to question on Unemployment
Carter responds to question on Rep. Foreign Polic
1B Carter responds to follow-up on Unemployment
1C Ford rebuts Carter on Unemployment
Ford rebuts Carter on Rep. Foreign Policy
2A Ford responds to question on Taxes and
Ford responds to question on Communist success
Budget
2B Ford responds to follow-up on Taxes and
Budget
2C Carter rebuts Ford on Taxes and Budget
Carter rebuts Ford on Communist success
3A Carter responds to question on New Programs
Carter responds to question on National Interest
3B Carter responds to follow-up on New Programs
Carter responds to follow-up on National Interest
3C Ford rebuts Carter on New Programs
Ford rebuts Carter on National Interest
4A Ford responds to question on Nixon Pardon
Ford responds to question on Soviet Union
4B Ford responds to follow-up on Nixon Pardon
Ford responds to follow-up on Soviet Union
4C Carter rebuts Ford on Nixon Pardon
Carter rebuts Ford on Soviet Union
SA Carter responds to question on Gov't Reorg.
Carter responds to question on Embargoes
5B Carter responds to follow-up on Gov't Reorg.
Carter responds to follow-up on Embargoes
5C Ford rebuts Carter on Gov't Reorganization
Ford rebuts Carter on Embargoes
6A Ford responds to question on Program Costs
Ford responds to question on China
6B Ford responds to follow-up on Program Costs
Ford responds to follow-up on China
6C Carter rebuts Ford on Program Costs
Carter rebuts Ford on China
7A Carter responds to question on Energy Policy
Carter responds to question on Defense Budget
7B Carter responds to follow-up on Energy
Carter responds to follow-up on Defense Budget
Policy
7C Ford rebuts Carter on Energy Policy
Ford rebuts Carter on Defense Budget
8A Ford responds to question on Unemployment
Ford responds to question on SALT
8B Ford responds to follow-up on Unemployment
Ford responds to follow-up on SALT
8C Carter rebuts Ford on Unemployment
Carter rebuts Ford on SALT
RESPONSE SCRIPT
PAGE 2
DEBATE #1
DEBATE #2
9A Carter responds to question on Taxes
Carter responds to question on U.S. strength
9B Carter responds to follow-up on Taxes
9C Ford rebuts Carter on Taxes
Ford rebuts Carter on U.S. strength
0A Ford responds to question on Anti-Wash.
Ford responds to question on Foreign Internal
sentiment
Affairs
OB Ford responds to follow-up on Anti-Wash.
Ford responds to follow-up on Foreign Internal
sentiment
Affairs
OC Carter rebuts Ford on Anti-Wash. sentiment
Carter rebuts Ford on Foreign Internal Affairs
1A Carter responds to question on Fed. Reserve
Carter responds to question on Panama Canal
Board
1C Ford rebuts Carter on Fed. Reserve Board
Ford rebuts Carter on Panama Canal
2A Ford responds to question on Intelligence
Ford responds to question on Mayaguez
Agencies
2C Carter rebuts Ford on Intelligence Agencies
Carter rebuts Ford on Mayaguez
3A
Carter responds to question on Arab boycott
3C
Ford rebuts Carter on Arab boycott
4A
Ford responds to question on M.I.A's
4C
Carter rebuts Ford on M.I.A's
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
OCTOBER 8, 1976
6 PM EDT October 9, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
(Lawton, Oklahoma)
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
The debate on foreign and defense policy revealed a number
of fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies in
Mr. Carter's positions. In addition, he simply dodged a
straight answer to many questions.
Therefore, we know almost nothing more about Mr. Carter's
foreign policy and defense positions than we did before the
debate.
Mr. Carter's rhetorical assertion of toughness toward the
Soviet Union cannot be reconciled with his intention to cut
the defense budget by billions of dollars, to withdraw U.S.
troops from overseas, and to scrap major weapons such as the
B-1 bomber.
Mr. Carter's professed wish to strengthen foreign alliances
clashes with his stated views on accepting communists in
European governments, withdrawal of U.S. troops and his
high-handed attitude toward dealing with our allies on
nuclear proliferation.
On Thursday, Mr. Carter told a group of labor leaders that
he made no mistakes in the debate. That is not true. In
his 18 opportunities to speak during the debate, Mr. Carter
made at least 14 errors.
Attached is a detailed fact sheet listing the factual errors
and misrepresentations made by Mr. Carter, either from
ignorance of the facts or deliberate misstatements.
more
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
FACT SHEET
A compiliation of statements made by Mr. Carter during the debate,
and the actual facts contradicting Mr. Carter's statements:
Carter: "As a matter of fact, I have never advocated a cut
of $15 billion in our defense budget."
Facts: The Savannah Morning News on March 18, 1975, in a
story by Richard Green, quoted Mr. Carter as telling the
Savannah Rotary Club,
"The Federal budget could and should be cut,
especially the defense budget. Approximately
$15 billion could be cut from the defense budget
and not weaken this nation's military capability... 11
On March 20, 1975, the Los Angeles Times reported that
Mr. Carter told a Beverly Hills news conference that "he
thinks the Ford defense budget for this year could be cut
by about $15 billion without sacrificing national security."
This week, after the debate, the reporter for the Los Angeles
Times confirmed that Mr. Carter had, indeed, made that comment
on a $15 billion defense budget cut.
****
Carter: "Our country is not strong anymore" (page 2 of
transcript). "I think militarily we are as strong as any
nation on earth." (page 25).
Comment: These statements are contradictory.
****
Carter: I never ever advocated a Communist government for
Italy. That would be a ridiculous thing for any one to do
who wanted to be President of this country.'
Facts: On May 18, 1976 Mr. Carter was quoted as saying: "I
believe we should support strongly the democratic forces in
Italy, but still we should not close the doors to Communist
leaders in Italy for friendship with us. It may be that we
would be better off having an Italian Government that might
be comprised at least partially of Communists tied in with
the Western world rather than driven into the Soviet orbit
irrevocably.
11
(The European Edition - Newsweek,
May 10, 1976)
more
2
Carter: "We are not respected anymore. "
Recent quotes from foreign leaders:
Prime Minister Cosgrave of Ireland
"
. the ties that were forged between us (the U.S. and
Ireland) in the early years have not lessened with time.
On the contrary, I believe they are today stronger and
firmer than ever. "
March 17, 1976
President Giscard d'Estaing of France
"I do not think there has ever been a time when contacts
between our two governments have been more frequent,
consultation more sustained and cooperation more good-
willed.
May 17, 1976
Chancellor Schmidt of the Federal Republic of Germany
"This is the third time in the past two years that I have
come to the United States for talks with you, Mr. President,
and I am not counting the meetings in other places. You,
yourself, have made several trips to Europe, one of which
was an official visit to the Federal Republic of Germany
in July 1975, and I mention this because these frequent
visits are a manifestation to the outside world of our
mutual bonds and the closeness of our relations.
"I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that at no time
during the past 30 years have the relations between our
countries been closer and has been cooperation between our
two governments more trustful and direct than today. "
July 15, 1976
Secretary General Luns of NATO
"First of all, the situation in the United States itself, all
of the allies have noted the improvement in the economic
posture of the United States, which well compares to nearly
all the allies. Secondly, if I may use the word, the
recovery from the sense of disaffection which you felt two
or three years ago in the United States and the fact that
the Bicentennial was such a signal of success and this
country has regained its unity of purpose.
"Then, of course, the voices which were so loud two or three
years ago about withdrawing troops of the United States from
Europe have become very muted indeed, and the United States'
commitment to the defense of the United States and the whole
Alliance on the first line in Europe has been underlined by
the fact that two combat brigades have been added to the
strength of the allied troops in Germany.'
* * * *
more
3
Carter: "As a matter of fact, Iran is going to get 80 F-14's
before we even meet our own Air Force order for F-14's."
Facts: The Air Force has never ordered F-14's. The F-14 is
is a Navy plane.
F-14 deliveries have been and are scheduled as follows:
Calendar 1974
Year
& prior
75
76
77
78
79
80
USN
148
73
50
36
36
36
24
Iran
-
-
24
36
20
-
-
The delivery as divided between the United States and Iran
meets the U.S. Navy's programmed requirements for the F-14.
****
Carter: "In the case of the Helsinki agreement, it may have
been a good agreement at the beginning but we failed
to enforce the so-called Basket 3 part which ensures
the right of people to migrate to join their families
to be free to speak out. 11
Comment: The Helsinki Accord is not a treaty to be "enforced"
upon a given date. It represents a standard of con-
duct against which Soviet behavior can be measured
over time. Progress has been made. A recent
West German-Polish Treaty provides for emigration of
125,000 ethnic Germans to West Germany from Poland.
Modest numbers of families are being reunited.
Carter: "He has been in office two years and there has been
absolutely no progress made toward a new SALT
agreement."
BERALITY FORD LIBRARY
Fact:
Totally wrong.
In November 1974 President Ford and General Secretary
Brezhnev made a historic agreement at Vladivostok, for
the first time putting a ceiling on the nuclear arms
race at equal numbers of systems and MIRV's. This
agreement received the strong endorsement of the
U.S. Senate in May 1975.
more
4
Carter: "I understand that both the Department of State and
the Defense Department have approved the accuracy of today's
GAO Mayaguez report
Facts: Simply not true. The only approval given was that the
report be released with no security classification.
* * * *
Carter: "Now we went into South Africa late, after Great
Britain, Rhodesia. We did not go in until right before the
election.. 18
Facts: We began discussions with African leaders on the events
and trends in Africa over a year ago, first with respect to
Angola and subsequently concerning the problems in Rhodesia
and Namibia.
The President sent Secretary Kissinger on a formal fact-finding
trip in April, 1976, at a time when many political observers
noted its possible damage to the President's political standing.
This was certainly not election politics.
****
Carter: "During this current year we are shipping. to Saudi
Arabia about $7.5 billion worth of arms.
Facts: In FY 1976 we shipped $429.4 million of defense articles
and services to Saudi Arabia. Weapons constituted 2.2 percent
of that, or $8.4 million.
In FY 1976 we signed Solan Agreements to seel $2.5 billion of
defense articles and services to Saudi Arabia. Weapons con-
stituted $247 million or 10 percent. Some of these goods and
services, including weapons, may have been delivered in FY 1976.
Non-weapons included such things as $150 million for construc-
tion and $100 million in aircraft maintenance services.
****
Carter: 17 during this current year we are shipping to Iran,
or have contracted to ship to Iran, about $7.5 billion worth
of arms. 11
Facts: In FY 1976 we shipped $1,232 billion of defense articles
and services to Iran. Weapons constituted 41 percent of that, or
$509.8 million.
In FY 1976, we signed Sales Agreements to sell $1.3 billion of
defense articles and services to Iran. Weapons constituted
$419 million or 32 percent. Some of these goods and services,
including weapons, may have been delivered in FY 1976.
Non-weapons sales include such things as maintenance and
tehnical services.
more
5
Carter: "He has put pressure on the Congress, and I don't
believe Mr. Ford would even deny this, to hold up on non-
proliferation legislation until the Congress agreed for an
$8 billion program for private industry to start producing
enriched uranium."
Facts: Wrong on all counts.
Far from holding up legislation, the President pressed and
personally worked with members up to the closing minutes of
the Congressional session for passage of constructive non-
proliferation legislation.
The President's proposed legislation for enriched uranium
included a proposal for expansion of Government-owned enrich-
ment facilities.
****
Carter: "...if the Arab countries ever again declare an
embargo against our nation on oil, I would consider that not
a military, but an economic declaration of war, and I would
respond instantly and in kind."
Comment: To be effective such a counter embargo would have to
be joined by the industrialized democracies. Otherwise the Arabs
could go elsewhere for arms, machines, food, etc.
Assuming that were possible, is it in those countries' interest?
Would the Arabs be more harmed by a loss of industrial goods and
food than industrialized nations by a loss of oil?
What effect would it have in driving the Arabs back to the Soviet
Union?
Needless to say, it would shatter any hope of a Middle East
peace settlement.
* * * *
Carter: "Under the last Democratic Administration, 60 percent
of all weapons that went into the Middle East were for Israel.
Nowadays, 75 percent were for Israel before, now 60 percent go
to Arab countries and this does not include Iran. If you in-
clude Iran, our present shipment of weapons to the Middle East,
only 20 percent goes to Israel."
Facts: Carter is correct when he says 60 percent of all weapons
(sales) that went into the Middle East were for Israel under the
last Democratic Administration.
Carter is wrong when he says nowadays 60 percent goes to Arab
countries. The actual figure is 39 percent in FY 74-76 weapons
sales.
* * * *
Carter: "The grain deal with the Soviet Union in 1972 was terrible,
and Mr. Ford made up for it with three embargoes, one against
our own ally in Japan."
Comment: It is important the American farmer continue to be
able to sell to foreign markets.
It is important to assure that we do not allow high surges in
foreign demand to drive up the price of bread in this country.
more
6
To meet both aims requires a predictable market, so that
farmers can plan and we can be confident of being able to
meet foreign and domestic demand without price fluctuations.
We achieved this with the 5-year agreement which went into
effect October 1.
It brings stability to the market by assuring the constant
sale of at least 6 million metric tons of grain per year and
requiring consultation before seeking to purchase above
8 million metric tons.
****
Carter: "This (Chile) is a typical example maybe of many
others, where this Administration overthrew a united govern-
ment and helped to establish a military dictatorship.
Facts: The Chilean government was overthrown by a military
coup in September, 1973, almost a year before President Ford
took office. Besides not knowing his chronology, Mr. Carter
is totally wrong, as confirmed by Senator Frank Church's
Committee of the U.S. Senate, which found the U.S. Govern-
ment was not involved in the overthrow of the Allende
Government.
Mr. Carter's sinister suggestion that this government
habitually overthrows other governments is unworthy of
comment.
****
Carter: "I have also advocated that we stop the sale by
Germany and France of reprocessing plants to Pakistan and
Brazil."
Facts" This brazen and unenforceable threat stands in con-
trast to Mr. Carter's comment that we must cooperate more
clearly with our allies. In fact, President Ford is working
with Germany and France and the other nuclear suppliers in a
cooperative effort to resolve the reprocessing issue.
****
Carter: "The Arabs have put pressure on Mr. Ford - and he
has permitted a boycott by the Arab countries of American
businesses in trade with Israel who have American Jews owing
or taking part in the management of American companies."
Facts: Boycott practices first took place in 1952.
No actions of any kind were taken by the Federal Government to
deal with the problem until 1969.
President Ford is the first President to have analyzed the
problem comprehensively and taken corrective actions.
In November of 1975, the President directed the Commerce
Department and all Federal agencies to prohibit compliance
with discrimination practices in foreign trade.
The Justice Department has launched the first anti-trust suit
in a major boycott case.
The President on Monday, October 4, signed the tax bill,
which had severe penalties against U.S. firms that participate
in the boycott or discrimination.
more
7
On Thursday, October 7, the President directed the Department
of Commerce henceforth to disclose those companies that partici-
pate in the Arab boycott.
The President has worked closely with the Congress to find an
acceptable legislative formula for addressing the problem.
President Ford has recognized that the ultimate solution to the
Arab boycott issue is an end to the Arab-Israeli dispute. He
has, therefore, moved responsibly to end discrimination against
American citizens while avoiding any unilateral actions which
would jeopardize the Middle East peace process.
* * * *
Carter: "One of the most embarrassing failures of the Ford
Administration, is his refusal to appoint a Presidential
Commission to go to Vietnam Laos Cambodia. and try to trade
for the release of information about those who are missing in
action
Comment: This is a basic disagreement over policy. To "trade"
for information on our MIAs can only mean trafficking in human
lives and allowing Hanoi to play on the anguish and suffering
of the survivors for economic and political gain. We will not
do this.
The Vietnamese have an obligation to provide a full accounting
for all our missing and the President insists that they do so.
We are willing to talk and that is why a U.S. negotiator has
been designated for exchanges with the Vietnamese in Paris.
* * * *
Carter: "He (Ford) and Mr. Kissinger and others tried to start
a new Vietnam in Angola, and it was only the outcry of the
American people and the Congress when this secret deal was
disclosed that prevented our renewed involvement.
"
Facts: Mr. Carter is either frighteningly uninformed or
knowingly deceptive.
FORD LIBRARY
There was never, at any time, any thought of using U.S. forces,
as was publicly stated.
Eight separate Congressional Committees were fully briefed on
our Angola proposals on 24 separate occasions. More than 24
Senators, 150 Congressmen, and 100 Congressional staff members
were kept informed.
U.S. efforts were designed to support majority rule in Angola.
Mr. Carter implies he would acquiesce in Soviet/Cuban inter-
vention in other countries' affairs.
* * * *
more
8
Carter: "We also need to have provided an adequate supply of
enriched uranium. Mr. Ford, again, under pressure from the
Atomic Energy Lobby, has insisted that this reprocessing or
rather re-enrichment be done by private industry and not by
the existing government plants.'
Facts: Carter seems confused about whether he is talking about
enrichment or reprocessing.
But he is wrong either way.
The President has requested approval from the Congress to build
an addition to the government-owned Portsmouth, Ohio, plant to
increase our capacity to produce enriched uranium.
****
Carter: "As far as strength derived from doing what is right,
caring for the poor, providing food, becoming the breadbasket
of the world, instead of the arms merchant of the world, in
those respects we are not strong."
Facts: By any standard of measure, we are the breadbasket
of the world, both in terms of commercial sales and of food
aid to the world's needy.
* * * *
Carter: "Only in the last few days with the election approach-
ing has Mr. Ford taken any interest in a non-proliferation
movement."
Facts: In the Spring of 1975, the President called the first
of a series of meetings with the nuclear supplier nations, the
countries whose cooperation is vital to any non-proliferation
efforts. In the summer of 1974, the President ordered a
comprehensive review of the entire subject in order to
determine what further steps could be taken to strengthen
non-proliferation policies.
****
####
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD