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
1554443
label
Third Debate: Key Points
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554443
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Third Debate: Key Points
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Ford - Carter Debates Files
subjects
Soviet Union
Presidential campaign, 1976
Campaign debates
Arab Boycott
Arms transfers
Energy policy
Housing
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554443
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
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
1b8742b9daa7e341
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 3, folder "Third Debate: Key Points" of the
White House Special Files Unit Files 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. Gerald Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 3 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
KEY POINTS - LAST DEBATE
Opening answer:
One minute direct answer to question.
Carter hasn't answered questions - only
10 days left to election day.
He has no record and no experience.
The moment of truth has come.
We need specifics on: reorganization of
government, defense cuts, spending and
tax reform.
My record: peace, lower inflation, new
jobs, tax cuts.
Page 2
Key themes:
Peace - strength, no fighting, no draft, my
experience.
Tax-cuts - cuts for all families, Carter's
statements on taxing over median income level,
eliminating mortgage interest deduction and
closing loopeholes on rich; Carter for higher
spending, Ford for lower taxes.
Employment - 4 million new jobs in 17 months
is a peacetime record, Carter's answer is
Humphrey-Hawkins, new jobs without jeopardizing
existing ones.
Experience (foreign policy) - Carter for cutting
defense budget, withdrawing U.S. forces abroad,
waffleing on the B-1 and friendly hand to Communists
in Western Europe.
Experience (Georgia) - employment up 25%, government
spending up 50%, debt up 20%, crime up in three of
seven serious crime categories.
Page 3
Comeback (feeling good) - in two years Ford has
restored trust, peace, 4 million jobs, cut
inflation in half.
Closing statement.
Thank League of Women Voters.
First time incumbent President has debated his
opponent.
Stakes are high.
In August of 1974, people had lost trust, no faith
in the economy and no spirit of optimism.
Have comeback: inflation cut, new jobs, country
at peace, honor restored to White House.
Question is whether to keep on steady course to
greater prosperity or to pursue uncertain future
with untested leadership.
I need your help. I need your vote.
CARTER'S STATEMENT ON USE OF U.S. TROOPS IN EASTERN EUROPE
Carter was quoted by the Associated Press on Saturday, October 16
in Kansas City, Missouri as follows:
Carter said he would not send troops to Eastern
Europe if nations in the Soviet bloc revolted
against Soviet domination. "I don't know what I'd
do, but I wouldn't send American troops in," he
declared. "I would not go to war in Yugoslavia"
even if the Soviet Union sent in troops after
President Tito leaves power.
We recommend the following for rebuttal purposes:
I read about Governor Carter's comments last Saturday in Kansas
City, Missouri. He was asked if he would send U.S. troops to
Eastern Europe if one of these nations revolted against Soviet
domination. According to the press dispatches, the Governor
said, "I don't know what I'd do, but I wouldn't send American
troops in."
I was asked essentially the same question in my press conference
last week and I declined to say what I would do as President if
such an event occurred.
CRD
Page 2
LIBRARY
There is an important lesson here. The President of the
United States should not tell a potential adversary what this
country will do or what our options are in the event of
hostilities.
Mr. Carter's serious error in Kansas City goes beyond the
Eastern European issue. He does not understand the sensitivity
of such remarks.
He has made the same dangerous mistake in his comments on
removing U.S. troops from South Korea. I have seen over
six press reports starting in February 1975 and as recently
as May of this year where Governor Carter is quoted to the
effect that he would remove atomic weapons from Korea and U.S.
troops. In some of these interviews he talks about a 5-year
phased withdrawal of troops.
We must remember, as many historians have pointed out, that
one of the commonly accepted reasons why North Korea attacked
South Korea was because the United States officially indicated
in 1950 that it would not defend South Korea if attacked.
Page 3
According to reports, this was viewed as an open invitation
to the North Koreans.
I do not know how the North Koreans or the Soviets will interpret
the specific comments made by Mr. Carter.
That is not the issue. The issue is that Presidents and
serious candidates for that office should never make such
statements. They do not serve the interests of the United States
and they do not serve the interests of world peace.
NOTE: ONE OF YOUR LARGEST ADVANTAGES OVER CARTER IS THE
PERCEPTION THAT YOU ARE EXPERIENCED IN FOREIGN POLICY AND
THAT YOU WILL KEEP AMERICA STRONG ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN PEACE.
THE ABOVE STATEMENT INVOLVES GREAT RISK. YOU MUST BE VERY
CAREFUL NOT TO GIVE CARTER OR THE PRESS ANY OPENING TO
CHARGE THAT YOUR STATEMENT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS AN
INDICATION THAT YOU WOULD USE TROOPS.
ARMS SALES
FORD
LIBRARY
[Carter scored best against you during the second debate
with his attack on your policies on foreign arms sales. Carter
has the position which is most popular with the public on this
issue. Therefore, we suggest that you answer very simply
and quickly moving on to another subject as fast as you can. The
following is a suggested response.]
Once again the Governor has attacked our policy of arms
sales to our allies and friends around the world. He continues
to imply that somehow my Administration has reduced U.S.
support and assistance to Israel. That is absolutely untrue.
The fact is that in the years 1964 through 1968 Israel received
under 60% (58%) of arms sales to the Middle East compared to
over 60% (61%) during the two years of my Presidency.
But 1et me put the question of foreign arms sales into its proper
perspective.
20am
As far as I am concerned as a Nation we've learned a good lesson
from our involvement in South Vietnam. We cannot be the world's policeman.
Our friends and allies must protect themselves and the United States
should only be involved militarily as an absolute last resort
-2-
to protect and defend the essential interests of this country.
Now having said that, I don't think any American would
suggest that we have no responsibilities to our friends and
allies. They must have the ability to defend themselves and
FORD LIBRARY
that means they have to buy weapons.
We live in a real world with real threats and real dangers
and other nations whose interests are hostile to the United
States and are more than willing to sell weapons to nations
which are now allied with us.
So in order to help these friendly countries defend themselves
we sell them arms which are made here at home. This helps
maintain world peace and thus protects the U.S. interest without
having to commit U.S. troops. Now if we lived in an Alice-in-
Wonderland world, we could do much of what Mr. Carter has
suggested, which is stop arms sales. But like it or not we live
in a real world and as President, I have had to face up to the real
threats and problems. My foreign arms sales policy is the right
policy and nothing Mr. Carter has suggested will work.
ENERGY
(In response to a Carter charge or a question to the effect that
your statements during Wednesday's press conference concerning
the unlikely possibility of an Arab oil embargo would undercut the
premise of your energy program designed to achieve U.S. energy
independence.)
The likelihood of an Arab oil embargo has been reduced to almost
zero possibility in the near term because of the efforts of my
Administration to bring peace to the Middle East. We aren't there
FORD VIBRANK
yet and indeed there's a long and dangerous road ahead, but we have
made extraordinary progress and under my continued leadership
we will ultimately achieve a lasting peace in this area of the world;
thus virtually eliminating the possibility of an oil embargo.
Nevertheless, regardless of the near-term likelihood of an
embargo, this Nation should be independent of foreign suppliers for
its energy needs. I said that that was the policy of the United States
in my State of the Union address in 1975 and I say it again now. There
is absolutely no question about it.
We have made a lot of progress. Last year I set a goal for
this Nation that by 1985 we would only be importing 6 million barrels
of oil a day. Which is exactly half of the 12 million barrels that had
been projected absent strong action by our country to conserve energy
-2-
and produce more domestically. By pushing and pulling the Congress
and appealing directly to the common sense of the people, we have
been able to implement about half of my energy program already.
As a result, projections now show that we will be importing
8 million barrels by 1985 which isn't as low as I want, but
nevertheless shows substantial progress.
When the Congress comes back next year, I am going to go
to them once again, but this time with the mandate of the people
and demand a tougher energy program. What I will ask is very
simple and direct: All they have to do is totally implement the
comprehensive energy program I sent to them nearly two years
ago.
There is another important point I want to make. In my 1975
State of the Union address, I pointed out that the United States had
an energy crisis because of over 20 years of not dealing with the
energy problem which grew steadily more serious. I also pointed
out that it would take at least a decade for us to reverse the
mistakes of the past two decades in a manner that would not severely
damage the growing prosperity of Americans as we made the
changes. I committed this Nation to a goal of energy independence.
I also said that we should regain a great power we had as a country,
which is to control the world price of energy. In the past, we had
- -3- -
this ability because we had more energy here at home than
we needed and we also had the capability of selling our excess
oil abroad. Now obviously we can't go back to that condition,
because our current and future needs for energy will exceed
the amount of oil we can produce here.
But we can, by doubling our coal reserves, producing much
more nuclear energy and tapping other sources such as solar,
end up onte again with significant control over world energy.
That is a goal I set for this country over two years ago, knowing
that it would not become a reality before the end of this century.
But knowing it would benefit the generation of my children and
generations of Americans well into the third century.
FORD LIBRARY
ARAB BOYCOTT
[Suggested guidance: Do not raise Arab Boycott issue.
Respond or rebutt briefly only if directly asked or if
Carter raises it.]
FORD
LIBRARY
In dealing with the Arab Boycott problem, I have been guided
by two principals:
First, I unalterably oppose it. It is morally and
and legally wrong.
Second, I want realistic action taken against the
boycott. I'm not interested in rhetoric and I
will not hold out the promise of more than we
can deliver.
Now, the facts are that the boycott has been in effect since
1952. As President, I have taken stronger action than any of
my predecessors:
Page 2
-- In November 1975, I acted to insure that
FORD
American Citizens and firms would not be
LIBRARY
subject to boycott-related discrimination.
-- In January of this year, for the first time,
the Justice Department filed a civil anti-
trust suit against an American company
charging it with implementing a boycott
agreement by refusing to deal with other
American companies.
The week before Congress adjourned I sought a compromise in
the Congress between those who wanted a piece of legislation
which I did not believe would be in the national interest
and those who suggested a different approach. Congress adjourned
without accepting either of the two compromises I offered.
Nevertheless, on October 4, I signed the Tax Reform Act which
includes provisions under which foreign source income attributable
to certain boycott-related activity will lose its foreign
tax credit, certain tax benefits, and its tax deferral.
FORD
Page 3
LIBRARY
I have also instructed the Secretary of Commerce to make
public the reports filed with the Commerce Department
regarding boycott-related requests received by American
companies on or after October 7, 1976. Only certain business
proprietary information will not be made available to the
public (i.e., monetary value of transaction, quantity and type
of goods, identity of consignee).
Disclosure of boycott-related reports will enable the American
public to assess for itself the nature and impact of the
Arab boycott and to minitor the conduct of American companies.
NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that the actions you
have taken in regard to the boycott to date do basically three
things: (1) ban any discriminatory effect against American
firms or citizens that might arise from boycott practices;
(2) charge an American company in a civil antitrust suit with
implementing a boycott agreement to refuse to deal with other
American companies; and (3) deny, under the Tax Reform Act,
tax credits, benefits and deferrals for the foreign source
income of companies that engage in certain boycott activity.
Compliance with the economic and political aspects of the boycott,
as long as it does not involve a violation of the antitrust laws,
or have a discriminatory impact in the U.S., is not illegal under
present law.
FORD
LIBRARY
HOMEOWNERSHIP
CARTER ATTACK (Appeared in their advertising) :
"It took 70 years to build up homeownership in the United States.
Up through 1969 we had over 50% of all the homes in America
owned by the families that lived in them. It took only 8
years under Nixon and Ford to tear that down and in only 8 years
we now have only 32%, less than one third of the homes in
this country owned by families "
THE FACTS:
Homeownership has never been higher than at the present time.
The percentage of homes which are owned by their occupant
went up only slightly during the Kennedy/Johnson years but
have increased sharply during the Republican years.
65% of American families own their own homes now, as compared
to only 55% in 1950, and the trend toward homeownership
has been increasing much faster in the 70's than it did in
the 60's.
Even for young families, homeownership is increasing. Now
56% of families under 35 years old own their own homes compared
to 49% in 1970 and 48% in 1960.
FEDERAL BUDGET - HUMAN RESOURCES
[Governor Carter may be asked in the last debate to
state specifically how much additonal funds should be
FORD LIBRARY
spent on human resource programs. You may find it useful
to use the following in rebutta1.]
FY 77
HUMAN RESOURCES
$205.3 billion
Education, Training, Employment
and Social Services
16.6 billion
Health
34.4 billion
Income Security
137.1 billion
Veterans Benefits and Services
17.2 billion
Housing is not part of the Human Resources classification.
Proposed spending for HUD is $7.2 billion.
Since 1969, federal spending for human resources programs
has increased from $63.6 billion to $205.3 billion.