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 George McGovern.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526463
label
Republican Rally, Kankakee, IL, October 28, 1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526463
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Republican Rally, Kankakee, IL, October 28, 1972
description
This file contains material relating to George McGovern.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
National security
Presidential campaigns
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526463
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-10-31
month
10
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-10-01
month
10
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
2f14ef951ba854bf
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Republican Rally, Kankakee, IL,
October 28, 1972" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Distribution 20 to 70mg
MOMice Cakey
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. SATURDAY--
October 28, 1972
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford at a Republican Rally at Kankakee, Ill.
As Nov. 7 nears, every American should be asking himself this question: Which
of the two Presidential candidates is more likely to secure peace with honor for our
country, and which is better qualified to offer new hope to the whole world?
Nowhere is the choice facing America this November more clear--or more
crucial--than on the foreign policy stands taken by President Nixon and Sen. McGovern.
In the era from World War II to the present, America has been led by six
Presidents of both parties. And all of these Presidents believed that America had
to remain strong if the United States was to negotiate effectively for peace and
the American people were to remain secure in their freedom.
The need for strength is no less today than it was under Roosevelt or Truman
or Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson. As President Nixon has said: "A strong
America is not the enemy of peace; it is the guardian of peace."
President Nixon has made this sound observation: "In negotiations between
great powers, you can only get something if you have something to give in return."
In other words, you can only negotiate successfully if you have something to
negotiate with. You cannot hope to negotiate a mutual reduction of arms or of
troop strength if you begin by throwing away the arms you have and cutting your
troops in half.
But listen to Sen. McGovern. In 1969 he said: "I am convinced that we will
some day rue the phase, 'negotiate from strength,' as one of the most damaging and
dangerous cliches in the American vocabulary."
McGovern has backed away from nearly every one of the proposals he made during
the Presidential primaries, but on defense cuts he has been the very model of
consistency.
He has spelled out his formula for defense: Don't wait to negotiate; cut the
defense budget by $32 billion; strip away our strength--cut the Air Force by a third,
the Navy by a quarter, our aircraft carriers from 16 to 6, and our Marines by a third.
One has to believe that he means what he says when he asserts that it is
dangerous to negotiate from strength--because his program would assure that we would
LIBRARY
have no strength to negotiate from.
(more)
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
Would the Russians be more or less anxious to sign a second SALT agreement
if we had a McGovern unilaterally putting his massive defense cuts into effect?
Would the Chinese be more or less eager to work for peace in the Pacific--if
McGovern was already "coming home" to Hawaii and Alaska?
McGovern's foreign policy calls for a program that flows from the benign
but naive assumption that peace can be built on nothing more substantial than good
intentions.
No delusion could more dangerous in the office of the Presidency.
McGovern tells us to "Come home, America" home from Asia, home from Europe,
home from those outposts in which our forces guard the defenses of freedom. No
wonder our allies quake at the thought of a McGovern Presidency.
The world knows what McGovern apparently does not--that peace and freedom
still depend on a strong America.
Let's look at another aspect of the proposed McGovern cuts in America's
defenses and what this would mean in the event of an international crisis.
The strength he proposes to cut away is conventional, tactical strength. He
would bring home the men, the tanks, the guns, the fighter aircraft from Western
Europe. He would bring home the aircraft carriers that support our allies in the
Mediterranean and give muscle to our commitment to Israel.
Stripped of these conventional forces--left to rely on nuclear power--how
would the United States handle a sudden confrontation?
I submit that the future George McGovern offers the American people is not
one of peace, but of deadly danger.
McGovern is an isolationist--and as such he is a dangerous man.
There is a long isolationist tradition in this country--the 19th century
Populists, the recalcitrant Republicans at the time of Versailles, the pre-World
War II appeasement lobby. And what all of these representatives of the isolationist
stream had in common is that they were all wrong.
Modern America cannot afford to be alone in the world, cannot afford to
shirk its responsibilities for the peace and freedom of men everywhere, cannot
allow one error in world affairs to obscure its broader mission.
Yet George McGovern would take us down the isolationist path once again. He
would leave the fate of Israel in the hands of the Kremlin. He wants to cut and
run in Vietnam, pull back in Europe and weaken our commitments to our other allies
around the world. In my view, he is supporting a posture of surrender.
The true peace candidate in this election is the man who truly understands
the world and who has already done more to build a generation of peace than any
other President in modern times--Richard Nixon.
# # #
20 to Mr. Fortonly
O Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. SATURDAY--
October 28, 1972
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford at a Republican Rally at Kankakee, Ill,
As Nov. 7 nears, every American should be asking himself this question: Which
of the two Presidential candidates is more likely to secure peace with honor for our
country, and which is better qualified to offer new hope to the whole world?
Nowhere is the choice facing America this November more clear--or more
crucial--than on the foreign policy stands taken by President Nixon and Sen. McGovern.
In the era from World War II to the present, America has been led by six
Presidents of both parties. And all of these Presidents believed that America had
to remain strong if the United States was to negotiate effectively for peace and
the American people were to remain secure in their freedom.
The need for strength is no less today than it was under Roosevelt or Truman
or Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson. As President Nixon has said: "A strong
America is not the enemy of peace; it is the guardian of peace."
President Nixon has made this sound observation: "In negotiations between
great powers, you can only get something if you have something to give in return."
In other words, you can only negotiate successfully if you have something to
negotiate with. You cannot hope to negotiate a mutual reduction of arms or of
troop strength if you begin by throwing away the arms you have and cutting your
troops in half.
But listen to Sen. McGovern. In 1969 he said: "I am convinced that we will
some day rue the phase, 'negotiate from strength,' as one of the most damaging and
dangerous cliches in the American vocabulary."
McGovern has backed away from nearly every one of the proposals he made during
the Presidential primaries, but on defense cuts he has been the very model of
consistency.
He has spelled out his formula for defense: Don't wait to negotiate; cut the
defense budget by $32 billion; strip away our strength--cut the Air Force by a third,
the Navy by a quarter, our aircraft carriers from 16 to 6, and our Marines by a third.
One has to believe that he means what he says when he asserts that it is
dangerous to negotiate from strength--because his program would assure that we would
have no strength to negotiate from.
(more)
RARY
-2-
Would the Russians be more or less anxious to sign a second SALT agreement
if we had a McGovern unilaterally putting his massive defense cuts into effect?
Would the Chinese be more or less eager to work for peace in the Pacific--if
McGovern was already "coming home" to Hawaii and Alaska?
McGovern's foreign policy calls for a program that flows from the benign
but naive assumption that peace can be built on nothing more substantial than good
intentions.
No delusion could more dangerous in the office of the Presidency.
McGovern tells us to "Come home, America" home from Asia, home from Europe,
home from those outposts in which our forces guard the defenses of freedom. No
wonder our allies quake at the thought of a McGovern Presidency.
The world knows what McGovern apparently does not--that peace and freedom
still depend on a strong America.
Let's look at another aspect of the proposed McGovern cuts in America's
defenses and what this would mean in the event of an international crisis.
The strength he proposes to cut away is conventional, tactical strength. He
would bring home the men, the tanks, the guns, the fighter aircraft from Western
Europe. He would bring home the aircraft carriers that support our allies in the
Mediterranean and give muscle to our commitment to Israel.
Stripped of these conventional forces--left to rely on nuclear power--how
would the United States handle a sudden confrontation?
I submit that the future George McGovern offers the American people is not
one of peace, but of deadly danger.
McGovern is an isolationist-- and as such he is a dangerous man.
There is a long isolationist tradition in this country--the 19th century
Populists, the recalcitrant Republicans at the time of Versailles, the pre-World
War II appeasement lobby. And what all of these representatives of the isolationist
stream had in common is that they were all wrong.
Modern America cannot afford to be alone in the world, cannot afford to
shirk its responsibilities for the peace and freedom of men everywhere, cannot
allow one error in world affairs to obscure its broader mission.
Yet George McGovern would take us down the isolationist path once again. He
would leave the fate of Israel in the hands of the Kremlin. He wants to cut and
run in Vietnam, pull back in Europe and weaken our commitments to our other allies
around the world. In my view, he is supporting a posture of surrender.
The true peace candidate in this election is the man who truly understands
the world and who has already done more to build a generation of peace than any
other President in modern Richard Nixon.
# # #