MR. McGEE. Mr. Morgan with a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. MORGAN. Senator, Saturday on television you said that you had always thought that Quemoy and Matsu were unwise places to draw our defense line in the Far East.
Would you comment further on that and also address to this question; couldn't a pullback from those islands be interpreted as appeasement?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, the United States has on occasion attempted mostly in the middle fifties, to persuade Chiang Kai-shek to pull his troops back to Formosa. I believe strongly in the defense of Formosa. These islands are a few miles, 5 or 6 miles off the coast of Red China, within a general harbor area, and more than a 100 miles from Formosa. We have never said flatly that we will defend Quemoy and Matsu if it's attacked. We say we will defend it if it's part of a general attack on Formosa. But it's extremely difficult to make that judgment.
Now, Mr. Herter in 1958, when he was Under Secretary of State, said they were strategically undefensible. Admirals Spruance and Collins in 1955 said that we should not attempt to defend these islands, in their conference in the Far East.
General Ridgway has said the same thing. I believe that when you get intowar- if you're going to get into a war for the defense of Formosa, it ought to be on a clearly defined line.
One of the problems, I think, at the time of South Korea, was the question of whether the United States would defend it if it were attacked. I believe that we should defend Formosa; we should come to its defense. To leave this rather in the air-- that we will defend it under some conditions but not under others--I think is a mistake.
Secondly, I would not suggest the withdrawal at the point of the Communist gun. It is a decision finally that the Nationalists should make and I believe that we should consult with them and attempt to work out a plan by which the line is drawn at the island of Formosa. It leaves 100 miles between the sea. But with General Ridgway, Mr. Herter, General Collins, Admiral Spruance, and many others, I think it's unwise to take the chance of being dragged into a war which may lead to a world war over two islands which are not strategically defensible; which are not, according to their testimony, essential to the defense of Formosa.
I think that we should protect our commitments. I believe strongly we should do so in Berlin. I believe strongly we should do so in Formosa and I believe we should meet our commitments to every country whose security we've guaranteed, but I do not believe that that line, in case of war, should be drawn on those islands but instead on the island of Formosa, and as long as they are not essential to the defense of Formosa, it's been my judgment ever since 1954, at the time of the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Far East, that our line should be drawn in the sea around the island itself.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Vice President.
MR. NIXON. I disagree completely with Senator Kennedy on this point.
I remember in the period immediately before the Korean War, South Korea was supposed to be indefensible as well. Generals testified to tha, and Secretary Acheson made a very famous speech at the Press Club, early in the year that Korean War started, indicating in effect that South Korea was beyond the defense zone of the United States.
I suppose it was hoped when he made that speech that we wouldn't get into a war, but it didn't mean that. We had to go in when they came in.
Now, I think as far as Quemoy and Matsu are concerned, that the question is not these two little pieces of real estate; they are unimportant. It isn't the few people who live on them; they are not too important. It's the principle involved. These two islands are in the area of freedom. The Nationalists have these two islands. We should not force our Nationalist allies to get off of them and give them to the Communists. If we do that, we start a chain reaction because the Communists aren't after Quemoy and Matsu; they are after Formosa.
In my opinion, this is the same kind of woolly thinking that led to disaster for America in Korea. I am against it. I would never tolerate it as President of the United States and I will hope that Senator Kennedy will change his mind if he should be elected.
MR. McGEE. Gentlemen, we have approximately four minutes remaining. May I ask you to make your questions and answers as brief as possible, consistent with clarity.
And Mr. Levy has a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. LEVY. Mr. Vice President, you are urging voters to forget party labels and vote for the man. Senator Kennedy says that in doing this you are trying to run away from your party on such issues as housing and aid to education by advocating what he calls a "me-too" program. Why do you say that party labels are not important?
MR. NIXON. Because that's the way we elect a President in this country and it's the way we should. I am a student of history as is Senator Kennedy, incidentally; and I have found that in the history of this country we've had many great Presidents. Some of them have been Democrats; and some of them have been Republicans. The people some way have always understood that, at a particular time, a certain man was the one the country needed.
Now, I believe that in an election when we are trying to determine who should lead the free world--not just America-- perhaps, as Senator Kennedy has already indicated, the most important election in our history, it isn't the label that he wears or that I wear that count;. It's what we are. It's our whole lives. It's what we stand for. It's what we believe.
And consequently, I don't think it's enough to go before Republican audiences and I never do, and say, "Look, vote for me because I am a Republican." I don't think it's enough for Senator Kennedy to go before the audiences on the Democratic side and say, "Vote for me because I am a Democrat."
That isn't enough. What's involved here is the question of leadership for the whole free world.
Now that means the best leadership. It may be Republican; it may be Democratic, but the people are the ones that determine it. The people have to make up their minds. And I believe the people, therefore, should be asked to make up their minds not simply on the basis of, "Vote the way your grandfather did,""vote the way your mother did."
I think the people should put America first, rather than party first.
Now, as far as running away from my party is concerned, Senator Kennedy has said that we have no compassion for the poor, that we are against progress--the "enemies of progress," is the term that he's used--and the like.
All that I can say is this: We do have programs in all of these fields, education, housing, defense, that will move America forward. They will move her forward faster, and they will move her more surely than his program. This is what I deeply believe. I am sure he believes just as deeply that his will move that way. I suggest, however, that in the interest of fairness, that he could give me the benefit of also believing as he believes.
MR. McGEE. Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, let me say I do think that parties are important in that they tell something about the program and something about the man.
Abraham Lincoln was a great President of all the people; but he was selected by his party at a key time in history because his party stood for something.
The Democratic party in this century has stood for something. It has stood for progress. It has stood for concern for the people's welfare. It has stood for a strong foreign policy and a strong national defense, and as a result produced Wilson, President Roosevelt, and President Truman. The Republican party has produced McKinley, and Harding, Coolidge, Dewey, and Landon. They do stand for something. They stand for a whole different approach to the problems facing this country at home and abroad. That's the importance of party. Only if it tells something about the record, and the Republicans in recent years, not only in the last 25 years, but in the last 8 years, have opposed housing, opposed care for the aged, opposed Federal aid to education, opposed minimum wage, and I think that record tells something.
MR. McGEE. Thank you gentlemen.
Neither the questions from the reporters nor the answers you heard from Senator John Kennedy or Vice President Richard Nixon were rehearsed.
By agreement, neither candidate made an opening statement or a closing summation. They further agreed that the clock alone would decide who would speak last and each has asked me to express his thanks to the networks and their affiliated stations.
Another program similar to this one will be presented Thursday, October 13, and the final program will be presented Friday, October 21.
We hope this series of radio and television programs will help you toward a fuller understanding of the issues facing our country today and that on election day, November 8, you will vote for the candidate of your choice.
This is Frank McGee.
Good night from Washington.