Governor Cargo, Congressman Foreman, Congressman Lujan, all of the distinguished guests on the platform, and this wonderful audience here in Albuquerque:
Somebody reminded me, as I was at the airport, that I had not campaigned in New Mexico in the 1968 elections. I did, however, campaign when I was running for President in 1960. I remember what I said.
I said that I would return to New Mexico as President of the United States. I am returning, but a little later than I thought.
I want to express my appreciation to all of you who have come here, to the enormous overflow audience outside. I hope they can listen by loudspeakers. We tried to shake hands with a few as we came in.
My appreciation, too, to the musical organizations that are here. I don't want to overlook any of them, but I understand that outside we have the Manzano High School Band.
So that there is no discrimination, the Manzano choral group is inside, right over here.
I understand that inside we have also the Paul Muench Jazz Band. That is here someplace. And somebody told me the Highland High School Band is here.
I just hope our candidates score as well as Highland High School has been scoring in its football games.
On this occasion in the closing days of the campaign, I have come to New Mexico, as you know, to talk to you about a very important decision that you will be making next Tuesday. I am not going to talk to you in the usual terms that you hear at the close of a campaign--you know, vote Republican or vote Democratic, regardless of what you may think of the man.
I would like to talk to you in terms that I think are more appropriate to the times and ones that the people of New Mexico particularly appreciate.
I realize that I would not have carried New Mexico in 1968, had it not been for the fact that I had the support, not only of Republicans but of great numbers of Democrats and Independents.
And so today, I address my remarks to all the people of New Mexico, and to those that may be listening in other parts of the country, to all the people of America. I don't expect all of you to agree. I only ask you to consider what I have and my responsibilities are, and to consider my recommendations in that light, and then make your decisions on November 3d and let it be a decision of the majority and not just of the few who might take the time to go to the polls.
Therefore, in that spirit, I would like to talk to you about our candidates, the people that I think deserve your support.
First, at the State level: I think you have a great State ticket right here in the State of New Mexico. Pete Domenici is a man that I have not known well in the past, but that I got to know during the course of this campaign.
What I like about him is that he has his eyes on the future. He is thinking of the future of young people. He is thinking of jobs. He is thinking of jobs and progress.
Like Dave Cargo before him, also a man who thought of this State in terms of the future, he is thinking of how this great, beautiful State can move into the seventies and the eighties with all of the promise that it has.
As our plane circled Albuquerque, and as we came down, I thought what a beautiful country this is. I thought what a really beautiful country it is.
And I thought how wise it was that we were putting so many of our Federal installations here, our defense installations.
And incidentally, they are here because this is the place they should be, because this is the area where I believe we can best serve the interests of America, not just the interests of New Mexico.
I think, too, of the future. I think of other Federal installations and why, instead of going as they so often do too often, to the overcrowded centers of population on one end of the country or the other, they can come to this great area in the middle of the country, in which people have a chance to live in a State with all of the progress and all of the possibilities that New Mexico has.
It is because Pete Domenici is a man of the future, a man who understands the problems of the future. I am for him all the way and I hope you are for him.
Now, I am going to talk about the House races a moment. Normally, I haven't had a chance to go into House races, because usually when I appear in a State like California or Ohio, there are so many House candidates that if I mention the candidates, I will have no time to mention the Senate candidate, and I have to say something about him, too, usually.
As far as your House candidates here, you have two. They are men who surprised everybody by winning in 1968. They are going to win again in 1970. I can tell you.
Ed Foreman and Manny Lujan, I have valued their support. They have been with the President on the great issues. I value them as friends. I believe they are wonderful representatives of their districts, of this State, and of America. I ask you to support them.
And now, I come to the candidate for the United States Senate. Let me say first that I understand there was a primary in this State, as there were in others. Let me say, second, that I think that in the best interest of the State and the best interest of the Nation, it is in a fine tradition that the man who was not successful in the primary is supporting the man who was.
Let me say I have won a few elections, I have lost a few, and believe me, winning is a lot more fun.
Therefore, my hat is off to Dave Cargo, who is giving his support to the man I am supporting, Andy Carter, for the United States Senate.
I want to tell you now why it is so very, very important that that happen. Why even despite the fact that you have a primary campaign--and you know how people can get pretty stirred up about the other fellow, what he said and what his people said about you and all the rest.
But this year, personal differences, personal attitudes, party labels cannot be the major consideration in our decision. What is involved in the campaign for the United States Senate is a decision that is more important than in any Senate race in the whole history of this country, in my opinion.
Let me tell you about the United States Senate today. It is divided very, very closely. If you have watched the votes, a change of one vote on national defense, a change of one vote on our peace policy in Vietnam, a change of one vote on the approval of a judge who would take a strong line on law and order, a change of one vote in issue after issue might have changed the result.
So what we are talking about is the man--it happens to be in this case Andy Carter, in other States it happens to be the other candidates I am supporting-but a man, who could make the difference as to whether the people of New Mexico want to send down to. Washington, D.C., a man who, on not all votes because we want a man to be independent but on the great votes, the votes that make the difference, the ones which enable the President to keep the promises that he made to the American people---whether that man is going to be with the President or against him.
And I say I come here to New Mexico because I made some promises to the people of this Nation in 1968. The people expect me to keep those promises. I am trying to keep those promises. I can't keep them unless I have more support in the Senate, more support in the House of Representatives.
And it is because Andy Carter will be with me rather than against me in the big issues, I ask you to support him for the United States Senate.
Now for just a few moments, listen to me carefully as I outline what I consider to be perhaps the four major issues that you are thinking about, that the people of America are thinking about, the four big issues where there is a clear difference of opinion between two men in this State. I respect both. I am not here to campaign against a man personally, or the rest.
But four great issues where Andy Carter will be with me and where the present man who is in the Senate has opposed me--not me as a person, but opposed those policies and those programs that I pledged to put into effect if I were elected President.
First, let me talk about the problem of peace. I am referring not to just peace for the next election. I am referring to peace for the next generation.
Here is what I found. When I came into office I found 550,000 men in Vietnam, no plans to bring them home; casualties 300 a week, going up; no peace plan. We went to work. And as we went to work what we did is that instead of sending more men to Vietnam, we are bringing them home by the tens of thousands.
My friends, our casualties are the lowest in 4 1/2 years. We have a peace plan on the bargaining table in Paris. And I will say this, we are on the road. Our plan is working. The war is coming to an end. And we are going to end it in a way in which we are going to discourage those that might start another war.
Now let me tell you why it is important to do it that way. The problem, my friends, is not ending a war. To all of you young people here, you study this in college, and you study it in high school, and you have read about what has happened in this century. We ended World War I, you remember. We ended World War II, you remember that. We ended the Korean war. But did you know that in this whole century we have yet to have a full generation of peace, and I have pledged to myself and I have pledged to the American people we are going to end this war in a way that will discourage the warmakers so that we can have a full generation of peace for the American people.
And the question then is very clear. Andy Carter's opponent has voted consistently for those proposals in the United States Senate that would not back the President on this issue; that would call for a precipitate withdrawal; that would mean that we would end the war all right but end it in a way that the United States would, in effect, suffer either humiliation or defeat.
My friends, defeat or humiliation for the United States anyplace in the world hurts the cause of peace. We have to have a United States that is respected in the world, and we are not going to be defeated.
There is also a second important principle if we are going to have a generation of peace. We have to keep America strong.
Let me tell you why: The President of the United States has a responsibility, along with his associates, for negotiating with the Soviet Union and other major powers, and particularly with the Soviet Union on limiting nuclear arms so that we can reduce the danger of any war, and particularly a nuclear war.
We are going to proceed in that era of negotiation. But in order to do so, we have to have some cards on our side of the table. And what we find here, then, is another clear difference of opinion. On the one hand, the present Senator, against whom Andy Carter is running, voted-and I know he believed this way, he was sincere in voting that way--voted to take one card away, voted against having a missile defense for the United States when the Soviet Union had it.
I say don't send the President of the United States to the bargaining table with the Soviet Union in a position of weakness. Put him there in a position of strength. That is what we need to have.
And it doesn't do any good to talk about bases in New Mexico and vote against the programs for the defense of the United States in Washington, D.C.
There is a clear difference of opinion between two honest men, and I say to you one is for, one is against. But I have the responsibility, and I am going to have it for the next 2 years, the responsibility to make the decisions that I think will bring an end to the war in a way that will promote a lasting peace for the world. And I ask for your support, the support of the people of New Mexico on that issue.
We have another problem closely related to this: the problem of peace at home. Why is peace at home related to the problem of peace abroad? Because the United States is the leader of the free world. As the Nation that has in its hands the responsibility for being an example of a society of order, if we are not able to keep order at home, we are not going to be able to exert the leadership that is necessary to advocate a rule of law and order abroad.
So the question of peace at home is very important. It is, of course, important another way: because it affects the safety of our homes, the safety of our children, of our wives, of all of us in this country.
Here is what I found there: I found, when I came into office, that crime had gone up 158 percent in 8 years, and I found the reason for it---one of the reasons, at least, the major reason, was an attitude of permissiveness toward crime, again by well-intentioned people--I just don't happen to agree with them--but well-intentioned people. Permissiveness by judges, permissiveness by law enforcement officials, and permissiveness by lawmakers who didn't pass the strong laws that were needed.
In the campaign of 1968, if you heard me on television, if you heard my acceptance speech at Miami, you heard what I said.
I said that I would appoint a stronger Attorney General. I said I would appoint stronger judges. I said I would ask for stronger laws. I have tried to do all of those things.
This is what has happened: We have the Senate of the United States delaying and delaying and delaying in approving the judges who will take a strong stand in strengthening what I think the American people want. We need to strengthen the peace forces as against the criminal forces in the United States of America.
I asked for stronger laws, and what happened?
Ed Foreman can tell you, and Manny Lujan can tell you.
For 18 months, they dillydallied and waited, and I just got, just as the election was coming, the first bill on organized crime, and the next one dealing with drugs and narcotics. We must do better than that. We need men in the United States Senate, a man like Andy Carter, and the two men that are your candidates here, men who will support the President when he asks for stronger laws, men who will vote to approve those judges, who are going to take that strong position for respect for law and for enforcing the law.
We need men who will do that, because only that way can I keep the promise I made to the American people. And I make it again here to you today.
The wave of crime is not going to be the wave of the future for these young people of America.
And now to the fourth point. I direct this particularly to those thinking of the future of this great western part of the United States which we all love and which we share together.
That is: What does the future hold? Here we have programs of progress, what kind of an America are we going to build? You know, we are a rather young country by some standards but very aid in terms of the democracies in the world--190 years old. We are going to celebrate our 200th anniversary, as you know, the Declaration of Independence, in 1976. And I have been thinking of what we want America to be then.
Among those things that I want, I say it is time to reform the institutions of government. One thing we need to do: Instead of having, as has been the case for 190 years, a power constantly flowing from the States and from the people to Washington, let's reverse it. I think it is time to have the power flow back from Washington to the States and to the people. Let's bring power to the people of the United States of America.
I am sure you young people here say, "That is just a good political science point. What is it all about? Why does it mean something?" I will tell you why it means it: because it means better government. It means government that is closer to the people. It means that decisions that are made with regard to the future of the people of New Mexico will be made by people closer to home rather than some bureaucrat back in Washington, D.C., who may not know what is best for people here.
It means also, looking to the period of reform, that we in Washington now--and this is part of our exciting new program-we are thinking of where people are going to be. We are thinking of what is really the new frontier in this country. It is no longer in the Far West; it is no longer far across the oceans.
But it is in that section of the country over which those who went clear to the Far West traveled.
Here in New Mexico, in Arizona, in Nevada, in Colorado, in Montana--what a great part of the country in which we need to see that there is the development of opportunities-opportunities for jobs, opportunities for progress---so that people that want to live in one of the best parts of America can have a job so that they can live here. That is what we stand for.
And now, finally, I want to speak briefly about a sign I saw at your airport. The sign said, "This is not San Jose. Welcome?'
And, friends, I expected you to react that way when I said that. But now I want to tell you what the truth of the matter is. Don't get the wrong impression of San Jose, and don't get it, because, my friends, I have been to that beautiful city in California many times. It is a city, like the city of Albuquerque, that the people are very proud of. It is a city of peace-loving people, a city in which people come out, as they do here, 3,000, to hear the President of the United States, who listen, who try to give him an opportunity to express his views, and then give others the opportunity to express contrary views if they want to.
I simply want to say to you that what happened in San Jose was the work of a very few, a violent few. Let me also say that in every city I have seen young people, some of them carrying signs saying "Peace now," some of them indicating opposition to the President, opposition to his proposals. They have every right to do that. They have a right to speak out.
What I do say, however, is this: I say that for--and here is where we draw the line--that those who carry a peace sign in one hand and a bomb or a brick in 'the other are the super hypocrites of our time.
And to the older people here, don't get the wrong impression of San Jose--a fine, good, American city, or of San Jose State College, a college of 24,000. The president of the student body wired me and said, "The overwhelming majority disapproved of what happened there."
Don't get the wrong impression of our young people, I say to you older people here. You see on your television screen night after night the bad young people. Well, it is time we saw more of the good young people on television.
Show them. Here they are.
I know from what you see on television night after night, you would think that the violent, radical few are a majority of American youth today and may be the leaders of America tomorrow.
Well, I have news for you. I have been around this country, and the radical few are not a majority of youth today, and they are not going to be the leaders of America tomorrow.
To those of you who are young, may I say, don't lose faith in this country, and don't just agree with everything that those of us who are old, what we have done. I admire American youth. I have faith in American youth.
I have faith in you, because you are idealistic, because you do care, because you do want peace, because you want a better life for all people. May you always want it. May you always want to change America for the better.
But, remember--and I know you all know this--that in a system that provides a method for peaceful change, there is no cause that justifies resort to violence or lawlessness. That is the simple rule.
What can you all do about this? How do you answer the rock throwers and the obscenity shouters?
You don't answer them in kind. You have got a more powerful weapon. You have got a peaceful weapon--the weapon of a vote.
November 3d you go into the polling booth and vote. Some of you will not vote the way I want you to vote. That is not important. You are going to vote.
The important thing is that when you vote on November 3d, that vote is going to represent not the minority but the majority in this country.
And I say that it is time for the great silent majority to be heard.
Be heard on November 3d. Vote and let America know what you think.