Richard Nixon photo

Remarks in Anaheim, California.

October 30, 1970

Governor Reagan, Senator Murphy, my fellow Californians, my fellow Americans:

I cannot tell you what a proud moment it is for me to be addressing the Nation, for the first time in this campaign, from my native State of California. And I join with all of you in this great hall, and those of you in California, in giving my enthusiastic endorsement to the entire State ticket, and particularly to the leader of that ticket, a man who is the first man of the first State---Ronald Reagan.

And I also give my enthusiastic endorsement to all of those on the national ticket, the candidates for the House of Representatives, and to our candidate for the United States Senate for reelection-George Murphy.

I should like to give a personal testimonial with regard to George Murphy. I have known him for 25 years. I have known him for 6 years as a United States Senator. He is a very, very fine Senator. Just as important, he is a fine human being.

For all the years that I have known him, he has been dedicated to his family, to his church, to his State, and to his Nation. I am very proud that a man like George Murphy, who is a man of unquestioned integrity, unquestioned loyalty, unquestioned honesty, is my Senator from California and is my friend.

Ladies and gentlemen, after giving that personal testimonial, I am sure that that would seem to be enough with regard to why I feel George Murphy should be reelected Senator from California.

But to this audience here in California and to all of you listening across the country, I say it isn't enough simply that the individual is one who is a personal friend and is a member of your party.

In this year 1970, the issues are so important that we must not think in personal terms, we must not think in party terms, we must think of what is best for America. And it is because I believe that what George Murphy stands for, what the candidates for the United States Senate that I have campaigned across this country stand for--because I believe what they stand for is best for America, that I am for them and I hope you are for them, too.

This is probably the most important and decisive Senate election in the 190-year history of this country, because the present Senate is divided very narrowly. In vote after vote, a change of one vote, a majority of one, could make the difference as to whether or not the policy that the President of the United States pledged in his campaign is going to be adopted or whether it is going to be rejected.

I made some promises in the campaign of 1968. I am trying to keep those promises. The people of the United States expect their Presidents to keep their promises.

The President of the United States is a very powerful man. He is probably the most powerful man in the world because he heads the world's richest country and the world's strongest country.

But the President of the United States cannot do the job that needs to be done fully unless he has the support of the House and the support of the Senate.

That is why I say that tonight, whether it is in California or in your State where there is a Senate contest or a House contest, I ask you to vote for those men who will vote for the President rather than against him, so that the President can keep his promises to you, the American people.

Let me begin with the most important promise that I made in the last campaign. You all remember it. I made it right here in this very hall. It was that I would work to bring peace to America and to the world.

I have tried to keep that promise. I want to tell you what I found and I want to tell you what I have done. I want to tell you what we need if we are going to meet that great objective.

When I came into office, I found 550,000 Americans in Vietnam with no plan to bring them home. I found that our casualties were 300 a week and no plans to bring them down. I found that there was no peace plan being offered at the conference table in Paris.

I went to work. We adopted a plan to bring the war to an end. Instead of having a situation which had been the case for the previous 5 years when men were going to Vietnam, we have been bringing them home by the tens of thousands and they will continue to come home.

Instead of casualties being at 300 a week, as a result of the strong action we took against the Cambodian sanctuaries, we have destroyed the enemy's capability to the point that our casualties are the lowest in 4 1/2 years, and they will go lower as a result of that policy.

And the United States, because of the actions we have taken, has been able to present a peace proposal as far-reaching, as generous as anyone could possibly recommend, a proposal that contains a cease-fire, an exchange of prisoners, a negotiated settlement, and, of course, the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own government and our willingness to abide by that decision, whatever it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we have done. But now we come to the issue, the issue that divides the present Senate sometimes by one vote, sometimes two, sometimes three.

The issue is whether or not we should move faster. Some say, "Peace now." Some say, "Why not 6 months from now? Why not a deadline?"

Let me simply answer that in this way: The problem is not to end the war in Vietnam. After all, the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces could have ended the war the day that he came into office.

Let us remember that we have been in four wars in this century. We ended World War I. We ended World War II. We ended the Korean war. But let me say to these young people here particularly, because your future is involved: Do you realize that in this whole century, the 20th century, the people of America have not had a full generation of peace? So, what we want to do now, is to end this war in a way that we will discourage those that might start another war, so that we can have a full generation of peace for all Americans.

You may have noted that one of the Senate critics of our peace policy toward Vietnam, who was asking for a more precipitate withdrawal, said that our best young men were going to Canada.

I disagree. Our best young men, my friends--our best young men are in Vietnam risking their lives so that those that protest "Peace now," won't have to go to Vietnam or fight another war in the future.

And tonight I can say to you, with assurance, we are bringing the war to an end. We are ending it in a way that will discourage those that might start another war, and that will give us a chance to have peace, not just for the next election, but peace for the next generation.

And if you want that, then it is important that we get backing, backing for the President from the Senate, backing that men like George Murphy and the others that I have campaigned for across this country have been giving. If you want that, it is also important that the President of the United States, whenever he negotiates with other countries--and particularly when he negotiates with the Soviet Union, as I will be negotiating in the future, and as my representatives will be, for the limitation of nuclear arms-when we negotiate, let us be sure that the President of the United States negotiates from strength and not from weakness.

So the issue is clear: We need Senators, we need Congressmen, who will recognize that a just peace in Vietnam, one that discourages the warmakers, and that a strong America are essential if we are going to have a generation of peace.

And that is what I ask the American people to consider as you vote on November 3d.

And as we consider the problem of peace abroad, let us turn to a closely related problem, that of peace at home.

The United States cannot lead the forces of peace abroad unless we can demonstrate that we can restore peace and keep peace right here at home in the United States of America.

Let me again tell you what I found; When I came into office, I found that in the previous 8 years crime had gone up 158 percent in this country, street crime, organized crime, the use of drugs and narcotics, the flow of obscenity and pornography into the homes.

I pledged certain things. I remember pledging it right here in this hall and in halls all across this country in the 1968 campaign.

I said that I would appoint stronger judges. I said that I would ask for stronger laws. I said that I would appoint a stronger Attorney General.

I have tried to keep those promises. But what have I found? We have had delay in the confirmation of the judges, and it took 18 months for the Congress to get the first one of the major crime bills that I asked for 18 months ago to my desk for signature, just before the election.

My friends, I tell you what we need in this field. Again, we need Members of the House and the Senate who will vote for the President and not against him, so that we can see to it that the wave of crime does not become the wave of the future in the United States of America.

Let us clearly understand the issue. The issue is not being for crime or against it. Everybody is against crime. But the issue is what do you do about it; how do you act; how do you vote; how urgent is the problem to you?

I should point out to all of you here that as I look over this situation, I find that there are men in the House and the Senate who, as we approach an election, become very concerned about the issue. But what we need are men in the House and the Senate of the United States who not only talk that way in the 2 months of the election campaign, but who work and talk and vote for those measures that are necessary to stop the criminal elements all year round. And George Murphy and those that I am supporting are that kind of men.

And now, I turn to an event related to all this, that occurred in San Jose yesterday. You saw it on your television screens, an incident in which you saw 3,000 people inside listening to the speakers and 1,000 demonstrators outside, demonstrators who shouted epithets, but, in addition to that, who hurled bottles and rocks and bricks, broke windows, damaged the President's car, damaged the buses, injured some of the people in those buses.

It was a violent demonstration. And as that demonstration was concluded, there were those that were trying to indicate what it meant.

I want to give you tonight my judgement as to what that demonstration meant.

I say to you tonight, it is time to draw the line. I do not mean a party line. Because, when I speak of a line, I am referring not just to Republicans or Democrats, I am referring to a line between those who understand this problem and deal with it effectively and those who do not.

You recall what happened at the University of Wisconsin, where someone was killed in a lighted building. Listen to what the Wisconsin State Journal said in an editorial. "It isn't just the radicals that set the bomb in the lighted, occupied building who were guilty. The blood is on the hands of anyone who encouraged them, anyone who talked recklessly of revolution, anyone who has chided with mild disparagement the violence of extremism, while hinting that the cause was right all the time."

Here is what we must understand: We must recognize, my friends, that simply. because the cause happens to be peace, no protest for peace justifies violence, justifies shouting down speakers, justifies lawlessness, or any kind of action.

My friends, what we must recognize is that in a system that provides a method for peaceful change, there is no cause that justifies resort to violence or lawlessness in the United States of America.

And it is time, also, for us to recognize that candidates for the Senate and the House who, in the past, have either condoned this, defended it, excused it, or failed to speak up against it--that these are men who do not have the qualifications now to take the strong stand that needs to be taken against this kind of lawlessness and this kind of violence.

I can say again, that across this country, I am proud to say that every candidate that I have spoken for is one that has not adopted this permissive attitude toward either crime or toward this kind of violent protest. So, stand with these men who understand the issues and whose record is clear on this point.

But now, let's keep this in perspective. As you saw that picture in San Jose yesterday of the violent few, and as you look at your television screens night after night, you may get the impression, with the rocks being thrown, the shouting of the obscene words and the like, that the violent few among our youth are a majority of American youth today, or that they may be the leaders of America tomorrow.

My friends, I have good news for you. I have traveled this country. I have seen thousands of people over the past few months. I have seen thousands of young people. And I can tell you that the radical few that you see on your television screens night after night--they are not a majority of American youth today and they will not be the leaders of America tomorrow.

My friends, it is time to answer those who have given this distorted and inaccurate picture of America. It is time for the great silent majority of Americans to stand up and be counted. And the way you can stand up and be counted is not to answer in kind. You don't have to resort to violence. You don't have to shout down speakers. You don't have to shout four-letter words.

The way to answer them, my friends, is on November 3d, to go to the polls and vote. And in that very moment when you vote, in the loneliness of that polling booth, you are the most powerful person in the world.

Vote for men who have a clear record of understanding these issues. Vote for men who have always stood against those who would tear America down.

And I urge you to vote for those men who will stand with the President, rather than against the President, for these policies, for progress without inflation in this country, for prosperity without war, for the reestablishment in America of respect for law and of laws that deserve respect.

And, above all, for the great objective that young Americans want, that all Americans want, a generation of peace for America and all the world.

Note: The President spoke at 7:37 p.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center. His remarks were videotaped for broadcast at 8:30 p.m. on the CBS television network on time purchased by the Republican National Committee.

Richard Nixon, Remarks in Anaheim, California. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project

Filed Under




Simple Search of Our Archives