DFL Senate candidates Donald Fraser, Robert Short and Sharon Anderson debate

Programs | Midday | Special Collections | Minnesota Politicians | Types | Reports | Grants | Legacy Amendment Digitization (2016-2017) |
Listen: DFL Senate candidates Donald Fraser, Robert Short and Sharon Anderson debate

DFL-endorsed Senate candidate Donald Fraser debates his opponents in the September 12 primary election, Robert Short and Sharon Anderson, live from the YMCA in Duluth. Debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

Read the Text Transcription of the Audio.

(00:00:00) Thank you very much. Dan Olsen. You're quite right. We are on hand in Duluth. So this is taking place in the Duluth YMCA. The young men's Christian Association Auditorium on the second floor and Mary Evans of the League of Women Voters is right now making a few preliminary announcements before the festivities get underway here this afternoon. We have candidates Fraser and short and also Sharon Anderson also seeking the nomination here is Lee ball of the League of Women (00:00:32) Voters purpose. It is to promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government. We study issues rather than people we never endorse candidates. Today, we are featuring candidates for the unexpired term of United States senator from Minnesota all candidates running on the two major party tickets in next. Tuesday's primary were invited to appear today, but it was inconvenient for all but three dfl ticket members to be with us during this hour. Now for our format and the ground rules for the afternoon. Each candidate will make a 3 minute opening statement after which they will answer questions from the audience. We ask the questions be limited to one minute and that they be questions not the statements of the question whose views since it is the candidates positions. We are here to learn each candidate will then be allowed to minutes in which to respond? Because this is a league sponsored event. We hope you will understand our desire to hear the candidates views on some of the many topics. We have been studying in recent years and months. Therefore we shall try as far as possible to alternate questions from League members and others in the audience in order to cover as many as possible of the Myriad issues with which a senator must deal. We shall limit questions to one per topic. So use your questions well, In a drawing of lots we came out. Mr. Short will speak first representative Frazier second and mrs. Anderson will be third you note. The league is not partial to ladies. (00:02:26) Mr. Shirley ball of the League of Women Voters setting up the ground rules, and we will mushy indicated here candidate short first ladies and gentlemen of this audience. I first should acknowledge with Great gratitude the opportunity that I have to appear here today in debate of the issues as I see them in this primary contest that is so important to the future of the state of Minnesota in this year. As you know, we have two United States senators that will seek to represent our state in the United States Senate during the next several years. It's the first time in the Republic that a state has had the opportunity of electing to in the same year. And in this year of 1978 to them the election is most important and it's most important that those in both parties understand the issues who the candidates are and the direction that the country will take under the leadership of people that you send to the United States Senate in the year 1978 early on when I decided that I would present my credentials to the people of Minnesota. I said that the principal issue of this campaign should be inflation. It would be inflation because that was the issue that did plague almost all segments of our economy. Not only in Minnesota, but all over the nation. Our seniors are feeling the pinch of the fact that they save dollars and when they come to spend them whether it's Social Security war bonds or small savings these savings are in fact worth dimes. And if you call as many of us have about the senior citizen high-rise Apartments, you'll find that there is anguish in the hearts of those who fought that they had earned retirement after a lifetime of effort from 65 until their grave only to find that their dollars do not take them through the total of the 30 days of a month and that many are forced to look in terms of food stamps for the remainder of that 30-day period And as badly as you feel for the seniors your heart must go out to the young of our When attempting to buy a family farm or a family home, they learn that the average cost in Minneapolis are they home is $70,000 25% down and a 10 percent mortgage. And in the rural communities a family farm is even more beyond their reach than that. So in this short term with only 30 seconds left, may I say that I still believe that inflation is the principal issue. I believe it's caused largely by federal spending. I think if we will balance the budget and cut the federal spending that we can make the dollar strong again in the world and eliminate the plague of all of us here in Minnesota that of inflation in the year Nineteen Hundred and seventy-eight. That's dfl candidate Bob (00:05:26) Short. (00:05:37) Mrs. Anderson, mr. Short, ladies and gentlemen. I'm happy to be here to take part in this debate. This is a very welcome opportunity indeed League of Women Voters has traditionally provided this kind of a forum and let me emphasize my gratitude that in doing so the league helps to refocus campaigns on issues. This is a very important service. I also want to mention in passing that the league has been enormously important through the years. In helping create constituencies for issues that are often not the concern of very many people such remote items as home rule for the District of Columbia or providing economic assistance to the poor nations of the world. The league has been enormously useful in building support for those kinds of efforts. I'd like to just say a word about myself. I was born in Minnesota. I grew up here I served in World War II and the United States Navy. I came back and went to law school Under the GI bill. I was elected to the Minnesota state senate in 1954 and to the United States House of Representatives in 1962 where I've served ever since. If I campaign around the state I encounter a very deep sense of distrust on the part of the voters of our state. This is a distrust of government. And I think this is the bitter Harvest of a decade of angry debate over Vietnam the Watergate proceedings the driving out of office for the first time in the history of the United States of a president and of course the other events that have developed since that time. a Democratic Society cannot govern without trust but today our nation seems scattered and Confused. We're not sure just what path to take. We're stumbling to find our way after the chaotic years of the 1960s and 70s. Some people are retreating to their own concerns out of fear and uncertainty political participation has dropped political parties have grown weak and special interest groups are pressing for Advantage. We find fanatical ideologies re-emerging and so we must therefore rebuild consensus about what is important what is valuable to us as a state and the nation We must move forward in the belief that we have the ability to manage our own affairs. That we can make government work solve problems and get on with making this a livable Society for every American. I think we're up to these tasks that we have indeed no choice, but to be up to them if we don't control events the vents will control us and we will lose the (00:08:41) future. (00:08:45) And now the question is We have candidate right now. (00:08:54) I'd like to introduce my husband over there the graveyard fellow. He's a Marine veteran and I am motivated to run for United States Senator. And if we don't protect our constitutional rights the right to vote for and hold elective office. I was motivated to run because I was denied the right to run for Ramsey County attorney because I am not a lawyer I can run for United States Senator and I am not a lawyer. On this basis. I filed an unfair campaign practice against mr. Fraser and mr. Short of which I'm giving each one a copy. It's not as funny as what you think. Okay. I'd like to read the complaint this complaint of conflict of interest and apparently unfair campaign practice by the candidates for the state of Minnesota US senator, Donald Fraser and Robert short, both of whom are attorneys at law and apparently members of the American Bar Association in the Minnesota bar association. I'm sick and tired of the bar associations running you and I does non-lawyer candidate for the United States Senate is demanding that the lawyer candidates withdraw from the race because of their professional status and membership in monopolized organizations indicating their apparent control of the third branch of government. We do have three branches of government executive legislative judicial as United States Senator is Senatorial courtesy to recommend a federal judge these judges the Judiciary are non-elective non-responsive. We pay their salary. And this is where it's at, and I don't mean to embarrass my lawyer. Opponents, but it has to be brought out Carter doesn't run the country. The Congress doesn't run the country. It's coming from the Judiciary which you pay their salary, but we have taxation without representation and I believe the public has a right to know. I'm charging that the lawyer candidates in the Senate have four years perpetuated a sham and fraud upon the taxpaying citizens of the United States pertaining to the electorate process in the federal Judiciary and it's repugnant and contrary to the separation of powers. Remember folks. We have a separation of powers in government. We have the judicial the legislative and the executive. The framers of our constitution didn't know what they were doing it is. a good article In 1974. I tried to run for state supreme court justice in Minnesota. I was denied with four other men by Justice Harry blackmun. Okay, I'd like to quote representative Donald Fraser from the Tribune Wednesday, August 30th, 1978 experience shows that are most durable alliances are with governments which older authority to the freely expressed will of a majority of the people. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. This is Anderson. Mr. Fraser and mr. Short for your opening statements. We now we'll start the questioning. I'm Mary Evans. I'd like to address the question to you. Are you in favor of increasing the ceiling of the national debt? Why or why not and if so to what limit we will rotate first second and third on these answers representative Fraser. Would you answer first, please? (00:12:49) The question of the ceiling on the national debt is tied directly to the question of deficit financing. And so the real question is who used to me is are we or am I in favor of moving towards a balanced budget? Or do I think it's a good thing to continue deficit spending? I favor moving toward a balanced budget as soon as possible. We have to move in Phase steps to bring us to a balanced budget. As soon as our economy will permit us to do so we have today. However on the one hand those who would go for very deep (00:13:32) tax (00:13:32) cuts. This proposal comes from our Republican friends that would drive the def set up very sharply and thus force a much higher increase in the debt ceiling it would also probably spark an increased rate of inflation we have on the other hand those like my friend Bob Short who would like to see Very deep cut on the spending side not on the tax side, but on the spending side. Now in that connection, I think it's worth noting that in st. Louis County. If one takes the expenditures for social security benefits alcohol control Medicare the defense department the airbase up here the Veterans Administration, which is a GI Bill and Rehabilitation. Unemployment benefits and the Ceta program Department of Transportation, which is Highway construction mass transit and so on and railroad retirement benefits this accounts for roughly 80% of the 337 million dollars of federal monies that are spent in St. Louis County. The real question is if we're going to cut by a hundred billion dollars as deeply as mr. Short would like to cut which are these of these programs are going to be cut in my view. We have to approach this with a much more careful perspective and work this deficit down very (00:15:00) carefully. Mrs. Anderson I believe it should be cut by one-third as one third branch of the government is not represented. And that is the Judiciary. I'm sick and tired of my paycheck and I'm A working woman and I've worked for minimum wage and out of my paycheck quite a large sum comes out by the time 39 years old by the time I get from my Social Security my pension, there won't be anything. I believe administrative costs should be reduced or on certain areas abolish a lot of foolish programs. (00:15:44) Mrs. Anderson adding a bit of color to what's happening here this afternoon my senior year of college. We debated the question resolved national debt should not be increased Beyond 40 billion dollars. That's a long time ago and I recognize as downward and I suppose mrs. Anderson does but it has been increased almost yearly since that time until today. We pay fifty billion dollars in interest alone on the national debt. If we continue to go the way we're going now eventually all of the money that we pay in taxes will go to interest on the debt. They haven't paid any principle on the national debt and the past 20 years. They just continue to increase it and roll it over increase enrollment over it would be magnificent if we could all do the same thing with our house mortgages with some of our business mortgages, but we can't so I favor a constitutional Usual amendment that would ported absolute ceiling on spending in peacetime lemonade out of to the income. You're going to have to increase the national debt to some extent to get to that point. But at that point you limit income to or expense to income just like we do in our own domestic household budgets. That's the position that I take in terms of a more national debt. Now, what would I cut in order to get a hundred billion dollars of fat out of the government? I said the other day I'm going to keep on Fry and Frazier as long as I have to fry Frazier until I can get every ounce of fat out of the government and I'm going to do that and any of us know and recognize that there is fat in the government, except Congressman Frasier. He asked me for a specific list. I don't believe that I should give him a specific list because with my eyes blindfolded I could take 20 percent of fat out of almost anything. I know and still improve the end line recipient of Aid and Of the dollars that they would have available for that program. It sounds like it's nebulous. It's not you could do the same thing. So could Congressman Frasier if he would only once raised his voice in terms of the fact that we are spending too much money in terms of administrative cost of our federal government. We can't afford it any (00:18:00) longer. All right. We're ready for another question now. Have we a question from someone other than a league member? All right, then. We'll let elite member ask the next question. Here's one back here. Would you come to the microphone up here, please? (00:18:19) The question of course of government spending has been a key one in the debate so far between and these candidates. My name is Arthur (00:18:27) pearls (00:18:27) 3103 will answer. Yes. Okay, this pertains to a bill that passed in 1967 Bill HR 10480 concerning flag desecration legislation making it a federal crime to publicly mutilate or otherwise desecrate the American flag. The bill passed 385. 216 Congressman Fraser was one of the 16 and I'd like to know why (00:18:53) all right (00:18:55) a little bit of a hot potato there perhaps for the congressman. That boat in 1967 frankly goes back far enough so that I forgotten the debate that ensued in the election that followed. Let me make the observation at the beginning that this issue was argued out in public in the election followed and I won overwhelming support from the voters of the fifth district. They accepted my views as to what freedom of speech freedom of press meant in relation to that issue. I don't have the bill in front of me anymore. And I don't remember what the problems were with it, but it had to do with the question of whether we're going to stand basically on in defense of the First Amendment rights to the United States Constitution, which Define the rights of citizens to express their concerns about government a right, which I think is very basic to the freedoms of Americans now Frankie since Bob hasn't raised this issue. And it goes back now over a decade. I don't remember all of the problems that I found with that particular piece of legislation, but I want you to know one thing when I cast a vote. I don't do it because I think it's popular I do it because I think it's right. And in that case I can assure you that I thought that my vote was right because I thought that what's fundamentally and finally important to Americans is that their Liberties their Liberties and their rights be fully protected, but beyond that I'd have to go back and review the whole legislative history what was involved in order to develop it in any greater length? whether the other candidates will and candidate read real reactor pending first amendment constitutional rights is without any reproach. I can't believe that I would ever think that I First Amendment right would give you the right to desecrate or burn a flag. But as a so important in terms of the country of the United States of America, I don't ever remember Congressman Fraser voting in the sense that he voted with 16 against that act I know that that act is against the law today and I'm satisfied with his explanation that he's given here today. (00:21:22) Alright another question. (00:21:27) And there is someone coming forward (00:21:28) interest Harwood. My question is what is your stand on the era? And in your question, would you indicate your feelings about extension and rescission? This is Anderson. Would you take the first crack at that? (00:21:42) This is candidate Sharon Anderson whose appearance in front of a (00:21:45) surprise right amendment that we should all be the Constitutional provision provisions of equal treatment under the law. I believe that a woman should be if she's qualified and can do the same job this extension business. Now, I understand the states do have a chance to rescind. Which it's a political issue, let's face it. They fought so hard for women's suffrage to even get the right to vote. We're fighting for the Equal Rights Amendment. I believe in my platform that if everything gets down to initiative referendum and recall on a state as well as a national issue. The states can decide these questions for themselves. Did I answer your question? Thank you. short (00:22:39) I've been in sports as you know, a long time and baseball particularly a long time and so long did we conduct that activity under a fixed set of rules that I do not believe in changing the rules after the game starts. Certainly. I don't believe in changing the rules after the game starts which would give the other side additional at-bats in terms of the result of the game. I am sympathetic as you probably know because I have a wife and four daughters the fact that all women should have all rights equal to that of man. I do not believe however in equalizing down and I think that is the difficulty with the proposed extension of the time to get the Equal Rights Amendment through I think that they failed to make their case to the 36 legislators legislators that they had to make it two in order to carry on that Amendment. So at this point I would have voted in the Senate if I'd been there or I would vote if I was there against extending In the time for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment because seven years was what was granted in the first instance. I firmly believe that there shouldn't be any change the rules certainly no unilateral change the rules as suggested in terms of affirmative votes and not goes well to rescission. (00:24:01) representative Fraser (00:24:04) The er, er, a proposal was first introduced in 1923 in the United States Congress and it didn't pass until 1972 water provides is that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or Abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex and it goes on to say the Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation the first 17 amendments to the United States Constitution contained no time limits. It wasn't until the 18th amendment was submitted that a time limit was imposed. There is no need constitutionally to set a time limit. I think the seven years was established simply as a arbitrary cutoff just to keep these issues manageable, but the Tiara has come within just a few States becoming fully ratified and going into full force and effect. It's a tremendously important statement women have been the subjects of discrimination through the centuries there now demanding as they have begun to demand in the over the last century that they be given equal treatment with men. I think this is not a game. This isn't a business of changing rules in the middle of the game. It's a matter of establishing for women their fundamental rights to be treated as individuals and on an equal footing with every other member of society. So I favor extending the time in order to permit ratification to take place and that exchange, of course provided quite a contrast between the positions of candidate to assure to candidate Fraser one rather liberal the other conservative and this is a nonpartisan question because Both Republican Democratic administrations have had large Federal deficits for some time since no one virtually. Everyone is hurt by inflation and virtually no one wants it and since virtually all economists acknowledge that the large Federal deficits are the principal cause of inflation. Why do the members of the Congress cause the deficit and therefore inflation and why don't they talk about their participation in the cause of inflation? Rather than blaming others such as labor and management. (00:26:30) Too Short, would you like to start with that one? (00:26:34) I have said that the principal cause of inflation is government spending particularly government deficit spending. I believe that and I believe that the congressman does not believe that he has alleged that tire inflation is caused as you know historically by the Vietnam War and then by the demands of the farmer labor and management, that's the tendency of government to blame everyone except themselves for the problem of inflation. I think that when President Carter looks in the mirror or vice president Mondale our congressmen Frazier that they had to say, we've caused the inflation that now plagues our seniors are young and all of our society and we ought to do something about stopping it and the best way to stop it would be to denounce the policy which is inflation. And I believe is a policy of the federal government don't you believe that if that federal government wanted to stop inflation that they could I believe that they put a man on the moon they Built Central Europe, they rebuild Japan and if they wanted to stop inflation, they could a reason they don't want to stop inflation is that they can borrow dollars a day payback dimes 10 years from today. I can borrow dollars a day and as you know, the more inflation the greater their income because we're not in our income. We're not indicated in terms of some relationship to our income to the inflation that puts us in higher tax brackets. So they improve their own income. They improve their own situation in terms of the debts that they have to pay off by causing inflation and it is a policy of the federal government. They don't want to stop it. They'd like to keep it under some better control, but they don't want to stop it. The only time it has been zeroed in post-world War II was in the early years of the Eisenhower Administration when he took a third of a federal spending stop the spending cut the deficit spending and you'll stop inflation and if you do that then Will government will go a long way forward to making this a Happy Land. (00:28:40) representative Fraser (00:28:46) There's no doubt that federal spending. Can cause inflation and did cause inflation back in 1968 when the economy was running at full speed unemployment was down 23.6% We were using our industrial capacity to near the maximum but we were deeply in the middle of the Vietnam War. We failed to pay for that war as we went along and that large deficit in 1968 fueled this decade of inflation that's been with us since so there's no doubt that federal spending can be a major contributor to inflation on that score had my advice been followed. It wouldn't have happened because from 65 on I wanted us out of that war as an improvident Adventure or Enterprise by the United States moreover despite my opposition to the war. I did believe we should pay for it. We should have taxed ourselves as we went along so we didn't run the kind of deficit that did fuel at inflation. The second two causes were the in quadrupling of oil prices by the OPEC nations back. The early 70s when they drove the price of oil from two to three dollars a barrel up to twelve to fourteen dollars a barrel energy and oil are very fundamental part of the American economy. The third cause was the sale of one third of the United States wheat crop to the Soviet Union in one year that shorted domestic supplies and drove commodity prices very very high and very suddenly and that centripetal effects through the entire economy those inflationary events have now been built into the economy labor negotiates to recoup management sets prices hard to recoup for higher costs. And each time. The recoupment goes on for last year's inflation you provide the foundation for next year's inflation. We have to break that cycle. But those who propose one hundred billion dollar spending cuts would simply add several million people to the unemployment rolls and cut productivity in the United States. Of course, which is unacceptable to the American people. (00:30:52) Mrs. Anderson I have to disagree a little bit with you. Mr. Frazier because I am sick and tired of paying off this High welfare. I have never been on welfare. Anybody that needs it fine, but the social programs get some of these people to work for a living. It's the deficit we've got so many social programs. It's hurting the middle class you and I who are the middle class people in I'm tired of it. I used to sell real estate. I bought a house also on Summit Avenue by our dear Governor five six years ago. I paid forty thousand. I bet the house is worth a hundred and twenty thousand at this time. It's got the bottom out and it has to start with the federal government. They have to cut spending because you and I are in the end going to pay and pay and pay and I'm running for office because I am tired of paying another question Betty Munson, how do you feel about the tuition tax credit at the elementary secondary and college levels? I believe it's representative razors turn to start first. (00:32:24) I'm opposed to the use of tax credits it either level at the higher education level. I favor the president's recommendation of liberalizing loans and grants to enable needy students to attend higher education that targets the programs to where the need is greatest. And I think is the right way to go on the elementary and secondary level. My concern is that the public school system the United States has been asked to undertake some major responsibilities including desegregation. And mainstreaming of handicapped children my fear is that if we add to the financial incentives of parents (00:33:00) to (00:33:02) support and create new private educational opportunities that we're going to end up leaving the public school system as a second class school system for the poor and the disadvantaged. I don't think this is good for America in my view. What we need to do is to have a strong Public School System. We should defend the right of parents to send their children to private schools if they choose I think that's a very important right but the public school system is also important to the United States is important in a pluralistic society the kind that we have and if we begin to make it financially attractive by to encourage parents to send their children to private schools, I do fear that that may spell the end of the public school system in America as we know it today. It may not come all at once but Once you establish the principle in effect of a subsidy to assist parents in making it easier to move to private schools. There is no reason in theory why that that assistance won't be increased year after year and I can't think of anything more destructive of this Society of ours and to do away with the public school (00:34:10) system. Sanderson I do believe that this tax incentive is guys to subvert the Supreme Court legislation of integration and busing Which is each individual's right to have their own feelings on certain areas, but back to property taxes the taxes mainly on your property go for Education something each and every one if we had initiative referendum and recall in our own States you as voters could do something about this. Draw your own conclusions. Well, you have a clear choice (00:35:03) because I favor the tuition tax credit at all levels in terms of the private schools of America and I do so because I understand I think historically that the private school system where it's strong you also find a strong public school system and none of the people who have used the private schools of America have ever been heard to complain about paying their full share full share and they do pay their full share for all the public schools of America at the same time. They defend their privilege to send their progeny to another institution if they so desire all they're asking in consideration of all, the taxpayers is some recognition that they do in fact have double expense in relationship to this question and whether that person is an Orthodox Jewish person who wants to send his child, too. Bruce cool whether he's a Baptist that wants to send his child to a Baptist School a Lutheran who wants to send his child to a Lutheran School or a Catholic who wants to send his child to a Catholic school. It is my belief that you've got to look at the progeny the end product the child and wherever you find a strong Public School System IE, New York, Massachusetts or Minnesota. You will find a Strang strong private school system in those States as well and the private school system in this year of 1978 is almost on the verge of extinction extinction. If you do not give some of these people some tax help. That's all they're asking a little tax help. It is my view that the private system that you and I have known for these hundreds of years in our country will eventually be displaced and what a business and then if you only have a public school system with whom would that system compete in order to See the degree of Excellence has already attained. You've got to help these people who seek no help or relief from the taxes. They pay for the public school system to educate their progeny in a private school. If they decide to do it that way. It's the only American and fair way to handle that (00:37:16) problem. Alright another question. (00:37:20) Yes, my name is Alton Lind. I'd like to ask a question about a subject which if I understand one of the contenders accurately would suffer immensely for his fear of inflation that concerns the issue of Health. How would each of you propose to deal with? What is in fact a crying need on the part of many especially senior citizens for adequate hospitalization adequate Health Care in this country. (00:37:53) Anderson, I believe it's your turn to start. Having had my mother go through major heart surgery and the bill was $27,000. And we believe that we weren't covered. They would have been wiped out. I do somewhat go along with Kennedy's National Health Plan. You have a right to be healthy, but I believe the FDA you should know what you're feeding your husband's they have a smoking hazardous to your health, you know, but you have the right to smoke if you want to laetrile. It's debatable. It's in Congress but saccharine they can say is harmful to your health. But yet we've got all the drugs in the school's know. I do favor a national health plan because I myself I would would need it at the age of 39. I'm healthy. But I'm not always going to be that way and our citizens do need proper care and health. Mr. Short, (00:39:03) I am opposed to a National Health Care system. And all I have to do is suggest to you that you can go to Winnipeg and look at one and you'll find that almost anybody that is now under that system and Winnipeg tries to come to the United States to partake. And what is the greatest Healthcare delivery system known to Modern Man. There isn't anything finer than what we have in the United States. It is true that from time to time. It is too costly I sit on the board of st. Mary's Hospital in Minneapolis and I can tell you that 25% of the cost of our bed care 25% is involved in filling out federal forms and federal paperwork and until the Bureau of H, ew managers what they're currently doing in terms of Healthcare in a better way so that they can't say that six billion dollars disappeared and went down the drain so that they can't be heard to say that Not causing high cost in terms of today is medical delivery costs. Then I don't believe that they should be given additional responsibility for my health or for the health of any of the rest of our American people at this point. If you really want to know what we need in America today in terms of health care. We need some way of hopefully getting what is the finest in the world delivered at some more reasonable cost and then we need some cooperation in terms of the insurance industry and everyone else involved to see to it that everyone pays his own fair share. They can afford to pay his own fair share of that proposition and we certainly need at this level at this point at this point right now, even as badly mixed up his they are in h, ew, we need a catastrophe type policy that would take care of people who could be wiped out completely in terms of a catastrophic illness like cancer or heart surgery or that kind of thing, but we don't need the Winnipeg system. We don't need the system in Cuba and I Recently, we don't need the system in England and to order our health care. We've got the finest in the world Mayo Clinic and all these others people come from all over the world to see it. Please don't follow it up by putting more government into our delivery system and we have there now. representative Fraser There are large gaps in the HealthCare coverage that many Americans. Have available to them if you work for an employer and carry your health insurance through the place of employment and then you lose your job. You suddenly find that you have neither health insurance nor income at that point in order to protect yourself. If you have to go to a nursing home for an extended period of time you will find there is no public or private health insurance to cover that cost. And if you're in the average American and by that, I would include 95 percent of the Americans you simply can't handle that cost and you'll end up applying to welfare. There are many gaps in coverage. There's uneven distribution of trained Personnel 80% of the doctors in this country are Specialists. We have far too many specialists in relation to the primary care physician the family physician, but our health care System encourages that because it rewards the system when you're sick. It doesn't reward you by keeping when you when it's able to keep you well. My first bill was the Medicare Bill. I'd like to see Medicare made better to cover eyeglasses and drugs and routine physicals. It can't because the cost of Health Care has been advancing at such a high rate 15% a year. So I'm also a co-sponsor the Kennedy Carmen Bill. I'm also working very hard on a home health care bill to try to provide protection their help to those who want to stay in their homes and be independent in nursing homes. And also to the cover the cost of nursing homes. We're not going to make progress. However until we get this problem of rising costs under control and we want to make sure that if we go to some form of national health insurance, we don't take away the incentives to make it a more efficient and a more effective system. I think that has to be the challenge to which we respond as we do move forward to fill these enormous gaps in ensuring high quality Health Care to every American (00:43:21) Alright another question believe it's time for Ali question now (00:43:25) and again, uh pretty good contrasting views on that last issue NAFTA. Hope I would like to know what each of you thinks is the United States role in the United (00:43:34) Nations. Let's see if mr. Who started that one? Mr. Short, I believe it is your turn. (00:43:47) We did as you know found or were a founding member of the United Nations under the late great Harry Truman, and I believe that our role should be that of what it has been one of the members of the security Council for example for all practical purposes establishes the direction of Peace in the world. I have no quarrel with the role that we have played there. I have no quarrel with those who have representatives there. I know that Don Frazier from at least at least one occasion did represent the United States in that league and the late great Adlai Stevenson represented us there and we are able he represented there. Now, I believe that we should continue our membership do everything we can obviously in terms of the role of the United Nations in the peacekeeping task of the world. When you think that any number of countries have only the only the the thumb to press and that could destroy completely the world then we all have to have some confidence in the direction. Of the present league and hopefully we shall continue to play the role that we played in the founding and the direction of That League from its founding day until today. representative Fraser I hope the United States will continue to give active support to the United Nations in many cases. It has been a disappointment. But remember that the UN is simply a mirror of the International Community when the international community's badly divided with it Beyond ideological lines of power block lines the UN simply reflects that reality but there are those who would destroy the UN because they don't like the reflection. They see of the actual world that exists around us. The UN has done important things and it's doing them today. It has expeditionary forces in the Middle East to help preserve the peace it's done. So repeatedly in the past perhaps its greatest progress. However is come in what we sometimes call the issues of interdependence the problem of world population and it has a program to deal with that the problem of world hunger and it has a program to deal with that the problem of working on the health issues of the world. We met for example, soon end the existence of smallpox on this planet. If we do the full credit can go to the World Health Organization and their efforts to exterminate this one disease that is carried as I understand it from person to person so that if you can interrupt that and get rid of the disease, we can eliminate that as a health problem in the world get rid of the costly vaccinations and all of the other difficulties that smallpox is thrust upon us. Judgment, the United States should continue to be active in the UN. We should speak for our values and our principles we should work with those who share them with us and we should seek out ways to build the effectiveness of the UN in dealing with our International problems. The UN has great unrealized potential it will be many years before we fully realize it but we ought to stay with the task. (00:46:58) Mrs. Anderson As a candidate I am learning just as you are learning through our Democratic process, but I'm looking closely at the World Council of churches the World Bank and a potential for World Government. Just think about it. I want each and every one of you when you go home today just start thinking about a world government. Where is the individual rights? We're losing them fast and furious in the United States. Alright another question coming up. (00:47:42) Pretty active questioning at times octave all this so far Russian relates to the last one and two a comment earlier and it has to do with considerable discussion lately prompted by a comment by the senator from South Dakota. And he said we should go into Cambodia and the active the last week. Mr. Fraser concurred with that and also said maybe we should think about reinstituting the draft. I would like to hear the candidates opinions on Cambodia and the draft. All (00:48:13) right. Mr. Frazier, will you (00:48:14) lead off? I'm curious as to what newspaper you read because one of the purposes of I statements last week was to make abundantly clear that I not advocated the United States involvement in Cambodia. It would be a mistake. We have no trade Aid or diplomatic relations with that country. We're probably the least useful country to deal with what is a very serious humanitarian problem. The widespread killings that have been going on there my subcommittee held some hearings on this problem about a year ago that we had the state department testify about the information they had available to them and on the basis of that testimony. We forwarded a resolution to the house which deploying The enormous abuse of human rights, which is going on in Cambodia. I did not endorse Senator McGovern proposal partly because I don't even know what it is. I've heard he's said something about an international Force but beyond that I have no knowledge of it my good friend Bob Short apparently thought that I had endorsed centered in the governor's proposal. But in that he was mistaken it is however an issue that the UN ought to take up just as un took up the problem of torture and other abuse of human rights in Chile this one time the UN was over able to overcome the Deep political divisions send an observer mission to Chile. My recollection is it was not admitted but it did take testimony from refugees and filed a report if the UN could get itself together despite the ideological divisions with China being a strong backer of the Cambodian. Nation send an observer Mission there. I doubt that they'd be admitted but it ought to make an effort to deal with what is a very serious problem. And when I don't think that the world Community should ignore but for the United States to play a leading role in this is neither appropriate nor likely to work. I've not advocated such a move, but I would like to see the UN attempt to do something effective (00:50:22) about it. Mrs. Anderson She'll try to answer the best. I can I believe the United States that we should try to straighten out our own problems, which we have many before we infringe on other governments unless it is such a dire need that we are in threat of a war or whatever, but I believe the problems here in the United States come first. All right, I believe it's time for a league question. Oh, excuse me. Mr. Short, I'm terribly sorry. You're I'm watching my watch to closely. I'm afraid. (00:51:09) And shirt is armed with some newspaper clippings as it goes to the mic. Since I was suggested, at least I heard by the television that I had become almost as crazy as a who doll. I'd like to read to Congress from Frasier the article I was reading when I first accused him of suggesting that there should be a military Mission sent to Cambodia. This is the McGovern article and as you know, he did suggest that we send someone to see about what's going on in Cambodia. And this is the Gary Dawson article that I was reading from that indicated a congressman Fraser not only favored a re-establishment of the draft had been include drafting young men, but also young women, but that he would like to see the UN do something about it including sending someone into Cambodia to see about the killing this going on there. If the United Nations sends a military force into Cambodia and were members of that particular military incursion to Cambodia. How many men would he proposed an army of Americans a hundred Americans five Americans 10 Americans, but some Americans certainly. Well I suggested to him that as long as I'm in the Senate of the United States and I think I'm going to be there. I will vote against compulsory drafting of our young men and women and I will also vote always against getting involved in any way in a land war in Asia. I spent four years on a carrier in World War II and I can tell you there's no way that we can win a land war in Asia and it was the carrier's as you know that kept Japan from coming into Honolulu and California and it will be the carriers that will do it again. We should not start the draft again our vote against it in the Senate and I would vote against the United States being involved in any way in Cambodia or anyplace else in a land war in Asia. That's what we've been through the 15 years. I suggested that the congressman didn't read the newspapers and the other take two weeks off to do it particularly. He had a read his own press clippings and read what the st. Paul papers and Minneapolis a papers are saying that he says (00:53:30) I gave you an extra 10 seconds there mr. Short for my oversight earlier. Yes. Charge here. I think we have we haven't time for another question. I must say, I'm very sorry. All right, we will let you respond to them (00:53:51) Congressman Fraser asking an opportunity to speak more on this issue. Give me that article that you (00:53:56) pointed to (00:54:07) Where's the one you referred to? That's what I want to see ending several articles to Fraser. Well, the one that you have shown me that I can find a reference to me in which is the point of what your statement was given to take it away. Seth says I would like to see the UN do something about Cambodia, but I said that I have not advocated United States military involvement and I have not and I didn't think it was very helpful for you to say that I had it we got enough to debate about where we can agree on the facts. So I don't think we have to invent any in order to create false issues. (00:54:54) Did I say we haven't time for another full question, so I'm afraid we have to cut this off those of you who might want to stick around. I'm sure this candidates will be here to talk to (00:55:05) you. (00:55:08) This is Anderson. Will you allow another (00:55:30) to intervene in Cambodia to stop torture and murder of cambodians by that country's government now, I wasn't at his press conference. I wasn't at Wilder. I wasn't invited to be there and at that same meeting he did propose that we reinstitute the draft. So I said you done if you're in the Senate, and I don't think you will be but if you are will you vote against reinstituting the draft and will you vote against sending land troops to Asia in the future of this country's relationship in the Far East? And again, we'll hear from Congressman Fraser. The fact of the matter is I don't think the United States has a useful role to perform in Asia. I think any problems there ought to be dealt with by an international edgy. I'm now talking about Mainland Asia. I do think important to security. The United States is Our Mutual Security treaty with Japan for me. We ought to uphold that and that's one reason. I favor a good efficient modern Navy in the Pacific on the question of the draft the point I've been I've been making is that the volunteer army has some very serious problems with it. They'll be more serious as we bring unemployment down. I don't want to make the military a second class operation. It was that in the 1930s sailors and soldiers and Marines were discriminated against because the image of the the United States military was so bad. (00:56:55) I (00:56:55) think we ought to explore the concept of universal service which Vista Peace Corps or military service become options available to young people. I think the defense of the United States ought to be a shared responsibility and simply left not left to the poor and the disadvantaged. (00:57:20) Speaking for the league and the voters of the area. Mrs. Anderson representative Fraser and mr. Short. Thank you for appearing here this afternoon. We would also (00:57:31) like and speaking for myself. And aerelon Cyril. I think we'd have to say oh and this was a very well organized very well run, very tidy tight little operation the Duluth Lee Grahn here today. It was also interesting because of the differences between the two candidates on so many issues. It was interesting to see them really really going at it there in the last few minutes one has the feeling that if this debate had continued a few minutes longer that we might have seen some some real fireworks just to recap very quickly in the course of the last hour. They've touched on government spending extension of the deadline on the Equal Rights Amendment the whole question of federal deficit spending and how it ties into inflation or the tuition tax credit proposal being kicked around nationally national health insurance the u.s. Role in the United Nations and finally involvement once again in The East Asia and that of course is where what fireworks we had here today really came in these last few minutes. I thought that candidate Sharon Anderson who was kind of a surprise starter here who showed up at the last minute and took place added some color to the festivities Alan. Yes. She did. She spoke on a number of issues. She spoke about the need for the United States not to get too involved in international Affairs not to get too involved in the United Nations or in overseas conflicts and ask the audience to think about what would happen if there was too much World Government. She taking a liberal position in some cases a conservative position in others shortened Fraser, they'll pretty consistently taking liberal conservative positions as they have all during this so very hot dfl primary campaign so far. We had a nice crowd on hand here for this debate in the downtown Duluth YMCA again sponsored into very well run this afternoon by the Duluth League of Women Voters at the Duluth downtown why this is Dick daily with Alan Cyril. Thank you Ellen. And now back to Dan Olson and st. Paul.


In 2008, Minnesota's voters passed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution: to protect drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve arts and cultural heritage; to support parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater.

Efforts to digitize this initial assortment of thousands of historical audio material was made possible through the Minnesota Legacy Amendment’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund. A wide range of Minnesota subject matter is represented within this collection.

This Story Appears in the Following Collections

Views and opinions expressed in the content do not represent the opinions of APMG. APMG is not responsible for objectionable content and language represented on the site. Please use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report a piece of content. Thank you.

Transcriptions provided are machine generated, and while APMG makes the best effort for accuracy, mistakes will happen. Please excuse these errors and use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report an error. Thank you.

< path d="M23.5-64c0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 -0.1 0.1-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1-0.1 0.3-0.1 0.4 -0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0 0.4-0.1 0.5-0.1 0.2 0 0.4 0 0.6-0.1 0.2-0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.1-0.1 0.3 0 0.4-0.1 0.2-0.1 0.3-0.3 0.4-0.5 0-0.1 0-0.1 0-0.2 0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.3 0-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.2 0-0.1 0-0.2 0-0.3 0-0.2 0-0.4-0.1-0.5 -0.4-0.7-1.2-0.9-2-0.8 -0.2 0-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.2 -0.2 0.1-0.1 0.2-0.3 0.2 -0.1 0-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2C23.5-64 23.5-64.1 23.5-64 23.5-64 23.5-64 23.5-64"/>