Editing 76-05-B1 (section)

= Campaign Reminiscence =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I keep getting questions on some of the things that took place in the campaign. One of the most frequent has to do with my vice-presidential suggestion. I'll be right back.

Back during the primary campaign, I departed from tradition and named, in advance of the national convention, my choice as a vice-presidential candidate. Just doing this caused a little stir, but the real controversy had to do with who I'd proposed and why. Well, during the campaign when questioned as to who my choice would be, my honest answer was that I didn't know. That answer was amplified, however, by a statement that he would be philosophically compatible with me. I still hold with that. It doesn't make sense to choose someone of an opposite political persuasion to balance the ticket philosophically.

When I named Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, the shock wave was pretty considerable and the reaction was that I'd gone contrary to what I'd expressed during the campaign. Well here's the story.

The primaries and the state conventions were over and the business of trying to sway uncommitted delegates was going on. As a challenger, I didn't have some of the natural advantages in that game that go with incumbency. Hunting delegates in the large northeastern industrial states, it became evident there was a kind of separation within our party. The northeast seemed alienated from Republicans and the rest of the country. Well I wasn't interested in winning a nomination, so much as winning an election. This led to the idea of using the vice-presidency to bridge the gap between the rest of the country and the northeast. In asking Senator Schweiker to be part of the ticket, I did not have to compromise principal, nor did he. 

My chairman and long-time friend Senator Laxalt of Nevada had, for two years, been Dick Schweiker's seat mate. He told me he thought Dick and I would both be surprised at how much we had in common. He was right. When his name came up my first reaction was that we were not compatible philosophically that he was indeed liberal in all those areas where I'm conservative but we agreed to talk and did so for five hours. I found him frank to admit that many of the programs he'd voted for in the Senate had turned out to be failures. He is convinced we must discontinue our costly social tinkering and look to the private enterprise economy as we bring deficit spending to an end and balance the budget. We agreed on the necessity for capital punishment, opposition to gun control and on favoring mandatory prison sentences. We both believed detente was a failure, that we must be more firm in dealing with the Soviet Union. We both oppose general amnesty or pardon for draft dodgers and deserters and believe we should achieve a superiority in military strength. He's introduced legislation to restore Bible reading and prayer in the public schools, and we both believe that the act of abortion destroys a human life. Dick Schweiker has just successfully led the fight to halt the use of public funds to pay for abortions.

I rest my case.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.


</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>11/16/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-88</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>