if you delay, it is delaying once you know you have cancer. it is like going through a period where you -- denial, you refuse to accept. it it is pretty important to get treatment quick. we're at this point, we need to do it while we're still strong. >> ten minutes ago you said you were quitting the race because you didn't want to be a spoiler and didn't want to be disruptive. now you say you're back to win this thing. >> yes. >> isn't your strategy to disrupt george bush's vote in a number of key states, including this one, texas? >> absolutely not. that is press myth number 615. wait just a minute. wait a minute. let me finish. absolutely not. absolutely not. now, i love you guys. [ laughter ] he has called me every name in the book. all i've ever said, fine man and fine family. the only thing i ever criticized is his mistakes in office.

that's it. we're talking about performance here, not personality. see, i'm everything from a monster to crazy, coming from them, right? nobody ever says, boy, you must really dislike that guy, because you keep saying those things. i show up here and you say, you don't like george bush. when you create these fairy tales an pass them on, get together sometime in the evening and say is there any basis for this stuff? there is no basis for that. i wouldn't spend 10 minutes because of personal dislike. i certainly wouldn't spend the money i'm having to spend on this. i'm doing it for the reasons i gave in this speech. very simple. take one more. >> mr. perot -- >> sir -- >> i'm green and inexperienced. let me ask -- i'm going to ask the nice quiet gentleman -- i'll recognize you and we'll try it, yes. >> mr. perot in, your book you have an outline, your economic plan.

on monday you held the most extraordinary political meeting here where their economic agenda was also discussed. but from what i understand, what most of us understand, there was similarity and commonalities and differences, but since then and now when you begin your campaign, do you think that you will be changing your economic agenda or altering them or making -- or any kind of adequate changes or will they stay remain exactly as you outlined. >> any plan -- any plan should not be static. any plan should be dynamic. let's assume somebody has a better idea tomorrow. we should think about it. we should discuss it. we should debate it and do it. if you ask for me for 25 words or less for the reason for my business success, i don't get locked into a blue print. we start out with what everybody is all excited about as a good plan. and then as we start down the road to implement it, we have a

thousand better ideas. our government doesn't do that. we pass laws, freeze things in concrete and people cannot fine tune and optimize. so i'm a great believer in fine tuning and optimizing and certainly every step of the way we would want to say, wait a minute, as' go along, is there a better way to do it. what is the goal? to serve the american people. what is the goal? to get the biggest bang for your buck. and that is the reason health care is a mess. it is frozen. there are people all over the place, if they could take a screwdriver and fine tune it, but you can't. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> number one, your question is did i know that? no. number two, let's look -- because i now have checked to find out what was going on. number -- here is what happened. people -- we had 50 states, offices all over 50 states, manned by self-selected

volunteers and someone would call dallas and say charlie is stealing money. in order to comply with the federal election rules, we would check it out and it was just false signal. and then we would have a situation, saying gee, we have a fellow out here in a county in an obscure area that your county coordinator that has done three terms in jail. well, we would have to check that out. 90% of the contact for that firm, most of the effort with that firm was providing security people and offices that needed security. we would rent security people by the hour from them. now, let's stop and think about this for a minute. i would urge someone to say, well how many people do you have in dirty tricks or opposition research? don't have any and never are any. isn't it fascinating that everybody goes bonker on the front day of the page the day i am going to make this acceptance

on the issue and ignores both parties who are in absolute overdrive and overload trying to destroy one another personally. step two, really now, if there is any balance and fairness in what you do, give the same attention to their investigative capability that you've created out of thin air about our nonexistent capability. find out how many full time investigators they have checking everything is breathing and i think you'll conclude there is paranoia, at least in one place. so i realize it is a tough game and i realize nobody has to -- there are rules and i don't care. but i find it silly to the point of ridiculous that if you write a nonstory just because it gives you something hot, that you don't take the time to say, well what about these other two guys? listen, we are not even in the game when it comes to investigation.

in terms of what they're doing. and we don't -- all we try to do, if somebody said somebody is stealing, we check it out, we're entitled to under the federal election commission, not to allow people to steal money. now that is it. now on that happy note, i'll take one more. >> mr. perot? you said -- let me just take you up -- >> i can't hear, you sir. >> mr. perot, have you ever been approached by the clinton campaign on any of their representatives and have they offered you any sort of a cabinet post? >> no. >> in the white house? >> no. nothing like that. and again, i guess, on a slow day -- of course not. >> i would like to -- i would like to. >> with all due respect. >> think the american people are tired of the type of campaigns that have been run. at the same time, the american public went through a traumatic

experience when nixon was president many years ago. how much of a right do the american people have to know about your character? is it fair for someone who might vote for you to wonder about your character and ask questions and how much should we be allowed to investigate your past? >> of course, now. let me ask you a question. is it unfair for me to wonder why you don't write a balanced presentation. let's assume you find -- well here is the good, the bad, the beautiful, the indifferent. are you trying to present a balanced picture of a candidate, leave me out tv or are you trying to play gotcha journalism? i'll rest my case. i'll take any balanced piece that comes out. i don't claim to be perfect. nobody -- look, i don't care what you do. just have fun. get raises and bonuses. play gotcha. i don't care. but the point is, i want you to know that what i'm about is what i just said and i care about this country and i care about the american people and i love them and i will do whatever i can to serve them and they've

asked me to do this and i will do it for them. and with that -- you've been -- i'm going to take this gentleman and then i have to go to work, i have to make a living and have to pay for this. >> you just said ask the question and why don't we go after the other two candidates. >> no, i said only on the investigate issue. >> and you said that you've had several quotes about how they use investigators and they investigate everything breathing. do you have chapter and verse about their use of investigators? do they investigate you or the american people? >> i don't feed the press. >> you made the accusation. >> i don't give you a feed every morning -- anybody here ever get a nasty feed from me? rest my case. good luck to you. and good luck to you and thanks for being to pleasant and positive at my -- good way to open it up. [ applause ] tonight, you've been

watching some of our american history tv programming in prime time. you'll find us here every weekend on c-span 3. we'll take you live to conferences, symposiums and historical sites. on american artifacts, go behind the scenes with us to museums and archives and travel with us to the nation's classrooms where you'll hear from college and university professors on lectures in history. as the 2016 campaign continues, watch past presidential campaigns on road to the white house rewind. and journey with us through the 20th century on real america which showcases documentaries and other archive films. over the next few weeks, watch for our airings of portions from the 1975 church committee hearings, investigating the intelligence activities of the cia, fbi, irs and nsa. look for all of our programming every weekend on c-span 3.

you're watching american history tv in prime time. each week until the 2016 election, road to the white house rewind brings you archival coverage of presidential races. up next, the 1988 campaign of candidate gary hart. we begin with the former colorado senator announcing his campaign in a ten-minute speech in denver. the senator finished a close second to mondale in the race for the 1984 democratic nomination and was considered by many observers to be the front-runner going into 1988. but within weeks of his announcement, the senator faced allegations of an extramarital affair which led him to withdraw from the race. massachusetts governor michael dukakis lost to george bush in the general election. ♪ >> thank you very much.

thank you very much. thank you. [ applause ] thank you very much. for out of town friends, welcome to colorado. if you don't like the weather, it will change in a few minutes. [ laughter ] . i want to say thanks to my good friends tim worth and federico pena and all the elected official and leaders of our community and our state here on this platform. i want to take this opportunity if i may to introduce the best daughter anyone ever had, andrea hart. [ applause ] i was tempted to introduce the next first lady of the united states, but i'll simply say, the best wife any candidate ever had, lee hart.

i may or may not do that. we want to thank each and every one of you who came out here today. you are our friends. many have been our friends and supporters, contributors and boosters for many, many years. we are strengthened and heartened by your presence here and we thank you. i want to say a special word of thank to a very large group of the best organizers that any candidate for any office has ever had and say a personal word of thanks to all of them who have organized this rally, and particularly mike straton. let's give him a hand. [ applause ] i intend to seek the presidency of the united states in 1988. [ cheers and applause ] and i do so for one single reason. and that is i love my country.

this country is 250 million human beings united by a common history and heritage and set of beliefs. but america is and always has been an ideal. this land has stoodor equality and justice and hope and opportunity for generations and generations of americans, and millions of people around the world. at our best, we've come close to that ideal. but i think all of us know deep down in recent years that this country has fallen short of the ideal of america. we've seen personal agreed replace a sense of social justice and equity and the national good. we've seen right wing ideology skew this nation's basic priorities. we have seen narrow single interests increasingly finance our campaigns and control our political process. and we've seen high standards

for public officials and public ethics be eroded. most of all, this nation has lost the sense of the national interest, and we're in serious danger today of letting our future pass us by. i believe this nation can do better. and i believe that's what the issue in 1988 is all about. we must rebuild this nation. in the latter years of this century using a blue print of new directions and new ideas based upon a foundation of the national interest. [ applause ] we must build the best education system in the world. [ cheers and applause ] we must renew and revitalize our national economy, and modernize

our factories, invent new technologies and train your workers. [ applause ] we must make a moral commitment to our children that we will leave behind to them a natural heritage cleaner and better than we have today. [ applause ] we must reform our conventional defenses and drastically reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons for this nation's security. [ cheers and applause ] the states -- the states in 1988 could -- the stakes in 1988 could not be higher, and the choices could not be clearer. we could have a defense policy that takes school lunches away from poor children to pay for mx missiles or b-1 bombers, or we

could have a defense policy that reforms our conventional defenses, saves the taxpayers dollars and makes this country safer. one choice is in the national interests, and that choice could not be clearer. [ applause ] we can have an agriculture policy that turns over the productive farmland of this nation to a handful of giant corporations, or we can have millions of family farmers producing the food and fiber of this nation. one choice is in the national interest. and that choice could not be clearer. [ applause ] we can have public officials who represent the ethics of donovan, defer, and boastie. or we can demand the highest standards for our elected officials and say to those people in washington and wall

street, you are out of business. one choice is in the national interest. and that choice is clear. and we can continue to have our political campaigns financed by special interests and have those special interests control the flow of legislation and the quality of government or we can reform the campaign finance laws and restore dignity and honesty and integrity to this nation's political process. one choice is in the national interest. and that choice is clear. [ applause ] and finally, we can define patriotism. we can say that patriotism is only the symbols of this nation

and that the flag belongs to a handful of narrow right-wingi ideologues or we can say that patriotism and the flag blopgsz to all of us who love this nation and choose this nation. one choice is in the national interest, and that choice is clear. [ applause ] people want to know what is the issue in 1988. i will state that issue to you very clearly. the issue in 1988 is who is best qualified to govern this country. the question is one of leadership. we can have leadership that unites us or leadership that divides us. we can have leadership that challenges us or leadership that makes us feel good. we can have leadership in the national interest or leadership in the narrow interest.

we can have leadership that tells this country that it must move forward, or leadership that says we will go back and recapture our past. that is the issue in 1988. and that is why i make this race. i make this race because i love my country and i want america to do better and to move forward. i believe there is an untapped idealism in the american spirit, and there is a quality in the american character that is yet to be unlocked. at its best that is what a national campaign is and ought to be about. and i pledge to you that is what this campaign will be about. you give me 20 days in the next 20 months and i will give you a presidency you can be proud of. [ cheers and applause ]

thank you. let us go forward from this day committed to restore this land to all of its people, to restore a sense of genuine true patriotism to america. and if we do, we will have done the goest thing for this country any of us can ever do, march on! [ cheers and applause ] ♪ ♪

♪ >> thank you all very much. ♪ ♪ thanks very much. ♪ road to the white house rewind continues with more from the 1988 campaign of democratic candidate gary hart. just weeks after entering the presidential race, the former colorado senator faced

allegations of an extramarital affair with a miami woman named donna rice. next he addresses the charges at a news conference in hand over, new hampshire. our coverage picks up as the news conference gets underway this. portion is just under 40 minutes. >> as i have made clear, i think, to everyone, i have nothing to hide. i made a mistake. i made a series of mistakes in mistakes, in fact. i regret those very much not just for myself but for all those individuals and the individuals who have been unfairly maligned. my own family, first of all, and for my supporters. we still believe, and i would be willing to go into these at any length you wish, that some very fundamental facts about the events are still not clearly known. i just mentioned three or four since they have been mentioned

to me by key supporters and spokespersons on my behalf that they were not aware of. those were, including this, in the events of the evening in question on last saturday, reporters did not confront me. icon fronted them. there was a report that i was, i think, in their words, walking aimlessly about the neighborhood. what i was doing was finding them. and when i found them, icon fronted them. and it was only then that they identified themselves. i knew they were out there and had known that they were -- that someone was surveilling me and my home for some time. second, i answered questions of those reporters on the spot for 25 minutes or 30, which obviously, i did not need to do. i had nothing to hide, and i -- the allegations that they made, i flatly and vociferously refuted. and well, i wanted to make it clear that there was no

avoidance of questioning even at that time. third, i think one very -- or two other things i'd like to mention. the group involved in these reports came and went to my house in broad daylight at twice on saturday afternoon and apparently were not observed by the press organization in question. why that is, i don't know. and they don't have to account for it. the fact of the matter is that except for leaving once or twice through the carport, entry to and from the house in broad daylight by three or four people went on on saturday during a period when i was supposed to have been in the house only with one other person. finally, as i hope most of you know, we requested a meeting with reporters. mr. broadners particularly did at his home in the company of

his guests to the reporters involved. he tracked them down. he found them. it took some doing. he called their headquarters. there was not an answer. he came back to my house, found their photographer, asked where they could be found and found them. he offered if they would not publish their story until he talked to him to clarify the fact and make sure they are not under any miss apprehension. for whatever reason, their own, they chose not do that. finally, let me say a word about my wife, leigh. she has been, if anything, under more stress because of these events in the last few days than i have. and she continues to astonish me with her strength and her courage. this is, needless to say, not a pleasant thing for anyone. not for me, not for our children, but particularly not for her.

she has said that we have been married for 28 years. i hope we're married 28 more. if that work out, and i think it will. but over that 28 years, i have to tell you, there is -- of the people i have met in the world, friends that i have made, this is most extraordinary human being i have ever had the pleasure of knowing not simply as a wife, but as a human being. and she is here today and will be with us on the campaign trail. >> senator, you told me a couple weeks ago in much in that you didn't feel the american people had any interest in your personal life. do you still maintain that's true? or do you believe that the events that happened whatever the conversion raise questions about your judgment? >> they are two separate questions. i think the answer to both is yes. clearly, they have more interest than i thought they would. second, the issue is that i made

a mistake. and the issue is judgment -- like character -- i'd like to talk about judgment if i may because it's not a simple term. people who seek national office or leadership are called upon to make judgments in their personal lives, in their ethical and moral lives, in their family lives. but also decisions affecting literally millions if not hundreds of millions of people, perhaps everyone on the planet. judgments include decisions to go to cemeteries, judgments that include holding a summit. judgments as i have learn while holding a seat in senate, oppositions to tax cuts. judgments to oppose mx missiles, judgments to stand up against reaganomics when it was very

popular. we make judgments in all of our lives. i think if you are going to analyze or evaluate a person's character or ability to lead, then in all fairness you have to evaluate their entire record. the entire history of their public and private lives. and take into account those very hard political and other judgments that have to be made. i have said, i will say again, i made a mistake. i underestimated the way in which the appearance of something wrong going on here could be raised particularly by those who didn't get all the facts and it was something i shouldn't have done. >> you stressed on a couple of occasions here you have been reported to not adequately diligent. [ inaudible ] and yet they have said several times, repeatedly that out on the street they asked you repeatedly for an opportunity to

speak with the woman which turned out to be miss rice and you would not let that happen. tell me what happened on the street. >> i didn't think it was fair. they asked me about the comings and goings. they alleged at that time that she stayed at my house. i said that's absolutely not true. can we talk to her. at that time, speaking of judgments, i made a judgment. i said i would not identify the three people. they said where is she now. i said in my house. who is she with. i said with friends. they were very suspicious. it was my judgment that i was not entitled to updies them to some sort of scrutiny or slander without asking them. i didn't identify her or her friend or ms. broadhurst.

but they chose themselves. it was not within my purview to bring someone else into this without discussing it with them first. >> senator hart -- senator in talking to a number of leading politicians yesterday about this, i was struck by the fact that a majority of the ones that i talked to did not believe your story. and the reason they said they didn't believe your story is that all of them either had heard rumors or claimed to know of previous incidents of this sort during the past 15 years. have there been times during the past 15 years other than the period when you were separated from your wife when you have spent time with women in the manner that you did with ms. rice this weekend? >> the answer to the question is no. explanation. in the manner that i did this weekend. my wife said this morning, i understand, and accurately so, during the latter part of the

20th century. she has friends who are men. i have friends who are women. most of them are friends of both of ours. she has gone to dinner with men friends and i've gone to dinner and elsewhere with women friends. in almost every case with people my wife knew or we have been long time personal acquaintances. i have had dinner on the road with reporters of both genders. they have always been in open, in the public. someone reminded me earlier today that on a recent campaign trip a number of us after a hard day on the campaign trail including staff, myself, and some journalists -- several journalists ended up having dinner, cocktails at dinner and ended up dancing. now a news organization taking a picture of me on the dance floor with a woman could have made a great deal out of that. there was nothing there. the answer is no. >> why is it that you -- do you think that so many people, people who have known you or dealt with you, some were

supporters, some were not, some were neutral, why is it so many people have this impression of you? >> i don't know. i would dispute so many. i have no way of knowing what that number is. part of it goes with being in public life. i think a lot of people, stends depending on their age or circumstances are more suspect of misbehavior than others. it is not just politics. people in businesses, people in entertainment. it's just how the more visible you become the more you are subjected to that kind of scrutiny, speculation, often innuendo and gossip. my mistake frankly was underestimating that. being -- let me put it the other way around. if i had intended a relationship with this woman, believe me, i have written spy novels. i am not stupid. if i wanted to bring someone

into a house or an apartment or meet with a woman in secret, i wouldn't have done it this way. and even the back entrance to our house which is the one i almost use, the carport entrance is exposed, is visible from the street. as i said about the comings and goings on saturday there was clearly no intention there to hide. and that's when i was clear that the place was surrounded by somebody went out in front of it. it was a mistake. i cannot account for everyone's analysis. i think frankly part of it may have been our separations and the fact that i did go out publicly with other people during that period. and we were very open. and leigh and i were very open about our situation. >>. [ overlapping speakers ] >> these people came and went on saturday from your house in broad daylight.

yet at the time, you spoke with the reporters from the herald to say those three people were in your house. >> yes. >> but they had come and gone during daylight. >> yes, they came back. >> they came back, all three of them? >> yes. >> senator how are you going to convince people in the democratic party to raise money and the organizing folks given the kind of rhetoric that mr. loopberg mentioned. how are you going to ensure that you are not going to make this kind of mistake on personal behavior again? >> by not doing it. >> these are people who think they want to pick a winner this year. they don't want you to blow i. how are you going to tell them you won't do it again. >> i won't do it. i'll tell them. my view strongly is as time goes on people are going to want to know about your judgment and the character on the issues that affect their lives and their families and this nation. that's what this campaign is

going to be about. as we go on, and i demonstrate that kind of leadership and this story gets proper perspective, i'll be able to demonstrate it. we had a very successful event last night in new york, as you know. to my knowledge, i won't say absolute, but i think said very strong support from our clinical and financial. >> it's confusing. there are points on which you and ms. rice seem the differ. one of them about is the boat trip to about himmany. >> yes. >> you said you spent the night because the customs office as closed. the customs office said that makes no difference. >> i will tell you what i know. when the boat arrived it was late afternoon, coming on

dusk -- i don't know what time it was but it was very late afternoon. the point was to go over the boat which was there, had been repaired and return to miami that night. mr. rogers told me that the captain told him -- we waited around on the dock for about half an hour, 45 minutes, there was no customs, the captain went in search of the customs. i was not involved in any of this whatsoever. i actually was talking to some boat people, people on other boats that were cooking their dinner. i had my picture taken with them. i was not hiding or skull,ing around. there was people all over the place. we went finally without anyone coming and stamping any papers we filled out some forms. over to mr. rogers boat. stayed on that boat for a while. -- -- as early as 7:00 or so, i don't recall the exact time. the captain had to wait until

8:00. whatever had to be done. i'm just telling you what i was toechld i have no independent way of verifying it. >> the second matter concerns the phone calls from the road or to the road, whichever way it was. ms. rice these were phone calls mainly from you she says to discuss the media's attention to the womanizing issue. you said those were calls from her to you to talk about a campaign job. what is it. >> the key words in those explanations the conversations were primarily political. she asked who she should talk to in the campaign about getting involved in t. it was in recollecting that meeting that she said if i were to get involved in in campaign, could i -- what can i do? can i raise money, can i get

these people involved? and it was discussions along that line. my questions of her were who are your contacts? who are your friends? should we put you in touch with one financial part of the kpin or another? we had general conversations. she said how are things going. i said i'm being beaten up by lots of rumors. we did discuss that. i returned calls, and she and place one or two calls to -- she did not have my number. didn't call me directly. she did contact mr. broadhurst and i called her back and her question was, i'm coming up with her friend on that tweaked and could i or couldn't i. and i said that's really between you and her. >> senator, if you did not know the names, but you read about two men in their 50s, married, who spent a weekend spending most of their time -- maybe not on line, with two young women in their 20s, and then again to a trip to this island of about

himmany, would you believe that that was a totally innocent event? and can't you agree that this really stretches the credituality of the american public? >> no. i think all four people assert the absolute innocence of their behavior. i don't know that anyone is speculating about any relationship between mr. broadhurst and the woman he was hiring, but there was none and to my knowledge, is none. i think the focus came to me for offers reasons. the point being that it is possible for modern times, whether people are 50, 60, 70, or 20 or 25, spend time together and not be intimately involved. this society is changing. let me -- well i'll answer your question with another question. i am not -- person.

i make mistakes. i said i was going to. and i z. i might make some more. i won't make this one. i'm a human being. believe me, if my intent was to have a relationship with a woman, particularly a very attractive woman, i certainly wouldn't have gone about it this way. >> what would you have done? how could it have been different than to spend this time alone with this woman in this house on weekend where your wife is out of town. >> at my house in washington, which everybody knows where it is. coming in and out of the front door. >> senator hart, there is a restaurant in the city of bar harbor now that is saying that you signed the guest book on the evening of february 12th, that you were part of a party of four people in that restaurant at that time, won of whom was donna rice and the photo has been identified by employees of the restaurant. >> i was -- it's all true up to that point. i don't remember the name of the restaurant. it was across from the hotel where the labor