find your perfect match at kp.org and thrive. >> announcer: this is "meet the press" remembers. >> i'm david gregory. thanks for joining "meet the press remembers -- jfk: the presidential campaign. " this month marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of president kennedy on november 22nd, 1963. president kennedy appeared on "meet the press" a total of eight times during his life. three of those appearances were during his presidential campaign in 1960, january after he declared his candidacy, in july from the democratic national convention, and in october, less than a month before the general election against richard nixon. we've assembled the most compelling parts of these three programs. the issues include richard nixon, lyndon johnson, the cold war, cuba, and the threat from the soviet union,

jfk's stance on civil rights and his attempt to become the first roman catholic president of the u.s. and now, "meet the press remembers -- jfk: the presidential campaign." >> announcer: now, here's the moderator of "meet the press," mr. ned brooks. >> welcome once again to "meet the press." our guest is senator john kennedy of massachusetts, who yesterday announced his entrance into the race for the democratic presidential nomination. he said under no circumstances will he accept the nomination for vice president. senator kennedy is the front-runner in most of the public opinion polls. as a member of the senate labor committee, he is certain to play a leading part in drafting legislation to deal with the steel dispute, if it is not settled. senator kennedy began his career in the house of representatives at the age of 29. he was elected to the senate in 1952 and re-elected with the largest majority in the history of his state. he is the winner of a pulitzer prize for his book, "profiles in courage." and now seated around

the press table, ready to interview senator kennedy are richard wilson of the coles publications, john steel of time and life magazines, james reston of "the new york times," and lawrence e. spivak, our regular member of the "meet the press" panel. now, senator kennedy, if you are ready, we will start the questions with mr. spivak. >> in the announcement of your candidacy yesterday, you said this, " i believe that the democratic party has an historic function to perform in the winning of the 1960 elections, comparable to its role in 1932"" could you tell us more precisely what you mean by that? >> i think that the election of '32 was extremely essential, because i think it helped save the private enterprise system in this country, and i think also it contributed to the saving of democracy. i think in the 1960s the issue is not democracy here at home or the private enterprise system, but i think it is around the world. i think the united states is the leader of the free world. it has a great role to play. i don't think it has been playing that role in the '50s,

and therefore, i think the democratic party has an historic function in the 1960 election. >> don't you think that the republicans are sure to run on peace and prosperity, and since we are at peace and the nation is prosperous, can they be beaten on those issues? >> yes, i think they can be beaten. i think really the problem of the democratic party is to attempt to bring home to the people the kind of problems that we are going to face in the 1960s, also to bring home to the american people that we haven't really faced these problems in the 1950s. when mr. eisenhower leaves office in 1960, we are going to be faced, the next incumbent, with overwhelming problems. we are going to be faced with a missile gap, which will make the difficulties of negotiating with the soviet union and the chinese in the '60s extremely difficult. when mr. coolidge left the white house in 1928, he was hailed. he was an extremely popular chief executive. i don't think he was popular in 1930. >> mr. reston.

>> senator, what do you do on this vice presidential question if there is a conflict between what is clearly in your personal interests and the interests of your party? what about party allegiance on the vice presidential question? >> yes, well, i think i have an obligation to the democratic party. >> what do you do if it is the judgment of your party that you should accept the vice presidency? >> well, i am not going to accept the vice presidential nomination. i shall support the democratic ticket. i will work hard for it. looking at the history of the last 60 years, i don't recall a single case where a vice presidential candidate contributed an electoral vote. i think dewey lost california in 1948 with mr. warren at the height of his popularity as vice president. i know wendell willkie lost oregon in 1940 with charles mcnary, the most popular political figure in the history of oregon. the vice presidential candidate does not contribute. people vote for the presidential candidates on both sides. that is what is going to happen in 1960.

they presume that the presidential candidate is going to have a normal life expectancy. they don't say, "we don't like the presidential candidate, but we will vote for the vice if i can contribute the kind of strength that you might suggest possibly by that question, i think perhaps i should be nominated. if i cannot contribute it as nominee, then i believe i can best serve the party and the country in the senate, and i would serve in what i prefer doing. i don't want to spend the next eight years, as i said yesterday, presiding over the senate, rarely, as mr. nixon has rarely done, voting in the case of ties on the rarest occasions, because they rarely occur, and waiting for the president to die. unfortunately in the constitution, that is all the authority the vice president was given. >> but didn't you argue precisely the opposite way in 1956 when you sought the vice presidency? didn't you argue that you would add greatly to the strength of your party if they would give you the vice presidency?

>> the situation in 1956 is somewhat different, mr. reston, than it is in 1960. i don't think mr. nixon would accept the vice presidential nomination in 1960 for his party. i haven't heard it suggested that mr. johnson, mr. humphrey or mr. symington accept the vice presidential nomination. i think they would all make it quite clear that they would not. i am making it clear that i will not, but i will work extremely hard for the party. in 1956, when i was defeated for the vice presidential nomination, i think i probably spoke in more states for the party than any other democrat, and i will do so again. >> mr. steel. >> senator kennedy, you have defined the job of the vice president as that of breaking ties and watching the president's health. does that mean if you are the presidential nominee of the democratic party, you will select a throttle-bottom as your vice president running mate? >> no, i will select the best man i could get. if my life expectancy was not what i hope it will be, but that really is not, i wouldn't think, an enviable prospect for the second man, whose only

opportunity to exert influence in the course of events would be if i should die. >> will your refusal to accept the vice presidential nomination pertain, if by chance you are defeated as the presidential nominee with no reference to the religious issue whatsoever? for instance, if the convention chooses governor stevenson or senator johnson or somebody else, will you still refuse a request that you accept the vice presidential nomination? >> yes. i don't think the request will be made because i have made it so clear. now, i hope, that i will not run. a good many people want to be vice president. i wanted to be in 1956. they are very able men, i think, who would make kplt presidents in the call came. i think they should be given the opportunity. >> senator, richard nixon, who has more or less built his reputation as a vice president and as a stand-in at times for the president with a great deal of responsibility, is known pretty widely as a rough, tough gut-fighter as a campaigner. what makes you think you can

beat him? >> i have no doubt that i can beat mr. nixon. >> for what reasons? >> i have run for election on five occasions, and i have been successful. i just have confidence that i can beat mr. nixon. i don't think the test is who is a rough, tough gut-fighter. it is whom we are going to pick for the president of the united states i hope. >> what kind of a campaign would you run against him? >> i would run a campaign which attempted to show what i think the responsibilities of the united states are in the 1960s. why i think that the democratic party, and if i were the nominee, as the democratic candidate, why i feel i could do a better job than mr. nixon could do. i think mr. nixon is a formidable candidate. i think whoever is nominated will have a difficult fight with him. i personally happen to believe that i can defeat mr. nixon, but i think it will be a very -- i don't think it will be who is the toughest gut-fighter. >> mr. wilson? >> i would like to ask one question on this vice presidency, and then move to something else. is it not a fact that the

circumstances this year may be somewhat different than they have been previously with respect to the vice president? i refer to the common statement made among politicians that you as a roman catholic might suffer some difficulty as a candidate for president, as alfred e. smith did, but that as vice president you would add a great deal to the ticket. isn't that a different set of circumstances than previously existed, and what is your reaction to it? >> mr. wilson, i would be extremely sorry if they said, we won't take kennedy because he is a catholic, but we want him because he is a catholic for vice president. if we make the determination -- both those determinations on the grounds of my religion, regardless of any other factors, i would think that the democratic party would not deserve to be successful, because you would be giving an office to a candidate who potentially could be the president, in either case, and whose only claim under those conditions would be that he

happened to go to church on sunday to the catholic church. i must say i would consider that at a most crucial time in the life of this country to be a disastrous way of picking a ticket. one of the ways that i hope to make it clear that i will not participate is by making it extremely clear that i am not going to run for vice president. if the democratic party feels that i could be a successful candidate and a useful president, i hope they will pick me. if they don't, i will work for the party, but i would not engage in the kind of operation which might be suggested in the question of attempting to attract catholics to a ticket because i happened to be on it as vice president. i must say any catholic who voted for me on those grounds would be extremely unwise, and i would not run. >> "meet the press remembers -- jfk: the presidential campaign" continues right after this.

>> "meet the press remembers -- jfk: the presidential campaign" continues now. >> what specific sacrifices would you call upon the american people? >> as i said earlier call at the present time live appropriation of national defense. and i would call for the means of paying for it. that is one step we could take. we should develop a loan fun. i think it is going to be the only means we will have available. >> when you talk about means, you're talking about taxes. >> if that's necessary, yeah. >> what sacrifices do you want beyond taxes? >> i think that that makes the

point. the amount of our resources that we are willing to devote to the security of the united states, that's the whole question that's now before us. there may be other sacrifices that time may bring. that's the one i suggest at the present. >> you don't think we have reached the stage yet where we ought to mobilize the entire nation in this fight for freedom? >> by mobilizing, what would you suggest? >> i am asking the question. >> i don't know what the phrase means. by mobilization, if you mean military, i don't suggest that. what i am suggesting is that we try to set before us the things that we must attempt to do in the next five years, if we are going to be secure, increase our security. >> we are still fighting for shorter work hours, for larger salaries -- >> i am opposed to shorter working hours. >> we are still fighting for larger salaries, softer living, more television sets, more automobiles. when you talk about sacrifices what kind of sacrifices beyond -- >> i thought at the present i described what sacrifices to

make. it looks as if they are unwilling at the present time to continue that. >> you have suggested very strongly that one of the first problems you may have to face as president is an economic slowdown. what would be your ideas on meeting that? >> i think the policies of the federal reserve board have been partly responsible for the slowdown. i don't think there is any doubt that the high interest rate policies, hard money policies, all the rest, have been partly responsible for the slowdown. in addition, i think a rather restricted budget in a way has been partly responsible for the slowdown. >> rather restricted budget, sir? >> with a billion-dollar surplus, if we are going to have 50% of capacity. i think there will be 4.5 million unemployed in july, which is the highest since world war ii, i would say we may be moving into a situation comparable to the '58 recession. >> aside from the federal reserve board action, how would you meet that? would you meet it with greater spending -- >> i suggested in one section, the military, that we ought to spend more. that's correct. >> and what about on the civilian side, a public works program? >> i think i have talked about an appropriation of $2.5 billion to $3 billion in the military, which i think would be an important beginning.

>> senator, if you are president, you will very probably confront senator lyndon johnson as the majority leader of the senate. he said some rather harsh things about your youth and inexperience. do you think this would be an obstacle to an effective working arrangement with the democratic congress to put your program over? >> no, i don't. i think senator johnson is a very patriotic american, and i think after we've settled this matter, if he's successful, i'll strongly support him. if i'm successful, i'm sure he'll strongly support me if i'm elected. i have no doubt. >> and you're sure that all will be forgotten? >> everybody says everything about everybody, and i have had it said about me on so many occasions that it doesn't disturb me, so i'm not disturbed and i'm sure he won't be disturbed for having said it. >> you said on june 14th in a foreign policy speech the danger of figuring in an irrational accidental war was quite great. how would you minimize the chance if you were president of such a war? >> i think communication is, of course, the only means, and also to make quite precise our guarantees.

you have a situation now with cuba where mr. khrushchev is threatening if we take any action. we don't know exactly what action would bring about the rain of rockets, but you cannot continue to move from area to area, where we threaten them with war to meet our commitments. they threaten us. they increase their commitments, which they are trying to do in cuba. i would say this presents a constant hazard, because we could all be destroyed. i'd think we'd have to make very precise our commitments and then attempt to maintain communication with the soviet union, which i think, of course, is going to present us with one of the great problems. i'd say communication, good ambassadors, frequent meetings of the foreign ministers and be quite precise and inform them of actions we're about to take. >> would this communication include your seeing, let us say, mr. khrushchev? how do you feel about summit meetings? >> i think that if it appeared that it would be in the service of peace, if there was some reason to believe that it might avert war, or preliminary negotiations at the secondary

level which made it promising, then i think mr. khrushchev and the next president might meet, but i would not move with speed in that area. >> the american people are going to be asked to make a choice not only between two men for president but between two parties. what do you see as the fundamental differences today between the republican and democratic parties? >> i think the republican party really is the party of memory. i think it's a party which really looks to the past, which looks to the present. i think mr. nixon in some of his recent speeches has demonstrated that. i think the democratic party, which is extremely old, the oldest party, i do think has a great deal more intellectual curiosity, intellectual vigor and willingness to face entirely new problems in a new way. >> "

[ male announcer ] some things are simply better at home.

like the enticing aroma and distinctive taste of nespresso. elegant capsules meet masterfully crafted machines, and one touch creates the perfect coffee, cappuccino, and latte. ♪ tempt all your senses with one extraordinary coffee. [ penélope cruz ] nespresso. what else? [ male announcer ] available at these fine retailers and nespresso-us.com.

>> "meet the press remembers -- jfk: the presidential campaign" continues now. our final segment is from the program that aired on october 16th, 1960, just over three weeks before the general election. >> senator kennedy, you and vice president nixon seem to agree that the united states is today the strongest military power in the world. since he believes, also, as you do, that every necessary step must be taken to keep it so, why do you continue to make an issue of our military strength? >> we disagree very greatly. he says our prestige has never been higher. >> i'm talking about our military power. >> no, but this all ties up with prestige. when i use the word prestige, i am talking about the image of the united states abroad, militarily, economically, politically, socially,

scientifically, educationally. i believe in all those areas our relative position is not satisfactory. we have sufficient momentum, because we had an atomic monopoly for a while and then a hydrogen monopoly, and we had a great airlift capacity. we have sufficient momentum to carry us through to the present time as a strong military power. but the rate of increase, the rate of military growth is not in our favor. that is what i disagree with. in fact, we have been living off our fat for the last three or four years militarily. the soviet union made the great breakthrough in space, and in missiles, and, therefore, they are going to be ahead of us in those very decisive weapons of war in the early '60s. what is true militarily is true economically. their rate of increase is greater. it is certainly true scientifically, and in the image they give to the world of a country on the make -- on the move. >> senator kennedy, both parties have been talking civil rights for a great many years. congress has passed two bills in the past four years, and yet thousands of citizens are still deprived of their voting rights.

would you favor use of the 14th amendment, section 2, a tool that to my knowledge has not been used in our time, to penalize any state that denies its citizens the right to vote by reducing its congressional representation in direct proportion to -- >> no, i think that the best way is to implement the constitution and the laws which congress passed, which, i think, give the executive very clear power. i don't feel that those powers have been used very effectively, either in the 1957 or the 1960 act, but in my judgment the executive has full power to provide the right to vote. i don't think there is any legal limitation now, any lack of weapons by the attorney general or the president to compel the right to vote if a major effort is made. and in my judgment, a major effort should be made in 1961 to make sure that there is no subterfuge, that everyone has the right to vote, that no tests are used which deprive people artificially, based on race, of the right to vote.

i feel a real effort should be made in this field in 1962, and i think it would have the consent, pretty much, of the entire country. >> henry cabot lodge made a speech in harlem and promised that a negro would be appointed to the cabinet if he and mr. nixon won. then he got down to north carolina, and as i understand it, sort of ate his words. you remarked on that yesterday. how would you feel about a negro in the cabinet if you were successful on november 8th? >> i think we ought to pick the best people we can and the best for each of the tasks. if the best person is a negro, if he is white, if he is mexican descent or whether he's irish descent, whatever he may be, i believe he should get the job. but i do believe we should make a greater effort to bring negroes into participation in the higher branches of government. there are no federal district judges, there are 200-odd of them. not one is a negro. we have about 26 negroes in the entire foreign service of 6,000, so that particularly now with the importance of africa, asia and all the rest, i do believe we should make a greater effort to encourage fuller

participation on all levels of all the talent we can we all have our little tricks.

mom swaps one of my snacks for a yoplait. i don't mind, i mean it's orange crème. and when mom said bobby was too edgy... 'sup girl. i just swapped him out for tyler. 'sup girl. mom never questioned bobby again. two can play at this game. [ female announcer ] swap one snack a week for a yoplait. and everybody wins. yoplait. it is so good.

>> a couple of final notes here. the second kennedy-nixon debate on october 7th, 1960 took place right here at the nbc news bureau in washington just nine days before jfk's final appearance on the program. for more information on the program, please go to our website at meetthepressnbc.com. i'm david gregory.

since 1947, if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." [ will ] power. precision. elegance. sometimes, the luxurious things in life are... hey! what are you doing? get outta here! get outta here, you dumb dancers! i've told them 100 times they can't dance in here. bunch of dirty dancers. there's nothing that gets me more ticked off is a bunch of dirty, irresponsible dancers, dancin in front of my dodge durango. ♪

tonight, "we investigate." empty promises of new classrooms. where your tax dollars are really going. >> bait and switch. >> sure. >> i know for sure they were sold bait and switch. look at the ballot measure. >> drivers on drugs. why they are tough to spot and prosecute. drug duis can have very real consequences. >> it's all i could think about. >> we expose dangers in hawaii's waters and the newest safety measures. >> is it a crisis situation at this point? >> i think so. i'm