THE CANDIDATES HAVE THE LAST WORD

With the neck-and-neck race nearing a finish, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter talked at length with TIME about their campaigns, in effect making a final plea to the voters. Aboard Air Force One, between campaign stops, the President chatted with Chief of Correspondents Murray Gart and Correspondents Dean Fischer and Strobe Talbott. While riding in a car from Plains to Albany, Ga., Carter spoke with Gart and Correspondent Stanley Cloud.

FORD:'IT'S A HORSE RACE'

Q. Mr. President, would you sum up and assess your feelings about this campaign?

A. Considering the real tough primary and the preconvention battle we had, and where we were when we went to Kansas City, I'm not only pleased but amazed at the kind of progress we've made. I think it's a real horse race. We have the momentum going. I'm confident that we're going to continue to make headway, and I think we've got time to win.

Q. Do you still consider yourself the underdog?

A. A very slight underdog. At this stage of the campaign, I'd rather have the momentum going up, rather than being where my opponent is--sliding down and trying to hold the lead. Our people are enthusiastic. They're confident, while I detect that [the Carter people] are getting in some disarray.

Q. This is your first campaign for the presidency. How do you feel about it in personal or emotional terms?

A. There have been some personal things that are very satisfying: the fact that all of our family has gotten so deeply involved. All of the children have done so exceedingly well. It's brought the family closer together. It's shown, I think, what good kids they are--loyal. It's one of those things that has shown that as a family they were brought up in the right atmosphere, so that when the chips were down, we've really been able to hold together. It's made Betty and myself feel very good inside.

Q. What are the principal differences between you and Carter on domestic policy?

A. There are some very fundamental differences. He hasn't been too specific, but I've gone back and reread what his principal economic adviser, Mr. [Lawrence] Klein, has said. He says there will be no tax reduction because Mr. Carter is committed to the spending programs that are embraced in the Democratic platform. That's an honest position, but it's a position totally different from mine, and in order to prevent inflation as he spends more and has no tax reduction, he wants stand-by wage and price controls. I think that would be a disaster. The minute you get stand-by wage and price controls, people are going to be fearful, both labor and management, that we might have them imposed, so they say, "We're going to raise prices," or "We're going to fight for higher wages."

Our program is significantly different. We would really continue the restraint on the rate of growth of federal spending. We've made a good start. We've got to do better, but as we do it, we've got then to put the emphasis on tax reduction, particularly in the middle-income groups. Those people have been shortchanged. They think they deserve a break, and I think they do. We're going to fight for them. And if you restrain the spending, you can have that kind of tax reduction.

Q. What are the most important differences between yourself and Governor Carter on foreign policy?

A. There's a vast difference in terms of the issue of experience. There is [my] substantive personal experience in meeting the leaders of nations, whether they're adversaries or allies. It would take Mr. Carter some time to establish those kinds of relationships.

Also, I don't think he can implement a foreign policy with the kind of success we need with his attitude toward defense. He just can't do what he says he's going to do in the national defense area and be able to convince our allies we mean business, or handle our problems with our adversaries effectively. His latest figure [for reducing the rise in the defense budget] is $5 billion to $6 billion. There isn't a single knowledgeable person in this business who says it's possible --and achieve what we have to accomplish in maintaining the peace or meeting any challenge. You just can't do it.

Q. Looking at the trouble spots around the world, where do you think the most important differences are?

A. In the case of the Middle East, [Carter] really hasn't been very specific. I don't think he really understands the basic successes of the Geneva Conference and the Sinai II agreement, and the need to capitalize on that momentum, or what most experts would agree is the requirement for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. It's very complicated. It requires some really fundamental understanding of the relations of Israel to Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, plus the complicating factor in Lebanon. In that area, we both may have the same objectives, but I don't think he understands all the complications. And we can't afford to lose time.

In southern Africa, we have the trust of the Rhodesian government, the South African government, the front-line nations. We have a reservoir of support in the black African nations. If [the U.S.] puts a new player in the game --I'm not sure that we can keep that momentum going which is so critical.

In relations with the Soviet Union, there's a very key difference. I negotiated in Vladivostok a freeze on launchers and multiple warheads which resulted in the Soviet Union having to cut back about 200 launchers from their projected program, and it didn't have any adverse impact at all on our projected buildup, while Mr. Carter--I think very mistakenly, and I guess it's a lack of knowledge--wants to put a freeze on. [The SALT agreement reached at Vladivostok in 1974 limits both the U.S. and the Soviet Union to 2,400 strategic bombers and missiles and forbids each nation to arm more than 1,320 missiles with multiple warheads.]

What's he doing? He's freezing the Soviet Union at 200 launchers above the Vladivostok figure that I achieved, and he wants to freeze us at a point where we haven't yet built up to the limit that we can have under Vladivostok. So I think it's just a lack of knowledge, and it's a very unwise position for him. It gives the Soviets more and it tends to handicap us.

On the P.R.C. [People's Republic of China], I don't discern any significant differences.

Q. This is your first travel around the country as a national candidate. What do you think about the country?

A. I think it's a country of 215 million wonderful people. The fact that they have such a totally different attitude today from what they had in 1974 is really an inspiration to me, and I happen to think it's one of the most significant accomplishments of the 26 months I've been President.

Q. What has your travel taught you about yourself?

A. I guess I've learned that you have to live with the bad, that you can't let one mistake destroy your confidence in yourself. Lots of outstanding people have made some mistakes in the past. The good ones come back. You don't let a bad pitch destroy your ball game.

Q. What have you learned about your opponent?

A. I'd rather not get into that.

Q. He said you were a good and decent man.

A. As far as I know--and I don't know him intimately--I would say that he's a good American.

Q. Is there anything you would have done drastically different in this campaign, starting back in January?

A. In the preconvention campaign, we fell down in not realizing the importance of the convention states. We could have won and should have won some convention states and would have avoided the closeness of the race in Kansas City. But that was a mistake that nobody realized--I didn't realize it.

But I don't know of any major campaign change I would make in retrospect in the campaign against Mr. Carter. I'm glad I challenged him to debate. I think if I had not done that, it would have been almost impossible to make up the 33 points we were behind.

I think the debates themselves solidified the support I had, and I think they have been helpful in [resolving the minds of] the undecided. The one mistake I made [the reference to Eastern Europe not being under Soviet domination] --I don't know how serious it is. We can only tell on Nov. 2. On the other hand, I think [Carter] undercut his own situation by his comment on Yugoslavia. The statement that he would not send U.S. troops into Yugoslavia has got to worry a lot of the Eastern European people in this country. And it certainly ought to concern our allies, who think it highly important that we not commit ourselves in advance as to what they or we would do. I think that's an indication of inexperience on his part.

Q. What would losing the election mean to you?

A. Personally, I would be very, very disappointed, but I would feel sadder because I think I offer to the American people a better choice for our country, and I would feel very bad because somehow what I stood for had not been adequately communicated. I think fundamentally the American people believe the things I've done and the things I've planned are closer to them. So I'd feel sad on a personal basis, but I'd feel much worse from the point of view of what I think is good for the country.

CARTER: I LEARNED A LOT

Q. How would you sum up the campaign? What have been the important themes?

A. Well, we've maintained the same theme for the last two years: that our people have been hurt and alienated by Viet Nam, Cambodia, Watergate, CIA, Angola and so forth. They've been withdrawing from participation in Government. They've lost trust in public officials, and it is time for a basic change. My own background outside Washington as a former businessman and a nuclear engineer qualifies me to go in and make those basic changes.

There are three things in the Government that the people are looking for. One is confidence--to have a well-organized, efficient, economical, purposeful and manageable Government for a change. The second is that the Government be sensitive to people's needs. We need someone in the White House who understands the problems and needs and hopes and aspirations of the average American family. And the third thing is a basic sense of integrity, trust.

There ought to be additional openness in Government. Strip away secrecy. Have a greater respect for personal privacy.

Q. What are the principal differences between yourself and President Ford on foreign policy?

A. One is that our foreign policy has been conducted almost exclusively by Henry Kissinger. I don't think Mr. Ford has any interest in foreign policy. Mr. Kissinger is a very secretive man. He's inclined to play a lonely role in the evolution of foreign policy. There's no consistency in it. There's no predictability about it. There's no broad theme about it; and in many instances we've abandoned the basic character and principles of the American people in the evolution and consummation of foreign policy. I would restore bipartisan support for our foreign policy and let the American people be involved as deeply as possible.

When we negotiate a treaty, obviously we can't have a press release every day telling what the status of it is. But after a treaty or an agreement is concluded, a complete revelation ought to be made to the American people.

I would also get away from the power-bloc delineation, with us on one side, the Soviets on the other, and all the other nations forced to align themselves pro or con. I would deal much more on a bilateral basis with individual nations. I would be much more inclined to have our country re-establish firm and predictable consultative relationships with our natural allies--Western Europe, Canada, Mexico and Japan. I would move aggressively to stop the proliferation of atomic weapons. I have proposed, in definitive terms I believe, in speeches at the United Nations and subsequent events, eleven different things that ought to be done to hold down just a peaceful proliferation of plutonium and other atomic wastes, with a moratorium on the testing of all nuclear devices and with a prohibition against the sale of atomic fuel to countries that don't agree to prevent changing their waste into atomic explosives.

I would not see any need in the future for additional grain embargoes. We've had three since Mr. Ford's been in office, none of which were necessary. I would try to strengthen trade. We've relegated foreign trade to a secondary position in our country for too long, and we now have a very severe balance of trade deficit.

Q. Is there a real difference between you and the President on whether the U.S. should give advance notice about where it is unwilling to use troops abroad?

A. No, I don't know of any difference that exists there. The President and Mr. Kissinger criticized my position on Yugoslavia, but on six different occasions since Mr. Ford has been in office, he has said flatly, "I would not send troops into this or that part of the world"--the Middle East, Rhodesia, Lebanon, Eastern Europe. On two other occasions, he said, "I would not send troops fto Angola and southern Africa]." But so far as I know, there is no difference between us on that.

Q. Given your lack of experience in foreign affairs, would you not defer to a Secretary of State who had more expertise than you?

A. I would defer to a Secretary of State and to many foreign policy experts in the evolution of my decisions, but I would be the spokesman for our country. I don't know of an instance in history where a President has completely turned over the foreign policy decision-making process and spokesmanship to a Secretary of State, as Mr. Ford has done with Mr. Kissinger.

Q. What are the differences between you and Gerald Ford on domestic policy?

A. Mr. Ford has no domestic policy, except one of complete negativism. He's had four times as many vetoes per year as Mr. Nixon ever had. He's had four times as great a deficit in his two years as Mr. Nixon ever had. He's not put forth a single viable proposal, so far as I know, in the area of employment, inflation, housing, education, transportation or energy.

Mr. Ford is a decent and honest man, but there's never been one effort on his part to accomplish a single major program. He's been in office, or will have been in office, as long as John Kennedy, but he tries to give the American people the impression that he just got there. In the field of crime, he made a speech about a month or two ago and said, "If I'm elected, in the first hundred days of my Administration I'm going to have an all-out war on crime." Why wait three years before you do anything about crime or unemployment? I would hope to be a strong leader and to put forth specific proposals for welfare reform, tax reform, Government reorganization, employment opportunities, housing, transportation and energy, as soon as I'm elected in some instances, as soon as I am inaugurated in others.

Q. In your travels, what have you learned about the country? Have you found that the American people are as good as you thought they were?

A. Obviously, individual Americans have selfish tendencies and fallibilities, but the cumulative character of the American people is basically unselfish, idealistic and honest. Our Government has not mirrored those characteristics in domestic or foreign affairs. The American people are competent, but we have come to the point where we are willing to accept incompetence in Government as normal. I don't agree with that. The average American wants very little from Government.

It used to be that we could set a goal for ourselves at the end of five or six years; with our savings we could make the down payment on a house, we could buy a new car in two years, we could be sure that we could put our kids through college. Now that has been wiped away by rampant inflation, which in this Administration has been at least three times what it was under President Johnson. There is no way to predict what is going to happen in the future.

Q. Have you learned anything about the country that you didn't know when you began?

A. Well, I've broadened my experience in agriculture, which is my own business. Also in Government. I know infinitely more now about the proper interrelationship that ought to exist in a system of federalism than I did before, although 1 have served seven years in local government and eight years in state government and have been a very close observer of the national scene. I could go down a tremendous litany of things that have been added to my knowledge in the last 24 months, for example in the areas of environment, transportation, energy. It has been a very good education process for me. I might add that ten or eleven members of my family have campaigned independently of me, and my own knowledge of the country has been greatly expanded by constant reports from them.

Q. What have you learned about yourself?

A. I've learned to be a lot more cautious about what I say and that some of the things that I've always taken for granted have aroused great doubt among people who haven't had the same background and experience as myself. I think I've learned to accept criticism much better than I could at first, and I've learned about my own inadequacies, my own lack of knowledge. I've had a chance to see problems in people's lives that I had never visualized before. I learned a lot more about ethnic groups who still feel the brunt of discrimination. I've seen much more clearly the dual interest of people who live in this country but still have a very strong affinity for their family home in Poland or Czechoslovakia, Israel or Africa. So, I think in the process of campaigning, I've learned about my own needs for constant study and for the assimilation of other people's ideas.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.