Gurney: No, the main newspaper in my district, which probably covers 2/3 of the population, not only did not endorse me, but actively endorsed my opponent. Once in a while, I got clipped by the newspaper too, and in some of the releases I don't think actually this was the policy of the paper. They've been extremely cooperative with me since the election, but I think actually, it came from probably an employee down in the composing room who was a dyed in the wool Democrat. I know there are some here. But you know what I mean? Because I'm a Republican. There were other newspapers in the district that also endorsed my opponent. Senator Smathers endorsed my opponent, Senator Holland did. Congressman Herlong did Congressman Haley and two or three others thrown in. I had the book thrown at me so far as endorsements of my opponent was concerned. I found out it really didn't make much difference. Again, the people wanted to see what Ed Gurney was for and what his opponent was for, and they finally made up their mind. And in fact, I handled it this way. When all these endorsements came out, I said, you've been hearing on TV these many endorsements of all these leading people in Washington from my opponent. I said I think the voters of this district want to find out what the Congressman they're going to elect stands for, not what Senator Smathers or Holland stands for. And that's precisely what they did want to hear.

Unnamed woman: Yes, I'm from the losing 6th Congressional District in Florida, where I'm vice chairman of the county committee, and I'd like to take home some specific suggestions as to how we might have improved our congressional campaign. For instance, I plugged doorbell ringing. Nobody thought it was very important, and they thought it should begin very late. When did you begin ringing the doorbell with the literature? Also, what part did your workers play in getting the vote out for the party? Or did they work strictly for you? Third, how many television appearances -- these shorter ones -- did you actually make? And I have one more. Do you have a sample of your literature?

Gurney: Well, to answer the last one first, I don't, but if you'll give me a name after the conference, I'll certainly give you one. Two, I agree with you that they should have listened to you on doorbell ringing. It's the most important part of campaigning. You can't have enough workers and you can't get elected unless you do. And let me hit this thing hard because it's true. You can have the greatest candidate in the world who looks like Rudolph Valentino and talks like Demosthenes, but unless you got people out there ringing your doorbells, you're never going to get him elected. I think we first started probably about a month before the election. You've got to sort of judge how you work this thing up to a crescendo, and honestly, I'm new at this game and I don't think I should be in a position to advise and counsel you 100% on that. I'll tell you this. What happened in our election when John F came back here and tended to the knitting on this cuber and I come from Maine incidentally originally. This is why I sound like Kennedy occasionally. I apologize. It completely threw a left hook into our campaign for about two weeks. It just stalled dead in its tracks because Orlando, Florida is a sack base. The trucks were rushing through the Key West. The military was coming down the F101s, 102s, and 105s were flying over and nobody was interested in Gurney and Sutton. They couldn't care less, so we had to pick up these pieces and start all over again. So this made a little difference too, in this door-to-door business, but I'd say that we started the actual door-to-door about a month before, but we started the organization long before that so that we had it ready to go. 

Unnamed woman: Question from this section in the back of the room. 

Cox: My name is Cox. I'm from New Jersey. I'm interested in the agricultural situation, and I'd like to invite comments from both gentlemen. Principally upon how you handled agricultural problems and questions as they arose in your campaign. What your own convictions are concerning controls and subsidies. I've read your comment about the Freeman program, so I have some idea of what you're going to say, but I would like to have your comments. 

Unnamed woman: Mr. Dole. 

Bob Dole: Well, as I've said, Mr. Cox, I'm a member of that committee and my opponent Mr. Breeding had been here six years and been on the AG committee that long and he was chairman of the Wheat Subcommittee and of course, his big pitch was that ‘if you defeat me, Kansas loses a subcommittee chairman.’ And we were on the same committee. We watched each other very closely for two years. We were always present and whenever he was absent, I could be absent. But otherwise, I was there. When he went on one plane, I took the next flight. But this is the way it worked for two years. It was sort of a battle of wits. Who could anticipate the others? But our philosophy in reference to farm programs is exactly, I'd say at least 90% opposite. He believed in Mr. Freeman's program or theory of supply management. My opponent happened to be a large landowner. He owned 54 quarter sections of land which is over 8000 acres. But he would always go out and bleed for the family farmer, and I often ask how many family farmers did he consume getting the 54 quarters of land. But in addition, he had gas production on his land, which made it even easier to farm. But these are the things, of course, that we raised in the campaign. Mr. Freeman couldn't enact a program that would hurt a farmer of this size. And I certainly think, for one, and a member of the committee and there 14 Republicans and 21 Democrats on the AG Committee, that the more controls we impose on the farmer, the more difficult we make it for the small or the average farmer. If he takes a 10% cut in whatever crop it might be, this is his bread and butter. If a man like my opponent takes a 10% cut instead of making $500,000, he only makes $450,000. So, we think that, despite all the hue and cry from the administration about supply management and surpluses, that we're moving in exactly the wrong direction. 

Unnamed woman: Now a question from this section. The lady in the red. 

Unnamed female audience member: I'd like to ask Mr. Gurney what his odds were as to registration. 

Gurney: Well, our odds were about 5 to 1, five on the democratic side and one on the Republican side. Now, this isn't an entirely clear picture. I want you to know that because I don't want to hold myself out as a complete hero here. We have many Republicans who have gone to Florida in recent years, and this is particularly true in my own district, who were in Northerners. They, one, are retired people. And, two, they are workers in my area, particularly in the missile and space industry. There are many Republicans among these people. They usually register as Democrats and the reason why they do is because the registrar of voters always sells them the bill of goods, that you register as a Democrat, you lose your vote, so that there are many hidden Republicans in that registration, although there's no question that there were many more Democrats than there were Republicans on my side. Does that answer your question? 

Frank Ellis: My name is Frank Ellis. I'm from Rockford, Illinois. I'm interested in the reactions of the two gentlemen to an article that appeared in this week's U.S. News as to the functions of a congressman whilst he is in Washington. We've had some considerable comment about what people say out in the hustings and what they do while they're down here. This is a basic philosophic thing. I'd like to know what you gentlemen actually think your job is while you're down here.

Dole: Well, I think having been two years in Congress, perhaps I'm still not certain what my proper function should be. Mr. Ellis, I want to commend you on sending John Anderson to Congress because he's a real good man. Sometimes you wonder yourself what your real function is, whether you should be a guide for tourists, or whether you should be a statesman. And of course, to be a statesman, you have to be elected, which necessarily makes you a guide. So there are all sorts of problems. And of course, as Ed has said, and we'll find out, I felt the first six months, my first duty was to find out where I was. In fact, I used to tell them at home, I wondered why they never recorded my vote, because I voted, apparently in the Senate Chamber for a while, not knowing that I was in the wrong place. [laughter from the audience] But it's very important to be in the right body when the votes are taken. But these are some of the basic things I think. I think my first obligation of course is to stay in Washington. This is a very important factor in our campaign. My opponent left early. His attendance record was 73% when Congress adjourned and mine was 99. And I wrote him letters and told him what was going on back here, so to keep him advised and we publicized these. It was a very important factor in our campaign because I felt that my opponent should know what was going on in Washington. [laughter and applause] And I know he appreciated the letters very much, but at any rate, I do think seriously our first obligation is here. We have an obligation to attend our committee meetings. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, we met almost every day for six or seven months. Sometimes twice a day. And of course, we do try to attend the meetings and we have our subcommittee meetings and we have, I think, another obligation. And of course, one to our family that my wife feels that I've forgotten. But we have an obligation, if we have some time to go to Rockford, Illinois or somewhere else in this country and talk about Conservative government because it's very difficult for you sometimes to go back after you've been here a couple of three days and sell the program unless they have a live, living example of someone who's actually withstood the test.

Unnamed man: I'd like to pose a partially hypothetical situation for Mr. Gurney. You said that organization is the keystone of any campaign. I think we all understand that. How would you attack the problem where, with a relatively overwhelming Republican registration and an entrenched Republican organization -- which, however, is so involved in its petty politics that it has difficulty coming up with a good candidate -- how would then an organization be formed to bring through a candidate through the primaries without destroying the eventual party organization?

Gurney: Well, that is a tough one, I guess. And maybe Bob could answer that better after I get through and I certainly hope he speaks to it. The reason why it's hard for me is because this situation does not exist in Florida at all, you see. We do not have strong party organizations in either the Democrat or the Republican ranks because we've never had a two party system as such, as you have in New York. And races always there are done pretty much on a personal organization basis. I can only tell you this from my own experience, that as I stated in the opening speech that starting in the beginning with no organization at all, we built up an organization that eventually had about 500 people in it. We did this ourselves beginning in January of 1962. If it can be done in Florida, it certainly can be done elsewhere. Looking at it from a detached point of view, I would say where you have that situation, you had two solutions. One, if you're unhappy with the people that are entrenched in your party organization, of course the thing to do is to get people in there that are sympathetic with you and throw out the old crowd. This is a hard job and it takes time, but it has been done. That is one way to do it. The other way to do it, and this has been done too -- because I remember this was once done in Maine when I lived there a long time ago, where I came from originally -- the party machine were backing one candidate, but another candidate who was better got out on his own. He built his own organization just as I did. And by golly, he won.