HOWARD K. SMITH: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the first of the League of Women Voters' 1980 presidential debates. Participating in tonight's debate will be, in alphabetical order, John Anderson, candidate of the National Unity Party, the Chair of Jimmy Carter, candidate of the Democratic party, and Ronald Reagan, candidate of the Republican party. Mr. Carter has declined to appear in person because he says he does not want to debate two Republicans. He also muttered something about the Iranian hostage crisis becoming unmanageable again. Thank you gentlemen for accepting the League's invitation.

In tonight's debate, the four journalists on our panel will be given the chance to ask each candidate one question; each of the other candidates will be given the chance to respond. Questioning the candidates tonight we have, in alphabetical order, David Broder of The Washington Post, the Chair of Barbara Walters of ABC News, Martin Nolan of The Boston Globe and Hedrick Smith of The New York Times. Ms. Walters also declined our invitation to be in Baltimore tonight; ABC News has informed us that they refuse to participate on a panel with three newspapers. Thank you all for coming tonight. Mr. Broder, the first question is yours.

David S. Broder: Thank you, Howard. Mr. Reagan, you've been accused of giving simplistic answers to highly complex questions on such important issues as defense and the economy. In a political age in which it seems vital that a candidate possess the intelligence to understand all aspects of an issue, why do you think the public has responded so strongly to your brand of simple answers to complex questions?

Ronald Reagan: No.

Smith: Mr. Carter's chair, your response?

Jimmy Carter's Chair:

Smith: Mr. Anderson?

John Anderson: I think both Mr. Reagan's and Mr. Carter's Chair's answers speak for themselves. They are typical of the blind words of optimism that both of my opponents have been spewing forth for months. But the voters this year want more than promises from representatives of the major parties. They want action and, as the candidate of the National Unity Party-

Smith: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Your time is up. Mr. Nolan, the next question is yours-to Mr. Anderson.

Martin Nolan: Mr. Anderson, a question along similar lines. Many people have called your speaking style bombastic and inflated, almost as though you pontificate to audiences that want to hear answers to important questions on such issues as defense and the economy. Do you think this has been an effective campaign style, and do you intend to put more substance into your speeches?

Anderson: Let me begin by saying emphatically that I believe-and believe very strongly-that the immense problems we face in our country and society-and indeed the world-today are highly complex and demand carefully considered, well thought out and clearly articulated answers that address these difficult enigmas with intelligence and straightforwardness which, perhaps, when you comprehend. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote after he crossed this great land, "Americans have all a lively faith in the perfectability of man, they judge that the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily be advantageous, and the consequences of ignorance fatal; they all consider society as a body in a state of improvement, humanity as a changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought to be, permanent, and they admit that what appears to them today to be good, may be superseded by something better tomorrow."

Smith: Is that all?

Anderson: I believe so. Yes.

Smith; Mr. Reagan?

Reagan: (nodding off)