so four years ago, george bush did manage to debate three times. and you know what, there's a lot of material to work with. why not examine what he said, and see if it's consistent with what he's done. why not have john kerry say, mr bush, four years ago during the debates you said blah blah blah, but all you've done is bleh bleh bleh. or we could just have a good laugh. either/or. sidenote: bush is a more skilled debater than he is a president, for whatever that's worth. but alas, let the fun begin, in all it's wacky sequential and sometimes out of context goodness!
october 3, 2000
Let me just say that obviously tonight we're going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do.
I guess my answer to that is the man is running on Medi-scare. Trying to frighten people into the voting booth.
You've had your chance, Vice President, you've been there for eight years and nothing has been done.
I cannot let this go by, the old-style Washington politics, if we're going to scare you in the voting booth.
Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- he's trying to scare people in the voting booth.
This is an administration that's had no plan. And all of a sudden the results of having no plan have caught up with America.
I brought this up recently with the newly elected president in Mexico, he's a man I know from Mexico.
Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors.
I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred.
It sounds like he's not very right tonight.
I'll tell you what kind of judges he'll put on. He'll put liberal activists justices who will use their bench to subvert the legislature, that's what he'll do.
It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is.
The man is practicing fuzzy math again.
I want to say something. This man has been disparaging my plan with all this Washington fuzzy math.
You can say you do to the cameras but you don't, unless you've changed your plan.
I've been standing up to big business, Hollywood, big trial lawyers. Was -- the question about emergencies, wasn't it?
That's what governors end up doing. We end up being problem solvers. We come up with practical, common sense solutions for problems that we're confronted with. In this case, in the case of a financial crisis, I would gather all the facts before I made the decision as to what the government ought or ought not to do.
Secondly, the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and size of the federal budget. The Senate Budget Committee did a study of the vice president's expenditures. It's been projected that they could conceivably bust the budget by $900 billion. That means he'll either have to raise your taxes by $900 billion or go into the Social Security surplus for $900 billion.
I can't let the man continue with fuzzy math. It is 1.3 trillion. It will go to everybody who pays taxes. I'm not going to be the kind of president that says you get tax relief and you don't. I'm not going to be a picker and chooser.
I thought it was interesting that on the two minutes he spent about a million(minute?)-and-a-half on my plan, which means he doesn't want you to know what he's doing is loading up IOUs for future generations.
It's time to have a leader that doesn't put off tomorrow what we should do today.
I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, "No controlling legal authority." I felt like there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that -- I believe they've moved that sign, "The buck stops here" from the Oval Office desk to "The buck stops here" on the Lincoln bedroom. It's not good for the country and it's not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, I don't want you to let me down again. And we can do better than the past administration has done. It's time for a fresh start. It's time for a new look. It's time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism.
I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote.
And so, look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law. The time for campaign funding reform is after the election. This man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. And I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of the campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue.
I want people to hear what he just said. He is for full public financing of Congressional elections. I'm absolutely, adamently opposed to that. I don't want the government financing congressional elections.
I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the United States in world affairs. I don't want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped. I want anti-ballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail our allies and friends.
october 11, 2000
Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.
Secondly, that I think it's important to reach out to moderate Arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do there's a strong bond of friendship. And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting your determination. One of the reasons why I think it's important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace is to be able to say to the Saddam Husseins of the world or the Iranians, don't dare threaten our friends. It's also important to keep strong ties in the Middle East, credible ties, because of the energy crisis we're now in. After all, a lot of the energy is produced from the Middle East, and so I appreciate what the administration is doing
When it comes to timetables it can't be the United States timetable as to how discussions take place. It's got to be a timetable that all parties can agree to, like the Palestinians and Israelis. Secondly, any lasting peace is going to have to be a peace that's good for both sides. And therefore, the term honest broker makes sense. This current administration's worked hard to keep the parties at the table. I will try to do the same thing. But it won't be on my timetable, it will be on the timetable that people are comfortable with in the Middle East.
I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there? BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him. MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration? BUSH: I do.
Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda.
Well, I understand, and Africa is important. And we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are some -- Vice President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy. We have to work with Nigeria. That's an important continent. But there's got to be priorities, and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East, our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president, not to say we won't be engaged nor work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity.
You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.
Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.
I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be.
No. We've got one in Texas. And guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death. And it's the right cause. It's the right decision.
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
In this case when you murder somebody it's hate, Jim. The crime is hate. And they got the ultimate punishment.
In Texas I tried to do something innovative.
But Columbine spoke to a larger issue. It's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we've begun to disrespect life. Where a child can walk in and have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life?
So in my state we toughen up the juvenile justice laws. We added beds. We're tough.
I've developed -- put out money in my budget to expand community health centers all around the country. These are places where people can get primary care. Secondly -- and they're good. They're very important parts of the safety net of health care. Secondly, that you get a $2,000 rebate from the government if you're a family of $30,000 or less --
Our CHIPS program got a late start because our government meets only four months out of every two years, Mr. Vice President.
You can quote all the numbers you want, but I'm telling you we care about our people in Texas.
Let me just tell you who the jury is. The people of Texas. There's only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four-year terms, and that was me.
And my case to the American people is, if you're happy with inactivity, stay with the horse. The horse is up there now.
MODERATOR: Would you believe the federal government still has some new rules and new regulations and new laws to pass in the environmental area or do you think --
BUSH: Sure, absolutely, so long as they're based upon science and they're reasonable. So long as people have input.
MODERATOR: You aren't allowed to do that either, see? (LAUGHTER) I'm sorry, go ahead and finish your thought. People care about these things I've found out.
BUSH: Of course they care about them. Oh, you mean the rules.
But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place.
I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.
october 17, 2000
I, too, want to extend my prayers and blessings, God's blessings on the families whose lives were overturned yes -- tod -- last night.
If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency room care, we're going have gag orders, we're going to have direct access to OB/GYN.
I trust people, I don't trust the federal government. It's going to be one of the themes you hear tonight. I don't want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody.
One thing about insurance, that's a Washington term.
When you total up all the federal spending he wants to do, it's the largest increase in federal spending in years.
I don't know if you have to be a paperwork filler-outer, but most of it's because of the federal government.
Forget the journalists. He proposed more than Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis combined. This is a big spender. And you ought to be proud of it, it's part of his record.
I wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people. It's just the right position to take.
Let me finish.
You may not be one of them, you're just not one of the right people. And secondly, we've had enough fighting. It's time to unite.
The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in.
If this were a spending contest, I would come in second.
And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.
Spending money is one thing. But spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I'm going to do is ask the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world.
I'm a pretty independent thinker. The one thing I'm for is a safe society. And I'm for enforcing laws on the books.
I'm for getting rid of the death tax, completely getting rid of the death tax. One reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because of the death tax. This is a bad tax. The President shouldn't have vetoed that bill. It's a tax that taxes people twice. It penalizes the family farmer.
It is -- I'm not so sure 80% of the people get the death tax. I know this, 100% will get it if I'm the president.
Tell you what I hear. A lot of people are sick and tired of the bitterness in Washington, D.C. and therefore they don't want any part of politics. They look at Washington and see people pointing fingers and casting blame and saying one thing and doing another.
No, it doesn't speak for itself, Mr. Vice President, it speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this that we all agree to, but evidently rules don't mean anything.
ou're going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends. A mission that doesn't try to be all things to all people. A judicious use of the military which will help keep the peace.
I look forward to the final weeks of this campaign. I'm asking for your vote. For those of you for me, thanks for your help. For those of you for my opponent, please only vote once. (LAUGHTER)