With days from 5 to 7 a.m. From NBC News in Washington, this is Meet the Press with Tim
Russert. Our issues this Sunday. Bush on in Boston in their first and critically
important presidential debate. What can we expect? And the author of this new book
is our children learning the case against George W. Bush. Then we are joined by two
men excluded from this debate. But first the most watched Senate campaign in the country.
Rick Lazio versus Hillary Clinton. And here with us is the Republican candidate to be
United States Senator from New York. Rick Lazio, welcome. Hi Tim, great to be on again.
A whole series of polls have been taken over the last week. Let me show you Newsday, your
hometown paper from Long Island. Put it on the screen. Hillary Clinton, 52. Rick Lazio,
42. And the gender breakdown, very instructive. Men, 46, 46. Women, 59 for Hillary Clinton,
33 for Rick Lazio, 26 point bulge for Hillary Clinton. Many observers believe that women
moved towards Hillary Clinton after the debate in Buffalo. Let me show you a clip of that
debate and talk about it. Sure. I'm asking you to sign it. Well I would be happy to when
you give me the signed letters. Right here, right here. Would you give me? Sign it right
now. Well we'll shake, we'll shake on this. No, no, I want your signature because I think
everybody wants to see you signing something that you said you were for. Critics have said
that you violated Mrs. Clinton's space. That you got in her face. Do you regret doing that?
I don't at all. I think it's what led to the agreement on the soft money ban. I would have
preferred to have had a written agreement. I would have preferred, Tim, to have had monitors
to have some enforcement mechanism. I think it was pretty clear that Mrs. Clinton was
very reluctant to move toward this ban. That's why I wanted her to sign that day. I wanted
to bring the public in. I wanted to have transparency. And I think if it wasn't for that day and
if it wasn't for the will of New Yorkers to force us toward a ban on soft money, we would
never have had it. So I feel good about that. I think it's good for the people of New York.
I think they have made a statement to America that we don't need a law to do the right thing.
You don't think you were menacing or impolite? I don't think so at all. I think when you're
in the Senate, you've got to be able to demonstrate that you can stand up for New York. And New
York sends $15 billion a year more to Washington than we get back. Somebody, it seems to me,
has got to stand up for New York taxpayers and for New York voters and say, you know
what, we're going to put New York first. Also, during that debate, I asked Mrs. Clinton about
her use of the term vast right-wing conspiracy. She answered in a very emotional way. I then
asked you for a response, and this is what you said. And I think that, frankly, what's
so troubling here with respect to what my opponent just said is somehow that it only
matters what you say when you get caught. And character and trust is about well more
than that. And blaming others every time you have responsibility, unfortunately, that's
become a pattern, I think, for my opponent. Observers said that you piled on. You should
have said, Tim, Mrs. Clinton has answered the question, let's move on to issues. Why
did you choose to make that statement? I think, first of all, this is a debate, Tim. You've
got to understand that people are watching. They want to know what's in your heart, what
you think, and who you are. And I think it is important that you demonstrate character
by doing the right thing when nobody is watching, not just when the eye of the camera is on
you. That's the measure of whether or not I think people believe that you are a person
worthy of trust and character. Are you running against Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or
both? No, I think that we are running against two people in this race, Rick Lazio and Hillary
Clinton. Bill Clinton isn't in this race. Newt Gingrich isn't in this race. Hillary
Clinton is in this race, and Rick Lazio is in this race. And my record's in this race.
What I have done for New York, the things that I've been able to accomplish and deliver
for New York, my ability to protect New York on transportation formulas, on the children's
health formula, to make sure that we pass legislation, my legislation, to help disabled
Americans go back to work and keep their health care benefits. As somebody who was on the
committee that wrote the first balanced budget in a generation, as somebody who's found the
kind of balance that I think New Yorkers appreciate and, more importantly, has been able to get
the job done, to move past just rhetoric and talk and promises and actually be able to
accomplish things by bringing people together, finding common ground, and working in a bipartisan
way. I've been in Congress for eight years now, Tim. I'm not aware of a single thing
that Mrs. Clinton has ever done in a bipartisan way. I don't know how you can be an effective
senator if you're not able or willing to be open-minded, to work well with others and
to be bipartisan at times. You mentioned, Newt Gingrich, you were part of his leadership
team, and Mrs. Clinton has said repeatedly you voted with Newt Gingrich on issues like
Medicare, on issues like education, to the contrary interest of New York State. Do you
believe that Newt Gingrich was a good speaker? I think he was an important historical figure.
I think if it wasn't for the fact that Republicans were able to come into power in 1994, we would
never have had a balanced budget. I remember being on the Budget Committee in 92 when we
were in the minority. Every attempt at trying to restrain spending was defeated along party
lines. Two years later, we were able to pass a balanced budget. People said it couldn't
be done. Some people said it shouldn't be done. The President himself said we shouldn't
balance it in that short a period of time, but we stayed focused and we got the job done.
We got welfare reform enacted after being vetoed twice. We were able to enact tax relief.
I think these things helped put us on the right pathway to achieve the prosperity that
we have right now. We are spending 50 percent more money on education now than we would
have under the President's budgets back in 1994 because we are in a period of prosperity,
because we have had surpluses, because we have reduced welfare rolls, and because those
of us in Congress trusted governors and local officials to do the right things and to give
them the flexibility to bring down welfare rolls, reduce dependency, lower taxes, which
helped stimulate some of their investment, keep more of those dollars in their own home
states. We need to do more of that in New York, especially in the upstate economy, to
create more of those jobs that people are asking for.
Do you believe Newt Gingrich was sometimes too extreme?
Well, I mean, there were times when I obviously had a break with my entire leadership on issues
of the environment, on issues involving education at times, on issues involving abortion, my
support for public funding for the arts. There's a whole range of different issues in which
I have demonstrated independence because I thought that was in the best interest of my
district, the people I represent, and also my conscience.
But votes that Mr. Gingrich ordered the Republicans of the cast in terms of limiting the growth
of Medicare or against the Department of Education, do you regret those votes?
No, I would say, you know, very important, and I'm glad you've raised this, because the
vote that Mrs. Clinton criticizes as a cut, if that's a cut, then what her president advocated
was a cut, and what she advocated was a cut. Slowing the rate of growth was not a cut.
And more importantly, if you look back at the numbers, the plan that I supported for
Medicare spending would have spent more this year than we're currently spending. So, if
you look at the word games, it's perfectly fair for me to be able to say, it's in fact...
No regrets on those votes.
Absolutely. That's what got us to a balanced budget and helped us generate the kind of
surplus that we have right now.
On Friday, you said some interesting things about the importance of this race, and let
me put it on the screen for you and our viewers and read them. Some say this is a race that
may determine the direction America goes, that may determine the moral compass of our
country. I think this is the most important race of my generation. This is a race that
will determine whether or not character still counts in public service, whether or not integrity
matters, whether the rule of law applies to all or just some privileged people. The most
important race of your generation?
Yeah, I think so. I think it's a pivotal race for a number of reasons. I think it's pivotal
for New York. New York has always, up until this last Senate election that elected Chuck
Schumer, always had a Republican and a Democrat, always had somebody in one party, always had
somebody who had one foot in a party that had the influence to protect New York and
get the job done. I think it's incredibly important that we have that balance, that
we have someone who can cross party lines when necessary, who can build bipartisan coalitions,
who can be effective for New York and who's got the kind of legislative experience to
be a good Senator, to be an effective Senator on day one. I think that's important. I also
think it's important because for many people, and I agree with this, it's a bellwether on
character and on integrity and on trust, whether or not you can trust when someone says something
that they will actually do it. I've tried to live this campaign this way. I've tried
to live my life this way. Am I perfect? No. I wish I could say I was. But the fact is
when I said that we were going to not raise or spend any soft money, I did that. Even
though I got into this race very late, it would have been very seductive for me to say
because we got into this race so late, it would have been a huge advantage for me to
go out and raise money in $500,000 chunks. But instead, I lived to the guidelines of
campaign finance reform, the law that I voted for twice. We decided neither to raise nor
spend any soft money. And I think showing that kind of leadership helped get us to where
we are right now. I hope this agreement holds. Your campaign has sent out a bumper sticker.
Eight years is enough. Why this emphasis on eight years of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton?
Why this emphasis on character of Mrs. Clinton when, in fact, she was simply the first lady?
I think it's more than that. You can either be the first lady or you can be a candidate.
Mrs. Clinton is now the candidate. She needs to be held accountable for her votes and her
positions, her efforts on health care that her own party ran away from, that when Senator
Moynihan heard about it, he said, my God, in terms of what it would do to New York,
it would have been a terrible tragedy for New York health care, for our nation's health
care, to put one-seventh of our national economy under government control, to implement our
system of rationing, to destroy our teaching hospitals. And on education in Arkansas, when
she had the opportunity to lead in Arkansas, spending went up, taxes went up, educational
performance, dead bottom. And on these other issues, she's had an opportunity to speak
out, to help New York at pivotal times, to help our veterans with a veterans formula
that shifts money away from New York down south. She's been silent. When President Clinton
exercised his single veto, his single line-on-em veto, it was to punish New York, to hurt
Medicaid and to undermine our ability to provide quality care for the poor. So the question
is, where was Mrs. Clinton at these difficult times when somebody needed to stand up and
say, New York needs to come first?
But when you say that she embarrassed our nation, isn't that a bit much? Isn't that
piling on?
Well, no. I think that, in fact, there were times when there was an opportunity to stand
up and to do the right thing. I think the idea of some of these files being discovered
well after they said they were lost, I think some of the issues that she has been involved
in in the travel office, these have not brought credibility upon the White House. And I believe
that we can do better. I believe people should expect more from their public servants, not
less. I think there's a lot of Americans out there who are physicians, successful businessmen
and women, presidents of universities who look at these things and say, I would love
to be in public office, but I don't want to run for public office. And the day after
I'm elected, I'm thought of as a crook or a bum, somebody who does not have a sense
of integrity. Our children need to look at people in public service and say, I don't
agree with everything that they do, but I agree that they struggle to do the right thing.
I think they're good and decent people. And I try to be that person.
You don't think Mrs. Clinton's a role model to a lot of people?
I don't know. I don't know about that. I think it's more important for me to be a role model
for people. And I am not able to do what I would like to do every single time. I'm not
perfect, but I try to struggle to do the right thing. I struggle to try and maintain a sense
of integrity and a sense of character. And I think I've run this campaign that way. And
I think I've been that kind of public servant.
This is today's New York Times. A crucial point in campaign, Lazio retools upstate strategy.
A lot of people in upstate New York, particularly in the Buffalo area, concerned when you campaigned
up there saying, well, things are getting better up here. The Buffalo News jumped on
your comments. This is what they said in an editorial. The most intriguing news from the
campaign trial recently is the fact that upstate's economic woes are over. At least that's the
view from whatever political planet Rick Lazio is now orbiting. Lazio doesn't think upstate
needs targeted economic help. Was it a mistake for you to suggest that the economic woes
of upstate New York are all well and taken care of?
I've never said that. And that's a mischaracterization by the Buffalo News. I think every time, including
in the debate when this issue came up, when I've said I think the upstate economy has
turned the corner. And if you look at the numbers in the upstate economy in the Erie
County area, over the last 18 months, they have created 16,000 new jobs. Does that mean
our work is finished? I think I've said every time that when I say we have turned the corner,
there is a lot more work to do. We need to lower taxes to create jobs. We need to try
and foster a high-tech economy. We need to protect the agricultural sector. There are
important partnerships that we need to develop. We need to focus on tourism. And I think that
we need to have a senator who is able to work well with local people to get the job done,
to create those kind of jobs. I've been that kind of member of Congress. I think I can
be that kind of senator. But I think it's important that, and I think that the upstate
New Yorkers will be the first to say, that we have turned the corner on the failed policies
of the Cuomo administration. No insult for you.
Those were years of high taxes, of factories being closed, of jobs being exported out of
state. People upstate know that they are still digging out from under those years. The fact
that we are on the right path means that I think we need to redouble our efforts. If
the federal government can leverage what the state's doing to make sure that we lower taxes,
create technology incubators, access broadband technology, protect our agricultural sector,
revitalize downtown areas, bring down energy costs, we will have a plan, a comprehensive
plan working with our local people to get the job done. That's exactly what I want to
do.
The federal drug administration has said that the RU-486 abortion pill will now be available
to American women. Is that a good idea?
Well I think as long as safety has been acknowledged and it seems like the FDA has now signed off
that the American people would be safe with the introduction of RU-486, then I'm fine
with that.
Should Medicaid funding be provided to provide the pill to poor people?
Well I've never been a supporter of federal funding on abortion except for purposes of
rape or incest. I generally support, and I believe I am pro-choice, support a woman's
right to choose. I think this is probably an issue depending on how RU-486 is used,
whether or not it should be reimbursed.
Well should poor people have access to it through Medicaid?
I wouldn't, no, I would not say that for abortion purposes the RU-486 ought to be picked up
as a Medicaid expense from the federal government. If the state wants to do it, if the private
sector wants to pick up the cost, if people want to make sure that they generate dollars
to help low-income women pay for that, that's fine. I just don't think taxpayers should
do it.
As United States Senator, what would you say this morning to Mr. Milosevic in Yugoslavia?
Get out. Get out now. Stop causing more division. You have caused tragedies for your people,
for the world, and I think it's incredibly important that he steps aside. I think America
needs to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to assure that the true election
results are honored. It's obvious that they're trying to do an end run on the people's will
here.
Joe Lieberman, the Democratic candidate for Vice President, has said that he'd be willing
to meet with Louis Farrakhan, the Minister of the Nation of Islam. Would you, in attempts
to heal the rift between black and white, sit down with Minister Farrakhan?
Yes, I would be happy to sit down with almost anybody in the African American community,
in the Hispanic community. I don't care what background you're from. As long as you have
in your heart a will to heal and to bring people together, I don't think that Louis
Farrakhan has that in his heart. And I think that if Dick Cheney was to have said that,
he would have been on the front cover of every newspaper, and they would have been accusing
him of being a bigot for meeting with somebody who has issued these hateful, bigoted comments,
particularly against Jews. And I don't think I have a word to say to Louis Farrakhan.
Big issue in New York that's arising, Boy Scouts. The Supreme Court said that Boy Scouts
cannot be forced to admit gay troopers or Scout leaders, and the schools in New York
are now saying, well, then you can't use our facilities. Should school districts, should
the state government, should the federal government deny facilities to the Boy Scouts until they
admit gays?
I don't think so. I think the Boy Scouts, I mean, the Supreme Court has ruled on this.
These are private dollars. This is not government dollars. If it was government dollars, if
it were government dollars, rather, they ought to have been held to this higher standard,
I think, in terms of not having any sense of choice and discrimination against any person.
But these are private dollars. And I think people should have the ability to make those
decisions, and I don't think they should be excluded from the schools.
Al Gore beating George Bush by some 25 points in New York.
Yeah.
You're down 10 points. How do you convince one out of four Gore voters to also vote for
Lazio?
Well, I don't believe, first of all, that we're down by 10 points. The poll that you
cited, I think, is fundamentally flawed. I think most experts would agree with that.
I was talking to George Pataki this past week, and he said, you know, that the Sunday before
election day, someone came up to him and said, you know, did you see the new poll? You're
down by 14 points. He said, well, I only won by four points, so I guess they were only
off by 18 points. I was down 20 points three weeks out of election day, the first time
I ran successfully for Congress back in 1992.
So I think what's important here is you stay focused, you deliver a message that's important
for the people of New York of lowering taxes, having a system of accountability and education,
making sure we make the right investments, working well with other people at state level,
making sure that we have quality health services, protecting disabled people, making sure that
we create more opportunities for affordable housing for our seniors, for our younger people.
That's what New Yorkers want to hear. I don't think they give a darn about poll numbers.
To be continued, Congressman Lazio, thank you for joining us. Our viewers should know
that Mrs. Clinton was invited to join us this morning and any other Sunday between now and
the election to offer her views.
Coming next, the big debate is Tuesday. Joining us, Bush supporter and advisor, the Republican
Massachusetts Governor Paul Solucci and Gore supporter and debate advisor, Democratic strategist
Paul Begala. Then two men frozen out of the debate, Ralph Nader of the Green Party, Pat
Buchanan of the Reform Party. They are all coming up right here on Meet the Press.
Meet the Press is sponsored by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM, supermarket to the world.
The following is a commercial message from the Archer Daniels Midland Company.
Are we doing all we can to feed everybody? The world produces so much food that nobody
should have to go hungry, but 800 million people do every day. American farmers certainly
are doing their part. Each one feeds about 130 people, more than 30 living outside the
United States. The population is rising fast, and in about 25 years, he will have to feed
more than 200 people, half of them living elsewhere. Today, in terms of food, we have
to see the world as one civilization. Producing enough for all is a big enough job. Getting
it to everyone fairly will be an even bigger challenge. Think about it.
ADM has been preparing for world food needs by expanding its global network of transportation
and processing operations over six continents, putting the people who make the food in touch
with the people who need it. That's what we do at ADM.
It was over a hundred years ago that a small group of men had an idea to combine the new
technology of GE Electric Lighting with football, the first night football game. Both the players
and the engineers ran into a few setbacks. And while that evening was by no means a great
success, the GE engineers knew there would be other nights, brighter nights. And even
today, with all our advanced technology, at GE we know it's just the beginning. The future
will be more brilliant than any of us can imagine. Night football. Yeah, that'll be
the day. Introducing NBCI.com. Come on. Are you ready
for something other than AOL and Yahoo? NBCI.com is one site with everything you need. From
entertainment, to sports, to the best search on the web. NBCI.com not only makes using
the internet easier, it makes life easier. NBCI.com, your agent on the web. What you
want, when you want it. The view from the Bush and Gore campaigns
then Buchanan versus Nader after this brief station break.
Starting tomorrow, a third hour of today. So if your life is too hectic to tune in at
seven and it hasn't slowed down much by eight, we'll be here at nine with more today for
your day. This week, the home of the brave. After fighting
for America, spending almost four years as prisoners, why won't Congress give them what
they deserve? Their back pay. NBC Nightly News this week.
Texas having a recession. An education recession that's hurting our children. Our students
rank last in the world in math and physics. And most fourth graders in our cities can't
read. The Clinton-Gore education recession. It's failing our kids. But in Texas, George
Bush raised standards and test scores soared. Now Texas leads the nation in academic improvement.
Learn more about the Bush blueprint for accountability, high standards and local control.
We are back. Let me start with you. What does George Bush have to do Tuesday night?
Well, I'll tell you this. Governor Bush is ready. He's prepared. He's anxious to tell
the American people about his real plans for real people. That he trusts families to spend
their own money. He trusts parents to make educational choices for their parents. He
trusts the workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes for their future.
And he trusts seniors to choose their own health plans. Al Gore, I think, will find
out, would rather trust Washington bureaucrats. Paul Bagala, what does Al Gore have to do
Tuesday night? Well, first off, I'm sure Governor Bush is
watching so I'm not going to give you any Gore's strategy. But I think that Gore wants
to make this about issues, about ideas. And I think he's got the better issue terrain
going into this election. Whether it's his prescription drug plan, where Bush has one
that's favored by the pharmaceutical companies. Gore has one that's part of the Medicare program.
Whether it's patients' rights, where Gore supports one that's strong and enforceable,
Bush opposes that. Minimum wage, where the Vice President supports raising the minimum
wage across the country. Governor Bush actually would let states opt out of it. In his own
state of Texas, got a minimum wage of about $3.35 an hour. Or guns, where in Texas, as
governor, the governor signed a bill that would let people in Texas carry guns in church.
Now, that's something to think about on a Sunday morning, isn't it?
Governor Solucci, there are a lot of concern amongst the American people, particularly
undecided voters, whether or not George W. Bush has the capacity to be president. How
does he address that specific issue on Tuesday?
Well, I think that's, you know, certainly with Paul Begayler, I think he's turned that
into almost a silly issue. Governor Bush has the capacity to lead this country. He's demonstrated
that by leading the second largest state in this country, where he's cut taxes to improve
the economy, where he's ended social promotion, has seen dramatic increases in the test scores,
particularly for minority students in Texas, where he's reformed health care, where he's
reformed the tort system. He has demonstrated on a daily basis his capacity to lead. And
I think the American people will find that out Tuesday night when they tune in.
Paul Begayler, the rap against Vice President Gore is that he has a tendency to exaggerate,
sometimes even misstate the truth. How does he deal with that character issue on Tuesday
night?
Well, I think that he's just going to stick to his message, stick to the facts. You know,
the interesting thing I saw in this campaign was at the convention when Al Gore stood up
there with no filter, no people like me or even you, Tim, interpreting it, and he spoke
to the nation for about a half an hour, and he talked about his ideas, and he talked about
his values. And he went from about 15 points behind to dead even or ahead. I think in the
debate, if Gore just tells us where he stands on issues, and if Bush does too, I mean, if
we have an honest debate about issues, I think that Bush is going to have to have a lot more
explaining to do. You know, he's had a few problems with the facts of his own.
Governor Sillucci, how important are these debates, and are they more theater than substance?
Well, I think given the closeness of the election around the country, these debates are very
important. And obviously Vice President Gore is experienced. He's kind of a tough, relentless
debater. I know that Paul has been playing Governor Bush in the practice debates with
Vice President Gore. And I tell you, Paul, you look like you've been pounded. I think
you were a couple of inches taller the last time I saw you. But Governor Bush is ready.
He's prepared. He wants to speak to the American people without that filter, tell them about
his plans and tell them that he trusts them and that Al Gore would rather trust people
in Washington rather than people across America.
Paul, but God, let me see your best George W. Bush.
Well, I haven't tried to mimic him or to imitate him. But you know, I've been watching a lot
of tapes of his. And of course, in writing the book I've read through his record, he
is not a man to be underestimated. He likes to return to his basic themes. We saw Governor
Sillucci repeat them earlier in the broadcast. And I think he will come back with great consistency.
You know, he's not a man to be underestimated. My fellow Texans underestimated him in 1994
in the Democratic Party. He beat Ann Richards, one of the great governors of my state's history.
He beat John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Alan Keyes and Gary Bowers, very good debaters in the
Republican primary. He had 10 presidential debates. And I'm telling you, this is not
Survivor where we just say, well, if Bush gets through it, it's OK. The judgment should
not be who did better than we expected, because Bush will always do better than you expect.
It's really watch this debate, who's right on the issues and who should be our president.
Governor Sillucci, how important are one-liners, zingers, to make a memorable comment that
gets played over and over and over again to the many people who don't watch the debate?
Well, I think those are things that people might remember. But I do think that it's on
the substance of what the candidates are talking about. And I think what will come through
pretty loud and clear on Tuesday evening is that Governor Bush has a vision for this country.
Take energy, for example. Here we are in the Northeast. Our oil supplies are a third of
what they were last year when we almost ran out of oil. Clinton and Gore do not have a
national energy policy. Governor Bush will have one to keep our economy strong and to
make sure people can afford to heat their homes and to make sure we have the oil to
heat their homes. I think it's the issues that the American people will be paying attention
to.
Paul Magala, I gave the governor the first word. You got the last word.
Well, again, I hope when people watch this, they do focus on issues. I think Governor
Sillucci is right about that. But I think people are going to find that Gore's approach
on issues is better. Look, because of the Clinton-Gore economy, we have a record surplus.
Governor Bush wants to take that surplus and give it to the very richest Americans. He's
got a tax cut for the top 1 percent that is extraordinarily generous, but it makes it
impossible for us to put Medicare in a lockbox, makes it impossible for us to pay down the
national debt. And I think as we look at whether it's the surplus, Social Security, Medicare,
or education, I think people are going to see that Gore's approach is better. And as
the Vice President says, it's really about the people versus the powerful. And if we
focus on issues and not theater criticism, where Bush will do quite well, he's a very
gracious guy. He's got a lot of charm. But if we look at issues, I think Gore will win.
That has to be the last word. Author, Democratic strategist Paul Magala, Republican governor
of Massachusetts, Paul Sillucci, thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you.
Thanks, Tim.
Coming next, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan. They will not be part of the debate on Tuesday,
but they will be here this morning. They are next right here on Meet the Press.
I'm a pharmaceutical company researcher. My area specialty is women's health. We're
looking at all ages of a woman's life, developing better medicines for the diseases we've already
hit on, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, and breast cancer. I really love what I do.
My hope for the future is that we develop new medicines for women that let them enjoy
healthier, active lives.
Thank you for holding customer support.
I just want to let you know I'll never buy anything from your company again.
I'm sorry, what can I do to help?
Help? I've called you guys five times and every time I have to explain this problem
over again, the last time you asked me to fax my invoice when I called back the revenue
was nothing about my fax, then I emailed you. You think me surviving?
Could you tell me exactly what the problem is?
The problem?
Hello?
Business as usual is the problem. Siebel eBusiness is the solution. Siebel, eBusiness for a customer-driven
world.
Yeah, it was amazing. Whole different world. You were a volunteer. I saw a world that wasn't
so fortunate. You needed help? In business, I see a world full of opportunities.
To help me take advantage of those opportunities, I invest in international funds with T. Rowe
Price. I chose them because they work with analysts all over the world. See, I know what
a difference being there can actually make.
T. Rowe Price, helping people invest with confidence for over 60 years.
Mr. Nader, Mrs. Buchanan, welcome both. Let me put on our screen the latest MSNBC Reuters
poll for you to look at. Al Gore, 44.6. George W. Bush, 42.5. Ralph Nader, 3.4. Pat Buchanan,
0.8. Harry Brown, Libertarian, 0.7. Mr. Nader, 3.4, not making much of an impact.
Well, they fluctuate. In recent days, I've been 7%, 6%, 17% in Alaska. They don't cover
non-likely voters, Tim. We're going to draw from a lot of young voters for the first time,
lots of voters who haven't voted are going to cycle back into the system. And also, they
don't indicate the increasing number of people who don't answer the phone call when the pollsters
come. The other day in Texas, also someone said, are you for Democrat or Republican?
The caller for the polling group. And the person said neither, and they just closed
up on him. So, you know, we're going to do very well. We're going to get millions of
votes in November to build for the future a strong party. There will be a watchdog on
these two parties or grow even more.
Pat Buchanan, 0.8. Harry Brown, Libertarian, 0.7. How can you make a claim to be included
in the presidential debate when you can't even get 1% of the vote?
I should be included in the presidential debate because I'm the representative of a
recognized party, one of three Republicans, Democrats, and Reform. And the other two
parties are engaged in a conspiracy, basically, to deny me access to the debate that's going
to decide the election and the presidency of the United States, and the American people
are being denied, Tim, the right to see and hear a candidate they're paying for. That's
the injustice. Why are we at 1%? Frankly, I've been campaigning more at the Washington
Hospital Center in the last six weeks, and I have out on the road. But we are back. We
have our $12 million, and we're going to make an impact on this election. We're going to
create a new third party that's a permanent force in American politics.
Watching both of you campaign and the things you've been saying, it's quite striking to
me the way you're trying to contrast yourself with the other candidates. Mr. Nader, you
particularly with Al Gore. You were in East Liverpool, Ohio, where Al Gore had talked
about a waste incinerator project some years ago, and the people were quite upset with
him. This is what you had to say about the vice president. It illustrates once again
what a certified public coward Al Gore is, how he speaks with forked tongue and an elongated
Pinocchio nose on one issue after another. That's pretty harsh.
Now, when you consider all his betrayals and broken promises to his supporters, he said
he was going to take on the auto industry. He gave the auto industry eight years of free
ride on fuel efficiency standards, which have actually gone down or at the lowest level
in 1980, one reason for this oil price increase. He's been weak on pesticides, given biotech
industry free ride, supported NAFTA, which are anti-environmental, and in a whole host
of ways just can't do it right. He can't mean what he says. He's constantly wavering
back and forth. Look at the cartoons. They illustrate that kind of character. You can't
trust him. He's going around the country saying he's going to take on big oil, big
HMOs, big drug companies, big corporate polluters. He's had eight years to convince us that
we can't believe him on that, because he's surrendered to these interests, even when
he was put in charge of the environmental portfolio by President Clinton.
Pat Buchanan, this is what you had to say about George W. Bush in Business Week magazine
this week. The Republican Party has never nominated a candidate who brings fewer cards
to the table in terms of experience, knowledge, and wisdom. That's pretty hard.
Well, that is true. He doesn't have the tickets that his father did, who was quite well
prepared, but that's not why I opposed George Bush. Fundamentally, Tim, he supported NAFTA,
which I opposed. He supports the WTO, which I opposed. He supported an unjust, unconstitutional
war in the Balkans, which I opposed. He supports Bill Clinton and Gore on their policy toward
China, which I consider appeasement. He's proposed spending something like $700 billion
in new spending programs and entitlement programs. Tim, that is not conservatism.
There is no conservative party left in Washington, D.C. We've got two parties very close
together, funded by the same special interests, the same corporate powers. We need a
party that will stand up for conservatism, for an America First foreign policy, that
will defend our borders, that will defend life, that will speak up for a new Supreme
Court that recognizes what its role ought to be. All of these areas, the Republican
Party has abandoned ground to imitate Clinton and Gore, because it believes that's the
way to win. And I think that's put in pragmatism ahead of principle.
Let me show you what your hero, Ronald Reagan, had to say some 25 years ago. I think a third
party usually succeeds in electing the people it's set out to oppose. Pat Buchanan, if you
draw votes from George W. Bush and elect Al Gore, how are you going to feel Wednesday,
November 8th?
Ronald Reagan said, I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me. This Republican establishment
has left me, Tim. I am not obligated to go out and speak and fight for a party that no
longer represents the principles and ideas I've fought for all my life.
So Gore would be better than Bush?
I'm not saying Gore. Look, I have fought Gore and Clinton on every issue, NAFTA, GATT,
the WTO, China, you name it, foreign policy, life, everything. The Republican Party no
longer fights on all these issues. That's why I'm out there to create a new fighting
conservative party in America.
Ralph Nader, would George W. Bush be a better president than Al Gore?
The choice between the bad and the worse, they both flunked.
So you don't care if you elect George W. Bush?
I'm trying to elect myself. I think a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush. We're trying
to build a new political force here. Look at Al Gore. He's taking money from all these
giant industries. Then he's going around the country saying he's going to fight him. Then
he's got Joe Lieberman, who's the real Al Gore, whispering to the business community,
don't believe Al Gore, it's just impassioned rhetoric. I say if he really was to be believable,
he'd give all this money back. We're trying to do it right by not taking PAC money, not
taking corporate cash money, not taking dirty soft money, just individual money. And that
kind of response to our website, VoteNader.com, is convincing us that people want, no matter
who they are, Perot voters, McCain voters, Bradley voters, they want dirty money out
of campaigns, and we're moving towards full public funding of public elections.
But in the real world, you take votes, you siphon votes away from Al Gore. Liberal votes
in Washington State, Oregon. If you tilt those states to George W. Bush, you have defeated
Gore, enhanced your own political power, the power of the Green Party, to have leverage
on the liberal agenda for the next four years. But you will also help elect George Bush.
Look at all the good things. In 40 states, Bush or Gore are ahead of each other by wide
margins. People can vote their conscience and not have a tactical vote. Second, he's
beating himself, if that's true. And third, imagine millions of progressive Democrats
being told by the DLC, Gore and Clinton, they have nowhere to go year after year, other
than to stay home or vote for least of the worst. The Green Party is going to be a post-November
watchdog that's going to shape up these parties or move to majority status.
Tim, the assumption of your question is wrong, I believe. The assumption of your question
is all the votes belong to the two candidates of the establishment parties and the people
they nominate. Those votes belong to the American people. And if I win those votes, they belong
to me. The idea that these two parties have some automatic lock on the White House, which
is the assumption behind your question, is false. That's what we're fighting against.
This ought to be opened up. What are those parties afraid of, that they won't let Ralph
and me in the debate argue our point of view? Millions of Americans majority oppose NAFTA.
A majority oppose this China policy. A majority of Americans didn't want that war on the Balkans.
They want the troops home. They want the borders defended. They want a conservative Supreme
Court, I believe. Even if they don't, we at least ought to be able to hear those arguments.
You're not going to hear them Tuesday night.
A majority of the people polled in poll after poll won a four-way debate, too.
Let me ask you about an issue that arose this week, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Nader, and that
is RU-486, the so-called abortion pill, which will now be available to more American women.
Pat Buchanan, as president of the United States, what would you do about the RU-486 pill?
RU-486, in my judgment, is a human pesticide. It is anti-child. It is anti-woman. It is
anti-family. It basically is a drug which only a nation would accept, which has embraced,
I believe, the culture of death that the pope and others have condemned. And frankly, Tim,
when you talk about the suicide of the West, which is a phrase that goes back a long way,
I think a nation and a civilization that embraced this pill are really headed in that direction.
I would use all the power of my office, including FDA appointments, to prevent this being put
on the market.
Mr. Nader?
It's up to the woman, not the government. This is a pill that has been shown to be safe
in Europe for numerous years, and it's preferable to surgical procedure.
Mr. Nader, your Green Party proposes cutting the defense budget in half. Specifically,
what programs in the military would you cut to reduce spending by $150 billion?
This is over a few years, Tim. One, bring back the troops from Western Europe and East
Asia, 55 years after World War II, who are defending prosperous allies who can defend
themselves against nonexistent enemies. That's $70 billion right there. Take out of the
pipeline those gold-plated weapon systems that ex-admirals and generals have opposed,
including some Pentagon analysts who have told me that they're not strategically needed.
The F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, another bunch of Sea Wolf submarines, the Osprey
fighter, which has killed 34 Marines. So you streamline the procurement budget.
You know, there are a lot of former Pentagon officials who are not working in the defense
industry and who are with the Center for Defense Information and other groups who really
know what needs to be done for a lean, effective military defense, driven by defense considerations,
not by the profit procurement demands of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and other corporations.
Mr. Buchanan, would you cut the defense budget in half?
No, what I would do is partly what Ralph would do, quite frankly. What we have not had, I
would not cut it in half. What we have not had is a bottom-up review of American foreign
policy in the post-Cold War. Gore and Bush are caught in a Cold War prism. I agree with
Ralph. You ought to bring American troops home from Korea, from Okinawa, from Japan,
from Europe, bring them home to the United States, use the savings to build up American
armed forces, to enhance their morale and fighting capability so they can deal with
a great threat to the West or our vital allies. The idea that 55 years after the Korean War
Americans would be the first to die in a second Korean War is absurd, only in adherence to
doctrines that should have died in 1989, 1990, 1991. Tim, I have been fighting this battle
for 10 years for a new foreign policy for this country that puts our own nation and
its vital interests first, and we don't go to war unless our honor, our integrity, our
citizens, or our interests are threatened. Should Mr. Milosevic and Yugoslavia step aside,
and if he doesn't, should the United States intervene? The United States should not intervene
in that militarily, if that's what you're talking about. Should he step aside? He sure
should. I think he's lost that election. I would like to see it happen. I would like
to see the Europeans replace American troops in Kosovo and Bosnia. Should he step aside?
Yes, of course. Let me move to the issue of taxes and spending. Both Bush and Gore are
saying that we're going to have a $4 trillion surplus projected, but they're banking on
it. Al Gore was spending, George W. Bush with tax cuts. Should there be a trigger, whether
it only becomes a tax cut or only have more spending if, in fact, the surpluses truly
materialize? First of all, the surpluses are very hypothetical. The economy could turn
down. Second, the surpluses involve a lot of Social Security surpluses, which must be
secured. Third, we've got priorities. Abolishing child poverty should be one. Rebuilding,
repairing America, the public works, the drinking water systems, public transit systems, schools,
clinics are crumbling. And third, we really need to focus on universal health insurance.
It's accessible with an emphasis on prevention. Those are communal needs of the American
people as a community. They're overwhelmingly desired. The Bush tax cut is basically to
make the rich richer, including himself after taking advantage of a Texas Rangers stadium
subsidy boondoggle that turned $600,000 investment that he borrowed in the Texas Rangers into
a $14 million profit. He knows about corporate welfare. He's a corporate welfare king.
Tim, given the bipartisan pig out that is taking place up in that hog confinement on
Capitol Hill, where Republicans have been exceeding in spending Clinton's requests,
this surplus, so-called surplus, is going to be gone, in my judgment, because Clinton
raised taxes wide to balance the budget. Bush raised taxes wide to balance the budget. The
budget is balanced. Unless this is a scam, unless this is some kind of scam, that money
ought to be given back entirely to the American people, the whole $2 trillion in the non-Social
Security surplus. At that point, if we want to do something new with it, Mr. Bush's $700
billion and Mr. Gore's $2 trillion in spending, go back to the American people and ask for
it. Otherwise, it's a bait and switch.
But if you pass tax cuts now and these surpluses do not materialize, it's very hard to rescind
the tax cuts. Why not put a trigger on it that it only takes place if the surplus occurs?
Because the government ought to start telling the American people the truth, Tim. When you
come to me and say, Pat, we've got to raise some money to build an addition to the church,
and that's built, and you say we're going to spend the rest of it now to go to the Holy
Land, you say, wait a minute. That's not what we bargained for. If Clinton and Bush told
the American people the truth, they ought to give the so-called surplus back to the
American people. If they have to raise taxes then, do it with the consent of the nation.
Let me turn to an issue that came up during Al Gore's appearance on MTV involving gay
rights and immigration, and I'll roll it for you now.
Straight couples, one who's American, one who's not, can get married, and the foreigner
can then apply for naturalization for residency. That's not possible. Would you favor the
INS relaxing its rules to include same-sex couples?
I favor legal protections for civic unions, and I think that the rights that are afforded
on American who gets married to someone from another country should be afforded under a
legally protected civic union in the same way.
Mr. Nader, are you in favor of civic unions for gay couples, and should a foreign spouse
be given a green card to join his gay partner in the U.S.?
As I said before in this program, my view on this is equal rights, equal responsibilities
for gay and lesbian people. That would cover all issues.
Mr. Buchanan?
I think civic unions are absurd. They've passed these up in Vermont where homosexual
couples, or homosexual liaisons, have been put on the same level as traditional marriage,
and I'm delighted to say that five Republicans that voted for that were defeated and thrown
out in the primary. Tim, this country, if it accepts the idea that homosexual liaisons
are the same as traditional marriage, which is a God-ordained building block of society,
this country is on the road to hell in a handbasket.
What about the Gore proposal of allowing green cards to be given to...
You mean special green cards to the homosexual lovers of people in the United States? That
is absurd. Frankly, we ought to get control of our immigration as most Americans want
and frankly put our troops, if necessary, on the border to stop the one million illegals
coming into this country.
You said you wanted a five-year moratorium on legal immigration.
That's $250,000 to $300,000 a year could come in. We'd still be the most generous country
in the world, but it would give us time to assimilate and Americanize the 30 million
who have come here in recent decades.
Less immigration?
We need work permits for people who come into this country and do work as in the farm areas
that Americans don't want to do instead of criminalizing the process. Second, a foreign
policy that sides with workers and peasants for a change in democracy in Central America
and Mexico instead of dictatorships and oligarchs will reduce enormously the pressure of people
under economic pressure and political repression from coming across the border.
Most people, Tim, don't want to leave their native land, and so we can relieve the pressures.
And by the way, there's another immigration issue.
But you would lift immigration levels higher in order to get more workers here.
No, who knows? How many are coming over illegally now? That's not a figure we can compare.
But there's another immigration issue, which is the brain drain. Silicon Valley, trying
to get more skilled people, more scientists, physicists, computer specialists, and others
trying to get physicians from other countries in the Third World that desperately need them.
We've got to stop being a hog for the skilled people abroad.
There's an African American group that just started protesting Silicon Valley's HB1 visa
pressure on Congress, saying there are African Americans and there are also many other non-African
Americans who are trained or could be trained to meet these jobs in the computer industry.
Let me turn to oil, because it's a very big issue in this campaign.
Governor Bush said yesterday, Mr. Nader, that we should drill part of the Alaskan natural
preserve, a small piece of it, in order to become less dependent on foreign oil.
In order to feed gas-guzzling monster vehicles, in order to feed the waste of energy, the
way to deal with energy was for Clinton Gore to establish strong energy efficiency standards,
which they did not do, especially for the motor vehicle industry, which is now going
down to 24.5 miles per gallon, the lowest since 1980, and also for lighting and heating.
The energy you don't waste is the energy you don't have to drill in a beautiful preserve
up there in northern Alaska, which is just a temporary fix anyway for our inebriated
energy gouging and pricing and system.
Pat, you can't drill in Alaska?
I've got to disagree with my friend Ralph on that.
I believe they ought to drill in the ANWR.
It's only a portion of it.
There's five billion barrels of oil there.
More important, Tim, the United States, instead of busting up Microsoft, an American asset,
ought to have a national policy to break up the OPEC cartel.
It is a price-rigging criminal conspiracy designed to loot the West and the United States
of scores of billions of dollars every single year.
They've got to break up the big oil companies first.
Here's how you do it, but here's how you do it.
Cut off all IMF foreign aid loans to any country that belongs to OPEC.
Tell any country that belongs to OPEC U.S. security guarantees are going to be lifted
unless you drill more oil.
We have got to play hardball.
These people in Washington, Clinton talks about the idea of free trade and interdependence.
These people don't believe in that.
They believe in driving you to the wall if they get control of a commodity that you don't have.
And the United States needs an America first policy of economic nationalism to deal with it.
Mr. Nader, we have a minute left.
You will not be there Tuesday night in Boston.
Yes, I will.
On the stage.
Maybe I'll crawl up on the stage there.
Are you going to invade their space, Ralph?
They're blocking the access to tens of millions of voters because they have a monopoly.
And the networks let them have a monopoly because they didn't co-sponsor their own debates.
You are here this morning.
If you were there Tuesday night, what question would you ask Mr. Gore?
What question would you ask Mr. Bush?
A key question.
How do you promote democracy by taking excessive power from big business
and giving it to people as voters, consumers, taxpayers, and workers?
That means unions.
That means challenging corporate welfare.
That means consumer protection for the family budget.
And that means public funding of public campaigns.
Shift of power is the key issue in this campaign to the people.
Question for Gore or Bush.
I would ask Mr. Gore this.
Look, how do you propose to pay down the debt with the $2 trillion when you've already proposed spending?
It would eat it all up.
I think I would ask Mr. Bush this.
What do you think?
Do you think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and would you appoint Supreme Court justices
who in your heart and mind would see to the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
To be continued, Pappy Cannon, Ralph Nader, we thank you for sharing your views with us this morning,
and we will be right back on Meet the Press.
I want to get baseball cards.
I want to get...
Why aren't you spending your allowance?
Well, I plan to build a portfolio that's broadly diversified in America's greatest companies
with a small portion aggressively seeking out higher returns.
What's a portfolio?
It's never too early to learn about smarter investing.
Visit us at the new SchwabWelcome.com where every investor is welcome.
You might want to hold onto that Mickey Mano card.
I see her the same time almost every day.
She's always there waiting for me.
Kid Bill Logos.
I bring her lunch up to her apartment and I sing Italian love songs to her.
Philip Morris provides grants to Meals on Wheels programs so that thousands of seniors can have a hot meal and a visitor.
Philip Morris and Meals on Wheels are fighting more than just hunger among the elderly.
We're fighting loneliness.
Working to make a difference, the people of Philip Morris.
Introducing NBCI.com.
Come on.
One site that has exclusive technology so you get the most relevant search results.
From music, to travel, to health advice, to whatever you need.
At NBCI.com, you'll spend less time searching and more time finding.
NBCI.com, your agent on the web.
What you want, when you want it.
Start your day tomorrow and today with Katie and Matt.
Beginning tomorrow, the today show will be expanded to three hours every morning.
Then watch the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.
That's all for today.
We'll be back next week at our regular time.
If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
Now this is the fierce snake.
The most venomous snake in the world.
One bite from him and it's all over.
No worries, mate.
Luckily, we've had the anti-venom sent from America via FedEx.
In my line of work, if you're not absolutely sure, you're absolutely dead.
Oh, crikey.
It appears we've used a different courier who hasn't arrived yet.
It's OK because...
One with mustard?
You in a hurry?
Yeah, this is Wall Street.
Isn't everybody?
Not me.
I'm just here for the fun.
I guess you missed the Asian panic.
Nope.
Then I suppose you invested after the 87 crash.
Nope, before.
Then who helps you manage your money?
Those guys.
Mass Mutual.
They've been around forever.
What are you doing with them?
Oh, just enjoying my money.
Over $200 billion in assets under management.
Mass Mutual, the Blue Chip Company.
E is for experiment, emergency, embarrassment, and expensive.
But not if you're working with Dell.
Since we design our servers, storage, and services to make it easier for you to succeed on the Internet.
So, E is for easy.
At least with Dell it is.
To find out more, visit Dell.com.
Dell e-business servers use Intel Pentium III Xeon processors.
There's been a major new breakthrough in the fight against breast cancer.
This has revolutionized the way we practice mammography.
It's an amazing new mammography system from GE called the Centigraph 2000D.
It allows me to have clear digital images.
There are fewer retakes, which means less radiation.
Less discomfort.
Less time, less anxiety.
You can actually get more information, and that's what this is all about.
That makes an extraordinary difference to me as a doctor and as a woman.
Meet the Press has been sponsored by GE.
Visit us online at www.ge.com.
GE. We bring good things to life.