George W. Bush Flashback: Listen to his words three years ago

Commission on Presidential Debates [debates.org] ^ | Dec. 10, 2003 | rightcoast

[rightcoast]

Presidential Debate 2000

October 3, 2000

“[E]ight years ago [Clinton-Gore] campaigned on prescription drugs for seniors. And four years ago they campaigned on prescription drugs for seniors. And now they're campaigning on getting prescription drugs for seniors. It seems like they can't get it done. Now, they may blame other folks, but it's time to get somebody in Washington who is going to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get some positive things done when it comes to our seniors.”

“I want all seniors to have prescription drugs in Medicare. We need to reform Medicare. This administration has failed to do it. Seniors will have not only a Medicare plan where the poor seniors will have prescription drugs paid for it, but there will be a variety of options.”

“Let me make sure the seniors hear me loud and clear. They have had their chance to get something done. I'm going to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the system. All seniors will be covered, all seniors will have their prescription drugs paid for, and in the meantime, we'll have a plan to help poor seniors and in the meantime it could be one or two years.”

“I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will require a new attitude.”

“[I would use force] if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not... our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened.”

“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.”

“Under Vice President Gore's plan, he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965. We're talking about a massive government, folks.”

“[The Vice President] says he's for voluntary testing [in schools]. You can't have voluntary testing. You must have mandatory testing. You must say that if you receive money you must show us whether or not children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. That's the difference... Testing is the cornerstone of reform.”

“...[O]ne of the things that we have to be careful about in politics is throwing money at a system that has not yet been reformed. More money is needed and I spend more money, but step one is to make sure we reform the system to have the system in place that leaves no child behind.”

“...A lot of folks are still waiting for that 1992 middle-class tax cut. I remember the vice president saying, 'Just give us a chance to get up there, we're going to make sure you get tax cuts.' It didn't happen. Now he's having to say that again. They've had their chance to deliver a tax cut to you.”

“I would support an effort to ban corporate soft money and labor union soft money so long as there was dues check-off. I've campaigned on this since the primaries. I believe there needs to be an instant disclosure on the Internet as to who has given to who.”

“I want to finally get something done on Medicare. I want to make sure prescription drugs are available for all seniors. And I want seniors to have additional choices when it comes to choosing their health care plans... 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 understand the limited role of the federal government, but it could be a constructive role when it comes to reform, by insisting that there be a strong accountability system.”

[rightcoast]

More quotes from the final 2000 Bush/Gore debate...

Presidential Debate 2000

October 17, 2000

Governor George W. Bush

“I think one of the problems we have, particularly for seniors, is there is no prescription drug coverage in Medicare. And therefore, when they have to try to purchase drugs they do so on their own, there's no kind of collective bargaining, no power of purchasing among seniors. So I think step one is to make sure prescription drugs is more affordable for seniors, and those are the folks who really rely upon prescription drugs a lot these days, is to reform the Medicare system, is to have prescription drugs as an integral part of Medicare once and for all.”

“I'm absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I don't want the federal government making decisions for consumers or providers... I trust people, I don't trust the federal government... We have to trust people to make decisions with their lives. In the Medicare reform I talk about it says if you are a senior, you can stay in Medicare if you like it, and that's fine, but we're going to give you other choices to choose if you want to, just like they do the federal employees.”

“What I've done is set priorities and funded them. And there's extra money. And I believe the people who pay the bills ought to get some money back. It's a difference of opinion. He wants to grow the government and I trust you with your own money. I wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people. It's just the right position to take.”

“Our coalition against Saddam Hussein is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in.”

“You asked about promises. You were promised that Medicare would be reformed, and that Social Security would be reformed. You were promised a middle-class tax cut in 1992. It didn't happen... It's time for a fresh start. One of the reasons I was successful as the governor of Texas is because I didn't try to be all things to all people. When I campaigned in a race, a lot of folks didn't think I could win including, by the way, my mother. (LAUGHTER) I said I'd do four things; tort reform, education reform, welfare reform, and juvenile justice reform. And I won. And I had the will of the people in my state behind me. And then I brought folks together to get it done. And that's what we need, I think, in this election. To me that's what it's all about. I'm sure your 6th grade kids are listening and saying, these guys will say anything get elected. But there's a record, and that's what I hope people look at.”

[futureceo31]

I was almost positive that this guy had to come from DU... Proves it now with his language and his verbiage..:)

[George W. Bush]

I'll vote for lower offices but sit out the Presidential. No way I can vote, again, for a man who expanded government more than anyone since LBJ.

It's the GOP-run Congress that increased the spending, not Bush.

Put the blame where it belongs: liberal Republicans. Not that Bush gets any credit for reining them in. Still, they spent the money, not him.

For those who, like me, don't like seeing the GOP become the party of big government, maybe we should take it out on Congresscritters, not Bush.

The president defends the country and takes it to war and makes appointments to the judiciary and staffs the executive branch. The rest is up to Congress, regardless of what the president wants. Just like Reagan and Clinton found out.

As conservatives, we fared better when the GOP was in the minority in Congress. Maybe those are the bums we should look to throw out instead of Bush.

Just a few thoughts. Every so often, my evil twin makes me mad but generally those who are really responsible are in the GOP Congress.

If it weren't for Tom DeLay and Ron Paul and a few others, I would completely oppose all congressional Republicans for re-election.

[RJCogburn]

It's the GOP-run Congress that increased the spending, not Bush.

No, I disagree. First of all, it would be nice if GWB knew how to spell.....V-E-T-O

Second, he has pushed hard for big spending programs, and praised their passage....Medicare the latest and most obscene example.

Put the blame where it belongs: liberal Republicans.

There are not enough liberal Republicans in Congress to pass all this without the assist of #1 RINO...GWB.

[George W. Bush]

Yeah. I feel like that with W. sometimes too. I blame most of it on Rove's bad advice.

Still, we need to stop blaming him for failing to stop it or even for encouraging it. He can't vote for any of it and even Cheney gets only one vote in the event of a Senate tie.

Cheney's only broken one tie, I think, and I don't recall Bush vetoing anything.

But BushCo didn't vote it into law. The Congress did.

The Founders never wanted us to primarily exercise our political franchise through our president. He's a safety valve, not the main organ of self-government. We need to keep this in mind. Much easier to get mad at one man than to fix the real blame on the complex coalitions in Congress that are the real source of the problem.

Give America a congress of DeLay's and you'd find any plans to spend by Bush would get short shrift.

[Joe Bonforte]

Where did he say that he was going to be a great conservative president?

Ummm... I thought the Republican Party was supposed to be the party of conservatism. And, if I recall correctly, the president is considered to be the leader of the party. And, I seem to recall the phrase "compassionate conservative" at some point. Am I missing something, here?

[RJCogburn]

Am I missing something, here?

Craven political calculation, I think.

[yonif]

He also promised he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem, during his campaign, and he hasn't done so yet, but delayed it by signing Executive Orders.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, apparently the poster wanted to go down in a blaze of glory. I accomodated him.

[yonif]

Part of coalition (Russia, Israel, EU, Palestine, USA) for Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace"

That is not an accomplishment. And there is no such thing as "Palestine."

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

ON NOW! The Daily Report with Kaye Daly and
ZELL MILLER!

Click HERE to listen LIVE NOW while you FReep! Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

[rightcoast]

Good enough for me, thanks for clarifying. :-)

[Joe Bonforte]

For better or for worse, we got what we voted for.

I can't argue with that. And many of us were sounding the warning back during the 2000 campaign - that Bush was leading down the path to big government and socialism. My point is that the GOP cheerleaders were assuring us that it was all a ruse - just campaign talk to get elected. Then we'd see the real Bush, by golly!

Well, we've seem him, all right. I thought there were full of it at the time and said so. I wish I had been wrong, but it turns out I was right. Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to assert that. But I do so to warn people for the future. If you want limited government, you are not going to get it from Bush and Co. You are going to get government growing at a rate equal to or possibly greater than what you would get from the Democrats.

Oh, the spending might be a bit more in line with where you would like the money to go. Fewer gay, left-handed, transexual performance artists, and more BATF officers. But does that really make that much difference?

As for the often-cited Supreme Court factor, two of the people who voted for this CFR travesty today were placed on the court by Reagan and Bush the elder. So I suppose your odds of a conservative justice are somewhat better than with a Democrat, but how much better? Will Bush cave again when the time comes to fight for a Supreme Court nominee that might actually make a difference? My money is on caving. (Again, I'd love to be proved wrong.)

Now, some on this forum are all about winning. They seem to think we're playing some kind of football game, where it just matters that our side racks up a higher score. I no longer argue with them. They are enjoying the game, so they might as well have another bag of popcorn, sit back and keep cheering.

But for those who really want to see our country change direction, it's pretty clear that the Republicans are not going to be a vehicle to make it happen. Yes, they may slow our slide to socialism in some respects, but they offer no prospect of a reversal, at least not in the Bush era.

Now you may argue that this is the best we can get, and you may be right. But can you at least understand why we search for an alternative, even though that alternative carries the risk of inadvertantly giving control to Democrats?

We are Americans. We didn't to where we are by saying, "Well, this is as good as we can get, so let's just be quiet little citizens and settle for this." No, we got to where we are by being cussed, contrary individualists, who insisted on a different kind of government from the rest of the world.

Some of us still are that way. We've always been a minority, but now it's unfortunate that we're in such a small minority that we can't seem to be effective. But, by G*d, that doesn't mean we can't keep trying! And that doesn't mean we have to settle for the likes of Bush and his slow-go socialism and his carelessness about eroding our Constitutional freedoms.

I'd rather go down fighting than say to my sons in thirty years, when they are living in a country with 70%+ of their income taxed, and laws against any serious political discussion so that it's impossible to displace power-hungry incumbent legislators, that "Well, I thought we'd get here a little slower with the Republicans."

[rightcoast]

Thank you for taking the time to write me this thoughtful and reasoned reply.

Many times I am turned off by anti-Bush posters at FR due to responses such as your earlier, "Bush.. so much for conservatism.... Harrumph!!" type reply. This reply really made me think and begin to re-evaluate my take on the President.

I must admit to be an active follower of politics, and mostly because I am fascinated by the give-and-take manuevering that is the game of politics. Yes, like you mention in your post, it is largely a game to me, and maybe that's the problem.

I think that a lot of the time, I tend to get sucked into an "us-versus-them" type mentality in analyzing current events and politics. I honestly try to not be for something just because a Republican is behind it, or against a position merely because a Democrat is praising it. Unfortunately, many times I do get pulled into this mode of thinking, where a Republican -- largely President Bush -- can do little or no wrong. No, obviously this is a gross over-simplification and I'm generalizing here. I don't agree with everything the man does, and I certainly have some policy differences with him.

The problem is that I can see how viewing this whole thing as a game is a dangerous viewpoint. It's really the challenge of viewing things in the context of the application of values rather than the winning of short-term politcal battles. However, I still believe that the Republicans generally have a better, more positive, and more productive agenda for this country than do the Democrats. Because of this, I tend to put on my rose-colored GOP glasses when I analyze things. I know this isn't a good thing to do, but I guess it's human nature.

The intent of my original post was to put President Bush into context by illustrating that many policies that he is now implementing -- prescription drugs under Medicare, for example -- were fully and repeatedly described in his campaign and presidential debates.

What you've left me to "chew on" is that while the country will turn into a better direction (in my opinion) under the Republicans than the Democrats, is that direction really the best we can hope for, or the best we should hope for?

In 2000-2001, disappointments with the Bush administration were going to be smoothed over, "just as soon as 2002 comes, we'll get the Senate firmly in GOP hands again, and we'll make some real progress."

Now, 2004 is looming, and we're told that larger gains in the Senate and the re-election of Bush is all we need to reach the "promised land." I for one will be watching and listening to President Bush next year and carefully listening to what he has to say, because he's a man I take at his word and I trust that what he outlines in his campaign is exactly what he intends to do. The question that will remain for all of us is whether or not his goals for the nation are the same as our own.

Thanks again for the post; you really made me think, and a good exchange of opinions.. A perfect example of the greatness of FR!

[LibertarianInExile]

Well said.

[No Blue States]

"Those that refuse to vote, or go third party, will be giving the finger to our brave soldiers, abandoning them in the middle of of a war."

This gets my Free Republic Hall of Fame vote as the Best quote of 2003 if there is one. Thanks Flyer.

Constitution Party bump.

[Sir_Ed]

"Presidency of George W. Bush -- the first 34 months"

Pretty impressive list, I gotta' admit.

Ed

[RJCogburn]

You go, Joe!

[RJCogburn]

"Those that refuse to vote, or go third party, will be giving the finger to our brave soldiers, abandoning them in the middle of of a war."

Sounds great.

Not true.