December 11, 1995
Manchester, NH
Voter's Voice:  Patrick Buchanan

Moderator:  We'll first begin with a brief, let me first begin
with a brief introduction of Mr. Buchanan, and after that if you
would briefly introduce yourself by telling us your name, home
town, occupation and age.  And then we'll begin with the
questioning.
     Mr. Buchanan is a native of Washington D.C. and currently
makes his home in McLean, Virginia.  We've seen him as a
panelist on CNN talk shows, as well as read his words as uh as a
columnist.  He's also been a speech-writer in the Nixon
administration as well as an advisor in the Ni- in the Ford and
Reagan White House.  We in New Hampshire are familiar with him
also as a uh 1992 Republican candidate for the Presidential
nomination.  Mr. Buchanan announced his candidacy on March, 20th. 
So, if you would go around the table and introduce yourself and
then we'll begin with our questioning.

Edwin:  Uh, Mr. Buchanan.  My name in Edwin Bryer uh, I'm 66
years old, still working, uh, I'm an insurance broker, and um,
stock broker in the National Advisor.  I've been with the same
company for 30 years.

Jeff:  Yeah, I'm Jeff Buryard.  I'm 41, I'm a civil engineer,
live in Nashua and I work in Arlington, Massachusetts.

Will:  My name is Will Lucy.  I'm 40 years old.  I live in
Merrimack, New Hampshire and I'm an engineer in a semi-conductor
company.

Deborah:  My name is Deborah Hadburg.  I'm 40 years old and I
work for a legal firm in Manchester and I live in Goffstown.

Ann:  I'm Ann Kokinda, I'm married, have two teenaged kids and
work full-time as a clerk in a factory in Massachusetts.

Carleen:  My name is Carleen Valley.  I'm a retired nurse
although I still work at Catholic Medical Center two day a week
and I'm 71 years old.

Neil:  I'm Neil A. Wallace.  I'm ah, a retired railroad
conductor.  I had 37 years and I've been talked into baggin, this
to food, because they needed somebody, and uh, I'm 72 years of
age.

Dave:  My name is Dave Englander.  I'm a public school teacher in
Ware, NH.

Carol:  My name is Carol Weiner.  I'm 63 years old, I'm, -and
always have been- an at-home mom.  [inaudible]

Al:  I'm Al Milson.  Retired sales executive and I'm 71.

Moderator:  Okay, so we'll begin with questions now.  And, Mr.
Bryer, I understand that you would like to take that first
question.

Mr. Bryer:  Yes, and Mr. Buchanan, I'm, uh, just concerned about
the national debt, which, right now, is about five trillion
dollars.  It's up from one trillion dollars back in 1980, uh,
interest rates on the debt, amounts to 250 trillion a year, about
one seven, one-seventh of our federal budget.  Other budget items
are defense, social security, discretionary spending, and of
course the killer, which is the entitlement programs.  Uh,
Medicare is one of the entitled programs, it consumes about 12%
of our budget now.  Uh, it's increasing at a rate of uh, 11 plus
percent/year.  What would you do, as president, to stop this
upward spiral of debt, uh from being passes onto my children, my
grandchildren?  

Pat Buchanan:  Uh, alright.  The debt is five trillion dollars. 
There are two basic components to it.  One is the Great Society
welfare state, which has cost about five trillion dollars since
Lyndon Johnson launched it.  Second is the Cold War, and the hot
wars we fought since.  The Cold War for 50 years, and the hot war
and World War Two and in Korea and in Vietnam and in the Persian
Gulf, the defense of Western civilization.  Now, we're in a new
era I believe.  The Soviet Union has collapsed, the Soviet empire
has collapsed, the United States has got to downsize these Cold
War commitments we've had.  And we need to put an end to both the
welfare and warfare state.  We cannot afford them.  Our country
has virtually bankrupted itself.  So I think we've got to work on
both sides.  We've got to downsize foreign commitments, foreign
aid, World Bank, all the rest of it, start looking out for
Americans first.  And we've got to downsize the Great Society
which has failed in a lot of ways and you've got to go after
entitlements as well.  Now let me, you mentioned Medicare, if I
can speak briefly on that.  Republican priorities there, I think,
they should have gone after, they should have gone after foreign
aid first, they should have gone after the Mexican bailout, 50
billions dollars first.  They should cut their own pensions first
before they do Medicare.  But there's no question, they have cut
the rate of increase of Medicare, that ought to be done.  But you
know if you get into Medicare, I do not like the idea of a reform
which is going to force the elderly into the kind of managed care
and rationed care that quite frankly we opposed when Bill Clinton
proposed it for all of us.  So, I have a different set of
priorities but you've touched from the problem, you've got to
downsize the welfare and warfare state both.

Mr. Bryer:  Thank you.

Mr. Buchanan:  Yes, sir.

Moderator:  Next question or a question in that area.

Question:  Ah, yes.  I'm more concerned about my health care. 
Ah, over the years my health care has diminished considerably and
we have gone from having excellent health care to, now, lack of
choices.  I can't pick a doctor, I can't go where I want, I
can't, I can't decide on my own medical without a group of people
telling me what I can and can't do with my own body.  And, I'm
really quite disturbed about this.

Pat Buchanan:  Is this an HMO you're in?

Question:  Yes.  I uh, really dislike the way this has gone, and
um, it just doesn't seem like there is any, anybody who is really
concerned about that, and I know I'm not the only one, I, a lot
of people that I work with.

Pat Buchanan:  Well, did you used to have very good health care?

Question:  We used to have excellent health care.

Pat Buchanan:  Al- alright.  Now let me tell you about one, just
one of the problems is, there's a tremendous number of problems
attendant to what you said.  Middle-class family where husband
and wife work -and you indicated, if I'm correct, you work,
right?

Question:  Uh-hmm.

Pat Buchanan:  If you make $53,000, 40% of all your income now
goes for state, federal, and local taxes.  Forty percent of all
you earn.  Now I grew up in the 1950's and we had one earner in
the family, my father, and we had nine kids.  My mom didn't work,
she was there when we got home.  And what he did, his income went
up each year, he probably paid one or tw- two percent of his
income in taxes.  And this enormous tax burden, I believe, size
of government on all levels, is one of the things that is sort of
squeezing you out of the market for quality health care, forcing
you into those HMOžs in my judgement.  And if the businesses that
are paying the higher taxes now, and the individual paying the
higher, had more of that money, they could put a lot more of it
into health care.  Into the kind of health care they want.  When
you get back to the HMOžs, this is why Ižm concerned about the
elderly.  They ought not to be forced into rationed care, and
some of these HMOžs, theyžre not in the business of saving lives,
theyžre in the business of saving money.  Donžt they?

Question: Yeah.

Pat Buchanan: And so they tell Doctor, žLookž, and you read about
these moms that just go to the hospital and have their first
child, and they want them out in 12 hours and 24 hours.  And why? 
Because they want to save money.  So I think, you mean there are
all kinds of pressures and problems that are forcing you into
making these kinds of choices because it costs less and you donžt
have the kind of money to pay for the kind of health care you
want.  But Ižm going to try, wežre going to work on all of them
but itžs a huge problem.

Moderator:  Did, Anne, Anne did you want to ask a further
question on that or uh...

Anne: No.

Moderator: ...do you know understand what...okay.

Question: So what is industryžs part and part is governmentžs
part of health care?

Pat Buchanan: Well I think the government's part right now is
roughly 30%.  You got Medicaid 15%, population, you've got
Medicare, 15%.  I think ideally, you ought to have individuals
who buy their health care contribute a deductible the way it is
for business.  Secondly, governmentžs, governmentžs role here, I
think,  if Clinton had stayed with it, he could have done well
is.  One of the real problems we got is folks who are working for
a company, theyžre laid off, they lose their health insurance,
and they got a child with some pre-existing condition and they
lie awake at night looking at the ceiling.  Now, what government
can do is provide or guarantee the port there's a certain measure
of portability.  In other words, if the employee leaves, he can
take his health insurance with him.  This can solve one of the
problems, but as for all of the problems, problems like: like if
you take long term care.  I mean umm, my my wife and I are taking
care of her mom who is 95 years old, 94, 95 years old in a
quality nursing home, and I'll tell ya.  It is, I don't know how
the average middle class folks handle that, I mean a government
cannot take on that responsibility now for all of them.  But
you've got to do this sort of gradually I think.

Moderator: Did you want to ask some more on that?  Anne, did you
have another question on health care since he's responding to
yours as well?  Yeah, go ahead.

Question: I had a question.  Um, I know how the course of health
care has gone, um, when there was an 80/20 split right up the
HMO's and where they tell you basically, these are your choices,
you can do this, this, or this.  Uh, what do you believe is the
cause of the deterioration of benefits that they pay?

Pat Buchanan: [Inaudible] There's a variety of causes.  One is
um, look when they, they first put in social security back in the
late 1930's.  I think only one in seven folks lived to be 65
years old.  Very few lived to that age.  As I mentioned, my uh,
my wife's mother is now 94 years old, my mom just died at 83, and
uh, you know, people are living a lot older, and uh, almost all
of your costs, or most of your costs that you pay for in, in
medical care in your life occur in the last six months of your
life or in some cases the last 10 days of your life.  Uh, this is
one of the cau, one of the reasons, in the uh, the cost of
medical care has gone up, it's getting more expensive, we're
living a lot older.  We're living to ages where it takes a lot
more money to keep folks in good health and therežs no question
about it.  
 But this gentleman makes a very good point when he started off. 
We got ourselves five trillion dollars in debt and we all want to
do a lot of good things and we can't keep loading that burden
when we say on government because government doesn't have any
money.  Itžs got to go out and get it one of two ways.  If it's
running a deficit it's got to borrow more or it's got to go out
and tax more, and that get's to this lady's 40% taxes she and her
husband are probably paying in local, state, and national taxes. 
So we can't keep asking the government to do more and more and
more and then say, "How come our taxes are so high?' And so I
think what you're, what the country's in, it's in a lot of very
difficult painful choices as to what it wants and what it does't
want to do.  And I've set my priorities, and as I say, I think
we've got to downsize the welfare state, we've got to downsize
the warfare state, we've got to reduce our commitments overseas,
we've got to think about Americans.  
  We downsize the federal government by getting it out of areas
where it doesn't belong, primary and secondary education.  You
folks can make the decisions for that right here in New
Hampshire, you donžt need some bureaucrat in Washington telling
you what you can or cannot teach or how you should teach it or
givinž you mandates.  Get education back here, welfare back here,
get the federal government into defense and defending Americažs
borders.

Moderator: Um, Deborah, did, do you know understand about what,
what Mr. Buchanan would do about uh, the benefits and the costs? 
Did you want to ask some more?  

Deborah: You're definitely not for a federal health care plan at
all in anyway.

Pat Buchanan: I'm, listen [inaudible].  If you take, if you take
the federal government to take over 15% of the national economy
the way the national government is fouling everything up right
now.  I mean, a lot of folks have quality health care.  If
Clinton would have dealt with people, and they got good plans,
good programs, they like, they pay for, they see their doctors. 
If, if Clinton had gone and taken care of the problem, the folks
who need something and don't have it, and there's a genuine need
like the folks I mentioned, he would've succeeded, wežd all have
been for it.  But everybody said, "Look, I'm for helping that
fella, but why does he have to with my relationship with my
doctor?  Why is he putting me into this gigantic health alliance? 
I like my health insurance program, I like my doctor."
  And if you can do it, if you got some ideas that are targeted
to deal with a specific problem, they're turning the whole thing
over to the feds, no.

Moderator: Okay.  Yes.

Question: You uh, talk about welfare.  I want to ask you a couple
questions.  Now, I believe that uh, that the Republicans want to
get the federal government out of welfare...

Pat Buchanan: Mm-hmm.

Question: ...and give it a block grant to the states.  Is that
mean that those that are handling welfare in the states now, are
going to be discharged?

Pat Buchanan: Nope.  I mean if the head of the states..

Question: Are they going to be the same ones?  They going to be
the same.

Pat Buchanan: I donžt know if they are going to be the same ones,
but it's going to go back,, you elected Governor Merrill and you
elected those state legislators, all 400 plus of them in that
House and 20 plus in that Senate.  What you do is send the black,
block grants back to Governor Merrill and the legislators and
say, "You decide what kind of policy you want.  Do you, what do
you want to do when you got a 17 year old gal, or 18 year old gal
who's got one child and now she's pregnant with her second child. 
Do you want to increase welfare payments?  Do you want to set her
up in an apartment?  Do you think it's a good idea?ž  But you
decide that issue here.  It's not decided for you in Washington
D.C. and they decide in Massachusetts and they decide in
Virginia.

Question: But the welfare state is in such a bad thing and itžs,
it's these people that'll probably be continuin' and they, they
not going to change their uh...

Pat Buchanan: Well suppose you said here, "We're not giving you
any more money, extra money for the second child and you've got
18 months or two years and the welfare goes off, and that's it." 
But you see, we let you make the decisions right here.  Alright? 
And then youžve got no one to blame but yourself.  Right?  

Question: Well, thatžs true, but what Ižm saying is, youžre not
changinž the thing.  You're going to keep the same people that
are givin' out  and not givin' to certain people.

Pat Buchanan: No, what Ižm saying is you make the rules here...

Question: No.

Pat Buchanan: ...in the state of New Hampshire yourself and you
can change them here.  In other words we say the federal
government is no longer going to tell you have have to keep
giving it out forever.  They're no longer going to say that you
got to pay regardless.  There's no longer an entitlement to
welfare.  It is now going to bu up to the state to decide whether
you want to pay that.  So we give the 50 states the freedom to
decide and so, look, I donžt, you donžt want me telling you what
to do up here in New Hampshire.

Question: No.

Pat Buchanan: And we donžt want Clinton telling us what to do up
here in New Hampshire.  We want you folks decidinž it right here. 
And if you make a mistake, you make a mistake and you can change
it.  And you can change even, change even Governor Merrill.

Moderator: Another question.  Mr. Englander.

Mr. Englander: Um, I'm worried about the trend towards low wage,
low skill jobs.  For instance, here in New Hampshire we have a,
we very very low unemployment rate.  Um, we had, a number of
NYNEX jobs leave uh, this is three years ago but we had Walmart
come in.  And  those jobs are, are fine and honorable work but
they don't provide benefits, they donžt provide health care and
they provide a greater drag on, on the economy and on peop, on,
on the state government and the federal government.  And um,
those people need to be cared for.  What are your thoughts on, on
that, that trend?  I think it's a trend thatžs nationwide.  

Pat Buchanan: Ah, well you touch... oh, you touching all the base
problems this country's got.  We got more folks working in
government right now than in manufacturing, for the first time in
our history.  You mention NYNEX.  Itžs downsizing, and what did
they give up?  Ten thousand jobs or 5,000 jobs?  You can pick up
the Wall Street Journal every day, see mergers, see these great
big Fortune 500 companies.  They are downsizin' as fast as they
can, gettinž rid of ah, white-collared workers, gettin' rid of
blue-collared workers, movinž their factories overseas.  This is
the issue in America, itžs the two-tier society. It's the fact
that a lot of folks that are not, didn't come out of graduate
school and arenžt in the knowledge industry are in journalism or
workinž on the Wall Street or in foundations.  They're seein'
their standard of living gradually decline.  Working class people
who work with their hands and tools and machines.  They're seeing
real incomes decline.  There's a lot of cases where women in the
home with children under six, wanna stay home with those children
and they can't keep up the family standard of living.  
  My view, there's a couple things that are reasons for this. 
One of them is unfair trade deals that are exporting in the heart
of America's manufacturing base, to Mexico, China, Taiwan,
Indonesia, Bangladesh, you name it.  Secondly, there is the
impact of legal and illegal immigration in America, which has
brought in 25 million more workers in the United States.  Hard
working folks who work for much less than Americans are
accustomed to working for.  It's drivin' down wages.  The Iowa
beef-packers have a plant out there in Iowa, huge place in Iowa,
where the real wages of the workers have gone down 40% in 15
years.  At the same time, the bosses salary went from $400,000 to
4.5 million and the stock is soarin'.  
Question:  So would you act on that?  Would you, would you go to,
would you move to, to raise the minimum wage?  I mean, some
businesses want low paid workers because...

Pat Buchanan: [inaudible]

Question: ...because then real wages can stay low.  

Pat Buchanan: Alright, let me tell you something.  What do ya
got?  The minimum wage, four and a quarter now, right?  Do you
know what the minimum wage in Mexico was before they devalued? 
Fifty-eight cents.  If you raise wages at government fiat on
these businesses they'll say, "Okay, that does it, let's move the
plant down to Mexico.ž  I was out there at Ertal (sp) Toys and
the manufacturing, the folks that worked in that manufactu... 
for 50 years itžs one of the most American places you've ever
seen, these wonderful toys, copies of John Deere tractors and
Allis Chalmers tractors, and they're for kids, they're toys,
heavy metal toys.  Been there 50 years, they're moving their
manufacturing plant to Mexico.  Ertl toys employs more people in
Diresville, where they has the Field of Dreams the movie, than
the next 11 companies combined in Diresville.  Why'd they let
them go?  Because the Iowa workers make nine-fifty and hour, in
Mexico they can get them for a buck an hour.  And do you know who
works in that manufacturing plant?  Itžs not the guys we used to
see up there on the assembly lines in the `40's; every single one
of them who came to my press conference was a woman, and most of
them were single moms.  And theyžre the ones who are losing their
jobs, and we're seeing these jobs go down out of this country and
we need new trade policies, friend, and we need new economic
policies to bring the jobs back to America. 

Moderator: So do you know now how, how he would address your
minimum wage question?  

[Pat Buchanan and Questioner talking over each other.]

Questioner: Would you, you would not move to raise minimum wages. 

Pat Buchanan: I think what you've got to do...

Questioner: But, but...

Pat Buchanan: ...raise the minimum wage, every time we've done
it, you know who get's it first?  Minority kids in the inner city
working for  $4.25 an hour. [Inaudible], canžt handle them. 
Forget it, letžs cut these guys off.  You got some people got
raise, and other people get laid off.  Thatžs not the way to do
it.  I mean, wežve got to bring jobs into the city, and for many
of these African American kids when they get out of high school
if theyžre not going on to college, if therežs a really good job
there, the chances are a lot better theyžre not going to get into
trouble.  

Question: But by that logic then you should lower the minimum
wage and then even more people get hired.  But for... 

Pat Buchanan: No, I think I would leave it.  I would leave it. 
You donžt want to, you donžt want to create a situation now
thatžs been raised where it is where some employer says in an
area where there, you know, hežs thinking of moving where he
says, "Okay, y'all gonna have to take a wage cut."  I don't think
you ought to do that.  But I do think when you have that, you
know, 90 cent increase last time, your, ya, all the studies show,
okay, some people got a 90 cent increase, and hundreds of
thousands of others are dropped off the bottom rung of the
economic ladder.  You can't do that.  Government canžt do it my
just ordering it down.  Why not take it up to $10 an hour?  And
you and I agree, thatžd be a pretty good job.  But wežd both
agree too, thatžs the end of millions of jobs.  Canžt do that.  

Moderator: Another, another question?  Yes?

Question: Ah, yes, ah.  Going back to social security, I
understand if Ižm correct, that if the social security were used
only to pay the benefits to senior citizens the social security
would be solvent.  But then the federal government borrows money
to ah, pay other bills.  So what can be done in order to protect
the social security fund for the senior citizens?  

Pat Buchanan: Well, the social security fund is protected, for I
guess, the next 15 years.  In other words, social security, the
people paying into social security, I pay in, I guess everybody
itžs working here pays in.  Therežs more money by about 50
billion, I believe, comes into the social security fund than goes
out.  The problem is, the federal government has not been setting
that 50 billion aside, and saying, žWell this is ah, this is ah,
what wežre going to save for the folks later.ž  Itžs spending it. 
Itžs spending it all.  Itžs spending the pension money of the
elderly.  And when wežre going to come to it, down the road,
about 15 or 20 years, where the people paying in, and all the
money theyžre paying in is not going to be equal to the money
thatžs goin' out.  And thatžs whatžs gon, when the crunch is
going to come.  And what can be done about that?  I think ah,
Clinton attacked the Republicans, said theyžre going to throw the
old folks out into the snow.  Newt immediately got up and said,
žAlright.  Social security is off the table.  We wonžt touch it.ž 
And so the whole thing has not been been the reform of it, itžs
been held off.  
  I think, that if you get a president and a Congress together,
and you take a look at social security and you can keep it, solve
it, not only 15 years but far out into the future.  But itžs
going to take some courageous changes that have to be made, and
they can only be made in a bi-partisan way because as soon as one
person suggests it, then the other side comes out and attacks him
and demagoguežs the issue and says, "He's not going to save
social security."  I think youžll get something done if you have
all, if you have one party, in control of the White House and
both houses of Congress I think youžll get it done early in 1997. 


Moderator: Do, do you have a suggestion?  

Pat Buchanan: Well, I think therežs a lot of suggestions.  One
is...

Moderator: A specific suggestion about what you would do?

Pat Buchanan: Well, let me take, I mean, I would not lock you
into any one suggestion on social security.  But one thing people
have talked about, a gradual rise in the age of retirement,
leaving what, the folks on social security out, out right now. 
Let them keep exactly what they have.  But a gradual rise in the
retirement age of social security, I think itžs supposed to go up
to 67 in about 15 years or something like that, but a gradual
rise toward that would be one thing that would help a great deal.

  But you donžt need to settle on that until you get everyone
together and get it ready to get it done and get everyone on
board.  Because as soon as you start throwing out suggestions
itžs opened up to attack.  

Questioner: [Inaudible]

Pat Buchanan: This, my mom was a nurse too, retired nurse.

Question: Really?  

Pat Buchanan: An R, a visiting nurse, an RN, and uh, yeah.  It
was her occupation before she had nine kids.

Question: Oh, thatžs great.  

Pat Buchanan: Yeah.

Moderator: Mrs. [inaudible] you had a question.

Question: Okay, uh, Ižm gonna make, Ižm gonna say something
before I ask this.

Pat Buchanan: Sure.

Question: I agree with you in some and most of the things that
you ah, that, most of your answers.  Ižm a member of a minority
and you frighten us.  You really do.  And others like me, with
you convictions of a womanžs lack to control her own body and
about your interpretation of the separation of church and state. 


Pat Buchanan: Uh-huh.

Questioner: Do you not feel that other religions have any value,
including family values?  Or do you believe that you and the
Christian religious right are the only ones that count?  

Pat Buchanan: Look.  I am a member of a minority religion, I
guess, in the U.S.  I am Catholic.  Alright?

Questioner: Then your understanding should be a lot more tolerant
than it is.

Pat Buchanan: Well, why do you say it is not?  I believe we ought
to have sep, separation of church and state in America.  

Questioner: Uh-huh.  

Pat Buchanan: I certainly do.  But I believe that voluntary
religious expression, and even voluntary prayer in public
schools, voluntary Bible reading, which nobody is forced to do. 
I believe that is consistent with the First Amendment.  It was
for the first 20 decades of the existence of this country, and
this has always been a country which has been just, I believe,
and fair as a nation, to people who came here of different faiths
and different backgrounds as my Irish ancestors did and my German
ancestors and even my Scotch ancestors did.  And so I cherish the
idea that we are E Pluribus Unum, From Many, One, but I do
believe this: I see our country more and more pulling apart and
separating into ethnic enclaves, and you see it even happening on
campus, and I think itžs pulling apart.  And thatžs one of the
reasons I think, we need a timeout  on immigration.  So we can
all pull together as one nation, one people again.

Questioner: Thatžs not what, thatžs not what I...

Pat Buchanan: Well then tell me to be specific, alright?

Questioner: Specifically, when you, when you talk about um, the
ah, the uh, family values, do feel that your, your Christian, or
your Christian values are the only ones that count?  Donžt you
think that other people have and other religions have...

Pat Buchanan: Sure.
 
Questioner: ...family values, and, and practice them regularly?  

Pat Buchanan: Well sure, what are you referring to?

Questioner: Ižm sure youžll find them here in New Hampshire.  

Pat Buchanan: Sure, what are you referring to?  

Questioner: I'm referring to a feeling that you give to minority
people that that isnžt how you feel.  Itžs nothing that we can
actually put our finger on except we back up.

Pat Buchanan: Well, I donžt see it.

Question: And even though that we are not the visible minorities,
we still feel, we still have that feeling.  

Pat Buchanan: Well look.  I think, that ah, that ah, one of the
values in which we believe in as Americans is tolerance. 
Tolerance of other faiths and different beliefs.  And I believe
in minor, majority rule and minority rights.  But I do think,
when you get to this idea of ah, letžs take the case of the, when
they go down to that Tennessee stadium, and everybody in the, in
the Tennessee football team got on the field and they started and
they went into a huddle and had a prayer.  And  it didnžt bother
anybody but one or two people in the stands filed suit and said
žThatžs got to stop because Ižm offended.ž  And I think that is
offensive.  When basically they wanna halt all kinds of voluntary
expression of religious faith of people they disagree with.  This
to me is intolerance using courts to basically strike down what
is voluntary.  And I have real, and a lot of Americans have a
real problem with that.  But I donžt have any difficulty with ah,
with folks with different faiths and different beliefs, we have
many different faiths and beliefs in this country.  Expressing
those, as a matter of fact, Ižm very much a defender of those.  
  Ya know, in New York state they had the, let me mention this
case, they had the uh, Kurias Joel [sic].  Itžs a Jewish
community, and it had its own private schools but in one public
schools it had retarded children and it said, žWežre gonna take
down any religious symbol in this school, but it is in our
community, which is a very traditionalist community, and we want,
and wežd like the state to fund this.ž  And they were ord, and
they took down every, every religious symbol and the court said,
žNo.ž  It would not let them do it.  Even though the state went
along with it, even though it didnžt interfere with anybody
elsežs faith.  The state said no, so what Ižm  concerned about,
is the hostility of the state to any form of voluntary religious
expression.  Herežs the intolerance.

Moderator: So, some, Mr. Buchanan, you um, see situations in
schools, where, where children have to attend as analogous to
voluntary attendance at events where, where prayer is
[inaudible]...

Pat Buchanan: Well, you know, what I feel is this way.  Congress
of the United States begins everyday with a prayer.  I guess itžs
attendance should be mandatory for Congressmen.  But when kids go
to a public school and they want to begin with a prayer, Ižd say
thatžs fine.  But donžt force any child to participate who
doesnžt want to.  If you have a Bible reading session in the,
the, they want to study the Bible, they want to set that aside,
and they should decide that locally, not federally.  If they want
to do that you donžt force anyone to participate, but you donžt
deny the kids the right to have that either.  I think we can find
a middle ground there.

Questioner: I hope so.

Moderator: Yes?

Pat Buchanan: Uh-huh.

Question: Is much a position on pro-life or abortion, is that not
contrary, how do reconcile that with your desire to get the
government off our backs and not to interfere with our personal
lives.  Intrusion into the personal lives.  Is that not an
intrusion, when you try to deny a woman to make, from making that
choice?

Pat Buchanan: Well, I guess I would say itžs an intrusion if you,
if you prevent child abuse.  Ah, but I think abortion is the
ultimate form of child abuse.  I think itžs the destruction, wait
a minute, of innocent, unborn life, and I believe that th, if the
state has any responsibility, it is to protect the most innocent
and vulnerable against ah, of us from violence.

Question: Are you saying...

Pat Buchanan: You see, I think thatžs what an abortion is.  

Question: But are you suggesting that a fertilized egg, certainly
in the first two trimesters, is a human being?

Pat Buchanan: Oh my goodness.  Trimesters at five and ah, I know
situations where after five months the children these days can
live very easily outside the womb.  Oh, yes, I think thatžs
obstruction of human life.  

Question: Not, not without the woman.

Pat Buchanan: Oh, no no no.

Question: By extraordinary medical means.    

Pat Buchanan: [Inaudible] The unborn child itžs moving back
further and further and further at two pounds and one and a half
pounds are surviving.  And with this technology, I think itžs the
destruction of an innocent, unborn, human being.  And we just got
a fundamental disagreement on that.  I think the government if
therežs any duty...

Questions: [Inaudible].

Pat Buchanan: ...any duty, itžs the protection of innocent,
unborn life.  
Moderator: Did you want to ask a question.

Pat Buchanan: Why donžt you let her respond to that.  What were
you going to say?  

Question: Like I said.  

Pat Buchanan: Youžre the nurse right?

Question: Yes.  Thatžs right and for eight years I worked in
labor and deliveries and I have seen people, ladies, having
miscarriages, crying their eyes out, when this fetus is expelled,
he is fully formed, he has arms, he has legs, he has eyes, you
can even tell whether itžs a boy or a girl.  

Pat Buchanan: And you, and, and you...

Questioner: So youžre telling me that hežs not human?  I wonžt
believe it.  

Pat Buchanan: Good for you.

Question: But Ižm talking about a fertilized egg.  It has no
capacity for living outside of the motheržs body.

Question: Especially if the mother does not want to have it.

Question: My question is not, at what point the fetus is viable,
but my question is do you have any ah, ideas or recommendations
or anything enable a woman who is feeling intimidated by economic
things to make a pro-life choice?  

Pat Buchanan: Boy, you are dead right and itžs about time those
of us in the Right to Life movement got more behind that.  For 10
years Ižve supported something called The Northwest Pregnancy
Crisis Center in Washington D.C. which goes out and provides and,
and tells these women, žListen if youžre in trouble, you got you
need help, you need a place to stay, your boyfriendžs
intimidating you, hežs trying to force you into something, you
donžt want to do it.ž  They provide places for them to stay until
they have the child and a while afterwards they direct them to
social services, jobs, everything.  My sister and my campaign
manager even took one of these gals in her house during our
campaign.  And, and, I spoke at the Peidmont Womenžs Center that
even councils and rightly so, women after an abortion, because
itžs a horrible, traumatic experience, and I think we need, and
there are thousands of these across the country and I wish the
press, and it tends to focus on those of us who are arguing for
pro-life, focus on our arguments, rather than whatžs goinž to be
done and what should be done and is being done.  There are
thousands of these out there.  

Question: But in, in response to that, what is, I mean, like
people make these choices for a number of reasons.

Pat Buchanan: Yeah, but thatžs, thatžs...

Question: And a lot of them are economic reasons.

Pat Buchanan: And a lot of them are, are because of pressure
embarrassment, uhhh, theyžre put under pressure by someone,
intimidation, economic reasons, sure.  A lot of them, yeah.  And
I think the first one they should go to is the family and if the
family wonžt help, and the first one is the boyfriend and the
family, or the husband and then you go to the community, the
church, the synagogue, the group.  Ask for help there, and then I
think these crisis centers, go to help there.  And I think in
these, in this day and age therežs more and more of these, and I
think more and more places available for help and we ought to get
the word out.  And wežre gonna try to do that in our campaign. 
Put a focus on some of these things that are doing wonderful work
like that.

Moderator: Mr. [name inaudible]

Question: Well, I agree with all the, the, um, the choices
offered um, if being pregnant is a financial burden or is a
burden that you donžt want to be pregnant, but where do you come
off telling my daughters they canžt have an abortion if they want
one?  And thatžs not your right.  And if you donžt want to have
an abortion, donžt have one.  And thatžs basically my stance with
the whole abortion thing.  
 Itžs not, my opinion, is my opinion and if my daughter for some
reason dec, has, has to have an abortion, or chooses, I can be
pro or against it.  And thatžs, but itžs her choice.  It finally
comes down, and by offering more and more options to an abortion,
and saying, žIf youžre going to take your pregnancy to term,
wežll help, wežll help with the adoption.ž  I think thatžs great
and I think more of that would be super.  But it still comes down
to, itžs choice.  And my daughter has the choice to make the
decision on her own and you can dislike it, and be morally
against it but you donžt have the right to inflict your moral
belief on my daughter.

Pat Buchanan: Did we do that in the Civil Rights laws?  We
inflicted our beliefs on people who said, žLook, I donžt want to
hire black folks.ž

Question: Uh-huh.

Pat Buchanan: We said, žYou canžt do that.  You got to do the
right thing friend.ž

Question: Right.  And youžre coming into a personal decision
between, it affects the mother.

Pat Buchanan: Listen.  Segregation is a personal decision, youžre
decision...

Question: No, itžs not uh, youžre clouding the issue here.

Pat Buchanan: How žbout the decision, how žbout the decision...

Questioners: [everyone talking over each other]

Pat Buchanan: How žbout the decision to buy and sell your house
to whom ever you wish?  We in, listen, every time we write a law,
when we say you canžt take drugs, wežre imposing our values on
that fellow.  He might say, žLook, I enjoy it, I got the money
for it, get out of my life.ž  And we impose our views there, we
impose our views, 18 years old we can draft you but you canžt
drink liquor and drive, you can't drink beer.  You got, if you
donžt hire that black fella, wežre gonna prosecute you, punish
you, declare you a bigot and put  you in jail.  Listen, every
single law, virtually, imposes someonežs values on someone else. 
How can you say we donžt impose values?  

Moderator: Go ahead.

Question: I think youžre still equating a fertilized egg, which
is what the pregnant woman carries for the first trimester and
perhaps beyond there, as a human being.  It is not a human being
and the scientists will qualify that.  It is not capable of
living outside of the motheržs body.  Youžre making a case for
that fertilized egg as a human being.  It is not.

Pat Buchanan: Well, well, listen it is, what is, I have never
heard of  fertilized egg in a woman evolving into anything else
but a human being.  

Question: Would you...

Pat Buchanan: Ižve never, never heard of that before, ever
happening in history.  And you know, when they have the so
called, what do they call them, the uh, in the petri dish, they
have the uh, the woman, the uh, the children.  Yeah, in vitro
fertilization.  When do they say life begins.  They all say,
žLife begins now, letžs insert the uh, insert it into the woman.ž 
Life has begun now and you canžt destroy innocent human life. 
Wežve got to stick with that principle I believe because too much
of the world has gotten the idea that there are things more
important than innocent human life and that we, the state can
take it.  The individual can take it.

Question: What if the woman...

Pat Buchanan: And you start down that...

Questioner: What if the woman doesnžt want it?  

Pat Buchanan: You know a lot of women donžt want their babies and
they put them in garbage cans.  But thatžs outrageous.  And itžs
wrong.  

Question: Ižm not talking about the woman who was out, whožs
outrageous.  Ižm talking about someone who has two kids and finds
herself pregnant with a third they canžt afford.  You think she
must have that child?  

Pat Buchanan: Well, are you saying she can...

Question: Or are you saying she can make a choice to abort the
child and live a, live the life she was, that she prefers to
live?  Itžs her choice. 

Pat Buchanan: Well.

Moderator: Wežve got about 30 seconds here before break.

Pat Buchanan: I believe that is wrong to do that.  It is
everywhere and always wrong to destroy innocent human life and I
think we ought to learn that in this century.  Yes sir?

Question: Yeah.  I think youžre contradicting yourself.  First
off on the welfare.  Youžre not gonna, uh, take these 18 year
olds and support their babies.

Pat Buchanan: No, Ižm saying you making  a decision.  Youžre in
New Hampshire.

Question: But it hasnžt been that way yet.  

Pat Buchanan: I know, but I do say it should be.  

Question: But, then, you say the uh, abortion is wrong.

Pat Buchanan: Sure abortion is the taking of an innocent human
life.

Question: No.

Pat Buchanan: I, when, look.  When my father might have booted me
out of the house and  said, žKid, youžve got to go make a
living.ž  Thatžs not the same thing as killing an unborn child. 
Maybe he did me some good by doing that.  

Question: But for those of us who donžt believe itžs an unborn
child, youžre telling us that it is, and therefore we have to
abide by your rules.

Question: Science does not support you point of view...

Question: Thatžs right.

Question: ...it is not an unborn child.

Question: And the other thing is too...
 
Pat Buchanan: [laughs].

Question: ...that we are not inflicting.  Wežre not forcing
anybody to have an abortion.  Wežre saying you have a choice.

Pat Buchanan: But you never get back to the same thing.  That
youžre, it, it.  Again, the, the laws that, that say you canžt
take drugs were forcing our opinion on people.  The laws that say
you canžt segregate.  We force our opinion on people.  Thatžs
what well, thatžs what this Civil Rightžs laws were all about. 
One part of the country decided to force itžs values, what it
thought was right and wrong on another part that disagreed,
disagreed to the point of violence, and this was an object of one
side saying, žYoužre wrong and the laws gonna say youžre wrong
and wežre gonna punish you if you violate the law.ž

Question: Right, and a whole bunch of people saying, žYes, we
agree, and help us,ž at the same time and this is not the case. 
This is an individual decision made by one woman, at one time for
whatever reason it is, and I think itžs youžre right to stand up
and say, žI think itžs wrong,ž and...

Pat Buchanan: Do you think the unborn child has any rights
whatsoever?

Question: No.  Itžs my daughteržs opinion.

Pat Buchanan: Itžs nothing more than your daughteržs opinion.

Question: Damn straight.  She doesnžt know any...

Pat Buchanan: Do you have any as the grandfather of the child? 
Would you have any rights?

Question: No.  Itžs, itžs, the womanžs choice.  Itžs her body,
thatžs all it is.  And until that point where the kid is born...

Pat Buchanan: Theyžre not two bodies then?  

Question: Nope, itžs hers.  Ižve been through two kids, Ižve been
through two miscarriages, and I know people who had to have
abortions and itžs a heart-wrenching affair each, and every time
but itžs their choice.

Moderator: I think wežve ready for our, our break now if Ižm not
mistaken.

Pat Buchanan: Well, listen.  Since we have to go to the ah, the
radio show, why donžt we just continue right ahead?  Would that
be alright?  Or do you all need a break?

Moderator: Let me just check...

Pat Buchanan: Works for me.

Questioners: [Talk over each agreeing they donžt need a break.]

Moderator: Alright.  What we can do then...

Pat Buchanan: Sure.

Moderator: Um, we can, we can, we may want to move onto a
different line questioning of but Ižm not going to um, force it
because I think this is uh, an important issue bearing on
religious freedom, when life begins, ahh, how religion enters
into politics and, and so on.  And so we can ah...

Question: [Inaudible] around the answer to my question.

Moderator: Well, okay.  And you wanted, why donžt you restate
your question then, for Mr. Buchanan.

Question: My question is that economics plays a lot, a big part,
on the decision for a mother to carry her eh, child to term or
not.  Ultimately what you,  you can make all the laws you want
and it would be still be the womanžs choice because she could do
it anyway.  There wouldnžt be anything, itžs just safe or unsafe
or whatever.  But, what as, as being President, as being part of
the government, what things could you ah...

Pat Buchanan: Could you do to change the situation?

Question: ...do to, what laws could you enact or...

Pat Buchanan: Well, what I think you can do is appoint justices
who will overturn Roe V Wade which I think was a dreadful
decision...

Question: Yes, but Ižm asking...

Moderator: ...asking about what kinds of programs when he as
President do...

Pat Buchanan: Kinds of ideas to...

Question: What would you do...

Pat Buchanan: ...to change the situation?

Question: to, make it possible for a woman, theyžre, Ižll read
it, wait.  Ah, žWhat steps would you, take that would enable,
would enable women to feel that they could make a pro-choi, pro-
life choice...

Pat Buchanan: Well, as Ižve said...

Question: ...and they could make a pro-life choice because
ultimately it is their choice.  

Pat Buchanan: Well look but, but, the first responsibility for
the child is the mother of the child, and shežs carrying the
child.  And the prime responsibility also rests with father of
the child, and I think, if theyžre very young, with the
grandparents of the child, to do something there.  But I think,
an, and if not there then they ought to go to the parish, or they
ought to go to the synagogue, or they ought to go to the
community help and then they ought to go to the state level.  The
last level though is the federal government of the United States. 
The President of the United States has got responsibility for
foreign policy of this country.  Hežs got responsibility for the
national economy.  Hežs got a responsibility to defend our
borders against wave after wave of illegal immigration.  We canžt
lay off all responsibilities on the President of the United
States or the government in Washington.  We have got to start
standing up and behaving like responsible citizens and takinž
responsibility for our own lives.
  My friend here raised a point, why are we five trillion dollars
in debt?  One reason we are is every time someonežs got a problem
they say, žWhat is the federal government gonna do to solve it
for me?ž  This used to be a country of Americans, three million
strong who threw the greatest empire on Earth out of the United
States and said, žWežre gonna govern ourselves.  We are a self-
ruling, self-governing people, perfectly capable of being a
nation among nations even though wežre only three million strong
against the mighty British Empirež And now too many Americans, I
believe, basically say, žWe got a problem, federal governmentžs
got to do something for me, what are you going to do for me?ž  We
got to get rid of this attitude I believe.

Question: But my, my point being...

Pat Buchanan: I mean, youžre talking about a gal, whožs now I
gather, a woman, and shežs not a young gal shežs a woman and
shežs pregnant.  Whatžs she gonna do?  And youžre asking the,
someone who wants to be President of the United States what Ižm
gonna do.  

Question: Because you want to legislate that she cannot make that
choice.

Pat Buchanan: Ah, what Ižm gonna say is, wežre gonna overturn Roe
V Wade if we can...

[break in tape]

Pat Buchanan: ...child support, yeah.  

Moderator: Child support.  

Pat Buchanan: Child support, sure.  

Question: Itžs through the, social services, and which case if
itžs her second pregnancy I  donžt think shežs entitled to social
services for that child anyway.  

Questioner: Mr. Buchanan, would you uh, would you suggest that
uh, removing a seed from the soil that has been fertilized or a
tree that is chopped down, fully grown, 150 years old,  are you
equating one with the other?  

Pat Buchanan: No, I donžt think a tree is a human being.

Question: No, but itžs not a tree when itžs a seed, in the ground
either.  

Pat Buchanan: My friend, youžre gettinž a little agitated.

Question: No.

Pat Buchanan: And I think you are because I think biology, and
ethics, and every great religious faith, and tradition, and the
laws of the United States, have all said that abortion is a
terrible act in the 1950's.  We all knew it was a shameful act. 
And I donžt think that changes simply because wežre sa, we say
itžs a womanžs choice, or nine judges or seven judges, justices 
find something in the Constitution that really is not there.

Moderator: Another question, sorry [inaudible].

Question: Are we still on this abortion...

Moderator: You can [laughter] ask a question on whatever you
want.

[Everyone talking over each other]

Question: No, I uh, I was a veteran of the Korean conflict and
uh...

Pat Buchanan: When were you there?

Question: Uh, 51, 52.  

Pat Buchanan: You were along the line...

Question: I was a draftee.  Harry S, Truman sent me a letter
[laughter] [inaudible].  But, I guess the thing that bothers me
that, and, and of course wežve seen recently ah, you know, the
Gulf War then Somali.  I was with a ranger outfit, and I saw
[inaudible] 19 rangers killed because the U.N. had to make a
decision whether to send in help or not and they dragged one of
the guys through the streets.  Ah, in Haiti the whole thing is
turning, is going down the drain and Haiti.

Pat Buchanan: They got a lemon down there yeah.

Questioner: A bad one.  Now uh, President, has uh, elected to
send 20 thousand troops and now hežs got it up to 42, or 46
thousand troops to Bosnia.  And as much as I, as much, and  I
realize history, that you know, it was the cause of World War I
and it possibly could be the cause of World War II, but I mean, I
really have to reach deep to, to justify sending boys over there
and theyžre gonna come back in bags and, an, and how you gonna
pull out of there?  And what are the American people gonna say to
this, about how are kids coming back.

Pat Buchanan: [Inaudible] Ižm gonna say, youžre exactly right. 
Look, therežs no vital American interest in Bosnia, there never
has been.  Itžs four or five thousand miles away from the United
States.  Itžs a bloody ethnic and civil war which has been going
on before they landed at Plymouth Rock and youžre putting 20
thousand American soldiers in there because Bill Clinton made a
foolish commitment about two years ago saying, žIžll put 25
thousand troops into any peace force.ž  
  Youžre exactly right.  Therežs no way 19 year old Americans
with M-16 rifles are gonna solve a bloody conflict like that
where the hatreds and resentments have built up over centuries
and especially in the last three years after atrocity after
atrocity after atrocity.  We ought to keep those Americans out of
there.  Now let me talk a little bit of history.  We are not
learning the lessons of history in the Balkans, we are repeating
them.  In 1912 they had a Balkan War, bloody one.  Nobody
intervened, it died out.  Nineteen-thirteen they had another
Balkan War, it died out, a lot of killing, nobody was involved,
the great powers.  Nineteen-fourteen  they shoot the Archduke in
Sarajevo.  And then Austria says, žOur prestige is involved so
the Serbs got to back down.ž  The Serbs go to the Russians, they
say, žGive us a hand against the Austrians.ž  The Austrians go to
Berlin, they say to the Kaiser, žHelp us out.ž  The Russians say,
žThe Kaiseržs cominž after us,ž and they call the French and they
all piled in, and even the Brits got into it.  Eight million
dead, the worst disaster in Western Civilization because
everybody got their prestige and credibility involved in the
Balkans and that is exactly what Bill Clinton is doing.  
  Right now, if we keep the Russians out, and we keep the
Americans out, and we keep the Germans out, there is no way the
great powers of Europe will have their prestige or their troops
or anything else involved.  Instead, wežre puttinž them all in
there, in addition to bringing in some Islamic country troops,
and get them all mixed up in there so when war breaks out again
everybody can be shooting at everybody.  It is ridiculous and it
is another example of forgetting, not remembering the lessons of
history.

Moderator: Did someone want to ask a question in this area, while
wežre on Bosnia?  Yes?

Question: Do at any point, do you stop genocide?

Pat Buchanan: This is not, this is not gen, genocide is what we
had in China, what Hitler did in Europe, it is what Stalin did in
the Ukraine where he murdered nine million.  This is a bloody
ethnic and civil war where they are committing atrocities against
one another.

Question: [Inaudible] go on perpetrating...

Pat Buchanan: It is not, it is not...

Question: ...a systematic annihilation...

Pat Buchanan: ...where you, yo, you diminish the word, you
diminish the word genocide...

Question: How would you def, how would you define genocide?

Pat Buchanan: Genocide is a deliberate extermination of a whole
people and or religion, group, or religious group, or race.  A
deliberate attempt at that.  What we got in Bosnia is different. 
And I agree that Chrebinka (sic) is one the, wor, worst outrages
in post World War II history.  I mean, they took five or six
thousand Muslim men and boys and shot žem and buried them in a
ditch.  And itžs a horrible atrocity, itžs like what the Russians
did, Kantin Forest.  What is going on in Bosnia is this,
Yugoslavia, the whole thing is flyinž apart and the cause of the
war is one thing.  Croats, Muslims, and Serbs all would rather
fight and die and kill than live under the rule of the other.     
  Bosnia is fallinž apart because first the Bosnians said, žWe
donžt want to live under the Serbs in Belgrade, we hate žem and
wežll fight to get away from them,ž and they did.  But the Serbs
in Bosnia say, žWell, we donžt want to live under the Muslims in
Sarajevo so wežll fight and kill,ž and the Croats say, žWežre not
going to live under both of them,ž and so theyžre doinž it. 
Thatžs the cause of the war.  You canžt resolve that with 20
thousand American troops sittinž there pointinž guns at people in
one year and Ižm astonished that Bob Dole, whožs a wise man, and
who I think is a good man, is going along.  
  Therežs no doubt Clinton put our credibility on the line, and
if we donžt go in we suffer loss of face.  But far better to
suffer the loss of face now, than to put our credibility,
prestige, our troops in there and have a debacle down the road.

Moderator: So, so youžre saying itžs a combination o, of poor,
poor planning or is there a situation when you specifically as
President would use U,  U.S. Armed Forces [inaudible]...

Pat Buchanan: Oh, therežs a lot of places where you use U.S...

Moderator: ...where there are, there is not an invasion of our
um, of our shores.

Pat Buchanan: Nobodyžs gonna invade the U.S.A. my friend.

Moderator: Thatžs right, so when, when would you use.

Pat Buchanan: When our vital interest, I was in Ronald Reaganžs
White House when Khadafi...

Moderator: What is a vital interest for you, right now in 1995? 

Pat Buchanan: Relax, hold.  When Ronald, I was in Ronald Reaganžs
White House when someone blew up a discotec in Berlin, where a
lot of American G.I.žs where, and we traced it back through
intelligence to Khadafi.  And so about one month later, about ah,
about 20 American fighter bombers arrived over Tripoli and they
hit his, his headquarters of Islamic Guard, they went right there
and one bomb almost rolled right into his tent.  And you went and
retaliated directly for what he had done to American citizens. 
If they threatened American citizens, if they threatened our
vital interests, if they threatened allies with whom wežve got
treaty commitments, if they are attacked.  
  But N.A.T.O. was not designed to be a police force or a riot
force in the Balkans.  It was designed to defend Western Europe,
committing America, against Stalinžs Soviet empire, his, ha, our
hundred divisions and the Soviet Union.  That threat's collapsed. 
N.A.T.O. is a defensive alliance.  Thatžs why itžs successful. 
You are running it now as sort of moving it around to use it, to
stop ethnic and civil wars and I think it is a formula for the
destruction of N.A.T.O.

Question: Well, when does the, then, I, I get the feeling that
you are saying that the U.S. should not take a world leadership
role no matter what the risk.

Pat Buchanan: Thatžs not what I said at all.

Question: Wežll thatžs the impression Ižm getting.  I, I see, I
unders, I understand whatžs going on in Bosnia and I do
understand the history of it and I mean the people are fighting
over something that is over 300 years old in some, some cases. 
But then on the other hand, who else to try and stop it?  And if
we are holding ourselves up as a world power, as the only
remaining super power, why not, and why sh, why should we not be
there to assist?  Wežre not the only people going in.  The French
and the Brits, and, and the Germans, and the Germans are
committing troops for the first time since the war and so itžs
not a U.S. effort.

Pat Buchanan: Well my views are similar to Eisenhoweržs. 
Eisenhower said in 1951, žWežre puttinž together N.A.T.O.
defensive alliance, wežre puttinž American troops back into
Europe right on the front line against the Russians.  If those
Americans arenžt home in 10 years we failed in our mission to
make Europe self-reliant where we provide a defense.ž  Nineteen-
sixty-one, 10 years later he leaves the Presidency, he goes into
Jack Kennedy and he says, žMr. President, start moving the
American troops out of Europe.  Otherwise these Europeans will be
dependent on us forever.ž  
  Now as long as we do Europežs work, theyžll let us.  They will
let us, oh, go ahead fellas, you lead.  Now look, Europe is now
300 million people, it is as prosperous as we are.  It is
technologically advanced.  It has the capabilities of raising as
much in their armies as we do, and this is right in their
backyard?  Why should the United States, 50 years after Hitler is
dead in his bunker, be running around trying to police a civil,
ethnic conflict in the Balkans?  The United States should become
the strategic reserve of Western Civilization.  Itžs a update
version of the Nixon doctrine.  And what Nixon said during
Vietnam, he said, žIn the next war to come, Americans, wežre
going to provide air power and naval power but we canžt use
American troops in every single battle all over the world.  You
provide the troops and wežll provide the arms and wežll provide
the, the real power behind it, air and naval.  But we canžt
provide the soldiers every time there is a war.ž  Now letžs take
Korea, you got žem sittinž.  Forty thousand Americans sittinž on
the line with North Korea 40 years after the last Korean war
ended.  Now you tell me why an American should be the first one
to die in a second Korean war.  

Question: A, th, the war hasnžt ended, theyžve never signed a
peace treaty so itžs still technically at war...

Pat Buchanan: Why canžt the South Koreans defend their own
border?  They are 12 times as prosperous and twice as populous.

Question: They probably could defend a lot of their own border
but what Ižm asking...

Pat Buchanan: [Inaudible].

Moderator: I was going to ask if you wanted to continue with
your, on Bosnia or if we were going to move to, to Korea.  

[Everyone talking over each other (inaudible)]

Question: I would come back closer to home a little
bit...[laughter] I heard a lot of downsizing government, getting
government out of the states, handing a lot of things back to the
states.  One of the problems I have, I, I have two teenaged
children.  My son will be graduating from high school this year
and will be going to college, my daughter, two years from now and
I know I canžt afford to send them to school.  I need help.  And,
Ižm a little worried about whatžs going to happen with guaranteed
student loans, uh, the Pell grants, [inaudible]... that is so
diminished in the past ten years or so.  Where, where am I going
to stand in that?  Are my kids going to be able to get the
education that, I want them to have?

Pat Buchanan: Alright.  The student loan program, as far as I
know, is going to be maintained.  Itžs going to be maintained for
kids.  There are some changes in terms of when the interest rates
starts running on the student loans.  But it is going to be
maintained so that kids who donžt have the means to go to college
can go to college and I would certainly do that.  
  Even though Ižm going to shut down the Department of Education,
thatžs the function that remains with the federal government. 
Because a student in New Hampshire might want a loan to go school
in Princeton, New Jersey, or go into Alabama, or go south to
Missouri for journalism.  So I think thatžs a federal level. 
What goes back to the states would be primary and secondary
education where you make all the decisions here.  But that
programžs gonna be maintained.

Moderator: So, so youžre saying that the federal government
should, should handle student loans for higher education?

Pat Buchanan: I think that should, thatžs a federal
responsibility yes.  I would maintain that.  Well wait, herežs
the thing, I believe it should be done by private, but the
federal, federal government would do the guarantees, yeah.  I
think itžs better off done, I had a student loan for example, but
I went down to the bank and got it.  And I guess if I hadnžt paid
it, the feds would have probably paid it and come after me.  But
the bank gave me the loan.  

Question: [Inaudible] go back to your five trillion dollars.

Pat Buchanan: Alright.

Question: They ah, as I understand it they want to ah, take a big
chunk out of the Veteranžs Administration...

Pat Buchanan: Uh-huh.

Question: ...to help with this.  Now, therežs a very simple
solution.  If you didnžt have Grenada, Som, the Persian Gulf or
Bosnia veterans would ah, soon die off within ah, the next 30, 40
years and you wouldnžt have to have that ah Department of
Veterans Affairs.  As long as you ah, keep these things going...

Pat Buchanan: Well ah, thatžs not the purpose of staying out of
these wars.  One of them is keepinž Americans alive.  Um, wežve
got a lot of Americans that served, you know, very very honorably
in World War II, oh, let me say this.  The World War II
generation is the best generation this country ever produced and
they defeated fascism on both sides of the world and lead this
country at the beginning of the Cold War and did a phenomenal job
for America and I think we got obligations to žem.  Especially in
the area of health care.  And m, my understanding is however, is
that only 10% of veterans use the veteranžs hospital.  I have an
uncle, incidentally, who has been using veteran hospital
[inaudible] and hežs out now.  But if theyžre not getting
Medicare benefits then the veterans hospitals should be there for
them and they will be there for them.  But you shou, if, if
theyžre not usinž the veterans hospitals and theyžre using
Medicare and the other facilities, fine, but the hospitals should
be there if they need them and they will be there.  But youžre
right, if we donžt get anymore world wars ah, and, and we stay
out of these foreign wars then uh, then, then the uh, the
veteransž benefits will, will gradually I think, gradually
diminish because the, the big amount is the World War II vets. 
Therežs 16 million under arms.

Moderator: [Inaudible] Question?

Question: Youžve touched on immigration in a couple of your
responses.  Now, both me and my wife come from families with very
recent immigrants, parents and grandparents.  Theyžre very
productive families and I donžt see where I have the right to
close the door on the country.  Ižm a little too close to the
gate I guess.

Pat Buchanan: Uh-huh.  Well, I think you do.  Every countryžs got 
a right to defend its borders and decide its own immigration
policy including the United States of America.  My first concern
is, the fact that, as Ronald Reagan said, žA country that doesnž
t control its borders isnžt really a country anymore.ž  When you
got one, two, three million illegal aliens walking across the
southern border of the United States, into the United States, a
lot of them going on welfare, some of them going into crime, ah,
25% of your federal prisoners are, are illegal aliens.  You got a
serious problem.  You got an invasion of this country as defined
by the Constitution and the government is not, donžt just have an
option to act, the Presidentžs got an obligation to act.  He is
derelict in his duty if he doesnžt enforce the immigration laws
of the United States.  I mean, one of the things wežve been
arguing about Presidents is, they must faithfully execute the
laws.  I donžt understand why Bill Clinton and Congress are
allowed to absolve themselves of, of faithfully executing the
immigration law, simply because it may be unpopular if they did
their duty.  And so I will stop illegal immigration into this
country cold.  And people who break into line and break into the
country are not entitled to welfare in the United States. 
Theyžre not entitled to have their children educated for 18 years
at taxpayersž expense, and so I think that uh, we got a, you
know, they got to show some compassion out here for the American
taxpayer too.  

Moderator: How, how would you keep them out?  What would you do?

Pat Buchanan: Oh, I would build a security fence along the border
and uh, you would stop 95% of the illegal immigration if you just
simply put, therežs a little fence along uh, San Diego now, for
14 miles and itžs been a tremendous help.  Just extend that from
um, the six areas where they come across in the thousands every
weekend.  You can stop 95% of it that way.  Then I think you go
to the illegal immigrants that you find in the criminal court
system, and you say, žLook.  If theyžre, theyžre not gone, if
they havenžt committed horrible crimes,ž youžre gonna  put them
away for six months say, žForget it, send them back.ž  And move
them back that way and, and, and go after these employers that
hire them in the thousands and give them jobs that would
otherwise go to Americans.  

Moderator: Mr. Learn, you asked about immigration.  I assume you
meant legal and illegal.

Question: Yes ah, I understood a, position was ah, a five year
moratorium of legal immigration, thatžs more what I was aiming
at.

Pat Buchanan: Well, in that sense ah, what it migh, the view is
that the people who are legally here now should be allowed to
bring into the country, their children under 18 but you canž t
have them bringinž in brothers and sisters and, and, and parents
because when they do the parents bring in their children and what
we get is what we call a `chainž immigration where you get a
million folks cominž a year and your immigration policy is
dictated by the immigrants who came recently because theyžre the
only ones who have relatives, close relatives who are still
there.  And so your immigration policy is being decided,
basically by people who have just come to the country.  The whole
nation should decide its immigration policy.  I call for a
moratorium because I believe this country needs a time-out on
legal immigration to Americanize and to assimilate all the 25
million who have come here in the last 25 years.  
  We got to start beinž one country, one people, one nation
again.  Thatžs why Ižm for English as the official language of
the United States.  I mean if we donžt have one common language,
look at Quebec.  Herežs a country thatžs been together for
centuries, it is tearing itself apart over two issues.  Language
and culture.  And if we let the idea that we can have two
language, official languages, or three official languages here,
wežre gonna wind up 20 years down the road just like Canada and I
donžt want that to happen to this country.  
  I mean, everywhere you look countries are falling apart. 
Czechoslovakia gone.  Yugoslavia gone.  Soviet Union gone. 
Russia gone.  Breakinž apart.  India?  Over there theyžre
breakinž apart.  Itžs all over the world this is happening and we
donžt want that to happen here so letžs show a little foresight.

Question: But if you take the um, moratorium on legal immigration
another step further, I mean then, when my family got off the
boat, the Mayflower, and said, žNobody else,ž or when another
part of my family got off the boat in Montreal before the
Mayflower, or when another part walked over the ice, the um, the
bridge from um, um what am I thinking of?  
Question: The Bering Strait.

Question: ...the Bering Strait.  I mean at some point you get um,
I was here first therefore letžs have a you know...

Pat Buchanan: No, what your, yours is an argument for no
immigration policy whatsoever and I think uh, given the nature of
uh, of the, of whatžs going on in much of the third world with
terrible, dreadful governments, you do that, you have 10, 20
million people in here a year.  I donž t think the country can
absorb that and stay together.

Moderator: What ben, what benefits would be realized from your
immigration policy?

Pat Buchanan: I ask you what benefits we realized from, from 10
or 20 million more people.

Moderator: No, Ižm,  Ižm not proposing an, an immigration policy,
I'm asking what yours would do.

Pat Buchanan: Well, herežs where the benefit, herežs what you
benefit, one, is, one is, in, in economic terms, if the labor,
the, the, basically the supply of labor, the number of working
men and women stabilizes and then the continued demand for labor
grows, the price of labor, wages, starts going back up again. 
Stable population and business will say we need more workers we
got to hire, we got to compete more, we got to pay žem more.  The
wage levels start going up for Americans, thatžs one thing. 
Secondly, we all have the uh, as time passes, we had a, we had a
moratorium on immigration in the Roosevelt administration, in the
Truman administration, and in the Eisenhower administration. 
Just about zero immigration growth.  Thatžs all Ižm recommending,
what we had then and what happened, in those years we all went
through the same experience of the depression, a lot of us, World
War II, all the radio and TV, the same radio and TV, the same
thing in the 50's and we all, what you came, you had a country,
you had real, a sense of unity, tremendous sense of unity, which
we see breaking down everywhere. 
  You go out to the campuses in California, theyžre having
Hispanic graduations, Asian graduations, black dorms, white grad,
itžs everything everybody's separating, it's fragmenting.  And we
need a time-out so we can get back together and be one nation and
one people again.

Moderator: Yes?

Question: I would like to ask a question relative to a fairer tax
policy...

Pat Buchanan: Uh-huh.

Question: ah, along the lines of what Kevin Phillips has written
about in Arrogant Capital  which I assume you have read.  Youžre
familiar with it?

Pat Buchanan: Sure, hežs a good friend of mine.  I was very much
impressed with that ah, he felt that people who create jobs and
create wealth should benefit, but people who just manipulate
money...

Pat Buchanan: He and I agree.

Question: Okay.

Pat Buchanan: I mean let me tell you something.  It used to be
the old capitalists, whether you like them or not, they built
factories, they hired people, they built wealth, they produced
it.  What you got on ah...

Question: The manipulators.

Pat Buchanan: ...you got on these guys down up in New York.  A
lot of these guys are just speculatinž in currencies...

Question: Absolutely.

Pat Buchanan: ...piling up a billion dollars.  Thatžs why, when I
say, a capital gains tax.  That applies to people who invest in,
in long term investments and things like that.  Itžs not, doesnžt
apply to people who, who, ya know manipulate currencies and make
a billion dollars a year.  But hežs, Kevin Phillips is exactly
right, there are two kinds of capitalists.  One is in it to seize
himself. And businessmen even those who get very rich and
powerful who see themselves as responsible for their communities,
and and responsible to their workers, are part of their family.   
  Let me tell you one of them you had up here in northern New
Hampshire and hežs an elderly gentleman that runs that, makes all
those that uh, uh, medical gloves now that they make žem by the
billions.  And he was be, he gets this big offer, they want to
buy him out.  And he says, žBut Ižm scared.  Whatžs gonna happen
to my workers?ž because they also make the gloves in Malaysia. 
And theyžll say, žWell, wežll shut down the American plant, these
guys are makinž 15 an hour.  We can get rid of that, and wežll
double production over here.ž  And itžs the, the old idea of a
capitalist was somebody who was part of the community, he built
his company or his firm and it got larger and larger and he saw
himself as basically a father to the community and he plowed his
money back into it and, and you know, they built jobs and when
they got an extra amount of money they had scholarships for the
sons.  The sons and daughters are workinž the same place.  
   You go down those textile plants in Carolina, I talked to one
fella, in Montgomery I believe, he's 90 years old, he still comes
to work.  Said, žJoe here has been working here for 65 years.ž 
And those guys are family.  And what happens when somebody up in
ah, some finance here buys those factories.  What hežs gonna say
is, žLook.  What are we keep that textile mill open down there
for?  We can take that machinery and move it, move it across down
to Mexico.  We can get a work force for a buck an hour, we can
get rid of these people.ž  Thatžs whatžs happening to America.

Question: Let me ask you uh, another question there.  Uh, the
Republicans are planning to cut 270 million dollars off of the
budget.  How can they justify...

Pat Buchanan: Three billion in Medicare?

Question: ...No.  Uh, well, 270, whatever the budget cuts were.
[Inaudible]

Pat Buchanan: Well thatžs 70 billion is Medicare alone.

Question: No, two-si, 270 I think was the total figure that they
were cutting the budget.

Pat Buchanan: Well, go ahead.

Question: Okay.  They turn right around and then offer 245
million [sic] in tax breaks that will benefit mostly the wealthy
and that sounds like trickle-down economics which was disproven
and proved to be a disaster with Reagan.  Trickle-down economics
did not work.

Pat Buchanan: Well I, you know, Ižm gonna disagree with you here. 
I thought we were making progress before then [laughter]...

Question: Sometimes on some things.

Pat Buchanan: Alright, let me say this.  What Reagan did, succeed
in doinž with his tax cuts, we had seven years of uninterrupted
economic growth in America.  A net of 20 million new jobs were
created for a lot of these folks who come into the country and
itžs never happened before.  You had that long a period of, of
prosperity.  But therežs no doubt we now know that while a lot of
folks are doing very well, some working class folks were seeinž
their, their incomes levelinž off.  The werenžt doinž well.  And
a lot of reasons why family income, you got the wives that went
out workinž and thatžs whatžs keepinž the family income up.  Now,
I agree with you on the uh, I donžt agree with you on this.  I
the, a lot, a tremendous amount of that, of that tax cut is for
child credit who are for middle class families, up, making up to
100,000 or so.  And b, the capital gains cuts, theyžre cuttinž
capital gains back to about 19.6%.  I think that will have a
beneficial effect.  I know they say capital gains tax got just to
the rich and I agree with you on, on, on the speculators and
people like that.  
  But look, we want capital to come into America to create jobs
here, We canžt keep taxinž return on capital at the highest
levels in the Western world if we want money to come to America. 
Just canžt do it and if you keep taxinž the return of savings,
interest, at some of the, the highest Western world people wonžt
save their money here and the, you got to make, an, an, and
Reaganžs ideas, I think, in a lot of cases were basically right. 
There are areas where it went awry, but I donžt think that you
can say that uh, the 80's were a total failure because the
American people donžt think so.  They re-elected him, we, 49...

Question: We, yeah, what about, what about the growth in the
budget deficit during the Reagan years?  It grew tremendously.

Pat Buchanan: Well, they should have cut.  Well herežs the thing,
thatžs exactly what Ižm talking about.  We were fighting and
winning the Cold War which we had to do and we were fighting the
Great Society which I donžt think we had to do and which didnžt
work.  But I agree with you now, wežve got to go after both of
them and downsize žem.

Moderator: We have about...

Question: Can I...

Moderator: ...we have a little less than...

Question: ...can I...

Moderator: ...yeah, we have, yeah let me just say we have a
little less than 10 minutes, probably a little more than five. 
So um, if, if you have some questions we can make quick questions
with quick answers and then wežll be finished.

Pat Buchanan: Sure.

Question: Yeah, Ižd like to just ah...

Moderator: And then...

Question: ...follow this...

Moderator: ...and then, and then Deborah...

Question: ...okay.

Moderator: ...okay, quickly.

Question: You know ah, you know Ižve been in the, the industrial
business for uh, over 20 years or so, and, and pr, profit itžs
not a four letter word you know.  It, and you know, the capital
gains tax in this country, it, itžs just slowinž this country
down.  Now you think everybodyžs going to take advantage of the
capital gains tax, is gonna be the guy with, he has a net worth
of 20 million.  Wrong.  I mean, I have a lot of investors, a lot
of investors, ah, who own their homes and, and they own their
small businesses ah, they own stocks and bonds and that they sell
this, t, sell their stocks an, and get a gain on it, theyžre
going to hit 28%.  Thatžs money that's not going into the
economy.  Once money goes into Washington  it is, it goes down in
this big dark hole someplace.  Ah, you can, we can cut this
budget by 10% and you wouldnžt even, you wouldnžt even miss that
money because therežs so much stuff going on out there.  You
got...

Moderator: Did you, did you have a question that...

Question: Well, I, I, I guess the, the question I have to Mr.
Buchanan is, is that, is that ah, what can we do to ah, ah lower
the tax rate to free up money so people can save?  And investment
comes from the savings.

Pat Buchanan: Uh-huh, yes, Growth comes from investment. 
Exactly, and what we ought to do is un, my ideas to make America
the enterprise zone of the entire Western world because wežre in
competition and rivalry with Japan and Germany and Europe and
China.  And so if you got the lowest, lowest rates of taxation on
work and investment and  savings in America, the savings will
come to America, the investment will come to America and people
will be encouraged to work because theyžll be able to keep more
of what they  earn.  Thatžs what America is all about and this
idea, youžre right.  
   Take capital gains, one quick point, you know capital gains
here might be somebodyžs got a new child, he says, žWežre gonna
send that child to Princeton, Ižm puttinž five thousand into a
stock market now, if itžs worth 50,000, 15 years from now, and a
lot of thatžs inflation, what is the government doing, coming in,
taking 30% of it, all of it, even the inflation part of it?  And
saying, `Thatžs ouržs.ž  The government didnžt take that risk,
people do.ž

Moderator: Deborah, you had a question.

Question: Yes, um, Ižd like to know what your views are on ah,
non-profit, tax exempt status on companies that, are kind of, I
mean...

Pat Buchanan: [Inaudible] the company doesnžt deserve the non-
profit status [laughter, inaudible].  

Question: I believe that youžre...

Pat Buchanan: I think that theyžre probably, theyžre are some
folks that are behavinž as charitable institutions that are
anything but...

Question: Oh, I know...

Pat Buchanan: ...and theyžre probably...

Question: ...a man who advised once that if I wanted to start a
business that I should do it as non-profit because then I could
draw whatever salary I wanted and I wouldnžt have to pay the big
taxes...

Moderator: Did you have a specific issue on non-profits 

Question: Yeah.

Moderator: related to this question?

Question: What are your views on that?...

Pat Buchanan: Well let me tell you something. 

Question: Do you agree with me or disagree with me?

Pat Buchanan:  Well I think that thatžs a rip-off of the tax
system and you ought to stop it.  Did you know, your World Bank
employees in Washington D.C. donžt pay any federal income tax? 
And they make great big salaries sittinž there in Washington D.C.
give, sending your money out all over the world.

Question: No heavy lifting.

Pat Buchanan: No heavy lifting.  They got their own golf course
[laughs].  Their own country club.

Question: So would you, would you be...

Pat Buchanan: I am at, listen, I, Ižm sure there are some rip-
offs of the tax code and they all ought to be looked at if people
are abusing what should be legitimate, for legitimate charities,
and for churches and for religious faiths, and for education.  If
somebodyžs gone beyond that, rippinž it off, wežre gonna look at
it.  Sure.

Question: What, what about corporate welfare?  What is your
feeling on that?

Pat Buchanan: My feeling is that it ought to be, probab, it ought
to be cut out and that we ought to get to a flat tax on
corporations and take all this corporate welfare and use it and
ah, and then, then cut, then get to a flat tax on...

Question: Tobacco and ethanol and so on?

Pat Buchanan: Ah, well, herežs the thing.  With one thing about
ah, the one thing that does bother me, with 53% dependent right
now on foreign oil and wežre tremendously dependent on the
Persian Gulf, and I donžt think thatžs a healthy thing.  And so
if you do have a national security reason for having a, a
subsidies for oil to make America independent of that so that we
donžt have another crisis brought on by people who say, žWežre
not gonna sell you anymore oil.ž  Itžs not a bad thing if itžs a
national interest.

Question: Yeah, I would agree with that ah, I just, I think that
therežs very little use of ethanol and I donžt know that itžs a
failure on the part of the government or...

Pat Buchanan: Oh, I think they use it all, they certainly have it
in Iowa.  They use it ah, I think a tremendous...

Question: Well Kansas and Iowa but uh...

Pat Buchanan: ...well therežs a tremendous percentage of it ah,
that is ethanol based out there.

Question:  Is it?

Pat Buchanan:  Yeah, I believe it is, yeah, yeah.

Moderator: Ah, anyone else with a final question?

Pat Buchanan: I think wežve answered them all, havenžt we?
[laughter]

Question: No. [everyone talking over each other]

Moderator: ...Did you have another question that you wanted to...

Question: No.

Question: Whožs your Vice, whožs your Vice-President?

Pat Buchanan: Who do you think it ought to be? [laughs]

Question: Do you believe in term limits?  

Pat Buchanan: I believe in term limits on members of Congress and
I believe in term limits on federal judges.

Question: Amen.

Pat Buchanan: Now wežre movinž, now wežre moving right? Alright.

Question: ...therežs a good one.

Pat Buchanan: ...okay. [laughs]

Question: What about campaign reform?

Pat Buchanan: I am 100% for gettinž rid of all the pact money,
getting corporate money out of politics, makinž candidates raise
money for their campaigns in their own states so they represent
their own state.

Question: Youžre running a high now.

[Everybody talking over each other]

Pat Buchanan: ...lobbyist.  I donžt need any of that pact money
those fellas hand out, I mean, Ižm tellinž ya we need to clean
that up thatžs why you get GATT agreements, because the big boys
call up and say, žWe need this.  I donžt care where you stand on
term limits, we need this, this will be too important to the
company, and thatžs why we bought all the ads in your brochure,
thatžs why we bought ah, 500 tickets to that dinner you held the
other night.ž Thatžs whatžs all goinž on there.  Theyžre buyinž
and sellinž America, right down there in Washington D.C.  

Question: Is the government going out on the 17th? [Dec]  Again?

Pat Buchanan: Um, I donžt know if it is or not.  I donžt know. 
Last time, they didnžt go out.  It was ah, paid holiday for those
folks.  I mean they went out for two days and they got paid. 
That wasnžt a national crisis.  I wish theyžd do that for me
sometime.

Question: Are we, are we going to do it again?

Pat Buchanan:  Um, thatžs up to Newt, Newt and Dole. [laughs]

Moderator: Okay ah, we, we have a, just a little of our minute
left.  Is there some comment on, on Mr. Buchanan, or about Mr.
Buchanan youžd like to make?

Question: Talkinž about social security, and this is goinž broke.

Pat Buchanan: Uh-uh.

Question: Now how many times have they had the trustees look into
social security and then a couple years later be Medicare thatžd
be goinž broke, and then before the time that the trustees said
that theyžre goinž broke they had, they had to go and do it
again?

Pat Buchanan: In other words, their projections were wrong?

Question: Seems that way.

Pat Buchanan: Yep.  Well it has happened repeatedly.  It has
happened repeatedly and itžs got to be takinž a look at, wežve go
to save Medicare, wežve got to save Medicare, but it cannot
continue to grow at a rate of 10 or 11% the way itžs doing now. 
But wežve got to save it, but wežve got to do it the right way. 
We canžt force the elderly into rationed care, thatžs just wrong.
[Pause] All set?  I think wežve answered them all here.

Moderator: Well, there may be a question or two thatžs left
unanswered but I just want to make sure that if anyone does have
a question that they havenžt had the opportunity.  And you might,
I would like to find out some of what youžve learned about Mr.
Buchanan that you may not have known before and how you feel
about his candidacy.  Itžs sort of a question that we, we ask the
panelists at the end.

Pat Buchanan:  You donžt normally talk about the guest while
theyžre still at the dinner table do ya? [laughter]

Moderator: Thatžs, thatžs a [inaudible] analogy.

Question: No, I expected, from what Ižve heard, that you were
going to come with a flame thrower in here.  You have that
reputation.

Pat Buchanan: Well, listen, as ah, you know I, I never live up to
my, nobody can live up to my reputation. [laughter]

Question: What do you think is going to happen at the uh,
National Convention?  How do you think thatžs going to shape up?

Pat Buchanan: I think what wežre gonna have here, is wežre gonna
have a, th, th, the fightžs gonna get much much tougher up here
in New Hampshire, itžs going to be robust, itžs going to be
hittinž back and forth on issues but I think wežre going to have
a front runner by about, in early March, three months from now. 
And he'll be he, itžs going to be a he because therežs no woman
in the race.  Will be the prohibitive favorite for the nomination
and then I think theyžll be a real tendency of the party to come
together because all of us believe the country needs new
leadership and new direction and I really believe it does and so
I think the folks will come together.  But youžre going to have,
you know, if they say itžs going to be boring, it ainžt going to
be boring, itžs going to get very very exciting here.

Question: How...

Pat Buchanan: I guarantee it.

Question: ...how žbout Vice-President?

Pat Buchanan: Who do you want for Vice-President?

Question: Who do you want for Vice-President? [laughter]

Pat Buchanan: Ižm not doinž that well in the polls.  Ižm ždoinž
well, but not that well.

Question: You did well in Florida.

Question: Ižm concerned...

Pat Buchanan: Oh, listen.  I didnžt go down, I didnžt go down, I
didnžt, do you know how much it costs žem in Florida?  They
spent, Bob Dole spent two million dollars for a little straw-
poll, couple hundred votes, Lamar spent close to a million, Phil
spent a million.  I donžt have that kind of money so we passed it
up.  You know when we went out in worked in that straw-poll in
Iowa we no, no, we got nine.  When we worked in, oh yeah we got,
when we went out in Iowa and we went to work, Dole got 24 and we
got 18.  Gramm got 24. [Inaudible] we wait.  What do we got here
in New Hampshire?  Seventeen percent?  Doležs at 27?  I started
uh, last time I was at five and Bush was at 85.  You saw what
happened then didnžt ya?  Itžs closinž, [inaudible]...

Question: I, I...

Pat Buchanan: ...put you're money on me, you'll still get some
pretty good odds.

[Everyone talking over each other, laughter]

Pat Buchanan: ...short term capital gains...

Question: Ižd be concerned about Dole's choice of Vice-President
at his age.  That would scare the hell out of me.

Pat Buchanan: Well, there's no doubt everybody's gonna be
watchinž that, that choice.   But he's not going to be in the
door, hežs not going to be makin' a choice, I am.  Alright?

Question: If youžre elected can you work with me?

Question: Are you in good health?

Pat Buchanan: Ah, I'm in good health.  I g, just was over at
that, thatžs why I'm drinkin' this water.  I was over there, ran
two miles today and worked out in the Executive Club.  Try to
work out everyday because this is very exhausting and frankly
that workout gives you a little bit of energy at the end of the
day.  And you gotta keep at it, gotta keep at it.  This is, wežve
been at it eight or nine months, got three more.  As for ah, what
džya, well sure you could work with ah, Newt and ah, and work
with Bob Dole.  Sure.  I mean, obviously youžd have some bums but
I think wežd get along better than theyžre gettinž along with the
fella there now.

Question: Well thatžs not sayinž a whole lot too. [Inaudible]
...a lot of room. [laughter]

Pat Buchanan: Yeah.

Moderator: Okay. Well, we still do have a little more time and,
and...

Question: Have you got any...

Pat Buchanan: Well let me tell you how this race is gonna go. 
Let me describe it to you.

Question: Can I write this down?  

Pat Buchanan: You write it down, let me tell you.  Ah, therežs an
Alaska straw-poll of peopležll be lookinž at the 27th through the
29th.  Itžll get some attention.  Then therežs Louisiana which is
a caucus on February sixth as of now and is a real controversy
over Phil Gramm sort of put that in first people are sayinž and
itžs takinž away from an Iowa caucus and itžs a big battle there,
but the big story will come out of Iowa on the 12th.  Who has
done really well?  And therežll be tremendous national headlines
and youžll see the national press pouring in here on the 20th of
New Hampshire for the New Hampshire Primary.  And whoever thatžs
going to be, I think itžs going to come out, Bob Dole and one
challenger are going to come out of New Hampshire.  Ižm goinž to
be that challenger.  Alright?  And a week later we go to Arizona
and theyžre going to be buryinž them out in Monument Valley and
theyžre not going to bury me because Ižm coming out of there. 
Thatžs how itžs gonna go.  I guarantee it. [laughter]

Question: Written guarantee?

Pat Buchanan: [laughs] Ižm not writtinž anything down [inaudible]

Moderator: Susan?

Question: Your speech opening the Republican Convention in ž92
was seen by some as, as, as divisive.  Um, do you regret making
the speech the way you did and if they give you the dais again
would you, would you make the same speech?

Pat Buchanan: Well the speech I gave, and quite frankly George
Bush rose ten points in  the national polls the night I gave that
speech, Ronald Reagan spoke, ah, was a keynote speech.  In where
you lay out, in  here we stand and in there they stand.  And
thatžs exactly what you do in a keynote speech.  But if youžre
the nominee of the party then you go out and lay out what wežre
going to do for America and how wežre going to change things and
where wežre headed.  But I wasnžt the nominee, I lost.  And I
wrote that speech to the specifications given by the Bush folks,
and we laid out the differences, praised Reagan, laid out the
differences between Bush, George Bush and Bill Clinton and laid
out the, the crisis of America.  As a keynote speech, and there,
quite frankly you donžt remember many speeches from those ah,
conventions do ya, and you remember mine?  [laughs]

[Everybody talking over each other]

Moderator: Okay, we're finished.

Pat Buchanan: Thanks very much.

Moderator: Yep.  Thank you.