In my spare time I like to browse around at www.vote-smart.org, plugging in key phrases and seeing what certain politicians said about those topics in prior years. Given the Supreme Court news, I plugged in “litmus test” and searched under the public statements of one George W. Bush. I came across his statements from the first 2000 presidential debate with Vice President Al Gore. The transcript, however, was not complete with moderator comments. I searched for the full transcript and found it here.
A couple of interesting points.
1. I was shocked by how coherently Bush performed in this debate. Obviously, way back in 2000, he gave enough of a damn to actually take the time to prepare and memorize the flash cards Karl made for him.
- Bush’s arguments and responses provide a very, very clear roadmap of the policies he has enacted or is now attempting to enact – senior prescription drug benefits, tax cuts, private accounts. He has not honored many of his promises in the way he said he would in this debate, however.
- Bush needs to be held accountable for the statements he made in 2000 regarding the criteria for committing troops – clear exit strategy, fully equipped, satisfaction of recruiting goals, no nation-building.
- Bush said that the wealthiest Americans should pay more tax, and the poorest, no tax at all. He also decries a “massive” federal government.
- And about that litmus test – Bush says “no litmus test”. But certainly we all know that he most certainly does have a one-issue litmus test – anti-choice, anti-privacy, anti-Constitution, pro-Dobson.
I’ve highlighted some of the most notable comments below. I would love to see a reporter call Bush on at least one of these.
MODERATOR: On the Supreme Court question. Should a voter assume — you’re pro-life.
BUSH: I am pro-life.
MODERATOR: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?
BUSH: The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they’re appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn’t misuse their bench. I don’t believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint.
Gore calls him on it:
GORE: We both use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don’t favor a litmus test, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. And when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as the benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s very clear to me. I would appoint people that have a philosophy that I think will be quite likely would uphold Roe v. Wade.
MODERATOR: Is the vice president right?
BUSH: It sounds like he’s not very right tonight. I just told you the criteria on which I’ll appoint judges…
OK W, I’ll hold you to that – when you say “strict constructionist” you do NOT mean anti-choice litmus test. Got it.
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
…
BUSH: …The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it’s going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. … If we don’t have a clear vision of the military, if we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I’m going to prevent that. I’m going to rebuild our military power. It’s one of the major priorities of my administration.
MODERATOR: Governor, one minute.
BUSH: The man is practicing fuzzy math again. There’s differences. Under Vice President Gore’s plan, he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965. We’re talking about a massive government, folks. We’re talking about adding to or increasing 200 programs, 20,000 new bureaucrats. Imagine how many IRS agents it is going to take to be able to figure out his targeted tax cut for the middle class that excludes 50 million Americans. There is a huge difference in this campaign. He says he’s going to give you tax cuts. 50 million of you won’t receive it. He said in his speech he wants to make sure the right people get tax relief. That’s not the role of a president to decide right and wrong. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay more tax, the poorest of Americans, six million families, won’t pay any tax at all. It’s a huge difference. A difference between big exploding federal government that wants to think on your behalf and a plan that meets priorities and liberates working people to be able to make decisions on your own.
Crossposted at dailyKos.
