08/01/00 - BUCHANAN REFORM -- Kara Hopkins   PHILADELPHIA PLATFORM: PRETTY IN PINK Two decades and an age away, Ronald Reagan exhorted the Republican faithful to “raise a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors that make it unmistakably clear where we stand…” But boldness and clarity are not selling points in the age of compassionate conservatism with its soft edges and syrupy prose. Far from the principled stand of yesteryear, the new GOP platform finds the professed custodians of conservatism not standing at all, but ducking. Color them powder pink. Past GOP platforms called for the elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and the National Endowment for the Arts. This year’s minces about “downsizing” the “mess” while mandating new spending programs. It adds soccer mom-friendly phrases about funding for women’s health, and promises new money for environmental projects. Gone is the 1996 pledge to secure our borders “from the threat of illegal immigration.” Señor Bush’s version merely suggests the “solution for illegal immigration is economic growth in Mexico.” The 1996 plank supporting the “official recognition of English” has been replaced with a call for “respect for other languages and cultures throughout our society.'” In an effort to keep conservatives in their seats in Philadelphia, the GOP platform leaves the pro-life plank intact, despite of Gov. Bush’s exceptions for of rape, incest, and life of the mother and disdain for litmus tests. The end result is, in the words of platform chair Tommy Thompson, “inclusive,” “progressive,” and “uplifting.” Hallmark would be proud. But for a stalwart few still inclined to bold colors, this saccharine substitute won’t do. They remember days when compassion meant private charity rather than federal subsidy, and conservatism had more to do with big ideas than big tent. This election they have a choice. Pat Buchanan’s commitment to limited government, traditional morality, and American sovereignty takes up the bold banner dropped by the GOP. His candidacy offers an alternative to the Republicans’ centrist drift, and promises that conservatives won’t be automatic enlistees in Mr. Bush’s “armies of compassion.” The Reform Party Platform draws clear distinctions on trade, foreign policy, and political reform, and PJB’s upcoming statement of principle promises uncompromising stands on social issues. This is a platform worthy of a movement. Welcome home, conservatives. We’re flying your colors. 07/30/00 - ASSOCIATED PRESS - YAHOO   DALLAS MEETING: VOTE TO REMOVE BUCHANAN CALLED "BOGUS" Members of the Reform Party's executive committee voted Saturday to remove Pat Buchanan name from the party's presidential ballot, but Buchanan campaign officials called the action ``bogus'' and without any standing. ``It means absolutely nothing,'' declared Bay Buchanan, the candidate's sister and national co-chair of the Buchanan campaign. ``There's absolutely no question that Pat's still on the ballot.'' Seven members of the executive committee voted unanimously to remove Buchanan's name from ballots to be mailed to party members, according to Jim Mangia, the party's secretary. He acknowledged the group's decision could be overturned by the party's 164-member national committee when it meets Aug. 8... Bay Buchanan, calling the action ``irrelevant,'' said the 10-member committee did not have any standing because it did not have a proper quorum. Two of the seven people who voted against Buchanan were removed from the committee some time ago, she maintained...   Even before the vote, Buchanan spokesman Brian Doherty dismissed the effort as frivolous and called the allegations ``false and outrageous.'' ``They're just doing everything they can to obstruct us or impede Buchanan's nomination,'' Doherty said Saturday before the vote. ``They can't defeat us legitimately, so they go about it trying to defeat us in other ways.'' Under party rules, the 164-member national committee will review the executive committee's decision when it meets Aug. 8 in Long Beach, Calif. By a two-thirds vote, members could reverse the executive committee's decision. ``Anything the executive committee does today is a publicity stunt if anything,'' said Bob Belcher, the party's Alabama state chairman and a professed neutral...     At stake was control of the party apparatus and $12.6 million in federal election funds that go to the party's nominee. 07/27/00 - ANTIWAR.COM - George Szamuely   DRIVING AN EDSALL THROUGH THE TRUTH There is always something hilarious whenever the United States gets indignant about threats to press freedom around the world. It is hard to think of a country that can equal the United States for media eager to act as attack dogs of the political establishment. Case in point: Thomas B. Edsall's recent article about Pat Buchanan in the Washington Post. Here was journalism of the most scurrilous kind: an attempt to destroy a man's reputation by falsely linking him with unsavory characters and thereby attributing to him views he does not hold. Here is how the Edsall method works. He starts out by alleging that Buchanan is receiving a "flood of support from the extreme right, including groups that are intensely anti-black, anti-Jewish and anti-immigrant." As a result, he goes on, "Buchanan's candidacy is turning the [Reform] party from a secular organization predominantly focused on trade and campaign finance reform into a hard-right party opposed to abortion, critical of the influence of Israel and adamantly opposed to affirmative action." Notice that Edsall is not suggesting that Buchanan himself has any connection with these "groups." Nor is he suggesting that Buchanan ever solicited their support. Nor, indeed, is he suggesting that Buchanan ever consented to anything these groups might have done on his behalf. Yet Edsall deliberately leaves his readers with the impression that Buchanan and "groups that are intensely anti-black, anti-Jewish and anti-immigrant" are in cahoots together. Interestingly enough, Edsall is also unable to offer any evidence that these various fringe organizations that so preoccupy him are exerting any influence whatsoever within the Reform Party. In other words, this is a non-story. The Washington Post ran it for no reason other than to slander Buchanan. "Buchanan's harsh critiques of the 'Israel lobby,' of third world immigration and of such civil rights leaders as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.," Edsall writes, "have resonated with groups that see Jews as corrupters of American culture and that see blacks and Hispanics as threats to white majority rule of the United States." Again, has Buchanan ever called Jews "corrupters of American culture"? Of course not. Has Buchanan ever talked about "white majority rule in the United States"? Of course not. Buchanan has never even referred to something called "Third World immigration." What Buchanan talks about is the flood of immigrants that daily pours across the Mexican border. Any other country in the world would regard this as a serious matter, demanding urgent attention. Here merely to raise the issue invites abuse. Other than Buchanan, no other candidate has dared to broach the subject of illegal immigration. As for Buchanan's supposedly "harsh critique of the 'Israel lobby'," it is scarcely from that of Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington. In A Republic, Not an Empire, Buchanan quotes approvingly from a Huntington article of a few years back: "Economic and ethnic particularism define the current American role in the world. The institutions and capabilities…created to serve a grand national purpose in the Cold War are now being suborned and redirected to serve narrow subnational, transnational, and even nonational purposes….For understanding of American foreign policy it is necessary to study not the interests of the American state in a world of competing states but rather the play of economic and ethnic interests in American domestic politics." If Edsall had been interested in criticizing Buchanan, rather than simply slandering him, he might have found a number of things to object to in the Buchanan/Huntington analysis. Ethnic lobbies do not have anything like the clout attributed to them. The United States did not get to be the overwhelmingly dominant power it is today by shackling itself to the fate of various diasporas. It is inconceivable that the United States would have undertaken a vast commitment like the one towards Israel on account of the power of America's Jews. Jews comprise something like two percent of the US population. Rich and influential they may be, but they are still outnumbered by rich and influential non-Jews. US policymakers decided many years ago that Israel would serve American global strategic designs. In 1956, following the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt, the United States took diplomatic and economic action against Britain and France, but none against Israel. Britain and France were rivals to the US in the Middle East, while Israel was a useful client-state. Similarly, the decision to expand NATO up to Russia's borders had nothing to do with the supposed political influence of Americans of East European origin. Nor did the decision to support the Moslems of Bosnia or Kosovo have anything to do with the lobbying of a tiny Moslem population in the United States. Each of these commitments was based on a strategic decision, taken by US policymakers, without any real debate at all, and then sold to the American people by means of heartwarming pap. Expansion of NATO was a good thing because it is bad to exclude minorities from well-to-do clubs. Bombing Serbs was a good thing because we were doing it on behalf of discriminated and oppressed minorities. Israel needs to be supported because it is the only democracy in the Middle East. None of these rationalizations has anything to do with the real reasons why the United States pursued the policies it did. They are all about securing American dominance of very single region in the world. Buchanan is almost the only public figure in the United States who regards this as dangerous folly. Critics of empire have never been popular. They are usually denounced for lack of patriotism or nationalism or xenophobia. Edsall is an interesting case, for recently he came up with an unusual line of attack. In his response to Sunday's article, Buchanan reminded the Washington Post of Edsall's onslaught on him from a few months back: "Will you folks please make up your minds as to whether I am turning the Reform Party into a haven for Bolsheviks or a tree house for Nazis? Your Tom Edsall has us confused." Buchanan is referring here to a Post article in which Edsall wrote breathlessly that a "once-marginal Marxist-Leninist group has become a major force in the Reform Party, aligning itself with Patrick J. Buchanan in what many members say is an effort to take control of the party." The words are almost the same – "Marxist-Leninist" has simply been substituted for "extreme right." The purpose is also the same: the destruction of Pat Buchanan's reputation. The ferocity of the vituperation that continues to be directed at Pat Buchanan is indeed extraordinary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his supposedly socially conservative views. He has always held them and this did not stop CNN or NBC from offering him lucrative contracts in the past. Many people on the Right, including figures like Bob Dole or Dick Cheney or Jack Kemp, who by and large enjoy favorable media coverage, share his stance on abortion. Buchanan's crime was to attack the American empire. By doing so, he threatened the interests of media, academic, financial and corporate elites. An American empire is very good for them. They make lots of money and swagger round the world feeling very important. It does not do much for the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not move in elite circles. But who cares about them? It is instructive to recall that the character assassination of Buchanan only started after he came out in opposition to the Gulf War. Up until then he was in very good standing among "neo-conservatives," their fat Foundations and their media allies. Now all of a sudden A. M. Rosenthal discovered that Buchanan was "anti-Semitic." Rosenthal's conclusion was based on a fraud that he deliberately perpetrated. He took sentences from one Buchanan column, joined them up with sentences from another column and made it seem as if Buchanan was arguing that Jews were forcing war on the United States in which the only casualties would be non-Jews. The fraud worked and in no time it became conventional wisdom that Buchanan was "anti-Semitic." No one seemed to find it extraordinary that a man who had been speaking out vociferously on every subject under the sun for almost three decades could have hidden such terrible prejudices so successfully. The "anti-Semitic" card trumps all others in US politics. And it served to discredit from the start Buchanan's emerging critique of the US-dominated global order. It is critical to our imperial masters that there should be no discussion of where their policy is leading America. As Buchanan put it at the Second Annual Antiwar.com conference in March: "Foreign policy, they tell us, is not an issue in this election year. By that they mean it is off the table, a matter already decided upon and settled by those who know what is best for America. So they, and their media auxiliaries, redirect our attention away from foreign policy to such burning national issues as the dating policy at Bob Jones University." Campaign trivia about who's in and who's out, who has the best "spin doctor," who has won the "image" game – only these vexing issues are to be debated. Thus, the armchair warriors, the benchwarmers of the corporate boardrooms, the military contractors, the registered agents of foreign governments, and the professional foreign policy "experts" get a free run for their money. The United States recklessly continues to pursue its agenda of global dominance. Whether in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Africa there must be no countervailing power to the United States. In Europe the United States must undermine the European Union at very turn, and provoke conflicts so as to establish the indispensability of NATO. In Asia, the United States must contain China, defend Taiwan and South Korea, prevent the emergence of Japan as a serious world power, undermine Indonesia and Malaysia, and whip up fear of North Korea. Russia is to be kicked out of Europe, surrounded by NATO client states and denied access to the oil riches of the Caspian Sea. Latin America must become one giant North Atlantic Free Trade Area, the better for us to coerce them towards "market democracy" – which, of course, has nothing to do with markets or democracy. As Buchanan put it, "this is hubris; this is triumphalism; this is the arrogance of power; this is America's Brezhnev doctrine…Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: 'If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future.' Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's 'indispensable nation' has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards? And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution?" It is hard to think of a question demanding a more urgent answer. And that is precisely why it must never be raised. And why anyone who does raise will be attacked, slandered and discredited again and again. 07/27/00 - CNN.COM [7/26]   PJB TRANSCRIPTF - CNN'S BURDEN OF PROO VAN SUSTEREN: Hello and welcome to BURDEN OF PROOF. Roger is off today. For much of the past four decades, Pat Buchanan has been part of the old guard of the GOP's conservative ranks. But last October, he broke ranks and left his Republican past and fled to the Reform Party. Buchanan is vying for the presidential nomination and is suing to gain access to this fall's debates. Pat Buchanan joins us today here in our studio. And also joining him in the front row are Marilyn Martin (ph) and Laurie Thibodeau (ph). And in our back row, Stephanie Inks (ph) and David Sirolly (ph). Pat, you have filed a lawsuit, which in essence you want to get on the schedule to do the debates in October. Why aren't you on that debate schedule now? PAT BUCHANAN (REF.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the reason we're not is the Presidential Debate Commission, which is dominated completely by Republicans and Democrats, when I joined the Reform Party suddenly added a new criterion to get into the debates, you have to reach 15 percent in five polls taken by good friends of mine at NBC and CBS and the "Washington Post." And this was arbitrary and capricious. And what we argue it is, Greta, is basically is a two-party conspiracy to keep the third recognized party out of the event that is going to decide the presidency of the United States. It is unfair, it is unjust, it is illegitimate, and we believe it is illegal. VAN SUSTEREN: When did this 15 percent rule come into effect. Was it really after you left the Republican Party and joined the Reform Party? BUCHANAN: Yeah, it didn't even exist. All you had to do to get into the presidential debates before was, you got to be on the ballot in enough states to win, you got to be 35 of course, you have got to be a recognized national party, which Reform is. And you got to qualify for federal funds, which we've done. So we had all the qualifications, but as soon as I moved to the Reform Party, immediately the debate commission met and imposed this new criterion, quite simply, just to keep us out. Now they are funded. The Presidential Debate Commission gets a million dollars in funds from corporations, soft money, and they take tax deductions for that because it is supposed to be nonpartisan. But this isn't nonpartisan, it is bipartisan, and it makes a whale of a difference to us when we are the third party. VAN SUSTEREN: Let me be a little bit flip, is it safe to say that everyone thinks you are important enough to give you federal funds, taxpayer money to be in the election, but just you are not important enough to make the debates; is that what it is? BUCHANAN: That is really, when you get right down to it, Greta, what Mr. Fahrenkopf (ph), who is a lobbyist for gamblers and heads the commission, is saying is, even though Mr. Buchanan and the Reform Party qualify for taxpayers' dollars, we don't think the taxpayers ought to see his ideas and issues in those debates. So we are going to keep him out. VAN SUSTEREN: ... Pat, let me go back to your lawsuit. Where did you file it? BUCHANAN: We are going to file it in federal court. I don't know if we have yet. We want to get the final, formal rejection from the Federal Election Commission, which was unanimous. But, again, that is entirely Republican and Democrat. I'm not sure where they're going to file it, Greta. VAN SUSTEREN: What have the Gore and Bush ticket said? BUCHANAN: We have not gotten a response from either of them yet formally, whether they're even going to debate, I understand Mr. Bush. I think they're just waiting. What's going to happen here, Greta, is I think you are going to have a firestorm of protests that Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader be included. A national poll showed that 64 percent of the American people wanted Buchanan and Nader in the debates, 25 percent were opposed. And when the country wants that, and really many journalists, liberal and conservative and Democrat and Republican, they agree we ought to be in the debates, I think the two-party monopoly, that cartel is going to have a hard time keeping us out. VAN SUSTEREN: And so 64 percent of the people want you in the debate. But tell me if I'm correct that, right now, that you have about a little bit less than five percent of the voters behind you, in terms of being president. BUCHANAN: Well, some polls show us now moving back up to six percent, and we hope, after I get the nomination and we run hard, to get back into double-digits before the deadline, before the cutoff poll. But that is an enormously difficult, almost impossible task. Jesse Ventura had only 10 percent when they let him into the debates. Ross Perot, in '92, had seven percent. They let him into the debates and he got 19 percent. The debates are where the people decide who they want as president. We don't want -- the Republicans and Democrats telling us we can't see people who are running for president. That is just putting a mortal lock and. frankly. a conspiracy to control the presidency forever. VAN SUSTEREN: One of the arguments that you make in your court filing, which I don't know if it's been filed yet or not, is that you have a certain percentage, maybe a little bit more than five percent -- I don't know what it is -- of the American vote now, but that you believe that after the debates that you would persuade enough Americans so that you would hit that 15 percent threshold. Why do you think that? BUCHANAN: Well, I not only think we would hit 15 percent, I think we can turn it into three-way race. As I said, Ross Perot went up from seven points, almost tripled his support, to 19 percent, by being in those three debates. I believe we have a different agenda than the other Democrats. We are going to talk about the Supreme Court. I will name justices just like Antonin Scalia to the United States Supreme Court. Gore accuses Bush of doing it, and Bush won't say anything. I'll do that. I'll bring those troops home from Kosovo and Bosnia. I will give America a new trade policy that puts our workers and families and our national economic independence first. VAN SUSTEREN: And you think that will lift it to go past the 15 percent, if that is sort of the magic number? BUCHANAN: What you will get is -- I think you will get is two boring candidates, basically, who are driven by polls and focus groups and consultants, trying to say the same thing. And you have Pat Buchanan saying something dramatically different, and America first foreign and trade policy, and we will be bringing them out of their chairs at that convention hall, and they will be scalping tickets to that debate. VAN SUSTEREN: ... The next president of the United States could end up nominating several justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. The potential for a vastly changing face on the court puts more legal emphasis on this year's presidential and congressional elections. Pat, how important do you think it should be to the American people who's in the White House, in light of the fact that the Supreme Court may have so many vacancies? BUCHANAN: I think the Supreme Court is the most powerful institution of government, in terms of determining how you and I live, Greta. It has usurped enormous amounts of power and authority from states and from the Congress of the United States. I would put the U.S. Supreme Court and the probable vacancies as the most important domestic issue that will be decided in the presidential election in the year 2000. On this one, I agree with Al Gore. I mean, he says it's the most important issue or right up there. I agree 100 percent. VAN SUSTEREN: And if you were elected president, who would be your model justice? BUCHANAN: My model justice, obviously, would be Antonin Scalia. VAN SUSTEREN: Why? BUCHANAN: I think Clarence Thomas has done a good job. I think Chief Justice Rehnquist has. I think Scalia is intellectual. He is tough. He has got a deep, moral grounding. He has an understanding of the Constitution. He writes beautifully, and he has courage. And that's what we need. And frankly, I've got a couple of people in mind, myself, whom I would consider for the Supreme Court. And as I'm going to say, in a Buchanan White House, no liberal judicial activists need apply. VAN SUSTEREN: All right, before I get to the names, let's talk about activism. BUCHANAN: You are not going to make it, Greta. You are not going to make it. VAN SUSTEREN: I am not -- I thought I was on your short list. But let me talk about the activism. I mean, that is actually sort of -- that is a comment that we lawyers oftentimes make about judges we don't like. Take Justice Scalia, he does not consider himself an activist, and neither do the Republicans. But the truth is when it comes to creating, inventing exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Justice Scalia is one of our greatest writer, one of our greatest inventors, one of our greatest activist justices. Why isn't that bad? BUCHANAN: Well, here is what, I think Scalia is an original intent man in the Constitution. In other words, he's a justice who has the courage to take a look at a precedent put down by Warren and Brennan and that group, or a precedent in the 1970s, to look at it and say: This precedent does not conform to the Constitution, and we will overturn it, that decision, and we will go to the original Constitution intent. Now that kind of judicial activism, which I think is constitutionalism, I agree with. As a matter of fact, I would not appoint justices who did not have the courage, for example, to overturn Roe v. Wade. VAN SUSTEREN: Let me take that one step further, when you talk about the Fourth Amendment and these exceptions that Justice Scalia and other conservative justices have created, those that I consider activism. The original intent, when the Constitution was created and the amendments, was to keep the British outside of people's homes without warrant. That was the original intent. If Scalia is going to be a strict constructionist, the last thing he is going to do is create these exceptions that he has. BUCHANAN: Well, look, I'm not sure exactly which of his decisions you are referring to right now. But I believe that the Supreme Court -- let's take the case in South Carolina of the Citadel: 150-year tradition, all-male cadet corps, everybody in the Citadel, parents, faculty, alumni, women, wives, everyone supported it, in South Carolina supported it. And the Supreme Court overturned it and said it's got to be sexually integrated. Now, we didn't pass the Equal Rights Amendment. If we had, I'd understand that. And so I think that's judicial activism. And what I would like to see is a justice who is a conservative and a constitutionalist who would say VMI and the Citadel can do what they darn well please when it comes to single-sex schools, just as Smith College can. That may be judicial activism in overturning liberal precedents. Those are the kinds of justices we want. VAN SUSTEREN: And I may have broadly spoken when I said that Justice Scalia invented them, he has endorsed many of these exceptions to the warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment. Let me just change gears a little bit. Give me an idea, do you have a short list? I mean, who are the types of people that would be at least on your list? BUCHANAN: There is one individual I know, it is Mike Luttig on the Fourth Circuit. I think he is a 10-year appointee. He was a Bush appointee. He is a bright, courageous, young, energetic, conservative, and a traditionalist. And he is someone I would look at. I would look at Judge Moore down there in Alabama if he goes on the Alabama Supreme Court, which he's running for. He stood up and said: Look, we're not going to take down the 10 Commandments. I don't care what that court said over there in wherever it was, Montgomery. He is someone I would certainly look at. I would go to these judicial -- the bench and see individuals with records. Then I would bring them into the White House. You know how I would question them? I would say: What did you think of Plessy v. Ferguson, was that wrongly decided? Why was Brown v. The Board of Education, was that wrongly decided? VAN SUSTEREN: What is the answer? What is the answer you are looking for? BUCHANAN: What I want to know is, are they willing to tell me why that was wrong or right. And secondly, would you be willing to overturn one of these decisions, if you felt it was wrongly decide 20 or 30 years ago? VAN SUSTEREN: And of course, Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy versus Ferguson, which stood for the... BUCHANAN: But I want to know what their thinking is, what they are willing to overturn. Those are legitimate questions for a president. You and I know when Abe Lincoln brought in those justices, he said: What did you think of Dred Scott, fella? And if the guy didn't want to overturn it, he wouldn't have been on the Supreme Court. And I think that kind of strong president is what we need. You know, Jefferson himself took the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed legally, approved by the court, sent people to jail, threw them all out, let everybody out of jail, and said the president's got a right to interpret the Constitution of the United States. We need a strong president. The Supreme Court should not be deciding the things it's deciding for the American people, legislators and executives should, and I think Antonin Scalia agrees with me. VAN SUSTEREN: Who do you think is a Supreme Court justice on the bench you would like to see leave? BUCHANAN: There's a number of them whom I'd buy houses for and retirement centers and I would name buildings for them if they would please get out. VAN SUSTEREN: Who do you think are the justices we should see go? BUCHANAN: Let me tell you a story, I was in the Oval Office with Gerald Ford, January 1, 1976, when he said: John Paul Stevens is just the kind of guy I'm going to appoint. I think he got 100 percent approval in the Senate. I left that room and endorsed Ronald Reagan. I think Justice Stevens has been a disaster, from the point of view of constitutionalism. I think Mr. Souter has been a profound disappointment. Republicans 97-3 voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That is beyond me. She did not disguise the fact that she was an ACLU activist who believed that judges, if state legislatures fail, judges should step in and do the job. Why did they vote for her? What is the matter with this Republican Party? That's why I'm a Reformer. VAN SUSTEREN: Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan joins us today. The Reform Party's national convention is slated for August 10 in Long Beach, California. And one of our panelists, Marilyn Martin (ph), has a question for you, Pat. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Buchanan, yes, the issue of tort reform has seemed to somewhat diminish recently on our list of priorities. And how do you feel? Is that a pertinent issue to our country? And as president, what do you feel is the best way to implement change in the civil justice system? BUCHANAN: Well, I agree with tort reform. What was the discussion we just got on General Motors? How much was it, $124 billion? VAN SUSTEREN: As soon as you answer her question, how bad are you in this? BUCHANAN: But it seemed to me that that's absurd, frankly. And I do agree with a measure of tort reform where, obviously, you get your compensatory damages, and I would take a look at what you could do in terms of punitive damages. But the idea of a hundred and -- that you give a jury a right to destroy a company which, after all, belongs to its shareholders is preposterous. I think that's the theft of private property and I don't think you can allow them to do that. VAN SUSTEREN: But you know what, but let me talk to you about that, Pat. First of all, is that everyone talks about states' rights in the Republican Party, and you were... BUCHANAN: You don't have a conflict of interest here do you, Greta? VAN SUSTEREN: No, no, no, no, and I did this work. You know I did this work. But you talk about states' rights. National tort reform takes it away from states, and that was typically a Republican, maybe a Reform Party issue. BUCHANAN: Right. VAN SUSTEREN: Secondly, the issue of the damages: We read about the huge damage victories -- verdicts because they're sensational and the media picks up on the sensational. And finally, when are people going to realize that every single judge who presides over a civil case has the authority to reduce the verdict if the judge who sits through the evidence thinks it's too high? BUCHANAN: OK, those are very good -- that's a very good point, but look: The federal government would have an interest -- if you've got General Motors, or let's take Microsoft, you're talking about a strategic national asset. So I think there is a national interest. On the federal judges, you're right. I do believe this: I believe we should set term limits on all federal judges of eight years, and they would have to be reconfirmed by the Congress of the United States to make sure that good judges continue to serve. But some of these people, quite frankly, who fail in their jobs ought to be held accountable and be removed. My problem... VAN SUSTEREN: We'd have to change the Constitution for that. BUCHANAN: No, no, not for the federal judiciary below the Supreme Court. You can't do that with a Supreme Court justice without changing the Constitution. But as you know, the federal courts are the creation of Congress. Put term limits, and, frankly, I would go for recall of federal judges in the federal district. And if judges are going to make decisions and impose them, then the people ought to have some recourse. You believe in small-D democracy. You don't believe in a rule of judges or a rule of kings, Greta. You'd probably be all for that. VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let's let Laurie Thibodeau (ph) ask you a question. Go ahead, Laurie. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Buchanan, hello. BUCHANAN: Hi. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In what ways has developing technology, specifically the Internet, impacted the electoral process and your campaign? BUCHANAN: Well, the Internet has become an extraordinary, powerful tool of communication for candidates, especially grassroots candidates like me. And, frankly, it is becoming a way that, eventually, I think might replace direct mail. You know, I raise all my money, virtually, by sending out tremendous mailing lists. And if you can just put something on the Internet, I think John McCain was more successful than anyone, and you can communicate. The good thing about the Internet is it is small-D democracy and, frankly, you know, the big media doesn't like us -- I mean, CBS, NBC, they don't cover us. But on the Internet, our people can communicate with one another. It's like talk radio, which was small-D democracy where the people can get involved in making their own news and participating. I think it's a very, very healthy thing, this -- the Internet and -- but there's got to be some little regulation about pornography and things like that, you know, and these guys using it to pick up little kids and stuff. VAN SUSTEREN: Pat, this is the anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. It's about 10 years old, I think. BUCHANAN: Right, ADA. VAN SUSTEREN: ADA. What's your view on the ADA? BUCHANAN: My view on the ADA? It's one of the reasons I ran against Mr. Bush, is I favored the ADA, but he let it go too far. And I know the story of the woman that came into a movie theater, about 400 pounds. They didn't have a seat for her so she complained under the ADA, and she owns the theater now. I mean, she sued them. And that was preposterous. There are things with regard to ADA I would have supported. By and large, my view, though, is this, Greta: The American people are a good people. They don't discriminate and brutalize against people who are handicapped. I think a lot of good has been done by ADA, but some harm. And, again, Congress should have gone back and defined it far better than it did. VAN SUSTEREN: But, you know, Pat -- and, of course, I'm going to get the last word on this because we don't have much time left... BUCHANAN: Sure. VAN SUSTEREN: ... but the truth is that many of these cases go to juries and the American people make judgments about what they think is fair, which is essentially so important. BUCHANAN: Yes, but it is -- it should be the law as written. And, frankly, with regard to small businesses, very small, they're not in interstate commerce. Let the states deal with small businesses. VAN SUSTEREN: Which is states' rights, and that goes back to torts again. BUCHANAN: States' rights. But General Motors... VAN SUSTEREN: That's why no national tort reform. BUCHANAN: Well, General Motors is interstate commerce. VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, that's -- unfortunately, you get the last word. That's all the time we have today. Thanks to our guests and thank you for watching. MORE FROM THE INTERNET BRIGADE NEWSWIRE...

Back to Our Home Page T H E    I N T E R N E T    B R I G A D E Established April 1995 47671 Whirlpool Square - Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165 Linda Muller - WebMaster http://www.buchanan.org Disclaimer