Click Here for
Non-Java SiteMap

PATRICK BUCHANAN DISCUSSES WHY HE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT Transcript MEET THE PRESS - http://www.nbc.com June 27, 1999

Conservative talk show host Patrick Buchanan discusses his bid for the Republican nomination for president during NBC's "Meet the Press", Sunday June 27, 1999, in Washington. (AP Photo/Meet the Press, Richard Ellis) MR. RUSSERT: Pat Buchanan, welcome. MR. BUCHANAN: Tim, good to be here. MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, get your reaction. MR. BUCHANAN: Sure. MR. RUSSERT: I'll put it on the screen for our viewers. George W. Bush, 61 percent; Elizabeth Dole, 11; Steve Forbes, 6; Dan Quayle, 5; John McCain, 4; Pat Buchanan, 4, and on down. MR. BUCHANAN: Mm-hmm. MR. RUSSERT: You are 57 points behind George W. Bush. Why don't you just step aside, unify the party and move on? MR. BUCHANAN: Well, we were 85 points behind Mr. Bush's father when we ran in 1992 and about 50 points behind Senator Dole when we began in 1996. Look, this is the kind of rating--it's even higher than what Mrs. Dole had three months ago, but we've seen her collapse to a point, Tim, where it would not surprise me if she did not run. The numbers are artificially high. Mr. Bush has not only never won a caucus, he's never won a primary. He's not even a declared candidate. We don't know where he stands on the issues. When he does, this is going to be a wide open contest. MR. RUSSERT: What are your impressions of George W. Bush thus far? MR. BUCHANAN: He is a personable individual. I've spoken with him on the phone. He's likable. He's got a touch of charisma. He's fresh. I do not think he's deep on the issues. And I cannot see anything thus far that justifies elevating this young man to be the president of the United States and the leader of the Western world. What in heaven's name are his accomplishments and achievements that would justify making him the president of the United States? Where is the sagacity, the brilliance that we've seen in a young fellow who's had a good four years as governor of Texas? MR. RUSSERT: This seems to be personal for many people, Bush versus Buchanan. You said, "It looks like they're sending their eldest son to settle scores." MR. BUCHANAN: It is not personal with me. I admired and respected his father. I bear no grudge against his father. I think the son's done a fine job, but I do not believe his record really justifies elevating him to president of the United States. And certainly, Tim, he's entitled to run as everyone else is. And he's very popular. But I believe this: We've got to find out where he stands. I believe that on foreign policy, on trade policy, on immigration policy, on appointments to the United States Supreme Court, he stands very close to Clinton and Gore and very far away from Pat Buchanan. MR. RUSSERT: You said he's a Xerox copy of Clinton/Gore. MR. BUCHANAN: I think certainly on Kosovo he is. On Bosnia, he is. On the World Trade Organization, he is. On global free trade, he is. On MFN for China, he is. On foreign policy and defense policy, Tim, the establishments of both political parties in Washington, D.C., have decided the parameters. They are agreed. This is what this campaign is about. Those of us outside that believe all questions should be open--foreign policy, NATO, Bosnia, the World Trade Organization, free trade versus economic nationalism. We want all of these issues on the table and we want them all up for debate and decision. MR. RUSSERT: You said you couldn't find a better foil than George W. Bush. Why? MR. BUCHANAN: Well, that's exactly what I said. I believe he agrees very much with the Republican establishment, which is globalist, internationalist and which is moving away from the right-to-life position in the Republican Party, and I am an economic nationalist, an economic patriot, who believes in a foreign policy rooted in the wisdom of Washington, rather than the folly of Wilson. I believe we need--a new Supreme Court and justices who are committed to overturning Roe V. Wade is crucial. MR. RUSSERT: You only appoint justices who would agree to overturn Roe V. Wade? MR. BUCHANAN: You know, just as Abraham Lincoln only appointed justices who would overturn Dred Scott, I would appoint justices--only those--who would overturn Roe V. Wade. Go ahead. MR. RUSSERT: Pro-life party or it won't be my party? MR. BUCHANAN: Correct. MR. RUSSERT: A very serious question. George W. Bush says that he is open to selecting someone who is pro-choice, pro-abortion rights as his running mate. Senator Hatch said, "You don't rule someone out as a running mate just because they have a different position on abortion." If the Republican nominee chose a pro-choice, pro-abortion rights running mate, could Pat Buchanan support that Republican ticket? MR. BUCHANAN: If the Republican nominee has said he will not appoint justices who will overturn Roe V. Wade and he says he is open to taking an heir apparent, a vice president who is pro-choice, what are--you saying, in effect, is that the matter of right to life is not central. It's not at the core. It's not at the heart of the Republican Party. And Mr. Bush would not choose a running mate who is pro-segregation, but he would choose a Supreme Court justice who is pro-abortion. Or he might, he says. I think that would make the right-to-life position of the Republican Party essentially hollow and inefficacious. And for me, that would be clearly moving way from right to life. It would be moving way from the party of Reagan. It would certainly be moving away from Reagan's view on right to life. And I think there would be a crisis inside the Republican Party if that happened. A very severe crisis. MR. RUSSERT: You said, "It won't be my party." Could you remain a Republican and support a ticket like that? MR. BUCHANAN: Well, if the Republican Party walks away from life, it walks away from me. And if what you've described really happened at Philadelphia--I don't believe it is. I believe we're going to fight and win this nomination. We haven't given it up. I think it's not any foregone conclusion. But if the Republican Party at Philadelphia really, basically, abandoned the life position, I think there'd be a stampede for the Metroliner. MR. RUSSERT: Would you create a third party at that point? MR. BUCHANAN: At that point, you'd probably be too late do anything about what you could do. That's the convention in the summer. But, Tim, let me say this. There's a presumption and a lot of questions here in Washington, D.C. This is a foregone conclusion for Mr. Bush. This is won, it's all over. It is not. Out there in the--in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is tremendous and deep resentment over the fact that the Republican establishment is conducting a coronation, frankly, with the help of the big media, before a single caucus or a single primary has been held. There's resentment that the nomination process appears to be fixed, worked out in such a way that it's impossible to defeat an establishment candidate. MR. RUSSERT: But, Mr. Buchanan, you see the polls. Why is George Bush doing so well? Why is he so popular? Why has the Republican Party, at this stage, united behind him? MR. BUCHANAN: He is popular for two reasons. He bears a great name, George Bush. Secondly, the Republican establishment has moved behind him because it is desperate for victory. It's been out of power for eight years. It's been confounded by Mr. Clinton. It fears loss of the House and Senate. It desperately wants someone at the top of the ticket that can save us all. So I think that it is a product of desperation. They're putting all their eggs in one basket. And I got a hunch somewhere along the way, in the fall or the winter, the basket's going to be drooped. MR. RUSSERT: What does that mean? MR. BUCHANAN: That means all the eggs are going to be broken. MR. RUSSERT: What's going to happen to George Bush? MR. BUCHANAN: And I think it's going to be a wide open campaign. MR. RUSSERT: What's he going to stumble on? MR. BUCHANAN: I think--look, he has not--to me, he has demonstrated, not only does he agree with Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton on foreign policy, but in areas like Kosovo and the Balkans, he is not familiar with foreign policy. And he is not steeped in the knowledge of foreign policy the way his father was. So look, Tim, this is going to be a wide open contest. Don't foreclose it. MR. RUSSERT: We're for it. Last March, March the 8th, you said if you had the right odds, you would bet Al Gore was going to be the next president of the United States. MR. BUCHANAN: If I had to--if you had to pick someone and you had to bet your house on it, I would still say, yeah, that Mr. Gore's going to be the nominee. He's going to be a formidable candidate. MR. RUSSERT: Why? Beat George W. Bush if Bush was the nominee? MR. BUCHANAN: Listen--look, I'm telling you not--now, a snapshot right now. He's going to be formidable because the Democratic Party, the war room people, are very good. Gore will unite the Democratic Party. But let me tell you this--and he's opportunistic. I mean, he's beginning to sound like one of the House managers with his attacks on Clinton. I thought I was listening to Bob Barr there, with his lacing into Bill Clinton. He's moving on everything. He's now a man of deep faith and he's for family values. And so he's been Clintonized, and Clinton's got an effective way of winning elections. But I think we can beat Al Gore. Who would you rather see, Tim, in a debate in the fall of 1990--or 2000 with Al Gore, if you had to pick a Republican nominees as a designated hitter? That's what we are asking folks out there in the campaign trail. MR. RUSSERT: And what's the answer? MR. BUCHANAN: The answer is a round of applause for me. MR. RUSSERT: Bob Woodward writes in his book that you wanted to be ambassador to NATO. Is that true? MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, an ambassador to NATO under Reagan. Before I left, yes. I went over to the State Department. I was interrogated for the job. George Schultz's State Department was not amenable to it, and, frankly, I decided to go. Yes. MR. RUSSERT: What would have happened with Serbia and Kosovo if Pat Buchanan had... MR. BUCHANAN: Well, that's 19--you're talking about 1987. Let me say I believe this was not only an illegal, unjust war, it's one of the stupidest wars in American history. Who in heaven's name has benefited from the smashing of Serbia, the ravaging of Kosovo, the destabilization of the Balkans, the horrors that have been perpetrated to the Kosovar Albanians and now are being done to the Kosovar Serbs? Tim, I can't... MR. RUSSERT: The president will say he stopped ethnic cleansing, and you oppose that. MR. BUCHANAN: Let me tell you something. Before this war started, there were 90,000 refugees outside of Kosovo and 1,200 peacekeepers, or people looking after those folks. Now, we have a million and a half who have been uprooted from their homes, and their villages have been burned and destroyed. And now even the Serbs are the victims of ethnic cleansing. Virtually every person in Kosovo is going to be a victim of ethnic cleansing as a consequence of a war ignited by Mr. Clinton. I do believe Milosevic bears moral responsibility for that. But if Mr. Clinton had not ignited this war, I think every state and province and republic in the Balkans would be better off than it is today, including... MR. RUSSERT: How long will U.S. and NATO troops be there? MR. BUCHANAN: They will not be there for 10 months after--I mean, they will not be there for two months after I'm elected president. I will bring home every American soldier from Bosnia and Kosovo, frankly, and start putting them on the borders of the United States of America to start protecting our southern border than some far away border in the peninsula where Americans never fought before. MR. RUSSERT: Pat Buchanan, to be continued. Thank you for joining us. MR. BUCHANAN: Thank you.