Posted on 07/15/2003 5:19:13 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Howard actually put up a transcript of this on his website...but I bet MSNBC's is more accurate.
This took three or more hours to go through, highlight, and format properly. ENJOY!!!
Print this off and use it to hold Howard Dean accountable for everything he has said. It can prove to be invaluable.
I'll highlight the interesting parts, because this thing is long. Once I'm finished and its posted, print this sucker off, take it to kinkos, copy it a million times, and put them on the car windows at wal-mart!!!
Transcript for June 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest: Former Governor Howard Dean, (D-Vt.) Presidential Contender
Tim Russert: Our issues this Sunday: Nine Democrats are running for president of the United States. One of them, this man, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, is firing up liberal activities.
(Videotape): Dr. Howard Dean: The way to get elected in this country is not to be like the Republicans. Its to stand up against them and fight. (End videotape)
Russert: And gaining strength in the critical early contest in Iowa and New Hampshire just seven months away. Why do some Democrats fear his nomination? Where does he stand on the issues? Well ask him.
Our guest: Dr. Howard Dean. And tomorrow, Dr. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, plans to formally announce for president. He is here first this morning on Meet The Press. Governor, welcome.
(STARTS OUT TALKING ABOUT HIS SON)
Dean: Good morning. Russert: Tomorrow, you will formally announce for president of the United States in Burlington at noon. Will you be joined by your family?
Dean: I will. My son Paul, whos gotten a little scrap over the weekend, is not going to be there, but he wasnt planning on that in the first place. We have four very independent-minded people in my family. My wife is a physician. Shes going to continue to practice medicine.
Shell do interviews and so forth but wont campaign. My daughters actually working in the campaign, so shes in a different place. And then my son is very guarded about his privacy and so forth. And so hes chosen not to come and I said thats fine.
Russert: You said that your son got in a scrap. He was arrested for driving a car in which some of his friends broke into a beer cooler and stole some beer...
Dean: Right. Russert: ...and was indicted. How are you... Dean: He hasnt been indicted, but he... Russert: Cited. Dean: Hes been cited, right. Russert: But how are you as a father dealing with that?
Dean: Well, Im not very happy about it. I think that 17-year-olds sometimes do extraordinarily foolish things and this is an example of that. We had a very difficult weekend at home, and I think it was a good thing for me to go back and try to get this straighten out and hes going to have to pay the price. If you do things and make mistakes like that, you have to pay a price.
Russert: Hes grounded? Dean: Hes more than grounded; hes going to have to go through the judicial system and theyre going to figure out what to do about him and his four friends.
(DEAN ON TAXES)
Russert: Lets turn to the campaign. This is what you said last month about the Bush tax cut and Ill show you and our viewers. It has become clear what this president is attempting to do and why we must repeal the entire package of tax cuts.
The Department of Treasury, we consulted and asked them: What effect would that have across America? And this is what they said. A married couple with two children making $40,000 a year, under the Bush plan, would pay $45 in taxes. Repealing them, under the Dean plan, if you will, would pay $1,978, a tax increase of over 4,000 percent.
A married couple over 65 making $40,000 and claiming their Social Security, under Bush would pay $675 in taxes. Youre suggesting close to $1,400, a 107 percent tax increase. Can you honestly go across the country and say, Im going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent or 107 percent, and be elected?
Dean: Well, first of all, were those figures from the Treasury Department, did you say, or CBO? Russert: Treasury Department.
Dean: I dont believe them.
This administration has not been candid about the impacts of this tax cut. A few months ago they had the deficit coming in at $290 billion. Its at $400 billion. The administration simply has not been forthcoming and factual about the impact of their tax cuts.
Setting aside whatever the real numbers might be, the accurate numbers, lets look at what the tax cuts have done. Property taxes are going up in places in New Hampshire because the president has cut services, because he has not given the right amount of money to the states for special education, for No Child Left Behind, for all these unfunded mandates that hes passed.
The real effect of the Bush tax cuts has actually been to raise taxes on most middle-class people and to cut their services. Their public schools are suffering. Health care is suffering for middle-class kids. And thats because of these tax cuts. These tax cuts are incredibly bad for the economy.
I believe their purpose is essentially to defund the federal government so that Medicare and Social Security, the icons of the New Deal, will be undone. Karl Rove and others have talked about going back to the McKinley era before there was any kind of social safety net in this country.
Really thats what the campaigns about. Its to undo what I consider radical Republicanism. Russert: But in the middle of an economic downturn, Howard Dean wants to raise taxes on the average of $1,200 per family.
Dean: So says the Republican Treasury Department which I think has very little credibility in this matter.
Lets look at the record. Russert: But you would raise taxes? Dean: I would go back to the Clinton era of taxes because I think most Americans would gladly pay the same taxes they paid when Bill Clinton was president if they could only have the same economy that they had when Bill Clinton was president.
(PRESCRIPTION DRUGS)
Russert: Ted Kennedy says that we should have a prescription drug plan. Its the first step, a compromise. Democratic leader Tom Daschle says hes right. Are you with Ted Kennedy?
Dean: Well, this is a tough one. Ive actually talked to Ted Kennedy about this, and also talked to Tom Harkin, and Jay Rockwell, I havent talked to Jay Rockefeller, but who I deeply respect, who are on different sides of this issue, and let me speak about the dilemma.
First, this is an opportunity to set up an entitlement program for people who need a prescription drug benefit. We need to do that. Secondly, the bill wont work. And it wont work because it uses the private insurance companies to deliver the health-care benefits.
They actually signed a bill like this in Nevada. Kenny Guinn signed a bill like this two years ago, Republican governor, and nobody got health insurance or got prescription benefits out of it because no insurance company would sign up to insure a product thats going up at five times the rate of inflation.
So the bill wont work. Its clearly an election-year sop, but what Senator Kennedy says, and he has probably the most extraordinary record on health care of any United States senator, what he says is this is the opportunity to get this in the door. We know it may not work. But lets do the best we can.
And well try to fix it later once the entitlement is established. So I think the bill is not a particularly good bill but Iout of respect for Senator Kennedy, its hard to really completely trash his position.
Russert: Would you vote for the Kennedy proposal? Dean: Id want to see what is in the bill, the amendment. There are more amendments. And one of the critical amendments is whats going to happen to Iowa and New Hampshire and Vermont and so forth, Medicare assessments.
I was the 50th in the country, Vermont is 49th in the countytheres talk about Senator Grassley putting some money in Senator Harkin for Iowa and to fix Medicare reimbursement. That makes it more attractive. So I dont know how Id vote on this bill right now, and Id want to see the last amendments before it goes out the door.
Heres the other problem. This is a political trap for the Democrats. What will happen Id flatly predict now is that it will pass the Senate, it will go to the House, the right-wing majority in the House will pass some unacceptable piece of nonsense thats clearly nothing but election year goodies, itll go to a conference committee that the Democrats will have no say in, and then the Democrats in the Senate will be forced to vote up or down on unacceptable bill and it will be positioned by the Bush administration to say they killed drug benefits for seniors even though it wont be true.
(BALANCING THE BUDGET)
So its a political Washington type of trap and its a terrible, terrible dilemma for the Democratic senators to be in. Russert: Are you still in favor of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget? Dean: You know, I go back and forth on that. Its not very good public policy but Id love to see the Republicans hem and haw about what they would do about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
The constitutional amendments to balancewe dont have one in Vermont. Were the only state that doesnt require a balanced budget, and we actually have the best fiscal record, or one of the best, of any state.
But a constitutional amendment mighthas forced Republicans who are really the party of fiscal irresponsibility, borrowing and spending, and borrowing and spending, and borrowing and spending, has forced them to balance the budgets when they otherwise wouldnt. So what II really dont like the idea of a federal balanced budget amendment, but I am very tempted.
Russert: But through your entire career you have been for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Dean: Yes, because I justI have, and its because I think that theres so little fiscal discipline in the Congress that you might just have to do it. I hate to do it because we didnt have to do it in Vermont, but, God, the guys in Washington just never get it about money.
Russert: Well, in 1995, when you were advocating that position, you were asked how would you balance the budget if we had a constitutional amendment... Dean: Yeah.
Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said.
The way to balance the budget, [Gov. Howard] Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. It would be tough but we could do it, he said. |
Dean: Well, we fortunately dont have to do that now. Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit. Dean: But you dont have to cut Social Security to do that. Russert: But why did you have to do it back then? Dean: Well, because that was the middle ofI mean, I dont recall saying that, but Im sure I did, if you have it on your show, because I know your researchers are very good. Russert: Well, Miles Benson is a very good reporter for the Newhouse News. Dean: Yes, he is. No, no, no. Im sure I did. Im not denying I said that. I have... Russert: But you would no longer cut Social Security? Dean: But you dontno. Im not ever going to cut Social Security benefits. Russert: Would you raise retirement age to 70? Dean: No. No. Russert: Would you cut defense? Dean: You dont have to do that either. Heres what you have to do. You got to get rid of the tax cuts, all of them, and then you have got to restrict spending. Youve got to controlwell, heres what we did in Vermont. We had some mild tax cuts in the 90s, not the huge ones that most other states did. Secondly, we put a lot of money into a rainy day fund, and I never let the Legislature spend more than the rate of growth of the economy, so the biggest increase I think we had in the almost 12 years I was governor was I think 5.2 percent or something like that. And then we paid off a quarter of our debt, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was president. Now, were not cutting higher education, were not cutting K through 12, were not cutting Medicaid for kids, and we have a balanced budget. So if you restrain spending, which is long-term spending, thats the key to balancing the budget. But youve got to get rid of the tax cuts because the hole is so very, very deep. And Social Security, Ithe best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. Its limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. Its at 67 now. I would entertain that. Russert: But the deficits $500 billion. Half the budget goes to Social Security, Medicare and Defense. They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks? He said, Thats where the money is. You could close down the entire United States government, other than Social Security, Medicare and Defense and interest on the public debt, and you still wouldnt balance the budget. Dean: But the problem for Social Security is that it is actually in fine shape until, I dont know, 2040 or something like that. Russert: No, no, no, no, no, no. Dean: Well, its in fine shapeits actuarially fine until 2025 or 23 and then the trust fund doesnt run out... Russert: Receipts and outlays begin... Dean: Thats right. Aroundin the middle of the 2020s. Russert: When the baby boomers retire, we have a real impending crisis. Dean: Thats right. But, in some ways, thats unrelated from the budget problem because what the people in Washington have been doing is taking money out of Social Security to balance the budget and then spend enormous amounts and run huge deficits. So theres two separate problems. First of all, youve got to fix Social Security and youve got to fix the budget. Fixing Social Security is an independent problem from the budget. And thats what I talked about. Youve got to look at expanding the amount of money that gets taxed for Social Security. You know, if you make $100,000 a year, the last $15,000 doesnt have to pay Social Security tax for it. Russert: But, Governor, if you dont go to near Social Security or Medicare or Defense and you have a $500 billion deficit, if youre not going to raise taxes $500 billion to balance the budget, where are you going to find the money? Which programs are you going to cut? What do you cut? Education? Health care? Where? Dean: Heres what you do. As a veteran of having to do this, because this is what I did in Vermont, Social Security, you fix actuarially. Its just like an insurance policy. Right now theres eventually, in the middle of the 2020s youre going to see more money going out than coming in. Youve got to fix that. Weve talked a little bit about how to do that.
|
Maybe you look at the retirement age going to 68. Maybe you increase the amount that getspayroll taxIm not in favor of cutting benefits. I think thats a big problem. |
Russert: But you would consider increasing the payroll tax? Meet the Press Dean: Absolutely. You dont have to increase the amount of the payroll tax, you increase the salary that its applied to. You see what I mean? Russert: Yes. Dean: $85,000, maybe you raise it to $100,000 or whatever the numbers are. Weve got to look at the numbers to figure out what you do.
|
You get the Social Security problem off the table first by fixing it and then not allowing the Congress to keep taking money out of the trust fund. The presidents financing his tax cuts by taking money out of the Social Security trust fund. Thats ridiculousfirst. |
WHAT FRIGGIN TRUST FUND????...my comment inserted.... Secondly, what do you do about the budget? You restrain spending. You do not have to actually make cuts in things like Medicare or in things like Medicaid or even in Defense. What you have to do is restrain the increases in spending. Russert: When the Republicans tried to limit the growth, the Democrats said that was an actual cut. Dean: Well, theyre going to say what theyre going to say. All I... Russert: You would be willing to limit the growth... Dean: Absolutely. Russert: ...in Defense, in Medicare and Social Security? Dean: You have to do that. If you dont go where the money isSocial Security, were going to fix differently. Were not talking about Social Security. Were talking about Medicare. Were talking about Defense and were talking about all the other things the federal government does. But I want to put the tax cut back into that budget. They need it to balance the budget. Russert: Thats raising taxes, though. Lets be honest. Dean: Heres what I say to people. You have a choice. Do you want to have the presidents tax cut or would you like a health-care program that nobody can ever take away? Do you want to have the presidents tax cut or would you like to fully fund special education, which is an obligation to the states, which is raising your property taxes? Do you want the presidents tax cut or would you like to go back towards a balanced budget so we can actually create jobs and have a healthy economy again? Because a balanced budget, I believe, is the key to turning the economy around, as Bill Clinton showed. So, if you ask that to most Americans, theyre going to say, I would much rather pay the taxes that I was paying when Bill Clinton was president if I could have health care and my property taxes would go down and we could have jobs again. Because they never got the presidents tax cut. The vast majority of people in this country either got no tax cut or got a small few hundred dollars. I had a guy in New Hampshire one time who stood up and said, Governor, you may make some sense here. This is New Hampshire. I got a $600 check from the president, but my 401(k) went down $60,000. I think I was better off before the presidents tax cut. Most people got hurt by the presidents tax cut and theyre paying more property taxes because of what the presidents tax cut has done to their state and local government. (DEAN ON GAY RIGHTS) Canadaand this was the way the papers reported it this week: The Canadian cabinet approved a new national policy today to open marriage to gay couples, paving the way for Canada to become the third country to allow same-sex unions. ...The policy opens the way for same-sex couples from the United States and around the world to travel here to marry, since Canada has no marriage residency requirements. Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States. And hundreds of American gay couples are now going to Canada to be married. When they return to the United States, married in Canada legally, should that marriage be recognized? Dean: You know what we do in this country? We focus so much on gay marriage that I think weve missed the real point of what this debate is about, which is equal rights. As you know, in our state we have a civil unions statute which says that gay couples, while they cant get married, have the same rights as everybody else, exactly the same rightsinheritance rights, insurance rights, hospital rightsthats what this is all about. So the answer is, Will I recognize the equal rights of people who get united in Canada, whether its married or anything else? Yes. I think that it... Russert: Yeah, but will you recognize them as a married couple, as President Dean? A couple is married in Canada, comes in the United States, legally married in Canada, are they legally married in the United States?
|
I will definitely make sure they have exactly the same rights as married people, which is what weve done in Vermont. I cant tell you about the marriage question. I think the answer probably is they are legally entitled to be recognized, but I dont withoutIm not a lawyer and I dont know the answer to that. Dean: I cant answer that question because its a legal question, but I can tell you what I will definitely do. I would consult a lawyer. |
Russert: Would youdo you think they should be? Dean: Well, thats a very difficult issue. The position Ive always taken is that its the churchs business to decide who they can marry and who they cant marry. Russert: Well, theres civil marriage. A judge marries people in the United States. Dean: We have civil unions in Vermont. I will recognize the legalits the federal governments and the states business to recognize the fact that everybody has the same legal rights as everybody else. Thats why we did civil unions. Marriage is also a way of getting those exact same legal rights, so the question is, Is a marriage in another country recognized in this country here? My guess is the answer is yes. I dont know the answer, but I can tell you what I stand for. I stand for equal rights for every single American. Russert: Would you seek... Dean: And so the legal parts I would definitely support, then Ive got to get some opinions about, you know, what were doing to the Catholic Church and other churches that oppose this kind of stuff. But I definitely believe that you have to recognize equal rights. So if a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American. Russert: Would you, as president, seek the same kind of legislation that now has passed in Canada, allowing formally gays to marry? Dean: No, because I dont think that is the right of the federal government. I was very much opposed, unlike some of the folks Im running against, to the Defense of Marriage Act. I did not support the Defense of Marriage Act, because I do not think its the federal governments business to get involved in what has traditionally been the matter for the states to deal with. But by the same token, I would not tell other states that they had to have a civil union statute or that they had to have a marriage statute. That is the not the province of the federal government. What I will go as president of the United States is insist that every state find a way to recognize the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else. Equal rights under the law is a fundamental tenet of America, and thats where we need to be. DEAN ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT This doesnt surprise me. I think Deans willing to do what he has to do to win, said Frank Bryan, a political science professor at the University of Vermont and longtime observer of Dean. I really believe hes very ambitious and he wants to win badly. He has to get to the final plateau, and I think he will take risks with his inconsistencies being discovered in order to get to the next step.... Eric Davis, a Middlebury College political science professor, also from Vermont, summed up Deans change in two words: South Carolina. ...I think whats going on here is Dean is trying to appeal to electorates in more conservative states... South Carolina being the third primary after Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean: Its a very interesting article, and turned out to be wrong, which was kind of embarrassing. In fact, I figured I was going to get asked this. In 1964excuse me, in 1994, in the very paper that this was printed in, they ran a series of articles saying I was rethinking the death penalty.
|
This has nothing to do with running for president. It happened while Bill Clintonbefore Bill Clinton had even run for his second term. I began to rethink the death penalty in 1994 because of the Polly Klaas case. The Polly Klaas case was the case of a young girl who was kidnapped from her house, abducted and raped, and murdered by a felon who never should have been let out of jail. |
We had a very similar horrible case in Vermont a few years earlier, and I began to rethink my position on the death penalty as a result of that, and the article was just plain wrong. Russert: But in terms of rethinkinglet me show you what you did say in 92 and think about... Dean: Thats right. You dont have to show me. I know what I said in 92. Russert: But I want to talk about it... Dean: OK. Russert: ...because I want the country to see it because its important. I dont support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes cant really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldnt be in the business of taking peoples lives. The Catholic bishop up in Vermont has said this, and Ill show you and our viewers. I am sorry that Governor Dean has expressed second thoughts on his support for the physicians pledge to do no harm. ...as Governor Dean himself said: I truly dont believe its a deterrent. What then would be the motive for the death penalty except vengeance? Do you believe theres still a possibility, as you said, the wrong guy could be executed? Dean: Yes. Russert: And number two, as you said, if a state is like a parent saying dont kill, why is the state killing? Dean: Its a deeply, deeply troubling issue. Let me explain to you why I changed my position and why Ive began that process in 1994. These were two horrible murders of young children and I oppose the death penalty in most instances. Heres the areas Ive changed and heres why, and Im very supportive for examwe dont have a death penalty in Vermont just so most of your viewers know that were one of the states that doesnt and we dont need a death penalty. But heres the problem, Tim, the state executes people improperly if theyre improperly convicted Illinois was the classic case. There were a number of people that were death row that turned out to be innocent. Deeply trouble. I came to realize because of the Polly Klaas case and because of similar other cases that sometimes the state inadvertently has a hand in killing innocent people because they let people out who ought never to have been let out. And so the judicial systems imperfection hurts us in two ways.
|
It executes innocent people because they were convicted and put to death, which is a terrible thing which is why I support Pat Leahys innocents protection bill, but they also allow people to get out of jail when theyre supposed to be in there for life and then those people go and repeat their crimes, oftentimes sex offenders. |
So I came to the conclusion that a person who murders a child shows a depraved indifference to life which will never beincapable of being rehabilitated. Secondly, that a mass murderer, such as a terrorist, is someone who cant be rehabilitated and to let these people out is too dangerous and its too high likelihood that theyll repeat their crime. And thirdly, I dont believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but I think there may be one instance where just possibly it could be and thats the shooting of a police officer. If youre about to pull a trigger on a guy whos in uniform and you know that youre going to get the death penalty and if you dont pull the trigger something different will happen, maybe that might save the police officers life. The only three instances that I support the death penalty are, one, murder of a child, two, a mass murder like a terrorist and, three, the shooting of a police officer, and thats how I came to the position that I came and I began that process in 94 which is... Russert: Whats wrong with life imprisonment without paroleits $2 million per inmate cheaper than the death penalty when you consider and factor the cost of all of the appeals? Dean: You know, I had said this before and Ill say it again: I dont think whats cheap and whats not cheap has a bearing on whether you use the death penalty or not. Other people have said its cheaper to do the death penalty because you get rid of them. You dont have to give them room and board for life. Those kinds of arguments are irrelevant here. So I justlife without parole, which we have which I actually got passed when I was lieutenant governor the problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldnt come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesnt work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, thered be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didnt commit the crime. Russert: Were going to take a quick break and come back. More of our conversation with Howard Dean about defense issues; Iraq. A whole lot more right after this. (Announcements) Russert: More with one of the Democrats who wants to take on George Bush in the fall, Governor Howard Dean, after this brief station break. (Announcements) (DEAN ON NATIONAL SECURITY) Worried about your national security experience and views. The headlines: Foes Warn Of Dean Debacle; Will Dean 04 Be A Disaster For Hill Democrats? And they talkedthey point to comments like this, Governor, and Ill show you and our viewers, from April. We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We wont always have the strongest military. Do you, as a potential commander in chief, really believe that the United States will not always have the strongest military? Dean: What I said was, if we dont begin to use diplomacy as part of our foreign policy, we wont always have the strongest military. And thats absolutely true. And there have been many other people who know a great deal about national security, including President Clinton, who have said thats true. We have got to take on a different posture in the world where we dont simply push everybody aside who disagrees with us without trying to actually accomplish some things through diplomatic means. Russert: But we will always have the strongest military under President Dean. Dean: Oh, under President Dean, we certainly will always have the strongest military, because this is a long-term phenomenon, not a short-term phenomenon. In foreign affairs, theres a phenomenon called encirclement, whereand its a historical phenomenon. A single, very great power with no obvious rivals in the world who exercises that power unilaterally and in contempt of other countries will result in the formation of an alliance of other second-tier powers to contain the power of that great military power. Thats exactly what I was talking about in that quote, and thats absolutely true. It will happen over a period of years. Should I become president... Russert: It will happen? We will have a secondary military power? Dean: If we continue following George Bushs military policy and defense policy, will become a secondary military power. Under President Dean, that wont happen for two reasons. First of all, its a long-term phenomenon. And secondly I will begin to set us on a path where cooperation as part of our foreign relations and our diplomatic policy. This president has essentially pushed aside people who disagree with him, using our military might, and using threats and intimidation. In the long run, that does not work. How many men and women should be on active duty?
|
Russert: Lets talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty? Dean: I cant answer that question. And I dont know what the answer is. I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now. I supported the presidents invasion of Afghanistan for the obvious reasons, what had gone on and the murder of people. But I do not support what the presidents doing there now. We need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords in the hope that were one day going to have the democracy in Afghanistan. And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations, because our troops on the ground deserve better support than theyre getting. Russert: But how many troopshow many men and women do we now have on active duty? Dean: I cant tell you the answer to that either. Its... Russert: But as commander in chief, you should now that. Dean: As someone whos running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that its somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I dont know the exact number, and I dont think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary. Russert: How many troops would have in Iraq? Dean: More than we have now. My understanding is we have in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops. I cant tell you exactly how many it takes. General Shinseki thought that we were undermanned by roughly 100,000. Maybe thats the right attitude. Tim, you have to understand, and I know you do understand, that as you run a campaign and as you acquire the nomination and as you go on to be president, you acquire military advisers who will tell you these things. And, no, I dont have a military background. Neither did Bill Clinton. George Bush had a National Guard background. Ronald Reagan did not have a military background. I will have the kinds of people around me who can tell me these things. |
For me to have to know right now, participating in the Democratic Party, how many troops are actively on duty in the United States military when that is actually a number thats composed both of people on duty today and people who are National Guard people who are on duty today, its silly. Thats like asking me who the ambassador to Rwanda is. Russert: Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. Not if you want to be commander in chief. But we now have 9,000 troops... Dean: So your perceptionyour position is that I need to know exactly how many people are on duty today in the active military forces... Russert: Well, have a sense... Dean: ...six months away from the first primary? Russert: If somebody wants to be president of the United States, have a sense of the military. Dean: I do have a sense of the military. Russert: ...of how many people roughly... Dean: I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty. I know that we dont have enough people in Iraq. I know that General Shinseki said that we need 300,000 troops to go into Iraq, not 200,000 troops, and Im prepared to assume the burden and have the proper people around me advising me on what needs to be done. Russert: All right, Afghanistan, we have 9,000. You would bring it up to what level? Dean: Well, I believe that we need a very substantial increase in troops. They dont all have to be American troops. My guess would be that we would need at least 30,000 and 40,000 additional troops. They dont all have to be American because we have got to start taking over the security functions from the warlords in order to prepare the way for a unified Afghan police force thats a national police force. Russert: There is concern about your awareness and positions on national security. You must acknowledge that. Dean: Sure there are. Because just like President Reagan, President Clinton, and President Bush, I do not have extensive experience in national security. Russert: Let me turn to a Boston Globe article about the military service during the Vietnam War as it applies to you and Ill put it on the screen. Dean did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War because he received a medical deferment for an unfused vertebra in his back. Several articles in the last year have noted that after his deferment, Dean spent 80 days skiing in Aspen, Colorado. And then The Aspen Times wrote this profile. In Howard Dean, we could have a president who spent the winter of 1971-72...pounding bumps on Aspen Mountain. I paid $250 for a ski pass and skied 80 days on Ajax.
|
It was the greatest mountain. ... I went to work pouring concrete for a small company. Why were you able to ski on Ajax Mountain, pounding your back, and pouring concrete, and not serve in the military? |
Dean: First of all, let me say that theres only one person whos contending for the Democratic nominee for president who did serve in the military, nomination for president, and then let me explain the circumstances of my draft classification. I went to my physical in Ft. Hamilton in Brooklyn, which was a great deal like the scene out of Alices Restaurant in terms of the different sizes, shapes, colors, and all kinds of people were there. I was given an examination. I had a previous back problem, which is evidently congenital, which prevented me from doing any sustained running, a problem that Ive had since then, since that time, which requires that when I get out of the car I often have some pains up and down my leg and back and so forth. But I have been able to exercise atry vigorous athletic life except for some things. One of those is long-distance running, which is how the problem came to my attention in the first place. I noticed the pain when I was in high school running track. In any case, theafter the physical, I received a one Y deferment. Thats how the United States government decided that they would use me. One Y deferment means you can only be called in times of national emergency. I didnt have anything to do with choosing any draft deferment. I didnt try to get out of the draft. I had a physical. The United States government said this is your classification. Im not responsible for that. I didnt have anything to do with the decision. That was their choice. Russert: A military physical. Dean: Yeah. I had a military physical. I had a draft induction physical in Ft. Hamilton. I think it was, perhaps, during my senior year. I dont remember the exact date. Russert: If called, you would have served? Dean: Of course. ON THE SUBJECT OF IRAQ Russert: Let me turn to Iraq, and this is what you said in April. Weve gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose thats a good thing. Suppose?
|
Dean: Heres the problem. We dont know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off, and the most important thing is we dont know whether were better off. This president told us that we were going to go into Iraq because they might havethey had atomic weapons. |
That turned out not to be so. The secretary of Defense told us that he knew where there were weapons of mass destruction around Tikrit and around Baghdad. Weve been in control of Iraq for 50 days. We havent been able to find any such thing. Russert: But you also said... Dean: So... Russert: ...and Ill show it to you. You said in January, Governor, I would be surprised if [Saddam Hussein] didnt have chemicals and biological weapons. Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administrations saying wasnt so. We dont know why that is. So... Russert: But the Iraqi people are not better off without Saddam Hussein? Dean: I think right now they are. Heres the problem. If we cant get our act together in Iraq, and if we cant build Iraq into a democracy, then the alternative is chaos or a fundamentalist regime. That is certainly not a safer situation for the United States of America. And we dont know for sure if it is or not. Saddam Hussein is a dreadful human being. Hes a mass murderer. I think its terrific that hes gone. But the fact is, that in the long term, we went into Iraq for reasons the president of the United States still has not made clear. And because of that, we really dont know what the outcome is going to be. Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerrys comments that President Bush misled the country. Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. Hes a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and... Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and... Dean: Well, I wasnt aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose? Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different. Ive called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it. We essentially went to war, supported by Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt, Senator Lieberman and Senator Edwards, based on facts that turned out not to be accurate. I think thats pretty serious and I think the American people are entitled to know why that was. DEAN ON BACKBONE TRANSPLANTS Russert: Let me show you something in April you had to say about your competitors. I think were going to beat the living daylights out of these other candidates because they need a backbone transplant. Who? Dean: Oh, you know I never would say on this show. Russert: But you believe some of your Democratic contenders, opponents need a backbone transplant? Dean: At that time what was going on was that a number of people had voted for the war and were going to Iowa saying Well, I onlysome of them are still doing it. I... Russert: Who? Dean: Im not going to mention them by name. Theres no need to do that. Russert: But, Governor, if youre a straight-talking, blunt-speaking candidate and youre saying some of your opponents need a backbone transplant, who needs a backbone transplant?
|
Dean: There are a number of people, Tim, who have gone out on the campaign trail, one as recently as last week, and said I only voted for the resolution to go to war with Iraq because I knew that the resolution would force the president to send the matter to the United Nations. That is false. Russert: Who said that? Dean: Im not going to tell you who said that. Russert: Well, whyif youre going to make a... Dean: Because Im doing my best to try to keep some semblance of unity in this party. We are all going to need each other by the end of the day. Im the non-Washington candidate. Im going to run very hard against all the candidates who are inside the Beltway from Washington because I think theyre going to have a hard time convincing the American people that somebody from Washington ought to beat this president. But to s... Russert: Well, youdo your best. Let me show you... Dean: I know. I havent always done my best. |
Russert: Well, let me show you exactlyheres the headline from todays Washington Post and Ill show everybody: Misfires From The Hip Creates Problems Dean Discovers. ...[Dean] is finding that his outspokenness can get him in trouble. Last week, Dean issued what was his third apology to a rival presidential candidate. After telling the Associated Press that he did not consider Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) a top tier candidate, Dean recanted, telling the news served that he regretted the remark. Earlier this year, he apologized to Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) for tagging his broad health care initiative a pie in the sky plan. Beefier that, Dean apologized to Sen. John Edwards (DN. C.) after accusing him, during a Democratic gathering in California, of muddling his position on the war in Iraq. This is what an aide to John Kerry had to say about all of this. What we havent figured out yet is whether these harsh, personal attacks are part of a long shots strategy to get noticed, or whether this unpleasantness is just intrinsic to his personality. Or both. A very serious question. Do you have the temperament to be president? Dean: Not only do I have the temperament to be president but I have the honesty to be president. When I make a mistake, Im very pleased to apologize for it. The fact is that a lot of this stuff is about what goes on spinning, and Im surprised the reporters take the bait all the time. Ive issued one apology, and it was an apology I ought to have issued. I mischaracterized John Edwards position in March at the California convention because I didnt know what he had said. Russert: Well, you apologized to Bob Graham. Dean: No, I didnt. Russert: You called the AP and recanted the statement. Dean: I called the AP and said, Im sorry I said that. Russert: Well, thats an apology. Dean: No, its not. Russert: Im sorry I said it is not an apology? Dean: I didnt actually say Im sorry. I said, I shouldnt have said it because its not my business to handicap the races.
|
Look, Tim, if I make a mistake, Im happy to say so, and Im happy to say why I made a mistake. But to say that I dont have the temperament to be president, I actually think maybe I have a better temperament to be president because wouldnt it be nice to have a president whos actually admitted he was wrong when he made a mistake. |
If I insult somebody by mistake and its my fault, Im very happy to say so. Im not afraid of that. I will not be the scripted candidate who is going to do all the things that their handlers tell them to do. I suppose my own handlers have a nightmare over that fact. Russert: But is there... Dean: But the fact is: Wouldnt it be nice to have a president who wasnt on the one hand or on the other hand who said, Well, I voted for the war, but I only did it to send the thing to the U.N., when, in fact, the resolution didnt require the president to go to the U.N.? Im tired of hearing politicians that makethat do those things deliberately. Im going to say what I think. Sometimes Im going to be wrong, and when Im wrong, Im going to say so. Russert: Is there a risk, though, that youll be seen as described in Time magazine today as a bomb thrower and not have the statesmanlike qualities necessary to be a president? Dean: I think thats up to the American people to decide. What theyre going to decide is that Im going to say what I think. I have a long record in Vermont of running the budget better than any of these other folks could because they havent run a budget with the exception of Bob Graham. I have a long record in Vermont of delivering program that they all talk about at election time that weve all actually done like health insurance stuff for all kids in our state. And I think the American people get to decide. Thats what the primarys about: Do you want somebody who inside the Beltway people consider a statesman because they hedge on every issue and they are scripted and they never say anything that the focus groups dont approve of or do you want somebody whos going to lay it on the line? This whole campaign really has been about its time for Democrats to be proud of being Democrats again. Stop voting with the president and then try to justify your actions, stop supporting stuff that makes no sense and stand up for what you believe in. Thats the basis of this campaign, and I think thats the basis of a reformation of this country. We need to take this country back. This countrys in a lot of trouble. Its in trouble because we have a radical right administration that are dismantling the New Deal and it is not telling the truth about a lot of things that they say. The Clear Skies Initiative which basically allows you to put more pollution into the air, No Child Left Behind, a slogan cribbed from a liberal activist group and then the tax cuts are funded and health cares cut for kids. Thats what this campaign is about. Its not about arguing with some inside the Beltway person about whether I did or did not apologize to Bob Graham or not. Bob Graham is a terrific guy. If I wronged him, Im happy to apologize to him. The real issue is what is this country going to stand for and what is this party going to stand for. (HOWARD DEAN ON ABORTION) Russert: In terms of who you are, I want to refer you to your comments at the National Abortion Rights Action League in January. And Ill read it to you and our viewers. One time a young lady came to office who was 12 years old, and she thought she might be pregnant. And we did the test and we did the exam and she was pregnant. ...And after I had talked to her for awhile, I came to the conclusion that the likely father of her child was her own father. You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea. I will veto parental notification. And then this in USA Today. Dean told a powerful story but left out a key fact. ...What Dean didnt say was that he knew the father was not responsible, someone else was convicted. Thats a pretty big omission. Dean: What do you mean? Russert: To say to people at NARAL, Leave us a suggestion... Dean: I dont think itsomission. A pretty big omission, you mean? Yeah. Russert: Yeah. Thats a prettyto say that... Dean: I dont think it is at all. Russert: To suggest her father may have been... Dean: I thought it was. At the time, I thought it was. Russert: But when you told that story, you knew otherwise. Dean: Thats right. Russert: Why didnt you say that? Dean: Because it didnt make any difference. Because the fact that I thought that at the time, that that girl had been made pregnant with her father, under a parental notification law, I would have then been required to report that to her family. Russert: But parental notification for a 12-year-oldthis woman wants an abortion. According to Vermont law and all the laws Ive checked across the country, a minor needs parental consent to get a drivers license, a tattoo, see an R-rated movie. When we talked about the death penalty, you talked about the 12- and 15-year-old young girls. Dean: Right. Russert: And you said we need a death penalty as a way of dealing with those kinds of situations. Why not tell a parent, notify a parent that their 12-year-old girl is going to have an abortion, or if its an abusive situation, go to a judge. Why not? Dean: Heres what you do, and heres what we do. You know, I, as an internist, saw a number ofI took care of all kinds of ranges of people. I saw a number of girls like this, none of whom I suspected what I suspected about this girl. I always tried to get the parents involved. Usually I knew the parents, and I wouldthe way I would do it is I would bring them in my office and I would say, Look, the smartest thing to do is call your parents. My parents are going to kill me. I said, Theyre not going to kill you. I know them. Theyre going to be very upset. We need to get them involved. I would never pick up the phone against their will and call them. Sometimes theyd say, I cant deal with it. You call them. Once in a while, when a child says My parents are going to kill me, theyre not kidding. Russert: But you go to a judge in that situation. Dean: But judicial bypass has been shown not to work. Theres been a lot of studies about it in Massachusetts. It just doesnt work. You have to relylook, nobodys going to take a 12-year-old child and give her an abortion without beingI hope without being sensible, thoughtful and trying to get an adult involved. But to have rigid parental notification laws make it more difficult to practice medicine. This young girl that I talked about turned outof course, we reported the whole situationturned out the person who had sexually abused her was convicted. Fine. Thats the right thing to have happened. But suppose wed had a parental notification law, and suppose under the law I was then obliged to call up her parents and say, I have this young girl here who, you know, is pregnant and so forth and so on. What would have been the fate of that girl when she went home? Russert: If you, in fact, thought it was an abusive situation, you can go to a judge. Thats the point of notification laws. Dean: Yeah, but you know what? Russert: And if you have one for tattoos and drivers license and movies, why not for something as serious as abortion? Dean: Every doctor knows that you should get a responsible adult involved, and I hope that every doctor fulfills that mission. Ill give you an example. There have been judges that say, Under no circumstances will I provide certification that this girl should have an abortion, because Im against abortion. Now, there are bad judges in the system, and some of them rule on these cases. Why cant this be a matter between the doctor, the family and the patient? Why cant it be like that? Why do we have to have politicians always wanting to practice medicine? Whether a woman can have an abortion, what has to happen... Russert: But some 12-year-olds dont want to tell their mom and dad, and you are supporting that. Dean: No, Im not. What Im saying is if the 12-year-old doesnt want to tell their mom and dad because theyre afraid of their mom and dad is going to hurt them, then you have an obligation to make sure that you talk with that 12-year-old and workfirst of all, 12-year-olds dont get pregnant, usually speaking, unless theres a real problem. But if the 12-year-old has a legitimate reason, then there has to be a different way to do this. (DEAN ON GUNS) Dean: Because I dont think it should be on the table. Russert: Why not? Dean: We have no gun control in Vermont. Russert: Well, youre for the Brady Bill... Dean: Yep. Russert: ...which means theres a waiting period before you buy a gun. Youre against... Dean: Well, Im forits backgrounds. Russert: Well, OK. Dean: The Brady Bills InstaCheck. Its not a waiting period. Russert: But you... Dean: Well, theres a small waiting period, thats true. Russert: Welland loopholes at gun shows, there is a waiting period if you have it on a weekend. Dean: Background check, right. Russert: And youre for a ban on assault weapons, so you are for gun control. Dean: Look, what Ive said is we should keep the federal laws and support them, and we should apply background checks, InstaCheck, to gun shows, right? Russert: But why take the issue off the table? Debate it. Dean: Becausewell, you can debate it all you want. Russert: Because it may hurt Democrats politically? Dean: No. Different states are different. My state, we have no gun control. We also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the country. Were a rural state with a lot of hunters in it. Right? In New York and New Jersey and California, they ought to have as much gun control as they want. My position is this is a state issue. Keep the federal laws. Enforce them vigorously. And then let every state decide what they want. Because when you say gun control in my state, people are going to think youre taking the squirrel rifle their parents gave them away. When you say gun control in New Jersey and California and New York, they say Great. Lets get the machine guns and the handguns off the streets. Theyre both right. So why cant each state decide for themselves over and above the federal law what they want or dont want? What the result will be, you wont get more gun control than what youve already got in Wyoming or Montana and Vermont, and youll get a lot more in California and New Jersey. Fine. Russert: We got 15 seconds. Hows this race going to play out? Dean: Who knows? Thats up to the voters. Im going to work. My message is be strong for the Democratic Party. The only way to beat this president is to be proud of who you are and stand up for what you are and who you are, and thats how we can beat George Bush. And I dont think the other guys from Washington are going to be able to do that. Russert: Governor Howard Dean, we thank you for joining us this morning, sharing your views. And be safe on the campaign trail. Dean: Thank you. Russert: And well be right back right after this. (Announcements) Russert: Thats all for today. Well be back next week. If its Sunday, its Meet The Press. 1968 class Keneeshus High School. Thirty-five years, going strong.
|
I did not support the Defense of Marriage Act, because I do not think its the federal governments business to get involved in what has traditionally been the matter for the states to deal with.
But by the same token, I would not tell other states that they had to have a civil union statute or that they had to have a marriage statute. That is the not the province of the federal government.
What I will go as president of the United States is insist that every state find a way to recognize the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else. Equal rights under the law is a fundamental tenet of America, and thats where we need to be.
So first Dean says it's not the fedGov's business, then he says he wants to use federal power to force states to recognize gay couples and give them the same rights as heteros. This guy doesn't have a cohesive plan here, he's just saying whatever he can to make everybody happy. It's Clintonian.
Because he's the new century's George McGovern and if he's on the ballot, we'll have a landslide for Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.