DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOGÍA INGLESA Y ALEMANA

A SOCIO-COGNITIVE APPROACH TO POLITICAL INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATES DISCOURSES IN U.S. POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DEBATES

MARÍA DOLORES GARCÍA PASTOR

UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA Servei de Publicacions 2007

Aquesta Tesi Doctoral va ser presentada a Valencia el dia 28 de Novembre de 2006 davant un tribunal format per: D. José Luis Blas Arroyo Dª. Carmen Gregori Signes Dª. Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich Dª. Reyes Gómez Morón Dª. Nuria Lorenzo-Dus

Va ser dirigida per: Dª. Patricia Bou Franch

©Copyright: Servei de Publicacions María Dolores García Pastor

Depòsit legal: I.S.B.N.:978-84-370-6690-5 Edita: Universitat de València Servei de Publicacions C/ Artes Gráficas, 13 bajo 46010 València Spain Telèfon: 963864115

UNIVERSITAT DE VALÈNCIA
_____________________

FACULTAT DE FILOLOGIA DEPARTAMENT DE FILOLOGIA ANGLESA I ALEMANYA

A SOCIO-COGNITIVE APPROACH TO POLITICAL INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATES’ DISCOURSES IN U.S. POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DEBATES

TESIS DOCTORAL Presentada por: Maria Dolores García Pastor Dirigida por: Dra. Dña. Patricia Bou Franch Valencia, 28 de Noviembre 2006

To my parents and sister

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would not like to start this doctoral dissertation without expressing my most sincere gratitude to all the people, who, in a more direct or indirect manner, have made the accomplishment of this project possible. First of all, I am greatly indebted to my thesis supervisor Dr. Patricia Bou Franch for her support and invaluable comments throughout the realization of this study. Without her help and constructive criticism this research would not have become a reality. I am particularly grateful to some members of the Department of English and German Philology at the University of Valencia with especial mention of Dr. Carmen Gregori Signes and Dr. Barry Pennock Speck, who have been great friends and colleagues offering me unfailing support and excellent moments. Thank you both. My thanks also go to Dr. Miguel Fuster Márquez for his encouragement and good jokes until the very moment I left the department. Thank you also Dr. Rosana Dolón Herrero, Dr. Tina Suau Jiménez, and Ms. Susan Young Alexander for their kindness, support, and feedback on the research and the teaching, especially in my last year as a research fellow and teaching assistant in the department. I am also grateful to Dr. Paul Scott Derrick for his helpful remarks on some of the data at an early stage of the study, and Dr. Vicent Andreu Besó for the little computer tricks that were not only useful in the fine-tuning of the transcripts, but also facilitated the statistical analysis. I would also like to thank Dr. Carmen Manuel Cuenca for her kindness and advice, which increased after I left. My thanks also go to the research fellows who shared office with me at some point. I would also like to extend my warm thanks to colleagues and friends at the School of Education in the University of Valencia, in particular, Dr. Vicente Sanjosé Lopez for being an excellent friend, and giving me advice and support, which have been crucial especially in the last stages of the research. Thank you too for all your invaluable feedback overall, and your help in the statistical part of the study. My thanks also go to Dr. Eva Gaos Ariño for her friendship, advice, encouragement and great moments that contributed to release tension from time to time. I am also indebted to Dr. Mateo del Pozo de la Viuda for having offered me guidance and support from the very first moment I arrived at the Department of Language and Literature Teaching in the school. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Josep Ballester Roca for his contagious energy, enthusiasm and good sense of humour, which helped make the final period of this project more pleasant. Thanks also to my colleagues Mr. José Ramón Insa Agustina, Ms. Amparo Santana Marí, Mr. Josep Montoro Flors for their suggestions on the teaching along with the enjoyable moments. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Pilar Sanz Sánchez and Dr. Joan Pellicer Borrás for their support and advice. Other members of the University of Valencia that have also contributed to make possible the realization of the present project include Dr. Leopoldo Forner Navarro in the Department of Estomatology, whom I thank for his generosity assisting me with the formatting of the second volume of this thesis, among other things, and for his friendship providing me with unfailing support and pleasant moments. I am indebted also to Ms. Lucía Rus for helping me with a small portion of the analysis, and for her kindness and encouragement throughout this year. My thanks also go to Prof. Eduardo Vidal-Abarca Gámez in the Department of Developmental Psychology and Education at this university for his time and attention to the research, and for having introduced me to Ms. Laura Gil, whose assistance in the quantitative analysis of the data has been pivotal. Thanks Laura for your patience, efficiency and support. My three year study period at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, IA (USA), was crucial for this study. It was there, and more specifically, the Department of Communication Studies in this university, where my interest in the issue of persuasion, an important aspect of this research, emerged and started to grow. There I began to explore this topic receiving invaluable feedback and help from Dr. Kristine Fitch and Dr. Steve Duck, to whom I would like to extend my thanks. I am also grateful to Dr. Leslie Baxter and Dr. Randy Hirokawa for providing me in general with inspiring ideas, which I have implemented in this study. I am also indebted to Prof. Bruce Gronbeck for the persuasion book. My thanks also go to my colleagues in the department at the time, with whom I not only shared graduate courses and seminars, but above all friendship and good moments. These particularly include Mr. Walter Carl, Ms. Yangroon Chang, Ms. Alaina

Winters, Mr. David McMahan, Ms. Erin Sahlstein, Mr. Dan Degooyer, Ms. Kathy Smith and Ms. Lee West. I also had the opportunity to meet Dr. Charles Antaki, whom I also thank for his enlightening comments on the issue of persuasion. My thanks also go to Dr. Judy Liskin-Gasparro for all her support and great feedback on the teaching in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at this university. I would also like to thank all my Valencian colleagues, other friends from Spain, South-America, and North-America, who were in the process of achieving their degrees during that period of time. These include Ms. Ana Brígido, Mr. Vicente Rodríguez, Ms. Ana Oscoz, Ms. Irene Gil, Mr. Gustavo Oropeza, Mr. Wayne Swanson, Ms. Jenny Cooley, Ms. Lidia Graham, Ms. Monica West, Ms. Cristina Carrasco, Ms. Lucia Osa, Ms. Susana Bou, Ms. Marta Borrull and Mr. Agustín Reyes. Thank you all for your support and efficient help providing me with the information and some of the video recordings I needed. I am also grateful to some faculty in the Department of Linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. (USA), with especial mention of Dr. Connor-Linton for his constructive criticism and invaluable comments on the study, particularly as regards the quantitative methods used, and the construct validity of my analytical units. I am also indebted to Prof. Deborah Tannen for her kindness and time, and Prof. Ron Scollon and wife for their interest in the research, and the encouraging e-mails. My thanks also go to Manela Díez for her efficiency concerning all the tedious paperwork during my study period at Georgetown, and for her help and good advice in relation to other aspects of my stay in Washington D.C. I am also grateful to Ms. Carol Smith for making such stay very pleasant, and providing me with all the necessary tools and materials to collect the different types of data employed in this project, especially the video-tape recorder. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues Dr. Miriam Locher and Dr. Lucy Pravikova for the enlightening discussions, feedback and great moments during that period of time. Thank you both. My thanks also go to some of the Phd. students in the department at the time for the bibliographic references and their stimulating comments on the research. I would also like to extend my thanks to some colleagues and friends at the University Cardenal Herrera-CEU San Pablo in Valencia, especially Dr. Jesús Mª Bilbao Aldamizechevarría, Dr. Heike Soennecken, and Dr. Santiago Maestro Cano for attending to all my needs concerning many different aspects of the study, particularly those related to the transcription process, and for their friendship and encouragement. I am also grateful to my students in the beginners’ course of the Language School in this university for their support as well as faculty and colleagues at the School of Architecture, Industrial Design and Computer Science, the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, and the Faculty of Experimental and Health Sciences. I am also indebted to Dr. Pilar Garcés Conejos, Dr. Reyes Gómez Morón, Dr. Beatriz Narbona Reina, Dr. Nuria Lorenzo Dus, and Dr. Marianna Chodorowska-Pilch for their contagious motivation regarding the study of pragmatics. I would also like to express my gratitude to Prof. Jose Luís Blas Arroyo for the helpful bibliographic references and exchange of ideas as for the research on the whole. My thanks also go to many friends in my hometown Gandía for all their encouragement, support and cheerful moments, especially Ms. Ruth Juste, Ms. Natalia Llodrá, Ms. Mª José Jiménez, Ms. Mª Ángeles Just, Ms. Ana Matoses, Ms. Mónica Morant, Ms. Pura Bertó, Mr. Fernando Just, and a long etc. Finally, my warmest thanks are reserved for those who have to bear the major burden of the ups and downs during the course of writing a Phd. thesis: one’s own family. They are my parents and my sister. It is them, to whom I devote this work, and for whom words of gratitude are not sufficient for all I owe them.

A SOCIO-COGNITIVE APPROACH TO POLITICAL INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATES’ DISCOURSES IN U.S. POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DEBATES

CONTENTS

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... i I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 1 1. TWO PRAGMATIC THEORIES ................................................................ 1 1.1. Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory: A Critical Overview ........ 1 1.2. Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory: A Critical Overview ......... 6 1.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 9 2. PERSUASION IN POLITICAL DEBATES ............................................... 11 2.1. Persuasion in Political Debates: Definition and Approach ................. 2.2. Linguistic Features of Persuasion across Discourse Types in Pragmatics: Political Debates as a Case in Point ................................ 2.3. Persuasion as an Inferential Phenomenon in Pragmatics: Observations on and for Political Debates .......................................... 2.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 11 15 18 22

3. CHARACTERISING POLITICAL DEBATES .......................................... 23 3.1. Political Debates as a Persuasive Discourse Type .............................. 3.2. Traditional Approaches to Political Debates: Debate Studies in Communications ................................................................................. 3.3. Debate Studies in Pragmatics .............................................................. 3.4. Conversational Analysis and Discourse Analysis Studies of Debates: Some Shortcomings ............................................................................ 3.5. Political Debates as Zero Sum Games ................................................ 3.6. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 23 27 30 39 49 57

4. APPLICATION OF POLITENESS THEORY AND RELEVANCE THEORY ...................................................................................................... 59 4.1. Politeness Theory and Political Debates ............................................. 59 4.2. The Relational Dynamics of Political Debates: A Politeness Approach ............................................................................................ 64 4.3. Relevance Theory and Politeness ....................................................... 74

4.4. Political Debates as a Series of Metarepresentations: A Relevance Theoretic Approach ............................................................................ 80 4.5. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 91 II. METHODS ............................................................................................................ 92 1. PRELIMINARIES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................ 92 1.1. The U.S. Political Campaign Debate: A Culture-Bound Event .......... 92 1.2. Research Questions ............................................................................. 94 1.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 98 2. PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 99 2.1. Selection of the Corpus and Data Collection ...................................... 99 2.2. Description of the Corpus and Organisation ...................................... 103 2.3. Transcription Conventions .................................................................. 111 2.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 116 3. ANALYSES ................................................................................................. 117 3.1. Framework and Units of Analysis ...................................................... 117 3.2. Qualitative Procedures ........................................................................ 126 3.3. Quantitative Procedures ...................................................................... 140 3.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 147 III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 149 1. FACE MITIGATION AND FACE AGGRAVATION IN POLITICAL DEBATES .................................................................................................... 149 1.1. Overall Remarks ................................................................................. 149 1.2. Face Mitigation ................................................................................... 155 1.3. Face Aggravation ................................................................................ 166 1.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 177 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF FACE MITIGATING AND FACE AGGRAVATING SEQUENCES ................................................................ 178 2.1. Type of Face Mitigation ...................................................................... 178 2.2. Type of Face Aggravation .................................................................. 184 2.3. Recurrent Elements ............................................................................. 191 2.3.1. Modals ............................................................................................. 192 2.3.2. Terms of Address .............................................................................. 202 2.4. Location in Debates ……………………............................................ 213 2.5. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 224

3. FACE MITIGATION ................................................................................... 226 3.1. Overview ............................................................................................. 226 3.2. Pure Face Mitigating Sequences ......................................................... 231 3.3. Non-Pure Face Mitigating Sequences.................................................. 247 3.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 263 4. FACE AGGRAVATION ............................................................................. 265 4.1. Overview ............................................................................................. 265 4.2. Pure Face Aggravating Sequences ...................................................... 271 4.3. Non-Pure Face Aggravating Sequences .............................................. 291 4.4. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 305 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 307 V. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 327 VI. CITED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 372 VII. RESUMEN …………………………………………………………………….. 373 VIII. APPENDIX (CD Rom) ..................................................................................... 413 1. INDEX ......................................................................................................... 413 2. APPENDIX A .............................................................................................. 414 3. APPENDIX B .............................................................................................. 417 4. APPENDIX C .............................................................................................. 423 5. APPENDIX D .............................................................................................. 427 6. APPENDIX E ............................................................................................... 429 7. APPENDIX F ............................................................................................... 439

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

= + → A CC CGC* CGD* CP D FTA* GCI* H* L2 MACI * MFTA* O OC P PCI* PD* PP PT R RQ RT S* TV W Debate Participants A AAM AC AG AH AK AN AP AS
*

Equal in degree Higher in degree Lower in degree Phenomenon under discussion Affect Conversational Contract Common Ground Claimer Common Ground Disclaimer Cooperative Principle Social Distance Face-Threatening Act Generalized Conversational Implicatures Hearer Second Language Macro-Acto contra la Imagen Macro-Face-Threatening Act Opinion Ordinary Conversation Power Particularized Conversational Implicatures Persuasive Discourses Politeness Principle Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory Ranking of Imposition Research Question Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory Speaker Television Total ‘Weightiness’ of an FTA

Audience Anonymous Audience Member Andrew Cotsburg Albert Gore Andrew Horning Alan Keys Announcer Angie Pettick Al Sharpton

These abbreviations sometimes appear in their plural form indicated by a little ‘s’ next to them.

ANS BB BH BMC BS(M) CB CM CR DB DC DIC DM DMC DMCM DN DP DR(M) DW(M) EG FO GA GB GC GH GWB HRC IR JB JC JC(M) JG JIG JH JL JL(M) JMC JP JSC JS JS(M) JT JW JW(M) KA KB(M) KD(AN) KL KM

Anita Shaft Bill Bradley Bob Holden Bob McCarthy Bernard Shaw (Moderator) Clayton Banks Carolene Mays Charles Robb Derrick Billand Dave Courvoisier Dick Cheney Donna Monarch David McIntosh Doyle McManus David Norwood Dee Pinchback Dennis Ryerson (Moderator) Douglas Wilder (Moderator) Elizabeth Green Frank O’Bannon George Allen Gary Bauer Gregory Cook Gordon Humphrey George W. Bush Hillary Rodham Clinton Interviewer Jewel Bishop Joyce Cleamer Jennifer Crompton (Moderator) Jeff Greenfield Jim Gibson James Hankins Joseph Lieberman Jim Lehrer (Moderator) John McCain Jim Plaurra John Schwantes Jeanne Shaheen Jim Shella (Moderator) Jim Talent Jackie Webber Judy Woodruff (Moderator) Kenneth Allen Karen Brown (Moderator) Kenneth Dobbins (Announcer) Kevin Landrigan Kim Myzenheimer

KT LA LG LK LK(M) LS MA MC MD MLK III MPC MRR NC NR PM(M) PS QR RB RC RG RH RL RIL SF SK SL SLU SS ST TE TF TH(M) TP TR(M) VF WA WS WW

Karen Tumulty Leo Anderson Liz Gardner Lisa Kee Larry King (Moderator) Larry Sabato Mike Ahern Monique Code Mark Dayton Martin Luther King III Marie Payne Clappey Mayor Richard Riordan Norma Curby Noreen Robin Paul Majors (Moderator) Peggy Shepherd Questioner Ron Brownstein Ray Collins Rod Grams Robert Holsworth Robert Lutz Rick Lazio Steve Forbes Steven Koosmann Scott Levin Steve Luecker Scott Spradling Steve Tidalbaum Tamala Edwards Thomas Fischer Tom Harte (Moderator) Travis Partney Tim Russert (Moderator) Vickie French William Allen William Sweden Woody Woodland

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

From the very origins of pragmatics with the so-called philosophers of language like Austin (1962), Searle (1969, 1975, 1976) and Grice (1975), whose works were developed and contested over time (e.g. Keenan, 1976; Rosaldo, 1982; etc.), this field has evolved into a vast field of enquiry that encompasses a plethora of traditions and disciplines all with radically different or somewhat alike ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions, united though by the common thread of being ‘pragmatic’. Among the many distinct descriptions of what pragmatics amounts to in the literature (e.g. Escandell-Vidal, 1993; Leech, 1983; Levinson, 1983; Mey, 1993; Thomas, 1995; etc.), I believe that Verschueren’s (1995) view of this field as a ‘perspective’ on the study of language and communication is greatly adequate. Conceptualizing pragmatics as a perspective allows for a better account of the high interdisciplinarity of the field, and the blurry boundaries of the research traditions and disciplines that compound it. Such perspective is “an approach to language which takes into account the full complexity of its cognitive, social, and cultural (i.e. ‘meaningful’) functioning in the lives of human beings” (Verschueren, 1995: 13f.), and is the overall approach I take in the present research to the study of politeness issues in the context of political campaign debates of the 2000 North-American elections. From this perspective, the social and cognitive dimensions of communication are not necessarily at odds as some researchers have claimed; rather they are complementary aspects of the same phenomenon. Along these lines, I believe that, in spite of lying on divergent postulates about communication,

i

Introduction

and concentrating on different facets of it (the social and the cognitive respectively), the two pragmatic theories constituting the theoretical background of this project, namely, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory, and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) Relevance Theory, can jointly be used to explain politeness issues in the context of electoral debates. However, politeness or the context-sensitive linguistic enactment of social relations as understood in this research, needs to be conceived first as some sort of internal knowledge on what is socially appropriate and inappropriate in a given communicative situation (BouFranch, 2001c, 2002a, 2002b; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2003; Bou-Franch & Maruenda-Bataller, 2001; Escandell-Vidal, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2002; GarcésConejos & Bou-Franch, 2004; Jary, 1998a, 1998b; Jucker, 1988; Locher, 2004; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003). Thus, although it is Brown and Levinson’s theory that I principally draw on hitherto, I deploy Sperber and Wilson’s to further depict and elucidate only on theoretical grounds certain features of politeness and communication on the whole in these events at a cognitive level. Regardless of constituting a sensible cognitive-based complement that can contribute to yield richer descriptions of communication in sociological investigations, Relevance Theory has hardly been called upon in these. In this fashion, the realization of this study from both Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory, and Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory unveiling an eclectic socio-cognitive approach to communication, and more specifically, political interaction, has been deemed suitable. Nevertheless, Brown and Levinson’s model has only been taken here as a starting point to theorise and empirically explore politeness issues in these speech exchanges. In this light, the present work belongs to the body of literature dealing
ii

Introduction

with facework in general, and politeness or face mitigation and impoliteness or face aggravation in particular, across communicative encounters (e.g. Bou-Franch, 2006; Brown & Gilman, 1989; Coupland et al., 1988; Culpeper, 1996, 2005; Culpeper et al., 2003; Del Saz-Rubio, 2000; Garcés-Conejos, 1991, 1995; GarcésConejos & Sánchez-Macarro, 1998; Gómez-Morón, 1998; Gregori-Signes, 2005; Penman, 1990; Torreblanca-López & Garcés-Conejos, 1996; Torreblanca-López, 1998; Tracy & Tracy, 1998; Wood & Kroger, 1994; etc.). It has not been until recently that investigations of politeness and impoliteness in distinct communicative situations have started to consider the real weight of participants in social intercourse, and they have done so by invoking Wenger’s (1998) notion of ‘community of practice’ (cf. Bou-Franch, 2006; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2005; Christie, 2002; Gregori-Signes, 2005; Harris, 2001; Mills, 2003; Mullany, 2002). Through this notion these studies underline the influence of conversational participants in the form and functioning of politeness in a determinate context as members of social groups that develop and share ways of doing things (i.e. practices) when engaging in a mutual endeavour. However, the sociological concept of ‘speech event’ employed in this research, albeit differently, also contemplates participants, their activities and their goals, among other things, and is a greatly operative notion at an analytical level. Therefore, I would say that more classical context-bound investigations of politeness and impoliteness like this one are still useful for the accomplishment of an objective common to all this research: the search and identification of patterns revealing qualities of politeness phenomena in different communicative exchanges. In this way, this investigation attempts to modestly contribute to politeness studies of distinct discourse types in pragmatics.

iii

Introduction

Consequently, finding regularities as regards politeness in electoral debates constitutes the main aim of this project. Nonetheless, the persuasive nature of debaters’ talk has been taken into account and foregrounded in such enterprise. Such talk was also observed to be trilogic and pervaded by what I have labelled ‘double politeness’. The trilogic condition of candidates’ interchanges lies in the simultaneous action of persuading the audience and debating the opponent they carry out in and through these, whilst the double polite character of their communicative acts consists of the implications of this action for the faces of each of these two categories of interactants, in such a way that contenders pay the audience face considerations in trying to persuade it at the same time that they indirectly damage the opponent’s image, and vice versa, they hurt the adversary’s image in discrediting him/her indirectly attending to the audience’s face according to their persuasive ends. Besides the trilogic and double polite essence of debaters’ interventions, the audience’s reactions to these, and the issue of power have also been contemplated. Examining politeness or face mitigation and impoliteness or face aggravation in the context of electoral debates is a research topic that has not been devoted too much attention as the little amount of studies of debates from a politeness perspective signals. Furthermore, to my knowledge, there is no investigation to date that explores politeness issues in these events from a sociocognitive approach to communication in addition to dealing with the phenomenon of persuasion thereto on theoretical and analytical grounds. Thus, the study of politeness in debates looking also at the issue of persuasion from the pragmatic framework determined for this research was thought to be a project worthwhile pursuing.

iv

Introduction

In view of the principal goal of this project, and the relevance of the persuasive facet of candidates’ communicative acts in debates apart from others already referred to, I decided to divide this study into three main different parts, namely, the Theoretical Background, the Methods part, and the Results and Discussion section. In the Theoretical Background I offer and critically discuss the theoretical postulates and assumptions underlying this investigation. Therefore, in the first chapter of this part, I centre on the two pragmatic theories that constitute the basis of this work, i.e. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory, and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) Relevance Theory, explaining those fundamental concepts in each that I mostly draw on hitherto, and laying out some of the mot important criticism raised against both. I also offer my own conceptualization of politeness, and argue for an eclectic socio-cognitive approach to the study of communication in general, and political debates in particular, in this initial chapter. In the second chapter, I look at persuasion establishing my own view of this phenomenon, and discussing some of its key linguistic features across discourse types in pragmatics with a focus on political discourse and electoral debates. The chapter ends with a depiction of persuasion in cognitive terms in these events in light of evidence culled from distinct pragmatic investigations. In chapter three, I follow Lakoff’s (1981) piece to describe political debates as persuasive discourses emphasizing the fundamentally persuasive nature of these events over their antagonistic condition, which I contemplate, however, in their depiction as zero sum games. As defined by Levinson (1992), zero sum games are speech encounters in which one party’s loss or defeat implies another party’s gains or victory. I also critically review the debate literature in communications and pragmatics concentrating on debate studies within the latter,
v

Introduction

especially conversational analysis and discourse analysis research. Chapter four closes the Theoretical Background constituting an application of the two aforementioned theories to the speech event of political debates, in such a way that these are portrayed as face mitigating and aggravating encounters, and a series of metarepresentations on political discourse, persuasion, relationships, and U.S. society and culture. This chapter also comments from a critical standpoint on the debate research that partially or fully invokes Brown and Levinson’s approach, at the same time that it deals with investigations of politeness from a relevance theoretic perspective. The Methods section is concerned with the research questions posited in this project, and the methods of data collection, preparation, and analysis implemented for its realization. In the first chapter, I formulate the six research questions guiding this study, viz, two major questions each containing two minor ones, whilst supplying a justification for their formulation. The two major questions enquire about the characteristics of face mitigation or politeness and face aggravation or impoliteness in debates, more specifically, 1) the type of face mitigation and aggravation that may be more typical in each of these face-sensitive categories respectively, 2) linguistic elements that may recur within these, and 3) their habitual location in the discourse of debates as a whole if any. The minor questions deal with the forms mitigation and aggravation may take, and their features. An account of North-American debates as culture-bound events introduces the chapter as a preliminary explanation to the more fine-grained description of the corpus selected for this research supplied in chapter two. The second chapter in this section details the process of data collection, which involves a) the Spain phase, during which I could only compile three debates of the
vi

Introduction

presidential race, and b) the Washington phase, in which I collected the rest of the debates compounding the corpus of this investigation. This phase includes a threemonth study period at the University of Georgetown in Washington D.C., that enabled me to better experience the 2000 U.S. elections overall. In this chapter, I also depict the corpus, which contains debates from distinct political races (presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, and House races), one non-race debate and debates from different North-American campaigns, at the same time that I organise it into ‘corpus of analysis’ and ‘corpus of reference’ justifying this organisation too. The corpus of analysis consists of 16 debates, out of which ten are debates of the presidential race, and the remaining six entail three senatorial and three gubernatorial debates, all amounting to a total of twenty hours of ongoing talk. Other kinds of data, e.g. newspaper articles, television programs, etc., were also collected, and two interviews with two North-American citizens were conducted with the aim of having extra information that facilitated the interpretation of the debates. Lastly, I specify the transcription system utilised in the preparation of the corpus for analysis. Chapter three deals with the method of analysis followed here, in particular, the framework and the macro and micro units of analysis characterising it — the pragmatic sequence and the micro strategy — together with the qualitative and quantitative procedures that define it. These qualitative procedures culminate in the data-driven framework of conversational strategies I propose in this work, whilst the quantitative procedures principally lie in four statistical tests performed with the aid of the computer program SPSS 12.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The Results and Discussion part of this project is the largest part, and is based on the quantitative and qualitative discussion of the findings substantiated
vii

Introduction

by illustrative examples from the data. Chapter one in this section is an overview of all the varieties of politeness or face mitigation and impoliteness or face aggravation found in the corpus, that is, pure mitigation, non-pure mitigation or mitigation with secondary rudeness, pure aggravation, and non-pure aggravation or aggravation with secondary politeness, all in their positive or negative face orientations. The chapter underlines the global predominance of non-pure mitigation with a positive face orientation portraying it as 1) the best expression of persuasion in debates according to the relation between mitigation and persuasion in these events identified in past analyses, and 2) the best instance of the trilogic essence of debaters’ communicative acts. The second chapter centres on the characteristics of face mitigating and aggravating units in the data, thereby attempting to answer the two major research questions posited in this study. First, I comment on the strategies of face mitigation and aggravation that surfaced as more common in face mitigating and aggravating sequences correspondingly. Then I report and discuss the results of the four statistical tests run for potentially recurrent elements within face mitigation and aggravation, which yielded a positive relation between modal verbs and the former, and a negative relation between terms of address and the latter appearing to be positive though only for a determinate type of address terms. The chapter ends with a description of the usual location of mitigating and aggravating sequences in the unfolding discourse of debates as a whole in light of their computation in the introduction, body, and conclusion of these events. Chapters three and four provide a quantitative and qualitative account of face mitigation on the one hand, and face aggravation on the other hand, with explanatory examples from the corpus. In chapter three, I concentrate on face
viii

Introduction

mitigation distinguishing between pure and non-pure mitigation both in their positive and negative face orientations. In the depiction of all these mitigating varieties offered hitherto, I draw on the notions of monologic or oratorical talk in debates, i.e. discourse similar to the monologues that habitually form a rhetor’s speech, and dialogic interaction in these events, viz, discourse resembling the dynamics of ordinary conversation. I also employ the three identified dimensions of rhetorical arguments, namely, ‘logos’, ‘pathos’, and ‘ethos’ in such description showing their different weight in all these kinds of face mitigation. This chapter aims to be a response to the two minor research questions on the distinct varieties of face mitigation in debates, and their features formulated in this investigation. In chapter four, I focus on face aggravation establishing a distinction between pure and non-pure aggravating sequences with a positive or negative face orientation like face mitigation in the preceding chapter. The chapter highlights the prevalence of pure aggravation in its negative face-oriented variety portraying it as the paradigmatic expression of the zero sum game condition of debates, whilst offering an explanation for this finding. I also give details about the supra sequential category of the ‘negativity cycle’ observed in the data, and discuss the salient connection between face aggravation and power in these events already detected in prior analyses. This chapter intends to supply an answer the two minor research questions enquiring about the different shapes face aggravation adopts in debates, and their characteristics in this research. The Conclusions, the References, the Cited Bibliography, and the Summary in Spanish follow the three parts previously mentioned and expounded to complete the first volume of this dissertation. The second volume comprises the different Appendixes alluded to throughout this investigation, which are specified
ix

Introduction

in an Index introducing the volume. Out of these appendixes, Appendix F entails the corpus of analysis of this study. This volume is presented in the form of a CD Rom due to its considerable length. All the above therefore illustrates the structure of this project. To conclude, in this study, I have delved into the nature and functioning of politeness in its face mitigating and aggravating manifestations in the context of political campaign debates taking also the phenomenon of persuasion into account. The politeness investigations of debates that I am aware of to date either do not contemplate impoliteness or do not sufficiently examine the persuasive dimension of politicians’ talk at a theoretical or analytical level. As for other pragmatic studies of debates, conversational analysis research is not concerned with the persuasive condition of contestants’ interventions either with a few exceptions that do not explore, however, how candidates first establish a positive relational basis with the audience for their persuasive ends. This research tends to underscore the confrontational aspect of debaters’ interchanges focusing on their structural properties, and not paying enough heed to the relational antagonism that prompts such confrontation. Discourse analysis studies deal with this relational antagonism emphasizing it though over contenders’ harmonious relationship with the audience, which is rather superficially considered like the persuasive character of politicians’ messages saved for only one case, i.e. Blas-Arroyo’s (2000) piece. Additionally, cognition in all these investigations is out of the picture. By looking at politeness or face mitigation and impoliteness or face aggravation in debates attending also to persuasion, and all the aforementioned features of debaters’ discourses, the present work aims to modestly contribute to all this body of literature.
x

Introduction

In so doing, this project may provide information that might be helpful to debate research within the field of communications too. From what I have observed, this research indirectly handles politeness matters as understood hitherto through certain concepts such as ‘clash’, among others, without deepening into these issues. Moreover, in many cases the different categories constituting confrontation and/or non-confrontation therein are a priori established unlike datadriven. Such research also looks at the relational pairs ‘candidate-adversary’ and ‘candidate-audience’ as well as their communicative exchanges separately, so that it misses somehow the relational and interactional complexity defining debates. Finally, it does not seem to pay too much attention to the cognitive plane bar some scholars who actually take it into consideration (e.g. Conrad, 1993). Besides debate studies in pragmatics and the communications field, this work might also be of some use to pragmatic investigations of political discourse, as it may shed some more light into its interpersonal side together with the interrelation of the latter with the phenomenon of persuasion and the topic of power. Lastly, it might also contribute somehow to political science research, since according to Chilton (1990), politeness studies of political communication can cope with the theoretical and methodological problems seen in the application of other perspectives in such research. More specifically, this author advocates the application of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory to political interaction, as the core notions of the theory greatly resemble or equal classical political concepts.

xi

I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Theoretical Background

1. TWO PRAGMATIC THEORIES

“[...] multi-disciplinarity is necessary if we are to make progress and produce good analyses” (Coupland & Jaworski, 1997: 244)

The present chapter deals with the two pragmatic theories constituting the basis of this research, namely, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory (PT henceforth), and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) Relevance Theory (RT thereafter). First, I put forward my own view of politeness mentioning succinctly some of the most important conceptualizations of this notion in the literature. Second, I outline and critically discuss Brown and Levinson’s approach out of the four major theoretical perspectives on politeness in pragmatics. Then, I focus on the basic concepts of Sperber and Wilson’s RT that I will be invoking hitherto adopting also a critical attitude towards this theoretical model. Finally, I argue for an eclectic sociocognitive approach to the study of communication as a conclusion to this chapter.

1.1. Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory: A Critical Overview

Out of the three main conceptualizations of politeness in the politeness literature, namely, traditional politeness or the ‘social-norm view’ (Fraser, 1990), politeness as a sociolinguistic phenomenon (see, e.g. Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989), and

1

Theoretical Background

politeness as linguistic action, my understanding of this notion ascribes to the latter, which is actually the most extended in pragmatics.2 Pragmaticians embracing this view have defined politeness differently based on the features of this phenomenon they prioritize in their investigations. Thus, politeness has been conceived, for example, as ‘social’ or ‘contextual judgment’ (Craig et al., 1986; Escandell-Vidal, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2002; Jary, 1998a; Mills, 2002, 2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2000, 2002), relational communication based on a set of conversational strategies oriented to create, maintain and enhance social bonds (Brown & Levinson 1987), or a discursive struggle between interactants on what is appropriate behaviour revealing an individual’s positioning in relation to others and the world (Eelen, 2001; Locher & Watts, 2005; Watts, 2003), among others. My conceptualization of politeness is attuned with the conversational strategy definition of this concept taking into consideration the importance of context and cognition, so that politeness in this investigation amounts to the context-sensitive cognitive-based linguistic instantiation of relationships in and through communication. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT is one of the four ‘classical approaches’ (Escandell-Vidal, 1998a, 2002) to politeness in pragmatics, i.e. Lakoff’s (1973) Politeness Rules, Leech’s (1983) Politeness Principle and maxims and Fraser and Nolen’s (1981) Conversational Contract, all of which are based on the so-called Grice-Goffman paradigm (Held, 1992).3 These scholars basically understand

For a full review see Held (1992), and for a complete bibliography see Dufon et al. (1994). Grice’s (1975) model of logic and conversation argues for the existence of universal principles regulating conversational exchanges, which he identifies with his Cooperative Principle (abbreviated CP), i.e. “make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by
3

2

2

Theoretical Background

politeness as a series of conversational strategies that enable the creation and maintenance of social bonds, and contribute to keep harmony in them. Underlying this view is the assumption that 1) communicative acts in general intrinsically damage ‘face’ or the self-image people want for themselves in a specific society,4 and 2) individuals will always try to diminish such face aggression by means of the aforementioned conversational strategies, which Brown and Levinson organise these strategies into a continuum from most polite or indirect to least polite or direct. Among all these strategies (see Appendixes C.1 to C.4) the ones that are emphasized in this work are those that convey redress, that is, ‘positive politeness strategies’, which are specifically directed to ‘positive face’ or the desire to be approved of, and ‘negative politeness strategies’, which orient towards ‘negative face’ or “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others” (1987: 62). In order to select the politeness strategies suitable to mitigate the face aggressive action of a given communicative act, a speaker (S) estimates first its total ‘weightiness’ (W) or seriousness by taking into account contextual factors such as the social distance (D) between S and H, the power (P) of H with respect to S,5 and the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture in which the communicative act is performed, all of which is illustrated in the formula ‘Wx = D(S, H) + P(H, S) + Rx’.

the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (1975: 45), and its four main conversational maxims: the Maxim of Quantity (be informative), the Maxim of Quality (be truthful), the Maxim of Relation (be relevant), and the Maxim of Manner (be clear). 4 Brown and Levinson take this concept from Goffman (1967) but conceptualize it differently (cf. Brown & Gilman, 1989; Locher, 2004; Locher & Watts, 2005; Mao, 1994; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003; Werkhofer, 1992; etc.). 5 They follow Brown and Gilman (1960) in establishing D and P as crucial contextual factors.

3

Theoretical Background

Regardless of constituting one of the most insightful and inspiring theoretical models in pragmatics, Brown and Levinson’s PT has long been criticised on many different grounds. Some of the most common indictments which I partially or fully share relate to: a) its single act unit basis with the consequent neglect of the sequentiality and structural properties of the interaction along with the type of discourse or interactional context in which it is embedded (Bayraktaroğlu, 1991; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2003; Christie, 2002; Coupland et al., 1988; Culpeper, 2005; Culpeper et al., 2003; Fraser, 1990; Garcés-Conejos 1991, 1995; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 1995; Held, 1989, 1992; Kasper, 1990, 1998; Kienpointner, 1997; Lakoff, 1989; Locher, 2004; Mao, 1994; Mills, 2002, 2003; Mullany, 2002; Penman, 1990; Turner, 1996; Watts, 1989, 2003; Werkhofer, 1992; Wood & Kroger, 1994); b) its attributed universal character (Arundale, 2005; Escandell-Vidal, 1996, 1998b, 2002; Flowerdew, 1999; Fraser, 1990, 2002; Held, 1992; Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989; Kasper, 1990, 1998; Katriel, 1986; Mao, 1994; Matsumoto, 1989; Meier, 1995, 1997; Mills, 2002, 2003; Turner, 1996; Werkhofer, 1992), before which Brown and Levinson advocate that their concepts, in particular, their notion of face is pan-cultural, albeit subject to cultural elaboration. Some researchers including myself align with them on this issue (e.g. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1997; Kienpointner, 1997; O’Driscoll, 1996; Spencer-Oatey, 2000, 2002);

4

Theoretical Background

c) its depiction of politeness as the sole motivation accounting for a speaker’s deviation from Grice’s principles in communication versus others like rudeness, sarcasm, irony, humour, persuasion, etc. (Baxter, 1984; Bayraktaroğlu, 1991; BouFranch & Garcés-Conejos, 1994; Brown & Gilman, 1989; Cherry, 1988; Craig et al., 1996; Coupland et al., 1988; Culpeper, 1996; Culpeper et al., 2003; Flowerdew, 1999; Fraser, 1990, 2002; Garcés-Conejos, 1991, 1995; GómezMorón, 1997; Held, 1989, 1992; Kasper, 1990; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1997; Kienpointner, 1997; Lachenicht, 1980; Lakoff, 1989; Locher, 2004; Penman, 1990; Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Tracy & Tracy, 1998; Turner, 1996; Wood & Kroger, 1994; Zajdman, 1995; Zupnik, 1994), which in some cases amount to instances of efficient communication in determinate contexts, and d) other minor and more specific aspects such as the conceptualization of P, D, and R, and the exclusion of other equally important variables, e.g. familiarity or interactive closeness, affect or liking, gender, and right; the model’s predictions on strategy usage in relational dyads; the identification of politeness with linguistic elements of a diverse nature, which are attributed full strategy status; the mutual exclusivity of strategies in the same communicative act coupled with their neglected multifunctionality and multidirectionality; and the misleading correlations between politeness and indirectness, among others. Nevertheless, I believe Brown and Levinson’s PT constitutes a powerful tool to account for communication in general, and specific discourse types in particular not without certain modifications entailing the consideration of the above indictments.

5

Theoretical Background

1.2. Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory: A Critical Overview

Communication for Sperber & Wilson (1986/1995) is more than the mere encoding and decoding of information: it is an ostensive-inferential process whereby a communicator overtly produces an ostensive stimulus (usually an utterance) which makes it mutually manifest6 to communicator and audience her7 intention to make manifest a basic layer of information or certain set of assumptions,8 i.e. her ‘communicative intention’, which amounts to her intention to inform of her ‘informative intention’. The audience’s inferential process starts with the combination of the evidence or new information S’s ostensive stimulus provides with information the audience already has and selects, and finishes with the audience’s final attribution of meaning to this evidence, hence its interpretation of S’s meaning. The combination of the audience’s information with the information supplied by S produces a series of ‘contextual effects’ that account for the modification of the hearer’s cognitive environment, and result in the improvement of his knowledge of the world. Ostension and inference are guided by relevance, which is conceived in terms of cognitive effects balanced against processing effort.

6 ‘Mutual manifestness’ refers to S and H’s mutual entertainment of information. Manifestness also alludes to different degrees of faithfulness with which individuals may entertain information, namely, from strongly manifest or most faithfully, to weakly manifest or least faithfully. 7 Following Sperber and Wilson, I will assume the communicator is female and the audience male at certain points in the discussion of their theory. 8 Assumptions constitute “thoughts treated by the individual as representations of the actual world” (Sperber & Wilson, 1995: 2). This definition contrasts with their narrower conceptualization in informal logics and argumentation, where they are viewed as stored propositions or meaning denotations that constrain thinking processes (Delin et al., 1994).

6

Theoretical Background

Consequently, communication in RT excludes other types of communication such as covert and accidental transmission of information (Wilson, 1993; Wilson & Sperber, 1993). In his understanding of the speaker’s utterance, the hearer may adopt one of three main different interpretation strategies (Sperber, 1994a; Wilson, 1999, 2000a, 2000b), which, in consonance with Garcés-Conejos and Bou-Franch (2004), I believe they can also apply to speakers when it comes to the production of an ostensive stimulus: a) ‘naïve optimism’, whereby H thinks S is competent and benevolent in the production of her ostensive stimulus, b) ‘cautious optimism’, in which H assumes S is benevolent but not necessarily competent, and c) ‘sophisticated understanding’ enables H to think S is neither benevolent nor competent, therefore S may be lying. Communication in RT is also a matter of degree, so that ‘strongly communicated assumptions’ reveal a more precise type of communication, whilst ‘weakly communicated assumptions’ correspond to a more indirect or vague kind. Notwithstanding all this, ostensive-inferential communication would not be possible without the notion of ‘metarepresentation’, i.e. an interpretation or representation of another representation.9 The ability to interpret others’ behaviour in terms of underlying thoughts and intentions, viz, human metarepresentational ability, thus gives us the opportunity to draw inferences about others’ states of mind, anticipate

Metarepresentations can be public (utterances), mental (thoughts), or abstract (logical, semantic and epistemic properties) (Sperber, 2000; Wilson, 1999, 2000b).

9

7

Theoretical Background

their behaviour, coordinate our behaviour with theirs, and enlarge our knowledge of the world by making their thoughts ours (Sperber 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 2000).10 Among some of the distinct objections raised against RT its overlook of the social dimension of communication constitutes its most important caveat for the purpose of this study. It could be affirmed that this shortcoming is based in general on the idea that the theory offers a narrow view of communication, since it a) focuses on creative and individualistic elements excluding conventional aspects of language use of a discursive, relational, and socio-cultural kind with the consequent reduction of the scope of meaning (Bach & Harnish, 1987; BouFranch, 2001c; 2002a; Campbell, 1992; Clark, 1987; Coupland & Jaworski, 1997; Culpeper, 1994; Escandell-Vidal, 1993; Franken, 1999; Garcés-Conejos & BouFranch, 2004; Garrett-Millikan, 1987; Goatly, 1994; Gómez-Morón, 2001; Levinson, 1989; 2000; Locher, 2004; McCawley, 1987; Mey, 1993; Mey & Talbot, 1988; O’Neill, 1988/89; Pons-Bordería, 2002a; Roberts, 1991; RuizMoneva, 2001);11 b) implies a conceptualization of human agents primarily as information processing devices whose main aim in communication is the improvement of their knowledge of the world as opposed to, for instance, the initiation, maintenance, and change of
10

Human metarepresentational ability was already postulated in Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955) in the field of social psychology. For an introduction to the main premise and corollaries of this theory see Kelly (1970). 11 In this light, Levinson (1989, 2000) argues that Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995) only deal with sentence-meaning and speaker-meaning, that is, Gricean particularized conversational implicatures (PCIs), disregarding utterance-type-meaning or generalized conversational implicatures (GCIs). PonsBordería (2002a) and Bultinck (2001), however, provide examples where the difference between these three types of meaning is not as clear-cut as Levinson (2000) suggests.

8

Theoretical Background

social relations, and the achievement of other discursive, and socio-cultural goals (Bou-Franch, 2001c; Campbell, 1992; Culpeper, 1994; Garcés-Conejos & BouFranch, 2004; Escandell-Vidal, 1993, 2002; Goatly, 1994; Mey, 1993; Mey & Talbot, 1988; O’Neill, 1988/89; Ruiz-Moneva, 2001; Walker, 1989); and c) concentrates on H and his interpretive process disregarding the process of ostension or S’s verbalization of her thoughts and intentions (Bach & Harnish 1987; Escandell-Vidal, 1993; Garcés-Conejos, 2001; Ruiz-Moneva, 2001). Sperber and Wilson (1997) themselves acknowledge RT’s disregard of social issues in communication stressing, however, the theory’s potential to deal with these, and calling for research along these lines. Like these authors and many of the scholars referred to above, I share all these indictments on RT’s overlook of the social aspects of communication. Nonetheless, I believe that the theory is capable of somehow handling such aspects through the exploitation of, inter alia, its ostensive-inferential model, the three interpretive strategies previously mentioned, and the notion of metarepresentation.

1.3. Conclusions

In this chapter I have critically discussed the two pragmatic theories constituting the basis of this study, viz, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT, and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) RT. Although it is Brown and Levinson’s that I take in this
9

Theoretical Background

study as a starting point to investigate politeness phenomena in political debates, I see in RT an important cognitive-based complement, at least on theoretical grounds, for such investigation, taking into consideration that politeness in my view also consists of internal knowledge of what is socially appropriate and inappropriate in a given communicative situation. A complement of this sort has been missing in sociological descriptions of communication on the whole (Sperber & Wilson, 1997). In this regard, I would argue that an eclectic socio-cognitive approach to the study of communication in general, and the speech event of political debates in particular, may be revealing.

10

Theoretical Background

2. PERSUASION IN POLITICAL DEBATES

“What is debating? Debating is about persuasion” (Commission on Presidential Debates, 2005a: 1)

In this chapter I deal with the phenomenon of persuasion in the speech event of political debates. I first offer my understanding of this phenomenon in general, and political debates in particular, distinguishing it from some of its close relatives, namely, compliance-gaining, manipulation, coercion and incitement, and concurrently accounting for the theoretical approach such understanding entails. Then, I move on to point out some of the identified key linguistic features of persuasion across different discourse types in the literature with a focus on political discourse and political debates. Lastly, I provide a description of this phenomenon in cognitive terms based on studies that deal with it, and related research in the pragmatics field.

2.1. Persuasion in Political Debates: Definition and Approach

Along with other political discourse manifestations such as political propaganda, speeches, party political conferences and broadcasts (known as ‘negative ads’ in political communication), diplomatic encounters, and parliamentary discourse, among others, political campaign debates are a specific type of political discourse, where politicians first and foremost strive for achieving the audience’s persuasion. Politicians’ fundamental persuasive action in these
11

Theoretical Background

events is visibly pronounced over all these other forms of political discourse in that debates constitute paradigmatic instances of electoral communication. As such, candidates very much need to persuade the population to give them their votes. I would argue that persuasion in a technical sense is a communicative phenomenon which is not to be confused with what I consider some of its specific aspects or forms, viz, compliance-gaining, manipulation, coercion or incitement. Albeit sometimes taking their form and sharing some of their features, persuasion differs from all the above mainly in that a) as opposed to compliance-gaining, which centres on individuals’ motives and means (commonly determinate message strategies, one of them being direct requests) for the production of persuasive messages in the interpersonal sphere (O’Keefe, 1990),1 it is frequently investigated and observed in the public institutional arena, and by no means relegated to these message strategies; b) it lacks the instrumental and devious condition of manipulation, i.e. the potential or actual alteration of social cognitive environments translating into behaviour instigation/termination (Buss et al., 1987), or “the conscious use of language in a devious way to control others” (Fairclough, 1998: 537);2 c) it does not share the constraining character of coercion3 seen in and through the use of certain linguistic categories typically in unequal institutional

Research into this aspect of persuasion has been conducted within the field of communications and dominated by a traditional psychological approach, that can be identified with ‘la corrent conductista’ (the behaviourist trend) to the study of persuasion (Gallardo-Paúls, 2001). This trend contrasts with ‘la corrent retoricopragmàtica’ (the rhetorical-pragmatic trend), which deals with messages in the public realm, and constitutes the origin of studies of persuasion in pragmatics. For a full review of compliance-gaining research see Seibold et al. (1994). 2 Lakoff (1981) points out though that there is a Western cultural bias towards persuasion consisting of its perception as negative and malign, especially in political discourse and the discourse of advertising. Jucker (1997a) and Schulze (1987) note this negative attribution in ordinary conversation (OC thereafter). 3 Buss et al. (1987) and Ilatov (1993) consider coercion part of manipulation.

1

12

Theoretical Background

encounters,4 since it involves Hs’ free choice, thus underscoring their ability to reason and freedom of action; d) it is devoid of the criminal and legal connotations of incitement (cf. Kurzon, 1998). Following Lakoff (1981: 28), I define persuasion in political debates as follows:

...the attempt or intention of [a politician] to change the behavior, feelings, intentions or viewpoint of [the audience] by communicative means [...] [that] may be linguistic or nonlinguistic (say, gestures), but they are abstract and symbolic.

In Gass and Seiter’s (1997) classification of different conceptualizations of persuasion according to the limiting criteria established for this phenomenon, this definition corresponds to a ‘source-centered’ symbolic action view, because the politician is the source of the persuasive attempt, and non-symbolic physical means of motivation like physical force are excluded from his/her persuasive action. Therefore, such definition emphasizes the illocutionary dimension of persuasion, since it amounts to persuasive attempts that may or may not be successful, and contrasts with the view of this phenomenon as a perlocutionary act5 (Austin, 1962) or a perlocutionary speech-act verb (Leech, 1983). This view entails that S’s persuasive action has to succeed, namely, H has to be persuaded,

That is, police-suspect/inspector-constable interviews (e.g. Harris, 1995; Thomas, 1985), magistrate-defendant exchanges (e.g. Harris, 1995; Lakoff, 1989; Levinson, 1992; Penman, 1990), and political discourse in relation to its audiencehood (e.g. Chilton & Schäffner, 1997). 5 Austin (1962) labels ‘perlocutionary acts’ those emotional, cognitive, or verbal and nonverbal effects the action of saying something produces upon conversational participants. Given the incommensurability of Austin’s whole notion of perlocution, many scholars consider perlocutionary acts outside the scope of pragmatics (e.g. Fraser, 1983; Leech, 1983; Kurzon, 1998).

4

13

Theoretical Background

for persuasion to occur. As this is impossible to know with certainty, persuasion à la Austin cannot be studied directly (in pragmatics at least) unless its perlocutionary condition is restricted to discursive effects (Jucker, 1997a). In that sense, researchers such as Schulze (1987), who takes a perlocutionary or ‘receiveroriented’ stance towards persuasion, differentiate ‘persuasion’ generally speaking from ‘argumentative persuasion’, whose perlocutionary dimension only includes the hearer’s interactive response or ‘uptake’ (Austin, 1962).6 Although I see persuasion mostly as persuasive intention, similarly to Lakoff (1981) as for religious and political gatherings, I take into account those perlocutionary effects observed in the audience’s verbal and non-verbal reactions to politicians’ discourses in the explanation of this phenomenon in political debates. The audience’s reactions are somehow indicators that politicians are or are not being successful in their persuasive attempts, hence they are expected to have an influence in candidates’ formulation and delivery of their discourses throughout the interaction (cf. Atkinson, 1988; Clayman, 1993; Hutchby, 1997). Such influence may not be great if we consider the prescripted character ascribed to political discourse in general. Nevertheless, I contend it can be significant at certain points in the unfolding of a political debate.7 To conclude, my approach to persuasion in political debates is a sourcecentred or illocutionary-based perspective that includes the perlocutionary effects of politicians’ persuasive attempts instantiated in the audience’s responses. As I
This distinction seems to parallel Burke’s (1950) rhetorical notions of ‘persuasion to out-and-out action’ and ‘persuasion to attitude’ respectively, which are devoid, however, of any necessary perlocutionary implications for their recognition. 7 A relevant instance in my data supporting this contention refers to the debate between the then Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley held on February 21st, 2000 in Harlem, NY, where the moderator (Bernard Shaw) threatened debate participants and viewers with interrupting the event due to the studio audience’s loud and continuous booing, jeering, and heckling.
6

14

Theoretical Background

indicate below, elsewhere I have concentrated on the characteristics of debaters’ persuasive attempts from Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT. In this chapter I also contemplate such attempts in inferential terms arguing for a closer look at their ostensive side in RT terms.

2.2. Linguistic Features of Persuasion across Discourse Types in Pragmatics: Political Debates as a Case in Point

Regardless of having a more source-centered/illocutionary or receiveroriented/perlocutionary focus, including or excluding H’s response in the former, and adopting a determinate theoretical approach versus another, pragmaticians, including myself, have concentrated on the linguistic features of texts in order to explore persuasion. Rojas’ (1999) analysis of persuasive strategies in colonial Argentinean documents drawing on general pragmatic concepts constitutes an example. From the perspective of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT, Schulze (1987) looks at persuasion in the specific OC instance of a buying and selling exchange between strangers with a ‘hierarchical’ type of relationship (Scollon & Scollon, 1995),8 and empirically proves that negative and positive politeness strategies are pivotal for successful persuasion here. By contrast, in their analysis of two letters of appeal to a university committee in support of a faculty member who has been denied tenure, Wood and Kroger (1994) report that it is in the

Scollon and Scollon (1995) elaborate on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) social dyads and distinguish three primary types of relationships or ‘politeness systems’, of which the ‘hierarchical politeness system’ describes an asymmetrical power relationship between two individuals. The other two systems, namely, the ‘deference politeness system’ and ‘the solidarity politeness system’, refer to symmetrical power relationships characterised by high D between relational parties in the former and low D in the latter.

8

15

Theoretical Background

combination of politeness strategies in general together with elements that actually increase face-threat where effective persuasion lies.9 Elsewhere I have shown that positive politeness strategies are mainly constitutive of politicians’ persuasive attempts, and are paramount for their success in the context of a Democratic presidential candidates’ debate of the 2000 U.S. elections. As opposed to Wood and Kroger (1994), I would argue that mitigation10 is par excellence the expression of persuasion in political debates.11 Zupnik’s (1994) study of indexicals in a U.S. televised multi-party debate on the Palestinian-Israeli socio-political conflict backs this pointing out that mitigation here is at the service of building solidarity with the audience, and is primarily constituted by positive and negative politeness strategies towards self and other. In view of the accurate findings on persuasion the majority of the above studies report in different types of texts or communicative encounters, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT seems to constitute an adequate tool for the examination of this phenomenon. Nonetheless, I believe that adding a cognitive-based complement to the politeness explanation of persuasion at least on theoretical grounds would enrich this phenomenon’s description. From an argumentation perspective, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1982) conceive persuasion as a perlocutionary act that entails an alteration of H’s opinion

Their study is a replication of Cherry’s (1988), whose impressionistic analysis just relates rhetorical categories to politeness principles without going into their persuasive effect. For example, he links the enhancement of one’s own ethos or image with the violation of politeness expectations in lower academic status writers, so that they compensate for their lack of power. 10 My notion of mitigation is broader than Fraser’s (1980) and Holmes’ (1984) in that it is not restricted to the weakening of the illocutionary force of those communicative acts whose effects are ‘unwelcome’ to the hearer. Rather, it consists of the softening of the illocutionary force of any communicative act in general. In the case of political debates, mitigation constitutes an attempt to satisfy self and other positive and negative face wants. 11 Rudanko (1995) also acknowledges a relationship between persuasion and face-threat mitigation in his investigation of rhetorical strategies with a focus on the use of rhetorical questions in a debate at the U.S. House of Representatives.

9

16

Theoretical Background

and behaviour, and is the optimal perlocutionary outcome of the speaker’s ‘illocutionary act complex’ of argumentation.12 Additionally, these scholars cannot perceive this communicative phenomenon outside the so-called persuasive dialogues or critical discussions in argumentation studies (Antaki, 1994), wherein its success lies in participants’ close following of a series of a priori formulated argumentation rules (cf. Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1984) with the ultimate goal of reaching agreement about a determinate (O). In keeping with Antaki (1994), Van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s approach to persuasion may be deemed unrealistic, view to which I believe their Austinian conceptualization and their disregard of discourses in which speakers are not supposed to, or do not actually reach agreement, mostly contribute. Conversational analysts have commonly investigated persuasion in relation to televised political discourse and other public speaking discourses concentrating on the audience’s reactions in order to determine the content, form, and structure of persuasive messages along with their greater or lesser success or failure (e.g. Atkinson, 1988; Clayman, 1993; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986; Hutchby, 1997; Kurzon, 1996; Sai-Hua, 2001). Such messages correspond to a series of persuasive techniques or rhetorical formats politicians utilize to elicit Hs’ applause and other affiliative responses, namely, ‘contrasts’, three-part ‘lists’, ‘puzzle-solution’ discourses, and ‘headline-punch line’ messages, in which S proposes a pledge and then proceeds to make it (Atkinson, 1988; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1986). Although these techniques and the audience’s reactions accurately account for persuasion and its effectiveness, I suggest there are other aspects of politicians’

12

A speech act-based textual whole with its own illocutionary force, whose ‘essential condition’ (Searle, 1969) is S’s attempt to convince H of the acceptability or unacceptability of a given opinion (O). Such illocutionary act complex is usually compounded by assertive speech acts.

17

Theoretical Background

discourses conversational analysts neglect, that are of utmost importance in the explanation of this phenomenon and its success or failure: politicians’ linguistic enactment of their relation with the audience, and attention to the audience’s face wants as a fundamental part of such relation. Other equally relevant factors these researchers somewhat dismiss relate to cognitive elements that are part and parcel of persuasion as the inferential phenomenon it also constitutes (see section 2.3. below).13 In short, persuasion in pragmatics has been shown to emerge in the linguistic features of texts. In political campaign debates I contend that it is positive politeness strategies with a mitigating function that are constitutive of this phenomenon, and key for its effectiveness in this context. The characteristics of persuasion Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1982) establish for persuasive dialogues are far from its reality in these events, in which persuasion and its success are neither contingent upon debaters’ proceeding in accordance with rules for ‘good’ argumentation, nor dependent on conflict resolution among them. Conversely, the rhetorical formats conversational analysts define as persuasion are bound to appear in candidates’ interventions therein, and, similarly to the aforementioned conversational analysis investigations, the persuasive effectiveness of such formats is amenable to be measured here based on the audience’s reactions to them.

2.3. Persuasion as an Inferential Phenomenon in Pragmatics: Observations on and for Political Debates
13

Atkinson (1988), however, recognises the influence and importance of certain cognitive mechanisms that enable audiences to differentiate brilliant from tedious political performances together with making them aware of when and how to applaud throughout these performances.

18

Theoretical Background

Besides looking at the discursive instantiation of persuasion as illustrated above, some pragmaticians pay attention to its inferential basis. In his analysis of a political broadcast of the Conservative Party in the 1992 British elections, Jucker (1997a) argues that the linguistic form and structure of persuasive arguments observed in ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ dissimulation techniques (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997),14 strategies for avoiding responsibility for one’s own words or statements, violations of Leech’s (1983) maxims, etc., provide viewers with pieces of evidence that raise determinate inferential evaluations they are likely to believe, even if these evaluations are clearly counter-factual, because viewers themselves draw them.15 These pieces of evidence taken individually are generally true facts; their juxtaposition leading to a determinate conclusion, however, is what is usually false. Following Woolfolk-Cross (1979), Jucker (1997a) calls this frequent type of reasoning in political discourse ‘faulty logic’. Similar to faulty logic but with premises that are frequently false is the inferential process the basic persuasive strategy of ‘presupposition manipulation’ (Brown & Levinson, 1987) triggers in political debates. This strategy consists of contenders’ formulation of a series of validity claims in their discourses, which they assume to be a) shared by the audience, and b) true. Through their presumed shared character, debaters manipulate these validity claims and the implications they lead to by presenting them as old information, when in fact they constitute new information to the audience. This runs counter to the general assumption in the presupposition literature that presuppositions are mutual knowledge elements,
Quantitative dissimulation refers to the general strategy of preventing people from receiving full information on an issue. Qualitative dissimulation alludes to lying in all its different forms. 15 This is in keeping with Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) idea that strongly held assumptions or representations are those individuals acquire or create through direct experience.
14

19

Theoretical Background

hence old information (Abbott, 2000; Levinson, 1983), and supports Abbott’s (2000) argument that they can also consist of new information presented as old in certain communicative contexts. In this way, speakers can smuggle information into the communicative exchange in hand without having to actually assert it. Regardless of their presumed truth, candidates’ validity claims and the implications they invite tend to be are positive in relation to the speaker and the audience, and negative concerning the adversary. These claims and their implications usually go unquestioned unless the opponent attempts to invalidate them, or their falsehood is so obvious that it produces a reaction of disapproval in the audience. One of the possible reasons why they generally remain unchallenged is their very presumptive condition, since, according to Walton (1993), presumptions do not place any burden of proof on the speaker if not rebutted by the hearer, thus freeing S from the responsibility for supplying evidence to back her points. It is my contention that the above kinds of inferential reasoning politicians’ persuasive arguments raise correspond to varieties of the rhetorical concept of ‘enthymeme’, namely, an argument whose premises the speaker makes explicit, and whose conclusion the audience is in charge of inferring. In their study of evidence giving and its persuasive effectiveness in presidential debates, Levasseur and Dean (1996) empirically demonstrate that for an enthymeme to be effective the audience’s understanding of the argument’s content in connection with the speaker’s ‘style of reasoning’ (Campbell, 1992), i.e. the logical process S follows to link her intent to argue in the different propositions building her argument with

20

Theoretical Background

her claim, is crucial.16 From an RT perspective, Campbell (1992) supports this idea, and adds that maximally relevant arguments, which are based on the audience’s recognition of the speaker’s informative and communicative intentions, and are the most persuasive to him, also require hearers’ identification of 1) the speaker’s end or agenda in formulating them, and 2) the speaker’s motivations for producing them the way she does in terms of selection of specific themes versus others. These motivations are to be found in S’s personal experiences. Although maximally relevant arguments are likely to be highly persuasive given the audience’s full comprehension of them, I believe that complete understanding of arguments does not necessarily imply that an interlocutor is persuaded by the view of reality they present. Furthermore, Campbell does not seem to take into account that persuasive communication is commonly indirect and ambiguous, hence hearers often may not totally grasp S’s real intentions unless they are sophisticated understanders (Sperber, 1994a). In any case, enthymemes and the inferential types of reasoning underlying them enable politicians to somewhat mislead their audiences without actually lying to them. Accordingly, some pragmaticians have also discussed persuasion as an inferential phenomenon, thereby stressing the role of the hearer in the reception and comprehension of persuasive arguments. However, these researchers overlook the fact that persuasion has also a cognitive origin and development in the figure of the speaker, that is, it is also an ostensive phenomenon in relevance theoretic terms. Campbell (1992) alludes to the ostensive basis of persuasion in relation to S’s motivations in the construction of her argument, but does not elaborate on it. In the ostensive process of producing a persuasive argument in a political debate, a
16

A key example of an effective argument for them is Kennedy’s opening statement in his first debate against Nixon back in 1960.

21

Theoretical Background

politician, among other things, is expected to create and/or retrieve from memory metarepresentations of the audience, the opponent, the rest of debate participants, and, in general, anything involving the event of a political debate itself, and the specific debate in which s/he is embedded. A more detailed depiction of the ostensive-inferential phenomenon of persuasion from an RT perspective is offered in chapter four, section 4.4. (p. 80ff.).

2.4. Conclusions

In the preceding paragraphs, I have depicted persuasion in debates as candidates’ attempt to change the audience’s behaviour, feelings, intentions or viewpoint in and through their discourses along with pointing out my sourcecentred approach to this phenomenon, which, however, considers the discursive perlocutionary effects it produces. Then, I have accounted for the various linguistic characteristics of persuasion in different discourse types in the pragmatics literature centring on political discourse in general, and political debates in particular. A description of this phenomenon at a cognitive level has also been provided underscoring its enthymemic nature in the context of electoral debates.

22

Theoretical Background

3. CHARACTERISING POLITICAL DEBATES

In what follows, a general picture of political debates as fundamentally persuasive discourses and zero sum games is offered. First, I characterise these communicative encounters as a determinate type of persuasive discourse, and sketch different approaches to their study ranging from what I refer to as traditional studies of debates, namely, debate research in the field of communications, to debate investigations in pragmatics. I also portray these events as ‘zero sum games’ in light of their antagonistic essence. Finally, I conclude with an argument in favour of their exploration from Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT, and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) RT as a theoretical cognitive-oriented complement, based on some shortcomings detected in the debate literature reviewed here, in particular, conversational analysis and discourse analysis studies of debates in the field of pragmatics.

3.1. Political Debates as a Persuasive Discourse Type

Following Lakoff’s (1981) classification of persuasive discourses (PDs henceforth), she establishes in opposition to OC,1 and basically includes the discourse

By so doing she is not denying OC’s strategic and persuasive nature, which pragmaticians and scholars within the communications field widely acknowledge and in some cases stress (e.g. Briz, 1998; Carl & Duck, 2004; Duck, 1998; Duck & Pond, 1989; Sanders, 1987), even to the point of extending it to all human behaviour (e.g. Gass & Seiter, 1997). Rather, she is isolating a series of

1

23

Theoretical Background

of advertising and political rhetoric, political campaign debates, and more specifically, candidates’ interventions in these events can be considered 1) non-spontaneous, 2) novel, 3) nonreciprocal, and 4) unilateral. The non-spontaneous character of contenders’ discourses in political debates lies in these discourses’ generally ascribed prescripted nature. However, as opposed to other political discourses like speeches, for instance, debaters’ discourses can be considered semi-prescripted due to the many ‘surprise’ elements intervening in their oral delivery and injecting spontaneity into them. For example, the fact that a) politicians do not have foreknowledge of the questions they will be asked in the debate (Caspi, 1986; Commission on Presidential Debates, 2005a; League of Women Voters, 2002),2 b) they cannot predict with certainty neither the reactions of the audience and/or the adversary, nor any other extraordinary event occurring in the debate, in such a way that they will have to adjust their performances accordingly, and c) they never entirely follow their memorised scripts, because, I would argue that, like any other speaker delivering a text produced to be delivered, and as already stated by Hall-Jamieson (1987), debaters interpret their written discourses.3 Candidates’ interpretation is best reflected in the different means they may employ to give an appearance of fresh talk to their delivery such as ‘text parenthetical remarks’ (Goffman, 1981), viz, any personal anecdotes or narratives

discourses in which the phenomenon of persuasion defines the communicative exchange in hand and determines its general discursive features. The same considerations apply to Schulze (1987). 2 They know the topics or issues the questions are on though prior to the debate (Agha, 1997; Commission on Presidential Debates, 2005a; Kraus, 1988; League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983). 3 Thus, from my standpoint 1) the prescripted character of political discourse needs to be seen in terms of degrees, and 2) the degree of prescriptedness of political discourses is contingent upon the amount of interpretive work a politician is willing to realize along these lines. All this points to the idea that debates are ‘planned’ speech events (Milroy & Milroy, 1999), but their ‘planned’ gist does not preclude the emergence of spontaneous elements or episodes in the interaction.

24

Theoretical Background

fitting “the mood of the occasion and the special interest and identity of the particular audience” (177), the use of humour, etc. The novelty of contenders’ discourses in debates is based on the multiple ways in which they exploit linguistic elements and conventions for their words to be perceived as original and impressive.4 Such quest for novelty is oriented to the repetition of key ideas in a debater’s argument to ensure the audience’s understanding and recollection of it, and indirectly intensify the argument’s potential persuasive effect. Nonetheless, I propose one should probably talk about the semi-novel nature of debaters’ discourses, where certain routines in their content and form have been observed: the same content themes approached differently across elections (Martel, 1983; Wayne, 2000), determinate quotes that have become part of the discourse of debates and electoral discourse overall (see Atkinson, 1988), hence are familiar to voters,5 etc. This routine condition of candidates’ interventions is further corroborated by persuasion investigations within and outside pragmatics arguing for the abundance of determinate speech acts such as representatives in persuasive discourse (GallardoPaúls, 2001), or evincing stylistic concomitants of persuasive interaction like shorter words, little auxiliary verbs, specific verbal tense shifts, and determinate phonemic traces (Sherblom & Reinsch, 1981a, 1981b).

Consequently, flouts of all kinds of maxims, as pointed out above, unusual intonation patterns in comparison with those of OC, witty humorous turns, and innovative metaphors, among other devices, fill their interventions. 5 Some instances in my data are Gore’s sentences ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet’, ‘There you go again’, or ‘If you want that, here is your man’, in the third presidential debate against G.W. Bush on October, 17th, 2000. Gore borrows these statements from Reagan’s performance in the 1980 debates (Wayne, 2000). See Kraus (1988) and Hellweg et al. (1992) for some of Reagan’s and other presidential candidates’ famous one-liners.

4

25

Theoretical Background

The non-reciprocity of politicians’ interventions in debates refers to their linguistic privileges over the rest of debate participants in terms of greater amount and range of contributions in the interaction. Debaters are the only interlocutors entitled to relatively long, elaborate, and varied linguistic production, whilst that of the moderator, panelists (if present), and the audience is much more restricted. This situation reveals a non egalitarian kind of exchange in which parties have distinct discursive rights, and follow slightly different norms of interaction and interpretation. This is underscored by the unilaterality of contenders’ discourses in these events, whereby “true participation occurs only on one side” (Lakoff, 1981: 30), namely, the politician’s. Unilaterality, according to Lakoff, goes along with audiencehood and its utmost manifestation in political debates is candidates’ permanent floor-holding. Finally, as the persuasive discourse type they are, political campaign debates also display the three elementary conditions defining persuasive interaction identified by Schulze (1987): 1) the persuader acts out of pure selfishness,6 which, in this case, is based on his/her want for votes, 2) s/he is the power-holder (as far as interactional power is concerned, I would add), and 3) the primary function of his/her discourse, viz, the satisfaction of his/her wants, is concealed from the persuadee. In spite of the a priori suspiciousness of the audience about the truthfulness of politicians’ words due to a) the possible violation of the Maxim of Quality (Grice, 1975) pervading political discourse (Lakoff, 1990; Werner, 1989), and b) the Western cultural negative bias towards persuasion previously mentioned (see footnote 2, p. 12), this last condition
6

Researchers such as Held (1992) argue for the selfishness of communication in general, in which apparent benefit of alter is no other than ego’s own. By contrast, scholars like Bakhtin (Todorov, 1995) advocate that it is the other that prevails in communication, as it enables the construction of the ‘I’, hence the potential fulfilment of ‘I’’s needs and aims.

26

Theoretical Background

applying to the individual strategic function(s) of each of the linguistic devices constituting debaters’ discourses tends to succeed, and is fundamental for persuasion to be effective (Atkinson, 1988; Sanders, 1987; Schulze, 1987).

3.2. Traditional Approaches to Political Debates: Debate Studies in Communications

Political campaign debate research originates in the field of communications7 consisting almost entirely of empirical social science on U.S. electoral debates (see Appendix A for a list of the U.S. elections characterised by the presence of televised presidential and vice presidential debates and basic information regarding these events). As such, Chaffee (1979) explains that debate investigations invariably involved a fair amount of data gathering usually through public survey based on random sampling, the quantitative analysis of these data, and the variables of communication behaviours, political behaviours, debate perceptions, political issue perceptions, candidate image perceptions, and demographics. These studies’ most common research questions relate to 1) the testing of theoretical propositions, for instance, on agenda setting (Jackson-Beeck & Meadow, 1979), the usefulness of debates to voters in their voting decision (Chaffee, 1978), the conditions requisite for political debates (Friedenberg, 1979, 1981), and vice presidential debate purposes (Carlin & Bicak, 1993), among others, 2) candidates’ argumentation and rhetorical

7

For the history of this field until the present time see Delia (1987).

27

Theoretical Background

strategies in relation to their persuasive effectiveness (Benoit & Wells, 1996; Bryski, 1978; Levasseur & Dean, 1996; Martel, 1983), 3) the effects of the media on candidates’ argumentation and rhetorical strategies and/or voters’ persuasion (Cohen, 1976; Davis, 1978; Hellweg et al., 1992), 4) debates as events of newsworthiness, and/or debate winning and loosing (Cohen, 1976; Hellweg et al., 1992; Vancil & Pendell, 1984; Winkler & Black, 1993), 5) the evaluation of debates, more specifically, their formats and/or their educational role (Carlin et al., 1991; Chaffee, 1978; Hellweg et al., 1992), 6) debate content with an emphasis in how it affects or is used by the audience (Jackson-Beeck & Meadow, 1979), and 7) the latent functions of debates for the political system (Chaffee, 1978). Following Anderson (1996), these investigations reveal a post-positivist ontology with an objectivist epistemology and a quantitative (sometimes combined with a qualitative) methodology.8 Throughout the 80’s and 90’s, it is my observation that communication scholars continue formulating similar research questions, albeit also from interpretive and critical ontological positions, and a more qualitative-oriented methodology. Regarding the testing of theoretical propositions, Conrad’s (1993) application of Burke’s (1931/1968) theoretical concepts of the ‘psychology of information’ and the ‘psychology of form’ to four senatorial debates of the 1984 election is an illustrative example of an interpretive qualitative-based investigation. Studies on debaters’

He distinguishes three main ontological positions in the explanation of the phenomenal world, i.e. the post-positivist, the interpretive, and the critical, leading to different epistemologies or ways of engaging it, and different methodologies. Post-positivists tend to view reality in terms of causes and effects, and explore it from an objective stance by means of quantitative methods. Interpretive and critical scholars separate material from social reality understanding the latter as a result of individuals’ joint meaningmaking, which they approach from a subjective perspective, and more qualitative-based methods. Critical researchers, however, contemplate such joint meaning-making with suspicion expecting power differences to emerge, and aim at social change through research.

8

28

Theoretical Background

argumentation and rhetorical strategies of an interpretive kind centre on the value of these strategies per se rather than their persuasive effectiveness viewing them as instances of stylistic differences between politicians, or the rival ideologies such politicians represent (e.g. Caspi, 1986; Nir, 1988). Media investigations of debates during the 80’s and 90’s broaden their research focus beyond media effects on candidates’ argumentation and rhetorical strategies and/or voters’ persuasion to delve into debate coverage (Diamond & Friery, 1987), and include the examination of debates as television shows (Drucker & Platt-Hunold, 1987; Kraus, 1988). All these studies tackle the issue of how debate content affects or is employed by the audience, and reveal a positive attitude towards debates, which Chaffee (1978) makes explicit as for debate research in the 70’s, and Engel-Lang (1987), openly manifests to the point of devoting her whole article to building an argument in their favour. Nevertheless, political campaign debates also have their detractors (e.g. Meadow, 1987), while scholars like Swerdlow (1987a: 16) argue that “[...] the crucial question is not whether [one is] for or against debates. They are inevitable”. Regardless of somehow dealing with politeness as understood in this project, viz, the linguistic enactment of interactants’ relationships taking a confrontational and/or non-confrontational form, for instance, through persuasive attack and defence (Benoit & Wells, 1996), clash (Carlin et al., 1991), etc., investigations of debates in the field of communications do not really deepen into the dynamics of this concept. First, the different categories constituting confrontation and/or non-confrontation in many of these studies are a priori established by researchers leaving their construct validity unquestioned. Second, all these investigations primarily look at the relational
29

Theoretical Background

pairs candidate-adversary, candidate-audience, and their communicative exchanges, thereby neglecting somehow the relational and interactional complexity emerging in the communicative event of political debates. Finally, they seem not to pay too much attention to the cognitive dimension of these events bar scholars like Conrad (1993), who takes it into consideration. Debate studies in pragmatics make up for some of these caveats with certain weaknesses remaining as I explain below.

3.3. Debate Studies in Pragmatics

It is my contention that the increase of interpretive and critical qualitativeoriented studies of debates in communications throughout the 80’s and 90’s is rooted in a growing interest in debaters’ communicative resources or strategies and the interactional and social implications deriving from their use, and that such interest also leads to the emergence of debate investigations in the pragmatics field. In this section, I review the different studies of debates conducted in pragmatics according to their research topics showing how they relate to one another, and mentioning the theoretical perspective(s) pragmaticians adopt in some of these investigations. Such research topics relate to a) the sequential structure of the interaction and the management of determinate activities by speakers and hearers within it, b) turn-taking as part of such structure, and the related issue of floor gaining and holding, c) politeness and rudeness or aggression, d) metaphor, e) power and ideology, f) indexicals, g) gender and power differences, and h) self- and other-presentation. A

30

Theoretical Background

critical discussion of these studies is offered in the next section except for some on politeness and rudeness or aggression, to which I devote especial attention in chapter four of the theoretical part of this project. The sequential structure of the interaction and interlocutors’ management of distinct activities within it have generally been explored in debate research taking a conversational analysis approach. Thus, with an emphasis in the triadic character of debate participants’ communicative acts, Blas-Arroyo (1998a, 1998b, 1998c) examines the moderator’s and candidates’ interventions in two Spanish debates of the 1993 elections concentrating on 1) their structure, which he describes in terms of ‘locuted’ (direct) and ‘delocuted’ (indirect) addressees, and the factors of simultaneity/succession, 2) interruptive exchanges, in particular, their form, and strategic and social functions, which on the part of contenders basically amount to hindering the opponent linguistically, showing disagreement with him/her, and degrading his/her image, and 3) the form and institutional functions of the moderator’s talk. In another piece, he accounts for the forms and functions of contestants’ repetitions evincing that multi-varied self-repetition abounds in more rhetorical or monologic9 sequences, and multi-varied other-repetition in more conversational or spontaneous fulfilling distinct functions at cognitive, textual, conversational and interpersonal levels, e.g. favouring discourse production and understanding, and promoting disagreement and conflict among others (Blas-Arroyo, 1999). Bilmes (1999, 2001), on the other hand, focuses on the nature, types (as ‘question delivery
By monologic or rhetorical, he refers to those exchanges in a debate that resemble a rhetor’s speech, which usually adopts the form of a monologue, and is principally addressed to the audience, in contrast to conversational or spontaneous interchanges, which are more similar to a dialogue, and are normally instantiated in and through debaters’ talk to one another. Bilmes (1999, 2001) also makes this distinction by means of his concepts of ‘oratorical’ and ‘interactional rhetoric’ respectively.
9

31

Theoretical Background

formats’ or sequences), and functions of politicians’ questions and answers in the preestablished direct exchange time or ‘free discussion’ section of the 1992 vice presidential debate, concluding that debaters a) constantly challenge each other’s questions’ and answers’ category membership in order to manipulate interactional norms to their advantage, and b) employ specific question delivery formats with strategic ends too. Regarding sequential structure and affiliative or disaffiliative response elicitation from the audience, Hutchby (1997) explores the conversational resources two disputing politicians employ to construct alignments and counter-alignments in the studio audience of a British debate programme, highlighting the use of ‘recompletion’ (Atkinson, 1988) or recapitulation of a determinate point, a very common strategy in political rhetoric, to this end. In her study of applause generation and laughter in the 1998 Taiwanese presidential debates, Sai-Hua (2001) empirically demonstrates that both frequently appear together, but are not evenly distributed, since laughter is absent in the most applauded messages, viz, those in which debaters advocate a position or a political policy. In his analysis of booing in a wide variety of public speaking environments including U.S. presidential and congressional debates, Clayman (1993) concludes that it is general practices of preference organisation concerning agreement and disagreement responses that explain this disaffiliative audience reaction, namely, its way of emerging, intrinsic features, and sequential consequences, and its differences from applause. As for turn-taking commonly studied within a conversational analysis framework like the aforementioned research topics, Edelsky and Adams (1990)
32

Theoretical Background

differentiate the canonical debate form with its underlying norms of equality from the ‘real’ event to a) describe in detail political debates’ turn-taking system according to the latter, and b) illustrate how the unequal distribution of turn-taking categories evinces male participants’ control over interactional resources and the floor in this context. Albeit published as a communications piece, Beck’s (1996) study of the 1992 vice presidential debate also deals with floor gaining and keeping, with topic control as its usual by-product, in addition to the presentation of a desired social face, both chief issues in pragmatics. To Beck, these issues constitute conflicting demands in political debates candidates attempt to manage by means of a series of interactional resources, which she only specifies for floor-gaining and keeping along with topic control, i.e. metacommunicative statements, repetition, rhetorical questions, and questions in general. Back-channels are also interactional resources debate participants may strategically employ to select themselves as the primary recipients of the current speaker’s talk with future prospects to enter and hold a competitive floor, as Saft (1999) shows in a Japanese political debate programme. Concerning debate studies on politeness, following Brown and Levinson (1987), Zupnik (1994) is the first researcher to relate self- and other-directed positive and negative politeness strategies in their traditionally ascribed mitigating function to building solidarity with the audience, and its persuasion in her research on indexicals in a U.S. televised debate programme. She points out and illustrates that first person plural pronominals are a politician’s best bid to these ends, especially in highly facethreatening speech activities such as criticisms and demands, because a) s/he also includes him/herself as agent or object of these activities, and b) these pronominals
33

Theoretical Background

are quite vague in English “where there is no distinction between [their] inclusive and exclusive scopes” (367) due to their lack of grammaticalization in the language. Zupnik, however, is mute as for the meaning and function of politeness strategies constitutive of indexicals concerning other debate participants different from the audience, for example, other interactants with antagonistic viewpoints from the speaker’s, thereby overlooking the possibility of debaters’ exploitation of such strategies with the aim of hurting one another. The same criticism applies to Fernández-García (2000), who examines political campaign debates of the 1996 Spanish elections. Even though he acknowledges and shows the confrontational nature of these events, he concentrates on politeness as conceived by Brown and Levinson, that is, mitigation of face-threat, and principally views politeness strategies in acts of disagreement with, and criticism towards, the other contender as strategies performing a mitigating function. Conversely, drawing on some concepts of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT together with notions of speech act theory, Rudanko (1995) contemplates face attack or impoliteness in his grammatical analysis of politicians’ rhetorical strategies, particularly rhetorical questions, in a U.S. Congress debate on the American Bill of Rights. Comparing the rhetorical styles of three different speakers, he establishes a correlation between persuasion and politeness strategies with a face-threat mitigating function, and coercion and the abusive deployment of rhetorical questions, which have been reported to realize a face-threat intensifying function in the debate literature. Rudanko’s (1995) findings are in keeping with Jørgensen’s (1998) results on eristic or hostile argumentation in Danish televised debates. From an argumentation
34

Theoretical Background

perspective, Jørgensen illustrates that aggression or hostility is a non-winning feature of a debater proportionally inverse to persuasion, and that although it goes against the norms of rational argumentation in debates,10 it is a reality of public political debate. Aggression or rudeness is also considered in debate investigations employing Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theoretical perspective. For instance, Galasiński (1998) finds three main mitigating categories Polish politicians deploy in two presidential debates to license debate norm violations in general, the violation of the rule of ‘no direct address’ with the opponent in particular, and prepare the ground to attack him/her. Taking Culpeper’s (1996) impoliteness strategies as a starting point, which are originally based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies (1987), Blas-Arroyo (2001) offers a classification of rude strategies in two Spanish political debates concluding that rudeness overrides politeness in these events, and emerges in and through the central sequences of the interaction. He also explores the form and function of mitigating devices here as another form of impoliteness (i.e. ‘attenuated aggression’), through which candidates attend to the norms of politically correct behaviour underlying debates, and at the same time damage the adversary’s public image (Blas-Arroyo, 2002, 2003). As far as metaphor in political debates is concerned, in his analysis of the 1992 Clinton-Dole presidential debate, Agha (1997) includes it within what he calls ‘tropic’ language use, which is instantiated in utterances showing an internal incongruity in their pragmatic effects in a given communicative encounter. Such incongruity for Agha consists of a clash between ‘polite’, routine, or unmarked pragmatic effects, and
10

She refers to those established by Walton (1989) in his classification of types of dialogues in argumentation studies into critical discussions or persuasive dialogues, forensic debates, and quarrels.

35

Theoretical Background

‘aggressive’, out of the ordinary, or marked effects. He proves that aggressive utterances are thus depicted and perceived because they are consistently aggressive along different semiotic dimensions, whereas other instances that could also be thought of as aggressive are not thus portrayed because polite effects are stronger than aggressive effects, which are more implicit and vague. Therefore, the aggressive or polite character of an utterance for Agha lies in a greater or lesser abundance of polite or aggressive effects therein correspondingly. Leaving rudeness or aggression aside, Voss et al. (1992) look more specifically at metaphor in a U.S. Senate debate on the Gulf Crisis reporting that its two main functions in this speech event are a) to state and/or simplify the premises of a politician’s argument with the aim of giving reasons that justify and support his/her claim, and increase the audience’s comprehension, and b) to induce the audience to share these premises. Power and ideology usually go together and constitute the research topics par excellence of investigations in the critical camp (see footnote 8, p. 28). From a conversational analysis approach, Adams (1999) illustrates the interactional and interpretive control Democrat and Republican debaters, both representatives of the two major political parties in the USA, and moderators exert over third party candidates in sixteen debates through what she labels ‘strategies for marginalization’. Adams attributes the existence of such marginalization practices and their use by these two groups of debate participants to the two-party political ideology predominating in the U.S.11 Albeit focusing on indexicals, power and ideology also emerge in Jaworski and Galasiński’s (2000a) investigation of vocative address forms in four Polish
11

From a critical discourse analysis perspective, Van Dijk (2004) goes even beyond the talk to argue that context is ideologically pervaded and that this is rooted in cognition in his depiction of British parliamentary debates.

36

Theoretical Background

presidential debates, wherein they evince how politicians exhibit and manipulate ‘lived’ and ‘intellectual’ ideologies, that is, local strategic and power-loaded social representations and representations related to an overall coherent system of thought respectively, in and through the talk. Blas-Arroyo (2000), on the other hand, is not interested in the aforementioned research issues, and concentrates on indexicals to establish that determinate personal pronouns in Spanish politicians’ discourses in two political debates activate distinct domains of reference, and fulfil within them: a) a political identity and group membership reinforcing function with a partisan audience, and an alliance forming function with a non-partisan audience regarding S’s reference world, and b) a distancing and discrediting function with the adversary and his/her political group in relation to H’s (i.e. the opponent’s) domain of reference. Zupnik’s (1994) study of indexicals in a U.S. televised multi-party debate stresses their vague nature in political discourse, particularly salient in first person plural pronominals as previously noted, and conceives these interactional resources within ‘discourse spaces’ corroborating all the functions Blas-Arroyo (2000) reports with interlocutors that can be categorized in the same way as in this researcher’s investigation. Debate studies on gender also consider the topic of power. Within a conversational analysis framework, Adams (1992) underscores male debaters’ domination of interactional resources and the floor, which Edelsky and Adams (1990) already prove, in her analysis of twenty same- and mixed-gender debates indicating, however, that men and women approach power differently in these contexts: male participants accrue power by violating debate norms so that they gain more floor space, while female debaters do so by precisely following the norms, thereby
37

Theoretical Background

manifesting an uncontentious attitude towards the floor. She further adds that women’s norm violations tend to fulfil a supportive function as opposed to men’s.12 From a discourse analysis approach and in contrast to these investigations, Felderer’s (1997) case study of an Austrian mixed-gender debate exemplifies the success of a female politician in coping with the double-bind situation women face in the maledominated political arena, viz, meeting standard expectations of femininity and proving their suitability for the job. This female politician achieves power over her male opponent and subverts the conversational strategies he and the male moderator of the debate employ to diminish her power. Nonetheless, and in keeping with Adams (1992), she does so by adhering to the debate norms. As regards self- and other-presentation, Jaworski and Galasiński (2000b) evince how male Polish candidates unilaterally break debate norms through jokes, vocative address forms, and metapragmatic comments to reframe the institutional context of a political debate into an informal type of context that enables them to degrade the adversary’s image, indirectly present a positive image of themselves, and attain interactional power. In this way, they somewhat back debate studies’ findings on gender referred to in the preceding paragraph. In another investigation, Leudar and Nekvapil (2000) explore membership categorization of Romanies, a specific sociocultural group living in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, in four Czech televised debates from a conversational analysis perspective. Membership categories are inferentially productive, since they “imply qualities (or their lack) in those to whom they are applied, [...] and so they warrant expectations” (508). In the case of
12

Shaw (2000) corroborates all these findings as for parliamentary debates in the British House of Commons.

38

Theoretical Background

Romanies’, these researchers show they are jointly constructed and negotiated by all participants in the interaction, and have the strategic function of supporting S’s argument. Finally, employing discourse analytic methods, and taking Goffman’s (1959) theatrical view of social interaction in combination with a social constructionist approach to communication as their theoretical framework, Jaworski and Galasiński (1998) account for Walęsa’s construction of a positive image of himself in two Polish presidential debates through a series of conversational strategies that enable him to draw on specific positively valued Polish historical and ideological content.

3.4. Conversational Analysis and Discourse Analysis Studies of Debates: Some Shortcomings

Albeit shedding light into the interactional and social motivations and consequences of debaters’ use of certain communicative resources coupled with other aspects of political debates, I would argue that conversational analysis and interpretive and critical discourse analysis investigations of debates do not sufficiently explore neither the social nor the cognitive dimension of these events. After the above review, in this section I critically discuss these debate studies by first focusing on their full or partial neglect of debates’ social dimension in terms of a series of indictments that I put forward and develop. Second, I concentrate on some of these investigations’ superficial approach to the cognitive dimension of these events. Debate studies on

39

Theoretical Background

aggression and politeness following or employing Brown and Levinson’s (1987) perspective, are excluded from the critique developed here, since they are critically dealt with in the next chapter. In spite of not really addressing social issues in debates on theoretical or analytical grounds concerning conversational analysis research, and actually exploring such issues as for discourse analysis studies, it is my contention that debate investigations employing a conversational analysis or a discourse analysis framework do not do justice to the significance of these issues overall. Conversational analysis studies of debates: 1) are not generally concerned with the persuasive aspect of politicians’ talk in these events; rather a) they highlight the confrontational dimension of contenders’ interventions leaving the relational antagonism that prompts such confrontation unexplained, and b) even though some of these investigations reveal the importance of a politician’s positive image building at a theoretical or analytical level, which is inherent in debaters’ confrontation with one another, they treat it unrelated to candidates’ aim to persuade the audience; 2) despite the fact that some of these studies look at how politicians intend to persuade the audience in debates by exploring its affiliative and disaffiliative responses (e.g. Clayman, 1993; Hutchby, 1997; Sai-Hua, 2001), they do not

40

Theoretical Background

examine how contenders first establish a positive relational basis with it for their persuasive ends. Debate investigations taking a discourse analysis approach deal with the persuasive character of politicians’ discourses on the surface, thus superficially examining the relational dimension of their exchanges with the audience paying more attention though to the relationship of the speaker with the other contender.13 It follows that 3) albeit recognising the trilogic nature of debaters’ communicative acts, namely, that candidates intend to persuade the audience at the same time that they argue against the adversary, they do not delve into it. This criticism also applies to conversational analysis work on debates as well. First, conversational analysis debate researchers acknowledge the persuasive goal of debaters’ discourses either in those interactional moments in which a candidate’s main addressee is the audience or those interventions where the main target of a politician’s communicative act is the opponent. However, they commonly look at the latter and their combative aspect, thereby forgetting the fundamental reason and end for which these confrontational interventions even ensue: the audience’s persuasion. It is in this light that conversational analysis debate investigators usually concentrate on the interactional resources debaters employ and/or exploit to defeat the adversary, i.e. the specific organisation of the talk they bring about, their structural properties, and their local strategic or rhetorical functions. Therefore, these investigations overlook the fact that knocking the counter candidate
13

One exception, however, is Blas-Arroyo’s (2000) piece.

41

Theoretical Background

down is subservient to the ultimate goal of persuading the audience in debates, and by so doing, they implicitly underplay the influence of the audience in the unfolding of these events bar those studies concentrating on its reactions therein (see below). By pointing out the confrontational nature of contenders’ discourses, debate researchers employing a conversational analysis framework indirectly allude to candidates’ antagonistic relationship with one another and the mutual image degrading action that shapes it.14 Debaters’ relational antagonism and its characteristic image degrading action underlies the use of some of the linguistic categories these scholars identify as devices politicians employ to beat the opponent in their combative exchanges. For example, metapragmatic comments to ridicule the adversary’s talk (Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000b), the specific turn category of ‘demeaning’, i.e. an unexpected turn whose function is lowering the targeted person’s status (Edelsky & Adams, 1990), open negative depictions in televised debate programmes (Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000), etc. Nevertheless, based on the idea that relationships come down to face matters as advocated in the politeness literature, and that antagonistic relationships involve reciprocal face damage (Flowerdew, 1999), it can be said that conversational analysis debate research would greatly benefit from politeness-based studies to gain more insight into debaters’ conflicting relationship, and how it is instantiated in and through their talk. Competitive positive self-image building is interrelated with politicians’ mutual image debasing action. Although some conversational analysis debate scholars
14

An exception though is Saft (1999), who explicitly acknowledges such antagonistic relation and reciprocal image damage albeit only on theoretical grounds by questioning the harmonious relational meaning backchannels in Japanese have frequently been attributed in the literature, and showing that their meaning in debates is strategic, as speakers use them to take advantage over the adversary.

42

Theoretical Background

indicate the relevance of contenders’ presentation of a public favourable image of themselves in their theoretical propositions or analyses, they discuss it dissociated from candidates’ goal of persuading the audience. Beck (1996) stresses the significance of debaters’ attainment of a desired social face on theoretical grounds; however, I would argue that she does not 1) deliver the goods of her propositions, since she does not show how politicians achieve the specific social faces she reports in and through the interaction, and, most importantly, 2) link such achievement in her theoretical statements to persuasion at all. Adams (1992) indirectly refers to contenders’ positive image building in debates but only in relation to female politicians and their spirit of obeying the rules of the event as their way of accruing power here without any connection whatsoever with the issue of persuasion. Second, studies along the lines of Atkinson’s (1988) work such as Clayman’s (1993), Hutchby’s (1997), and Sai-Hua’s (2001) deal with the conversational techniques politicians employ for persuasion in debates, and, in contrast with conversational analysis investigations on the whole, take into consideration the importance of the audience in these contexts by looking at its response before candidates’ discourses, and its influence in these. Given that the audience constitutes what Watts (1989) calls an ‘open group’, namely, individuals who do not share any common set of assumptions (viz, values, beliefs, and attitudes) that enables them to identify and claim in-group membership among them, I suggest that in order to persuade audience members, candidates need to establish a positive relational basis

43

Theoretical Background

with them first or, using Watts’ (1989) own terminology, do ‘relational work’15 with them. Allusion to debaters’ creation and maintenance of a positive relationship with the audience is implicit in some of the linguistic categories referred to in these investigations, and other conversational analysis debate studies. For instance, general consensus invocation on a determinate issue among all debate participants (Hutchby, 1997), the ‘moves’16 female debaters commonly perform in same and mixed-gender debates stressing the greatness of the audience’s involvement in the electoral process (Adams, 1992), etc. Nonetheless, as discussed for politicians’ relationship with one another, and considering the aforementioned thesis in the politeness literature that social bonds basically consist of face issues, these investigations do not show how debaters perform relational work with the audience in and through their interventions, hence how they attempt to satisfy its face wants with the ultimate goal of achieving its persuasion. In spite of dealing with the audience’s persuasion and politicians’ relationship with it to some extent in debates together with recognising the trilogic character of candidates’ communicative acts in these events, I would say that discourse analysis investigations of debates do not sufficiently consider the relational and social implications of this fundamental feature of debaters’ talk with this caveat applying also to conversational analysis debate research. Bilmes (1999) describes this feature as follows:

15

Watts broadens his initial notion of relational work after the years to include non-politic and impolite or rude forms of social conduct (cf. Locher & Watts, 2005; Watts, 2003). 16 Unexpected off-topic or out-of-role comments within one’s turn space in debates (Adams, 1992; Edelsky & Adams, 1990).

44

Theoretical Background

The debater is in a situation in which, although he is interacting for an audience, he is not, for the most part, interacting with the audience. On the one hand, he needs to communicate in a specific way with his audience, but, on the other hand, his audience expects him to be responsive to his opponent [...]. (233)

Some conversational and discourse analysis debate researchers (e.g. Bilmes, 1999, 2001; Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c) acknowledge the trilogic character of contenders’ discourses. In view of Bilmes’ (1999, 2001) aforementioned concepts of ‘oratorical’ and ‘interactional’ rhetoric, it could be affirmed that the trilogic nature of these discourses in these scholar’s pieces consists of a juxtaposition of these two types of rhetoric. Although on theoretical grounds he fosters this idea, he treats both rhetorics separately in his analysis, thereby leaving the trilogic condition of debaters’ exchanges unexamined. Blas-Arroyo (1998a, 1998b, 1998c) explores politicians’ and moderators’ trilogic interventions in Spanish debates centring particularly on their structural properties. I would argue that the relational and social content of these interventions is crucial for a deeper understanding of the communicative event of a political debate and the discursive practices that define it. From my standpoint, the trilogic character of debaters’ exchanges amounts to the multifunctionality of linguistic devices in these interventions in relation to their multiple distinct addressees, which I subsume under the two main categories of opponent and audience including other participants like panelists (if present), and the moderator in this last category too. This trilogic structure or grouping of ‘candidate-adversary-audience’ summarises what to me is the quintessential trilogic nature of politicians’ discourses

45

Theoretical Background

in debates, i.e. talking for an audience and arguing against the counter candidate,17 and reflects this thesis in that even though some communicative acts from the candidates are chiefly targeted at the audience and others at the adversary, some if not all the linguistic elements that constitute them will be expected to perform a primary function in relation to the main addressee of the communicative act, and a secondary function regarding its indirect or secondary receiver individually or in combination. A few interpretive discourse analysis studies of debates take the trilogic condition of contenders’ talk into consideration on theoretical and analytical grounds dealing to some extent with its relational and social implications (e.g. Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 1998). However, a relevant aspect of such trilogic condition I would say they usually disregard, is the importance of the audience as another debate participant whose more active or passive reactions have an influence in, and modify candidates’ interventions in debates.18 For example, Galasiński (1998) deals with the conflicting and, more superficially, the persuasive dimensions of two Polish debaters’ exchanges with different addressees (the opponent, a panel of journalists, and the audience) coupled with the relational dynamics these dimensions of politicians’ talk bring about. Nonetheless, he does not contemplate the audience’s reactions to such exchanges in his investigation. In spite of looking at the persuasive

17

In so advocating, I do not intend to deny the importance of the figure of the moderator in these events; rather emphasize the idea that the main targets of contenders’ interventions thereto are usually the audience, of which the moderator and the panelists (if present) are part as the voting citizens they also constitute, and the opponent. In addition, the debate participant category of ‘audience’ in the notion of trilogue I establish here subsumes both the studio audience and the viewing audience based on the idea that a) the former can be deemed a very small portion of the latter, and b) a division of the two does not make sense in this project, since the data constituting the corpus of this investigation does not make possible strictly speaking an analysis of the relationship between participants in the studio and viewers at home (cf. Hutchby, 1997). 18 By contrast, the aforementioned conversational analysis studies in the wake of Atkinson’s (1988) work do actually explore this highlighting the dilogue ‘candidate-audience’ though.

46

Theoretical Background

and confrontational aspects of a Polish politician’s discourse (Walęsa) in two electoral debates coupled with its different relational implications for its distinct main receivers, i.e. the audience and the adversary respectively, I would suggest that Jaworski and Galasiński (1998) do not pay enough heed to the audience’s response before such discourse, and the possible influence of this response in its formulation throughout the events.19 It is my claim that the audience’s reactions towards debaters’ discourses when they are mainly attempting to persuade it or debating the counter candidate are relevant in themselves, and even more if we consider their effect to a lesser or greater degree in the unfolding of the interaction. Thus, a response of disapproval from the audience before a politician who is directly attacking his/her opponent, for instance, may modify his/her next interventions by softening future attacks, producing a topic shift, etc., or even prevent him/her from continuing talking to the point of temporarily suspending the whole event (see footnote 7, p. 14). In brief, discourse analysis investigations of debates consider the trilogic nature of politicians’ communicative acts; however, they frequently dismiss the relevance of the audience’s responses in these contexts. Therefore, as far as the audience is concerned, it could be said that they disregard the dialogical nature of interaction underscored by scholars such as BouFranch (2001c, 2002a), Coupland and Jaworski (1997), and Garcés-Conejos and BouFranch (2004). The fact that contenders’ discourses in debates are semi-prescripted,

19

Felderer’s (1997) critical discourse analytic study, which also acknowledges the trilogic essence of debaters’ talk at a theoretical and analytical level somehow considering its relational and social implications too, is exempt from this criticism, as the author does not mention whether a studio audience is present at all.

47

Theoretical Background

nonreciprocal, and unilateral does not entail that the audience as one of its receivers (and I would say the most important) is a completely inert entity before them. As for the cognitive dimension of political debates, debate research dealing with specific linguistic elements, e.g. metaphor (Voss et al., 1994), repetition (BlasArroyo, 1999), etc. take into account the cognitive function(s) of these devices. Conversational analysis studies of debates somehow allude to cognition through the notion of ‘interpretive control’ (Adams, 1999; Bilmes, 1999), namely, the control over how utterances are to be interpreted, which debaters intend to achieve in general by strategically negotiating and manipulating meaning.20 Critical discourse analysis debate investigations consider these events’ cognitive dimension in a very implicit way through the issue of ideology. As ideology is conceived in terms of power differences in critical-based research, these investigations view this dimension as pervaded by power.21 Thus, in her study of the paradoxical breach and maintenance of a female politician’s gender stereotype in a televised debate, Felderer (1997) refers to the production and reproduction of ideology regarding male and female categories encouraged by social structures of authority.22 Such ideology, which unveils a power imbalance between genders, is so reified and typified in our society using Berger and Luckmann’s (1967) terms that usually goes unquestioned settling in our cognition and culture as a result.

20

Nonetheless, it must not be forgotten that full control over interpretation in communication is impossible. 21 See McIntosh (1997) for an argument on the interrelation between cognition and power. 22 Van Dijk (1989) deals extensively with these structures and the means for and processes of production and reproduction of ideology they employ and promote.

48

Theoretical Background

Nevertheless, I contend that neither conversational analysis nor interpretive and critical discourse analysis studies of debates delve enough into the cognitive dimension of these events. For example, none of these investigations offers a sufficiently comprehensive explanation of persuasion, the most important aspect of candidates’ discourses therein, as the cognitive phenomenon it also constitutes taking into consideration a) both the processes involved in contenders’ production of their discourses, and the audience’s reception of them, and b) the different sorts of cognitive interpretations or representations within such processes, i.e. discursive, relational, social, and cultural, these parties create and/or activate. Nor do they examine the cognitive aspect of debaters’ exchanges with one another along the same lines, i.e. a politician’s production of his/her discourse, its reception by the opponent, and the different cognitive assumptions taking part in such discourse production and reception. In sum, it could be said that, by and large, these studies somewhat neglect the complexity of political debates at a cognitive level.

3.5. Political Debates as Zero Sum Games

Apart from amounting first and foremost to persuasive events, as emphasised throughout this chapter, political debates are also ‘zero sum games’, viz, communicative situations “where one party’s losses are the other party’s gains” (Levinson, 1992: 91). In this section I portray these events as such centring on the instantiation of this win-loose condition in candidates’ relationship, whose antagonism

49

Theoretical Background

constitutes its quintessential expression. This antagonism is primarily observed in and through issues of image or face and power. With regards to face, I only provide a brief account of how face matters reveal debates’ zero sum game nature, since a detailed depiction of anything concerning face in these events is offered in the next chapter. I also comment on studies in which the win-loose character of debates constitutes a research topic in its own right relating winners and losers to the quality of being a better or worse debater, and the fact of winning or loosing the election. Elsewhere I have already depicted political debates as zero sum games arguing that their zero sum game nature is grounded in the competition for a given position an electoral race brings about between the political contenders participating in it. Therefore, this win-loose condition and the competition it stems from shape and help explain these contexts’ features and dynamics, especially the conflicting interests and goals defining debaters’ relationship. Contrary to other communicative encounters of a zero sum game character, e.g. ‘L-type dialogues’ (Krabbe, 1991) or adversarial persuasive dialogues in argumentation studies, where conversational parties’ opposed interests and goals turn cooperative at some points in the discourse, politicians’ in debates clash all through. This is because in these events the possibility of one of the interactants convincing the other with the persuadee’s consequent abandonment of his/her position for the persuader’s, and their reach of mutual agreement, does not even exist: “la discusión con el oponente no busca convencerlo de nada, sino que intenta mostrar la superioridad de las propias propuestas para convencer al público” (Fernández-García, 2000: 108) (in the antagonistic exchange with the opponent the speaker does not aim at his/her persuasion, but attempts to show the superiority of
50

Theoretical Background

his/her own proposals to persuade the public). Furthermore, even if contestants attain some agreement, a candidate never changes his/her position for that of the adversary. To conclude, the win-loose nature of debates is not a temporary feature of their essence appearing and disappearing at certain moments during their unfolding, but a pervasive and permanent one. The way politicians’ confrontational relation in debates functions in light of these contexts’ zero sum game condition may be compared to the way the occupation of a ground in military enterprises takes place (Walton, 1993): “the one party occupies the ground until the other can bring forward a sufficient weight or force to dislodge it, and then the second party occupies the ground” (126).23 The rivalry of debaters’ relation evincing such condition is principally reflected in and through image or face and power related aspects in their discourses. Regarding image or face, candidates’ antagonism is manifested in and through the discredit of the counter candidate’s image their own image building produces as pointed out above, which is 1) more indirect in those interventions primarily directed to the audience, and 2) more direct in those communicative exchanges in which they mainly address one another. Although contestants’ policies and positions on issues are also paramount, they cannot be divorced from face matters, and are affected by debates’ win-loose character, according to Benoit and Wells (1996: 25), face or image is far most important in these events and politics in general, since “voters must [first] trust politicians to [believe that they will] implement their campaign promises”. In this way they conceive politicians’ relationship and the rivalry characterising it as ‘persuasive attack’ and
23

Walton (1993) employs this metaphor to describe the way presumption operates in critical discussions of an adversarial kind, more specifically, the local burden of proof related to it.

51

Theoretical Background

‘defence’ consisting of messages that intend to degrade the image, reputation, face or identity of a candidate, and aim at repairing one’s own respectively. While defence tends to be employed after persuasive attack, Benoit and Wells posit that it can also be used pre-emptively to avoid and/or diminish future attacks or simply enhance one’s image. Similarly to these investigators, Martel (1983) stresses the weight of a politician’s image over his/her policies and stance on the issues affirming that the selection and determination of his/her goals for debates and the election, and the strategies and tactics (lower-level strategies) s/he needs to implement in order to accomplish them ultimately depend on it. He also views contestants’ relation and its antagonism in these contexts in terms of the attack or defence functions relational (more image-oriented) and substance (more issue-oriented) strategies and tactics may fulfil, thus not completely dismissing the importance of a debater’s policies and position in his framework. As for power, the zero sum game nature of political debates causes contenders’ continuous challenge of each other’s power lying in all the exclusive interactional privileges they are entitled to in these events and their instantiation in and through their discourses (see, p. 26), thus constituting maximum interactional power (see Mills, 2003) synonymous with ‘persuasive power’ (Van Dijk, 1997) in political communication (Lakoff, 1990; Van Dijk, 1997). Albeit endowed with this power before debates even take place, candidates’ mutual challenge of it turns it into a constantly ‘up for grabs’ element in these contexts.24 Given the win-loose condition of political debates, politicians’ enactment of their interactional/persuasive power in and
24

Mills (2003) considers such ‘up for grabs’ condition an inherent feature of interactional power. See also Shapiro (1986), and Locher (2004) on this point.

52

Theoretical Background

through their interventions suffices for such challenge to materialise, since this automatically implies that the adversary looses his/hers. Nonetheless, it is in those debate sequences of a more interactional/conversational than oratorical/monologic character (cf. Bilmes, 1999; 2001; Blas-Arroyo, 1999) where debaters’ reciprocal challenge observed in a struggle for interactional resources (Edelsky & Adams, 1990) is most salient, hence debates’ zero sum game nature through aspects of power. Finally, according to the distinct approach to power men and women have in mixgender debates, namely, more contentious and violative in the case of men, and more uncontentious and non-violative in the case of women (Adams, 1992), it would be expected that candidates’ power challenges here adopt a specific form for each gender, thereby shaping the win-loose character of these events in a determinate way. Debates as zero sum games constitute the focus of investigations on viewers’ post-debate response (Vancil & Pendell, 1984; Winkler & Black, 1993) and some media studies on these communicative encounters (e.g. Cohen, 1976; Davis, 1978). Concerning the former, Vancil and Pendell (1984) see debates as ‘superbowl’ contests in contrast with other more frequent metaphors from sports, war, and showbiz researchers deploy to refer to them as win-loose contexts (Hellweg et al., 1992; Kraus, 1988; League of Women Voters, 2002; Nir, 1988), e.g. football games, boxing or wrestling matches, horse races, battles, theatrical performances, etc. To this regard they adduce the following argument:

Unlike its football counterpart, a superbowl debate does not lend itself to clarity, precision, or finality in its scoring. How can a candidate score points in a debate? How does a candidate prevent his opponent from
53

Theoretical Background

scoring? How does either candidate, or the media, or the public keep track of the score, or find out which side has won at the end of the debate? Frustration from the lack of clear and precise method of scoring [in] [sic] [...] debates is analogous to the frustration a fan would experience in viewing a football game played on a field without endzones, goalposts, or yardage markings, with each team in possession of a ball. (65)

These scholars also identify six winning criteria in the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate based on past research categories backed by a random telephone survey: viewers’ pre-debate candidate preference, coincidence with their positions on the issues, superior debating skills, greater presidential personality, ability to take advantage of the opponent’s major blunders, and media consensus. As for the second criterion, against the general belief that the best debater is the debate winner in forensic research (e.g. Jørgensen, 1998), they claim that declaring a candidate the debate winner is a good predictor of choosing him/her as the best debater, but these two features may not coincide, because winning entails more than good advocacy skills, and sometimes does not even implicate them.25 Taking Vancil and Pendell’s work as a starting point, Winkler and Black (1993) explore winning and loosing in the 1992 presidential and vice presidential debates. However, they 1) do not use any metaphor to depict them as zero sum games, 2) give voters the freedom to supply their reasons for selecting winners and losers without imposing upon them a priori options spawned from past investigations, and 3) look at these reasons in relation to four factors distinguishing audience types: educational status, party affiliation, viewership of debates, and media coverage, thereby appearing innovative in the study of debate

25

In his analysis of the first 1996 Clinton-Dole debate, Agha (1997) concludes quoting a report from The Washington Post that, half of a group of undecided voters leaned towards Dole in their voting in spite of considering Clinton the winner of the debate.

54

Theoretical Background

winning and loosing. Winkler and Black determine thirteen categories whose considerable presence in a candidate declare him/her the debate winner, namely, confidence/presence, specificity of response, honesty/trustworthiness, use of an attack strategy, connectedness to people’s issues, level of preparation, proposal of new solutions, advocacy of a specific policy/party, leadership, ability to appear presidential, intelligence, ability to exceed expectations, and level of participation. Out of all these categories, ‘appearing confident’ was reported the most important by the public and viewership of debates, and was the primary factor affecting the audience’s rationale. These investigations are closely connected to debate media research given that 1) “the word ‘win’ is a media term” (Diamond & Friery, 1987: 46), and 2) television promotes combat, thereby heightening the competition underlying debates, in search of entertainment, hence audienceship (Davis, 1987; Diamond & Friery, 1987; Drucker & Platt-Hunold, 1987; Hellweg et al., 1992; Jørgensen, 1998; Kraus, 1988). Media studies dealing with debate winning and loosing empirically prove that picking winners and losers in these events is somehow contingent upon the better or worse interaction of a politician with the medium and its conventions (Cohen, 1976; Davis, 1978). Besides party and individual candidate affiliation constituting crucial factors influencing voters’ decisions as indicated in the literature, among nine contestants running for the Labour Party in the 1973 Israeli elections, citizens agreed in appointing those evaluated highest in radio and TV the winners or the most persuasively effective in debates and other communicative situations in which they intervene (Cohen, 1973). In the 1976 U.S. presidential debates, viewers deemed the
55

Theoretical Background

candidate holding a more direct camera eye-contact the winner of the debates regardless of their political preferences, and the fact that camera eye-contact patterns in these contexts need to match a politician’s whole campaign strategy for him/her to be persuasive (Davis, 1978). In short, a debater is successful or viewed as the debate winner partly because “[s/he] is reasonably telegenic and reasonably comfortable with the electronic media” (Kraus, 1988: 14). Albeit not scientifically demonstrated, some debate investigators suggest a relationship between the winner of political debates and the election winner (e.g. Benoit & Wells, 1996; Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 2000, 2001; Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000a, 2000b; Gallup, 1987; Hellweg et al., 1992; Martel, 1983; Vancil & Pendell, 1984). Thus, Benoit and Wells (1996) affirm that even though such relation is difficult to evince, Clinton’s excellent performance in the 1992 North-American presidential debates favourably contributed to his victory in view of their results on persuasive attack and defence. Likewise, Blas-Arroyo (1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 2000, 2001) comments on the decisive role debates and winning them played in Felipe González’s success in the 1993 Spanish elections, and so do Galasiński (1998), and Jaworski and Galasiński (2000a, 2000b) concerning Walęsa’s in the 1988 and 1992 Polish campaigns, and Kwaśniewski’s in 1995, though stressing in the latter the influence of the media in condemning the behaviour of his rival (Walęsa) in these events. Martel (1983) and Vancil and Pendell (1984) assert that Reagan’s success in the 1980 and 1984 presidential debates respectively tipped the balance in his favour at the end of both campaigns, and Hellweg et al. (1992) conclude in support of the idea that obtaining a positive result in debates normally
56

Theoretical Background

leads to winning in the ballots after drawing on the mixed findings of a wide range of studies on debates from the 1960 to 1988 U.S. elections. By contrast, Gallup (1987) is the only researcher that empirically evinces the relation between debate winner and election winner by means of a series of public surveys conducted in the 1960, 1976, 1980 and 1984 North-American campaigns. Nevertheless, such relation has been proved to work only with regular viewers as opposed to occasional and non-viewers, and within the former with decided more than undecided voters (Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Chaffee, 1979; Gallup, 1987; Hellweg et al., 1992; Kraus, 1988; Vancil & Pendell, 1984). In short, the zero sum game condition of debates is an ever present feature of these speech events, principally instantiated in and through politicians’ relationship, and face and power issues within it. In both cases, this win-loose nature is most clearly observed in those interventions where candidates mainly address one another, which dovetail with interactional/conversational debate sequences, for it is precisely in and through such exchanges or sequences that debaters more directly enact their antagonistic relationship. Winning a debate a) requires that a politician shows and meets certain qualities and conditions together with exhibiting a good interaction with the medium in and through which the encounter is transmitted, and b) is also an indicator of winning an election as far as decided regular viewers is concerned.

3.6. Conclusions

57

Theoretical Background

In this chapter I have offered an overview of political debates describing these events fundamentally as persuasive discourses in light of their persuasive condition, and zero sum games according to the win-loose contest they entail. A critical discussion of traditional debate research, which is located in the communications field, follows to then focus on political debate studies in the field of pragmatics. Among these, conversational analysis investigations offer detailed analyses revealing in terms of the formal, structural and rhetorical properties of these contexts save for their relational and social aspects. On the other hand, discourse analytic interpretive and critical-oriented studies provide rich depictions of the relational and social dimension of these events somewhat overlooking, however, the audience as an important debate participant. Common to all these investigations is the fact that they dismiss the cognitive dimension of debates. I believe that Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT, and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) cognitive theory of communication can be useful in order to overcome these shortcomings. PT can be helpful to cope with the neglect of the relational and social aspects of communication observed in studies conducted within a conversational analysis framework as well as the audience’s disregard in discourse analysis debate investigations. RT constitutes a powerful tool for explaining the cognitive processes taking part in debate participants’ discursive production and reception mainly through its ostensive-inferential conceptualization of communication. The following chapter somehow intends to be an implementation of these statements.

58

Theoretical Background

4. APPLICATION OF POLITENESS THEORY AND RELEVANCE THEORY

“[...] the possibility of a strategic usage of linguistic forms with a social purpose is dependent on the existence of [cognitive] expectations about what can count as an adequate linguistic behaviour in a given situation” (Escandell-Vidal, 1998: 53)

This chapter constitutes an application of the two pragmatic theories that are the basis of this study, namely, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) RT, to the speech event of political debates. First, I succinctly deal with politeness investigations of different discourse types concentrating on studies of rude discourse to advocate that impoliteness is an important research topic in itself. Then, I critically review the literature on political debates that draws on the work of Brown and Levinson to later describe these events as face mitigating and aggravating encounters. I also comment briefly on the distinct applications of RT to different linguistic phenomena with a focus on relevance theoretic studies of politeness arguing for the examination of this issue from this theory in specific communicative situations. The chapter ends with a cognitive-oriented depiction of political debates and their relational framework employing some of the basic concepts of Sperber and Wilson’s perspective.

4.1. Politeness Theory and Political Debates

59

Theoretical Background

Brown and Levinson’s PT has been applied to a wide range of communicative encounters such as computer mediated communication (BouFranch, 2006), scientific discourse (Garcés-Conejos & Sánchez-Macarro, 1998; Gómez-Morón, 1998), advertising (Del Saz-Rubio, 2000), classroom interaction (Garcés-Conejos & Torreblanca-López, 1997; Lörscher & Schulze, 1988; Torreblanca-López & Garcés-Conejos, 1996; Torreblanca-López, 1998), drama texts (Brown & Gilman, 1989; Garcés-Conejos, 1991, 1995), nurse-patient exchanges (Coupland et al., 1988), family conversation (Watts, 1989), etc. Nonetheless, ordinary conversation has constituted by and large the research context par excellence of politeness investigators. It has extensively been attested that conversational participants tend to mitigate the threat towards their own and their interlocutors’ faces inherent in communicative acts in this speech situation. However, there are contexts in which interactants are purposefully rude in order to achieve some personal gain, and/or abide by the communicative and social behavioural rules governing the speech event in which they are embedded: for instance, therapeutic and courtroom discourse (Lakoff, 1989; Penman, 1990), military and drama contexts (Culpeper, 1996; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 1995), academic letters of appeal (Cherry, 1988; Wood & Kroger, 1994), institutional 911 calls (Tracy & Tracy, 1998), and TV-based encounters (Culpeper et al., 2003; Culpeper, 2005; Gregori-Signes, 2005), among others. In these contexts rudeness a) overrides or is levelled with politeness, and b) is of an intended and ‘strategic’ or ‘systematic’ kind, viz, rule-governed, and utilised by individuals to attain certain goal(s) (Beebe, 1995; Kasper, 1990; Kienpointner, 1997; Lakoff, 1989).1 Therefore, in contrast to OC, in which participants usually
1

For further studies on politeness and rudeness in different contexts, see Ernshaw et al. (2002).

60

Theoretical Background

prioritize face mitigation over aggravation, there are other speech events politeness researchers have normally dismissed, where rudeness is almost as abundant as politeness, and sometimes more frequent. Political debates could be said to constitute an illustrative example. Among investigations of debates invoking to a greater or lesser extent Brown and Levinson’s model, Zupnik (1994) focuses on the mitigating value of indexicals constituting positive and negative politeness strategies towards S him/herself and the audience in a U.S. televised debate programme relating it to the phenomenon of persuasion. As previously mentioned, she overlooks the potential more or less direct or indirect aggravating function these strategies may also perform concerning another interactant with a different and contrary opinion from the speaker’s. On the other hand, Rudanko’s (1995) analysis of rhetorical questions in three speeches delivered at a U.S. House of Representatives debate on the American Bill of Rights does contemplate impoliteness besides face-threat mitigation evincing that the speaker intensifies the attack against the opponent if s/he also provides the answer to the question s/he formulates. Furthermore, he also determines a relationship between politeness and persuasion, and rudeness and coercion, arguing in the latter’s case that H has no choice but to accept S’s rhetorical question and his/her implicit or explicit answer. I believe this may be true for the speaker’s constituencies in the event; however, I would say this is unlikely to occur with those interlocutors belonging to opposed political parties. Therefore, Rudanko does not consider the idea that “a certain linguistic act may be perceived in one way by one audience and another by others” (Flowerdew, 1990: 18).

61

Theoretical Background

Concerning electoral debate investigations, it is my contention that they do not delve enough into the persuasive dimension of candidates’ discourses on theoretical or analytical grounds. For instance, Agha (1997) focuses on combat and aggression commonly enacted in and through contenders’ other-typifying utterances in the first 1996 Clinton-Dole presidential debate, and regardless of implicitly relating their positive self-typifying communicative acts with their persuasive attempts, he does not examine such connection. On the other hand, Fernández-García (2000) deals with politeness and rudeness in his work on political debates of the 1996 Spanish elections acknowledging at a theoretical level that politicians’ ultimate goal is the audience’s persuasion and that S’s own positive face orientation is subject to this main aim. Conversely, in his analysis he centres on debaters’ conflict with one another viewing politeness strategies in their exchanges as primarily playing a mitigating role in relation to the face of the counter candidate. Albeit seemingly paradoxical given candidates’ antagonistic relationship with each other, he justifies this view argumenting that they soften the aggression against the rival in critical and disagreement acts not to look too impolite, thus presenting a positive image of themselves. However, he leaves the relation between S’s positive self-presentation and persuasion unexplored. In his study of two 1993 Spanish political debates, Blas-Arroyo (2001, 2002, 2003) questions Fernández-García’s statements establishing and illustrating that politeness strategies in a contender’s interchanges with the opponent generally have an aggravating effect on the latter’s face coupled with a mitigating meaning as for the speaker’s own, the audience’s, and the moderator’s positive faces. In spite of recognising both a polite and impolite value of these strategies with different hearers, and pointing out the persuasive or rhetorical character of
62

Theoretical Background

debaters’ discourses observed in and through mitigation, I would say he emphasizes conflict and impoliteness to the extent that 1) he offers a classification of rude strategies taking Culpeper’s (1996) as a starting point (Blas-Arroyo, 2001), and 2) does not show in his analysis how self- and the aforementioned debate parties’ face attention ensues interrelated with persuasion.2 Galasiński (1998) also acknowledges the link between mitigation and the persuasive dimension of politicians’ talk in signalling the redressive action towards the positive faces of the moderator, and the journalists of three main mitigating strategies he identifies in two presidential debates of the 1995 Polish elections: trivialising rule violations, attributing them to pressure, and expressing reluctance to perform them. Nevertheless, in his examples, he principally pays heed to contestants’ exploitation of these strategies to attain their discursive goals, and preserve their own faces, which in the context of the debates under study correspond to damaging the adversary without appearing excessively hostile, and licensing their debate rule breaches. This underscores the speaker-oriented function of these strategies, which Galasiński does not associate, however, with the persuasion of the audience. Consequently, some scholars exploring debates from Brown and Levinson’s perspective do not contemplate rudeness in their investigations (e.g. Zupnik, 1994); whereas others do actually consider it but dismiss the persuasive dimension of politicians’ discourses. The present project aims to modestly attend to these caveats.

A possible justification for this shortcoming though, may be found in the pre-arranged topic division organising the structure of Spanish electoral debates. This structure encourages a more direct exchange between contenders, and the frequent absence of the moderator from the interaction in the central sequences of the debate (Blas-Arroyo, 1998c).

2

63

Theoretical Background

4.2. The Relational Dynamics of Political Debates: A Politeness Approach

In view of all the above and as I have already argued elsewhere, it can be affirmed that political debates constitute occurrences of “la descortesía como comportamiento complementario de la cortesía” (impoliteness as complementary behaviour of politeness) (Gómez-Morón, 1997: 35). In the following paragraphs of this section, I account for the relational dynamics of these events describing them as face mitigating and aggravating encounters by 1) drawing on Scollon and Scollon’s (1995) politeness dyads with a focus on the P variable according to its relevance in these contexts, and 2) the notion of trilogue, whereby contestants attempt to persuade the audience — including here the moderator and the panelists (if present) — at the same time that they debate the opponent giving place to what I label the ‘double polite’ nature of candidates’ communicative acts. Face mitigation defines debaters’ exchanges with audience members, the moderator, and the panelists (if included in the event), whereas face aggravation is characteristic of candidates’ talk with one another. Regarding the audience, politicians’ face mitigation especially consists of positive politeness strategies, in particular, the strategies of ‘presupposition manipulation’, ‘assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants’, and ‘offer and promise’ as found in past investigations. By means of all these strategies, contestants attend to audience members’ positive faces intending to build solidarity with them, and create common ground with the ultimate goal of persuasion. Solidarity building in and through positive face attention is typical of close relationships such as friendships,

64

Theoretical Background

family relations, etc. across cultures (cf. Blum-Kulka, 1990; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 1994; Brown & Gilman, 1960; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Fitch, 1994a; 1998; Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989; Lorenzo-Dus, 2000; Scollon & Scollon, 1995; Turner, 1996; Watts, 1989). Therefore, one may think that debaters’ relation with the audience constitutes a ‘solidarity politeness system’ (Scollon & Scollon, 1995) in which there is little social distance (-D) between relational parties and symmetrical power (=P).3 Far from being so, Scollon and Scollon’s (1995) relational dyads do not capture the reality of such relationship. As strangers or individuals belonging to an ‘open group’ (Watts, 1989), politicians’ relation with audience members actually involves great social distance (+D) they constantly try to reduce (-D), and a power imbalance where the latter holds maximum power (++P), and the former are powerful to a lesser extent (+P). First, candidates attempt to decrease social distance between themselves and the audience by doing what Watts (1989) refers to as ‘relational work’ or what I call relationship ‘redefinition’, so that they establish a positive relational basis with audience members that enables them to perform their persuasive actions as previously mentioned. Although they principally deploy positive politeness strategies to this end, they also avail themselves especially of negative politeness strategies orienting to both the audience’s positive and negative faces,4 and their own positive faces. By means of all these strategies, contenders attempt not to impinge upon audience members’ freedom of action, and manifest that they abide by the background and formality rules underlying debates, so that they 1) avoid any social conduct that might result disturbing or offensive to the audience,
I have substituted Scollon and Scollon’s (1995) (-P) symbol indicating equal power for (=P) in search of more descriptive accuracy. 4 Harris (2001), Blas-Arroyo (2001, 2002, 2003), and Galasiński (1998) already recognise this double directionality of negative politeness strategies in their studies.
3

65

Theoretical Background

thereby satisfying its positive face wants, and 2) present a positive image of themselves, which is chief for persuasion (Lakoff, 1990). If politicians are successful in their relational work, the audience’s reactions to their discourses tend to be positive, usually in the form of signs of approval and applause as far as the studio audience is concerned. On the other hand, if candidates fail to make audience members accept the new relational (-D) term, the latter are likely to produce negative responses translating into jeering, booing, and heckling in the debate setting. I suggest that such responses from the audience in the context of political debates constitute intended self-initiated rudeness motivated by a lack of affect control restraint (Beebe, 1995; Kasper, 1990; Kochman, 1984),5 hence unlicensed in the absence of any public event justifying its expression (Kasper, 1990). As such, this sort of face aggravation is normally subject to the moderator’s sanctions, and contrasts with the intended and strategic impoliteness pervading debaters’ talk. As regards the P variable, the audience’s maximum power (++P) results from politicians’ apparent reduction of their own based on the ‘paradox of persuasive politeness’ defining PDs (Schulze, 1987). This paradox entails that contestants seemingly decrease their power in order to present a modest and humble image of themselves before the public at the same time that they claim power in and through their interventions. According to Schulze, candidates’ apparent power reduction is no more than the granting of symbolic power to the audience while keeping their institutional power in such a way that the ‘paradox’ is dissolved. Bell (1984) makes this paradox extensive to mass communication
Beebe (1995) addresses this kind of impoliteness as ‘volcanic rudeness', which is, however, a more concrete notion referring to the venting of feelings like anger, impatience, and contempt in OC.
5

66

Theoretical Background

discourse in general summarising it in “the simultaneous omnipotence and helplessness of the audience” (193). Concentrating on the studio audience, I have regarded the symbolic power of the audience as ‘unofficial’ in prior studies, since it lacks institutional recognition, and is ‘covert’ (Lakoff, 1989), because it is symbolically allocated by debaters, and is implicit in audience members’ linguistic responses. It is by means of their affiliative and dissafiliative reactions that they unofficially and in a somewhat subtle manner legitimize and delegitimize candidates’ discourses coupled with influencing and altering their current and next exchanges in debates. Mitigation in contestants’ interchanges with the moderator is mainly instantiated in and through negative politeness and off-record strategies. These strategies attend to both his/her positive and negative faces, as politicians deploy them with the aim of not imposing upon the moderator’s freedom of action allowing him/her to perform as smoothly as possible the duties required by his/her institutional role, and, by so doing, they also show respect for him/her, and his/her authority. At the same time, with these strategies candidates manifest that they adjust to the politically correct behaviour expected from them in debates, sometimes trying to avoid responsibility for any rule violations they might have committed, thereby orienting to their own positive faces too (see Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Galasiński, 1998). Nevertheless, debaters also use positive politeness strategies attending to their own and the moderator’s positive faces to reduce social distance (D) with the latter, because s/he also constitutes another potential voter to be persuaded, and maintain a general conversational balance indicative of an appropriate conduct in debates, which contributes to create a positive image of themselves before the public. The moderator commonly
67

Theoretical Background

reciprocates expressing deference towards the candidates, and conventionally polite conduct by means of negative politeness strategies. Additionally, s/he also employs bald-on-record strategies in search of interactional efficiency that ensures the well functioning and unfolding of the event according to the demands of his/her job (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 1998c; Fernández-García, 2000; League of Women Voters 2002; Nir, 1988). Therefore, politicians’ relationship with the moderator approaches a ‘deference politeness system’ (Scollon & Scollon, 1995) characterised by considerable social distance (+D) they continuously intend to decrease, and almost similar mutually respected institutional power with the moderator constituting, however, the most powerful party (+P). The moderator’s institutional power resides in his/her functions as the audience’s and sponsor’s spokesperson and mediator, and has to be understood in terms of authority (League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983). Apart from all the actions these two primary functions imply, e.g. ensuring that all the interactants in the exchange follow the ground rules set for the event in question, among others, such authority partly lies in the official legitimization and delegitimization of debaters’ discourses, that is, legitimizing and delegitimizing moves in keeping with the expected and in an overt manner, as opposed to studio audience members’. However, I propose that this authority or power turns ‘unofficial’, i.e. unexpected and covert, when the moderator does not fulfil the normative interactional and social expectations attached to his/her persona in debates, e.g. by forming coalitions with (a) determinate politician(s) to the exclusion of others, etc. (cf. see Adams, 1999; Agha, 1997; Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999; Edelsky & Adams, 1990¸ Felderer, 1997). As for how much authority s/he should have, there has been a lot of public controversy (Martel, 1983), that, from my
68

Theoretical Background

standpoint, can actually be observed in these events themselves in the extent to which the moderator exerts it, and debate participants value it. In this regard, Hellweg et al. (1992: 31) argue that “moderator control is inversely related to the number of candidates participating in the debate encounter”, viz, the more debaters the less his/her authority is respected, and Edelsky and Adams (1990) report and illustrate how a male moderator’s authority is often more respected than a female’s in mixed-gender multiple candidate debates. Concerning face mitigation with panelists (if present in the event), contestants principally use positive politeness strategies in their goal of persuading as many citizens as possible. As with the audience and the moderator above, politicians thus attempt to establish a positive relationship that prepares the ground for persuasion. Panelists, in turn, mainly deploy negative politeness and off-record strategies in their questions to the candidates to a) alleviate the imposition these communicative acts place upon the questionee’s negative faces, as acknowledged in the pragmatics literature, b) manifest deference to them, and c) exhibit adherence to the formal key of debates, thereby orienting towards their own positive faces, and candidates’ positive and negative faces. There are occasions though, in which instead of mitigating the potential threatening force of their questions, panelists intensify it behaving in a strategically impolite way usually in pursuit of newsworthiness that enables them to achieve professional notoriety (Hall-Jamieson, 1987; Hellweg et al., 1992; Jackson-Beeck & Meadow, 1979; Kraus, 1988; League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983). In view of all this, it could be affirmed that debaters’ relation with panelists somehow evinces a ‘hierarchical politeness’ dyad (Scollon & Scollon, 1995), since there is in this case significant social distance (+D) between relational participants the former aim to
69

Theoretical Background

reduce, and a power difference in which the party in the higher position (+P) (politicians) deploys involvement or positive politeness strategies in speaking ‘down’, and that in the lower (-P) (panelists) uses ‘independent’ or negative politeness strategies in speaking ‘up’. Like the moderator’s, panelists’ power is institutional; however, it is not as great as his/hers and does not amount to authority. This power is enacted in their role of spokespersons and mediators of the audience, hence the official legitimization or delegitimization of contenders’ discourses, and more specifically, their content consisting of claims politicians formulate in the here and now of the interaction or have already put forward in the past. Similarly to the moderator, I contend that the moment panelists exert their power by breaking the norms of conversational and social conduct ascribed to them in debates such power turns unofficial: for example, in those instances in which a panelist aligns him/herself with a determinate politician, thus abandoning the neutralistic stance s/he is supposed to maintain (Hellweg et al., 1992; Jackson-Beeck & Meadow, 1979; League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983). Contrary to all the above, face aggravation defines candidates’ relationship in political debates, whose rivalry emerges from the zero sum game nature of these events produced by the competition an electoral race brings about. As such, it constitutes an antagonistic sort of dyad Scollon and Scollon’s (1995) politeness systems do not contemplate, and is characterised by a situation of ‘sustained ritual disequilibrium’:

In this state the purpose of the interaction is to preserve one’s own [...] [image] while scoring points against one’s adversary. Winners are
70

Theoretical Background

those who introduce the most information which is favorable to themselves and unfavorable to others, thereby demonstrating that they are more capable than their adversaries. (Flowerdew, 1999: 9-10).

Therefore, impoliteness is expected to predominate in contenders’ interventions primarily targeted at the counter candidate. Rudeness in these exchanges is commonly intended ‘strategic’ impoliteness, i.e. rule-governed aggravation utilized by individuals to attain certain goals (Beebe, 1995; Kasper, 1990; Kienpointner, 1997; Lakoff, 1989), which is instantiated in and through linguistic elements like disagreement and criticism acts, e.g. counter-claims and challenges (Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998), rhetorical questions (Bilmes, 2001; Rudanko, 1995), ‘stance indicators’6 (Tracy & Tracy, 1998) denoting a specific attitude towards the rival and his/her discourse, and, in general, strategies politicians exploit to damage the image of the opponent (cf., e.g. Blas-Arroyo, 2001; Fernández-García, 2000). Face aggravation between debaters tends to appear in the central sequences of a debate (Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Fernández-García, 2000), and is more salient in more conversational or spontaneous versus oratorical or monologic exchanges (see pp. 31 and 53) given that the former are typically constitutive of candidates’ interactions with one another. Nonetheless, the fact that impoliteness shapes politicians’ relation in debates by no means implicates that they are not politically correct to each other in their interchanges. Contestants employ negative politeness and off-record strategies with a mitigating as opposed to an aggravating function to convey mutual deference together with showing that they follow the rules and formal tone
I have distinguished elsewhere between more subtle and more open stance indicators identifying the latter with name-calling or insults.
6

71

Theoretical Background

governing these speech events, thus enhancing their own image too. Occasionally, they address one another by means of positive politeness strategies with a mitigating value, whereby they enact a close relationship normally of the joking kind (Norrick, 1994; Zajdman, 1995) as colleagues that know each other for some time. A sound example in my data involves Dick Cheney (R) and Joe Lieberman (D) exchanging jokes at the beginning of the 2000 vice presidential debate. Consequently, candidates’ relationship constitutes a hostile dyad where they increase the social distance (+D) between them when they treat each other with deference through negative politeness and off-record strategies, or diminish it (-D) using bald-on-record and positive politeness strategies either with a mitigating or an aggravating meaning. With regards to power, debaters are equals (=P) with certain peculiarities related to their individual political charges that vanish at a discursive level, where this relational term constantly changes to (+P) for the speaker and (-P) for the adversary according to the zero sum game nature of political debates (see below). Contenders’ power in debates is institutional and is instantiated in and through interaction adopting the shape of interactional power (cf. Mills, 2003), which, as previously indicated, is tantamount to ‘persuasive power’ (Van Dijk, 1997) in political discourse (Lakoff, 1990; Van Dijk, 1997).7 This

interactional/persuasive power generally takes the form of ‘expert power’ (Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Tannen, 1987; Thomas, 1995), that is, power consisting of individuals’ knowledge or expertise of a determinate type, and ‘legitimate power’ (Leichty & Applegate, 1991; Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Thomas, 1995) or the right of a
Van Dijk (1989, 2003) establishes that such power is not restricted to political discourse, and is interrelated with ideology along with discussing the micro and macro social structures in and through which it emerges and spreads.
7

72

Theoretical Background

person to influence another in terms of performing certain actions and activities by virtue of role, age or status in light of past findings.8 In contrast with the audience, but in the same fashion as the moderator, candidates’ interactional/persuasive power is power of an ‘official’ sort, i.e. institutionally expected by all debate interactants and ‘overt’ (Lakoff, 1989) or openly manifested. As recognised and evinced in the literature, topic control and floor holding are the canonical ways whereby politicians discursively enact their official interactional/persuasive power. However, this power has also an ‘unofficial’ side that lacks institutionality and is of a veiled nature. The ‘unofficialness’ of this power lies in the plethora of discursive means debaters deploy in an illicit manner for simultaneous local goals in order to persuade the audience,9 and its ‘covert’ condition is related to the idea already put forward in chapter three that the effectiveness of a persuasive discourse resides precisely in the concealment of its primary function: the satisfaction of the speaker’s wants, which translates into the distinct strategic function(s) of the elements constituting it (Atkinson, 1988; Schulze, 1987). Therefore, politicians instantiate their power throughout their discourses with the consequent increase of theirs vis-à-vis the opponent’s based on the zero sum game nature of debates. In spite of face mitigation characterising contenders’ interventions mainly targeted at audience members, the moderator, and the panelists (if present), and face aggravation shaping their communicative acts principally directed towards one another, impoliteness is also implicitly present in the former and politeness in
Leichty and Applegate’s (1991) notion of ‘legitimate power’ is even narrower, because it “only applies to certain specific acts and activities within a relationship” (475). 9 For instance, interventions of an interruptive sort (Adams, 1992; Agha, 1997; Blas-Arroyo, 1998b; Edelsky & Adams, 1990; Felderer, 1997), questions of different kinds (Beck, 1996; Bilmes, 2001), metacommunicative statements or any form of talk about the talk (Beck, 1996; Bilmes, 1999; Nir, 1988), backchannels (Saft, 1999), repetitions (Beck, 1996; Blas-Arroyo, 1999), etc.
8

73

Theoretical Background

the latter if we consider the trilogic condition of candidates’ discourses in debates. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, such condition entails that politicians attempt to persuade the audience at the same time that they argue against the opponent. In politeness terms this implicates that in that those interchanges where the audience is the primary addressee contestants perform a prominent face mitigating and persuasive action whilst indirectly attacking the rival; whereas in those exchanges in which the adversary is the major receiver, they carry out a main aggravating or attacking function coupled with a secondary mitigating one as regards the audience. To conclude, political campaign debates constitute polite and rude encounters with face mitigation usually compounding contestants’ more oratorical or monologic talk with the audience, the moderator, and the panelists (if included in the event), and face aggravation typically forming politicians’ more conversational or spontaneous interactions with each other. As suggested above, such aggravation or rudeness is commonly intended and strategic save for those interactional moments where debaters act out of self-restraint of their emotions, as it is frequently the case with studio audience members. Nevertheless, impoliteness is subsumed under the primary persuasive function of candidates’ discourses in debates; whose quintessential expression I propose it is face mitigation.

4.3. Relevance Theory and Politeness

Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) RT has been applied to the study of a wide range of linguistic elements and phenomena such as metaphor and metonymy
74

Theoretical Background

(Carston, 1996; Vicente-Cruz, 1991; 1993; 1996; Sung-Song, 1998), echoic utterances (Sperber & Wilson, 1990; Wilson, 1999, 2000b) including irony (Sperber & Wilson, 1990; Wilson & Sperber, 1992), rhetorical questions (Gutiérrez-Rexach, 1998), imperatives (Jary, 1998b), garden-path utterances (Merino, 2000), apposition markers or reformulations (Blakemore, 1993),10 and discourse connectives (Pons-Bordería, 2002b), among others. These elements and phenomena have regularly been examined in isolation from the conventional aspects — discursive, relational and socio-cultural — of the communicative context in which they are embedded. However, some researchers employing RT in their investigations of more specific and broader communicative matters have recently started to consider such aspects, e.g. Goatly’s (1994) work on metaphor in different genres, Yus’ (2000) study of irony in everyday communication, Curcó’s (1996) research on certain humorous utterances in ordinary conversation, Diez’s (2000) and Garcés-Conejos’ (2001) examination of garden-path utterances in advertising, Gómez-Morón’s (2001) depiction of daily impolite exchanges, Padilla-Cruz’s (2000) account of Old English and Middle English verb paradigm levelling in spontaneous interaction, Maruenda-Bataller’s (2002) investigation of reformulations in TV news interviews, Narbona-Reina’s (1998) piece on the functions of stress in these television events, Campbell’s (1992) work on rhetorical arguments, Bou-Franch’s (2001b, 2001c, 2002a) study of misunderstanding in a job-related exchange and the teaching of pragmatics in a second language (L2), and Garcés-Conejos and Bou-Franch’s (2004) account of listenership as regards L2 learning and teaching.

10

For a full critique of Blakemore’s (1993) piece see Culpeper (1994), and for a response see Blakemore (1994).

75

Theoretical Background

In keeping with some of these investigations (e.g. Bou-Franch, 2001b, 2001c, 2002a, Garcés-Conejos, 2001; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 2004), it is my contention that politeness perspectives like Brown and Levinson’s (1987) may be of some help in the consideration of the conventional dimension of communication in RT-oriented research, as long as, inter alia, politeness is entertained as socio-cultural knowledge on adequate and inadequate conduct in a determinate speech situation (cf. Bou-Franch, 2001c, 2002a, 2002b; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2003; Garcés-Conejos, 2001; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 2004). It has not been until recently that relevance theorists have begun to show interest in politeness phenomena, where these two distinct strands of research were deemed incompatible in the past (Escandell-Vidal, 1998a). Jucker’s (1988) work is the first attempt to examine politeness within an RT model. Following Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987), Jucker starts from the premise that Grice’s (1975) CP and Leech’s PP can be subsumed under Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) PR, and that content level assumptions, i.e. assumptions on propositional meaning, and relationship level assumptions (politeness

assumptions) are present in all communicative acts. Even though he affirms these assumptions constitute internal socio-cultural knowledge that varies across cultures, he does not illustrate such theoretical statements in his examples. Jucker seems to inherit this shortcoming from Leech’s, and Brown and Levinson’s perspectives, which have been extensively proved to neglect cross-cultural variation on methodological and analytical grounds (Escandell-Vidal, 1996). Other scholars such as Escandell-Vidal (1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2002) and Jary (1998a) outline more theoretical proposals of politeness from an RT approach during the 90’s. Escandell-Vidal argues that politeness amounts to knowing what
76

Theoretical Background

is socio-culturally appropriate as opposed to inappropriate in specific communicative encounters after a learning process in a determinate cultural system. Thus, politeness is based on a series of cognitive expectations on D, P, R, A (affect), etc. in a given speech situation. She also establishes that politeness is not always communicated in RT; rather only when S ostensively intended it and H recognises such communicative intention (Escandell-Vidal, 1998a). This contravenes sociological approaches to politeness, which conceive it as a conversational implicature of the Gricean sort, hence a communicated message. Jary, on the other hand, puts forward five communicative routes in his relevance theoretic perspective on politeness considering that politeness is only communicated and is relevant when S does not meet the hearer’s expectations because she has him in lower or higher regard than he had assumed.11 Albeit logical, to Escandell-Vidal (1998a) incompatibility of S’s and H’s expectations is not a sufficient criterion to determine that politeness is communicated within an RT framework, since an assumption is communicated in this model as long as it is mutually manifest to speaker and hearer that the former intended its communication. In addition, politeness can be relevant without necessarily being communicated, because according to Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995) an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that it has some cognitive effects in such context at H’s minimum processing cost. Although Jary implicitly conceptualizes politeness as discursive, relational, and socio-cultural knowledge

11

These instances correspond to routes (iv) and (v) in the case of S holding H in lower regard than he had expected, and routes (ii) and (iii) in the case of S holding H in higher regard than he had thought with a further distinction between H’s attribution of communicative intention to S (routes iv and ii), and non-attribution of intention (routes v and iii). Route (i) refers to occurrences where S and H entertain equal cognitive expectations, hence politeness is not communicated.

77

Theoretical Background

on what is adequate versus inadequate communicative behaviour, he does not pay enough attention to the discursive plane in his analysis. Among more applied relevance theoretic studies of politeness, I consider Carretero-Lapeire’s (1995/1996) work paramount. She centres on the epistemic meaning12 of English modals like ‘may’, ‘will’, and ‘must’ concluding that it is for politeness reasons that each of these verbs favours a determinate interpretation over others in certain daily interchanges, in particular, situations in which the addressee holds expert power over S (B-events), and vice versa, encounters where the speaker is the privileged knower (A-events). Contrary to Escandell-Vidal (1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2002), who is more fond of Fraser and Nolen’s (1981) and Fraser’s (1990) conceptualization of politeness regardless of adopting Brown and Levinson’s (1987) sociological variables, Carretero-Lapeire (1995/1996) and Jary (1998a) follow Brown and Levinson’s approach more closely. However, they also understand politeness as knowledge on appropriate and inappropriate

communicative conduct. It is mainly in presuming that the speaker’s and the hearer’s assumptions about their relationship have an influence in their communication with one another that I believe that Brown and Levinson’s perspective can be useful in the examination of politeness within an RT framework in consonance with Carretero-Lapeire, Jary, and other researchers (e.g. BouFranch, 2001c, 2002a; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2003; Bou-Franch & Maruenda-Bataller, 2001; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 2004). In spite of the fact that the afore discussed RT-based investigations of politeness somehow take conventional aspects of communication into account,
12

Epistemic meaning or modality refers to a state of affairs in a potential world, and differs from root modality in that it does not imply desirability.

78

Theoretical Background

include rudeness,13 and nicely merge politeness issues with RT, I would say that they do not sufficiently emphasize the reciprocal nature of politeness, as they mainly concentrate on the figure of the hearer.14 From my standpoint, the speaker’s ostensive process concerning politeness is equally significant as the hearer’s interpretive one, and can be explained in and through the relevance theoretic notion of ‘style’:

From the style of a communication it is possible to infer such things as what the speaker takes to be the hearer’s cognitive capacities and level of attention, how much help or guidance she is prepared to give him in processing her utterance, the degree of complicity between them, their emotional closeness or distance. In other words, a speaker not only aims to enlarge the mutual cognitive environment she shares with the hearer; she also assumes a certain degree of mutuality, which is indicated, and sometimes communicated, by her style. (Sperber & Wilson, 1995: 217-218).

By exploiting Sperber and Wilson’s view of style, thereby considering to the same degree discourse production and comprehension in the examination of politeness in a given socio-culturally bound communicative event, comparisons could be drawn across contexts, so that a better understanding of RT concepts and postulates could be gained, and doubts about, for instance, their real existence might be dissipated (cf. Mey & Talbot, 1988; Walker, 1989). Some investigations deploying RT cope with these indictments by contemplating S’s ostensive formulation of her discourse in looking at politeness

13

Albeit not constituting a relevance theoretic study of politeness per se, Mills’ (2002, 2003) work is worth noting in this regard. 14 The same criticism applies to sociological perspectives on politeness on the whole as for the figure of the speaker saved for some recent work that somewhat includes H in the picture (e.g. Locher, 2004; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003).

79

Theoretical Background

in determinate contexts by means of the dialogical dynamism which governs interaction. For example, Bou-Franch’s (2001c, 2002a) depiction of the communicative phenomenon of misunderstanding in the work setting already referred to, Bou-Franch and Maruenda-Bataller’s (2001) analysis of Larry King’s news interview programme, and Garcés-Conejos’ (2001) examination of advertising discourse, among others. The present project could be grouped with all these studies in that it aims to reduce the distance between politeness and cognitive issues invoking the latter mostly as a theoretical background in the specific speech situation of political campaign debates.

4.4. Political Debates as a Series of Metarepresentations: A Relevance Theoretic Approach

In order to theorise about political debates within a relevance theoretic model, I believe that the first step to take is to conceptualize these events as an organised set of metarepresentations comprising a ‘frame’ or ‘schema’. In this section, I thus regard political debates as structured specific knowledge accounting for what I believe that could be responsible for such knowledge activation with certain modifications as regards a relevance theoretic explanation. I first concentrate on candidates’ ostensive-inferential production/reception15 of their interventions by drawing on Sperber’s (1994a) types of understander and the RT notion of style dividing these interchanges into those primarily directed towards the audience (studio audience and viewers), where I include the moderator and the
15

Politicians not only ostensively formulate their interventions but simultaneously interpret them in their delivery (see chapter three, p. 24).

80

Theoretical Background

panelists in view of the notion of trilogue adopted in this study, and those in which the opponent is the prime receiver. Likewise, I tentatively theorise about these participants’ inferential processes according to the category of addressees they embody in political debates,16 and underscore the idea that they also produce ostensive stimuli debaters infer. At the same time, I argue that politicians’ ostensive-inferential processes involve genre metarepresentations that contain information about politeness in the form of knowledge on relationships, political discourse, and persuasion, all of which is shaped by assumptions on U.S. society and culture. As a frame compounded by socio-cultural knowledge acquired through a process of gradual learning in a determinate culture, the speech event of a political debate amounts to a series of ‘mental’ and ‘abstract’ metarepresentations (Sperber, 2000; Wilson, 1999, 2000b), namely, representations consisting of their logical, semantic and epistemic properties, and representations entailing thoughts respectively, that turn ‘public’ the moment they are communicated. Concerning what makes interlocutors in a debate activate this set of metarepresentations, Van Dijk (2004) points to relevance in the ordinary sense of the term to explain members of parliament’s activation of general and specific knowledge in British parliamentary debates. Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995) also refer to ‘relevance’ as the main mechanism explaining interactants’ schemata invocation along with elements of the physical setting, and paralinguistic devices that usually accompany communication such as intonation, gestures, etc. (Wilson, 2000b). Nonetheless,

16

This by no means entails that there are not individual idiosyncrasies as regards these interlocutors’ interpretive processes; however, they are not the priority hitherto.

81

Theoretical Background

relevance as entertained in RT goes beyond Van Dijk’s concept to refer to processing effort balanced against cognitive effects. Identifying and invoking the ‘right’ frame is not infallible, since as Levinson (1992) and Tannen (personal communication, November, 2000) among others establish interlocutors constantly shift speech situations, and such shifts can even ensue within the same communicative encounter.17 Inadequate frame activation is responsible for the emergence of ‘hitches’ (Levinson, 1992) or departures of the expected behaviour, and misunderstandings in communication. Most of the examples in my data regarding inappropriate frame activation are related to the audience’s behaviour as opposed to the moderator’s, the panelists’ and the politicians’. As for the latter, invoking the wrong frame is very unlikely not to say impossible, at least unintendedly, due to their continuous exploitation of the features and aspects of the communicative situation with the ultimate goal of achieving the audience’s persuasion, which reveals their correct frame activation. As cases of ‘accidental relevance’ and ‘accidental irrelevance’ (Wilson, 1999), that is, “when the first interpretation that seems relevant to the hearer is not the intended one”, and “when someone mistakenly tells you something you already know” (137), are interrelated with departures and misunderstandings as byproducts of inadequate frame invocation or context selection (cf. Bou-Franch, 2001c, 2002a), the studio audience is also more probable to experience these

17

This is not only problematic for conversational parties themselves, but also for the researcher, as s/he has to 1) convincingly demonstrate that interactants orient to the communicative situation in question, and 2) do this in a systematic way on analytical grounds. CA analysts view the solution to this problem in their conceptualization of relevance, whereby participants orient to the relevancies of the setting, and the setting is procedurally relevant or has especial consequences in their talk (Drew & Sorjonen, 1997; Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1991; Schegloff, 1992). However, Coupland and Jaworski (1997) deem this solution circular and reductionist on the pretext of scientific rigour.

82

Theoretical Background

communicative phenomena than contestants, and the rest of participants in a political debate. In the ostensive production of their discourses with its inferential concomitant during their delivery, candidates’ exploitation of the elements and characteristics of the speech event they are inserted within for persuasion is strategic, and has a somewhat ‘hidden’ condition. Considering the RT definition of communication, which addresses only ostensive-inferential communication, one could think that communication in political debates amounts to some sort of conveyed meaning or accidental transmission of information (cf. Wilson, 1993; Wilson & Sperber, 1993). Far from being so, the fact that politicians are commonly indirect and ambiguous (Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Werner, 1989) by no means implies that political talk in debates does not constitute ostensive communication; rather it is habitually ostensive

communication of the weak vis-à-vis the strong kind: “the communicator’s intention is to increase simultaneously the manifestness of a wide range of assumptions” unlike that of a concrete set (Sperber & Wilson, 1995: 59). Debaters want and need to be understood by the audience in order to attain its persuasion. Therefore, they ostensively communicate their views avoiding the obscurity covert communication normally brings about, and the risk of hearers not paying attention to them due to a condensed style (cf. Blakemore, 1993).18 On the other hand, politicians in debates cannot be too obvious either when communicating, because, besides the peril that the selfish interests underlying their persuasive interventions (see chapter three of the theoretical part of this project) come to the surface, audience members could feel that their intelligence is insulted
18

See Werner (1989) for a completely opposite view.

83

Theoretical Background

and/or they are being patronised (Atkinson, 1988; Levasseur & Dean, 1996). Thus, candidates’ best bid in these events is metarepresenting the audience as a ‘cautious optimist’ in lieu of a ‘sophisticated’ or ‘naïve’ receiver (Sperber, 1994a; Wilson, 1999, 2000a, 2000b), with whom they can afford to be obscure and overwhelmingly clear respectively.19 This is especially salient in those communicative acts where the audience is the main addressee. A cautious hearer infers S’s utterances in tune with what he thinks she thought it was optimally relevant to him (ibid.), thing which sufficiently guarantees contenders the audience’s comprehension of their arguments together with their reasoning process. This type of interpreter also corresponds to the ideal receiver with average understanding capabilities speakers aim at in institutional public mass communication (Bell, 1984, 1991; Duranti, 2001; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; Fetzer & Weizman, 2006). Nevertheless, fluctuations among these three cognitive categories of addressees may occur throughout the interaction, for example, when debaters target at a specific audience at a determinate moment. In regularly metarepresenting the audience as a cautious understander, politicians not only assess its communicative competence and level of attention, but also the relationship they hold with it, thus accessing assumptions on P, D, R, A, and other variables in order to choose and interpret what they believe that are the most optimally relevant stimuli for a cautious audience in the ostensive/inferential formulation/reception of their discourses. In spite of metarepresenting their relation with the audience in terms of great social distance (+D), maximum power (++P) on its part, and considerable power (+P) regarding

19

Sophisticated understanders correspond to the category of ‘detectors’ or ‘good comprehenders’ in cognitive-oriented models of text comprehension (cf., e.g. Sanjosé et al., 2006).

84

Theoretical Background

themselves, contenders actually exploit these metarepresentations turning them into little social distance (-D), and even greater audience’s power through the reduction of their own. They do this in order to establish a sufficiently strong and harmonious relational basis that enables them to perform their persuasive actions as stated above. At a cognitive level and according to J. Wilson’s (1990: 11) view of political discourse and persuasion, this is tantamount to “creat[ing] for the listener a controlled cognitive environment from which any interpretation is manipulated”.20 All this backs the idea that in metarepresenting the audience’s inferential resources, their relationship with it, political discourse and persuasion in ostension, politicians are creating and/or retrieving from memory highly accessible genre-based information, i.e. content and formal knowledge on the actions and activities a political debate typically invokes (cf. Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 2004). Moreover, all these metarepresentations in debaters’ ostensive/inferential production/reception of their interventions are socioculturally modelled, that is, they are influenced by and/or consist themselves of cultural metarepresentations or ‘reflective beliefs’ (Sperber, 1997) about U.S. society and culture. In their interpretive process, the audience tends to metarepresent candidates as sophisticated communicators given the potential violation of the Gricean Maxim of Quality that pervades political discourse in general, and the already mentioned suspiciousness or negative bias persuasive discourses frequently prompt in their receivers (Lakoff, 1990; Werner, 1989). Sophisticated speakers may intend an interpretation to seem relevant when it is not so, thus deceiving their hearers (Sperber, 1994a; Wilson, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). They are “competent […]
20

For a review of John Wilson’s (1990) work, see Gruber (1993).

85

Theoretical Background

speakers [who] use communication to pursue their own ends, which may correspond in some respects to the ends of their audience, and differ in others” (Sperber, 1994a: 9). Depending on how the audience metarepresents its relation with debaters, it is bound to react one way or another before their interventions. I believe that if the audience accepts the relational terms (-D, ++P (audience)/+P (politicians)) candidates establish, thereby coinciding with them in the interpretation of their relation, then it is more likely to produce positive responses constituting ostensive stimuli which influence politicians’ immediate exchanges, in such a way that a reaffirmation of their position on a given issue is normally to be expected. By contrast, if the audience rejects politicians’ relational terms, hence does not hold and/or adopt the same interpretation as theirs of their relation, it is probable that it utters negative responses amounting to ostensive stimuli whose influence in candidates’ immediate interventions is prone to be observed in some change in their argumentation.21 In both cases though, contestants interpret the audience’s positive or negative ostensive stimuli drawing on and/or creating genreguided metarepresentations on it, their relationship with it, persuasion, political discourse, society and culture. The moderator and the panelists also metarepresent debaters as sophisticated communicators, and, as the potential voters they are, thereby belonging to the participant category of ‘audience’ too, they may interpret their relations with the candidates as indicated in the preceding paragraph. Nonetheless, I would say that the moderator’s and the panelists’ metarepresentations of their respective relations with the politicians are usually based on the expectations of
21

Apart from inferring politicians’ discourses and formulating ostensive stimuli as a reaction to them, the audience also interprets these stimuli in the same manner as candidates interpret their own interventions while delivering them. The same applies to the moderator and the panelists below.

86

Theoretical Background

communicative and social conduct underlying their roles in debates more than their membership to the participant category of audience. Therefore, their reactions to contestants’ discourses are expected to be very distinct from audience members’. As a result, the moderator and the panelists are bound to interpret their relations with contestants in terms of (+D) and similar or somewhat (=P) in the first case, and (+D) and (+P) in the second case. These interpretations by and large coincide with candidates’ on their relationships with each of these two categories of addressees, and partially guide the latter’s initiative and reactive interactional moves towards the former. In this fashion, the moderator’s exchanges with contestants constitute ostensive stimuli in the form of statements or clarifications about the nature of the talk or its organisation, sanctions for some debate rule violation, etc., whilst the panelists’ are commonly reduced to a single intervention consisting of a question, unless debaters engage in a conversation with them. Politicians then infer such stimuli using their socio-culturally genre-oriented knowledge, and act accordingly trying to meet their interests and achieve their goals. Debaters also interpret each other’s communicative competence and level of attention as well as their relation in the ostensive/inferential

formulation/reception of their interchanges, this being particularly noticeable in those communicative acts where the counter candidate is the primary receiver. Contenders generally metarepresent one another as sophisticated

communicators/understanders from the belief that a candidate may not be truthful and his/her utterances are inappropriate, as they do not give evidence of his/her real meaning, based on the assumption that all politicians are familiar with the conventions of political discourse, and exploit them consistently to discuss topics
87

Theoretical Background

in a way that facilitates the attainment of their goals (cf. Werner, 1989). Thus, they attribute one another what Jaworski and Galasiński (2000b: 325) refer to as ‘political competence’: “knowledge […] which allows them to deploy appropriate strategies of argumentation, reasoning, and inferencing in […] debates”, and the exploitation of such knowledge to produce utterances, where they do not give full evidence of what they really mean in order to use them to their own advantage. Candidates make explicit such attributions in their discourses, sometimes even being as explicit as to accuse each other of lying. In addition to metarepresenting their comprehension and communicative resources and abilities, they also interpret their relationship in these events as an antagonistic one of little or considerable social distance (+/-D), depending on whether they are more or less close or distant colleagues belonging to the same or different political party respectively, and equal power (=P) between them. However, similarly to their relation with the audience, debaters exploit this interpretation of their social bond with the rival turning it into one of small or great social distance (+/-D), and more power (+P) on their part for strategic reasons ultimately related to the persuasion of the audience. This ‘new’ interpretation is based on the competition these contexts and the electoral race in which they take place entail.22 In the ostensive/inferential production/reception of their exchanges principally targeted at the adversary, candidates avail themselves of socio-culturally shaped genre-based

metarepresentations of debates, among which interpretations of these events as zero sum games are expected to be fairly salient in tune with the contest that characterises their relation. They are also likely to access and/or create

22

As pointed out above, some contestants in debates know each other for a long time, and are colleagues or friends. Notwithstanding this, debaters’ metarepresentation of their relation as an antagonistic bond predominates in their interventions.

88

Theoretical Background

metarepresentations about the opponent that might benefit them in terms of achieving political advantage over him/her without hurting their own public image, if these were communicated. All this explains why the dynamics of attack/defence or defence/attack defines contestants’ discourses (Galasiński, 1998), and the word ‘metarepresentation’ in its sense of interpretation of others’ mental states, and anticipation of their behaviour is crucial in debates. Interpreting and anticipating what the arguments of the counter candidate are going to be is an asset in political discourse and persuasion.23 In his/her inferential process, apart from metarepresenting S as a sophisticated communicator/understander, and their relation as a hostile one, the adversary (the hearer) also employs other metarepresentations on the speaker, the speech event of a political debate, political discourse, persuasion, and U.S. society and culture s/he combines with the incoming information S is supplying to make sense of the latter’s message. Such combination of information ensues in what Sperber and Wilson (1987: 703) call the ‘initial context’, namely, “the assumptions used or derived in the last deduction performed”, which undergoes several extensions corresponding to the use of and/or creation of all these distinct metarepresentations until relevance is reached. In keeping with Yus (2000), all these metarepresentations come from (if retrieved from memory) or become themselves part of (if created by H) the following: the contextual sources of ‘linguistic cues’ or the context the utterance itself entails, the ‘co-text’,24 ‘shared assumptions’ before entering the conversation, the ‘relational context’ between S

In the interpersonal relationships field within communication studies investigations taking the perspective of Personal Construct Theory (see footnote 9, p. 8) already establish a strong link between persuasion and anticipation, e.g. Duck and Condra (1990). 24 I borrow this term from Brown and Yule (1983) to allude to the discourse preceding a determinate linguistic utterance.

23

89

Theoretical Background

and H, the ‘perceptual context’ involving them (e.g. S’s gestures), the ‘physical setting’, and the ‘encyclopaedic’ context. All the aforementioned debate interlocutors experience such context extensions in their processes of ostension and inference in communication. Once the opponent has completed his/her interpretive process, his/her reactions to S manifest themselves in a myriad of ostensive stimuli ranging from engaging in an every time more heated argument to total ignorance of S’s damaging words (Benoit & Wells, 1996; Fernández-García, 2000; Galasiński, 1998; Martel, 1983). Even though I have depicted politicians’ ostensive/inferential

formulation/reception of their discourses establishing a distinction between a) those in which metarepresentations on the audience are more prominent, and b) those where interpretations about the counter candidate are outstanding, according to the notion of trilogue advocated in this study, metarepresentations on these two categories of interactants are present in all debaters’ interventions. In this way, the double polite nature of candidates’ discourses in debates accounted for above also appears justified in cognitive terms. These metarepresentations together with the plethora of interpretations involved in candidates’ processes of ostension and inference could be condensed into ‘content level’, and ‘relationship level’ or ‘politeness’ assumptions on the whole (Carretero-Lapeire, 1995/1996; Jucker, 1988). As previously mentioned, content level assumptions are assumptions on propositional meaning, and relationship level or politeness assumptions allude to the social bond between S and H, hence are evocative of the ideational or referencial and relational levels of communication correspondingly (cf. Dufon, 1993; Kerbrat-Oreccioni, 1997; Lakoff, 1973; Scollon & Scollon, 1995). Thus, both content level, and relationship level or politeness assumptions could be said
90

Theoretical Background

to be involved in contestants’ interchanges either if the audience or the rival is the main addressee.

4.5. Conclusions

In this chapter I have first argued for the study of rudeness in general, and in political debates in particular, taking Brown and Levinson’s (1987) PT as a starting point along with calling for a more in depth examination of the phenomenon of persuasion in these encounters. Then I have portrayed the speech event of debates as a complex relational dynamics defined in terms of face mitigation and aggravation. A claim for the consideration of the conventional aspects of communication in RT-based research has followed, pointing out the usefulness of Brown and Levinson’s approach in this regard insofar as politeness is seen as socio-cultural knowledge on adequate versus inadequate conduct in a determinate communicative situation. I have also critically reviewed RT perspectives on politeness to then depict debates as a series of metarepresentations debate participants entertain and/or create about one another, their respective relationships, political discourse, persuasion, the event of a political debate, and U.S. society and culture.

91

II. METHODS

Methods

1. PRELIMINARIES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This chapter is the first of three constituting the methods part of this dissertation, in which I formulate the research questions guiding this study, and discuss methodological details ranging from the depiction and justification of the methodological procedures I follow as for the collection and preparation of the data, to the micro and macro analyses carried out. In this chapter I briefly comment on the U.S. political campaign debate vis-à-vis debates in other nations to account for its uniqueness as a culture-specific type of communicative situation. Such account intends to be a clarifying preamble to the description of the debates compounding the corpus of this project offered in the next two chapters of this thesis. Then, I proceed to posit the research questions leading this investigation, not without providing first an explanation and justification for their formulation.

1.1. The U.S. Political Campaign Debate: A Culture-Bound Event

In contrast with other countries, the U.S. has a long tradition of political campaign debates (Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c; 1999; 2003; FernándezGarcía, 2000). Some of the most outstanding features of these debates as culturebound kinds of communicative exchanges refer, among other things, to a) their significant variety in the formats they adopt and the topics object of discussion, b) their high degree of institutionalization, and c) the somewhat more ‘flexible’ laws and regulations underlying them than those governing debates in nations like
92

Methods

Israel, Spain, and Poland, to name a few (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003; Caspi, 1986; Cohen, 1976; Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Nir, 1988). The uniqueness of U.S. political debates as culture-specific events also resides in their location and characterization within the electoral race they belong to, since these features are revealing of certain culturally determined values constitutive of the socio-cultural system in general, and the political system in particular, in which such race and its debates in question ensue. For example, as opposed to senatorial and gubernatorial races, debates in the presidential campaign constitute caucus, primary, and presidential and vice presidential events. Caucus debates correspond to those encounters celebrated right at the beginning of the presidential election, viz, almost a year before its completion during the caucus period of the campaign, which consists of a primary election where selection of delegates for the National Conventions is done in an indirect way versus the direct ballot system (Berg-Andersson, 2004). Primary debates follow, consisting of encounters taking place after the caucus stage of the campaign and spreading up to the results of the primary presidential elections around the month of March of the corresponding electoral year. In these elections only one candidate of each political party participating in the campaign is chosen in the ballot to continue in the road to the White House. Such decision culminates in the campaign event of the National Nomination Conventions. From this point in the election onwards there are no more debates except for the months of September and October where presidential and vice presidential debates occur. Only three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate are usually celebrated during these months. As I explain later on, the debates selected for analysis in this investigation consist only
93

Methods

of primary debates, and presidential and vice presidential debates of the 2000 presidential campaign complemented with some debates of the senatorial and gubernatorial races of the same year.

1.2. Research Questions

In the previous chapter I have depicted political debates as face mitigating and aggravating encounters on theoretical grounds based on politeness-oriented research on these events including my own. In view of this and the results of a distributional analysis of politeness strategies I performed elsewhere, whereby these strategies were found to accomplish a primary face mitigating or aggravating function in and throughout specific stretches of talk (see pp. 129ff. for a detailed account), taking the concept of ‘pragmatic sequence’ as the macro unit of analysis in this project (see p. 119ff.), two major types of conversational sequences with the main functions of face mitigation on the one hand, and face aggravation on the other hand, can be said to define candidates’ discourses in debates. Nonetheless, a secondary and implicit face aggravating action in the former, and face mitigating effect in the latter are expected to always be present according to the trilogic and ‘double polite’ character of debaters’ talk. In addition to the trilogic and double polite nature of candidates’ interventions, the audience’s reactions to these, in which the moderator’s and the panelists’ (if present) are included as established in the notion of trilogue embraced in this project (pp. 45ff.), have also been contemplated as an element contributing to define such sequences in light of the dialogical view of communication advocated in this study and all the claims raised
94

Methods

on the importance of the audience in debates in general, and in shaping politicians’ immediate speech in particular, thus partaking also in the phenomenon of persuasion. The majority of debate investigations on politeness and/or rudeness do not go beyond the level of politeness and/or rude strategies à la Brown and Levinson (1987) in their analyses with the exception of Galasiński’s (1998) examination of mitigation in Polish presidential debates, and Blas-Arroyo’s (2001) study of impoliteness in Spanish electoral debates. These studies take a discursive stance on politeness and/or rudeness in these events through the identification of mitigating categories aimed at licensing rule violations in the former, and a content-based classification of rude strategies to principally hurt the adversary in the latter. Nevertheless, I would say that these investigations do not delve into the persuasive dimension of debaters’ discourses. I believe that more research into 1) the general characteristics underlying mitigating and aggravating interventions, and 2) the forms these interventions may adopt, if any, giving place to patterns evincing distinct types of mitigating and aggravating interchanges in political debates, can provide a better picture of politeness, impoliteness, and their dynamics in these events. Additionally, it could shed more light into the functioning of persuasion in these speech encounters in light of the interrelation of this phenomenon with politeness issues in such contexts. By extension, more insight can be gained into the condition of communication and the way it operates in determinate speech situations. For all these reasons the following research questions have been formulated:

95

Methods

Research Question 1: What are the general features of conversational sequences with a primary face mitigating function in the context of U.S. political campaign debates, for example, in terms of the kind of face mitigation prevailing in these sequences, elements that may significantly recur within them if any, and their location in the ongoing discourse of debates as a whole?

In view of the above, two other research questions have been derived from Research Question 1 (RQ 1):

1.1.

Do these face mitigating sequences adopt any specific forms, so that patterns revealing distinct sequence types emerge?

1.2.

If so, which are these forms, and what are their particular features?

Research Question 2: What are the general features of conversational sequences with a primary face aggravating function in the context of U.S. political campaign debates, for example, in terms of the kind of face aggravation prevailing in these sequences, elements that may significantly recur within them if any, and their location in the ongoing discourse of debates as a whole?

96

Methods

In the same fashion as with RQ 1, the following research questions ensue from Research Question 2 (RQ 2):

2.1.

Do these face aggravating sequences adopt any specific forms, so that patterns revealing distinct sequence types emerge?

2.2.

If so, which are these forms, and what are their particular features?

Therefore, the assumption underlying all these RQs is that patterns in the form of sequences whose principal function is face mitigation or face aggravation are constitutive of politicians’ discourses in debates, and that these two main sequence categories are amenable to be identified as such in light of a series of particular characteristics that define them besides their function in terms of face. As for their primary face mitigating or aggravating function, a distinction between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ face mitigation in the former, and ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ face aggravation in the latter has been drawn along the lines of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) two-fold division for strategies entailing redress. Consequently, the types of face mitigating and face aggravating sequences that are to be expected regarding RQs 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 are positive and negative face mitigating and face aggravating sequences. Notwithstanding this, patterns not so much related to positive or negative face orientation but other face-related matters that cannot be foreseen thus far may emerge. Concerning the kind of face mitigation and face aggravation that may be prevailing in face mitigating sequences on the one hand, and face aggravating

97

Methods

sequences on the other hand, in RQs 1 and 2, the same distinction between positive and negative face orientation has been applied.

1.3. Conclusions

In the present chapter I have first provided a short depiction of U.S. political campaign debates as culturally-bound communicative situations, so that their uniqueness is underscored, and an introduction to the corpus of this project which is thoroughly described in the following chapter, is offered. Then, I have put forward the research questions guiding this investigation, and I have substantiated their formulation by building an argument for the need of more research into face mitigation and aggravation in debates. Further research into these issues therein might get us to a better understanding of politeness, impoliteness, their dynamics, and persuasion in these events, hence communication and its functioning in specific communicative situations. Finally, I have clarified these research questions establishing the two-fold category distinction of positive and negative face orientation within the notions of face mitigation and aggravation as in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework.

98

Methods

2. PROCEDURES

In this chapter I concentrate on the methodological procedures followed for the realization of this project, more specifically, the selection of the corpus, the process of data collection, the organisation of the corpus, and its preparation for analysis. First, I offer an explanation and certain justifications regarding the corpus selection and the process of data collection, at the same time that I outline the distinct types of data gathered, and depict the different stages of such process and the problems that emerged throughout them. Then I also describe the organisation of the corpus according to what I believe are important classifying and clarifying criteria for the purposes of this study. Lastly, I deal with its preparation for analysis by giving details about the transcription symbols employed to this end.

2.1. Selection of the Corpus and Data Collection

In order to find an answer to the afore stated research questions, U.S. political campaign debates were selected as the corpus of this investigation with especial attention to those debates celebrated during the 2000 elections. As previously mentioned, among the different manifestations of political discourse, I believe political debates are rich contexts greatly suitable for the exploration of politeness and cognitive issues given their complexity at communicative, relational, and socio-cultural levels. The majority of these debates were tape-

99

Methods

recorded from different U.S. television channels such as C-Span, C-Span 2, and CNN, while others were downloaded from the internet and one was attended live. In addition to the debates, other kinds of data that I address in the paragraphs below were also gathered with the aim of obtaining background information facilitating discourse interpretation in these events. Two different stages or phases can be distinguished in the process of data collection: ‘Phase 1’ or the ‘Spain phase’ corresponding to a period of time between October 1999 and June 2000, in which only three debates of the presidential campaign were recorded due to deficient information on these events’ airing channels and times. Lack of familiarity with U.S. television and physical absence from the country are the reasons why such a small number of debates were compiled. Nevertheless, general information on the 2000 elections from Spanish television and U.S. local, national, and international press compensated for this shortage. Information from Spanish TV consists of notes made out of news programmes in TV 1, TV 2, Tele 5, and Canal 9, resembling what in ethnographic research is known as ‘jottings’ or brief written records produced in situ (Emerson et al., 1995), and data from the U.S. press includes newspaper reports, and electronic and non-electronic-based news from newspapers like ‘The International Herald Tribune’, ‘The New York Times’, ‘The Washington Post’, ‘The San Francisco Chronicle’, ‘The Atlanta Journal’, and ‘The Sacramento Bee’. Furthermore, two ‘unstructured’ or ‘ethnographic’ interviews (Fontana & Frey, 1994; Mishler, 1986; Lindof, 1995) with two U.S. citizens on the presidential election were conducted in June.

100

Methods

‘Phase 2’ or the ‘Washington phase’ goes from September to November 2000, and it is during this period of time that all the political debates constituting the principal data of this project were collected, and one of them was attended live, more specifically, a senatorial debate held on the 25th of September, 2000 at the University of Georgetown in Washington D.C. Other types of data were also gathered throughout this phase: 1) interview programmes and shows like ‘Larry King Live’, ‘Oprah Winfrey’, ‘Jay Leno Show’, ‘Late Show Letterman’, and ‘Saturday Night Live’ among others, recorded from CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC channels, in which political figures participating in the 2000 presidential election and other important campaigns in different states of the nation were interviewed, and/or opinions about them and related events were uttered; 2) extracts from TV news and political programmes such as ‘The Washington Journal News’, ‘Newshour with Jim Lehrer’, ‘Meet the Press’, ‘Frontline’, ‘Crossfire’, ‘Inside Politics’, ‘Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields’, ‘Both Sides’, and ‘Capital Gang’ from C-Span, PBS, and CNN, where well-known journalists and political pundits discussed anything involving the current political atmosphere; 3) television commercials or so-called ‘negative ads’ in political communication designed by political parties to hurt the opposition along with general and specific information on the elections from U.S. television and the press, e.g. its media coverage, some debates of the presidential and non-presidential races, political parties’ meetings and rallies, election night, etc. The press data in this

101

Methods

phase is based on news reports from ‘The Washington Post’ collected on a daily basis; and 4) miscellaneous information comprising notes from the course ‘Presidential Electoral Politics’ taught by Professor S. J. Wayne in the winter term 2000 at Georgetown University, observations from the PBS programme ‘Debating Our Destiny: 40 Years of Presidential Debates’, the Mike Nichols film ‘Primary Colors’ on a politician campaigning for the presidential office in the U.S.A., and annotations made out of spontaneous conversations and unstructured or ethnographic interviews with several U.S. citizens on some debates, and the presidential and non-presidential races. These conversations and interviews principally included open ended questions in order to “allow respondents to answer in their own frames of reference” (Sheatsley, 1983: 206), thereby avoiding any interviewer’s bias. The problems that emerged during this data collection phase of the study were not related to deficient information regarding debates’ broadcast times and channels, as I had access to the ‘TV Newsweek’ magazine enclosed in ‘The Washington Post’ newspaper where all the week programming was detailed; rather they referred to recording problems because of lack of familiarity with the video tape-recorder used, and insufficient amount of tape, so that a few debates were missed, and others are incomplete. Finally, the approach to the collection of the media-based data in this study is a ‘receiver-oriented’ versus a ‘sender-oriented’ approach, that is, a perspective that focuses on the receiver and his/her perception of the media and its language instead of issues of production and broadcasting (Bell, 1991). Thus, the potential
102

Methods

bias inherent in the production and airing of these data by the distinct U.S. television channels addressed above becomes irrelevant. A somewhat ethnographic perspective1 has also been adopted in this research in general, and the process of data collection for it in particular, by performing the three main tasks involved in ethnographic enquiry (Fitch, 1994b): 1) participant observation, more specifically, what Spradley (1980: 79) refers to as ‘mini-tour observations’, viz, observations on a small unit of experience tantamount to the 2000 U.S. elections in this investigation, 2) selection of specific communicative practices within the observational record, which in this study correspond to the political debates embedded within the 2000 campaign, and 3) reflection or development of a coherent representation of communal meanings according to the ethnographer’s conclusions and the information s/he has obtained from community members consisting here of the articulate rendering of the elections and the debates within them established in and through the discussion of the extracts selected for analysis in the Results and Discussion part of this dissertation. Such rendering is based on an integrated view between my observations and conclusions, and the insights provided by the U.S. citizens interviewed.

2.2. Description of the Corpus and Organisation

The corpus constituting the basis of this research comprises a total of 89 U.S. political campaign debates, out of which 13 are part of the 2000 presidential
1

For a comprehensive picture of the Hymes’ (1962, 1964, 1972) ethnographic tradition, i.e. its axioms, and research agenda see Philipsen (1989). For a fuller philosophical and developmental treatment see Stewart and Philipsen (1984), and for recent issues and debates within the discipline see Fitch and Philipsen (1995).

103

Methods

election (6 primary presidential debates, 3 presidential debates, 1 vice presidential debate, 2 third party presidential debates, and 1 third party vice presidential debate),2 34 are senatorial debates, 17 are gubernatorial debates, and 6 are House debates of the 2000 senatorial, gubernatorial, and House races respectively taking place in the different states of the country. There is also 1 senatorial debate on defence policy which does not belong to any particular state race and was attended live by the researcher as specified above. The corpus also contains 18 debates of other national U.S. elections, out of which 1 is an archival gubernatorial debate, 13 are presidential and vice presidential debates of past U.S. elections, and 4 correspond to the 2004 vice presidential and presidential debates. All these 89 debates add up to a total of approximately 92 hours and 33 minutes of naturally occurring interaction with presidential and vice presidential debates lasting for 90 minutes, and primary, senatorial, gubernatorial, and House debates lasting for 60 minutes except for two House debates in the corpus, namely, the California and Wisconsin House debates (see list below), that are 20 minutes and 30 minutes long respectively. In this total amount of time, 6 hours and 30 minutes of talk missing from those debates that are incomplete due to recording problems have already been subtracted. Besides political race or campaign, which is determined by the political office candidates compete for, and election year, other criteria that describe the corpus of this study and have been taken into account in its organization are debate formats, the participation of third party candidates, and politicians’ gender. The consideration of these three variables responds to their potential relevance as

Vice presidential debates are included here, since politicians running for president choose their running mates for the vice presidential office, whom they campaign with.

2

104

Methods

regards the results of the research. Thus, open coding of debates along these lines was performed noting also other features related to the inclusion or absence of a panel in the event, the overall behaviour of the audience, any especial or extraordinary incident emerging throughout these communicative encounters, and gender as regards the panel and the moderator in spite of focusing on debaters’. The general record obtained from such coding and the broad description of the corpus according to political race and election year just offered are summed up in Table 1:

Table 1. Broad Corpus Description and General Record.
Gender
Male Female

Format
Mixed Traditional Talkshow Town Meeting Hybrid

Third Party Candidates

2000 Presidential Election Debates
Primary Presidential and Vice Presidential Third Party

6 4 3 25 10 4 1 1 8 7 1

2 2 2 17 10 3

1 1 1

3

1 5 1 2 1 10 5 3 1 8 2 1

2000 Senatorial Debates 2000 Gubernatorial Debates 2000 House Debates 2000 Non-Race Debates Other U.S. Election Debates
Presidential and Vice Presidential Gubernatorial

16

1 1

13

1

2

1 1

3

105

Methods

Regarding the general record of the corpus specified in the table above, some remarks that need to be made refer to a) the fact that third party presidential and vice presidential debates of the 2000 presidential campaign were not counted in relation to the category of ‘presence of third party candidates’, as these are debates where only third party politicians take part and major party contestants are excluded, b) the tendency for debate formats to appear combined giving place to hybrid categories in the data, out of which the combination of the traditional podium-based format and the town meeting format was the most frequent, and c) the double coding of debates including third party candidates as ‘male’, ‘female’ or ‘mixed’ in the gender grid given the nominal scale ensuing between both variables, that is, a scale where the cases being measured are categorised into classes with no quantitative relationships, ranking or ordering among them (Andrews et al., 1981; Hatch & Farhady, 1982; Scholfield, 1995). Because of the incommensurability of the corpus analytically speaking, a division between a ‘corpus of analysis’ (Corpus A), and a ‘corpus of reference’ (Corpus B) was established (cf. Gregori-Signes, 1998, 2000a). The corpus of analysis is based on 16 debates (20 hours of ongoing talk) entailing all the debates celebrated as part of the 2000 presidential election except for the third party presidential and vice presidential debates, and 6 senatorial, and gubernatorial debates (3 of each political race). The reasons behind this choice are that a) the presidential office is the most important office for which politicians contend in electoral processes, b) the third party presidential and vice presidential debates do not include major political party candidates in such a way that an interaction between Democrats, Republicans and third party politicians is absent, thereby giving the impression that these debates belong to a different race from that of the
106

Methods

presidency, and c) senatorial and gubernatorial debates are more popular at a national level than House debates which are more local and less amenable to be understood in terms of the information debaters discuss. Furthermore, in comparison with debates taking place in past U.S. elections, all these 2000 debates are fairly recent and more probable to still remain unexplored. Thus, Corpus A comprises the following debates chronologically ordered3 within the distinct political races of which they are part:

2000 U.S. Presidential Election Debates
1/8/00 1/26/00 2/15/00 2/21/00 3/1/00 3/2/00 10/3/00 10/5/00 10/11/00 10/17/00 Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Des Moines, IA. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Manchester, NH. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Columbia, SC. Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, New York City, NY. Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Los Angeles, CA. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Los Angeles, CA. Presidential Debate, Boston, MA. Vice Presidential Debate, Danville, KY. Presidential Debate, Winston-Salem, NC. Presidential Debate, St. Louis, MO.

2000 U.S. Senatorial Debates
9/13/00 9/24/00 10/18/00 New York Senatorial Debate, Buffalo, NY. Virginia Senatorial Debate, Richmond, VA. Minnesota Senatorial Debate, Minneapolis, MN.

2000 U.S. Gubernatorial Debates
9/22/00 9/25/00
3

Indiana Gubernatorial Debate, Indianapolis, IN. Missouri Gubernatorial Debate, Cape Girardeau, MO.

Such order is based on an Anglo-American date system whereby the month precedes the day number. Debates celebrated on the same day have been arranged in alphabetical order.

107

Methods

10/26/00

New Hampshire Gubernatorial Debate, Manchester, NH.

The selection of the above listed debates as opposed to others has also been established with the aim of obtaining a sufficiently representative sample of the distinct debates compounding the corpus of this investigation in terms of the three variables of debate formats, third party candidates’ presence, and gender previously mentioned. Therefore, these debates exhibit almost all the different formats identified for these events, 2 of them include third party politicians, and 2 are mixed-gender encounters with the four of them belonging to the senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns. According to Miles and Huberman (1984), dealing with a large enough variety of actors, settings, processes, etc. within the small chunk of universe under study in qualitative research enables the investigator to compare and contrast information helping him/her to better understand such universe, and make generalizations about it more confidently. Corpus B is compounded by the rest of the political debates compiled which include the 2000 third party presidential and vice presidential debates, the remaining 2000 senatorial and gubernatorial debates, the only non-race debate of the corpus, the 2000 House debates, and all the debates of other U.S. elections collected. Although a few of these events are somewhat incomplete due to recording problems, they have also been considered:

2000 U.S. Presidential Election Debates
9/28/00 10/20/00 Third Party Presidential Debate, St. Paul, MN. Third Party Presidential Debate, Alexandria, VA.

108

Methods 11/3/00 Third Party Vice Presidential Debate, Washington, D. C.

2000 U.S. Senatorial Debates
9/25/00 9/29/00 9/29/00 9/30/00 10/7/00 10/8/00 10/8/00 10/10/00 10/12/00 10/12/00 10/15/00 10/15/00 10/15/00 10/15/00 10/20/00 10/20/00 10/21/00 10/22/00 10/22/00 10/22/00 10/22/00 10/23/00 10/24/00 10/26/00 10/27/00 10/27/00 10/30/00 10/31/00 11/1/00 11/3/00 11/3/00 Virginia Senatorial Debate, Vienna, VA. Indiana Senatorial Debate, Evansville, IN. Wisconsin Senatorial Debate, Wausau, WI. Pennsylvania Senatorial Debate, Philadelphia, PA. Montana Senatorial Debate, Billings, MT. New Jersey Senatorial Debate, Edison, NJ. New York Senatorial Debate, New York City, NY. Nevada Senatorial Debate, Las Vegas, NV. Montana Senatorial Debate, Missoula, MT. New Jersey Senatorial Debate, Trenton, NJ. Delaware Senatorial Debate, Wilmington, DE. Georgia Senatorial Debate, Atlanta, GA. Missouri Senatorial Debate, Kansas City, MO. Nevada Senatorial Debate, Las Vegas, NV. New Jersey Senatorial Debate, Ewing, NJ. Utah Senatorial Debate, Salt Lake City, UT. Montana Senatorial Debate, Billings, MT. Indiana Senatorial Debate, Elkhart, IN. Michigan Senatorial Debate, Grand Rapids, MI. Virginia Senatorial Debate, Richmond, VA. Wyoming Senatorial Debate, Riverton, WY. Florida Senatorial Debate, Tampa, FL. California Senatorial Debate, Santa Monica, CA. Minnesota Senatorial Debate, Hopkins, MN. California Senatorial Debate, San Francisco, CA. Florida Senatorial Debate, Orlando, FL. Washington Senatorial Debate, Seattle, WA. Ohio Senatorial Debate, Columbus, OH. Rhode Island Senatorial Debate, Warwick, RI. Minnesota Senatorial Debate, MN. Ohio Senatorial Debate, Cleveland, OH.

2000 U.S. Gubernatorial Debates

109

Methods 9/24/00 9/28/00 10/1/00 10/2/00 10/10/00 10/11/00 10/12/00 10/12/00 10/15/00 10/15/00 10/19/00 10/23/00 10/23/00 10/31/00 Vermont Gubernatorial Debate, Rutland, VT. Washington Gubernatorial Debate, Blaine, WA. Utah Gubernatorial Debate, Salt Lake City, UT. New Hampshire Gubernatorial Debate, Derry, NH. Indiana Gubernatorial Debate, Fort Wayne, IN. Washington Gubernatorial Debate, Seattle, WA. Montana Gubernatorial Debate, Helena, MT. Utah Gubernatorial Debate, Salt Lake City, UT. Missouri Gubernatorial Debate, Springfield, MO. Montana Gubernatorial Debate, Helena, MT. Utah Gubernatorial Debate, Salt Lake City, UT. Delaware Gubernatorial Debate, Georgetown, DE. Washington Gubernatorial Debate, Seattle, WA. New Hampshire Gubernatorial Debate, Durham, NH.

2000 U.S. House Debates
10/20/00 10/21/00 10/21/00 10/23/00 10/29/00 10/31/00 Kentucky House Debate 3rd District, Lexington, KY. Illinois House Debate 17th District, Quincy, IL. Wisconsin House Debate 2nd District, Madison, WI. California House Debate 20th District, Bakersfield, CA. Georgia House Debate 7th District, Atlanta, GA. Rhode Island House Debate 1st District, Pawtucket, RI.

2000 Non-Race Debates
9/25/00 Senatorial Debate on Defence Policy, Washington, D. C.

Other U.S. Election Debates
9/26/60 10/21/60 10/6/76 10/28/80 10/7/84 10/21/84 10/11/84 10/13/88 Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate, Chicago, IL. Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate, New York City, NY. Ford-Carter Presidential Debate, San Francisco, CA. Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH. Reagan-Mondale Presidential Debate, Louisville, KY. Reagan-Mondale Presidential Debate, Kansas City, MO. Bush-Ferraro Vice Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA. Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debate, Los Angeles, CA.

110

Methods 10/5/88 10/15/92 10/19/92 10/13/92 10/21/94 10/6/96 9/30/04 10/5 /04 10/8/04 10/13/04 Bentsen-Quayle Vice Presidential Debate, Omaha, NE. Bush-Clinton-Perot Presidential Debate, Richmond, VA. Bush-Clinton-Perot Presidential Debate, East Lansing, MI. Quayle-Gore-Stockdale Vice Presidential Debate, Atlanta, GA. Bush-Richards Gubernatorial Debate, Dallas, TX. Clinton-Dole Presidential Debate, Hartford, CT. Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate, Coral Gables, FL. Cheney-Edwards Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH. Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate, St. Louis, MO. Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate, Tempe, AZ.

2.3. Transcription Conventions

Corpus A in this project has been transcribed following some of Jefferson’s transcription notations (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984) with certain alterations and additions though that attempt to 1) adapt the transcript to the research goals of this study somehow reflected in and through the research questions formulated in the previous chapter, so that the mode of transcription implemented is sensitive to the theoretical position underlying this investigation (see Mishler, 1986), and 2) attain as much clarity as possible, thus abiding by one of the main general group of principles of discourse transcription, i.e. principles of readability (Edwards, 1993), whereby the transcript should be easy to read and understand enabling the researcher to extract information straightforwardly and raise specific claims about the data while facilitating readers comprehension of such claims. The transcription symbols modified include the following: a) the notation indicating the stretching of a vowel or consonant sound which Jefferson marks by means of colons (u::m), has been changed for the repetition
111

Methods

of the vowel or consonant in question with the number of vowels or consonants appearing proportionate to the extension of the sound; b) the convention signalling laughter (hhhh) also deployed to point out audible aspirations and inspirations has been substituted here by metacommunicative statements in parentheses: (laughing); c) the symbol designating applause (XXXXXxxxx) with lower- and uppercase letters for louder or quieter applause respectively, has been replaced with the expression ‘applause’ in italics and within parentheses normally accompanied by a number pointing to its duration in terms of tenths of seconds, e.g. (3.5 applause), in the same fashion as with intervals emerging in the stream of talk. The transcription conventions added to Jefferson’s consist of a) the deployment of italics in any kind of individual or collective reactions from the audience indicated within parentheses and generally with a number specifying their duration if lengthy enough, so that they are immediately spotted in the transcript; b) the word ‘unintelligible’ in parentheses in those cases where the content of the interaction could not be understood, and c) the use of single quotation marks (‘The New York Times’) to signal Latin or foreign words, direct quotations, and occasionally, proper nouns of things and places. The following is a list of the transcription conventions constituting the final transcription system employed in this study with all these observations:

112

Methods

Transcription Conventions
(1.5) (.) I [do I do] xxx= =yyy ooo rrr ↑Oh . YES yes (laughing) (nods) (applause) y’cd (unintelligible) ‘Times’ Equal signs at the end of an utterance and the beginning of the next illustrate closely contiguous utterances that do not overlap (latching). Contiguous vowels signal stretching of the vowel sound they represent. More vowels indicate longer stretching. Contiguous consonants signal stretching of the consonant sound they represent. More consonants indicate longer stretching. An arrow just before a sound indicates a rise in pitch (↑↑ indicate a very pronounced rise in pitch) A period at the end of a word or phrase shows a fall in pitch. Capitals illustrate louder volume (YES indicate lower intensity of loudness) Underlining signals a word or syllable being stressed Laughter in the unfolding talk is indicated by metacommunicative statements in brackets. Actions, gestures and noises in general are described within parentheses. Noises and reactions from the audience such as applause and laughter are described in italics and within parentheses. A comma shows contractions and word abbreviations. The word ‘unintelligible’ within parentheses refers to a segment of talk not comprehended, hence not amenable to be transcribed. Single quotation marks indicate Latin or foreign words, direct quoting, and proper nouns of things and places as in common writing. Single parentheses enclosing numbers indicate a pause in conversation. The numbers show pause duration in tenths of seconds. Single parentheses with just a period in between signal a pause shorter than two-tenths of a second. Brackets indicate overlap.

Additionally, in the transcription of the data selected for analysis, words that take capital letters in conventional written English (e.g. World War I) bar occupational terms such as chairman, state secretary, and the like, and acronyms (e.g. AIDS, NRA, etc.) have not been modified. Concerning the transcription of non-verbals, they have only been contemplated to the extent that they are relevant to the exchange by means of expressions in parentheses within the interactant’s
113

Methods

speech in question, as established by Ochs (1979) for cases where non-verbals are minimal and do not constitute the research focus. Thus, kinesic cues have been noted when deemed elucidating in terms of the speaker’s meaning and attitudes, for instance, kinesic agreement and disagreement between contestants, some audience members and the latter, etc.4 A problem that emerged in the process of transcribing the corpus of analysis in this project involves the timing of silent intervals or temporal categories given the perceptual limitations of the human ear (O’Conell et al., 1990). The solution implemented was intuitive measurement through silent count, e.g. and-one-and-two-and-three, etc., with each ‘and’ unit counted approaching the tenth of a second. According to O’Conell et al., this is a technique which “may appear to be inexact, but it is in practice quite reliable” (1990: 354). Another difficulty that I encountered throughout such transcription process had to do with overlap. Determining the beginning and end of this phenomenon in some occurrences was complicated. Therefore, recurrent listening of the recordings to the point of reaching somehow an interpretation was necessary. All in all, and in spite of trying to be as faithful as possible to these recordings, I agree with Miller (1996: 198) in that “transcription of talk [...] is never transparent [as] there is always room for alternative interpretations of discourse”. Other remarks related to the transcription of the data in this study refer to the supply of some succinct information on the site, the broadcasting channel, the airing date, and the duration of the debates object of analysis right at the outset of each transcription. This is followed by a series of generic and specific abbreviations alluding to the participants in the event, which are justified at the left
4

For an extensive discussion on the issue of the transcription of context, see Cook (1990).

114

Methods

margin of the transcript throughout the unfolding of the debate. The generic abbreviations are ‘A’ for audience, ‘AAM’ for anonymous audience member, that is, a member of the audience intervening verbally and individually in the interaction as opposed to the audience as a whole group of individualities, ‘QR’ for anonymous questioner, ‘AN’ for announcer, ‘IR’ for interviewer, with both of these participant categories normally emerging in these events in the form of a voice in off, and ‘M’ for moderator. The specific abbreviations are abbreviations I have assigned to each debate participant in view of his/her name and surname. All these abbreviations are summarised in the List of Symbols and Abbreviations provided at the beginning of this dissertation. Other specific abbreviations utilised in the transcriptions are those fixed by convention designating the North-American states where the debates take place. These latter not only have been established for the debates in the corpus of analysis (Corpus A), but also for those in Corpus B as shown above. As an end note, by and large, the degree of detail the mode of transcription adopted here exhibits, has been deemed adequate considering that “the more deductive […] one’s research approach, the more license a researcher has to transcribe broadly; the more inductive [...], the more important it is to record a larger number of particulars” (Tracy, 1991: 184). Nevertheless, multimodal aspects of the interaction have been omitted in the transcriptions and the analysis of the data in light of the specific focus of this research, namely, the study of linguistic politeness from a socio-cognitive approach, which does not preclude the view of debates as media texts (see, for example, the transcription of the primary debate held on February the 21st, 2000, in New York, p. 566), but emphasizes other features of these events instead.

115

Methods

2.4. Conclusions

In this chapter I have accounted for the selection of the corpus of this investigation along with the process of data collection offering a thorough description of the distinct types of data gathered, the two principal stages in which the collection of these data occurred, and the problems that I encountered throughout such stages. I have also depicted the corpus of this project and its organisation according to political race, election year, and the variables of debate format, presence of third party candidates, and gender. However, the organisation of the corpus is primarily based on its classification into Corpus A or corpus of analysis, and Corpus B or corpus of reference. A justification for this division and the debates compounding each corpus has also been supplied. Then I have discussed the transcription system employed for the preparation of the data object of analysis together with certain observations and difficulties surrounding the transcription process.

116

Methods

3. ANALYSES

The present chapter focuses on the method of analysis implemented in this project, in particular, the overall framework and units of analysis characterising it, and the qualitative and quantitative procedures that define it. First, I determine and account for the general analytical framework of this research underscoring its eclectic nature coupled with establishing and explaining the macro and micro units of analysis deployed. Second, I describe the qualitative procedures followed according to the results of prior analyses and a series of reliability checks conducted on a small sample of the data, the research questions previously posited, and certain principles, concepts and models from different investigations, which served as some guidance in the whole process of data analysis. Finally, I turn to the quantitative procedures implemented by discussing the distinct statistical operations realized, that are accompanied by a series of univariate, bivariate and multivariate distribution tables and graphs illustrating their results.

3.1. Framework and Units of Analysis

The general framework of analysis underlying this investigation is mostly defined by its eclecticism, as it emerges from pragmatic traditions such as conversational analysis and politeness perspectives. Along the lines of scholars like Bou-Franch (2001c, 2002b), Garcés-Conejos and Bou-Franch (2004), and Coupland and Jaworski (1997) among others, I believe that eclecticism helps
117

Methods

yielding more complete analyses of communication. One of the main methodological advantages of conversational analysis is that it provides a finegrained technical specification of the details of talk in interaction, from which to make links to larger social and interactive processes (see Drew & Sorjonen, 1997; Dufon, 1993; Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; Gumperz, 1984; Levinson, 1983; Moerman, 1990). However, conversational analysts have often been criticized for not going beyond the particulars of the conversation, thus leaving such links unexplored.1 Conversely, politeness approaches, out of which Brown and Levinson’s (1987) is the one I draw on as a starting point in this project, deal precisely with the macro socio-cultural practices that conversational analysis researchers have been charged with overlooking. The conversational analysis notion of ‘recipient design’, whereby any communicative action entails a categorisation of its recipient and reciprocally the speaker him/herself (Sacks et al., 1974), opens up the way for these two approaches to somewhat complement each other, so that micro interactional structures relate to relational and sociocultural issues (Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2003; Held, 1992).2 Nevertheless, as already pointed out in the Introduction to this dissertation, the specifics of language use, and relational and socio-cultural matters are reconciled and subsumed under cognition. In this study, RT has been claimed to be a highly suitable model to handle cognitive phenomena involved in communication principally through the exploitation of some of its basic concepts (see p. 9), in such a way that a more comprehensive picture of the relational and
See O’Conell et al. (1990), and Power and Dal-Martello (1986) for a developed critique of the tradition of conversational analysis on conceptual and methodological grounds. 2 This notion leads to certain conversational analysis concepts directly related to politeness matters such as supportive or cooperative versus non-supportive or uncooperative interventions (cf. Briz, 2000; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 2004), and preferred as opposed to dispreferred interlocutor’s responses (see Bayraktaroğlu, 1991) among others.
1

118

Methods

socio-cultural conventional aspects of communication in a determinate speech encounter can be achieved. Thus, a convergence between politeness and cognitive issues from the perspective of RT has been attempted in this investigation at a theoretical level with the particular view of politeness as internalized sociocultural knowledge of what is adequate and inadequate in a given context. However, as mentioned in the Introduction, Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) theory has only been invoked here in the form of some theoretical lens applied to political debates in order to enlighten, at least theoretically speaking, the nature and dynamics of communication within these events, rather than an analytical device used for empirical purposes. With this analytical framework in mind, I have distinguished two main units of analysis in the analysis of politicians’ interventions in debates: the ‘pragmatic sequence’ adapted from the notion of ‘interactional sequence’ within the tradition of conversational analysis operating at a macro level of analysis, and Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies conceptualized differently from the original model and with certain modifications that I immediately explain below working at a micro level of analysis. The concept of ‘pragmatic sequence’ in this research like that of interactional sequence in conversational analysis is based on the idea that “each “current” conversational action embodies a “here and now” definition of the situation to which subsequent talk will be oriented” (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990: 287); however, it differs from the latter in that its chief defining criterion is pragmatic function according to global effect on face. Thus, a pragmatic sequence may be defined as a juxtaposition of utterances constituting a coherent and identifiable chunk of talk by virtue of the overall function they perform in terms of face. Two main recognized functions of a pragmatic sequence
119

Methods

are that of face mitigation and face aggravation (see p. 94) with two potential orientations towards positive or negative face in each of these two principal categories. Even though effects on face involve not only the hearer but also the speaker, in the conceptualization of pragmatic sequence suggested in this research, face effects on the former have been emphasized over face effects on the latter, since politicians are assumed to always carry out a mitigating as opposed to an aggravating action towards their own faces primarily with the aim of building or enhancing a positive public image of themselves. Notwithstanding this, such selforiented mitigating action of debaters’ pragmatic sequences normally directed towards their own positive faces is dealt with in the qualitative approach to the data. Moreover, considering the trilogic and double polite condition of candidates’ communicative acts in the context of political debates previously explained, a distinction between primary versus secondary addressees

corresponding to Kerbrat-Orecchioni’s (1997) categories of addressed and nonaddressed hearers in third party exchanges or Blas-Arroyo’s (1998a) ‘locutado’ (locuted) and ‘delocutado’ (delocuted) addressees in debates, has been drawn in each sequence type. Consequently, in face mitigating sequences a division between the primary addressee amounting to the audience and the secondary addressee consisting of the opponent has been established. Equally, in face aggravating sequences the primary addressee, that is, the opponent, and the secondary addressee, namely, the audience, have been differentiated. These secondary addressees in each sequence category, i.e. the opponent in face mitigating sequences and the audience in face aggravating ones, account for the indirect aggravating force of the former, and the indirect mitigating force of the
120

Methods

latter exemplifying the idea that a given linguistic element or category may realize multiple functions at the same time. Nevertheless, these observations have only been taken into account in the qualitative analysis of the data. In quantitative terms, contemplating secondary or delocuted addressees was deemed

counterproductive, since scoring sequences whose main function is face mitigation as face aggravating units too albeit indirect and implicit was thought to impede discrimination of both sequence types and yield confusion. As for the positive or negative face orientation of these sequences, some researchers (e.g. Scollon & Scollon, 1995) underscore the interrelation between these two face orientations or concepts so that too much positive face orientation is likely to threaten the desire of disassociation from others, whilst too much negative face orientation is bound to threaten the desire for association with others. This implies that a determinate sequence in this investigation could qualify as one sequence type but orient to both positive and negative faces at the same time. Although on theoretical grounds this possibility has been admitted, on analytical grounds such possibility has been considered in the qualitative discussion of these sequences, but rejected as far as their classification into positive or negative faceoriented categories is concerned and their quantification later. This is due to the fact that in those cases where a sequence seemed to show a double face orientation, it was always one of these two face orientations that was observed to prevail. Despite the fact that the criteria of function in terms of face, and primary target or addressee of the talk are by themselves sufficient for a more or less reliable segmentation of the discourse of debates into pragmatic sequences as well

121

Methods

as their identification as mitigating or aggravating types, another factor that was observed to be decisive in this regard already in past analyses was candidates’ use of expressions like ‘you know’, ‘look’, etc., some vocatives, and discourse markers such as ‘but’ and ‘now’ among others signalling a topic shift. These linguistic devices when appearing in the interaction helped better discern the end of a pragmatic sequence and the beginning of another. The reactions of the audience, which, as already indicated, include the moderator’s and the panelists’ (if present), and the opponent to the speaker’s interventions also contributed in some occurrences to fine-tune text segmentation at the sequential level. Although the moderator’s and the panelists’ speech in the context of debates was subject to analysis in prior investigations, in this project these debate participants’ interventions were not analysed unless they were followed up or extended in the interaction in such a way that they did not amount to punctual or locally isolated interventions. The reason behind such methodological decision alludes to the interest here in only the subset of exchanges constituting politicians’ talk, hence those interventions did not qualify as ‘codable cases’ or “segment[s] that meet [...] a set of coding prerequisites set down by the researcher” (Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 1993: 173). The same applies to the audience’s reactions, which, in spite of not undergoing analysis, have been taken into consideration in light of their importance as pointed out throughout this dissertation. Figure 1 captures all the above remarks showing the coding system or template used in the analysis performed here on the sequence plane.

122

Methods

Figure 1. Template for Sequence Coding.
Pragmatic Sequence − Effect on Face (emphasis in H): o Mitigating Positive Face Orientation Negative Face Orientation Positive Face Orientation Negative Face Orientation ------------------------------- Secondary Addressee (Qualitative Analysis)

o Aggravating − Primary Addressee

o Audience ------------------------------------ Opponent (also Moderator + Panelists) o Opponent ------------------------------------ Audience (also Moderator + Panelists) − Presence of: o Linguistic Expressions o Vocatives and the like o Discourse Markers − Reactions from the Audience (also Moderator + Panelists) and the Opponent. indicative of Topic Shift

At a micro level of analysis, Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies constitute the other main units of analysis deployed in this research. However, these strategies have only been taken as a point of departure to propose my own with a different conceptualization from the former. First, while in Brown and Levinson’s theory speakers employ such strategies to mitigate the potential facethreat inherent in communicative acts, in this study the possibility that communicators use them to purposefully intensify such threat, thereby attempting to damage the hearer’s face, is contemplated. Therefore, these strategies may be deployed with a mitigating or an aggravating function. Nonetheless, as with

123

Methods

pragmatic sequences above, such function cannot be understood in totalizing terms, since the presence of secondary addressees, which has also been acknowledged at this micro analytical level, accounts for an implicit aggravating meaning in face mitigating strategies whose main addressee is the audience and secondary addressee is the opponent, and an indirect mitigating value in face aggravating strategies whose primary addressee is the adversary and secondary addressee is the audience. Consequently, the same strategy may simultaneously perform a face mitigating and a face aggravating function albeit with distinct interlocutors. As one of these two functions always predominates over the other in light of the main addressee of the talk, in the analysis these strategies have been coded either as face mitigating or aggravating strategies as opposed to both at the same time. This measure, as in the analysis of sequences, intends to avoid confusion in their categorisation leaving the secondary and implicit face aggravating and mitigating functions of these strategies for discussion later on in their qualitative examination. The usual mitigating function of such strategies towards S’s face, more specifically, his/her positive face, is also considered. In the same fashion as pragmatic sequences, a distinction between positive and negative face orientation within face mitigating and aggravating strategies has been established. In section 3.2. I describe the analytical process leading to the final framework of conversational strategies put forward in this project and summarised in Table 3 below. Concerning this positive/negative face orientation within these two main strategy types, the likelihood that one same strategy concurrently orients to both positive and negative faces in such a way that positive face mitigating or aggravating strategies may also orient to negative face and vice versa, negative face mitigating or aggravating strategies may also be directed
124

Methods

towards positive face, has only been observed on theoretical grounds and commented upon in those cases where this seemed to apply. However, this somewhat dual face orientation of some strategies has not been contemplated though in their coding, because a specific face orientation always appeared to predominate over the other to a greater or lesser degree, hence these strategies could only classify either as positive or negative face-oriented strategies unlike both at the same time. Second, contrary to the view of politeness strategies within the confines of the single act unit lexically and grammatically defined in Brown and Levinson’s model, the face mitigating and aggravating strategies outlined in this investigation have been conceived of from a discursive approach that I contend it contributes to a much more realistic rendering of politeness and impoliteness in communication. Such discursive perspective not only entails the view of face mitigation and aggravation as they pan out in discourse, but also their conceptualization as part of or embedded within a determinate type of communicative encounter that partakes in their shaping in as much as these communicative phenomena participate in shaping it as well. Thus, besides function in terms of face (mitigating or aggravating) with a positive or negative face orientation, and primary and secondary addressees as stated above, the co-text and the context of the situation at a determinate interactional moment have been crucial in determining and defining the conversational strategies proposed here. The discursive approach to face mitigating and aggravating strategies adopted in this work also copes with the problems related to the attribution of full strategy status to a group of linguistic elements of a diverse nature stressed by

125

Methods

some scholars in the literature (e.g. Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Meier, 1995, 1997, etc.), and the predictive character generally ascribed to Brown and Levinson’s strategies. From this approach, the problems of validity and reliability that are bound to emerge from mixing linguistic devices of a diverging condition and conceiving them as the instantiation of a specific politeness or impoliteness strategy vanish. Similarly, such discursive perspective allows for the perception of the strategies in this study as strategies with no predictive aims, rather descriptive and materializing ones involving the mirroring of social bonds and their enactment in and through communication respectively, in tune with the view of politeness suggested in this research at the outset of this dissertation. An end note on the dissimilarities between the face mitigating and aggravating strategies here, and those in Brown and Levinson’s framework refers to the idea that a) no hierarchy of strategies from most to least mitigating and aggravating is alleged in this project, and b) mutual exclusivity of strategies in the same stretch of talk does not hold.

3.2. Qualitative Procedures

Among the procedures followed in the qualitative analysis conducted in this investigation, the establishment of a system of coding for all the debates comprising the corpus was the first to implement labels (cf. Lampert & ErvinTripp, 1993). This system is based on the differences among these communicative encounters in terms of 1) the political race to which they belong (presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial and House races), 2) the type of event they constitute within it, which only affects presidential races with a distinction between primary
126

Methods

Democratic or primary Republican and presidential debates on the one hand, and presidential and vice presidential debates on the other hand, 3) the criteria of gender, debate format and presence of third party candidates, and 4) the date when they were celebrated following an Anglo-American date system, i.e. first month, then day number. Debates were thus assigned a coding label consisting of the distinct letters, abbreviations and numbers representing these features. This permitted their easy identification while supplying condensed information on their features. Table 2 illustrates such system.

Table 2. System of Coding Labels for the Corpus.
Characteristics Political Race
Presidential Primary Democratic Republican Presidential Vice Presidential Senatorial Gubernatorial House P D R PRE VPRE S G H M F MF TRAD TALKS TOWM HYBR 3P (Number) (Number) (Number)

Code: Letter/Abbreviation/Number

Gender
Male Female Mixed

Format
Traditional Talkshow Town Meeting Hybrid

Third Party Candidates Date
Month Day Year

127

Methods

The coding label for a given debate is determined by vertically allocating the corresponding letter or abbreviation in each feature set leading to the following labels for the 16 debates object of examination in this project:

PD.M.TRAD.1/8/00 PR.M.TRAD.1/26/00 PR.M.TALKS.2/15/00 PD.M.HYBR.2/21/00 PD.M.HYBR.3/1/00 PR.M.HYBR.3/2/00 PRE.M.TRAD.10/3/00 VPRE.TALKS.10/5/00 PRE.M.TRAD.10/11/00 PRE.M.TOWM.10/17/00 S.MF.TRAD.9/13/00 S.M.TRAD.9/24/00 S.M.HYBR.10/18/00 G.M.TRAD.3P.9/22/00 G.M.TRAD.9/25/00 G.MF.TRAD.10/26/00

Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Des Moines, IA. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Manchester, NH. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Columbia, SC. Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, New York City, NY. Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Los Angeles, CA. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Los Angeles, CA. Presidential Debate, Boston, MA. Vice Presidential Debate, Danville, KY. Presidential Debate, Winston-Salem, NC. Presidential Debate, St. Louis, MO. New York Senatorial Debate, Buffalo, NY. Virginia Senatorial Debate, Richmond, VA. Minnesota Senatorial Debate, Minneapolis, MN. Indiana Gubernatorial Debate, Indianapolis, IN. Missouri Gubernatorial Debate, Cape Girardeau, MO. New Hampshire Gubernatorial Debate, Manchester, NH.

Apart from the above system of coding labels, the rest of the qualitative procedures implemented in this project are qualitative-oriented choices informed by past analyses conducted on a specific instance of the data, namely, a Democratic presidential candidates’ debate between the then vice president Al Gore, and former senator Bill Bradley held on the 21st of February, 2000 at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, NY (García-Pastor, 2001a, 2001b, 2002b; GarcíaPastor & Narbona-Reina, 2000). This debate was analysed in an initial pilot study

128

Methods

employing Brown and Levinson’s strategies with a different conceptualization from their original formulation, which entails some of the considerations noted in the preceding section and views these strategies as compounding ‘macro facethreatening acts’ (MFTAs), viz, macro level units consisting of sequences of speech acts constituted by politeness strategies functioning socially as one speech act (Garcés-Conejos, 1991, 1995).3 The classification of MFTAs obtained from this first study which was intuitively based on Held’s (1989) notions of ‘minimization’ and ‘maximization’, was reformulated after some revisions. These revisions actually amount to a second analysis carried out on the same piece of data resulting in a distributional analysis of politeness strategies with a primary mitigating function in certain MFTAs, and a principal aggravating function in others. It is in this way that the twofold distinction between mitigating and aggravating categories emerged, and the construct validity of each of these two basic units was (and is) justified.4 The intermediate category of ‘softened disagreement’ constituted by half mitigating and aggravating MFTAs was established in view of the results of the analysis, and the attested presence of ‘descortesía atenuada’ (attenuated impoliteness) in debates (Blas-Arroyo, 2001). Reliability checks based on a non-standardized questionnaire administered by the researcher (cf. Sheatsley, 1983) on the two main mitigating and aggravating functions of politeness strategies, and these three categories in the data (see Appendix E) were conducted with the following results: subjects5 greatly coincided on their identification of mitigation, aggravation and ‘softened

The unit of the MFTA is the English version of Garcés-Conejos’ (1991, 1995) ‘macro-acto contra la imagen’ (MACI). 4 I am indebted to Professor Connor-Linton for his enlightening comments on this point. 5 A total of five people within the academia greatly familiarised with Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory.

3

129

Methods

disagreement’ with some variability though as for the delimitation of such functions in the talk. In spite of this, most of the informants expressed their difficulty in differentiating aggravation from softened disagreement associating the former with a direct way of addressing the adversary, and the latter with indirect forms of doing so recognizing the audience as the main target of the communicative act. These results corroborated the validity of the two aforementioned primary functions of politeness strategies in the context of a political debate, and further reinforced the construct validity of, at least, the unit of the mitigating MFTA. However, they also indicated that the units of the aggravating and half mitigating and aggravating MFTAs needed revision and finetuning. A third analysis was then performed on the same debate in an attempt to attend to this need by delving into the main features of mitigating, aggravating and half mitigating/aggravating MFTAs, and find types if any within each category. As for the defining characteristics of these MFTAs, Holmes’ (1984) model of illocutionary force ‘boosters’ and ‘attenuating devices’ combined with Fraser’s (1980) work on mitigation and mitigating devices were followed with the presumption that a) boosters of negatively affective speech acts, e.g. threats like ‘I’ll bloody well murder that dog of yours!’, and attenuators of positively affective speech acts, e.g. a softened comment of dislike such as ‘It’s pretty good I suppose’, were bound to predominate in and be constitutive of aggravating MFTAs, b) attenuators of negatively affective speech acts, e.g. a mitigated negative opinion like ‘Well I think George is a bit er perhaps foolish’, and boosters of positively affective speech acts, e.g. an encouraging statement such as ‘That was really very kind indeed’, were likely to abound in and be defining of
130

Methods

mitigating MFTAs, and c) a mixture of all these kinds of boosters and attenuators was likely to appear in, hence compound, half mitigating and aggravating MFTAs or softened disagreements. The results proved that not only some of these boosters and attenuators performed a divergent function from their original postulated one, but the presumption for each category of MFTAs did not hold. Boosters and attenuators appeared intermingled in mitigating, aggravating and half

mitigating/aggravating MFTAs without any specific kinds predominating in one category or the other. As for the category of softened disagreement or half mitigating/aggravating MFTAs, this third analysis helped confirm the observations made by some of my subjects in the second analysis, namely, that the main target of these communicative acts is the audience and the rival is an indirect addressee. Contrary to mitigating and aggravating MFTAs, this category did not appear characterised by any addressee shift occurring in the interaction. Consequently, softened disagreements did not have the same status as mitigating and aggravating MFTAs, thereby constituting something distinct from macro face-threatening units. It followed that they could only amount to either some feature of these MFTAs or a specific type or form of them. Upon analysis they classified as a specific type of mitigating MFTAs; however, more debates would need to be examined to firmly sustain such conclusion. All this not only contributed to reinforce the construct validity of the category of the aggravating MFTA, which was left to attest, and disprove that of the unit of softened disagreement, but also support the idea that “la distinción […] entre descortesía atenuada y descortesía no atenuada o abierta es más superficial que de fondo” (the distinction between attenuated rudeness and

131

Methods

non-attenuated or open rudeness is more superficial than inbuilt) (Blas-Arroyo, 2001: 41). The valuable information provided by the three prior analyses just described helped make decisions oriented to improve and polish the qualitative study developed in this project, and made the task of intending to find an answer to the RQs formulated here easier than starting from scratch. Unlike the MFTA, the pragmatic sequence is the macro unit of analysis implemented in this research in an attempt to avoid many shortcomings generally attached to speech acts and speech act theory, from which the notion of MFTA emerges, in the pragmatics literature and related fields. Nonetheless, before devising and using the unit of the pragmatic sequence in the present investigation, conversational analysis proposals were contemplated as pointed out in another study following the work of Bayraktaroğlu (1991) and Coupland et al. (1988), who deploy face-threatening act sequences. From my standpoint, I would say that by invoking the notion of the FTA, these proposals still do not get rid of the caveats related to speech acts and speech act theory save for the neglect of the sequentiality of the conversation, which they cope with constituting their principal concern vis-à-vis categorising discourse according to its function in terms of face. The analytical unit of the pragmatic sequence set up and employed in this investigation somehow attends to all these weaknesses. The qualitative analysis carried out here was divided into analysis1 involving the 16 debates under study, and analysis2 performed in detail on two debates of the corpus — a Democratic presidential candidates’ debate held on the 8th of January, 2000 in Des Moines, IA, and a Republican presidential candidates’

132

Methods

debate celebrated on the 26th of January, 2000 in Manchester, NH — amounting to 2 hours and 30 minutes of talk, and in a more impressionistic way on the other debates. Analysis1 corresponds to the analysis related to face mitigating and aggravating sequences, potential types of these two main sequential categories emerging in the data, recurrent elements within these two major sequence units if any, and their location in the ongoing discourse of debates as a whole. Analysis2 was conducted with the goal of answering a specific part of RQs 1 and 2, in particular, the kind of mitigation and aggravation prevailing in mitigating and aggravating sequences respectively. This required an analysis of strategies, whose results could not be generalised in view of the reduced sample of the data examined. However, extending such an analysis to the rest of the corpus would have implied an insurmountable amount of work rather unnecessary, as the focus of this investigation refers to pragmatic sequences versus micro strategies. Concerning the analysis of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in analysis1, debates were segmented according to the template for sequence coding outlined in Figure 1, and taking into account all the considerations established thereof. The simultaneous classification of pragmatic sequences into mitigating or aggravating units primarily based on their effect on H’s face was not complicated, since the primary addressee of a determinate pragmatic sequence was already revealing of the function it performed in this regard: a mitigating function when the primary addressee was the audience, and an aggravating one when the primary addressee was the adversary. This also determined the secondary addressees and the indirect mitigating or aggravating force of these sequences: the opponent as the secondary addressee and an indirect aggravating force in face mitigating sequences, and the audience as the secondary addressee and an indirect mitigating
133

Methods

force in face aggravating ones, in such a way that the trilogic and double polite character of politicians’ interventions in debates is acknowledged at least in qualitative terms. Notwithstanding this, certain sequences were encountered to have primary and secondary addressees distinct from the expected giving place to ‘anomalous’ units that have been contemplated in this study not only on qualitative grounds, but also quantitatively. The further categorisation of face mitigating and aggravating sequences into positive or negative face-oriented types was not troublesome either. Nevertheless, deciding whether a specific sequence was an occurrence of a positive or a negative face-oriented sequential category was difficult in some cases. In spite of classifying such cases into one sequence kind or another, since one of the two face orientations always appeared to predominate to a greater or lesser extent, theoretically speaking the option that one same sequence orients to both positive and negative faces at the same time was accepted and this quasidouble face orientation of some of these sequences was discussed. Lastly, nonverbal conduct of the candidates in the form of pro-active interventions in the interaction or reactions before the adversary’s talk, etc. was also examined as this behaviour constituted what has previously been referred to as codable cases in a data set. Therefore, these debaters’ non-verbal or kinesic interventions or reactions were categorised as positive or negative face mitigating or aggravating sequences in the sequential analysis as long as these occurrences exhibited all the features constitutive of a pragmatic sequence. Patterns signalling the presence of mitigating and aggravating sequences divergent from positive and negative face-oriented ones were seen to emerge in the

134

Methods

process of analysing the data. These patterns consisted of face mitigating sequences containing what I address as ‘secondary rudeness’ and face aggravating sequences including what I call ‘secondary politeness’. A justification for these labels lies in the fact that such rudeness and politeness were found not to radically alter the mitigating and aggravating nature of the sequences in which they are embedded by turning them into face aggravating and mitigating categories in that order; however, they did not make these sequences remain the same either as explained later on. At first, the possibility that such rudeness and politeness constituted face aggravating and face mitigating sequences themselves was entertained. It was immediately discarded though, as they did not meet the defining criteria of a pragmatic sequence. On the other hand, a supra category not amenable to classify as a specific variety or type of mitigating or aggravating sequences and affecting only the latter was also encountered. This supra unit predominantly comprises a chain of face aggravating sequences and was already observed in past analyses where it was labelled ‘negativity cycle’ following Gottman’s (1994) research on divorce talk.6 The analysis of potentially recurrent elements in each of the two main categories of face mitigating and aggravating sequences as part of analysis1, was based in principle on an intuitive approach which started broadly with the aim of finding patterns that may emerge in this respect, and began to narrow down the moment certain linguistic devices were perceived to appear with some degree of frequency in each sequential unit. Looking for such patterns was not an easy task, since “[…] the enactment of aggression [and mitigation] in language use is not

6

Some scholars (e.g. Blas-Arroyo, 2001; Fernández-García, 2000) already note the cyclical condition of some highly aggressive interactional periods in debates.

135

Methods

narrowly identifiable with any discrete repertoire of linguistic forms — such as a syntactic construction, or a suffix, or a register of lexemes” (Agha, 1997: 463464). Therefore, the analytical process implemented to find these potentially recurrent elements was a repetitive process that consisted of selecting a determinate linguistic element that was detected to be common in mitigating and aggravating sequences, and track it down throughout the exchange in order to confirm the hypothesis that a) it normally appeared in just one of these sequence types, and b) if appearing in both, the frequencies of distribution of the element in question in each sequential category were clearly telling qualitatively of its typical value in only one of them. This process was simultaneously accompanied and complemented by memos or written displays of ideas about these elements in the corpus (cf. Miles & Huberman, 1984). Two elements in total, one in face mitigating sequences and the other in face aggravating ones, were found to persistently recur in each sequential category: modals in the former, and terms of address in the latter. As for the location of mitigating and aggravating sequences in debates within analysis1, the 16 debates under analysis were first divided into three main discernible discursive parts comprising the introduction, the central part and the conclusion in light of the usual distinction between central and peripheral sections in the debate literature (Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Fernández-García, 2000). The introduction entails the intervention of the moderator at the beginning of a debate, that of an announcer before the former if appearing at all, and those of the contestants in the form of opening statements. The central part starts with the first question posited by a journalist, if the event in hand includes a panel, a physically present or mediated questioner, or the moderator to a specific candidate, and the
136

Methods

latter’s response to it. The concluding part involves politicians’ concluding statements (if any), other interchanges by them that may ensue, and the intervention of the moderator proclaiming the conclusion of the debate, and thanking everybody present and the audience at home. Establishing whether face mitigation or aggravation was most frequent in each of these debate sections was not complicated, as it could easily be perceived by the amount of sequences performing either function in each section. However, a global count of these sequences was deemed suitable to ascertain on quantitative grounds that our observations at a qualitative level were not wrong-headed. Such count merely intended to corroborate quantitatively the findings of some debate research in this regard as well as find out which face mitigating and aggravating varieties are more abundant (if any) in each of these debate parts. In analysis2 conducted only on two debates of the corpus, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) strategy framework was taken as a starting point to put forward my own with a distinct conceptualization from these scholars’ entailing all the considerations pointed out above. Lachenicht’s (1980) model of rudeness was also utilised as guidance especially in the recognition and classification of face aggravating strategies in combination with others such as Culpeper’s (1996, 2005), Culpeper et al.’s (2003), Tracy and Tracy’s (1998) and Blas-Arroyo’s (2001) (see Appendixes C and D for Brown and Levinson’s and Lachenicht’s charts). First, strategies were classified into mitigating or aggravating strategies according to their main function concerning the face of the primary target of the communicative act in question. The indirect aggravating force of face mitigating strategies and the implicit mitigating force of face aggravating ones towards secondary addressees in the exchange, which correspond to the adversary on the one hand, and the
137

Methods

audience, moderator and panelists (if present) on the other hand, were also contemplated in the analysis, thereby acknowledging the double polite and trilogic condition of candidates’ interventions in debates on the strategy plane too. Throughout the analysis, there were strategies that, despite compounding mitigating sequences, appeared to qualify as face aggravating strategies giving place to secondary rudeness within mitigation. By the same token, there were other strategies which, regardless of constituting aggravating sequences, qualified as face mitigating strategies bringing about secondary politeness within aggravation. These strategies account for the two aforementioned varieties of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in the data containing secondary rudeness and politeness respectively. Concurrently to their categorisation into mitigating or aggravating strategies, these strategies were also subject to classification into positive or negative face-oriented ones. Additionally, some strategies in Brown and Levinson’s framework, and Lachenicht’s and other scholars’ impolite models were suppressed due to their insignificant frequency of appearance, total absence or irrelevance in the data (e.g. Lachenicht’s negative face aggravating strategy ‘insist on H being humble’). Others were modified by 1) broadening or narrowing their scope, and 2) merging them with others in light of what surfaced in the analysis, for instance, Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness strategies ‘notice, attend to H’, which was broadened to include H’s close others as in FernándezAmaya’s (2002) work, and ‘use in-group identity markers’, which was subsumed under that of ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’. Finally, certain strategies were contemplated at first but eliminated in the end, because they did not show to be distinctive of positive or negative face orientation, e.g. Lachenicht’s negative face aggravating strategy ‘use negative politeness’.
138

Methods

Overall, analysis2 involved a mode of proceeding similar to Edelsky and Adams’ (1990) search for patterns of unruly talk in debates, since it was based on labelling strategy patterns first according to the polite and impolite frameworks deployed as a point of departure, and choosing prototypical instances in an attempt to elucidate the characteristics of a given strategy so that it was maintained or dismissed keeping or changing its original label in the second case. Ambiguous instances were compared to the labelled ones with the goal of refining the latter as well as their labels, and extensive matrix displays accompanied by some memos were created to have a clearer view of the findings. The result of all the above qualitative-oriented tasks realized in analysis2 is the framework of conversational strategies outlined in Table 3. These strategies are illustrated in the next chapters according to their prominence in relation to the kind of face mitigation and aggravation characterising mitigating sequences on the one hand, and aggravating sequences no the other hand.

Table 3. Conversational Strategies’ Framework.
Positive Face-Oriented Face Mitigating Strategies
1. Notice, attend to H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions).° Presuppose/raise/assert common ground. Joke. Assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants. Offer and Promise. Be optimistic. Give (or ask for) reasons. Give understanding, cooperation to H.° 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Question, hedge.° Give deference. Apologise. Impersonalise S and H. State the communicative act(s) as a general rule. Nominalise. Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H.

Negative Face-Oriented

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

139

Methods

Face Aggravating Strategies
a. Convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions).† Use aggressive punning.* Be ironic/sarcastic.† Deny in-group status.† Dissociate, distance from H.* Ignore H.† Belittle or diminish the importance of H and H’s things, actions, values and opinions.* f. g. h. d. e. a. b. c. State the communicative act (s) as common or shared knowledge.* Indebt H. Refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively.† Increase imposition weight.† Refuse H and H’s things, actions, values and opinions.† Challenge.† Frighten.† Dare.*

b. c. d. e. f. g.

* New strategies ° Brown and Levinson’s modified † Lachenicht’s and others’ modified

3.3. Quantitative Procedures

As in the qualitative study, the first step that was taken in the quantitative analysis conducted here was allotting specific coding labels to the sequential categories that emerged in the data for their easy identification and report in the Results and Discussion part of this thesis, especially in tables and graphs:

SEQ.TYP ANOM.SEQ NORM.SEQ MIT AGGR SECR SECP FO POS.FO

Sequence Type Anomalous Sequence Normal Sequence Face Mitigating Sequences or Strategies Face Aggravating Sequences or Strategies Face Mitigating Sequences with Secondary Rudeness Face Aggravating Sequences with Secondary Politeness Face Orientation Positive Face Orientation

140

Methods

NEG.FO INTRO CENTR CONCL

Negative Face Orientation Introduction Part of a Debate Central Part of a Debate Concluding Part of a Debate

However, debates in the quantitative study were only numbered in the same order as they have been listed thus far:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1/8/00 1/26/00 2/15/00 2/21/00 3/1/00 3/2/00 10/3/00 10/5/00 10/11/00 10/17/00 9/13/00 9/24/00 10/18/00 9/22/00 9/25/00 10/26/00

Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Des Moines, IA. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Manchester, NH. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Columbia, SC. Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, New York City, NY. Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Los Angeles, CA. Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Los Angeles, CA. Presidential Debate, Boston, MA. Vice Presidential Debate, Danville, KY. Presidential Debate, Winston-Salem, NC. Presidential Debate, St. Louis, MO. New York Senatorial Debate, Buffalo, NY. Virginia Senatorial Debate, Richmond, VA. Minnesota Senatorial Debate, Minneapolis, MN. Indiana Gubernatorial Debate, Indianapolis, IN. Missouri Gubernatorial Debate, Cape Girardeau, MO. New Hampshire Gubernatorial Debate, Manchester, NH.

By and large, the quantitative procedures implemented in this investigation have aimed to further back the results obtained from the qualitative analysis of the data. Therefore, although qualitative and quantitative methods have been combined for the examination of politeness issues in debates, in keeping with scholars like Brown and Gilman (1989), Brown and Levinson (1987), Locher (2004), and Mills (2003) among others, it is believed that qualitative evaluations of
141

Methods

politeness issues need to always precede quantitative ones with the latter as a supplement to the former. The quantitative analysis carried out here amounts to descriptive statistics, viz, statistics devoid of complex quantitative operations, and some inferential statistics entailing the performance of four student’s tests (t-tests). Following Andrews et al. (1981), descriptive statistics was for the most part the best way to proceed in light of the independent and nominal nature of the variables in this project — ‘function in terms of face’ (mitigating or aggravating) and ‘face orientation’ (positive/negative). Mitigating or aggravating function and

positive/negative face orientation are independent or explanatory variables of the phenomena of face mitigation and aggravation in debates, which are the dependent variables in this study. These independent variables are also nominal versus ordinal or interval, because they indicate that the cases measured are classes in which no order or rank applies (Andrews et al., 1981; Hatch & Farhady, 1982; Scholfield, 1995). Bearing this in mind, the quantitative analysis of the data entailed quantitative operations performed on face mitigating and aggravating sequences, elements characteristically recurring in each sequence type, and the location of these sequences in debates. Quantification related to strategies was not undertaken, since a) an analysis of that sort would have implied an incommensurable and somewhat gratuitous effort given that the research objectives in this work lie in the examination of pragmatic sequences, and b) the qualitative analysis of strategies conducted thoroughly on the small data sample previously referred to, and roughly on the rest of the corpus, was deemed sufficient for the purpose of partly answering RQs 1 and 2 concerning the type of mitigation and aggravation prevailing in face mitigating and aggravating sequences respectively. First, a
142

Methods

general count of mitigating and aggravating sequences was realized to find out which of these two face-based categories was the most frequent in the data. Percentages were then drawn to illustrate this better. From a statistical point of view, the computation of the mean as a measure of ‘central tendency’ or an overall measure of the typical value of these two principal sequential categories was considered redundant in light of the information searched, namely, their abundance and predominance in the corpus. The same was considered as for the standard deviation (abbreviated SD in the literature) as a measure of ‘dispersion’ or variation in the scores for each category therein. Another global count of face mitigating sequences containing secondary rudeness and face aggravating sequences including secondary politeness vis-à-vis ‘pure’ mitigating and aggravating categories was realized to know a) whether these two sequential varieties were more common than their pure counterpart, and b) which of these ‘non-pure’ sequential varieties was more popular. Percentages were subsequently estimated too. The mean and the standard deviation regarding these sequential types were deemed unnecessary in the same way as with face mitigation and aggravation above. Lastly, although negativity cycles consisting of chains of face aggravating sequences were taken into account in the qualitative study, they were not object of quantification due to their status as a supra category beyond the pragmatic sequence. Concerning positive and negative face-oriented sequences, which amount to another type of mitigating and aggravating categories based on the variable ‘face orientation’ (positive/negative), the same analytic procedure as with these two major sequential units and their varieties above was implemented: first,

143

Methods

positive and negative face mitigating and aggravating sequences were computed to determine which of these two face orientations was more common in general, and within each of the categories of mitigation and aggravation in particular. Secondly, percentages for these sequence types were also calculated. No measure of central tendency and dispersion were estimated in this case either. Anomalous units were also counted in relation to all the above sequential categories, and their percentages estimated. As for recurrent elements within face mitigating and aggravating sequences already identified through a series of emergent patterns in the qualitative analysis, that is, modals in the former and terms of address in the latter, tokens of each element type were spotted and highlighted in the transcripts with the aid of the word processing program ‘Microsoft Word’. As such elements were not exclusive of either sequential category, thus constituting what is known as ‘interval data’ in quantitative research, it was necessary to obtain some measure of the strength of the relationship between the variable ‘function in terms of face’ in its mitigating and aggravating form, and these elements in question. Among the different statistical procedures that could be employed to this end (see Andrews et al., 1981), the t-test was deemed the most appropriate one, because it could provide much more qualitative ‘feel’ than other statistical operations (Russell, 1995). The computer analysis program ‘Statistical Package for the Social Sciences’ (SPSS) 12.0 was utilised to perform such test and related operations for each of the two kinds of recurrent elements encountered. Therefore, two t-tests, one for modals and another one for terms of address, were carried out in total each entailing the computation of the mean as the measure

144

Methods

of central tendency for mitigating and aggravating sequences. Although in some cases the mode is the most commonsense measure of central tendency compared to the sometimes unrealistic quality of the mean, especially with nominal variables referring to real entities like people and things (e.g. a modal value of 5 people versus a mean of 5,43 people) (Russell, 1995), the statistical operation of the t-test required the latter. As a contrast and complement to the central tendency measure of the mean, a measure of the dispersion or variation in the scores for each of these two types of recurrent elements in sequential categories was also essential as part of this test, so that the extent to which these scores deviated from the mean obtained for these elements in each category was assessed. Such measure was obtained through the calculation of the standard deviation for each element type in face mitigating sequences on the one hand, and face aggravating units on the other hand. Percentages for these two element types and their specific varieties were also established to attain a more comprehensive picture of their presence and distribution in face mitigation and aggravation in the corpus. Once the value of t was estimated for each element after having obtained the means and standard deviations, the next step was establishing whether such value was statistically significant to prove whether the relationship between a given element type and mitigation and aggravation was strong enough to affirm that this element was typical of either one or the other. For this purpose, the degrees of freedom (df) for each t-test were calculated, namely, the number of quantities that can vary if others are given. This helped estimate the level of significance or probability value (p-value) in each test, and determine whether it was actually significant, viz, lower than or equal to 5% (p ≤ 0.05). The scientific community generally accepts as ‘significant’ any relationship that is not likely to
145

Methods

occur by chance five times in one hundred samples, or put it differently, any relationship that ensues with a 95% of probability. A p-value lower than or equal to 0.05 for each of the two kinds of recurrent elements found would therefore support the results of the qualitative analysis, hence the thesis posited for these elements in terms of them being characteristic of either face mitigating or aggravating sequences. Extra qualitative information on which of the two element types appeared to hold the strongest relationship to either mitigation or aggravation, thus exhibiting the highest degree of typicality in these two principal face-based units was also derived from drawing comparisons on such value across these elements. Lastly, two extra t-tests for the two major types of address terms that appeared in the data were realized to check whether any difference from the results of the t-test performed for these devices on the whole ensued as for each of their two types in face mitigation and aggravation, and if such difference (if any) was a product of chance. The same operational procedure as with the two principal t-tests just depicted was followed here. With regards to the location of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in the ongoing discourse of debates, a general count of these sequences in each of the three parts into which the 16 debates under study were divided, namely, the introduction, the central part, and the conclusion, was conducted to find out which of these two sequence types was more abundant in each of these debate sections. As explained in the preceding paragraphs, such count only aimed to provide quantitative evidence to the findings of certain debate investigations on this point together with detailing which of the distinct varieties of face mitigating and aggravating categories was more predominant in each of these three debate parts. To this end, percentages for face mitigating and aggravating sequences and their
146

Methods

different kinds within every debate section were calculated over the totality of sequential units therein. It is in this way, the distribution of face mitigation and aggravation and their varieties in the introduction, central part and conclusion of the debates under examination could more easily be appreciated. Finally, a series of univariate, bivariate and multivariate distribution tables along with distinct types of graphs, i.e. pie graphs, column graphs and soft line area graphs, were devised to illustrate the results of the distinct quantitative operations realized.

3.4. Conclusions

In this chapter I have described the method of analysis employed in this research by determining and explaining first the overall analytical framework in which it is embedded, mostly characterised by its eclecticism, and the two units of analysis constituting it, viz, the macro unit of analysis of the pragmatic sequence, and the micro unit of analysis of the strategy. Albeit having its origins in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) work, this micro analytical unit has been conceptualized and approached differently resulting in the conversational strategies’ framework I have proposed above. Then, I have accounted for the qualitative procedures implemented in this study, which are based on the results of past analyses of the data, the research questions previously formulated, and general and specific pragmatic principles, concepts and models. I have also explained the quantitative procedures followed by depicting and justifying the distinct statistical operations realized.

147

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results and Discussion

1.

FACE

MITIGATION

AND

FACE

AGGRAVATION

IN

POLITICAL DEBATES

This chapter is the first of four, in which I describe and discuss the results of the qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted in this project. More specifically, the chapter amounts to an overview of face mitigation and aggravation in the political debates object of study backed by figures, percentages and compelling examples from the data illustrating only the most prominent sequential varieties within these two major face-based categories. Face mitigation in its non-pure variety or mitigation with secondary rudeness was found to constitute the expression of persuasion par excellence in these events, while face aggravation in its purest form was observed to be the best expression of their ‘zero sum game’ nature. In addition, non-pure mitigation emerged as the paradigmatic example of the trilogic condition of communicative acts in debates. These findings empirically support many of the claims raised in the theory part of this thesis.

1.1. Overall Remarks

Before dealing with face mitigation and aggravation in this work, there are certain observations that need to be noted in view of the results of the analyses performed here, in particular, those related to the qualitative study. First, as regards discourse segmentation at the sequential level, pragmatic sequences were found to commonly coincide with a candidate’s turn at talk. However, this was not

149

Results and Discussion

always the case and distinct sequences also appear compounding a politician’s turn in the corpus,1 especially when changes in the interaction from mitigation to aggravation and vice versa take place accompanied by a shift in the main target of the discourse from audience to opponent and from opponent to audience. Same sequence types constituting a debater’s turn were not frequently seen though. As already mentioned, the presence of some linguistic expressions such as ‘look’, ‘listen’, ‘you know’, etc., vocatives and the like, and discourse markers (e.g. ‘now’, ‘but’, etc.) indicating a topic shift along with debate participants’ reactions to S’s talk, helped discern the boundaries of pragmatic sequences corroborating their existence as discrete units. Stretches of talk that were unintelligible or aborted in such a way that it was impossible to get at their meaning were ignored in the analysis. Second, sequences of a kinesic nature were also encountered in the data coupled with what I label ‘embedded sequences’, i.e. pragmatic sequences whose principal feature is that they are inserted within a major one. Certain sequences were observed to focus more on the speaker than the hearer in spite of the reverse being the norm in the analysis. In such sequences S concentrates on ‘selling’ him/herself (see Martel, 1983), thereby orienting to his/her own positive face, or accounting for his/her ideas, attitudes, behaviour, etc., thus attending to his/her negative face. Positive face orientation in these cases appeared to be more common supporting the previously formulated thesis that politicians’ self-directed mitigating action in debates tends to orient to their positive faces.

1

According to Briz (2000), a determinate turn-taking system does not necessarily need to correspond with the interpersonal and social content of the interaction; however, as O’Conell et al. (1990) also affirm, the latter has an important influence in the former.

150

Results and Discussion

With regards to the primary addressee of mitigating sequences, it was observed that a) in some sequences candidates specifically addressed the moderator, a journalist or questioner (if present), and b) in others they moved from orienting to these addressees to broadly targeting at the audience, and from generally speaking to the audience to centring on these interlocutors. Other specific addressees involve what it could be referred to as ‘targeted audiences’ entailing determinate social groups such as women, seniors, people with disabilities, homosexuals, minorities, military personnel, young workers, farmers, and immigrants for the most part. As for the main addressee of aggravating sequences, in multiple candidate debates and debates including third party politicians, where contestants had the option of addressing more than just one rival, they were found to usually address only a specific opponent (normally the incumbent) (cf. Adams, 1999; Martel, 1983). Consequently, fluctuations regarding the principal addressee of face aggravating sequences from a specific adversary to more than one and vice versa, were basically absent. Furthermore, even though the primary addressee in mitigating sequences is normally the audience, with the moderator and the panelists included within this participant category, and the opponent is their secondary addressee, some mitigating sequences were found to be directed towards the latter. Likewise, contrary to the expectation that the principal target of aggravating sequences is the counter candidate and their secondary addressee the audience, certain aggravating sequences oriented to the moderator, some panelists and some questioners. A filter for these anomalous sequences was established in the quantitative analysis for them to be identified and computed. Such sequences appeared to be rare amounting to 140 (6,7%) for mitigation and 17 (0,9%) for aggravation out of a
151

Results and Discussion

total of 2084 sequential units. This yields an overall percentage of 7,6% insignificant in statistical terms as to endanger the construct validity of the two principal face mitigating and aggravating sequence types established in this project. Table 4 details the quantity of these anomalous units for each sequential variety in the corpus reflecting also the so-called ‘normal’ occurrences.

Table 4. Anomalous and Normal Sequences.
SEQ.TYP NORM.SEQ Num. MIT POS.FO NEG.FO SECR.POS.FO SECR.NEG.FO Total AGGR POS.FO NEG.FO SECP.POS.FO SECP.NEG.FO Total Total 466 277 549 149 1441 164 227 32 63 486 1927 % 83,8 85,0 99,8 100,0 69,1 97,0 96,2 100,0 95,5 23,3 92,4 ANOM.SEQ Num. 90 49 1 0 140 5 9 0 3 17 157 % 16,2 15,0 0,2 0,0 6,7 3,0 3,8 0,0 4,5 0,9 7,6 Num. 556 326 550 149 1581 169 236 32 66 503 2084 Total % 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 75,9 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 24,1 100,0

Out of face mitigating and aggravating sequences including these anomalous categories, the former were encountered to be outstandingly predominant over the latter with a total of 1581 (75,9%) instances vis-à-vis 503 (24,1%) respectively as indicated in Table 4 and Table 5 below. These tables also show the amount and corresponding percentage of face mitigating and aggravating units in each of the 16 debates analysed in this work. These findings further corroborate results obtained in prior investigations and provide empirical evidence
152

Results and Discussion

to certain claims formulated in the theory part of this thesis. Among such claims there is first and foremost the idea that mitigation and aggravation need to be viewed as complementary in communicative encounters in general, and political debates in particular (see Gómez-Morón, 1997; Kasper, 1990; Kienpointner, 1997; Lachenicht, 1980). The fact that mitigation overrides aggravation in debates also proves that debaters are mostly interested in addressing the audience rather than directly arguing with the counter candidate notwithstanding the zero sum game essence of these events. Therefore, they concentrate on the persuasive dimension of their talk, which has constantly been stressed here and in past investigations. Graph 1 globally illustrates the presence of mitigating and aggravating sequences in the data including the anomalous units in each.

Graph 1. Face Mitigating and Face Aggravating Sequences

TOTAL 2084
ANOM.SEQ 140 6,7% AGGR 486 23,3%

ANOM.SEQ 17, 0,9%

MIT 1441 69,1%

153

Results and Discussion

Concerning the distinct types of debates compounding the corpus of analysis in this research according to political race, gender, format, and presence of third party candidates, and the effect of these variables in face mitigation and aggravation in these communicative contexts, political race (presidential, senatorial and gubernatorial) did not appear as a factor having an influence in the way face mitigation and aggravation emerged therein. Nevertheless, within the presidential campaign, primary debates were observed to be somewhat more aggravating on the whole than presidential as the percentages of face mitigating and aggravating sequences for debates 1 to 6 in Table 5 signal in comparison with those for debates 7 to 10. This may be due to the fact that in the former stakes are not as high as in the latter and ‘going negative’, which is discouraged on the whole by experts in politicians’ campaign staffs because of its harmful repercussion on a candidate’s image (Martel, 1983), is a risk contenders do not want to run. In relation to gender, male debaters were seen to behave differently in male and mixed-gender debates with a tendency for the male politician to be condescending with his female opponent. Debate format was found not to affect face mitigation and aggravation overall. For instance, panels of journalists in those debates that incorporated them were not observed to influence face issues acting as a buffer against aggression (League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983) in comparison with the rest of the debates of the corpus. Thus, debate 12, for example, happened to be the most aggravating with more than half of its sequential units consisting of face aggravating categories notwithstanding the inclusion of a panel. Finally, the presence of third party candidates in some of the debates under examination here did not seem to make any difference along these lines either.

154

Results and Discussion

Table 5. Face Mitigating and Face Aggravating Sequences.
SEQ.TYP MIT Debate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total Num. 43 102 311 93 94 108 127 75 140 122 58 49 109 42 43 65 1581 % 82,7 55,4 72,0 70,0 97,0 87,8 79,4 89,3 86,4 84,1 72,5 48,0 75,7 87,5 89,6 72,2 75,9% Num. 9 82 121 40 3 15 33 9 22 23 22 53 35 6 5 25 503 AGGR % 17,3 44,6 28,0 30,0 3,0 12,2 20,6 10,7 13,6 15,9 27,5 52 24,3 12,5 10,4 27,8 24,1% Num. 52 184 432 133 97 123 160 84 162 145 80 102 144 48 48 90 2084 Total % 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

1.2. Face Mitigation

Face mitigation in the debates object of analysis was found to be addressed in its vast majority to the audience, and constituted the paradigm expression of persuasion in these speech events. More specifically, out of the two essential varieties of mitigating sequences emerging in the data, namely, pure and non-pure, it is the latter that was found to best illustrate this mostly with a positive versus negative face orientation considering the figures for normal face mitigating sequences specified in Table 4: 466 pure positive face categories, 277 pure negative face units, 549 non-pure positive face sequences, and 149 non-pure negative face categories. Secondary rudeness in these non-pure sequences
155

Results and Discussion

functioned as a booster of their mitigating force, hence persuasive power. This finding partially contravenes claims put forward in the past on pure mitigation amounting to the typical shape of persuasion in debates, and supports the results of studies on persuasion and politeness establishing that persuasion and its effectiveness lies in the combination of strategies of face mitigation and aggravation (Cherry, 1988; Wood & Kroger, 1994). Nonetheless, the common positive face orientation that appears to characterise persuasion in and through these non-pure sequences in debates backs some researchers’ theoretical and empirical statements on persuasion and politeness in political contexts (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Chilton, 1990; Galasiński, 1998) coupled with claims raised on this point in chapter four of the theoretical part of this dissertation. Debaters’ tendency to orient to their interlocutors’ positive faces in attempting to persuade them, contrasts with speakers’ attention to both the positive and negative faces of their hearers in more everyday communicative encounters (e.g. Cherry, 1988; Schulze, 1987; Wood & Kroger, 1994). Politicians’ attention to audience members’ positive faces in debates was observed to be based on a series of positive face mitigating strategies out of which ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’, ‘assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants’, and ‘offer and promise’ in Table 3 (pp. 139-140) were the most frequent. Besides constituting the finest expression of persuasion in debates, nonpure sequences also appeared as the prototype of trilogic communication in these events in comparison with their non-pure aggravating counterpart (see Bilmes, 1999, 2001; Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). Although the trilogic condition of candidates’ communicative acts in debates permeates debate discourse in general,
156

Results and Discussion

hence may be recognized in any sequential category in these events, non-pure mitigating and aggravating sequences are the sequence types that best capture such condition, because the reality of secondary addressees is stressed in their secondary rudeness and secondary politeness components respectively.

Consequently, despite the fact that the primary addressee of non-pure mitigating categories is the audience, the adversary is highlighted as the indirect secondary addressee of these sequences in their secondary rudeness element. The same occurs with non-pure aggravation.2 The double polite character of contestants’ interventions in debates thus becomes more patent too. Nevertheless, it is non-pure mitigating sequences that were found to be clearly predominant in the corpus (549 and 149 positive and negative face-oriented instances respectively) over non-pure aggravating ones (32 and 63 positive and negative face-based cases correspondingly) (see Table 4 above), thereby amounting to the exemplar of the trilogic nature of politicians’ interventions in debates. Such trilogic nature becomes evident in the particular internal dynamics these sequences exhibit in and through their secondary rudeness component, whereby candidates intend to achieve the audience’s persuasion by principally giving themselves and audience members ‘pluses’,3 viz, associating themselves and the audience with positive attitudes, opinions, values, behaviour, etc., and to a lesser extent, by concurrently giving their opponent ‘minuses’, namely, associating the counter candidate with negative attitudes, opinions, values, behaviour, etc. in a more explicit or implicit way: for instance, by directly using the third person singular personal pronoun and related address terms or criticising and denouncing some present social situation s/he is somehow involved with. Some debate
2 3

See below for the development of this point and a peculiarity of these sequences in this regard. My thanks go to Professor San-José for his helpful suggestions on this point.

157

Results and Discussion

scholars already point this out in their investigations albeit unrelated to face-based pragmatic sequences and/or the trilogic essence of contestants’ communication (e.g. Agha, 1997; Beck, 1996; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Edelsky & Adams, 1990; Fernández-García, 2000; Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 1998; 2000a, 2000b; Sai-Hua, 2001). In any case, this internal dynamics of non-pure mitigating units amounts to the ‘we/us’ versus ‘they/them’ dialectic that shapes political discourse in general (Atkinson, 1988; Chilton & Schäffner, 1997; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Jucker, 1997; Lazuka, 2006; Van Dijk, 1989; 1997, 2003) with the peculiarity that the ‘we/us’ term of the dialectical pair in these sequences is foregrounded over the ‘they/them’ term. The cognitive dimension of these sequences is explicated by politicians’ deployment of a series of ‘content level’ and ‘relationship level’ or ‘politeness’ assumptions, viz, assumptions referring to the content aspect of communication in general and assumptions referring to the relational aspect in that order (CarreteroLapeire, 1995/1996; Jucker, 1988). As previously mentioned, content level assumptions could be said to allude to the ideational or referential level of communication, whilst relationship level or politeness assumptions refer to the relational (cf. Dufon, 1993; Kerbrat-Oreccioni, 1997; Lakoff, 1973; Scollon & Scollon, 1995). Thus, both content level, and relationship level or politeness assumptions are involved in debaters’ metarepresentation of their relation with the audience and the adversary in these sequences. As in pure mitigating sequences, contestants exploit their metarepresentations of their relationship with the audience entailing great social distance (+P), maximum audience’s power (++P), and considerable power regarding themselves (+P) to turn these into little social
158

Results and Discussion

distance (-D) and even greater audience’s power through their own power reduction with the goal of establishing a sufficiently strong and harmonious relational basis that enables them to carry out their persuasive actions. It could be argued that this amounts to the cognitive explanation of what I call relationship ‘redefinition’ elsewhere or Watts (1989) labels ‘relational work’, i.e. the creation and assertion of common ground among individuals constituting an ‘open group’, namely, people that are strangers. Along the same lines, politicians in these sequences also exploit their metarepresentations of their relation with the rival above all in and through their secondary rudeness element. These are metarepresentations of considerable or little social distance (+/-D) that is contingent upon whether they are more or less close or distant colleagues belonging to the same or different political party, and equal power (=P). In exploiting such metarepresentations, candidates produce metarepresentations of great or little social distance in view of the closeness or distance moves they realize with distinct purposes throughout the interaction, and more power (+P) than the opponent raising positive implications about themselves and negative about the latter. Lastly, in addition to metarepresenting their relationship with the audience and their adversary, debaters also metarepresent the audience’s and the opponent’s cognitive abilities in communication in such a way that they tend to metarepresent the audience as a ‘cautious’ understander, that is, a hearer with sufficient communicative competence and level of attention to comprehend their arguments and reasoning process (see Campbell, 1992), and the adversary as a ‘sophisticated’ interpreter (Sperber, 1994a; Wilson, 1999, 2000a, 2000b), i.e. a hearer with more developed cognitive abilities than a cautious interlocutor (see p. 85ff.). As already stated, were politicians to metarepresent the
159

Results and Discussion

audience as a ‘naïve’ understander, audience members could feel they are being insulted and/or patronised (Atkinson, 1988; Levasseur & Dean, 1996). Furthermore, due to too much clarity in doing so, candidates could endanger the selfish interests behind their persuasive messages. In metarepresenting the audience as a cautious interactant, contenders also meet the expectations of institutional public mass communication, where they address an ideal hearer with average understanding abilities (see Bell, 1984, 1991; Duranti, 2001; FernándezLagunilla, 1999; Fetzer & Weizman, 2006).4 In light of all this, the trilogic and double polite character of politicians’ interventions in debates appears justified in cognitive terms. The following mitigating sequence with secondary rudeness exemplifies all the above:

(1) PRE.M.TRAD.10/3/00 GWB: =↑I agree that our (.) military is the strongest in the world to↑day. that’s not the question (.) the question is will it be the strongest (.) in the years to ↑come (.) and the warning siiigns are ↑real. (.) everywhere I go around the campaign trail I see people who (.) are moooms and daaads whose (.) son or daughter may wear the uniform. (.) and they ↑tell me about how discouraged (.) their son or daughter may ↑be. (.) a (.) recent pooll was taken amongst a thousand enlisted uuh (.) person↑neel uh (.) as well as ↑officers over half of whom are going to leave the ↑service. uh (.) when their tiime of enlistment is ↑↑up (.) there (.) the captains are (.) ↑leaving the service there is a prooblem (.) and it’s going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the ↑military power. (.) uuh the other day I was honoured to be flanked by Colin ↑Poowell. (.) and general Norman Schwartzkopf who (.) stood by my siide and a↑greed with me (.) they they said we could (.) even though we have the strongest military that if we don’t do something ↑quickly. (.) if we don’t have a clear

Fluctuations among the three distinct types of understanders alluded to in this investigation (naïve, cautious, and sophisticated) as for debaters’ metarepresentation of the audience throughout their talk may also ensue, as formerly proposed.

4

160

Results and Discussion

vision of the military if we don’t stop extending our troops aall around the woorld uuuh (.) and nation building missions (.) then we’re going to have a ↑serious problem. coming down the ↑road and I I’m going to pre↑vent that. (.) I’m going to rebuild our ↑military power. it’s (.) one of the major priorities of my administration [...]

This sequence belongs to the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush celebrated on October the 3rd, 2000, in Boston, MA, and constitutes the latter’s response to the former’s rebuttal on a question posed by Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the event, to Bush, who is the initial respondent, on the use of U.S. force in the world in tune with the formulaic structure of non-free discussion question-answer episodes of a presidential debate (Agha, 1997).5 In his answer to Lehrer the governor basically states his position on the issue establishing that the military at present is very poorly equipped and criticising this situation, to which Gore responds in his rebuttal that non-one should doubt that the military in the USA is the strongest in the world. This response raises negative implications on Bush’s persona, as it presumes that the governor questions the high-quality of U.S. troops. Although Bush could have leaved such implications go unchallenged, since taking the burden of proof in presumptive reasoning by S or H is optional (Walton, 1993), the governor decides to deny such implications by expressing his agreement with the vice president at the beginning of his response (‘I agree that our military is the strongest in the world today’). As a result, Bush not only attends to his own temporarily damaged positive face and avoids potential offence to the audience, but also a) further exploits Gore’s prior face enhancing or boosting act (Bayraktaroğlu, 1991; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1997) towards the audience in order to
Such structure consists of 1) a question formulated by the moderator to a specific candidate, 2) the candidate’s answer, 3) the opponent’s rebuttal, and 4) the initial candidate’s response to such rebuttal.
5

161

Results and Discussion

flatter or compliment it, and b) manipulates the topic of the interaction in a way that suits best his argumentative interests, which consist of presenting a negative current situation as regards the military to criticise it, and offer an alternative or solution similarly to rhetorical puzzle-solution messages (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986). Bush carries out such topic manipulation through the validity claim ‘that’s not the question, the question is: will it be the strongest in years to come’ based on the positive face mitigating strategy ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’, and the negative face mitigating strategy ‘question, hedge’ adopting the form of a rhetorical question (‘will it be the strongest in years to come’). The governor presupposes that the audience agrees with him on the idea that the problem with the military is whether it will continue the same in the future, hence shares this idea with him, and believes it is true. As for his question, Bush implicitly responds as expected, i.e. negatively, by means of secondary rudeness beginning with the utterance ‘and the warning signs are real’ and finishing with the words ‘there is a problem’, in and through which he accounts for and condemns the low morale that military personnel are experiencing, indirectly making Gore responsible for it as a member of the government running the country at the time. To this end, Bush uses the positive face aggravating strategy ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’, which in this case refers to the negative present situation affecting the military caused by the administration the vice president is part of, and the negative face aggravating strategy ‘frighten’ equivalent to Martel’s (1983) ‘scare tactic’, especially salient at the beginning of this secondary rudeness portion of the sequence.

162

Results and Discussion

Besides indirectly addressing the vice president and giving him ‘minuses’ by relating him to the low morale Bush claims there is in the military at that moment, the governor is first and foremost doing ‘relational work’ (Watts, 1989) with the audience through this secondary rudeness constituent of his sequence, all of which makes more manifest the trilogic and double polite nature of his talk. Such relational work resides in Bush’s self-appointment as the audience’s spokesperson voicing its concerns and making them his, as his critical attitude towards the unfavourable situation involving military personnel at the time bespeaks. In cognitive terms, the governor thus metarepresents his relationship with the audience as one in which there is little social distance, and the audience is the most powerful party with him amounting to a mediator or spokesperson at its service, at the same time that he metarepresents his relation with Gore as one where the vice president is an equally powerful distant other whom Bush does not want to be associated with. In this way, the governor implicitly distances himself from the adversary, raises common ground with the audience, and orients to its positive face, thereby reinforcing the overall face mitigating force of his sequence, hence its persuasive power. Bush’s attention to the audience’s positive face in voicing its concerns and adopting them as his is further evident in the alternative or solution to this situation he immediately puts forward expressed in the utterance ‘it’s going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power’, which is based on the positive face mitigating strategy ‘assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants’. Such ‘new commander in chief’ the governor refers to is no other than himself, as he implies in his next utterances, in which he a) gives himself ‘pluses’ in mentioning the support given to him by two very well-known and respected U.S. generals, and b) explicitly

163

Results and Discussion

conveys at the end of his sequence through the utterance ‘I’ m going to rebuild our military power’, thus instantiating what J. Wilson (1990: 79) calls ‘existential involvement’. In the rest of his sequence, Bush employs secondary rudeness again (‘they said […] we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road’) with a twofold purpose: increasing the audience’s fear before Gore’s previously stated plan of extending national troops all over the world and using them as nation builders by means of the negative face aggravating strategy ‘frighten’, and raising common ground with the audience, so that he orients to its positive face, by including it in his proposed global action of stopping the vice president’s plan as signalled by the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ (see Blas-Arroyo, 2000; Chilton, 1990; Connor-Linton, 1995; Lakoff, 1990; Lazuka, 2006; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Zupnik, 1994). Therefore, the trilogic and double polite condition of the governor’s intervention becomes more salient as well as its face mitigating and persuasive value. All in all, by attending to the audience’s positive wants in enhancing its image and presupposing and asserting his knowledge of and concern for its needs and wants, building his own image, and indirectly downplaying his rival’s in conveying dislike or disagreement with the vice president and his actions, Bush attempts to attain the audience’s persuasion here through the secondary rudeness and pure mitigating components of his sequence. The governor’s persuasive action culminates with his promise and offer ‘and I’m going to prevent that, I’m going to rebuild our military power; it’s one of the major priorities of my administration’ closing his sequence. Face mitigating sequences with secondary rudeness oriented to audience members’ negative faces were also found to be illustrative of the persuasive
164

Results and Discussion

dimension of debaters’ discourses to a lesser extent, however, than their positive face counterpart. These sequences consist of soft impositions of a candidate’s position on a determinate topic mainly in the shape of advice and statements of the speaker’s views as general rules, and to a lesser extent, warnings and threats. Therefore, negative face mitigating strategies such as ‘question, hedge’, ‘state the communicative act(s) as a general rule’ and ‘impersonalise S and H’ appeared as the most frequent therein. These sequences with secondary rudeness did not present any peculiarity important enough to make them considerably different from their positive face equivalent saved for their negative face orientation, hence functioned like any non-pure mitigating category as explained above. As previously mentioned, apart from processes of narrowing and broadening concerning the principal addressee of mitigating sequences from the audience to concrete interactants such as the moderator, a panelist or some questioner, and vice versa, certain mitigating sequences in the corpus were encountered to specifically target at these three distinct debate participants in order to joke, signal acceptance of and compliance with their indications, apologise, express thanks, request information, clarification and/or permission especially from the moderator, justify debate rule breaking behaviour, and softly impose a particular view on an issue sometimes in the form of corrections of their implicit and explicit assertions. These sequences also aimed to underscore candidates’ politically correct behaviour, which further evinces their nature as acts of persuasion. Other mitigating sequences were observed to be directed towards the opponent usually in the form of cooperative actions of diverse kinds (e.g. tokens of agreement, acknowledgement, etc.), above all jokes, apologies, thanking moves,
165

Results and Discussion

and permission requests only in the context of interruptions. Such anomalous sequences 1) contributed to create a nice atmosphere in the debate in question having a positive effect in the speaker’s image, particularly jokes (cf. Norrick, 1994; Zajdman, 1995), and 2) showed an adequate conduct on the part of the speaker in keeping with the norms of social behaviour underlying debates, so that S strategically presented or enhanced a public positive image of him/herself more than attending to his/her rival’s positive or negative faces through these sequential instances. Lastly, the secondary rudeness component of certain mitigating sequences was viewed to occasionally address the moderator, a journalist or questioner to deny the premises or statements in these participants’ questions with the aim of evading these, and manipulating the topic of the interaction. This component also oriented from time to time to the audience, accompanied by some sort of repair or compensation, and oneself for strategic reasons linked to the topic under discussion and self-image building respectively.

1.3. Face Aggravation

Face aggravation in the data was found to be primarily targeted at the adversary, and appeared to constitute the best expression of the zero sum game character of political debates. Among the diverse types of face aggravating sequences emerging in the analysis, it was pure ones that were seen to be paradigmatic in this regard with negative face sequences predominating over positive face ones: 277 normal negative face-oriented units vis-à-vis 164 normal positive face categories (see Table 4). Contrary to non-pure aggravating sequences

166

Results and Discussion

where the speaker is primarily debating the opponent but indirectly intending to persuade the audience in their secondary politeness element, pure face aggravating categories either with a negative or positive face orientation exclusively focus on the adversary aiming all their damaging force at him/her, and showing a very implicit persuasive action towards the audience. Such action could be deemed ‘default’ here, as it is inherent in the trilogic nature of discourse in debates. This damaging action to the counter candidate’s image entails the enhancement of one’s own in these contexts, thus conspicuously evincing their zero sum game gist. These findings confirm by and large theoretical and empirical statements on this point in general and politeness-based investigations of debates (e.g. Agha, 1997; Beck, 1996; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Blas-Arroyo, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; Carlin & Bicak, 1993; Carlin et al., 1991; Caspi, 1986; Galasiński, 1998; Hellweg et al., 1992; Jaworski & Galasiński, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Jørgensen, 1998; Martel, 1983; Nir, 1988; Sai-Hua, 2001). Negative face aggravating sequences normally aimed to 1) bluntly impose certain actions and/or words on the opponent, sometimes going as far as to reproach him/her for these, and 2) challenge the opponent. In the first case, a candidate was seen to implicitly or explicitly attribute a series of negative actions and/or words to the rival forcing the latter to defend him/herself, so that the former could not get the best out of it as in antagonistic critical discussions where H manages to deal with the ‘burden of proof’ thrown at him/her by S (Walton, 1993). In the second case, a politician was also observed to put pressure on the adversary to provide an account or evidence commonly for determinate positive actions and/or words the latter had claimed for him/herself, implicitly suggesting s/he could not do so (cf. Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998). By more or less implicitly or
167

Results and Discussion

explicitly imputing some specific negative action and/or words to the counter candidate, and questioning positive ones the latter has declared his/hers, a contestant was simultaneously inviting positive thoughts about him/herself, thereby realizing self-positive image building. This underscored the zero sum game essence of the debate being held. In sum, contenders interactionally coerced their adversaries in these sequences, where negative face aggravating strategies such as ‘increase imposition weight’, ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’ and ‘challenge’ emerged as the most popular accordingly. Positive face aggravating sequences were slightly less abundant than negative face aggravating ones, and were observed to comprise ‘aggravated dissents’ and ‘opposition formats’ in their majority (Kotthoff, 1993). In the former the speaker tried to control the topic of the interaction and its development by downplaying the topical relevance of his/her opponent’s utterances on the issue under discussion. In the latter s/he exploited the other party’s point(s) and exact words by attributing them an opposite meaning from their original to his/her own advantage. By so doing, a candidate was at the same time implicitly depicting him/herself in these sequences as an expert in the matter in hand. Therefore, positive face aggravation against the other contestant herein also implied S’s selfpositive face attention making more obvious the zero sum game character of the debate taking place as a result. In light of all this and in tune with my previous assertions, it was not surprising to find in the analysis disagreement acts like ‘contradictions’ and ‘counterclaims’ (Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998) as constitutive elements of these sequences among the most frequent strategies aimed at damaging the rival’s positive face, whilst indirectly upgrading one’s own. In this
168

Results and Discussion

way, the positive face aggravating strategy ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’ appeared as the most predominant habitually in combination with the strategy ‘dissociate, distance from H’. In cognitive terms, both negative and positive face aggravating sequences of the pure kind involve ‘content level’ and ‘relationship level’ or ‘politeness’ assumptions (Carretero-Lapeire, 1995/1996; Jucker, 1988). Candidates employ these assumptions in their metarepresentation of their relation with the opponent, chief in these sequences, and their metarepresentation of their relationship with the audience according to the trilogic condition of debaters’ talk. Contenders metarepresent their relation with the rival here as a confrontational kind of bond raising negative implications about him/her and, in a more implicit manner, positive ones about themselves. In spite of their implicit character,6 candidates’ positive implications about their own personas are especially salient in these sequences because of the direct aggravating action they perform against the opponent. This accounts for the zero sum game nature of political debates at a cognitive level concomitantly stressing the fact that such sequences are best illustrative of it. As previously mentioned, politicians in these sequences metarepresent the adversary’s comprehension abilities as those defining a ‘sophisticated’ understander (Sperber, 1994a; Wilson, 1999, 2000a, 2000b), since they believe that s/he may not be truthful and his/her utterances are inappropriate, as they do not give evidence of his/her real meaning, based on the assumption that s/he exploits his/her ‘political competence’ (Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000b) to deal with issues in a way that helps him/her achieve his/her goals. Contestants also
6

Implications of this sort are, however, explicit in any action, in which a politician directly praises him/herself, for example, self-directed face enhancing or boosting acts.

169

Results and Discussion

exploit a series of metarepresentations in these sequences, that actually yield the reality of their relation with the counter candidate, to metarepresent such relationship as one of great or little social distance, and greater power on their part according to their self-interests (see p. 88ff.). Likewise, in these aggravating sequences they metarepresent their relationship with the audience, its communicative competence, and level of attention with these regularly amounting to those defining a ‘cautious’ understander. Example (2) is a negative face aggravating sequence showing many of the afore stated points:

(2) S.MF.TRAD.9/13/00 HRC: =we well ↑we’ll shake on (.) we’ll [shake on this now (she offers her hand they shake but receives the paper again with Lazio pointing to it with his finger) no (.) no] I want your signature cause I think everybody wants to see= =(almost inaudible and individual laughter)= =↑YOUU’re siigning something you said you were for (.) ↑I’m forrr. (.) ↑I haven’t done it. (.) ↑you’ve been violating it. (.) ↑why don’t you stand up and do something do something important for America (.) while America is looking at New York (.) ↑why don’t you show some leadership because it goes to trust and character= [...]

→ RIL: A: RIL:

This excerpt is inserted in a negativity cycle ensuing in the senatorial debate between the Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Republican politician Rick Lazio, celebrated on September the 13th, 2000, in Buffalo, NY. Such negativity cycle or highly hostile larger discourse chunk was very commented on by the press and the media, which generally characterised it as non-sense, theatrical and very aggressive on Lazio’s part (e.g. Newfield, 2000a, 2000b). In this negative face aggravating sequence Lazio further coerces his
170

Results and Discussion

opponent to sign a ban on ‘soft money’ or those financial contributions that have supported both of their campaigns in the New York senate race7 after having already tried to make her sign by physically approaching her at her podium. Clinton’s strategic refusal of politely shaking Lazio’s hand in an attempt to turn this whole menacing episode into a joke causes the latter’s counter-refusal, as observed in the two negations at the beginning of his sequence, whose overlapping nature reveals the congressman’s haste to reject his opponent’s strategy. The first lady’s deployment of such strategy confirms Baxter’s (1984) findings on females’ marked use of positive politeness strategies in a compliance-gaining situation. Lazio’s passionate reaction produces some audience members’ laughter before the absurdity of the situation; since there is no way a candidate can truly end such monetary contributions on his/her own. This individual audience members’ laughter backs the idea that the audience is an active debate participant versus the fairly passive role it has frequently been assigned in the debate literature (e.g. Galasiński, 1998) excepting conversational analysis studies and others almost exclusively focusing on it (cf. Clayman, 1993; Hutchby, 1997; Sai-Hua, 2001). The Republican candidate starts his coercive move by means of the negative face aggravating strategy ‘increase imposition weight’ mainly materialised in the command ‘I want your signature’, a ‘want statement’ in Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) taxonomy of directives almost equivalent to a bald imperative, and highly facethreatening by and large in an Anglo-American culture (Kasper, 1998; Fitch, 1994a; Fitch & Sanders, 1994). In order to justify his blunt petition before the audience, thereby intending to avoid his public image getting too hurt, the
Soft money contributions to political parties in electoral periods refer to financial aid from corporations, unions, individual groups, and wealthy citizens. These contributions have become part of such political processes in the USA to the disapproval of the population, who thinks in its majority that they hinder democracy. Finishing with these contributions is an issue politicians tend to raise at political meetings, rallies, debates, etc., during campaigns.
7

171

Results and Discussion

congressman accounts for himself through the negative face aggravating strategy ‘state the communicative act(s) as common or shared knowledge’ in combination with that of ‘indebt H’ observed in the statement ‘cause I think everybody wants to see you’re signing something you said you were for’. Nevertheless, Lazio simultaneously employs here the positive face mitigating strategy

‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’ with the audience, since he is voicing a sentiment he presupposes and establishes to be shared and true, thus orienting to its positive face. This not only evinces the trilogic and double polite condition of politicians’ talk in debates, but at a cognitive level, it points to the fact that, regardless of contestants primarily metarepresenting their relation with the counter candidate in aggravating sequences, they also metarepresent theirs with the audience too. In this statement the congressman is also implicitly raising negative implications about his female rival that could be summarised in the idea that she cannot be trusted by her word concerning soft money, so that her signature is necessary to believe it aiming to damage the first lady’s positive face in this fashion. Lazio also echoes the public metarepresentation ‘you said you were for’ he attributes to his opponent expressing a questioning and dissociative attitude towards it (cf. Wilson, 1999, 2000b) with the same goal: inviting negative implications on Clinton to discredit her image. These negative other-directed implications bespeak the congressman’s metarepresentation of his relationship with the first lady as an antagonistic type of bond with both ‘content level’, and ‘relationship level’ or ‘politeness’ assumptions involved in such

metarepresentation. These negative implications translate into positive selfdirected with these becoming explicit in Lazio’s contrast ‘I haven’t done it, you’ve
172

Results and Discussion

been violating it’ referring to the acceptance and use of soft money, and Clinton’s declared commitment to forego it correspondingly. In this contrast the Republican candidate therefore attributes a negative action to the first lady through the negative face aggravating strategy ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’ (‘you’ve been violating it’), that somewhat parallels Blas-Arroyo’s (2001) impoliteness strategy ‘acusa al interlocutor de eludir su responsabilidad’ (accuse your interlocutor of eluding his/her responsibilities), while attending to his own negative face and indirectly, given the negative character of the attributed action, his positive face as well in the utterance ‘I haven’t done it’. This thus underscores the zero sum game essence of the unfolding event. Lazio also instantiates the coercive quality of his face aggravating sequence by way of the face aggravating strategy ‘challenge’ observed in two noninterruptive direct questions whereby he challenges Clinton implying that she cannot do something important for America in the first question (‘why don’t you stand up and do something important for America while America is looking at New York’), and that she cannot show the leadership the senate seat they are competing for requires in the second (‘why don’t you show some leadership because it goes to trust and character’). The congressman further intensifies the aggravating force of his utterances in his immediate words (‘because it goes to trust and character’) debasing Clinton’s personality in to damage her positive face. In positing these questions to the first lady, the congressman is also attempting to exert power over her as it is reflected in his reprimanding and reproaching attitude in these questions and the implications deriving from them, viz, that Lazio is actually doing something significant for America by proposing and having signed
173

Results and Discussion

the soft money under discussion, and that he actually has the trust and character the latter lacks for the New York senatorial office. As a result, the Republican candidate is implicitly claiming ‘expert power’ (Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Tannen, 1987; Thomas, 1995) over the first lady, thereby supporting scholars’ conclusions on the coercive and hostile function of questions in institutional settings entertained on the whole as power moves from the speaker over the hearer (e.g. Bilmes, 1999, 2001; Harris, 1995; Lakoff, 1989; Levinson, 1992; Mullany, 2002; Nir, 1988; Rudanko, 1995). The zero sum game nature of the debate in hand is conspicuous here too. Lastly, Lazio also employs the positive face aggravating strategies ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, values, and opinions)’ and ‘belittle or diminish the importance of H and H’s things, actions, values and opinions’ in these questions with the intention of hurting his rival’s positive face as well. Other less frequent but equally relevant pure aggravating sequences found in the corpus are a determinate kind of negative face aggravating sequential categories in the shape of coercive questions, and positive face aggravating sequences of an ironic and sarcastic condition. Coercive questions entailed impositions of S’s views on the addressee forcing him/her to share these views in his/her response, since rejection of such views generally involved negative implications for H’s own image. In this fashion, the speaker normally obtained compliance in terms of the answer s/he wanted to get on the part of the hearer. Nonetheless, these negative face aggravating sequences sometimes adopted the shape of non-pure categories, that is, aggravating units with secondary politeness. Ironic and sarcastic instances were geared to debase the hearer, at the same time that the speaker joked with the audience with the objective of building solidarity
174

Results and Discussion

with it. They entailed parody and mockery towards the hearer turning out to be persona-centred attacks of a highly aggravating character. Non-pure aggravating sequences oriented to the opponent’s positive or negative face — a total of 32 were found for positive face orientation and 63 for negative face orientation as illustrated in Table 4. Notwithstanding the rival as their main addressee, in these sequences the audience is highlighted as the secondary indirect addressee in and through their secondary politeness constituent, which underlines the trilogic and double polite essence of debaters’ discourses. Yet, these non-pure categories appeared to have a peculiar feature vis-à-vis nonpure mitigating ones: their secondary politeness component was sometimes directed towards the very object of their aggravating action, namely, the adversary. This feature originates from the speaker’s strategic intent to safeguard a positive public image of him/herself, and points out the audience as these sequences’ unquestionable indirect addressee. The trilogic and double polite nature of candidates’ interventions in debates is especially noticeable in the internal dynamics of these sequential categories, which is the reverse of their mitigating counterpart’s, that is, the ‘minuses’ associated with the rival uttered in a direct manner here supersede the ‘pluses’ associated with the speaker, hence the ‘they/them’ term of the dialectic pair ‘we/us’ versus ‘they/them’ defining political discourse is foregrounded. At a cognitive level, the same depiction outlined above for pure aggravating sequences applies to these non-pure ones, with the only particularity that metarepresentations on the audience may be more salient in their secondary politeness component, above all if such component is targeted at the latter.

175

Results and Discussion

As for other face aggravating sequences in the data, certain aggravating categories were aimed at the moderator, some panelists, and some questioners moulded as denials of these participants’ premises or statements in their questions, refusals to answer such questions, and impositions, complaints and reproaches specifically addressed to the moderator. Nevertheless, rudeness against panelists and questioners rarely constituted a pure aggravating unit, surfacing more often in the form of non-pure aggravation, i.e. aggravation with secondary politeness. Even though so, as direct face attacks to interlocutors distinct from the rival, the only debate participant whom aggravation is expected to be directed to, these anomalous sequences may be deemed instances of socially inappropriate behaviour according to the norms of social conduct governing debates, hence to a certain extent rule breaching. This runs counter to the positive image debaters want for themselves in order to attain the audience’s persuasion and explains the fact that these anomalous sequences are not common in the debates object of study — a total of 17 as opposed to 486 normal face aggravating sequences (see Table 4). In spite of this, politicians produced them mainly for the purpose of manipulating talk to their advantage. Finally, as mentioned in chapter three of the Methods part of this dissertation, a supra face aggravating category was also observed in the corpus, namely, negativity cycles. This supra sequential category was seen to principally consist of a series of aggravating sequences a candidate and his/her adversary normally exchanged in a fairly rapid conversational tempo. This aggravating category evinced politicians’ contentious approach to the floor in debates, which is also characteristic of other TV-mediated contexts (see, e.g. Gregori-Signes, 1998, 2000a, 2000b), hence these events’ zero sum game condition.
176

Results and Discussion

1.4. Conclusions

In this chapter, I have offered a general account of face mitigation and aggravation in the debates under study in this project. First, I have dealt with some of the difficulties and peculiarities that I encountered in the analysis on both quantitative and qualitative grounds, especially the latter. Then, I have provided a description of face mitigating categories in the data with a focus on non-pure units, i.e. sequences with secondary rudeness, with a positive face orientation, since these were observed to be the most predominant amounting also to the best expression of a) the persuasive dimension of politicians’ interventions in debates, and b) the trilogic essence of their talk in these contexts. I have also explained this face mitigating variety in RT terms exemplifying it with a sound occurrence from the corpus. An overview of face aggravating sequences has followed with an emphasis in pure positive and negative aggravating categories in view of their almost equal presence in the debates, and their paradigmatic illustration of the zero sum game character of these events. A cognitive-based rendering of these sequences has been supplied too together with a compelling instance from the data.

177

Results and Discussion

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF FACE MITIGATING AND FACE AGGRAVATING SEQUENCES

The present chapter aims to provide an answer to the two main research questions formulated in this project. To this end, a qualitative-based description of the type of politeness and impoliteness characterising face mitigating sequences on the one hand, and face aggravating sequences on the other hand, is first offered with illustrative examples from the data sample selected for the analysis of microstrategies. An account of the elements observed to recur in each of these sequential categories, namely, modals in the former, and terms of address in the latter, is also supplied according to their hypothesised value as regular devices in these categories on qualitative and quantitative grounds. Then, an explanation of the usual location of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in debates accompanied by significant instances from the corpus closes the chapter with an overall positive assessment of the results obtained in relation to the hypotheses and claims formulated at a qualitative level.

2.1. Type of Face Mitigation

Upon analysis, the type of face mitigation that was found to prevail in face mitigating sequences in the debates object of study, and in an impressionistic manner, in the rest of the corpus, was predominantly positive as opposed to negative face-oriented mitigation, and it was mainly based on the positive face

178

Results and Discussion

mitigating strategies ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’, ‘assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants’, and ‘offer and promise’ backing the results of prior analyses. These strategies normally combined with one another and negative face mitigating strategies (see, e.g. Baxter, 1984; Coupland et al., 1988; Craig et al., 1986; Garcés-Conejos, 1991, 1995; Penman, 1990; etc.), sometimes even overlapping in the same stretch of talk, and performing the principal function of building rapport and solidarity with the audience. The positive face mitigating function of these strategies showed the hallmark of positive face phenomena in political discourse, namely, the construction of a national identity and consensus, and the increase of the public political credibility of the speaker with the consequent decrease of the opponent’s (Beck, 1996; BlasArroyo, 2001; Chilton, 1990; J. Wilson, 1990). This shows the positive face mitigating function of such strategies as for the speaker’s face and their double polite nature. Albeit primarily orienting towards H’s positive face, these strategies were occasionally observed to orient to the addressee’s negative face too, which made more salient the interrelation between both faces some pragmaticians point out (e.g. Kerbrat-Oreccioni, 1997; Locher, 2004; Penman, 1990; Scollon & Scollon, 1995; Watts, 2003; Wood & Kroger, 1994). Nonetheless, this appeared to be more common with negative face mitigating strategies as discussed below. Out of these three positive face mitigating strategies, the strategy ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’ was found to be the most crucial for the establishment of a positive relational basis with the audience as a means to prepare the ground for its persuasion. As already established elsewhere, this strategy entails politicians’ formulation of certain validity claims in and through their discourses presuming them to be shared by the audience, and true. Thus, the
179

Results and Discussion

speaker not only creates a controlled cognitive environment from which s/he can manipulate the hearer’s interpretive process by presenting new information as old in his/her presuppositions (see Abbott, 2000) with the aim of achieving persuasion (Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Jucker, 1997a; Sanders, 1987), but also claims ‘expert power’ for him/herself vis-à-vis the opponent, thereby supporting Harris’ (1995) idea that positing validity or truth claims in institutional contexts reinforces power asymmetries between participants in the talk. In this way, the double polite condition of contestants’ discourses becomes evident, since by means of their validity claims, debaters invite negative implications about the adversary at the same time that they raise positive ones about themselves and the audience. This strategy was also found to generally emerge in the form of statements where a relation of identity between people and/or things and events is established (e.g. ‘that’s A’, ‘that means B’, ‘the problem is C’, ‘the most important thing is D’, etc.) (cf. Lazuka, 2006), which resembled the notion of ‘recompletion’ in political oratory (Atkinson, 1988; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986; Hutchby, 1997), i.e. a rhetorical device deployed to recapitulate a point already made, and build alignments with the audience searching also for its applause.1 The positive face mitigating strategies ‘assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants’, and ‘offer and promise’ were encountered to be significantly employed for granting the audience ‘symbolic power’ or the relative power the speaker ascribes to the hearer via the seeming reduction of his/her own in light of the ‘paradox of persuasive politeness’ defining persuasive discourses (Schulze, 1987). This was observed in 1) candidates’ implicit
This phenomenon could also be considered within the range of the so-called ‘reformulations’ in relevance-theoretic investigations conceived as stylistic devices or echoic utterances aimed at the achievement of additional cognitive effects (see Blakemore, 1993, 1994; Culpeper, 1994; Maruenda-Bataller, 2002).
1

180

Results and Discussion

appointment of themselves as the audience’s spokesperson in assuming and worryingly voicing its needs and wants on the one hand, and 2) their positioning as its mere servants in attempting to meet these with their offers and promises on the other hand. In order to evince and exemplify their assumptions and statements on audience members’ needs and wants, some politicians were seen to even bring to the debates specific individuals hired by their respective campaigns, whose presence in these events was acknowledged, and their personal stories were told to this end: for instance, Winifred Skinner regarding the needs and wants of the elderly, and Chris Pederson concerning those of farmers in the case of Al Gore (cf., e.g. Merida, 2000). From my standpoint, these are examples of what LorenzoDus (2003) calls ‘ordinarization’ of the media, especially TV, whereby ordinary people are brought into it for viewers to identify themselves more easily with what they are watching and listening. At a cognitive level, these positive face mitigating strategies strongly invite positive implications about the speaker and the audience, and more faintly, negative ones about the rival. Therefore, their double polite character is less obvious than that of the strategy ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’ above. As for their form, only the strategy ‘offer and promise’ was found to take a particular shape surfacing through the auxiliary verbs ‘will’ and ‘would’ or any expression with which S committed him/herself to a determinate future action. Extract (3) illustrates all these strategies and their features:

(3) PD.M.TRAD.1/8/00 AG: [...] there’s one (.) budget rate plan for a family of ↑four (.) but it’s inadequate (.) and all of the others are (.) more than that (.) now (.) uh (.) ↑↑here’s the reason I’m bringing this ↑up (.) the ↑people that you are ↑↑training yourself to serve are the ones who most need a champion (.)
181

Results and Discussion

and a ↑↑president of the United States [...]

In this excerpt, which is part of a primary debate between Al Gore and Bill Bradley held on January the 8th, 2000, in Des Moines, Iowa, the three previously discussed positive face mitigating strategies not only mix together, but mainly overlap. Gore uses the strategy ‘offer and promise’ in offering himself to serve the audience, and simultaneously employs the strategy ‘assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants’ in presuming and explicitly affirming that the audience’s major need consists of a future president who is a good leader, hence a winner, according to the indirect metaphorical parallel he draws between a champion and the prospective U.S. president. First, by humbly depicting himself as its servant, the vice president symbolically allocates maximum power (++P) to the audience through the apparent decrease of his own. This powerless image contrasts, however, with the connotation of power the metaphorical term ‘champion’ weakly communicates (see Carston, 1996; Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995, 1987, 1990; Sung-Son, 1998; Vicente-Cruz, 1991, 1993, 1996), which are further reinforced by the expression ‘a president of the United States’. This and the fact that Gore implicitly identifies himself with such president, hence that champion, as his utterance ‘you are training yourself to serve’ indicates, demonstrate the seeming character of his power reduction. In presuming and expressing the audience’s need of a leading president indirectly equating himself with it, the vice president orients towards his own and audience members’ positive faces, while implicitly aggravating that of his opponent, who lacks the positive qualities the word ‘champion’ and its metaphorical equivalent ‘a president of the United States’ evoke. This evinces the
182

Results and Discussion

interpersonal and explanatory functions attributed to metaphor on the whole, and political contexts in particular (Allbritton, 1995; Chilton & Ilyin, 1993; Croft, 1993; García-Pastor, 2002a; Goatly, 1994; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Kurzon, 1996; Miller, 1999; Otto, 1999; Sung-Son, 1998; Voss et al., 1992). In addition, it illustrates somehow the double polite condition of the strategies under discussion. This condition turns more patent in Gore’s usage of the positive face mitigating strategy ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’ subjacent to his entire statement. By means of this strategy, the vice president establishes a specific cognitive environment he somewhat hints for the first time in his deployment of the sports field-related verb ‘training’ in its reflexive form. In so doing, he intends to guide the audience’s interpretation towards positive implications about himself, and negative ones about Bradley, as his use of the term ‘champion’ explicitly signals clearly partaking of the creation of this controlled cognitive environment as well. Therefore, Gore calls for a winning president indirectly associating it with himself and presupposing such claim as shared by the audience and true, so that he somehow brings the audience to his own world (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 2000; Zupnik, 1994) building the common ground necessary for its persuasion. The vice president thus constructs a mutual national identity and consensus, while attempting to enhance his public image and damage the rival’s, in such a way that he attends to the audience’s positive face and his own. Negative face mitigation was observed to be less popular than its positive face counterpart in face mitigating sequences with the strategies ‘question, hedge’, ‘state the communicative act(s) as a general rule’ and ‘impersonalise S and H’ appearing as the most frequent in the data. Like the aforementioned positive faceoriented strategies, these strategies usually emerged in combination and/or
183

Results and Discussion

superposed, and were aimed at fulfilling audience members’ overall desire of being unimpeded upon by a) giving them certain freedom of choice, which is characteristic of the phenomenon of persuasion2 (Burke, 1950; Bryant, 1953; Fitch, 2003; Ilatov, 1993), and b) attending to their desire of territorial wholeness and self-determination typical of negative politeness phenomena in political contexts (Chilton, 1990). Such strategies were also encountered to normally orient to S’s positive face, and carry out an indirect aggravating action against the adversary evocative of their double polite nature. As previously pointed out and regardless of their habitual negative face orientation, these mitigating strategies were also seen to address H’s positive face quite regularly (see Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Galasiński, 1998; Harris, 2001) compared to positive face mitigating strategies with other-negative face directionality. This backs some researchers’ findings (e.g. Lim & Bowers, 1991), and leads to the conclusion that the tendency for face mitigating strategies with a dual face orientation in debates is to move from the specific to the general unlike vice versa. This conclusion is based on the concrete communicative act-linked condition attributed to negative face, and the broader scope assigned to positive face respectively in the literature (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995; Coupland et al., 1988; Mills, 2003; Turner, 1996; Watts, 2003; Werkhofer, 1992). This also corroborates the greater importance of positive over negative face for speaker and hearer in political discourse and persuasion, already foregrounded in the preceding chapter.

2.2. Type of Face Aggravation

2

In spite of such degree of freedom, this phenomenon involves a menace to the hearer’s negative face (Gallardo-Paúls, 2001).

184

Results and Discussion

The type of face aggravation observed to be predominant in face aggravating sequences in the two debates under analysis, and more generally, in the remaining data, was negative face aggravation. However, positive face aggravation was nearly as abundant. Negative face aggravation was found to primarily comprise the strategies ‘increase imposition weight’, ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’ and ‘challenge’, which not only mixed and/or overlapped, but also co-occurred with positive face aggravating strategies in the same intervention like strategies of face mitigation above (see, e.g. Culpeper, 1996, 2005; Culpeper et al., 2003; Lachenicht, 1980; Penman, 1990). These negative face aggravating strategies were intended to impose on the opponent in different ways, thereby invading his/her territorial integrity and autonomy (Blas-Arroyo, 2001). According to the zero sum game essence of political debates, such aggravating function necessarily intertwines with a positive face mitigating one in relation to the speaker, which makes these strategies’ double polite character more manifest, and attests some of the features established for positive face phenomena in the political discourse literature. Similarly to face mitigating strategies, a dual orientation towards the counter candidate’s positive face was also perceived in these aggravating strategies along the lines of some rudeness investigations (cf. Culpeper, 2005; Culpeper et al., 2003; Lachenicht, 1980; Mills, 2002; Mullany, 2002). The high incidence of this dual face orientation in such strategies vis-à-vis positive face aggravating strategies (see below) 1) makes the tendency postulated for dual face mitigating strategies in debates, i.e. movement from the specific (negative face) to the general

185

Results and Discussion

(positive face), extensive to strategies of face aggravation, and 2) stresses the relevance of positive face in these events. The negative face aggravating strategy ‘increase imposition weight’ emerged as the most common encompassing impositions ranging from coercing H into a specific course of action, to inflicting certain attitude, world view, etc., on H coupled with literal or metaphorical invasions of his/her space as in Culpeper’s (1996, 2005) and Culpeper et al.’s (2003) strategy ‘invade the other’s space’. Consequently, this strategy turned out to be broader in scope than Lachenicht’s (1980) seeming parallel strategy ‘increase imposition weight’ in the debates under study. Notwithstanding their frequent joint appearance, impositions related to making the rival act discursively in a determinate way prevailed, and usually involved attributions of negative attitudes, actions, etc. to him/her attempting to implicitly damage his/her positive face (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 2001). This accounts for this strategy’s dual face orientation, and highlights its double polite nature, since such negative attributions to the hearer implicitly entail positive implications about the speaker. Moreover, a candidate’s coercive action on the opponent, hence invasion of the latter’s territorial wholeness and independence, also amounts to a power move over him/her in light of the zero sum game character of electoral debates (see p. 72ff.). This provides further evidence on the relationship between coercion and power many pragmaticians have theoretically claimed and empirically demonstrated across communicative exchanges (e.g. Chilton & Schäffner, 1997; Harris, 1995; Lakoff, 1989; Levinson, 1992; Locher, 2004; Thomas, 1985). Finally, this strategy was not found to adopt any definite shape. The strategies ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’ and ‘challenge’ were not as popular consisting also of
186

Results and Discussion

determinate kinds of impositions on the addressee. In the first case, these impositions were based on imputations of negative behaviour to him/her, whereby S somehow forces H to refute such imputations expressing a reproaching attitude towards him/her. In the second case, these impositions materialised as the speaker’s demands to the hearer that s/he proved his/her claims implying s/he could not do so, and conveying disagreement with, and disapproval of, him/her. The strategy ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’ thus captures the more general meaning of the strategy ‘explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect’ in the work of Culpeper (1996, 2005), and Culpeper and associates (2003), and that of ‘asocia directamente al interlocutor con intenciones, hechos, etc. negativos’ (associate the interlocutor with negative intentions, facts, etc.) in Blas-Arroyo’s (2001) research. The strategy ‘challenge’ on the other hand, fits Muntigl and Turnbull’s (1998) definition of challenges as specific acts of disagreement. Besides constituting impingements upon the addressee’s negative face, these strategies also attack his/her positive face in and through the attributions of negative conduct to H they include. This not only justifies their dual face orientation, but also their double polite condition, since such negative attributions to the hearer indirectly promote a positive image of the speaker according to the zero sum game essence of debates. The win-loose essence of these speech events accounts for these strategies’ categorisation as power actions too. Lastly, the strategy ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’ was not encountered to have any determinate form, whilst ‘challenge’ presented many of the features established for disagreements in the literature: for instance, initial reluctance markers such as ‘well’ (see Bayraktaroğlu, 1991; Gregori-Signes, 1996;
187

Results and Discussion

Gruber, 1998; Kotthoff, 1993; Locher, 2004; Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998), and question particles like ‘when’, what’, ‘who’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ (Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998). The following excerpt exemplifies all the afore stated points:

(4) PR.M.TRAD.1/26/00 AK: [...] well it is ↑↑GOD’s ↑choice (.) that that child is in the womb (.) and for us to usurp that choice in CONtradiction of our declaration of principles (.) is JUST as ↑wroong (.) therefore ↑how can you take the position that you would subject such a choice (.) to a ↑FAmily conference or any other human ↑choice [...]

In this intervention by Alan Keyes embedded in a Republican candidates’ debate celebrated on the 26th of January, 2000, in Manchester, NH, the ambassador attempts to coerce his opponent John McCain into a pro-life response on the controversial issue of abortion by critically attributing him a pro-choice position based on his idea of subjecting his daughter’s decision to abort to a family conference. To this end, Keyes employs the negative face aggravating strategies ‘increase imposition weight’, ‘challenge’ and ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’ throughout the selected portion of his talk. Apart from overlapping, these strategies combine with the positive face aggravating strategy ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’ ubiquitous to the ambassador’s speech. Subsequently to his view of God3 ultimately deciding about the life of a child put forward as a general truth, Keyes carries out his coercive action on McCain by means of his non-interruptive direct question, whereby he
Biblical references were found to be typical of Alan Keyes’ style of debating in keeping with the evangelical preaching style normally related to Republicans (Lakoff, 2001). See Chilton (1990) for an example.
3

188

Results and Discussion

intends to 1) impose this view on him, 2) challenge him implying that the senator’s position is untenable, and 3) indicate with a reproaching attitude that he has no respect for human rights and values in holding such position. Therefore, this question instantiates the three previously mentioned negative face aggravating strategies with an intensification of the aggravation towards McCain’s negative face via the increased loudness of the term ‘family’ (cf. Culpeper, 1996; Culpeper et al., 2003). Nevertheless, I would say that increased loudness in this case also underscores the ambassador’s judgemental and disagreement stance towards the senator, in particular, the negative and irresponsible position on abortion he supposedly entertains, thereby damaging his positive face (see Held, 1989; Holmes, 1984; Tracy & Tracy, 1998). Considering that Keyes’ imputation of such position to McCain is what these negative face aggravating strategies lie on, their aggravating action to the senator’s positive face, hence their dual face orientation, appears justified. By raising negative implications about his rival, the ambassador indirectly invites positive ones about himself according to the zero sum game nature of debates, so that these strategies’ double politeness is also warranted. In addition, this win-loose feature of debates explains their qualification as interactional/persuasive power moves (cf. Lakoff, 1990; Mills, 2003; Van Dijk, 1997). Finally, the word ‘family’ with its increased loudness also constitutes an enactment of the positive face aggravating strategy ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’ together with the expression ‘any other human choice’, whose adjective ‘any’ acts as a booster of face aggravation (see Held, 1989; Holmes, 1984; Locher, 2004; Wood & Kroger, 1994). All in all and in keeping with Lakoff (2005), this
189

Results and Discussion

example suggests that the separation between a private and a public face some scholars establish for politicians and institutional representatives pointing out the relevance of the latter is not that clear-cut (e.g. Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2003; J. Wilson, 1990; Lakoff, 1990; Locher, 2004; Watts, 2003). Positive face aggravation was seen to be almost as predominant as its negative face counterpart in face aggravating sequences with the strategies ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’, and ‘dissociate, distance from H’ surfacing as the most common. Both strategies regularly mingled and/or emerged superposed co-occurring with negative face aggravating strategies in the same stretch of talk (cf. Harris, 2001). Besides hurting the adversary’s reputation, these positive face aggravating strategies indirectly enhanced the speaker’s as already discussed for other mitigating and aggravating strategies above, thing which evinces their double polite condition. Contrary to strategies of negative face aggravation, these rarely manifested a dual orientation towards the counter candidate’s negative face. However, they were encountered to produce a boomerang effect against the speaker’s face in a few occasions, in particular, interactional moments in which S’s impoliteness towards H was perceived unfair or illegitimate by the audience, e.g. many of Gore’s attacks against Bradley in the debate held on the 21st of February, 2000 (see Appendix F, debate 4). This is attuned with some researchers’ remarks on other-directed rudeness or attack (Agha, 1997; Atkinson, 1988; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Craig et al., 1986; Flowerdew, 1999; Held, 1989; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000a, 2000b; Jørgensen, 1998; Lachenicht, 1980; Martel, 1983; Penman, 1990).

190

Results and Discussion

By and large, mitigating and aggravating strategies within the two major sequential units of face mitigation on the one hand, and face aggravation on the other hand, were subject to a myriad of tactics debaters deployed with the ultimate goal of attaining the audience’s persuasion, among which ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ dissimulation techniques (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997), and what I refer to as ‘associating’ and ‘dissociating’ actions were outstanding. The former comprises, for example, contenders’ exaggerated or somewhat inaccurate allusions to the counter candidate’s voting record. The latter consists of candidates’ claims of connection with or disconnection from certain individuals, groups, organisations, etc., according to their self-interests in terms of face and interactional/persuasive power at a given point in the interaction (cf. Jucker, 1997a): for instance, Bush’s sporadic movements of association with and dissociation from the past Reagan-Bush administration in view of its positive and negative achievements respectively.

2.3. Recurrent Elements

In this section I attempt to provide an answer to the specific part of the two main RQs in this project referring to potentially recurrent elements within face mitigating and aggravating units. Similarly to the analysis of face mitigating and aggravating strategies, whose results have just been commented upon, the search for patterns along these lines implied a micro level of analysis in the context of face mitigating and aggravating sequences. It is in this light that statistical operations testing the strength of the relationship between modals and terms of

191

Results and Discussion

address, and the macro face mitigating and aggravating categories were performed in this work. Modals were observed to recur within face mitigating sequences in the qualitative analysis, whilst terms of address seemed to be frequent within face aggravating ones. The results of each of the statistical tests conducted on each of these element types for face mitigation and aggravation are offered and discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.3.1. Modals Modals in this research refer to what has traditionally been understood as modal auxiliary verbs in the English grammar, and the verb phrases they usually constitute, as opposed to adjectival and adverbial modal forms often labelled ‘modal expressions’ in the literature (see, e.g. Carretero-Lapeire, 1995; Turnbull & Saxton, 1997). The modals object of analysis in this study include the verbs ‘have (got) to’, ‘must’, ‘would’, ‘should’, ‘ought to’, ‘be able to’, ‘can/could’, and ‘may/might’ in all their different shapes. The quasi-modals ‘need to’ and ‘had better’, and the modal auxiliaries ‘shall’ and ‘will’ were excluded here in light of their little incidence in the corpus, which made them irrelevant for the analysis.4 The verbal forms ‘could’ and ‘might’ were deemed specific occurrences of ‘can’ and ‘may’ correspondingly, as the ‘secondary modals’ they are vis-à-vis the latter (Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995) conveying weaker or tentative ability/possibility (could) and possibility (might) due to their ‘conditional’ value (Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995). Consequently, eight distinct modals were considered hitherto, and were organised into three main groups following the typical classification of these verbs pragmaticians outline in their investigations generally involving modals’
4

‘Shall’ and ‘will’ normally surfaced as future tense auxiliaries.

192

Results and Discussion

correlation with either root5 or epistemic modalities. Root modality entails potential-and-desirable world based on social and natural or psychological laws concerning the actions of morally responsible individuals, and their causal dispositions or abilities coupled with those of particular states or entities leading to act. Epistemic modality implies potential world based on laws of reasoning and speakers’ beliefs according to these (Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995, 1995/1996; Turnbull & Saxton, 1997). These correlations need, however, to be held with caution, since they are correlations between the semantics and pragmatics of these verbs, and the context of communication is what ultimately determines the latter specifying the sort of modality they signal (ibid.). As a result, the classification of these eight different modals is the following: a) necessity modals, viz, ‘have (got) to’, ‘must’, and ‘ought to’, out of which ‘have (got) to’ appeared in its characteristic root gist in the data, while ‘must’ and ‘ought to’ were found to habitually mean necessity/obligation bespeaking root modality notwithstanding their epistemic value when denoting deduction; b) probability modals, namely, ‘would’ and ‘should’, which were seen to consistently indicate root versus epistemic modality so that their meanings of tentative volition and obligation respectively were prominent over those of hypothetical prediction and assumption linked to the latter; and c) possibility modals, which encompass ‘be able to’, ‘can/could’, and ‘may/might’, with ‘be able to’ expressing its defining root modality, and ‘can/could’ and ‘may/might’ regularly designating it in the debates object of examination, thus mostly conveying ability/possibility and permission in that

This type of modality originates from the combination of the so-called ‘deontic’ and ‘causal’ modalities.

5

193

Results and Discussion

order, rather than the meanings of theoretical possibility/hypothesis (can/could), and likelihood/hypothesis (may/might) related to their epistemic value. Graph 2 visualizes the global presence of each of these modals in the corpus, which amount to a total of 2934 instances thereto.

Graph 2. Modals.

TOTAL 2934

should 365 12,4%

ought to 214 7,3%

may/might 124 4,2%

have to 436 15%

must 83 2,9%

would 748 25,5% be able to 82 2,7%

can/could 88 30%

The results of the t-test performed on these necessity, probability and possibility modals in this project confirmed their more common occurrence in face mitigating units than face aggravating categories in debates. These results empirically support the hypothesized categorisation of these linguistic elements as more distinctive of face mitigating sequences than face aggravating ones in these events posited on qualitative grounds. This proves that, even though there cannot
194

Results and Discussion

be an equivalence between politeness or face mitigation and a concrete repertoire of linguistic forms, since politeness can be realised virtually through any linguistic device or structure (Agha, 1997; Locher, 2004; Meier, 1995, 1997; Mills, 2002; 2003; Penman, 1990; Watts, 2003; Wood & Kroger, 1994), there may be patterns emerging as to the manner in which individuals mitigate face in determinate contexts (cf. Bou-Franch, 2006; Brown & Gilman, 1989; Coupland et al., 1988; Del Saz-Rubio, 2000; Garcés-Conejos, 1991, 1995; Garcés-Conejos & SánchezMacarro, 1998; Garcés-Conejos & Torreblanca-López, 1997; Gómez-Morón, 1998; Torreblanca-López, 1998; Torreblanca-López & Garcés-Conejos, 1996; etc.). The t-test for modals in face mitigation and aggravation over the totality of 2084 sequences in the data resulted in a mean of 1,64 modal verbs per face mitigating unit with a standard deviation of 2,77 standing in stark contrast to the figures obtained for face aggravation, which correspond to a mean of 0,68 modals per face aggravating sequence, and a standard deviation of 1,32. Table 6 captures all this together with the numbers and percentages for these elements in the diverse face mitigating and aggravating sequences in the 16 debates under study. The computation of the difference between these two means shows that the tendency for modal verbs in these communicative encounters is to have a presence of 0,96 more occurrences in face mitigating contexts than face aggravating ones. However, the standard deviation of 2,77 in face mitigating categories, and that of 1,32 in face aggravating signal a 1,45 greater dispersion in the scores for these verbs in the former vis-à-vis the latter. Accordingly, the global distribution or dispersion of modals in each of these two principal sequence types remarkedly deviates from the mean appearing to further depart from it though in face mitigation.

195

Results and Discussion

Nevertheless, these results per se are not enough to firmly determine that modals are typically recurrent devices within face mitigating units in electoral debates. In order to affirm this with full certainty, the degrees of freedom (df) or the number of modal verbs that could vary if other scores for these devices were entertained, needed to be calculated for a value of t = 10,73 achieved in the test.1 The computation of this statistical operation yielded a result of df = 1738,94 producing a p-value of p ≤ 0.00. Such value implies that the afore stated

differences between face mitigation and aggravation as far as modals are concerned, are highly significant in statistical terms (cf. Russell, 1995), so that our qualitative-oriented observations, whereby these verbs qualify as more characteristic of face mitigating sequences than face aggravating categories in debates, does not hold because of chance. This p-value reveals that the presence of modals in face mitigation is something that takes place in 100% of the cases, thus surpassing the 95% of probability admitted by the scientific community to deem a relationship between groups significant, which equals a 5% level of significance (p ≤ 0.05) from a top-down approach (see Graph 3 for a comprehensive picture of these results). The regular surfacing of modals within face mitigation in comparison with face aggravation in debates hints at some relationship between these linguistic devices and persuasion given that face mitigation constitutes the best expression of this phenomenon in these events. This is in keeping with the findings of some investigations of modals in ordinary conversation and epistolary communication, which underscore a speaker’s usage of these linguistic elements for rhetorical

1

This value corresponds to the one obtained for groups (face mitigating and aggravating sequential types here), whose variance is assumed to be different as opposed to groups where this assumption does not apply, as part of the so-called test of Levene within the general estimation of t.

197

Results and Discussion

purposes related to the attainment of H’s persuasion (Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995; Fitzmaurice, 2002). In their generally acknowledged function of hedges in the pragmatics literature usually associated with the formulation of ‘indirect speech acts’ (Searle, 1969, 1975), and the notion of conventional politeness and/or Fraser and Nolen’s (1981) concept of ‘deference’ (e.g. Brown & Gilman, 1989; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Chodorowska-Pilch, 2001; Ervin-Tripp, 1976; Fraser & Nolen, 1981; Searle, 1975), modals in our corpus primarily ensued within positive and negative face mitigating sequences with the possibility modal ‘can/could’ as the most popular showing a frequency of 770, followed by the probability modal ‘would’, and the necessity modal ‘have (got) to’ with 646 and 403 frequency values correspondingly. Graph 3 illustrates all this.

Graph 3. Distribution of Modals in Face Mitigation and Aggravation.
800 700 600 MIT AGG

FREQUENCIES

500 400 300 200 100 0
T) GO E( AV H TO ST MU OU T GH TO U WO LD LD OU SH A BE E BL TO L OU /C AN C D HT IG /M AY M

198

Results and Discussion

The predominance of these three modals over the rest within face mitigating sequences in the data is in consonance with their overall prevalence (see Graph 2) principally in their root meanings as already established — 882 (30%) tokens for the possibility modal ‘can/could’, 748 (25,5%) occurrences for the probability modal ‘would’, and 436 (15%) incidences for the necessity modal ‘have (got) to’. Politicians’ preference for these three modals in the context of face mitigation in debates targeted at the achievement of the audience’s persuasion, may be accounted for by their attempts to describe the policies that compound their respective political programs as highly feasible. In order to render their proposals viable, debaters need first and foremost to assure the audience that it is possible to carry them out. A good way to do so is by stressing their ability for such enterprise. ‘Can/could’ denoting ability/possibility with a conditional overtone in the form ‘could’, and conveying a candidate’s judgement that the possibility of the proposition s/he expresses in his/her statements, namely, that s/he is capable of doing what s/he is stating, is true (root modality), constitutes a highly suitable linguistic device to transmit all this to his/her audience. Furthermore, this possibility modal tended to emerge with the first person plural pronoun ‘we’ in these sequences, through which S included the audience in what s/he uttered with the aim of sharing his/her ability to put his/her proposals into practice with the audience. In this fashion, debaters sought to get the audience’s identification with them and their proposals to increase the latter’s faith in these and their viability. On the other hand, politicians availed themselves of this modal in its negative form by and large to deny the feasibility of the opponent’s proposals, and his/her ability to turn them real.

199

Results and Discussion

In addition to assuring the audience that their proposals are viable and that they are capable of carrying them out, contestants in debates need to underline the probability that their proposals will obtain based on their willingness for this to happen, preferably in a way that they can circumvent backlash if such probability vanished in the future. ‘Would’ in its volitional sense, bespeaking root modality, hence a candidate’s judgement that the probability that s/he wants to do what s/he is stating is true, is greatly appropriate in this regard. By contrast with the modal ‘will’, which can also have this meaning, ‘would’ enables the speaker to avoid responsibility for the truth of the proposition expressed due to the weaker degree of commitment to such proposition it entails (Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995), so that S softens the imposition upon him/herself this implies (cf. Brown & Levinson, 1987; Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995; 1995/1996; Fitzmaurice, 2002; Jary, 1998a; Turnbull & Saxton, 1997; Watts, 2003). Therefore, it was not surprising to commonly find the root modal ‘would’ signalling willingness to do something in face mitigating sequences containing promises and offers in the corpus. Candidates used ‘would’ in its negative form to reject the adversary’s proposals or actions they disapproved of denying their probability. However, besides communicating to the audience the idea that their policies can be implemented in the first place, and that they are likely to occur in the second place, debaters also try to reinforce the feasibility of such policies by foregrounding their necessity in society on the whole and for the audience in particular. ‘Have (got) to’ in its defining necessity and root modality significance, which denotes a contestant’s judgement that the necessity that s/he has to do what s/he is stating is true in view of social or causal laws compelling him/her to this action, is an excellent linguistic means to get such message across. Like ‘can/could’, this necessity modal also co-occurred with the inclusive personal

200

Results and Discussion

pronoun ‘we’, whereby contenders intended to underscore the social necessity of their proposals especially concerning the audience, and their obligation to implement them making such obligation the audience’s too. This modal rarely took a negative form. George Bush’s mitigating response in the second presidential debate to a question by Jim Lehrer (the moderator) on the U.S. being obliged to the rest of the world exemplifies all the above:

(5) PRE.M.TRAD.10/11/00 GWB: ↑yes it does (.) uuh take for example Third World debt (.) I thinkk uuuh (.) I think we ought to be giv forgiving Third World debt under certain con↑ditions (.) I think for exaample if we’re convinced that uh (.) a Third World country that’s got a lot of debt would (.) would reform it↑SELF (.) that the money wouldn’t go into the haaands of a few but would go to help ↑people (.) then I think it makes ↑↑sense for us to use our wealth in that way (.) ↑oor. to trade debt for (.) for vaaluable ↑rainforest laands (.) makes that much ↑sense yes we ↑do have an obligation but we can’t be all things to all ↑people (.) we can (.) help build coa↑litions. (.) but we can’t put our ↑troops all around the world (.) we can lend ↑money but we’ve got to (.) do it ↑wiisely we shouldn’t be lending money to (.) to corrupt of↑ficials (.) so we’ve got to be guaarded in our generosity [...]

Out of the other five remaining modals, which were also more customary in face mitigating than face aggravating sequences, namely, the probability modal ‘should’ with a frequency of 315, the necessity modal ‘ought to’ with one of 196, the possibility modal ‘may/might’ with 110, and the necessity and possibility modals ‘must’ and ‘be able to’ with almost equal frequency values — 77 and 75 in that order —, ‘should’ was encountered to be habitual in advice statements and suggestions, and ‘may/might’ in permission requests. Lastly, even though modals have proved to be more typical in face mitigating categories in electoral debates
201

Results and Discussion

contributing to and buttressing these categories’ mitigating force, they also surfaced within face aggravating units helping to a) boost their aggravating effect on occasion (see, e.g. Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995; Turnbull & Saxton, 1997; Watts, 2003; Wood & Kroger, 1994), or b) attenuate this effect, above all if they were part of the secondary politeness component of non-pure face aggravating sequences, for example, partial disagreements (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 2002, 2003; Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995, 1995/1996; Fernández-García, 2000; Held, 1989; Holmes, 1984; Locher, 2004; Watts, 2003; Wood & Kroger, 1994).

2.3.2. Terms of Address Terms of address in the data largely referred to the rival — 765 instances equivalent to 78,7% — with 11 tokens (1,1%) alluding to the audience (usually through the expression ‘ladies and gentlemen’), 152 (15,6%) to the moderator, 34 (3,5%) to panelists, and 11 (1,1%) to questioners in the event in hand (see Graph 4 below). These elements were found to comprise 1) professional or occupational titles of a more or less impersonal kind (e.g. the term ‘vice president’ versus the more impersonal option ‘candidate’), some of which are only indicative of the public political position of the addressee in relation to the speaker (e.g. my opponent), 2) honorifics such as ‘sir’, ‘Mr.’, etc., 3) first names (e.g. George) along with shortened versions (e.g. Al), and 4) referential terms locating the hearer in a specific space and time vis-à-vis the speaker (e.g. these two guys). Ambiguous occurrences and personal pronouns were excluded from the analysis bar those pronouns that were accompanied by premodifiers or postmodifiers such as ‘both of us’, ‘you guys’, and ‘we both’, among others. The general exclusion of personal pronouns was mainly due to the high degree of ambiguity they showed as for their
202

Results and Discussion

field of reference when appearing on their own as it occurs in political contexts on the whole (Blas-Arroyo, 2000; Chilton, 1990; Connor-Linton, 1995; FernándezLagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Lakoff, 1990; Lazuka, 2006; Zupnik, 1994). This was particularly salient in the first person plural pronoun ‘we’, and the second person singular and plural form ‘you’ in all their different forms, which accords with the findings of investigations of deictics in political communication (ibid.).

Graph 4. Terms of Address.

Moderator 152 15,6%

Questioners 11 1,1% Audience 11 Panelists 34 3,5% 1,1%

TOTAL 973

Opponent 765 78,7%

Nevertheless, the primary principle organising the analysis of all these distinct types of address terms in the corpus was the closeness and distance moves they conveyed regarding the hearer within face mitigating and aggravating sequences. It is in this light that these devices were classified into what I label ‘common ground claimers’ (CGCs), and ‘common ground disclaimers’ (CGDs)

203

Results and Discussion

respectively. Common ground claimers were observed to encompass professional and occupational titles invoking a close relationship with the hearer in the co-text where they were embedded (e.g. my colleagues), full and abbreviated first names, referential terms, which denoted a close bond with H in all cases but one (e.g. these folks), and premodified and postmodified personal pronouns; whereas common ground disclaimers were seen to include professional and occupational titles in general, honorifics, and the only referential expression unveiling a distant relation with the addressee (e.g. two folks). This classification of address terms obeys to the role of linguistic traces and enactments of interlocutors’ social identities and relationships ascribed to these elements in the literature (Brown & Gilman, 1960, 1989; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Escandell-Vidal, 1993; Levinson, 1983), which can be reduced to just instantiations of social bonds, since social identities cannot exist without an other, hence are inherently relational (Antaki et al., 1996; Arundale, 2005; Bakhtin in Todorov, 1995; Baxter, 1997; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Duck, 1993; Duck et al., 1997; Fitch, 1998; Sampson, 1993; Shotter, 1992, 1993; Werkhofer, 1992; Wood & Duck, 1995). Out of a total of 973 terms of address in the corpus, 474 (48,8%) consisted of common ground claimers, and 499 (51,2%) were common ground disclaimers. As opposed to modals, the results of the t-test carried out for terms of address in relation to face mitigating and aggravating sequences hitherto did not empirically substantiate our observations at a qualitative level, namely, that such linguistic items taken globally are more characteristic in face aggravation than face mitigation in political debates.2 The t-test for address terms in both face mitigating and aggravating categories over the totality of 2084 sequential units in the corpus
2

See below though for different results as for common ground claimers in connection with face mitigation and aggravation.

204

Results and Discussion

yielded a mean of 0,46 terms of address in the former, and 0,49 terms of address in the latter with the two standard deviations of 0,94 and 0,74 correspondingly (see Table 7). This entails that the tendency for address terms in the data is to have an average presence of 0,46 tokens for every face mitigating sequence, and 0,49 ones for every face aggravating unit with a greater presence of 0,03 elements in these as the resulting difference between both means reveals. The standard deviations of 0,94 in face mitigation, and 0,74 in face aggravation indicate that the variation in the scores for terms of address in these two major face-based units is fairly little with a 0,2 more variation in face mitigating sequences though. This implies that the overall distribution or dispersion of address terms in each case slightly deviates from the mean, and that such distribution is more distant from the mean in face mitigation than aggravation. However, all these differences coupled with those for address terms within the different varieties of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in the debates under study (see Table 7), were not by themselves sufficient to affirm wholeheartedly that terms of address are more commonplace in face aggravation than mitigation in debates. Therefore, the degrees of freedom (df) or the number of address terms that could vary if other scores for these elements were given, were estimated for the obtained value of t = -0,52 with a result of df = 2802 leading to p ≥ 0.60. This p-value shows that the differences between face mitigating and aggravating categories for terms of address are not statistically significant, hence the hypothesized stronger relationship between these and face aggravation in debates is a product of chance. The value of p indicates that such relationship does

205

Results and Discussion

not hold in at least 95% of the cases (see Graph 5).1

Graph 5. Distribution of Terms of Address in Face Mitigation and Aggravation.

0,5 0,45 0,4 0,35 0,3
MEANS

MIT AGGR

0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0

TERMS OF ADDRESS

Although the t-test run for terms of address on the whole was enough to know with confidence that these linguistic elements in their entirety were neither more customary in face mitigating sequences nor more common in face aggravating ones, two more t-tests, one for common ground claimers and another one for common ground disclaimers, were carried out in relation to these two major face-based categories to check if any difference from the results obtained in the general test surfaced as for these two types of address terms, and whether such difference (if any) was significant. The results of the t-test realized for common ground claimers contravened those of the global test for terms of address falling in
1

Notice that the t-test works with means unlike frequencies of a determinate element kind within distinct groups (face mitigation and face aggravation in this project) as established in the graph.

207

Results and Discussion

line with our initial qualitative-oriented observations on these linguistic elements: these address terms appeared more habitual in face aggravating sequences than face mitigating ones without this being a matter of chance. The mean of these devices in face aggravation (0,28) was superior to their mean in face mitigation (0,21) with the standard deviations of 0,54 and 0,55 in that order. The degrees of freedom or the number of common ground claimers that could vary if other scores for these address terms were entertained, for a value of t = -2,27, resulted in df = 821,401, which yielded a p-value of p ≤ 0.02. Consequently, the differences encountered for common ground claimers in face mitigating and aggravating sequences are highly significant (p ≤ 0.05) with these terms of address occurring in the latter in 98% of the cases. If the p-values for modals and terms of address are compared — p ≤ 0.00 on the one hand, and p ≤ 0.02 on the other hand — it can be concluded that modals are somewhat more usual in face mitigation than common ground claimers in face aggravation in spite of each of these two categories of elements actually holding a highly significant relationship with its corresponding sequential type. Yet, the results of the t-test performed on common ground disclaimers were attuned to those of the general t-test for terms of address, thereby bespeaking that this sort of address terms was neither more normal in face aggravation nor more typical in face mitigation in debates. The mean of these items in face mitigating contexts (0,25) somewhat surpassed their mean in face aggravating ones (0,21) producing a standard deviation of 0,67 for the first, and 0,52 for the second. The degrees of freedom, viz, the number of common ground disclaimers that could vary if other scores for these elements were given, for a value of t = 1,39 resulted in df = 1068,332 leading to p ≥ 0.16. Therefore, the differences between face
208

Results and Discussion

mitigating categories and face aggravating units concerning these terms of address are not significant (p ≤ 0.05), so that their presence in either sequential type actually happens because of chance. Graph 6 illustrates all this.

Graph 6. Distribution of CGCs and CGDs in Face Mitigation and Aggravation.

0,3 MIT 0,25 AGGR

0,2

MEANS

0,15

0,1

0,05

0

CGC

CGD

The above quantitative results of the general t-test for terms of address reveal on qualitative grounds that these linguistic items overall constitute resources contestants indistinctively employ in face mitigation with the audience, and face aggravation with the rival in debates, thus running counter to the conclusions of some debate investigations in this respect (e.g. Agha, 1997; Beck, 1996; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000a, 2000b). Whilst the results of the t-test run for common ground disclaimers also confirm this, the results of the test conducted for common ground claimers demonstrate that contestants consistently employ these address terms in face aggravating contexts that are oriented to damage the opponent.
209

Results and Discussion

Similarly to face mitigation above, this demonstrates that notwithstanding the impossibility of identifying impoliteness or face aggravation with any specific set of linguistic forms (Agha, 1997; Culpeper, 2005; Lachenicht, 1980; Locher, 2004; Mills, 2003; Penman, 1990; Watts, 2003; Wood & Kroger, 1994), “there are regular ways in which people attack face [...] in [...] [determinate] contexts” (Culpeper et al., 2003: 1576). In that sense, candidates characteristically instantiate closeness moves towards the adversary exhibiting little social distance (D) with him/her as a result through common ground claimers in face aggravating sequences. However, they indiscriminately distance themselves from the latter via common ground disclaimers in both aggravating and mitigating categories displaying great social distance with him/her. Common ground claimers and disclaimers were also found to be telling of power (P) frequently correlating with power equality and inequality between interactants correspondingly, in such a way that politicians usually denoted power equality with the counter candidate in face aggravation, and power inequality with him/her in face mitigation and aggravation. Moreover, these devices were seen to be located right before S’s immediate attack against the addressee or in its initial part like summons in ordinary conversation (Levinson, 1983; Schegloff, 1972) in face aggravating contexts, so that s/he prepared the ground for the attack by drawing the audience’s attention towards him/herself, thereby functioning as ‘alerters’ (Lorenzo-Dus & Bou-Franch, 2003) and reinforcing this attack. Contestants’ preference for common ground claimers in face aggravating categories transmitting closeness and equal power with the opponent may be accounted for by their attempt to further legitimize their attacks against him/her with the ultimate goal of attending to their own public image. By casting their
210

Results and Discussion

social bond with the rival as a close and egalitarian one through common ground claimers in face aggravation, debaters imply certain assumptions relational parties in this sort of bond share (e.g. the possibility of openly criticising H without severe damage to S’s image) (cf. Carl & Duck, 2004). In this fashion, they aim to cushion the potential negative effects of their aggravating actions on their own image before the audience. Candidates’ deployment of common ground disclaimers in face mitigating and aggravating sequences suggesting distance and power equality or inequality with the counter candidate may be due to strategic reasons related to a) the presentation of a positive public image along the lines of the politically correct behaviour expected in these events, and/or b) the link of the adversary with negative issues like a disappointing administration or political party among others (Agha, 1997; Blas-Arroyo, 2000; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000a, 2000b; Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000). Politicians regularly availed themselves of professional and occupational terms alluding to a distant public political position of H in relation to S (e.g. my opponent), and the only referential expression indicating a distant bond with the addressee (e.g. two folks) to convey power balance in these sequences (see Martel, 1983). Conversely, they were inclined to use professional and occupational titles by and large, and deferential terms to express power imbalance with S holding more power (e.g. ‘governor’ uttered by Gore, the vice president, in addressing Bush) or S portraying H as more powerful (e.g. ‘Mr. vice president’ from Bush to Gore) for strategic purposes. This non-pure aggravating sequence from the Republican candidate George Allen in the senatorial debate against the Democratic politician Charles Robb celebrated on September the 24th, 2000, in Richmond, VA, exemplifies some of these points:

211

Results and Discussion

(6) S.M.TRAD.9/24/00 GA: Chuck you love dragging out these these issues in the midst of the campaign this is the third time we’re discussing abortion. (.) just in this one hour debate (.) and you ↑try t to use this uh (.) nd ↑and your Democrats and the Clinton folks against Bob Doole. and John Warner. and Jim Gilmore. and all the ↑↑rest. (.) the re↑ality is as I’ve said in many occasions any any (.) uh (.) restrictions on abortion all of those ought to have (.) uh exceptions for rape (.) incest and al also (unintelligible) lap normality as well as the physical health of the mother (.) now (.) here’s the issues ladies and gentlemen that are AActually going to ariise in the United States Senate (.) not these these uh far-off speculations that my opponent loves to come ↑up with (.) the issues that will a↑riise. (.) number one (.) should parents be invoolved (.) when their unwed minor daughter is going through the trauma of abortion (.) as ↑governor (.) ↑we (.) put throuugh a true parental notification bill (.) my opponent (.) has voted a↑gainst that. (.) ↑he thinks that you’ve got to be able to notify aunts and uncles up in Las Vegas orr (.) older brothers in frat houses that’s not parental notification (.) another ↑issue. (.) which I op↑pose (.) is (.) taxpayer funding of a↑bortion. that has been discussed at length already (.) the ↑other issue that will come up is partial-birth a↑bortion. (.) and that is an ↑issue. that will come up year after ↑year. (.) I will vote. (.) to end (.) partial-birth abortion in this country (.) no matter ↑what statements you might have in the Cog Congressional ↑record. (.) ↑Chuck (.) the reality is that when the voters caalled (.) you vote wroong. (.) and you keep partial-birth abortion (.) aliive. (.) unfortunately. in this country.= [...]

In light of the above, social distance (D) and power (P) defining debaters’ relationships with one another were constantly under negotiation in consonance with what has already been claimed in the theory part of this dissertation (cf. Brown & Gilman, 1960; 1989; Coupland et al., 1988; Fraser, 1990, 2002; Kasper, 1990; Locher, 2004; Mills, 2003; Thomas, 1995; Watts, 2003; Werkhofer, 1992). The closeness and distance moves common ground claimers and disclaimers bring about in face mitigating and aggravating sequences can be deemed part of the

212

Results and Discussion

broader ‘associating’ and ‘dissociating’ actions candidates strategically perform in debates mentioned in section 2.2. of this chapter. This evinces the manipulative use politicians make of address terms in these events (Agha, 1997; Blas-Arroyo, 2000; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000a, 2000b), whereby they invoke the social bond they have or allege to have with the opponent in order to exploit it to their advantage.

2.4. Location in Debates

As previously commented, the global count of mitigating and aggravating sequences conducted in this work regarding their location in the unfolding discourse of debates had no other aim than quantitatively corroborating the findings of some debate research on this point (e.g. Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Fernández-García, 2000). Following such debate research, the introduction of a debate consists here of the announcer’s words (if any), the initial intervention of the moderator, and politicians’ opening statements at the beginning of a debate. The central part starts with the first question formulated in the event by the moderator, a journalist or questioner to one of the candidates. Finally, the conclusion entails the last interchange of the moderator along with contestants’ concluding statements and/or any other intervention by them. Nevertheless, opening statements were missing in some debates of the corpus as a consequence of the negotiating process underlying their format (see Appendix B for an

213

Results and Discussion

example).2 This fact affected the results of the analysis for the introductory part of the debates on the whole as explained below. According to the different social functions of the opening and closing sections of a determinate communicative encounter in comparison with that of its body or central part, namely, establishing the social relations among interlocutors and finishing the interaction in the most possible cordial manner respectively (cf. Bou-Franch, 2006), candidates are expected to deploy mitigation in the introduction and conclusion of debates and more aggravation in their body. Notwithstanding this, the influence of TV in these events as the TV products they are, which is based on the promotion of combat and entertainment, might somewhat alter these expectations prompting mitigation with secondary rudeness or aggravation with secondary politeness in their openings and closings instead. Thus, a global count of mitigating and aggravating sequences in their different varieties in these distinct debate parts in the data was deemed suitable to realize. The computation of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in the introduction, central and concluding parts of the debates, back the tentative conclusions drawn from the qualitative analysis, i.e. that face mitigation abounds in all these debate sections, especially in the central one, with face aggravation appearing more salient in this part vis-à-vis the introduction and conclusion. The high figures for both sequential types in the body of the debates by contrast with the introduction and conclusion conspicuously reveal this (see Table 8): 1486 occurrences for face mitigation out of a total of 1581 mitigating sequences in the corpus, and 498 for face aggravation out of 503 in the central part on the one hand, and 26 mitigating tokens versus 3 aggravating ones in the introduction coupled
Such process responds to a whole campaign strategy and its advancement (Donatelli & Francis, 1987; Friedenberg, 1981; Martel, 1983).
2

214

Results and Discussion

with 69 and 2 correspondingly in the conclusion on the other hand. These findings are logical if we consider that the majority of sequential units are to be found in the body of a debate. The absence of opening statements from debaters in the introduction of 10 of the 16 debates under exploration, e.g. the debate of the 15th of February, 2000, in Columbia, SC (see Graphs 7-22 below), also contributes to this leading to remarkably low figures and percentages sometimes equalling zero for face mitigation and aggravation in such debate section.

Table 8. Location of Face Mitigating and Face Aggravating Sequences.
SEQ.TYP INTRO Num. MIT POS.FO NEG.FO SECR.POS.FO SECR.NEG.FO Total AGGR POS.FO NEG.FO SECP.POS.FO SECP.NEG.FO Total Total 13 5 8 0 26 1 2 0 0 3 29 % 44,9 17,2 27,5 0,0 89,6 3,4 7 0,0 0,0 10,3 100,0 CENTR Num. 512 310 517 147 1486 166 234 32 66 498 1984 % 25,8 15,6 26 7,4 74,8 8,3 12 1,6 3,3 25,2 100,0 CONCL Num. 31 11 25 2 69 2 0 0 0 2 71 % 43,6 15,4 35,2 2,9 97,1 2,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,9 100,0 Total Num. 556 326 550 149 1581 169 236 32 66 503 2804 % 26,8 15,6 26,4 7,1 75,9 8,1 11,3 1,5 3,2 24,1 100,0

However, if we look at the percentages of the distribution of face mitigating and aggravating categories in these three principal debate parts estimated over the totality of units compounding each part, face mitigation is outstanding in the conclusion and the introduction, whilst face aggravation takes more centre stage in the central section — 89,6%, 74,8% and 97,1% for face
215

Results and Discussion

mitigation, and 10,3%, 25,2% and 2,9% for face aggravation in the introduction, central part and conclusion in this order. These findings attest debate scholars’ general assertion that attacks against the adversary tend to emerge mostly in the body of a debate (Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Carlin et al., 1991; FernándezGarcía, 2000; Galasiński, 1998). Furthermore, they are also consistent with researchers’ views on the almost complete absence of face aggravation in the socalled peripheral phases of a debate, which include the introduction and the conclusion as conceived in this study (cf. Agha, 1997; Bilmes, 1999; Blas-Arroyo, 1999; 2001, 2002, 2003; Caspi, 1986; Drucker & Platt-Hunold, 1987; FernándezGarcía, 2000; Martel, 1983; Nir, 1988). Graph 7 visualizes the distribution of face mitigation and aggravation in the three aforementioned debate parts in the corpus.3 Graphs 8-23 show this distribution viewed gradually per debate.

Graph 7. Location of Face Mitigation and Aggravation.

100 90 80 70

MIT AGGR

PERCENTAGES

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

INTRO
3

CENTR

CONCL

Such distribution is offered in percentages, as frequencies were too low for clearly illustrating it.

216

Results and Discussion

Graphs 8-23. Location of Face Mitigation and Aggravation per Debate.
Graph 8. Debate 1.
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 9. Debate 2
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 10. Debate 3
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 11. Debate 4
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 12. Debate 5
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 13. Debate 6
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 14. Debate 7
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 15. Debate 8
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

217

Results and Discussion

Graph 16. Debate 9
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 17. Debate 10
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 18. Debate 11
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 19. Debate 12
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 20. Debate 13
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 21. Debate 14
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 22. Debate 15
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

Graph 23. Debate 16
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 INTR CENTR CONCL

MIT

AGGR

218

Results and Discussion

As for the possibility of candidates using mitigation with secondary rudeness or aggravation with secondary politeness in the introduction and conclusion of debates due to the influence of TV in these events, the figures for the different varieties of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in each of these parts provide evidence against such possibility. In spite of this, I would argue that such influence does not necessarily need to be measured quantitatively, and that, on quantitative grounds, the influence of TV in politicians’ deployment of face mitigation and aggravation in their distinct varieties in the introduction, central section and conclusion of debates is undeniable in light of the nature of these events as media texts. Regarding such results, face aggravating sequences with secondary politeness amount to 0 (0,0%) in both the introduction and conclusion of the debates under analysis (see Table 8). Conversely, the numbers and percentages for face mitigating categories with secondary rudeness, more specifically, positive face-oriented ones, are not too divergent from those of their pure mitigating equivalent in these parts, especially in the conclusion: 8 units as opposed to 13 corresponding to 27,5% on the one hand, and 44,9% on the other hand in the introduction, and 25 tokens versus 31 tantamount to 35,2% and 43,6% respectively in the conclusion. This indicates that even though politicians prefer pure mitigation in the introduction and conclusion of debates, they feel comfortable employing mitigation with secondary rudeness in their concluding exchanges. Their aim to be clearly differentiated from the opponent might be a tentative explanation for this (see Adams, 1999; Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 2000; 2001, 2003; Caspi, 1986; Fernández-García, 2000; Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 1998; 2000a, 2000b; Kraus, 1988; Martel, 1983).

219

Results and Discussion

In any case, the above results for face mitigation and aggravation in the introduction, central section and conclusion of the debates, explains some features of these debate parts observed in and through the qualitative analysis of the corpus. For instance, the tendency for negativity cycles, viz, chains of mostly face aggravating sequences debaters normally exchange with one another, to surface in the central segment of debates. This aspect of the central part of these events is therefore accounted for by the greater relevance of face aggravation therein vis-àvis the introduction and conclusion, and is also attuned with the widely acknowledged presence of conversation-like or spontaneous interchanges in the body of these communicative encounters unlike their introductory and concluding parts (e.g. Agha, 1997; Beck, 1996; Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Commission on Presidential Debates, 2005a; Drucker & Platt-Hunold, 1987; Fernández-García, 2000; Galasiński, 1998; Hellweg et al., 1992; League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983; Nir, 1988; etc.).4 These exchanges sometimes consist of politicians’ hostile talk to one another within and outside ‘free discussion’ sections (Adams, 1999; Agha, 1997; Beck, 1996; Bilmes, 1999), which tends to degenerate into the afore referred to negativity cycles. These typically face aggravating conversational or spontaneous interchanges between contestants in the central segment of debates co-exist with a predominant quantity of face mitigating interventions principally targeted at the audience, which points out the important incidence of face mitigation in such debate segment too. Concerning the introduction of debates, the prevalence of face mitigation of the pure kind, and the rare appearance of face aggravation hitherto, explicates

Some conversational exchanges in the data took place, however, in the conclusion of some debates, for example, the Clinton-Lazio senatorial debate celebrated on September the 13th, 2000, in Buffalo, NY.

4

220

Results and Discussion

the characteristic occurrence of politicians’ thanking moves and expressions of deference towards the audience, the moderator, the panelists and questioners (if present), and the sponsors of the debate in hand in this debate part.5 Moreover, it also elucidates contestants’ introductions of themselves in such part by means of 1) autobiographical information and/or personal anecdotes framed as some sort of story telling (see Antaki, 1994; Norrick, 1994; Tannen, 1993), and 2) details about their lives as public political figures in the form of positive achievements, and information related to their political agendas. The former actually constitute strategies they use to attain the audience’s identification with their personas, which is pivotal for its persuasion (Burke, 1950; Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1982), whilst the latter involves information sometimes compared to the rival’s record and achievements with these commonly rendered negatively (cf. League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983). Such negative depiction of the adversary justifies debaters’ eventual usage of non-pure mitigation or mitigation with secondary rudeness in the introduction of debates. In this way, candidates present themselves as individuals of high moral values they often associate with their own country and culture through face mitigation in this debate section. They thus try to build their own image herein by drawing on culturally encouraged values and premises (Jaworski & Galasiński, 1998; Lakoff, 1990, 2001; Martel, 1983), which, given their greatly influential nature in communication (cf. Escandell-Vidal; 1996; Fitch, 2003; Sperber, 1994b, 1997), may help politicians to achieve the audience’s identification with them as the first condition necessary for the establishment of a social bond between the two. The following excerpt from the introduction of the gubernatorial debate between the Republican candidate Jim Talent, and the

They were sometimes addressed to the counter candidate as well, in keeping with the politically correct behaviour expected from candidates in debates.

5

221

Results and Discussion

Democratic politician Bob Holden, celebrated on the 25th of September, 2000, in Cape Girardeau, MO, exemplifies all these points:

(7) G.M.TRAD.9/25/00 JT: =thank you Tom (.) and I want to thankk uh doctor Doobbins and the university and KFVS for sponsoring this and I have to do something else (.) before I get into my opening ↑statement and I know it’s taking my four minutes butt uh (.) the finest lady I know is here this evening my wife Brenda came to the debate and my (.) my ↑two older kids Michael who’s ten and Kate whoo’s (.) who’s ↑eight and I’ll just ask (.) ask them to stand up please I want to introduce them to the [crowd (9.5 collectively applauds) THANK YOU ↑HONEY. (2.) ok this is coming up] (.) we we have a younger child Christy it’s her name and I asked her if she wanted to go to the debate and she said (.) ‘I ↑think I’ll stay home and read Winnie the Pooh with grandma [(.) tonight’ which is (.) (laughs almost inaudibly)= =about much perspective as you can expect from somebody in a political family (.) ss↑peaking of family (.) I thought of my mum as I wass uh driving down here today (.) she was an extraordinary woman loved politics (.) passed away a number of years ago (.) ↑muum uh (.) ↑mum was raised in a dairy farm (.) in Jefferson county (.) aafter the war shee taught us stenoography and started to corroborate her business (.) she was very successful and she taught me a lot of things (.) about life (.) one of the things she taught me is that (.) ↑most of what is important in our liives we do on our own (.) we do on our faamilies (.) on our small businesses on our JOOBS our faarms our (.) public schoools our (.) churches our synagogues (.) there are only a ↑few things that we need the government or expect the government to ↑↑do for us thank heavens (.) but it should do those things well (.) that hasn’t been the case in the state of Missouri [...] we can ↑bee (.) better than we are (.) we can ↑doo (.) more than we’ve done (.) we can fulfil the promise of Missouri [...]

A: JT:

A: JT:

Along the same lines as the introduction, the abundance of face mitigation of the pure type primarily addressed to the audience in the conclusion of debates
222

Results and Discussion

explains the fact that this debate section usually contains candidates’ deferential and thanking statements to the distinct participants in these events, and their sponsors. In addition, it accounts for politicians’ offers and promises in relation to the future thereto, which is cast in a very optimistic and sometimes utopian light, and their requests for citizens’ votes generally accompanied by farewell formulae such as ‘God bless you’. This bright future habitually contrasts with a negative present and past situation more or less implicitly or explicitly attributed to the counter candidate and his/her political party and/or administration. This negative depiction of the present and past related to the adversary and prompted, inter alia, by contestants’ interests in getting differentiated from him/her, justifies the emergence of mitigation with secondary rudeness in this debate section. Via face mitigation here, in particular, the promises and offers partly comprising it, politicians claim common ground with the audience in assuming their needs and concerns, and making them their own simultaneously appealing to national unity, consensus and patriotism (Chilton, 1990). Such appeals are highly metaphorical6 and if positive, they tend to be linked with the future; if negative, they are frequently connected with the present and/or past. All in all, cultural values and premises are subjacent to debaters’ face mitigating sequences in the conclusion, and are at the service of paying oneself and the audience positive face considerations. Self positive-face attention is somewhat motivated by candidates’ aim to be distinguished from the rival as the customary presence of what I call ‘campaign mottos’ or ‘leadership images’ in Wayne’s (2000) words in this debate part signals. These mottos summarise politicians’ positions (League of Women Voters, 2002; Martel, 1983; Wayne, 2000), and some examples are the expressions
See Voss et al. (1992) for an example on the use of metaphor, and metaphorical language in a U.S. Senate debate, and Miller (1999) for an instance in British parliamentary debates of the House of Commons.
6

223

Results and Discussion

‘I’m a uniter, not a divider’ from Bush, and ‘I want to fight for you’ from Gore. Attention to the audience’s positive face responds, among other things, to debaters’ need of terminating the interaction in a harmonious way for the sake of persuasion. The following closing statement from Al Gore issued in the debate of March 1st, 2000, in Los Angeles, CA, exemplifies all this:

(8) PD.M.HYBR.3/1/00 AG: we can ALL be ↑prooud of the record of accomplishments in these past seven ↑years. (.) look at California for example (.) we have just entered the period of the loongest economic recovery in the entire history of the United States of America (.) instead of the biggest deficits that the Reagan-Bush years left us ↑with (.) we ↑now have the biggest surpluses here in California thanks in significant part to the great leadership of governor Gray ↑Davis (.) we are ↑seeeing an economic boom in↑↑stead of looosing eleven thoousand jobs a ↑yeear (.) California is now gaining three hundred thousand jobs a year we have the cleanest air in water in a generation (.) the ↑core of my candidacy is to build upon that progress and make sure no one is left behind (.) and use it to ↑reach out to make the sweeping changes necessary to pro↑tect California’s coast against any new oil drilling (.) imaaagine the country we can have (.) when we educate ↑every child to the utmost (.) when we move step by step to uni↑versal health care (.) when we (.) drop the level of violence and make our communities safe (.) ↑I ASK for your support (.) in the California primary March seventh and around this ↑country= [...]

2.5. Conclusions

This chapter intends to be an answer to RQs 1 and 2 in this research by offering an account of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in view of some of its most prominent defining features. Therefore, a depiction of the face
224

Results and Discussion

mitigating strategies encountered to prevail in the former, and the face aggravating strategies found to abound in the latter, has been supplied in an attempt to explain the type of face mitigation and face aggravation characterising these two major sequence types respectively. A discussion of the results of the statistical operations conducted on the elements that were seen to recur in each of these main sequential categories, that is, modal verbs in face mitigating units, and terms of address in face aggravating ones, has followed with these results appearing to confirm our qualitative-based observations on such devices in relation to face mitigation and face aggravation. Then, a quantitatively drawn description of the typical location of face mitigating and aggravating sequences concerning the introduction, central and concluding parts of a debate has been offered. Summing up, the findings from the distinct analyses performed for each of all these feature sets regarding face mitigation and face aggravation substantiated our qualitative-oriented hypotheses and related claims.

225

Results and Discussion

3. FACE MITIGATION

In the following paragraphs, I provide an account of the varieties of face mitigating sequences found in the corpus drawing a distinction mainly between ‘pure’ and ‘non-pure’ types. A discussion of the results obtained from the quantitative operations performed on these sequences is first offered coupled with a depiction of face mitigation especially based on the notions of monologic or oratorical versus spontaneous or conversational kinds of interventions in debates, i.e. communicative acts resembling a rhetor’s speech as opposed to more dialogic exchanges resembling the dynamics of ordinary conversation, in light of the findings from the qualitative analysis. An explanation of pure and non-pure mitigation is next centring on their respective positive and negative face varieties, each of which is exemplified with key excerpts from the data. The three identified dimensions of rhetorical arguments, namely, ‘logos’, ‘pathos’, and ‘ethos’ are also invoked to this end. By and large, this chapter aims to answer RQs 1.1 and 1.2 posited in this investigation.

3.1. Overview

Face mitigation in this project was encountered to be enacted in debates in and through what I have labelled pure and non-pure sequential categories, namely, face mitigating sequences stricto sensu, and face mitigating units with secondary rudeness within them, both in their positive and negative face orientations. Albeit

226

Results and Discussion

normally orienting to the audience, some of these sequences were viewed to realize more self-positive face attention than attention to H’s face, and contrary to face mitigating strategies, dual face orientation in them, that is, simultaneous orientation to positive and negative faces, was exceptional, since a specific orientation tended to predominate over the other. Upon analysis, pure sequences — a total of 882 (55,8%) — emerged as globally prevalent over non-pure ones — 699 instances equivalent to 44,2% (see Graph 24 below). A reason for this may lie in politicians’ inclination not to ‘go negative’ (Martel, 1983) in debates trying to avoid even secondary rudeness in face mitigation accordingly. All this therefore backs my suggestion that pure and non-pure sequences exemplify different degrees of face mitigation with the non-pure category closer to the aggravating side of the scale or continuum politeness and impoliteness are thought of in this work (Kienpointner, 1997; Fraser, 2002; Fraser & Nolen, 1981; Mills, 2003).

Graph 24. Face Mitigating Sequences.

NON-PURE 699 ANOM.SEQ 1 44,2%
SECR.POS.FO 549 34,7% 0,1%

SECR.NEG.FO 149 9,5%

ANOM.SEQ 0 0,0%

POS.FO 466 29,5%

ANOM.SEQ 49 3,1% NEG.FO 277 17,4%

ANOM.SEQ 90 5,7%

TOTAL 1581

PURE 882 55,8%

227

Results and Discussion

Out of these two principal types of sequences, pure mitigating sequences with a positive face orientation appeared to be predominant on the whole with nonpure positive face-oriented ones being as nearly as abundant — 556 (35,1%) and 550 (34,7%) units correspondingly as established in Table 9. Nonetheless, when compared per debate, the latter turned out to be more popular than the former in 9 of the 16 debates under examination here. This observation and the fact that the difference between the figures representing these sequential varieties is minimal — 6 tokens equalling a 0,4% percentage — are attuned with the overall preponderance of positive face mitigating sequences with secondary rudeness over other mitigating types, and face aggravation reported in chapter one of the Results and Discussion part of this thesis. It should be noted that anomalous occurrences, viz, mitigating sequences addressed to the adversary, were not considered in such report, while they have been counted here in order to faithfully reflect the quantity of normal and anomalous mitigation in the corpus.1 Nevertheless, anomalous sequences do not truly adjust to the reality of face mitigation in debates, which fundamentally carries out a persuasive function concerning the audience. Moreover, in Nir’s (1988: 194) words, seemingly supportive moves towards the opponent are “uttered for rhetorical purposes, and [are] [...] part of a broader challenging move”. Discounting anomalous sequences, the amounts for normal pure and non-pure categories in their positive face orientation are 446 units (29,5%) for the former, and 549 tokens (34,7%) for the latter. Consequently, it could be affirmed that, regardless of the slightly superior number of pure mitigation in general, i.e. normal and anomalous, in its positive face orientation in
1

Albeit included, the numbers and percentages for these sequences are not reflected in Table 9 because of the insignificant figures they amounted to per debate. However, they have been illustrated for each mitigating category in Graph 24.

228

Results and Discussion

contrast with that of normal and anomalous non-pure mitigation in this face orientation too, normal non-pure positive face-oriented sequences constitute the common shape mitigation takes in electoral debates among its distinct varieties in the data. This consolidates such sequences as the paramount expression of persuasion in these contexts as discussed earlier on.

Table 9. Face Mitigating Sequences.
SEQ.TYP PURE MIT.POS.FO Debate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total Num. 9 40 118 29 34 60 34 23 61 45 19 15 37 8 11 13 556 % 20,9 39,2 37,9 31,1 36,1 55,5 26,7 30,6 43,5 36,8 32,7 30,6 33,9 25,0 25,5 20,0 35,2 MIT.NEG.FO Num. 5 10 89 19 11 13 23 15 21 30 6 16 35 3 9 11 326 % 11,6 9,8 28,6 20,4 11,7 12,0 18,1 20,0 15,0 24,5 10,3 32,6 32,1 9,3 20,9 16,9 20,5 NON-PURE MIT.SECR.POS.FO MIT.SECR.NEG.FO Num. 29 44 77 42 37 26 54 31 46 42 26 14 20 13 20 29 550 % 67,4 43,1 24,7 45,1 39,3 24,0 42,5 41,3 32,8 34,4 44,8 28,5 18,3 40,6 46,5 44,6 34,8 Num. 0 8 27 3 12 9 16 6 12 5 7 4 17 8 3 12 149 % 0,0 7,8 8,6 3,2 12,7 8,3 12,6 8,0 8,5 4,1 12,0 8,1 15,6 25,0 6,9 18,4 9,5 Total 43 102 311 93 94 108 27 75 140 122 58 49 109 42 43 65 1581

The predominance of non-pure positive face units in debates is not surprising if we take into account the fact that they epitomise the trilogic essence of candidates’ discourses therein (p. 156ff.). In this way, these sequences best evince the eclectic nature of debates as persuasive encounters through their

229

Results and Discussion

mitigating component, and zero sum games through their aggravating constituent. These two intrinsic aspects of these events merge in the monologic or oratorical interventions (Bilmes, 1999; 2001; Blas-Arroyo, 1999) such sequences were observed to habitually consist of, viz, long communicative acts analogous to the monologues usually compounding rhetorical speeches vis-à-vis more spontaneous or conversational discourses similar to the short dialogic interchanges comprising daily interaction on the whole. Debate scholars and myself in the theory part of this project have associated more or less implicitly or explicitly such monologic and more spontaneous interventions with the persuasive dimension of debaters’ talk on the one hand, and its aggravating facet on the other hand. The monologic shape of non-pure sequences with a positive face mitigating force where persuasion and attack against the rival conflate thus indicates that one should be cautious about these correlations. In addition, spontaneous interventions were encountered not to be that exclusive of face aggravation notwithstanding the conversation-like aggravating category of the ‘negativity cycle’. Sanctioned or not sanctioned ‘disordered talk’ (Edelsky & Adams, 1990) according to the norms of interaction underlying the event in question, often constituted spontaneous exchanges with the audience, the moderator, panelists or questioners (if included), and even the opponent, mostly keyed or framed as jokeful or playful communication (Bateson, 1972; Goffman, 1974; Tannen, 1993; Tannen & Wallat, 1993). Such spontaneous exchanges basically involved highly harmonious jointly developed floors, i.e. Edelsky’s (1981) ‘F2s’, parallel to the phenomenon of ‘fantasy chaining’ in Symbolic Convergence theory (Hirokawa & Poole, 1996). Mitigating sequences of the pure positive face and non-pure negative face types regularly adopted monologic forms too in the data as opposed to pure
230

Results and Discussion

negative face-oriented categories specifically addressed to the moderator, a panelist or questioner, and the adversary, as I explain in the following section. At a cognitive level pure and non-pure sequences were seen to be revealing of an enthymemic style of arguing, whereby the audience is left responsible for drawing its own conclusions based on the premises and pieces of evidence the speaker gives it. Such arguing style manifested itself as a ‘factualistic-inductive’ way of persuading equalling a ‘quasilogical’ or informal nondemonstrative style, which has been deemed distinctive of U.S. culture (Glenn et al., 1977; Johnstone, 1989).2 In this fashion, pure and non-pure sequences were found to greatly contribute to foreground the uniqueness of U.S. debates as a culture-specific communicative encounter. As for the varieties of evidence candidates deployed in their enthymemic arguments, there was none they particularly availed themselves of out of the distinct ones identified in the literature (cf. Bryski, 1978; Levasseur & Dean, 1996). Nonetheless, some contestants showed to be fond of certain sorts of evidence employing them indiscriminately to the point of these turning against themselves (see Levasseur & Dean, 1996), for example, Al Gore and his overuse of statistical or numerical evidence prompting his portrayal in the media, and by his opponents as ‘the man of the big numbers’.3

3.2. Pure Face Mitigating Sequences

More evidence on culture-bound ways of persuading can be found in Rosaldo’s (1973) study of the language of Ilongot oratory. 3 In the first presidential debate aired on October 3rd, 2000, from Boston, MA, Bush even sarcastically accused him of not only having invented the internet, but also the calculator.

2

231

Results and Discussion

Following Agha’s (1997) thesis somewhat substantiated by Harris (2001) that it is the more or less quantity of polite or impolite pragmatic effects an utterance produces across semiotic domains in a determinate communicative context that makes it mitigating or aggravating correspondingly, it could be said that pure mitigating sequences are characterised by the greater production of the former over the latter. Upon examination, pure sequences exhibited the peculiarity of adopting sometimes the form of kinesic and embedded sequences with the former in a larger proportion than the latter, and orient to determinate debate participants such as the moderator, and a journalist or questioner. In spite of primarily targeting at the audience, these sequences were also observed to be occasionally aimed at the adversary, thereby constituting anomalous categories, which the speaker uttered because of strategic reasons ultimately related to the presentation of a positive public image as previously mentioned. These sequences took the form of cooperative actions of diverse kinds, above all jokes, apologies, thanking moves, and permission requests only in the context of interruptions. Anomalous instances in this case appeared to be more frequent than their non-pure counterpart — a total of 139 (8,8%) for the former vis-à-vis 1 (0,1%) for the latter — with a greater quantity in their positive than their negative face orientations, i.e. 90 (5,7%) tokens and 49 (3,1%) respectively (see Graph 24 above). Concerning normal sequences of the pure variety, positive face units were viewed to abound — 556 occurrences constituting 35,2% — in comparison with negative face-oriented ones, viz, 326 incidences (20,5%). This finding is in keeping with the positive face orientation typically assigned to persuasion in political contexts, which, inter alia, is fundamentally sustained in politicians’ aim to create a harmonious relational basis with the audience in order to carry out their
232

Results and Discussion

persuasive actions with it in the first place.4 By and large, positive face sequences of the pure type were tailored as monologic interventions in which S intended to satisfy the audience’s positive face wants principally by means of appeals to the ‘logos’ and ‘pathos’ dimensions of rhetorical arguments, with ‘ethos’ relegated to a secondary position. The dimension of ‘logos’ embraces the audience’s rationality, more specifically, its ‘substantial rationality’, that is, its ability to reason as opposed to that of fulfilling instructions or ‘functional rationality’ (Ilatov, 1993), that of ‘pathos’ alludes to the audience’s emotions (cf. Burke, 1950; Bryant, 1953; Nir, 1998), and ‘ethos’ refers to the speaker’s image before his/her interlocutor with appeals to this dimension consisting of a candidate’s own positive image building through self-positive face attention usually based on the enhancement of his/her past or more recent positive deeds and achievements as a result. Such deeds and achievements are sometimes weighed against the other contestant’s making the zero sum game essence of debates more explicit. The speaker attempts to ‘sell’ him/herself (see Martel, 1983) as the audience’s best option for the public service position s/he competes for via these appeals, attending to its positive face in this way. Appeals to ‘logos’ entail the diverse kinds of evidence debaters were encountered to employ in their talk, among which I propose that the so-called ‘authority references’ (Bryski, 1978) or ‘opinion-centered’ and ‘source-centered’ testimonies (Levasseur & Dean, 1996) are unified under what I believe is ‘making precise power claims’ in the interaction, since S calls on real or attributed great power (+P) sources like determinate individuals, their speeches and/or actions, etc., or him/herself as powerful (+P) together with his/her rival as powerless (-P)
Garcés-Conejos and Sánchez-Macarro (1998) also evince this in scientific discourse as regards writers and the wide scientific community (exoteric group), to whom their articles are addressed.
4

233

Results and Discussion

from time to time. Through these varieties of evidence politicians try to back and reinforce the feasibility of their proposals in debates, so that they orient to the audience’s positive face, whilst concurrently intensifying the credibility of their personas, thus attending to their own. ‘Logos’ appeals also involve cultural values and premises, which, according to Escandell-Vidal (1996) and Sperber (1994b, 1997), are highly influential in human cognition and communication because they are strongly held ‘reflective beliefs’ (Sperber, 1997), viz, representations of thoughts, intentions, discourse, social relations, the context of the situation and culture embedded in an attitude of belief. As such they constitute optimally relevant information difficult to be contradicted by new information, hence abandoned. Appeals to ‘logos’ lying in cultural values and premises bespeak the fact that a speaker not only considers the audience’s cognitive capacities and level of attention and the relationship s/he holds with it in the ostensive/inferential production/reception of his/her utterances, but also assumes a certain degree of mutuality, which s/he signals in and through his/her style (Blakemore, 1993, 1994, 1995; Escandell-Vidal, 1994; Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995). Therefore, contenders attempt to satisfy the audience’s positive face wants by drawing on common ground with it, at the same time that they satisfy their own, as indicated in the preceding chapter. Appeals to ‘pathos’ are especially composed of metaphorical even sometimes utopian and bucolic depictions of life in general, and U.S. society in particular, regularly juxtaposed to a negative current or past situation ascribed to the rival and his/her party and/or administration, which underlines the zero sum game character of debates. These appeals are defining of candidates’ closing statements in the main as established earlier on, and tend to be enacted by way of
234

Results and Discussion

symbols and metaphors primarily associated with America as a united nation (see Chilton, 1990) with the objective of paying the audience positive face considerations, and further supporting contestants’ claims (Chilton & Ilyin, 1993; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Miller, 1999; Otto, 1999; Voss et al., 1992). Similarly to metaphorical appeals to ‘logos’, these symbols and metaphors raise a host of cultural representations differing from the concrete set more ‘literal’ or less ‘loose’ ‘logos’ appeals produce (cf. Sperber & Wilson, 1990). Moreover, they often have graphic qualities, which politicians exploit to boost the emotional force of their communicative acts (Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; Lakoff, 1990), and increase the audience’s understanding of these. ‘Pathos’ appeals encompass narratives containing autobiographical information or personal anecdotes too, which are meant to a) perform ‘relational work’ (Watts, 1989) with the audience moving it emotionally as well (Antaki, 1994; Norrick, 1994), and b) raise its comprehension of S’s interventions simultaneously backing his/her points (Antaki, 1994; Bryski, 1978). To this end, debaters sometimes implement direct speech in their stories speaking on behalf of all the characters they include to make their delivery more vivid, natural and visual (see Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1981; Norrick, 1994). Sound instances of direct speech usage in such context in our corpus are some of Bradley’s interchanges. Excerpt (9) is a pure mitigating sequence with a positive face orientation exemplifying all the above:

(9) PD.M.TRAD.1/8/00 AG: I ↑↑think it’s ↑haappened forr a variety of reasons ↑Bill (.) I ↑think that the as↑sassination of president ↑Kennedy marked aa rite of passage in ourr ↑nation when ↑many people began to think that (0.5) uh something baadd uh started to go ↑wrong because right after that we got mired in the
235

Results and Discussion

Vietnam ↑↑War. (.) you know ↑I wass uh eh uh in the Army at that ↑tiime and I came homme ↑thoroughly disillusioned with ↑politics partly because of the SAME KINd of changes thatt uh uuh a ↑↑lot of ↑other people (.) were seeing in our country. (.) right after ↑thatt uh our hopes were ↑raaised with thee civil rights ↑movement with the cam↑paaign of Bobby ↑↑Kennedy and then with the as↑sassination of Dr. ↑King AAND Bobby ↑Kennedy those hopess uh for many were ↑daashed and then Richard ↑↑Nixon was elected (.) AAND ↑↑WAtergate took place (.) and (.) ↑you ↑↑know (.) at ↑↑that time I thought ↑politics would be the very laast thing I ever did with ↑my ↑life. (.) but ↑I ↑saaw how people who were willing to fight ag↑↑ainst those (.) uh problems and against ↑↑cynicism (.) could make (.) a REal difference and that’s why ↑I decided to start (.) ↑fighting for a better future (.) I ↑↑think that we need campaaign ↑↑finance re↑↑foorm in order to restore a sense of ↑trust and in↑tegrity in our ↑↑government (.) and that’s why I’ve supported for ↑↑twenty ↑years FULL PUblic ↑FInancing of elections. that’s why I don’t accept any PAC contributions (.) and that’s why I’ve ↑I have sug↑gested (.) that we have twice-weekly debaates and (.) in↑stead of de↑pending on ↑these thirty second television (.) aads and sixty second television aads (.) let’s depend on debates like ↑this ↑one maybe the ↑next ↑one could be on ↑Agriculture [...]

This extract is inserted in the January 8th, 2000, primary debate between Al Gore and Bill Bradley celebrated in Des Moines, IA, and corresponds to the then vice president’s response to an aggravating question from the senator on the reason why the number of individuals trusting government has drastically decreased with his administration in contrast with Kennedy’s in the 60’s. Gore begins his monologic discourse with ‘I think’, which functions here as a quality hedge (Locher, 2004) enabling him to 1) avoid full responsibility for his assertions, as it softens S’s commitment to the truth of his/her propositions (Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995; Holmes, 1984; Locher, 2004; Turnbull & Saxton, 1997), 2) strategically sooth the potential imposition of his views on the audience,
236

Results and Discussion

thereby orienting to its negative face (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 2003), and 3) project personal interest in what he is saying, hence a demeanour of sincerity (see ConnorLinton, 1995). By commencing his communicative act in this fashion, Gore already announces to the audience that the motives he is going to adduce for its little trust in government at that moment may not be the real ones, safeguarding potential offence against it. The wide pitch range characterising his first utterance with abundant marked rises and falls signalling strong emotional involvement (Culpeper et al., 2003; Eelen, 2001; Held, 1989; Narbona-Reina, 1998) underscores the vice president’s willingness not to affront audience members, whilst concomitantly a) revealing some negative emotion towards Bradley and his aggravating question as seen in the use of the common ground claimer ‘Bill’,5 and b) setting the tone of his speech in light of this wide range in pitch emerging all through. Gore’s pessimistic picture of the past in his subsequent utterances with the assassination of John F. Kennedy as a starting point, and the Republican president Nixon and the Watergate case6 as the maximum instantiation of such negativity, is largely compounded by ‘logos’ and ‘pathos’ appeals, whereby he supplies evidence for his affirmation, and intends to move the audience respectively. The vice president’s appeals to ‘logos’ are grounded in cultural values and premises mainly surfacing in the shape of indirect connections between past positive achievements and the Democrats (‘our hopes were raised with the civil rights movement with the campaign of Bobby Kennedy’), and past negative actions and Republicans (‘those hopes for many were dashed and then Richard Nixon was
See the previous chapter for an empirical proof of the relationship between terms of address, particularly common ground claimers (CGCs), and face aggravation. 6 This case alludes to the political scandal that surrounded President Nixon and his administration during the 1972 U.S. electoral campaign, in which they were proved to have illegally manoeuvred the elections.
5

237

Results and Discussion

elected and then Watergate took place’), identified as the real opponent here, so that he substantiates his implicit claim that these are the ones that are responsible for North-Americans’ gradual decrease of trust in government up to the present time. These ‘logos’ appeals concurrently operate as appeals to ‘pathos’, since the subtle connections on which they lie, are highly metaphorical based on U.S. symbols and metaphors such as ‘the assassination of president Kennedy’, ‘the Vietnam War’, ‘the assassination of Dr. King’, ‘the campaign of Bobby Kennedy’, ‘Richard Nixon’ and ‘Watergate’.7 Gore emphasizes these symbols and metaphors’ emotive force by pronouncing them in very high pitch (see Eelen, 2001; Held, 1989; Narbona-Reina, 1998; Pennock-Speck, 2003) exploiting their visual qualities and the multiple culture-bound representations they produce to move the audience, foster its comprehension of his words, and back his claim given the greatly influential nature of such representations (Escandell-Vidal, 1996; Sperber, 1994b, 1997). In any case, with such symbols and metaphors the vice president simultaneously increases the manifestness of a wide range of assumptions weakly communicating his thoughts to the audience (cf. Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995). He then intermingles these symbols and metaphors with two short biographical stories — one about his presence in Vietnam (‘you know I was in the army at that time...in our country’), and the other on the Nixon-Watergate period (‘and you know at that time I thought politics...could make a real difference’) — for these same purposes leading to build rapport with the audience, thus paying positive face considerations to it, with the goal of attaining its persuasion.

Although Lakoff (1990) and J. Wilson (1990) have ascribed the use of highly metaphorical descriptions more to Republican than Democratic political figures, e.g. Reagan and George Bush, this example and many others in my corpus provide evidence to the contrary.

7

238

Results and Discussion

Gore reasons his prior ‘logos’ and ‘pathos’ appeals by means of the phrase ‘that’s why’, which makes the link between the content of his claim, namely, that Republicans are to blame for the low number of U.S. citizens currently trusting the government, and his style of reasoning explicit together with evincing his end or agenda in having argued for it the manner he has. As a result, the vice president raises the overall relevance of his arguments (see Campbell, 1992) justifying his negative depiction of the past in and through his commitment to ‘fight for a better future’, illustrative of his ‘campaign motto’ or ‘leadership image’ (Wayne, 2000), and presenting a solution to the problem of U.S. population’s heightened distrust in government (‘I think we need campaign finance reform’). Among other things, this evinces the idea that the notion of relevance cannot be divorced from someone trying to do something at discursive, relational, and socio-cultural levels (BouFranch, 2001c, 2002a; Campbell, 1992; Clark, 1987; Franken, 1999; GarcésConejos & Bou-Franch, 2004; Garrett-Millikan, 1987; Goatly, 1994; Jucker, 1997b; Kitis, 1999; McCawley, 1987; Mey & Talbot, 1988; Morgan & Green, 1987; O’Neill, 1988/89; Roberts, 1991; Walker, 1989; Wilks, 1987). With the repetition of ‘that’s why’ up to the end of his exchange, Gore intends to interweave the rest of the statements comprising it relating them to one another, his main claim, and the solution he proposes to the distrust problem in order to turn his argument into a coherent whole promoting the audience’s understanding of it, and its persuasive force (see Blas-Arroyo, 1999; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999). The ‘factualistic-inductive’ or ‘quasilogical’ style of persuading typical of U.S. politicians and fairly conspicuous in face mitigation becomes therefore more obvious. The vice president’s last statements essentially consists of appeals to ‘logos’ combined with an appeal to ‘ethos’ (‘that’s why I’ve supported for twenty

239

Results and Discussion

years full public funding of elections, that’s why I don’t accept pack contributions’), in which Gore realizes self-image building, with their emotive aspect stressed via the wide pitch range characterising the entire sequence. Positive face mitigation of the pure sort also appeared to sporadically adopt spontaneous or conversational forms in those communicative acts directed towards concrete addressees like the moderator, a panelist or questioner, and the adversary. These interchanges emerged chiefly as jokes contributing to the creation of a pleasant atmosphere in the debate setting, and enhance a positive public image of the speaker if not deployed frivolously or in excess (Jørgensen, 1998; Lakoff, 1990; Martel, 1983; Norrick, 1994; Zajdman, 1995). Such jokes sometimes amounted to games of wit between interactants, more specifically, politicians, and among these, candidates of the Republican Party. Conversational mitigating sequences with a positive face orientation were also found to be tokens of acceptance and compliance with the moderator’s, and a journalist’s or questioner’s indications frequently moulded as supportive minimal responses (cf. Bou-Franch & Gregori-Signes, 1999; Briz, 2000; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 2004; Saft, 1999). Notwithstanding the double polite condition of contenders’ discourses in debates, in determinate jokes, supportive minimal responses and other affiliative reactions such as laughter with the moderator or a panelist or questioner, such double polite function of debaters’ talk was observed to be particularly salient yielding as a consequence coalitions with these debate participants by virtue of face mitigation, and clear detachment from the rival in view of face aggravation. Politicians’ alignments with these interactants in debates have been somewhat neglected in the literature as opposed to those enacted by the moderator (see

240

Results and Discussion

Adams, 1999; Agha, 1997; Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999; Edelsky & Adams, 1990¸ Felderer, 1997).8 Negative face-oriented sequences in the pure variety were encountered to be more conversational than monologic contrary to their positive face counterparts. Conversational sequences with this face orientation were exclusively targeted at the moderator, a journalist or questioner, and the opponent, and usually surfaced as 1) apologies, commonly issued in an interruptive context with the latter (BlasArroyo, 1998b, 2002, 2003; Fernández-García, 2000),9 2) thanking moves, 3) information and clarification requests of the type ‘Is it my turn now?’ only with the moderator and a panelist or questioner, 4) permission petitions especially from the moderator (e.g. ‘Could I make a quick comment?’), and only uttered with the adversary if interrupted by him/her (e.g. ‘May I finish please?’) (ibid.), 5) short corrections of their prior implicit and explicit declarations, and 6) justifications for debate rule breaches in which S also attends to his/her own negative face. These justifications encompass Galasiński’s (1998) three acknowledged major mitigating strategies contenders draw on for licensing their rule infringements in debates, namely, ‘trivialising rule violations’, ‘attributing rule violations to pressure’, and ‘showing reluctance to violate the rules’, with these two abounding over the first: for example, ‘I’ve got to answer to this one’. Among all candidates participating in the 16 debates under study here, the vice president turned out to transgress debate rules the most regularly justifying all his transgressions. This may be explained by the fact that, as the vice president, he holds greater institutional power than other political figures, illicitly exploiting this privilege for local tactical purposes
Candidates’ coalitions with other candidates were less common, and were usually uttered for rhetorical purposes, and as part of a monologic sequence. 9 This also applied to the case of S being the interrupted in keeping with findings on this point in the debate literature.
8

241

Results and Discussion

eventually geared to the achievement of the audience’s persuasion (see Adams, 1992, 1999; Agha, 1997; Beck, 1996; Bilmes, 1999, 2001; Edelsky & Adams, 1990; Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000a, 2000b). All in all, the negative face orientation of contenders’ aforementioned sanctioned and transgressional sequences in debates is attuned with the findings of some debate investigations (e.g. Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Galasiński, 1998), and claims previously formulated on these points at the strategy level. The following is a conversational pure mitigating sequence Gore utters in the first presidential debate against Bush. This sequence orients towards his negative face and the moderator’s exemplifying his justification for violating debate rules by trivialising his transgressional behaviour:

(10) PRE.M.TRAD.10/3/00 AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): → AG: JL(M): AG: [could I respond to that Jim alright new question] (.) NEEW (.) [now let’s (.) we’re almost (.) we this is a big issue (.) it’s a big issue] (.) could we do another roound ↑on it we’re almost out of time. [well (.) just just just briefly when vice president Goore (.) we’ve] when ↑FDR estaablished (.) Social Security they ↑didn’t call them IOUus they called it the full faith and credit of the United ↑States. [...]

Negative face mitigating sequences of the pure kind patterned as monologic were not very popular, and were seen to principally address the audience, and entail more or less soft impositions of the speaker’s views on a given topic sometimes cast as advice or general rule assertions along with accounts of S’s more recent and/or past ideas, attitudes, behaviour, etc., habitually as
242

Results and Discussion

justifications (cf. Antaki, 1994) partly involving some view imposition too, where S’s orientation to his/her own negative face is predominant as already established. Some of these sequences were directed to the counter candidate, however, in order to request information from him/her appearing to be shorter than view impositions and justifications. Those sequences targeted at the audience aimed to pay it negative face considerations basically by means of ‘logos’ appeals, that is, appeals to the audience’s ‘substantial rationality’ (Ilatov, 1993), with minor appeals to ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’. This is not surprising if, following Antaki (1994), we consider that a) view impositions in debates require some explanation by the speaker, and explanations are connected with rationality, and b) justifications contain, among other things, appeals to higher authority, and political, moral and religious values, both identified as constitutive of ‘logos’ appeals in this work through the strategy of ‘making precise power claims’ in the interaction, and the notion of cultural representations based on ‘reflective beliefs’ correspondingly. Extract (11) is an occurrence of negative face-oriented pure mitigation illustrating the afore discussed points:

(11) PRE.M.TOWM.10/17/00 GWB: no I’m ↑not proud of that. (.) the death penalty is a very serious business Leo (.) uuh (.) it’s aa (.) it’s an ISsue that good people obviously disa↑gree on. (.) I take my joob seriously (.) and uh (.) if uh (.) if you ↑think I was prooud of it I (.) I think you misread me I do (.) III uh I was ↑sworn to uphoold the laaws of my state (.) during the course of the campaign in nineteen ninety-↑four. I was aaasked do you support the death penalty I said I ↑did. (.) if a (.) if administered fairly and ↑justly. (.) because ↑I believe it saves liives Leo I do (.) if it’s administeredd ↑swiftly. ↑justly. and ↑fairly. (.) it saves lives. (.) one of the ↑things that happens when you’re a governor (.) at least (.) oftentimes you have to
243

Results and Discussion

make tough de↑cisions. (.) you can’t let public persuasion (.) ↑sway you becaause (.) the job is to enforce the laaw (.) and that’s what I ↑did sir (.) there have been some tough cases come across my desk (.) s some of the hardest moments since I’ve been the governor of the state of ↑Texas (.) is to deal with those cases (.) but my ↑joob is to aask two questions sir (.) is the person guilty of the criime (.) and did the person have ↑full aaccess to the courts of law. (.) and I can tell you looking at you right ↑noow. (.) in all cases (.) those answers (.) were af↑firmative (.) I’m not ↑prooud of any record (.) I’m proud of the fact that violent ↑criime is down in the state of Texas (.) I’m proud of the fact that uh (.) that uh (.) uh (.) that we hold people ac↑countable. (.) but ↑I’m not proud of any record sir (.) I’m not. [...]

This sequence is George W. Bush’s response to a question posed to him by an audience member in the final Presidential debate against Gore, celebrated on October the 17th, 2000, in St. Louis, MO. The ‘open-ended’ format versus a traditional or college debating format (Martel, 1983; League of Women Voters, 2002) of this debate materialising in a ‘town hall meeting’ structure, allows for direct interaction between members of the studio audience and political contestants, which the latter exploit in order to 1) increment common ground with the former, perceived hitherto via Bush’s noteworthy use of the common ground claimer ‘Leo’, an abbreviated version of the questioner’s name, and/or 2) show them deference and respect, as the governor’s continuous employment of the deferential common ground disclaimer ‘sir’ signals. Bush thus orients to the questioner’s positive and negative faces, and, by extension, the audience’s, with the deferential term ‘sir’ also bespeaking the governor’s allocation of ‘symbolic power’ to him and the audience in general, in and through the apparent reduction of his own in light of the formerly commented ‘paradox of persuasive politeness’ ubiquitous to persuasive discourses (Schulze, 1987). Nevertheless, he also
244

Results and Discussion

performs a mitigated aggravating action against the questioner in his remark ‘if you think I was proud of it, I think you misread me’. Such softened face aggravation is warranted in that the governor’s whole intervention is a justification for his support and persistent application of the death penalty in his home state Texas before the questioner’s fairly aggravating query on whether he is proud of this fact, which further attests the recognised hostile nature of questions posited by interactants other than politicians in debates and other political contexts (see, e.g. Hall-Jamieson, 1987; Hellweg et al., 1992; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1991; JacksonBeeck & Meadow, 1979; Kraus, 1988; League of Women Voters, 2002; Locher, 2004; Martel, 1983; Mullany, 2002; Schegloff, 1992; Watts, 2003). As a result, Bush foregrounds attention to his own negative face primarily appealing to the audience’s ‘logos’ by invoking the culturally encouraged moral value of fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of one’s job coupled with the premise that individuals need to be held accountable for their actions. Such premise is peculiarly prominent in Anglo-American culture according to its underlying individualistic concept of the self (Evans-Davies, 2004; Fitch, 1994a, 1998, 2003; Fitch & Sanders, 1994; Lakoff, 1990; Sampson, 1993). The fact that justifications somehow lead the speaker to attempt to impose his/her views on the addressee alleviating such imposition as much as s/he can, explicates the governor’s phrasing of these cultural values and premises fundamentally as general rule statements on the issue of the death penalty (‘the death penalty is a very serious business...disagree on’), and the position of state governor he holds (‘one of the things that happens when you’re a governor...because the job is to enforce law’), thereby paying the audience negative face considerations. Phrasing such cultural values and premises this way also enables Bush to avoid
245

Results and Discussion

responsibility for the attitude towards the death penalty he has been attributed and criticised for by the questioner, blaming instead the laws of social order, which are beyond his control as hinted in the passive ‘was sworn’ (‘I was sworn to uphold the laws of my state’) and the modals ‘have to’ and ‘can’t’ in their root modalities (‘you have to make tough decisions, you can’t let public persuasion sway you’) (cf. Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995, 1995/1996; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; Turnbull & Saxton, 1997). The governor’s general rule statements on his job as state governor and the obligation to enforce the law it implies, also constitute a subtle precise power claim in the interaction that turns overt in his immediately subsequent utterance ‘and that’s what I did sir’ via his ‘existential involvement’ in his usage of ‘I’ (J. Wilson, 1990). Bush’s appeals to ‘logos’ intertwine with some appeals to ‘ethos’ (e.g. ‘I take my job seriously’) meant to heighten these ‘logos’ appeals’ persuasive effect, and attend to his own and the audience’s positive faces. To this end, the governor emphasizes a) the coherence of his persona on the death penalty issue with the goal of increasing the realism of his words (Conrad, 1993; Dolón-Herrero, 2003) — ‘in nineteen ninety-four I was asked ‘do you support the death penalty?’ I said I did’, and b) the benefits his decisions and actions on such issue have brought to Texans (‘I’m proud of the fact that violent crime is down in the state of Texas, I’m proud of the fact that we hold people accountable’). Among the different linguistic devices he avails himself of for this are direct speech (‘do you support the death penalty?’) and boosters like ‘I do’ in the first case (‘because I believe it saves lives Leo I do...’) (see Brown & Levinson, 1987; Held, 1989; Holmes, 1984; Locher, 2004; Watts, 2003; Wood & Kroger, 1994), and the repetition of the expression ‘I’m proud’ in the second (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 1999; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999). In
246

Results and Discussion

so doing, Bush underscores the emotive force of his ‘ethos’ appeals at the same time, thus calling on the audience’s ‘pathos’. This is especially noticeable at the end of his communicative act (‘and I can tell you looking at you right now, in all cases those answers were affirmative’), where he reinforces the idea that the application of the death penalty in his state has been right and fair. The sequence finishes with an ‘antithesis’ or contrast, i.e. a message in which “the core assertion is normally made twice — in a “positive” and “negative” form” (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986: 122), introduced by the phrase ‘but I’m not proud’, that links the sequence conclusion to all the above summarising and reaffirming the governor’s initial answer ‘No, I’m not proud of that’.

3.3. Non-Pure Face Mitigating Sequences

Engaging Agha’s (1997) aforementioned thesis that an utterance qualifies as mitigating or aggravating depending on the greater polite or impolite effects it produces respectively across semiotic domains in a given context, I would argue that non-pure mitigation is characterised by a considerable production of mitigating effects accompanied, however, by aggravating ones. These aggravating effects are defining of its secondary rudeness component, and their proportion varies by virtue of this component’s size within a sequential unit. Such component highlights the counter candidate as the secondary addressee of contestants’ communicative acts, hence their trilogic character in debates. Contrary to pure mitigation, non-pure sequences did not take kinesic or embedded shapes. Neither did they orient specifically to the moderator, a journalist or questioner unless in

247

Results and Discussion

their secondary rudeness constituent, and usually to disagree with the premises or statements in these debate participants’ questions, so that contenders somehow evade answering these (cf. Adams, 1992; Jackson-Beeck & Meadow, 1979), and manipulate or change the topic under discussion in light of their interests (see Adams, 1999; Agha, 1997; Bilmes 1999, 2001; Edelsky & Adams, 1990; Galasiński, 1998; Jackson-Beeck & Meadow, 1979; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000b). Notwithstanding the audience as their main addressee, some of these sequences were anomalous targeting at the opponent instead, albeit to a lesser extent than their pure counterpart — 1 (0,1%) occurrence versus 139 (8,8%) tokens of pure mitigation (see Graph 24). Only one anomalous unit within nonpure mitigation was observed in the corpus as the figures for these sequences in their positive and negative face orientations show: 1 (0,1%) positive face-oriented unit vis-à-vis 0 (0,0%) negative face-oriented ones. This unique anomalous sequence was issued by George W. Bush in addressing his adversary John McCain as a partial concession before the latter’s persistent denial of Bush’s accusations. The governor produces this sequence because of strategic reasons associated with his continuous intents to build his public image. Another peculiarity of non-pure sequences is that in some occasions their secondary rudeness element was encountered to be directed towards the audience or the speaker him/herself. In the case of the audience, such rudeness frequently consisted of some general criticism against society as a whole in which the speaker tended to include him/herself by means of the personal pronoun ‘we’ to diffuse the audience’s responsibility (see Zupnik, 1994). This rudeness was voiced for rhetorical purposes connected with S’s image and proposals, and was commonly repaired or compensated with face enhancing or boosting acts showing audience
248

Results and Discussion

members appreciation (cf. Bayraktaroğlu, 1991; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1997) in keeping with contestants’ objective of reaching their persuasion, and some scholars’ findings on hostility running counter to this phenomenon (e.g. Jørgensen, 1998). Among all the politicians taking part in the debates object of study, Alan Keyes was found to aggravate the audience’s face most often along the lines of his moralistic and evangelical preaching style. In the case of S’s rudeness towards him/herself, which had not been contemplated here on theoretical grounds, this aggravating action generally comprised self-indictment, and censure of one’s own party and/or social group (politicians) for the same purposes as those prompting rudeness against the audience. Similarly to pure mitigation, normal sequences of the non-pure type with a positive face orientation with 549 incidences (34,7%) appeared to prevail over negative face-oriented ones, which amounted to 149 categories (9,5%). This corroborates the overall preponderance of positive face mitigating varieties, and their condition as distinctive of persuasion in debates, particularly non-pure instances, as explained above. Non-pure sequences paying the audience positive face considerations surfaced as monologic exchanges where the speaker happened to appeal largely to the audience’s ‘logos’, with ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’ standing out in their secondary rudeness element. This is in consonance with this element’s previously indicated role of strengthener of these sequences’ mitigating force, hence persuasive power. Appeals to ‘pathos’ in the secondary rudeness constituent of such sequences regularly emerged as what I call ‘denounces’ of a present social situation habitually ascribed to the rival and/or his/her party stressing the zero sum game nature of debates as a consequence. These denounces were seen to be based on the positive face aggravating strategy ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement
249

Results and Discussion

with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’, and the negative face aggravating strategies ‘increase imposition weight’, ‘refuse H and H’s things, actions, values and opinions’, and seldom ‘indebt H’. Moreover, denounces sometimes co-occurred with face enhancing or boosting acts directed towards the audience adopting two modalities in the data that I have labelled ‘best’ and ‘victim’ in view of S’s enhancement of the audience’s positive face by merely foregrounding its qualities or doing so through its victimization. I suggest that these modalities might be context-specific in light of empirical evidence on complimenting acts and their responses in other communicative encounters (see Lorenzo-Dus, 2001). The flattering action of these acts contributed to the construction of togetherness or harmony augmenting the likelihood of attaining the audience’s persuasion (Chilton, 1990; Lakoff, 1990, 2001). ‘Ethos’ appeals in the face aggravating component of these positive faceoriented sequences materialised chiefly as a ‘we/us’ versus ‘they/them’ dialectic with the ‘we/us’ pole of the dialectical pair highlighted over the ‘they/them’ term. This dialectical pair evokes the connectedness-separateness dialectics postulated by Baxter and Montgomery (1996), and has been deemed pervasive in political discourse (Atkinson, 1988; Chilton & Schäffner, 1997; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Jucker, 1997; Lazuka, 2006; Van Dijk, 1989; 1997). Therefore, ‘we/us’ or the connectedness pole of the pair identifies with the speaker, his/her party, and for the most part the audience constituting in this way “one of the most political of all pronouns” (Van Dijk, 2004: 360), whereas ‘they/them’ or the separateness term of the pair alludes to the adversary and his/her political party. Besides these pronouns, appeals to ‘ethos’ also appeared in the form of a contrast between the first singular personal pronoun ‘I’, and third person
250

Results and Discussion

singular and/or plural pronouns and address terms, which were observed to entail common ground disclaimers (CGDs) in the main. Debaters deployed ‘I’ to signal more personal involvement in what they uttered (Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990), and seem more presidential, thus projecting themselves as important socio-political leaders and icons of their respective political ideologies (Blas-Arroyo, 2000; Lazuka, 2006). Accordingly, through all these pronouns contenders made these ideologies salient instantiating a ‘polarized’ speech (Caspi, 1986; Lazuka, 2006; Nir, 1988), in which ‘I’ and ‘we/us’ are credited with positive attitudes, opinions, values, conduct, etc., whilst ‘they/them’ and third person singular pronouns and address terms are attributed the opposite. Such positive attitudes, opinions, values, conduct, etc., were sometimes phrased as face enhancing or boosting acts taking on the already commented ‘best’ and ‘victim’ modalities, which politicians, however, utilised moderately when exclusively referring to self (‘I’). This is not surprising if we take into account that “politicians [...] must emphasise good things about themselves [in order to be effective] but at the same time they must minimise praise of self in order to keep the appearance of politeness” (Jucker, 1997a: 128). By and large, John McCain was the most boastful of all candidates making also substantial usage of the ‘victim’ modality very unpopular among the rest. In short, ‘ethos’ appeals taking the shapes just described in the secondary rudeness component of these sequences underline the zero sum game essence of debates. What follows is an example of a non-pure sequence with a positive face orientation showing the above:

(12) PR.M.TALKS.2/15/00 AK: don’t trust the people trust the ↑government (.) [the only prooblem is
251

Results and Discussion

GWB: AK:

no trust the people if you ↑really (.) if you ↑re]ally (.) no (.) if you’re ↑really going to (.) right= A: =[(almost inaudibly and collectively laughs) GWB: you should trust the people AK: trust the people GWB: yeah] AK: if you’re ↑really going to trust the people (.) then ↑WHY have this debate in which you have two folks arguing over (.) hhow they’re going to use their ggatekeeper roole to de↑termine (.) hhow much of your ooown money you get to ↑↑keep (.) that’s what the income tax system ↑doooes to America (.) it is not the system our founding faathers put in place (.) the system ↑they put in place. as compaatible with the status of a truly free people is a system where you go out (.) you earn a hundred dollars (.) you bring that hundred dollars home and until ↑YOU decide what to do with it (.) the government doesn’t get a look at it [let me ↑finish LK(M): and who lights your street lamp] AK: you DON’t] (.) let me finish (.) you DON’t wait for the government (.) too (.) to you don’t have to wait for (.) some politician to give you your tax cut (.) by avooiding expenditures ↑OOon the taxed items out there (.) you will be able to avoid the tax ↑why because (.) under that original Constitution the government was funded with tariffs duties (.) and ↑eexcise taxes. (.) ↑saales taxes. that you don’t pay on your income (.) and ↑since you don’t pay them on your income by the ↑way. (.) you don’t get into this hhuumiliating business of having these politicians arguing (.) over hhow much of your own money [you get to keep (.) and you don’t [...]

This sequence is issued by the ambassador Alan Keyes in the primary debate against John McCain and George W. Bush held on February the 15th, 2000, in Columbia, SC, and corresponds to the ambassador’s answer to a question posed by Larry King (the moderator) on their tax plans. The ‘informal’ format of this debate given its talkshow gist (Hellweg et al., 1992; League of Women Voters, 2002) accounts for the somewhat split form of this sequence, which starts in
252

Results and Discussion

Keyes’ first utterance to be temporarily suspended by a side sequence (Edelsky & Adams, 1990) between the ambassador and George W. Bush, and a short interruption by the moderator, briefly acknowledged by the former (‘Let me finish’). The debate’s character of ‘television’ versus ‘televised’ encounter (cf. Hellweg et al., 1992) also promotes such split form, since the event is a talkshow camera product as opposed to a merely covered communicative exchange. Keyes’ side sequence with Bush is motivated by a mistake from the ambassador, who says exactly the reverse from what he intended to say in light of to the immediately preceding turns, where he agrees with the governor on trusting U.S. citizens unlike government on tax money. Bush’s on record aggravating correction of the ambassador’s ‘pragmalinguistic failure’ or ‘error’ (Kreuz & Roberts, 1993; Riley, 1989; Thomas, 1983) is realized and admitted by the latter later than expected in the interaction due to his passionate struggle to keep the floor (‘if you really, if you really, no, if you’re really going to, right’). Such struggle stems from his interpretation of the governor’s intervention as an attempt to take it away from him (cf. Adams, 1992; 1999; Beck, 1996; Bilmes, 1999, 2001; Edelsky & Adams, 1990), which indicates Keyes’ selection of a series of contextual assumptions different from those Bush wanted him to select at a cognitive level, thereby illustrating a case of ‘accidental relevance’ (Wilson, 1999) that prompts a temporary misunderstanding in the interaction (see Bou-Franch, 2001c, 2002a). The ambassador’s momentary misunderstanding produces the audience’s laughter, which points out the active role advocated for the audience in this project in comparison with the typically passive function it has been assigned in interpretive and critical discourse analysis investigations of debates. The affiliative tone of this response signals the audience’s positive face attention to him as well as bespeaks

253

Results and Discussion

the meaning of laughter as a co-present lubricating device in conversation (Agha, 1997; Chafe, 2001; Sai-Hua, 2001). Keyes’ side sequence with Bush finishes with the governor’s reframing of his prior aggravating act as a mitigating piece of advice, and the ambassador’s correction of his mistake in the utterance ‘trust the people’. The ambassador’s discourse continues with a rhetorical question posed to the audience, which introduces the ‘logos’ appeals principally compounding his sequence, and part of the secondary rudeness present thereto. These ‘logos’ appeals essentially amount to the idea that Americans are entitled to decide how much of their own money they keep as regards tax money conveyed through the culturally encouraged premises and values of freedom and equality in NorthAmerica (see Evans-Davies, 2004; Fitch & Sanders, 1994; Lakoff, 1990; Rudanko, 1995; Wayne, 2000). Albeit underlying his entire interchange, such premises and values can especially be seen in Keyes’ description of the income tax system founded by his predecessors, which was ‘compatible with the status of a truly free people’, and the Constitution backing it: ‘under that original Constitution the government was funded with tariffs duties and excise taxes, sales taxes that you don’t pay on your income’. The ambassador frames these broad cultural premises and values throughout his sequence as 1) equity in terms of power between politicians, in particular, his rivals George W. Bush and John McCain, or the government and the audience, and 2) freedom of choice in the case of the latter as a step to freedom of action concerning its earnings. Therefore, in his rhetorical question Keyes grants the audience symbolic power by downplaying his opponents’, whose positive and negative faces he indirectly tries to aggravate via the positive face aggravating strategy ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with,
254

Results and Discussion

H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’ on the one hand, and the negative face aggravating strategies ‘challenge’ and ‘increase imposition weight’ on the other hand. In this fashion, the ambassador implicitly challenges his two Republican adversaries and denounces their hypocritical attitude insofar as they advocate to trust the American people on the subject of taxes, whilst discussing ‘how they’re going to use their gatekeeper role’ in this respect. This foregrounds the zero sum game condition of debates and the trilogic nature of communication thereto. Keyes’ appeals to the audience’s ‘pathos’ are also patent in this denounce, from which implications of unfairness towards the audience linked to Bush and McCain can be derived. The fact that these appeals emerge in and through a rhetorical question further buttresses the ambassador’s call on the audience’s emotions, since this syntactic construction guides “the hearer’s attention to a thought or proposition that is being expressed by the question [...] mak[ing] [it more] apparent to [him/her]” (Gutiérrez-Rexach, 1998: 143), and is a booster of illocutionary force (Held, 1989; Holmes, 1984). Keyes’ high pitch at the end of the question also contributes to this (cf. Eelen, 2001; Held, 1989; Narbona-Reina, 1998; Pennock-Speck, 2003). Such pitch and the stress marking the auxiliary ‘does’ in his next utterance (‘that’s what the income system does to America’) also intensifies this assertion’s emotive dimension together with helping audience members select determinate contextual assumptions at a cognitive level, which enable them to fill this verb with meaning (Culpeper, 2005; Narbona-Reina, 1998). Such meaning in this case alludes to the idea that the U.S. income tax system acts as a gatekeeper constraining the population’s freedom on making decisions about their own money. Consequently, it is in this general truth statement that Keyes
255

Results and Discussion

transforms his preliminary implications of unfairness in relation to the audience into a real face enhancing act of the ‘victim’ kind targeted at it. By choosing the term ‘America’ to refer to the audience, hence such victim, he also aims to build togetherness or harmony with it (Chilton, 1990; Lakoff, 1990, 2001), so that he satisfies its positive face wants, and increments the persuasiveness of his words (see Lakoff, 1990). Besides this cultural symbol, the ambassador also draws on the symbolic expression ‘the system our founding fathers put in place’ to go on appealing to the audience’s ‘pathos’. By means of such symbolic expression in ‘it is not the system our founding fathers put in place’, Keyes juxtaposes the current tax system he relates to his rivals to that of their founders accentuating the negativity of the former, and his disapproval of it. ‘Ethos’ appeals in this secondary rudeness portion of the ambassador’s sequence take on the shape of a ‘you’ (the audience) versus ‘they’ (Bush and McCain) contrast with the first person plural pronoun ‘our’ also surfacing at the end. Keyes underscores the ‘you’ term of the comparison throughout all his sequence including himself as part of that ‘you’ when he employs the pronoun ‘our’ (‘the system our founding fathers put in place’). The ambassador loads this term of the contrast with positive implications like earning money honestly through work — ‘you go out, you earn a hundred dollars, you bring that hundred dollars home’. However, he credits the ‘they’ item with negative ones chiefly associated with the action of unjustly taking part of somebody’s money. This item is also verbalised in the referential expression ‘two folks’ functioning here as a common ground disclaimer, whereby Keyes diminishes Bush’s and McCain’s power in front of the audience, and makes his coalition with it explicit by situating these two politicians in a distant space and time co-ordinates from him and the
256

Results and Discussion

audience. On top of ‘they’, the ambassador deploys second and third person singular forms in ‘the government’ and ‘some politician’ as the second element of the aforementioned contrast too. In this occasion though, he alludes to Clinton’s administration and the Democrats correspondingly exemplifying the vagueness that defines political discourse in the latter (see Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Lakoff, 1990; Zupnik, 1994). This supports our suggestion that debaters’ ostensive communication is commonly of the weak type (see p. 83). Before this, Keyes is interrupted by Larry King (‘and who lights your street lamp’), who, in so doing, not only bids for discourse status (Watts, 1997), but also behaves as a ‘provoker’ (Blas-Arroyo, 1998c) temporarily loosing the neutral stance he is supposed to have (Blas-Arroyo, 1998c; League of Women Voters, 2002; Nir, 1998). King thus deviates from the distinctive function of allotting turns at talk a moderator performs in debates.10 After responding to the moderator’s interruption (‘Let me finish’), the ambassador appeals to the audience’s ‘logos’ by providing an explanation that backs his original claim that U.S. citizens ultimately decide what to do with their own money concerning taxes. Keyes casts these appeals into what Heritage and Greatbatch (1986) label a ‘puzzle-solution’ message initiated by ‘why’, which he connects with the remainder of his argument by way of ‘since’ pronounced in noticeable high pitch. It is precisely this high pitch contour that makes such connection more obvious increasing the relevance of the ambassador’s claim, and evincing even more his style of reasoning (cf. Campbell, 1992). Keyes’ appeals to ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’ can be observed again in the secondary rudeness with which he ends his sequence. The expression ‘by the way’ with a rise-fall pitch range, and
10

Such function is also a characteristic one of figures like the chairman in chaired meetings (see Larrue & Trognon, 1993) or the emcee in TV talkshows (cf. Gregori-Signes, 1998, 2000a, 2000b).

257

Results and Discussion

the stressed negative adjective ‘humiliating’ make more evident the ambassador’s ‘pathos’ appeals. On the one hand, the rise-fall pitch in the former transmits a patronising attitude regarding his opponents (Culpeper et al., 2003). On the other hand, the adjective ‘humiliating’ is a pivotal component of the ‘victim’ sort of face enhancing act Keyes targets at the audience in ‘you don’t get into this humiliating business of having these politicians arguing over how much of your own money you get to keep and you don’t’. ‘Ethos’ appeals materialize as commented in the preceding paragraph, i.e. a positive ‘you’ opposed to a negative ‘they’, in which ‘they’ refers once more to Bush and McCain, thereby highlighting the zero sum game essence of debates and the trilogic substance of candidates’ discourses in these contexts. Non-pure sequences with a negative face orientation were encountered to constitute monologic interventions consisting of soft impositions of the speaker’s position on a determinate issue moulded as pieces of advice, general rule statements, warnings about a potential negative situation in the future, and threats to a third party portrayed as the enemy. Notwithstanding the audience as their habitual main target, some of these sequential categories were found to orient to the counter candidate. These sequences comprise a) questions in same party multiple candidates’ debates, where S requests information from the adversary at the same time that s/he carries out a face aggravating action towards a third party, usually another political party different from H’s and its members, in their secondary rudeness constituent, and b) mitigated impositions of S’s views on the rival patterned as some advice, through which S actually aimed to lecture him/her in these sequences’ secondary aggravation. Among those sequences directed to the audience, sequential occurrences tailored as advice and general rule statements
258

Results and Discussion

were the most abundant with warnings and threats turning to be less frequent. Nonetheless, the speaker pursued to satisfy the audience’s negative face wants in these sequences by primarily appealing to the audience’s ‘logos’, with ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’ appeals becoming prominent in their secondary rudeness. As in their positive face counterpart, appeals to ‘pathos’ therein tended to ensue as ‘denounces’ of a present social situation often associated with the opponent and his/her party, and face enhancing acts of the ‘victim’ and ‘best’ modalities oriented to the audience. ‘Ethos’ appeals normally emerged as a positive ‘we/us’ versus negative ‘they/them’ dialectic, and a contrast between the first person plural pronoun ‘I’ presented in a positive light, and third person singular and/or plural pronouns and address terms depicted in a negative way. Appeals to ‘ethos’ in these sequences were more manifest than in positive faceoriented resulting in an even more ‘polarized’ speech (Caspi, 1986; Lazuka, 2006; Nir, 1988) from politicians hitherto. From the premise that in so doing, candidates also partake in the upholding of the two-party political system that sustains U.S. politics (Adams, 1999; Firestone, 1987; Martel, 1983; Meadow, 1987; Swerdlow, 1987b),11 it can be argued that such upholding action is therefore more discernible in non-pure negative face mitigation. Lastly, ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’ appeals in the secondary face aggravating element of sequences in the form of warnings and threats, commonly involved the negative face aggravating strategy ‘frighten’. Following Culpeper (1996, 2005) and Culpeper et al. (2003), this strategy suggests the instilment of a belief in the audience that harmful action against it is going to take place, thus bringing about negative forecasts. However, in the context of
11

It is in this manner that ideology and culture have been established to spread and reproduce by scholars taking a social constructionist approach to social reality (see Leez-Hurwitz, 1992): via the communicative practices of the individuals who share them (Carbaugh, 1995; Fetzer & Weizman, 2006; Philipsen, 1992; Sperber; 1994b; Van Dijk, 1989, 1997, 2003).

259

Results and Discussion

debates this strategy gets specific in that such harmful action is only likely provided that certain circumstances or courses of action occur or are altered to prevent it, as proposed by the speaker. As in non-pure positive face mitigation, the zero sum game nature of these events is conspicuous in the secondary rudeness of these sequences.

(13) PD.M.HYBR.3/1/00 BB: (0.5) uh ↑let me give you an example where I think the record will be a problem in this campaign (.) uuuh in the in his congressional career Al voted ↑five times to (.) support the tax-exempt status for schools that practice racial discrimination such as Bob Jones (.) Re↑↑publicans are down at Bob Jones Universi↑ty preaching the ↑old conservatism (.) and I guarantee you we should be at↑↑taaacking them for that (.) but when we at↑tack them (.) if you attack them for thaaat. then they are going to come right back and point to ↑those ↑↑votes. and it is going to be [time a very] difficult case to make [...]

BS(M): BB:

This excerpt is a negative face mitigating sequence of the non-pure variety produced by Bill Bradley in the primary debate against Gore, celebrated on March the 3rd, 2000, in Los Angeles, CA. This sequence is Bradley’s response to a question posed by the journalist Ron Brownstein on Gore’s record after the senator’s initial answer, followed by the vice president’s rebuttal according to the formulaic structure of a debate ‘episode’ (Agha, 1997). Here the senator basically intends to impose his views on the audience by warning it on the potential problem Gore’s record on schools that have been granted tax-exempt status could entail in the campaign and for the presidency. To this end, Bradley largely appeals to the audience’s ‘logos’ formulating ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’ appeals especially in the
260

Results and Discussion

secondary rudeness component of his sequence. In keeping with the global warning force of his talk, the senator mainly expresses his ‘pathos and ‘ethos’ appeals in this element via the negative face aggravating strategy ‘frighten’. The use of this strategy thus accounts for the negative forecast he posits right at the outset of his exchange — ‘let me give you an example where I think the record will be a problem in this campaign’ — with the purpose of ‘scaring’ the audience about Gore in the voting booth (cf. Martel, 1983). In this fashion, the senator appeals to the audience’s ‘pathos’ intensifying the emotive value of his words in his immediate affirmations on the vice president’s five votes in favour of schools that racially discriminate. Racial discrimination in the U.S. is a serious cultural issue that touches on the sensitivity of many Americans. Bradley’s call on such sensitivity can be seen in his mention of ‘Bob Jones’, a symbol of racial segregation in North-America generally linked to the ultra conservative Republicans. The senator makes such link explicit in the first fragment of the secondary rudeness constituent of his sequence (‘Republicans are down at Bob Jones University preaching the old conservatism’). He emotionally marks his disapproval of the Republican Party’s ideology and the discriminatory conduct and attitudes it creates with his wide pitch range, through which he further appeals to the audience’s ‘pathos’ (see Culpeper et al., 2003; Eelen, 2001; Held, 1989; Narbona-Reina, 1998). His pathos appeals are outstanding in his emphatic promise ‘and I guarantee you we should be attacking them for that’ with ‘guarantee’ acting as a booster of illocutionary force (cf. Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; Holmes, 1984; Watts, 2003). Such promise not only reveals what a Democrat should be like, hence its membership categorization (Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000), but also points
261

Results and Discussion

out Bradley’s ‘ethos’ appeals in the use of the presidential ‘I’ and the dialectic ‘we’ versus ‘them’. By means of ‘I’, the senator orients to his own positive face, as he signals his personal involvement in what he says and portrays himself as a good Democratic leader (see Blas-Arroyo, 2000; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Lazuka, 2006). Likewise, he draws on common ground with the audience through ‘we’, and distances himself from Republicans with ‘them’. Gore is included in the ‘we’ term of the comparison based on the Democratic ideology Bradley is invoking in these statements. By employing the common ground claimer ‘Al’ thereto, the senator downplays Gore’s power, grants the audience symbolic power, and implicitly aligns with it too. As a result, Bradley gives himself and the audience ‘pluses’ in advocating their opposition to racial discrimination in the U.S., whilst giving Republicans ‘minuses’ in attributing them the contrary perspective on this matter. He implicitly gives the vice president ‘minuses’ as well in establishing that his record could be a problem for the Democratic ticket to succeed before the Republican one in the campaign. This underlines the zero sum game condition of debates. The senator closes his sequence with ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’ appeals in the last portion of its secondary rudeness verbalised again in and through the negative face aggravating strategy ‘frighten’. The specific character of this strategy in the context of debates is observed here in that the potential negative action against the audience which the vice president’s record could get to cause is only likely if Republicans were to be attacked for their support to schools that racially discriminate. This reinforces some politeness scholars’ claim on the context sensitivity of polite and impolite strategies on the whole (e.g. Culpeper, 1996; 2005; Culpeper et al., 2003; GarcésConejos & Sánchez-Macarro, 1998; Locher, 2004; Locher & Watts, 2005; Mills,
262

Results and Discussion

2003; Penman, 1990; Watts, 2003; etc.). Bradley goes over the stipulated time limits for each candidate’s turn in the central section of this debate inciting Bernard Shaw’s (the moderator) ritualistic phrase (‘time’) (Agha, 1997; Bilmes, 2001; Blas-Arroyo, 1998c; Drucker & Platt-Hunold, 1987; Edelsky & Adams, 1990; Fernández-García, 2000; Hellweg et al., 1992; Martel, 1983; League of Women Voters, 2002). In sum, in this sequence cast as a warning, the senator orients to the audience’s negative face in trying to softly impose his views on it. However, it is to the Democratic constituents that Bradley targets its persuasive message at, thereby bespeaking the heterogeneity of the audience in third party conversations in general, and public political mass communication in particular (Bell, 1984, 1991; Duranti, 2001; Goodwin, 1986; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; Fetzer & Weizman, 2006).

3.4. Conclusions

This chapter has aimed to explain face mitigation in the debates under study here, more specifically; it has attempted to provide an answer to RQs 1.1 and 1.2. put forward in this investigation. By and large, out of the pure and non-pure varieties of mitigation found in the data, non-pure mitigation appeared to be predominant in its positive as opposed to negative face orientation. This finding consolidates non-pure sequences as the chief expression of persuasion in these events coupled with the paradigmatic instantiation of trilogic communication therein. These sequences were encountered to take monologic forms in the main, whereas pure categories adopted both monologic and conversational shapes with

263

Results and Discussion

positive face units regularly surfacing as monologic, and negative face categories as conversational. Appeals to ‘logos’, ‘pathos’ and ‘ethos’ were seen to intertwine in all these sequences with distinct degrees of prominence in each of these sequential types. In light of all the above, it could be argued that the existence of all these varieties of mitigation in debates backs the conceptualization of politeness as a scale or continuum of mitigating and aggravating behaviours and attitudes with non-pure types being closer to its aggravating end.

264

Results and Discussion

4. FACE AGGRAVATION

The present chapter attempts to provide an answer to RQs 2.1. and 2.2. posited in this research. Therefore, it concentrates on the different varieties of face aggravation that emerged in the data based on a major distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘non-pure’ ones. First, I provide and discuss the results obtained from the quantitative analysis performed on these sequence types. This discussion is accompanied by an overall description of such sequences considering, inter alia, the notions of monologic or oratorical, and spontaneous or interactional sorts of exchanges in debates along with a closer look at power in light of its prominence in aggravation as already suggested (p. 49ff.). Then, I centre on pure and non-pure aggravating sequences accounting for their respective positive and negative face categories, which I illustrate with relevant examples selected from the corpus.

4.1. Overview

Face aggravation was seen to be instantiated in the debates under study in and through pure and non-pure aggravating units with the latter containing what I label secondary politeness, each showing both positive and negative face orientations. The usual addressee of these sequences was the adversary, and like mitigating categories, a dual orientation to both positive and negative faces in them was uncommon, as one of these orientations was generally found to prevail over the other. Out of pure and non-pure aggravation, the former was outstandingly

265

Results and Discussion

predominant in comparison with the latter — 405 (80,6%) units versus 98 (19,4%) — (see Graph 25 below). As previously mentioned, candidates intend not to go negative in debates on the whole. This may lead to think that using non-pure aggravation against the opponent would be the more logical way to proceed. However, excessive non-pure aggravation towards the rival, who is sometimes the target of the secondary politeness characterising such aggravation, would entail some acknowledgement of H that candidates tend to avoid in their intent to get differentiated from him/her in the main (Adams, 1999; Blas-Arroyo, 1998a, 2000; 2001, 2003; Caspi, 1986; Fernández-García, 2000; Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 1998; 2000a, 2000b; Kraus, 1988; Martel, 1983).1 The predominance of pure aggravation thus appears justified.

Graph 25. Face Aggravating Sequences.
NON-PURE 98 19,4%
SECP.POS.FO 32 6,3% ANOM SEQ 9 1,8% ANOM.SEQ 0 0,0% SECP. NEG.FO 63 12,5% ANOM.SEQ 3 0,6% POS.FO 164 32,6%

NEG.FO 227 45,2%

TOTAL 503

PURE 405 80,6%

ANOM.SEQ 5 1%

In spite of this general tendency, it must not be forgotten that debaters realize closeness and distance moves concerning the opponent in light of their self-interests at specific moments in the interaction.

1

266

Results and Discussion

This also supports my view of pure and non-pure aggravating sequences as different degrees of aggravation, of which the former constitutes the maximum level of aggravation in the scale politeness and impoliteness are conceived of in this investigation, whilst the latter precedes it coming closer to the mitigating end. Negative face aggravating categories within these two major types of aggravation turned out to be the most frequent vis-à-vis their positive face counterparts: 236 (47%) pure and 66 (13,1%) non-pure negative face units, and 169 (33,6%) pure and 32 (6,3%) non-pure positive face occurrences (see Table 10). Anomalous instances, i.e. occurrences primarily oriented to an addressee other than the counter candidate, have been included in these counts in order to reflect the real quantitative presence of normal and anomalous face aggravation in the data. Albeit not signalled in Table 10 due to the significantly low percentage they yielded per debate, they are shown, however, in Graph 25 in global terms within each aggravating variety. Nevertheless, anomalous aggravating sequences do not actually reveal the true nature of face aggravation in debates, whose fundamental function is damaging the adversary interlinked with exerting power over him/her. Excluding anomalous sequences, normal negative face-oriented units within pure aggravation totalling 227 incidences (45,2%) appeared to abound over normal pure ones with a positive face orientation, which equalled 164 tokens (32,6%), and the other normal aggravating varieties — negative face-oriented categories within non-pure aggravation with 63 units (12,5%), and positive face-oriented sequences within pure aggravation with 32 (6,3%). As a result, pure negative face aggravation constitutes the typical shape of aggression in debates, hence the habitual way in which debaters bid for power over the rival as discussed below.

267

Results and Discussion

Table 10. Face Aggravating Sequences.
SEQ.TYP PURE NON-PURE

AGGR.POS.FO AGGR.NEG.FO AGGR.SECP.POS.FO AGGR.SECP.NEG.FO Total Debate Num. 1 0 2 24 3 52 4 13 5 1 6 8 7 10 8 2 9 8 10 11 11 6 12 13 13 11 14 1 15 1 16 8 Total 169 % 0,0 29,2 42,9 30,5 33,3 53,3 30,3 22,2 36,3 47,8 27,2 24,5 31,4 16,6 20,0 32,0 33,6 Num. 6 37 60 21 2 5 18 0 9 11 13 24 15 3 2 10 236 % 66,6 45,1 49,5 52,5 66,6 33,3 54,5 0,0 40,9 47,8 59,0 45,2 42,8 50,0 40,0 40,0 47 Num. 3 8 4 2 0 2 1 2 3 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 32 % 33,3 9,7 3,3 5,0 0,0 13,3 3,0 22,2 13,6 0,0 4,5 3,7 2,8 33,3 20,0 0,0 6,3 Num. 0 13 5 4 0 0 4 5 2 1 2 14 8 0 1 7 66 % 0,0 15,8 4,1 10,0 0,0 0,0 12,1 55,5 9,0 4,3 9,0 26,4 22,8 0,0 20,0 28,0 13,1 9 82 121 40 3 15 33 9 22 23 22 53 35 6 5 25 503

A possible explanation for the abundance of negative face aggravation over positive face aggravation may lie in the afore stated idea that contestants try not to be too antagonistic in debates, and the importance of positive face in these contexts already talked about. Candidates refrain from disproportionate hostility towards the opponent mainly because of their desire to safeguard their own public image from any potential boomerang effect caused by their aggravating actions (Agha, 1997; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Galasiński, 1998; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000a, 2000b; Jørgensen, 1998; Martel, 1983). In this fashion, the relevance of positive face in political discourse and persuasion is further confirmed: as for the hearer, this can be observed in candidates’ preference for hurting H’s negative face in general; concerning the speaker, this is seen in his/her protection of his/her own
268

Results and Discussion

image, which principally consists of attention to his/her positive face therein. Thus, it would be logical to assume that an attack against H’s negative face may be perceived as less damaging than offence to his/her positive face in debates. As politicians wish to avoid too much aggression, the fact that they rather deploy negative face aggravation instead of positive face aggression in arguing against the adversary becomes understandable. This is also in keeping with the distinct essence positive and negative faces have been assigned, whereby positive face has been said to involve more core aspects of an individual’s personality, and negative face has been determined to be more specific to the communicative act in hand (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Carretero-Lapeyre, 1995; Coupland et al., 1988; Mills, 2003; Turner, 1996; Watts, 2003; Werkhofer, 1992). By and large, face aggravating sequences were encountered not to be as lengthy as mitigating ones with pure types sometimes adopting more conversational or spontaneous forms, and non-pure varieties taking only monologic shapes. Pure face aggravating sequences with both positive and negative face orientations usually surfaced as shorter interventions than pure mitigating categories, and from time to time conversational interchanges, which sporadically amounted to what I label ‘negativity cycles’: chains of aggravating sequences sometimes constituting illicit ‘disordered talk’ (Edelsky & Adams, 1990). Negativity cycles are a combative version of Edelsky’s (1981) collaboratively developed floors or ‘F2s’, and make more conspicuous the zero sum game condition of political debates.2 Non-pure positive and negative face units turned out to be lengthier than pure ones, and only ensued as monologic interventions whose secondary politeness component was regularly directed to the
See Gregori-Signes (1998, 2000a, 2000b) for a comprehensive account of these sequential categories in the context of North-American tabloid talkshows.
2

269

Results and Discussion

audience, and sometimes to the very primary target of their aggravating action, namely, the rival. In view of this, the more or less implicit or explicit associations established in the debate literature and the theoretical part of this thesis between monologic and conversational interchanges, and the persuasive and antagonistic aspect of politicians’ speech respectively, need to be held with caution. On cognitive grounds, the control over the interpretation of utterances contestants strive for in debates commented upon at certain points throughout this research, becomes fairly explicit in face aggravation materialising in and through a) statements on who has the floor and how long, and b) metapragmatic comments about the counter candidates’ more immediate or past words (Adams, 1999; Agha, 1997; Bilmes, 1999; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000b). These two kinds of discursive manifestations are examples of what I would call ‘talk over talk’ in a more general vein, and constitute clear bids for power in the interaction (ibid.). These ‘talk over talk’ enactments do not correspond in their majority with accurate renderings of the reality of the unfolding discourse as regards the former, and the other contender’s speech as for the latter. In this way, statements on who has the floor and how long are sometimes ‘unofficial’ rules for self and other debaters set up at a determinate moment in their delivery (see Agha, 1997), and metapragmatic comments on the adversary’ speech sometimes constitute distortions of it entailing partial truths. Underlying these statements and metapragmatic comments is therefore politicians’ exploitation of their knowledge of debate norms on the one hand, and the adversary on the other hand, thereby instantiating what Airenti et al. (1993) refer to as ‘non-standard communication’. Finally, notwithstanding the fact that face aggravation is intended rudeness of the ‘strategic’ or ‘systematic’ sort in political debates as previously noted, other kinds of impoliteness were also seen to
270

Results and Discussion

simultaneously emerge in and through the different types of aggravating sequences identified in the corpus: for instance, ‘lack of affect-restraint’ rudeness, viz, impoliteness originating from the unrestrained expression of feelings or emotions (Kasper, 1990; Kochman, 1984), and within this, ‘volcanic rudeness’, i.e. impoliteness motivated by an emotion of anger (Beebe, 1995).

4.2. Pure Face Aggravating Sequences

In light of Agha’s (1997) and Harris’ (2001) understanding of mitigating and aggressive language use, whereby an utterance classifies as an instance of one or the other according to its greater polite or impolite effects across semiotic domains in a specific communicative encounter, pure aggravation could be said to imply a clearly larger production of the latter. This variety of aggravation was occasionally tailored as kinesic and embedded sequences with these abounding over embedded sequences of a mitigating nature. The principal addressee of pure aggravating units was the opponent except for a few anomalous occurrences that were mainly directed towards the moderator or a panelist to 1) deny the premises or statements guiding their questions, and 2) refuse to respond to these as well as issue commands, complaints and reproaches especially targeted at the moderator. Thus, debaters contested his/her authority, hence exerted power over him/her without respecting a priori set debate norms (see Edelsky & Adams, 1990). A greater presence of these anomalous sequences was found in pure aggravation: a total of 14 instances (2,8%) in comparison with 3 (0,6%) non-pure aggravating ones. However, in both cases negative face sequences were more frequent than

271

Results and Discussion

positive face categories in tune with the overall prevalence of negative face aggravation: 9 (1,8%) pure and 3 (0,6%) non-pure sequences as opposed to 5 (1%) pure and 0 (0,0%) non-pure units in that order (see Graph 25 above). Normal negative face-oriented sequences of the pure aggravating kind were more frequent than their positive face equivalent — 227 (45,2%) in contrast with 164 (32,6%). First, as somewhat hinted in the preceding section, politicians’ predilection for pure aggravation in attacking the adversary may be based on the fact that this variety of aggravation leaves no doubt about a candidate’s intent to damage the rival, so that that s/he builds his/her own image and reinforces his/her position on the issues vis-à-vis that of the latter. In this fashion, s/he not only foregrounds the differences between him/herself and the counter candidate, thing which cannot be attained with non-pure aggravation as indicated above, but also buttresses his/her supporters’ views strengthening his/her bond with them as a result. Debaters’ greater usage of negative versus positive face aggravation within this pure aggravating variety may be prompted by their attempt not to seem too aggressive and the significance of positive face in debates, as too much hostility could hurt their own image bringing about important consequences that may be decisive for the achievement of their ultimate goal: to be elected for the office they are campaigning for (Fernández-García, 2000). In this regard, Lakoff (2001: 314) affirms about North-American politicians taking part in electoral processes that, “like any other culture, [...] [politicians in the U.S.] can be abrasive and agonistic, but when [...] [they] overtly behave that way, their numbers shoot down in the polls”. As already stated, saving one’s image from harm in political discourse chiefly consists of the protection of one’s positive face in view of the attested relevance of this face therein and persuasion. Nonetheless, contestants aimed to
272

Results and Discussion

hurt the adversary’s negative face in these sequences in such a way that they implicitly enhanced their own by virtue of the aforementioned adversarial essence of debate discourse, and political communication on the whole. These sequences were moulded as short monologic interventions, and seldom more spontaneous or conversational ones, whereby debaters somewhat invaded the counter candidate’s territorial integrity and independence (BlasArroyo, 2001; Chilton, 1990) by coercing him/her interactionally. This coercive action mostly materialised via a) attributions of certain negative action and/or words to the adversary sometimes revealing a reproaching attitude from the speaker, and b) challenges requiring an account from the hearer regularly on determinate positive actions and/or words s/he has declared his/hers implying s/he cannot provide it (cf. Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998). Challenges appeared in the form of non-interruptive direct questions, and rhetorical questions that actually amounted to pseudo-demands for an explanation (see Culpeper et al., 2003). Another less typical linguistic instantiation of such coercive action comprises impositions of the speaker’s views about a given topic on the opponent masqueraded as information seeking questions. S’s views normally involved criticism against or disapproval of a third party, commonly a mutual adversary of both speaker and hearer, which the former forced the latter to share in his/her response. As rejection of such views usually led to negative implications for the hearer’s image, H tended to comply with the speaker in terms of the answer the latter sought to obtain. Consequently, it can be argued that contenders damage the rival’s negative face in these aggravating occurrences to strategically put forward their views on a determinate issue they could not have communicated to the audience otherwise during the event, and have these views confirmed or reinforced
273

Results and Discussion

by him/her. These aggravating instances were sometimes shaped as non-pure negative face aggravation. Extract (14) exemplifies these rare occurrences.

(14) PR.M.TRAD.1/26/00 GWB: do you (.) do you] agree with me that it seems like the administration kind of (.) loves to dangle Medicare refoorm. (.) kind of get people talking about it and then turn the tables for political reasons AK: well I think they have done that in (.) every respect [...]

Bearing in mind the relationship between coercion and power evinced in the pragmatics literature and the zero sum game character of political debates, these negative face aggravating sequences constitute clear bids for power politicians carry out in these contexts. As established above, such power is power of an official interactional/persuasive sort in these events, i.e. institutionally expected by all debate participants and overt (cf. Lakoff, 1989, 1990; Mills, 2003; Van Dijk, 1997). More specifically, such power primarily surfaces as ‘expert power’, namely, “a person[’s] [...] special knowledge or expertise that another person [lacks]” (Spencer-Oatey, 2000: 33). This is particularly salient in S’s imputations of certain negative action and/or words to the counter candidate just referred to. Additionally, Locher (2004) relates the exercise of power to the formulation of challenges in conversation implicitly alluding to power of the expert type. In this fashion, debaters intended to increase their power with the consequent downplaying of the opponent’s. The following excerpt shows the characteristic enactment of pure negative face aggravation in the data.

274

Results and Discussion

(15) G.MF.TRAD.10/26/00 JC(M): alright (.) governor Shaheeen it’s noow (.) uh your chance to ask a question of senator ↑Humphrey → JS: thank you (.) ↑just two years agoo (.) you travelled to New York to compete (.) campaaign for congressional candidate (.) Randall Terry= GH: =mhum= JS: =a convicted ↑criminal (.) the head of Operation Rescue ↑well knooown for leading blockaaades of health ↑clinics (.) Terry has said that doctors who perform abortions should be ↑executed (.) ↑you endorsed ↑Terry. (.) you said ‘I believe in this guy whole↑heartedly’ (.) considering Terry’s well known record (.) ↑↑how could you go to New York and ↑campaign for him [...]

This example illustrates a negative face aggravating sequence uttered by the Democratic governor Jeanne Shaheen in the gubernatorial debate against the Republican senator Gordon Humphrey, held on October the 26th, 2000, in Manchester, NH. This sequence belongs to the ‘free discussion’ section of this debate, which in this case is a ‘head-to-head’ section, that is, a section where debaters are only allowed to ask questions from each other (Adams, 1999), as signalled by the moderator’s intervention (Jennifer Crompton) right at the beginning of the extract. The governor responds to the moderator’s indication of her turn to talk and implicit permission to intervene with a thanking statement, which bespeaks appropriate social conduct on her part in keeping with the behaviour expected from contestants in debates (see, e.g. Blas-Arroyo, 2002, 2003; Fernández-García, 2000; Locher, 2004). By so doing, she not only attends to the moderator’s negative face, but also orients to her own positive face, thereby backing claims raised on this point in the theory part of this thesis, and scholars’ remarks on the use of negative politeness strategies to satisfy positive face wants,

275

Results and Discussion

especially in political contexts (Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Galasiński, 1998; Harris, 2001; Lim & Bowers, 1991). After thanking the moderator, Shaheen starts her aggravating

communicative act against Gordon Humphrey’s negative face basically by attributing the endorsement of the congressman Randall Terry, who she describes as a public enemy, to him. The governor also ascribes to her adversary certain words pronounced by him in the past reproducing them verbatim, at the same time that she reproaches him for these and his behaviour at the end of her discourse by means of a challenge. In order to build her negative attributions, Shaheen first sets up the association of the senator with the congressman via a general truth statement: ‘just two years ago you travelled to New York to compete, campaign for congressional candidate Randall Terry’, in which she mistakenly utters the word ‘compete’ for ‘campaign’, as she immediately notes. The governor’s assertions are acknowledged by the senator in his affect-neutral minimal response ‘mhum’, which principally contributes hitherto to the progression of the topic under discussion (Bou-Franch & Gregori-Signes, 1999; Briz, 2000; GarcésConejos & Bou-Franch, 2004).3 Subsequently to having ascertained the connection between Humphrey and the congressman Randall Terry, Shaheen then moves on to cast the latter in a very negative light, especially concerning the issue of abortion as shown in her allusion to ‘Operation Rescue’,4 and Randall’s attitude towards doctors who put it into practice (‘Terry has said that doctors who perform abortions should be executed’).

Saft (1999) depicts listeners’ minimal responses in a Japanese TV debate program as resources to gain access to the floor. This interpretation is not valid here, since the senator is entitled to respond to the governor after she finishes her talk, and rushing an intervention in the interaction is prone to create a negative effect on his image. 4 Operation Rescue is an advocacy pro-life group founded by this congressman that picketed outside abortion clinics and state capitols in the 1980’s and 90’s.

3

276

Results and Discussion

Through linking Randall Terry to the senator, and depicting the congressman very negatively, Shaheen implicitly conveys that her opponent shares Terry’s views and ideas, hence belongs to the same type of people, so that she concurrently harms Humphrey’s positive face. The governor makes these negative implications about the senator’s persona more evident in directly affirming that he endorsed the congressman, and repeating his words ‘I believe in this guy wholeheartedly’. The rise and fall pitch of Shaheen’s affirmations at this point of her delivery suggests strong emotional involvement, and her direct speech helps intensify her attack against Humphrey by making it more vivid (see Culpeper et al., 2003; Eelen, 2001; Goffman, 1981; Held, 1989; Narbona-Reina, 1998; Norrick, 1994). Such vividness actually lies in the governor’s foregrounding of the metalinguistic resemblance between her utterance and the senator’s past one in directly quoting him (Wilson, 1999, 2000b). As a result, Shaheen’s statements reveal lack of affect-restraint rudeness within her overall intended strategic aggravation towards the rival. This verifies and supports Tracy and Tracy’s (1998) claim that strategic action and emotional expression with regards to face attack cannot be discussed separately as one being planned, and the other being spontaneous; rather “as being, at one and the same time, these two opposite kinds of actions” (243). The governor’s loss of affect control impoliteness is even more prominent in her final reproaching statements — ‘how could you go to New York and campaign for him’ — constituting a challenge in the form of a rhetorical question yielding a pseudo-demand for an explanation. By way of her rhetorical question, Shaheen seems to force the senator to account for his actions. However, I would say that more than demanding an explanation from him, the governor attempts to
277

Results and Discussion

reprimand her adversary, thus aggravating his positive and negative faces, since she denotes disagreement with, and disapproval of, him on the one hand, and impinges upon his freedom of action on the other hand (cf. Tracy & Tracy, 1998). This is in consonance with Nir’s (1998) comments on S pretending to ask H a question, while actually transmitting a referential message in rhetorical questions. In reprimanding Humphrey, Shaheen publicly indebts him, hence indirectly aligns with the audience realizing a very implicit face mitigating action towards it. The double polite nature of candidates’ exchanges in debates can therefore be observed hitherto. The governor’s rhetorical question damages the senator’s negative face, and underscores the global coercive effect of her sequence along the lines of rhetorical questions’ identified chief function in debates (Nir, 1988; Rudanko, 1995). In sum, Shaheen mainly imputes negative behaviour and words to her adversary subtly claiming expert power for herself in this pure negative face aggravating sequence. In so doing, she simultaneously invites positive thoughts about her persona, and downgrades her opponent’s power. Accordingly, the zero sum game essence of debates becomes manifest. Pure aggravating sequences with a positive face orientation also adopted short monologic shapes sometimes emerging as conversational or spontaneous interchanges. In these sequences the speaker tried to soil the counter candidate’s reputation aggravating the latter’s positive face in consequence. S was seen to cause such damage to H by essentially employing what Kotthoff (1993) labels ‘aggravated dissents’ and ‘opposition formats’ with the former in a larger proportion than the latter. In aggravated dissents, the speaker “tries to deny the

278

Results and Discussion

relevance of the interlocutor’s utterance[s] for the discussed issue”,5 whereas in opposition formats “the speaker co-opts the opponent’s expression or point, and uses it for his or her own side” (Kotthoff, 1993: 200ff.). In both cases though, S aims to communicate disagreement with H and control the topic of the interaction. Aggravated dissents tended to appear prefaced by a series of reluctance markers such as ‘now’, ‘but’, ‘well’, etc. in comparison with opposition formats. In this fashion, it can be argued that these aggravating instances mostly amount to dissent of the modulated or mitigated sort in the corpus in contrast to opposition formats, where dissent is unmodulated or unmitigated (cf. Gruber, 1998; Kotthoff, 1993; Locher, 2004). The substantial abundance of aggravated dissents and the presence of reluctance markers within these are not surprising if we consider that politicians seek to avoid excessive aggressiveness in debates on behalf of their own image. Thus, reluctance markers in these instances could be said to work as face saving devices concerning the speaker (see Locher, 2004). Lastly, disagreement categories like contradictions and counterclaims, namely, denials and proposals of an alternative perspective different from the speaker’s correspondingly (Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998), were frequently encountered as defining of such aggravating incidences. Muntigl and Turnbull’s (1998) portrayal of these disagreement acts as intermediate versus highly face aggravating categories is attuned with all the above. Positive face aggravating sequences of the pure variety sporadically ensued as ironic and sarcastic occurrences, which have been deemed together in this study based on the difficulty to clearly distinguish one from the other in the data. This evinces the proximity between irony and sarcasm indicated by many
These cannot be equated to Muntigl and Turnbull’s (1998) ‘irrelevancy claims’, which comprise a meta-communicative statement denying the importance and legitimacy of H’s utterance(s).
5

279

Results and Discussion

pragmaticians, some of whom view the two under a single communicative strategy, category or phenomenon (e.g. Culpeper, 1996, 2005; Culpeper et al., 2003; Leech, 1983; Nir, 1988; Norrick, 1994; Sperber & Wilson, 1990; etc.). These aggravating sequences invariably entailed positive face attack against the adversary, and joking, hence positive face attention, with the audience. This partially contravenes the idea that these phenomena promote social disharmony by means of politeness that is insincere, as discussed in the literature on the whole. Notwithstanding the insincerity of their mitigating form in relation to the addressee (the opponent), irony and sarcasm in political debates convey sincere mitigation regarding the secondary target of the talk (the audience), whom politicians want to build rapport with. Therefore, they express impoliteness in the message and nongenuine politeness in the meta-message with the rival, and genuine politeness in both the message and meta-message with the audience (cf. Norrick, 1994). Ironic and sarcastic instances regularly comprised parody and mockery (Culpeper, 2005; Norrick, 1994), and were found to contain mitigating devices, e.g. hedges (see Leech, 1983; Zajdman, 1995). In these aggravating occurrences S echoed the adversary’s prior words expressing an attitude of disapproval towards these (cf. Curcó, 1996; Sperber & Wilson, 1990; Wilson & Sperber, 1992; Yus, 2000). However, these occurrences sometimes included allusions to NorthAmerican pop-culture, through which the speaker echoed an utterance or just a thought not expressed formerly in an utterance s/he attributed to a popular person in the country or a social group occasionally associated with H, expressing an attitude of disapproval towards such utterance or thought (ibid.). Mimicry was also constitutive of these aggravating instances from time to time, and was used by S to present a caricatured picture of H with the ultimate goal of ridiculing him/her
280

Results and Discussion

(Culpeper, 2005; Curcó, 1996). By and large, these sequences contributed to highlight the somewhat theatrical gist of debates, which stems from the combination of combat and humour for the sake of entertainment, and is primarily rooted in these events’ condition as TV products (Blas-Arroyo, 2001; Diamond & Friery, 1987; Drucker & Platt-Hunold, 1987; Engel-Lang, 1987; Hellweg et al., 1992; Jørgensen, 1998; Kraus, 1988; League of Women Voters, 2002). Kraus (1988) goes on to suggest that the entertaining function of television in NorthAmerica as for electoral debates is culturally encouraged, since North-Americans want to be entertained with these events. Nonetheless, ironic and sarcastic sequences turned out to be rare, because, contrary to aggravated dissents and opposition formats, they imply greatly eristic ad hominem attacks or personacentred aggravation (Jørgensen, 1998), which debaters intend to keep away from due to its potential backlash. In this light, the mitigating elements sometimes present in these highly aggravating occurrences may be argued to perform a principal face saving role as to the speaker. Researchers’ findings on the greater persuasiveness of issue-oriented vis-à-vis persona-focused aggravation in debates partly leading to a politician’s electoral victory further backs this (see Agha, 1997; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Martel, 1983). Bill Bradley’s intervention in (16) is an example of these atypical positive face aggravating sequences:

(16) PD.M.HYBR.2/21/00 BB: A: BB: UUH (.) well (.) what you’ve seeen] is an elaborate what I call (.) ‘Gore dance’.= =[(5. collectively bursts into laughter, applauds and ‘bravo’ screams enthusiastically) IT IS (.) IT IS A DA (.) IT IS A DAAN]CE to avoid facing ↑up to your conservative record (.) on ↑GUNS=
281

Results and Discussion

AAM16: BB:

A:

=YEAAH= =(.) it is a it is a DAANCE (.) that denies the fact (.) that you do ↑not support registration and licensing of ↑↑AALL ↑handguns (.) ↑but ↑you’d wanna give the im↑pression of ↑thaat (.) so you saay ‘I’M for (.) licensing of all mm (emulating someone who gets mute as if resisting to pronounce the word ‘handguns’) handguns’. (.) ‘I’m for licensing of all mm handguns.’ (.) [now (7.5 collectively bursts into laughter and applauds) [...]

Candidates’ bids for power in positive face sequences patterned as aggravated dissents and opposition formats are instantiated in their disagreement with the hearer, and their attempts to control the topic of the interaction. According to Locher (2004) disagreement involves the exercise of power in interaction more clearly than other communicative phenomena, because it reveals conflict, hence some clash of interests at work, which I contend is an important factor for power to become more salient in discourse (see p. 49ff.). As proposed by Foucault (Lemert, 1993), it is precisely resistance to power, whose origins are individuals’ conflicting goals and wants, that makes it more evident. The relationship between topic control and power in general has long been recognised by scholars in the pragmatics field.6 However, in indirectly appointing him/herself as an expert in the subject under discussion in these aggravating categories, S more specifically claims expert power. In ironic and sarcastic sequences, politicians’ bids for power materialise in and through these sequences’ deflating meaning, since deflation is “a means of attacking another person’s relative power” (Lachenicht, 1980: 667). In this sense, such sequences constitute sound cases of the way in which contestants have normally been acknowledged to claim power in debates, namely, by positive self-presentation and negative other-depiction (Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000b).
6

See Tannen (1987), however, against hasty correlations in this respect.

282

Results and Discussion

Excerpt (17) illustrates the ordinary shape of pure positive face aggravation in these events:

(17) PR.M.HYBR.3/2/00 GWB: if you don’t ↑think those phone calls labelled me an anti-Catholic ↑bigot (.) then you weren’t paying at↑tention to what your campaign was putting ↑out I guess (.) because the clear message was I ↑↑WAS an anti-Catholic bigot (.) that’s ↑WHYY (.) that’s why people all over the country are wondering about my ↑↑heart for a while (.) the ↑GOOD news (.) is that America rejects ↑that kind of politics the good news iis (.) we put that behind us in nineteen sixty with John Fitzgerald Kennedy (.) and Catholic leaders all across the ↑country are coming to my defence [...]

This sequence is produced by George W. Bush in the primary Republican presidential debate celebrated on March the 2nd, 2000, in Manchester, NH. The governor’s exchange is a response to John McCain’s immediately preceding interchange, where the Arizona senator denies having accused Bush of being an anti-Catholic bigot in the different phone calls made by his campaign staff advertising against the latter. The governor repossesses McCain’s own words to put forward right the opposite argument, i.e. that the senator has indeed called him an anti-Catholic extremist via his campaign personnel. Consequently, Bush moulds his sequence as an opposition format, in which the repetition of the senator’s words turned to his own argumentative advantage sharpens the governor’s disagreement with his opponent (Agha, 1997; Blas-Arroyo, 1999; FernándezLagunilla, 1999; Kotthoff, 1993; Locher, 2004). Bush is also somewhat ironic and sarcastic in his remarks, since he echoes McCain’s prior utterance expressing an attitude of disapproval towards it he mainly signals in his assertion ‘I guess’ (cf.

283

Results and Discussion

Curcó, 1996; Sperber & Wilson, 1990; Wilson & Sperber, 1992; Yus, 2000). By way of this assertion, the governor denotes insincere mitigation and sincere aggravation concerning the senator, and genuine mitigation regarding the audience, whom he wants to build solidarity with. Bush’s aggravating action against McCain somehow lacks the parody and mockery characteristic of ironic and sarcastic sequences in the data, and is fundamentally based on the negative implication that the senator is a liar aimed at hurting his positive face. The governor reinforces such implication in his next unequivocal statement ‘because the clear message was I was an anti-Catholic bigot’, which bluntly denies McCain’s argument consisting of a contradiction in Muntigl and Turnbull’s (1998) classification of disagreement acts. In this denial, Bush emphasizes his disagreement with the senator, hence his aggravation against the latter, by means of the repetition of McCain’s words with the reverse meaning once again, the heavy stress on the adjective ‘clear’, and the verb ‘was’ pronounced in a very high pitch and loud voice (cf. Culpeper, 2005; Culpeper et al., 1993; Narbona-Reina, 1998; Tracy & Tracy, 1998). In so doing the governor concurrently exerts power over McCain by virtue of 1) the deflating value of his utterances in relation to the senator, and 2) the implicit appointment of himself as the one really knowing about the topic under discussion, thereby bidding for expert power. As a result, he attends to his own positive face underlining the zero sum game essence of the debate in hand. In order to compensate for the potential boomerang effect on his own image his attack against McCain may bring about, the governor foregrounds such self-positive face attention in his following assertions introduced by a face enhancing act of the ‘victim’ type: ‘that’s why, that’s why people all over the country are wondering about my heart for a while’.
284

Results and Discussion

Bush links this positive face orientation towards himself to his preceding negation of McCain’s claim with the repetition of ‘that’s why’, so that he grants his argument coherence (Blas-Arroyo, 1999; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999). He then presents himself here as the sufferer of the senator’s nasty phone calls and negative ads phrasing the sympathy he presumes and says the audience feels for him as a general truth statement. Besides aggravating McCain’s negative face with this statement, and paying himself positive face considerations, the governor therefore claims common ground with the audience too. His use of the colloquial expression ‘for a while’ exemplifying his so-called ‘folksy’ style (Balz, 2000; Connolly, 2000; Lakoff, 2005) contributes to this at the same time that it enables him to reframe the interaction from a formal to a more informal kind of encounter (Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000b).7 Informal cues were not strange in the corpus attesting the nature of debates as eclectic speech events that include elements of diverse genres, e.g. ordinary conversation (Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; Nir, 1988), and the growing ‘conversationalization’ of mediated public political discourse nowadays, especially in Anglo-American contexts (Fetzer & Weizman, 2006).8 Furthermore, the governor’s deployment of this everyday expression bespeaks the fact that he also indirectly targets his message at the average North-American citizen, an ideal standard addressee distinctive of institutional public mass communication with average understanding abilities, which are reminiscent of those defining a ‘cautious’ understander as previously commented.

Bush further exploits such style in the 2004 presidential debates against the Massachusetts senator John Kerry. Lakoff (2005) suggests that, as an example of ‘niceness’, a quality which has recently been very positively encouraged in North-American politics, such ‘folksy’ style helped Bush win the 2000 and the 2004 elections. 8 I would argue that such ‘conversationalization’ of political discourse at present is part of the ‘ordinarization’ of the media Lorenzo-Dus (2003) alludes to.

7

285

Results and Discussion

Bush continues his self-positive face attention, his aggravation against the senator, and the claiming of common ground with the audience in his next affirmations, which he also tailors as general truth statements (‘the good news is that America rejects that kind of politics, the good news is we put that behind us in nineteen sixty with John Fitzgerald Kennedy’). The governor’s damaging action against McCain mostly lies in his impingement upon the senator’s negative face in imposing on him the view that North-Americans reject his way of doing politics. In this fashion, Bush subtly aligns with the audience as well orienting towards its positive face. However, the governor also indirectly attacks McCain’s positive face in implying that the senator’s politics basically comes down to nasty phone calls and negative ads (‘that kind of politics’), and implicitly associating him with John Fitzgerald Kennedy, an icon of the Democratic Party. The repetition of ‘the good news’ helps Bush establish the connection between the senator’s politics and the Democrats, whilst increasing the overall relevance of his arguments (BlasArroyo, 1999; Campbell, 1992; Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999). The governor finishes his sequence with another general truth statement through which he ratifies his position before McCain’s accusation implicitly qualifying it as nonsensical given the support he has received from Catholic leaders all over the nation — ‘and Catholic leaders all across the country are coming to my defence’. All these general truth statements actually amount to evidence Bush provides to justify his overt opposition to the senator in the first part of his intervention, as his mention of the authority source ‘Catholic leaders’ shows (see Bryski, 1978; Levasseur & Dean, 1996). Thus, the governor not only safeguards his image from possible future backlash, but also makes a precise power claim in the interaction (see p. 233). The wide pitch range and the loud voice in which he articulates certain terms

286

Results and Discussion

throughout his delivery reveal his ‘volcanic’ rudeness towards McCain, namely, impoliteness due to his anger against him, within his strategic rudeness. Pure positive and negative face-oriented sequences of a conversational sort on the whole were observed to give place to ‘negativity cycles’, viz, a supra sequential category in the data, which, albeit usually constituted by a chain of positive and negative face aggravating sequences of the pure sort, it also contained non-pure aggravating categories and some mitigating sequence on occasion. As explained in the Methods part of this thesis, a quantitative analysis of this supra sequential category was not performed hitherto, since this category goes beyond the analytical unit of the pragmatic sequence, which is the focus of this investigation. Negativity cycles did not necessarily surface in the ‘free discussion’ section of a debate (if set up at all), rather took place at any point in the unfolding event resulting in illicit talk that the moderator tried to stop. Nevertheless, these supra sequential units were seen to be disordered talk where debaters’ struggle for conversational resources was outstanding, hence their contentious approach to the floor (Edelsky & Adams, 1990). As a consequence, these units are equivalent to the antagonistic version of the so-called ‘F2s’ or cooperatively constructed floors outlined by Edelsky (1981) in her study on gender and the floor in informal committee meetings. Therefore, candidates’ bids for power in such units predominantly involved one of the identified canonical ways of accruing power in discourse together with topic control, namely, floor-holding. Accordingly, politicians continuously challenged each other’s power making more manifest the ‘up for grabs’ essence of power in interaction (Locher, 2004; Mills, 2003; Shapiro, 1986), and the win-loose or zero sum game condition of electoral debates.

287

Results and Discussion

This striving for conversational resources translating principally into a fight for the floor with contestants’ reciprocal power challenges ensuing thereupon, accounts for the fairly rapid conversational tempo, and the abundance of interruptions and overlaps characterising negativity cycles (cf. Fernández-García, 2000). Along these lines, ‘talk over talk’ occurrences on who had the floor and for how long were not atypical in these units evincing also debaters’ attempts to monitor utterance interpretation (see Adams, 1999; Bilmes, 1999; Jaworski & Galasiński, 2000b). On top of impositions of determinate negative actions and/or words on H and challenges to him/her, these aggravating units were found to habitually comprise ‘overt’ vis-à-vis ‘pragmatic’ disagreements, that is, disagreements devoid of reluctance markers versus disagreements incorporating these linguistic devices (Gruber, 1998), so that they entailed unmodulated or unmitigated dissent (Gruber, 1998; Kotthoff, 1993; Locher, 2004). This runs counter to the prevalence of modulated or mitigated dissent in debates emerging by way of aggravated dissents noted above. Ad hominem attacks were not infrequent in these supra sequential units either, and best illustrated the presence of ‘lack of affect-restraint’ rudeness normally of the volcanic type in combination with strategic impoliteness therein. Rudeness in negativity cycles often escalated reaching its peak in a reaction of stonewalling or listener withdrawal from one of the interlocutors. Stonewalling was encountered to take the form of complete utterances a candidate repeated in an automatic non-interruptive manner to indicate his/her neglect of the rival’s words, and block the latter’s speech. In this respect, Hellweg et al. (1992: 25) affirm that these aggravating units “degenerate into meaningless nit-picking or exchanges of grand accusations that do little to inform voters”. These findings back the idea that rudeness breeds rudeness

288

Results and Discussion

extended in the politeness literature (cf. Culpeper, 1996; Culpeper et al., 2003; Lakoff, 1989; Mills, 2003). In light of this, negativity cycles show a hostile verbal duel between conversational participants which intensifies throughout the interaction, and underscores the theatrical gist of debates as the TV events they are. In media terms, these aggravating units correspond to interactional periods known as ‘thereyou-go-again’ sequences, which are shaped by a series of quick shot transitions that become more varied as the camera’s cutting pace increases (Drucker & PlattHunold, 1987). Negativity cycles are also another proof that debates are communicative exchanges which embrace elements of different discourse types, since these units are evocative of arguing episodes in ordinary conversation.9 Finally, these supra aggravating categories finished with an affiliative and/or disaffiliative response from the audience, or the moderator’s intervention. In this case, s/he either penalizes contenders if their discourses constituted illicit talk, thereby exerting clearly his/her institutional authority (Blas-Arroyo, 1998c; Fernández-García, 2000; League of Women Voters 2002; Nir, 1988), or simply asked them more or less implicitly or explicitly to stop if such discourses were sanctioned. More rarely, these units ended with a mitigating sequence from one of the politicians meant to make peace. Extract (16) is a negativity cycle embedded in one of the free discussion sections of the senatorial debate between the Democrat Charles Robb, and the Republican George Allen, held on September the 24th, in Richmond, VA. I do not elaborate on this instance for the above stated reasons on negativity cycles going beyond the research objectives guiding this project.

9

This feature of debates points out the flexible boundaries of genres (cf. McCarthy, 1998).

289

Results and Discussion

(18) S.M.TRAD.9/24/00 it it ↑wasn’t for my benefit] incidentally George= well. but you were there. (.) [you ooh.] were there. (.) and introducing and so forth= =yeeah.= so I’m sure you’ve got none of those funds that were raised there for your campaign and all those good negative ↑ADS we’ve [seen (.) in Virginia for the last several months CR: (bursts into laughter) AAM4: (bursts into laughter)] GA: here you want you wanted to (.) ↑build the particulars on where I disagree with your votes and those of of of (.) of president Clinton (.) and ↑whyy I think he really (.) he’s the one you agree with the most. (.) here you are (.) you vote with him eighty-seven per cent of the time (.) more than any other member of our delegation (.) Republican Democrat or Independent (.) in Virginia (.) ↑heck I don’t think that ↑Hillary (.) agrees with Bill [eighty-seven per cent of the time A: (immediate collective applause) GA: but Virginia’s junior senator ↑does] (.) you vote ↑with him you ↑talk about school ↑safety (.) the ↑Clinton administration did not (.) all↑ow was to expel students who brought [↑guns CR: mhm.] GA: to schools you voted ↑wroong. time after time (.) and senator Warner stood with us (.) where I disagree with you a↑gain. is on the (.) and and president Clinton is on the marriage ↑penalty tax (.) a↑gain there were Democrat Cong (.) members of Congress (.) who voted for that marriage penalty tax relief that you and president Clinton (.) have prevented uuh (.) from being eliminated this year (.) you had voted five ↑tiimes. (.) against (.) requiring able-bodied people on (.) food stamps10 no welfare to ↑work (.) [and you stood DW(M): time (.) time [has gone by [...] CR: GA: CR: GA: CR: GA:

10

Food stamps consist of a U.S. federal food program that provides able-bodied people in lowincome households with subsidiaries for them to alleviate hunger and malnutrition.

290

Results and Discussion

4.3. Non-Pure Face Aggravating Sequences

Following Agha (1997), non-pure face aggravating sequences can be said to entail a significant production of aggravating effects across semiotic domains in debates coupled with a lesser amount of mitigating ones. These mitigating effects underlie the secondary politeness constituent of these sequences, and their amount changes in view of this constituent’s size within an aggravating sequential unit. This constituent foregrounds the audience as the secondary addressee of the talk pointing out the trilogic nature of contenders’ communicative acts in debates. By contrast with pure face aggravation, non-pure aggravating sequences did not appear as kinesic or embedded occurrences with one exception as for the latter in the corpus. Regardless of the adversary generally being their main addressee, some of these sequences turned out to be anomalous orienting towards the moderator, a panelist or a questioner instead. As opposed to anomalous categories within pure aggravation, questioners were one of the possible targets of anomalous sequences of the non-pure kind, because politicians could mitigate the aggravation towards these audience members’ faces in these units via their secondary politeness. On the other hand, similarly to pure anomalous categories, candidates issued these nonpure sequences with the aim of a) rejecting the premises or statements constituting the basis of the moderator’s, panelists’ and questioners’ questions, and b) refusing to answer such questions along with commanding certain actions, and complaining about others especially to the moderator, who was sometimes reproached for these as well. In this sense, contenders challenged the moderator’s authority, thus showing no adherence to debate rules. However, they intended to license such illegitimate conduct in the secondary politeness element of these sequences, which
291

Results and Discussion

was regularly directed to the audience. All things considered, anomalous occurrences within non-pure aggravation were scarce with a total of 3 (0,6%) tokens that were entirely negative face sequences with 0 (0,0%) positive face ones (see Graph 25 above). As already mentioned, notwithstanding the audience as the customary target of the secondary politeness component of non-pure aggravating categories, the opponent or their primary addressee sometimes was their secondary receiver too. This coincidence of primary and secondary targets of the discourse under one same category of debate interactant was seen to be more of a tendency in non-pure aggravation than non-pure mitigation, in which the audience surfaced as the simultaneous primary and secondary addressee of the communicative act more sporadically. Secondary politeness oriented to the rival was observed to function as a softening device of these sequences’ aggravating force, whereby the speaker either prepared the ground for his/her immediate attack against the hearer or soothed the aggravation just performed for strategic reasons related to the enhancement of his/her own image, and eventually the audience’s persuasion. Therefore, it contained what Blas-Arroyo (2002, 2003) has described as attenuated or mitigated forms of verbal aggression in debates chiefly working as elements saving S’s own positive face, and devices orienting to H’s negative face with the ultimate goal of satisfying one’s own positive face wants, since the speaker utilised them to exhibit politically correct conduct (see Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Galasiński, 1998; Harris, 2001). Among positive face saving elements, the positive face mitigating strategies ‘give understanding, cooperation to H’, and ‘notice, attend to H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’ were outstanding. The speaker employed these strategies to convey temporary
292

Results and Discussion

partial or full agreement with the adversary. Concerning devices oriented to the hearer’s negative face to pay the speaker positive face considerations in the end, the negative face mitigating strategies ‘question, hedge’, ‘go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H’, and ‘state the communicative act(s) as a general rule’ were prominent. S used the first two as disclaimers so that s/he manifested reluctance or tentativeness towards his/her own utterances to somehow avoid responsibility for them (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 2003). Consequently, it can be affirmed that secondary politeness directed to the counter candidate in these sequences is tantamount to Agha’s (1997) notion of ‘tropic’ aggression in debates, since it is impoliteness masqueraded, however, as politeness towards him/her. Another peculiarity of these sequences is that in some of the instances where the audience was the principal target of secondary politeness, such politeness actually concentrated more on the speaker him/herself than the audience. In these occurrences, S realized self-effacement or accounted him/herself for determinate negative actions and/or words the rival had attributed to him/her in prior turns. In other words, the speaker did ‘image restoration’ (Benoit & Wells, 1996). Accordingly, face enhancing acts of the ‘best’ and ‘victim’ modalities were not unusual in the secondary politeness of these instances. These incidences were encountered to best exemplify the attack/defence or defence/attack dynamics moulding contestants’ interchanges in debates (Benoit & Wells, 1996; Galasiński, 1998), which resemble interlocutors’

offensive/defensive or defensive/offensive moves in other communicative contexts (see, e.g. Culpeper et al., 2003; Kienpointner, 1997). In short, secondary politeness in non-pure aggravating sequences addressing the audience or the opponent was geared to indirectly attain the audience’s persuasion, and save the speaker’s own
293

Results and Discussion

positive face respectively. Secondary politeness, whose face mitigating action was more oriented towards S him/herself than the audience, was also meant to mainly attend to his/her positive face. In counterbalancing attack against the adversary with secondary politeness, debaters were more prone to be effective in their persuasive appeals (Benoit & Wells, 1996; Martel, 1983). Nonetheless, excessive non-pure aggravation towards the opponent was eluded, because, as commented in the preceding paragraphs, too much acknowledgement of the rival could jeopardize the differences the speaker constantly attempts to draw between him/herself and the latter, and concurrently make an impression of S being weak or not firm enough in his/her position on the issues. This explicates the minor presence of non-pure aggravating categories in the debates object of examination. Normal non-pure sequences with 98 units (19,4%) were noticeably more abundant in their negative face variety (63 tokens equivalent to a percentage of 12,5%) than their positive face orientation (32 sequences equalling 6,3%) in the same way as normal sequences within pure aggravation. As previously noted, the predominance of negative face units over positive face ones responds to politicians’ intents to protect their own image from a potential boomerang effect on it their attacks may cause given the significance of positive face in debates. Positive face attacks are more liable to produce such effect than attacks directed towards H’s negative face given the importance of positive face in debates referred to and explained above. Negative face aggravating sequences were cast as lengthier monologic interventions than those compounding their pure aggravating equivalent, and were found to comprise 1) S’s impositions of his/her views and opinions on the hearer, 2) ascriptions of negative behaviour and/or words to him/her sometimes combined with reproaches for these, and 3)
294

Results and Discussion

challenges demanding H an account for certain actions and/or words s/he has supposedly carried out or said. There is one occasion in the analysis in which these impositions of views and opinions on the opponent emerged as an information seeking question actually working as a rhetorical mechanism that enabled S to put these views and opinions forward first, and have them reinforced by H then. In this fashion, a candidate tried to coerce the opponent strategically diminishing such coercive action, however, in and through the secondary politeness component of his/her sequence. S’s strategic softening of the aggravating force of his/her communicative act is particularly relevant as regards coercion in the speech event of debates, since “in a public context (at least multiparticipant) context, and probably in its own right, coercion is indeed face threatening to coercer and coerced” (Coupland et al., 1988: 260). In order to enact his/her coercive move, especially impositions of views and opinions on H, and attributions of negative conduct and/or words to him/her, S constantly availed him/herself of the specific strategy of ‘making precise power claims’ in the interaction formerly put forward and discussed. This strategy illustrates S’s bids for expert power in the talk, since in using it s/he drew on real or attributed powerful sources sometimes merely identified with his/her persona, and powerless ones alluding to the counter candidate to provide evidence for his/her arguments against the latter. Nevertheless, only by coercing H, S exercised power over him/her in these sequences. The following is an example of a non-pure negative face aggravating sequence from the Democratic politician Mark Dayton in the senatorial debate celebrated on October the 18th, 2000, in Minneapolis, MN, which included a third party candidate.

295

Results and Discussion

(19) S.M.HYBR.3P.10/18/00 MD: if ↑youu (.) if youu] would (.) take ↑myy proposals as I pre↑sent them. (.) aand de↑bate them. based on yourr objections and yoour differences of ↑vieww. (.) this would be an enlightening cam↑paign. but youu want to reestate my proposals twist my words ↑make them into things that are absolutely ↑noot. (.) I’m ↑not proposing a government-run system that should be very apparent to ↑you. (.) you understand these uh systems well enough from your experience to ↑know. (.) that an employer-based system is very very different from a government-run ↑prograam. (.) and when I say universal ↑coverage I say through an American system deviised by (.) this country through its public and private ↑sectors. (.) that would provide health care in the ↑workplace ↑through the workplace (.) employers employeees and government subsidies (.) and a private menu of ↑ooptions and that is just not a nationalised system as you keep trying to pre↑sent it= =[I think= =(some individual applause) Mr. Gibson go ahead (some individual applause) [...]

JIG: A: TR(M): A:

In this sequence Mark Dayton justifies the health care system he proposes for North-America before Rod Grams’ portrayal of it as a government-mandated system, and attributes the negative action of distorting or manipulating his words to the Republican senator. Notwithstanding the presence of a third party candidate in this debate, namely, the Independent Jim Gibson, these two contenders choose one another as ‘the opponent’ to the frequent exclusion of Gibson from the conversation (cf. Adams, 1999).11 Dayton begins his speech with a reproach directed towards Grams for the distortions of his views the Republican candidate has supposedly been making as the event unfolds: ‘if you, if you would take my proposals as I present them and debate them based on your objections and your
11

U.S. law encourages their absence from electoral debates, thing which exemplifies the courts’ curtailment of the First Amendment rights in favour of the big political parties’ interests in NorthAmerica (Firestone, 1987).

296

Results and Discussion

differences of view, this would be an enlightening campaign’. In his reproach, the Democratic debater somewhat reprimands his adversary for not respecting the norms of social conduct responsible for electoral politics to be informative and instructive with his behaviour (see Tracy & Tracy, 1998). Therefore, Dayton indirectly indebts the Republican senator in public and delegitimizes his performance (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997). This becomes more visible in his next assertions (‘but you want to restate my proposals, twist my words, make them into things that are absolutely not’), where he directly attributes Grams a series of negative actions that appear illegitimate within the frame of neat information and instruction ideally governing political campaign communication. This hints at Dayton’s metarepresentation of his opponent as a ‘sophisticated’ communicator (Sperber, 1994a; Wilson, 1999, 2000a, 2000b), since he indirectly describes Grams as a competent speaker who exploits his political knowledge to produce utterances where he is not being entirely truthful in order to use them to his advantage. In this way, Dayton coerces the senator, thereby impinging upon his negative face, at the same time that he damages his positive face with these negative attributions to his persona. The Democrat implicitly victimizes himself here in order to safeguard his image from the potential harm to it his attacks against Grams may bring about, thus attending to his own positive face. The expression ‘absolutely not’ stressed in its first item, and with a marked fall-rise pitch contour in its second term, serves Dayton to strengthen the aggravating meaning of his affirmations, and transmit volcanic rudeness within his global strategic impoliteness against the Republican incumbent (see Culpeper et al., 2003; Eelen, 2001; Held, 1989; Narbona-Reina, 1998).

297

Results and Discussion

An unmitigated contradiction of his rival’s prior words follows displaying Dayton’s overt disagreement with him (cf. Gruber, 1998; Kotthoff, 1993; Locher, 2004; Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998): ‘I’m not proposing a government-run system’. This contradiction marks the change from an attack mood to a more defensive tone prevailing in the rest of the Democrat’s sequence. Dayton starts to build his argument by means of a strategic ascription of expert power to Grams that reveals the Democrat’s reproaching attitude towards him mostly in its initial part, and concludes with a general truth statement — ‘that should be apparent to you, you understand these uh systems well enough from your experience to know that an employer-based system is very very different from a government-run program’. The Democratic debater ascribes his opponent expert power summarised herein in the expression ‘from your experience’, to further support his original claim that the senator’s behaviour is inappropriate and illegitimate. In this sense, Dayton’s eulogy to the Republican candidate is more of a ‘poisoned recognition’ than ‘positive politeness’ (Blas-Arroyo, 2003). The Democrat also bids for expert power in his general truth statement, through which he implies that, like the senator, he knows the differences between the two health care systems he mentions. After his aggravating action against Grams, Dayton centres more on persuading the audience in and through the secondary politeness constituent of his sequence, where he depicts in more detail his proposed health care system for North-America. In so doing, the Democratic contestant concurrently does image restoration in relation to his adversary’s suggestion that he wants a governmentrun health care system for the country. Dayton’s image restoration, hence orientation towards his own positive face (see Benoit & Wells, 1996), becomes
298

Results and Discussion

salient in his deployment of the performative verb ‘say’ (‘and when I say universal coverage, I say through an American system devised by this country through its public and private sectors’). With this verb, the Democrat subtly points to Grams’ distortion of his words, and explicitly corrects such distortion by accurately establishing what his planned national health care system, which includes universal coverage, exactly means. This is in keeping with the function that performative verbs have been determined to carry out in the pragmatics literature, viz, making explicit the illocutionary force of an utterance (Austin, 1962; Leech, 1983; Levinson, 1983; Searle, 1969). The Democratic candidate pays the audience positive face considerations in specifying how his system would provide health care for U.S. citizens. As a result, Dayton temporarily softens the aggravating force of his interchange by way of secondary politeness, which not only diverts attention away from his attack against the counter candidate, but also helps him save face. The Democrat terminates his discourse with an unequivocal statement that aims to a) emphasize his main argument, namely, that his projected health care system is not government-mandated and Grams has been manipulating his words, and b) elicit the audience’s applause (Atkinson, 1988; Clayman, 1993; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986; Hutchby, 1997; Kurzon, 1996; Sai-Hua 2001), thing which he achieves at least at some individual level (cf. Clayman, 1993; Hutchby, 1997; Kurzon, 1996). Albeit individual, this affiliative reaction of some audience members signals their agreement with Dayton, and at a deeper level, I would say that it also bespeaks their acceptance of the relational terms he sets up with the audience throughout the event. This reaction has an effect in the exchange to the extent that Jim Gibson, the next speaker, stops his speech, and one of the
299

Results and Discussion

moderators of the debate,12 namely, Tim Russert, encourages him to continue (‘Mr. Gibson go ahead’). This backs our idea that politicians’ discourses in debates are semi-prescriptive (p. 24ff.), and contravenes some scholars’ beliefs that political encounters are ‘made’ intercourses, wherein the speaker focuses exclusively in what s/he wants to say to the dismissal of the audience in spite of addressing it (e.g. Wierzbicka, 1985). Non-pure sequences with a positive face orientation commonly ensued as short and lengthy monologic interventions, in which S primarily conveyed his/her disagreement with the hearer using aggravated dissents (Kotthoff, 1993). Accordingly, S’s disagreement in these sequences was modulated or mitigated toning down even more in their secondary politeness element. Along these lines, contradictions and counterclaims were habitual in these sequential units (see Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998). Non-pure ironic or sarcastic occurrences were observed not to take place at all. In this fashion, these positive face aggravating categories by and large turned out to involve issue-centred versus persona-oriented attack. As already indicated, this sort of aggravation has been advocated as greatly successful in the debate literature, because it allows for damaging the rival’s image in a somewhat indirect manner that enables the speaker to concomitantly protect his/her own (Benoit and Wells, 1996; Martel, 1983). Moreover, if reactive to an attack from the opponent, it is it is especially effective, since it is perceived as even more legitimate (cf. Martel, 1983). Nonetheless, persona-focused attack was also seen to be defining of these sequences from time to time. In this case, the positive face aggravating strategy ‘belittle or diminish the importance of H and

12

Albeit rare, some debates in my corpus included two moderators, especially if their sponsors were two TV networks, organizations, etc.

300

Results and Discussion

H’s things, actions, values and opinions’ proved to be highly significant.13 In employing this strategy, S normally established comparisons favourable to him/her and unfavourable to H. Consequently, this strategy embraces Blas-Arroyo’s (2001) strategy ‘formula contrastes desventajosos para el interlocutor’ (posit

disadvantageous contrasts to the interlocutor). Overall, S claimed power in these sequences by enhancing his/her own image and debasing the counter candidate’s. More specifically, s/he bid for expert power by drawing on, among other things, the strategy of ‘making precise power’ claims in the interaction, which also abounded therein. Lastly, these sequences were also paramount instances of the attack/defence or defence/attack dynamics characterising debaters’ discourses. Excerpt (20) is a non-pure aggravating sequence with a positive face orientation from the Republican candidate Dick Cheney in the vice presidential debate against Joseph Lieberman held on October the 5th, 2000, in Danville, KY.

(20) VPRE.TALKS.10/5/00 DIC: [...] uuh we were especially disturbed Joe at a recent fundraiser you attended where there was a (.) committee you got up and criticized George Bush’s re↑ligion. (.) I know you’re not responsible for uttering any words of criticism of his religion but (.) to some extent (.) my concern would be ↑frankly that (.) you haven’t been as as consistent as you had been in the paaast (.) that a lot of your good friends like Bill Bennett and others of uss who had admired your (.) firmness of purpose over the years uh haave felt that you’re nott quite the crusader for that cause that you once were [...]

Dick Cheney concentrates on hurting Joe Lieberman’s positive face in this intervention basically by degrading his persona in view of the senator’s
13

Similarly to Blas-Arroyo (2001), and Lim and Bowers (1991), I consider this strategy a positive face aggravating one as opposed to Culpeper (1996), who includes it under negative face aggravation.

301

Results and Discussion

inconsistency in his moral values and principles vis-à-vis past times. This sequence is the continuation of Cheney’s previous interchange, in which he indirectly accuses Lieberman and Gore of hypocritical conduct of doubtful morality, given that both attended to a fundraising event, whose organizers had been proved to sell adult material to children. Such criticism underlies this sequence and is particularly noteworthy at the end. Cheney starts his talk by communicating his and Bush’s disapproval of a negative action he attributes to his adversary, i.e. condemning George Bush’s religion at a fundraising event: ‘we were especially disturbed Joe at a recent fundraiser you attended where there was a committee, you got up and criticized George Bush’s religion’. In the aforementioned context of hypocritical and immoral behaviour on the part the Democratic presidential ticket, Lieberman’s criticism appears illegitimate, so that Cheney not only impinges here upon his negative face, but also damages his positive face. In showing that his running mate also shares his disapproving attitude via the first person plural pronoun ‘we’, and implicitly defending the latter in his censure of Lieberman’s action, Cheney meets the expectations underlying the role of vice presidential candidates in debates (see Carlin & Bicak, 1993). The Republican nominee’s usage of the common ground claimer ‘Joe’ in the initial part of his attack confirms patterns surfacing in the analysis as for these linguistic devices (see p. 210). By means of this shortened version of the senator’s proper name, Cheney manifests closeness and power equality with him in order to exploit this interpretation of their social bond for local purposes eventually related to the attainment of the audience’s persuasion. Such local purposes hitherto refer to the Republican politician’s intent to legitimize and underscore his aggravation against the opponent alerting the audience or drawing the audience’s attention to himself

302

Results and Discussion

(cf. Lorenzo-Dus & Bou-Franch, 2003). In spite of this power equality, Cheney coerces Lieberman in these assertions, hence exerts power over him, by ascribing him the negative action of criticizing Bush’s religion when he has been morally inconsistent. Such power is power of an expert kind by virtue of the Republican candidate’s public announcement of Lieberman’s action, thereby hinting he has such knowledge about the senator. Cheney immediately sooths his attack with secondary politeness oriented to his rival — ‘I know you’re not responsible for uttering any words of criticism of his religion’. The former Secretary of Defence deploys the negative face aggravating strategies ‘go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H’, and ‘state the communicative act(s) as a general rule’ in these utterances, in such a way that he gives Lieberman an ‘out’ partly ridding him of the responsibility for the negative action. However, Cheney’s attention to the senator’s negative face is motivated by selfish interests consisting of the satisfaction of his own positive face wants. It is in this light that the Republican contender exhibits politically correct behaviour, and also eludes somehow responsibility for his aggravation against the adversary (cf. Blas-Arroyo, 2001, 2002, 2003; Galasiński, 1998; Harris, 2001). In his next statements, Cheney progressively moves towards impoliteness against Lieberman again through a series of linguistic elements and expressions that somewhat hedge such face aggravation, e.g. the nominalization ‘my concern’, all of which entail what is ordinarily known as ‘roundabout’ language: ‘to some extent, my concern would be...’. The Republican nominee thus prepares the ground for his instantaneous attack, which he points out with the high pitch pronounced adverbial ‘frankly’. Cheney then goes on-record accusing the senator of having become inconsistent in his moral values and principles in comparison
303

Results and Discussion

with the past soiling his credibility as a consequence (‘you haven’t been as as consistent as you had been in the past).14 The former Secretary of Defence avails himself here of the positive face aggravating strategy ‘belittle or diminish the importance of H and H’s things, actions, values and opinions’, whilst denoting his disapproval of Lieberman’s change through the positive face aggravating strategy ‘convey dislike for, and disagreement with, H and close others (his/her/their things, actions, values and opinions)’. In order to buttress his accusation, Cheney makes a precise power claim in the interaction by invoking a powerful national authority, viz, the Republican moralist Bill Bennett, also popular for having held important posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Cheney alludes to a close link between Bennett and Lieberman together with Bennett’s, his own, and other politicians’ admiration for the senator’s steadfastness to implicitly suggest that the political community shares his view that Lieberman has changed into someone of doubtful morality providing further evidence to this argument, and reinforcing it as a result: ‘a lot of your good friends like Bill Bennett and others of us who had admired your firmness of purpose over the years uh have felt that you’re not the crusader for that cause that you once were’. Therefore, the former Secretary of Defence accrues expert power in these affirmations. Cheney’s eulogy to Lieberman and the half Biblical metaphor of ‘crusader’, which weakly communicates a series of assumptions that invite positive implications about the senator, are tainted, as they are precisely formulated with the purpose of hurting his image (see Blas-Arroyo, 2003). The Republican candidate finishes his speech in a fairly indirect manner with the expression ‘for that cause’, which lacks a
14

In Blas-Arroyo’s (2001) work, this corresponds to an impoliteness strategy in itself, namely, ‘acusa al interlocutor de contradictorio’ (accuse the interlocutor of contradicting him/herself).

304

Results and Discussion

referent in the discourse and seems to indicate a fight for or defence of moral values, increasing the vagueness of his last utterances (see Fernández-Lagunilla, 1999; J. Wilson, 1990; Lakoff, 1990; Zupnik, 1994). In brief, Cheney principally discredits his opponent in this sequence, thereby damaging his positive face and exerting power over him. The Republican contestant instantiates strategic rudeness in this intervention by way of a moderate and indirect attack that justifies the absence of volcanic impoliteness, and I believe it does due justice to this vice presidential debate having been commented upon and reported as an excellent model of civility and sobriety in the press and the media (Von Drehle, 2000; Walsh & Edsall, 2000).

4.4. Conclusions

In this chapter, I have offered an account of face aggravation in the debates object of study with the aim of answering RQs 2.1. and 2.2. posited in this project. Out of the two major varieties of aggravation found, pure aggravation abounded over non-pure aggravation and within these, negative face-oriented sequences outnumbered positive face-oriented ones. Negative face aggravating categories thus emerged as debaters’ preferred form of attacking the rival and exerting power over him/her. A possible explanation for these findings may be that, while they want to be distinguished from the latter choosing pure aggravation against him/her accordingly, they do not wish to be perceived as excessively hostile selecting negative face aggression instead of positive face aggravation in consequence. The distinct nature of these two types of faces, and the importance of a politician’s

305

Results and Discussion

positive face in debates supports the idea that positive face attack may be conceived as more antagonistic than negative face aggression in these contexts, and within the former, more persona-centred as opposed to issue-oriented aggravation as argued in the debate literature. All in all, these findings back our view of face mitigation and aggravation as phenomena that need to be understood in terms of degrees.

306

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS

In this research, I have explored politeness issues in the specific communicative encounter of political campaign debates of the 2000 NorthAmerican elections, which not only include debates belonging to the presidential, race, but also debates taking place as part of distinct senatorial and gubernatorial races. My theoretical framework has thus principally involved the work of Brown and Levinson (1987), which has been taken here though as a starting point to put forward my own view of politeness, namely, the context-sensitive cognitive-based linguistic instantiation of social bonds in and through communication. This conceptualization of politeness points out the idea that internal knowledge on discourse, relationships, society and culture indicative of what is socially appropriate and inappropriate in a determinate communicative situation underlies the linguistic enactment of social relations in context politeness constitutes. In this light, Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) Relevance Theory has been invoked in this investigation as a cognitive-oriented complement to Brown and Levinson’s work only in its capacity of a theoretical background that may help explain certain aspects of political debates at a cognitive level, more specifically, the relational dynamics these contexts entail. An eclectic socio-cognitive approach to the study of communication in general, and the speech event of political debates in particular, has therefore been advocated hitherto. As the context-bound linguistic enactment of social bonds rooted in an individual’s cognition, politeness suggests a vast array of social behaviours and attitudes, which in this project have been established to range from face mitigating

307

Conclusions

to face aggravating ones implying distinct degrees of face mitigation on the one hand, and face aggravation on the other hand. Consequently, attention to, and attack against, face commonly addressed in the literature as politeness and rudeness respectively, constitute complementary notions giving place to the scale or continuum some scholars including myself believe the linguistic performance of social relations in and through communication amounts to. Finding out which kinds of face mitigating or aggravating behaviours and attitudes normally comprised and shaped candidates’ relationships with the rest of the participants in a political debate, that is, the audience, the moderator, panelists (if present), questioners (if included), and the other contestant(s), was one of the main aims of this research. The results obtained from prior analyses on a small sample of the data already indicated debaters’ tendency to deploy face mitigation with the audience, the moderator, panelists and questioners, with these last three categories of debate participants subsumed under that of ‘audience’ as the potential voters they are too, and face aggravation with the opponent linking the former to the issue of persuasion, and the latter to that of power more strongly than face mitigation. These analyses had primarily been realised on the strategy plane taking also the sequentiality of the interaction into account. Nevertheless, delving into contestants’ face mitigating and aggravating behaviours and attitudes with all these participants in debates, for example, their features and forms (if any), was believed to shed more light on the nature and functioning of politeness in these speech exchanges, whilst providing information on persuasion and power therein. This consideration, among other things, led to the formulation of the research questions guiding this work with the two major ones, i.e. RQs 1 and 2, concentrating on the characteristics of candidates’ face
308

Conclusions

mitigation and aggravation in terms of a) the type of mitigation and aggravation that may be typical of these two principal kinds of behaviours and attitudes correspondingly, b) potentially recurrent linguistic elements in each, and c) their location within the unfolding discourse of debates as a whole if there is any in particular. The other four remaining research questions posited here refer to 1) the forms face mitigation and aggravation may adopt if patterns revealing the existence of such forms were to surface, and 2) the distinctive features of such forms, with RQs 1.1 and 1.2 enquiring about face mitigation, and RQs 2.1 and 2.2 alluding to face aggravation. In order to code debaters’ mitigating and aggravating behaviours and attitudes in the data in search of an answer to these questions, the unit of analysis of the ‘pragmatic sequence’ was utilised with the two recognised functions of face mitigation and aggravation, each with two possible orientations towards positive or negative face. In this case, it was the hearer’s face that was emphasized according to the mitigating function politicians tend to realize as regards their own faces, especially their positive faces, with the purpose of building a positive public image of themselves. The very first part of RQs 1 and 2 on the type of mitigation or aggravation habitually constituting contenders’ face mitigating and aggravating behaviours and attitudes in that order, required a micro analysis of strategies that was carried out in detail only on two debates of the corpus, and in a more impressionistic manner in the other debates, given that this study chiefly centres on sequential units as opposed to micro strategies. Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies and certain rudeness models served as points of departure to put forward my own datadriven framework of face mitigating and aggravating strategies, which were also classified into positive and negative face-oriented strategies. The type of face
309

Conclusions

mitigation that was observed to be customary in face mitigating sequences was positive face mitigation predominantly lying in the positive face mitigating strategies ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’, ‘assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants’, and ‘offer and promise’ in tune with the results of past analyses. The strategy ‘presuppose/raise/assert common ground’ appeared to be pivotal for the construction of a harmonious relational basis with the audience as the first step necessary to work towards the attainment of its persuasion. This strategy enabled candidates to raise a series of validity claims presenting them as shared and true, so that they created a controlled cognitive environment from which to manipulate the audience’s interpretation by presenting new information as old, and claim ‘expert power’ for themselves vis-àvis the opponent. The strategies ‘assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s needs and wants’, and ‘offer and promise’ helped debaters to appoint themselves the audience’s spokespersons and servants granting it ‘symbolic power’ via the seeming decrease of their own as a result. These three strategies were intended to build rapport with the audience indirectly paying the speaker positive face considerations too, and frequently overlapped and/or combined with one another and negative face mitigating strategies. Contrary to the above, the type of face aggravation that was seen to be usual in face aggravating sequences was negative face aggravation with positive face aggression being almost as abundant. The negative face aggravating strategies that turned to prevail were the strategies ‘increase imposition weight’, ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’, and ‘challenge’. The strategy ‘increase imposition weight’ was the most popular, and permitted politicians to coerce the adversary into a concrete course of action,
310

Conclusions

inflict certain attitude, world view, etc., on him/her, and literally or metaphorically invade his/her space. The strategies ‘refer to rights, duties and rules not respected, fulfilled or complied with respectively’, and ‘challenge’ were employed as a means to ascribe negative behaviour to the rival reproaching the latter for it in the first case, and demand that s/he proved his/her claims implying s/he could not do so and conveying disagreement with, and disapproval of, him/her in the second case. These strategies were meant to impinge upon the counter candidate’s territorial integrity and autonomy, and tended to overlap and/or mix co-occurring also with positive face aggravating strategies in the same intervention. The double polite condition of candidates’ discourses in debates was patent in all these face mitigating and aggravating strategies, since the positive effect the aforementioned positive face mitigating strategies produced on the speaker’s image implied a damaging effect on the opponent’s by virtue of the zero sum game essence of political debates. Likewise, the damaging effect the negative face aggravating strategies just discussed caused on the adversary’s image indirectly generated a positive effect on the speaker’s. All these strategies also showed a dual face orientation, in such a way that positive face mitigating strategies oriented at the same time to the addressee’s negative face, and negative face aggravating strategies targeted at the hearer’s positive face as well. Nonetheless, duality of face orientation was found to be more typical in negative face-oriented strategies on the whole than positive face-oriented ones. This backed some scholars’ findings as for strategies of face mitigation, and unveiled contenders’ tendency at the strategy level to move from the specific to the general in view of the concrete communicative act-linked condition attributed to negative face, and the broader scope assigned to positive face correspondingly in the literature.
311

Conclusions

Regarding potentially recurrent linguistic elements within face mitigating and aggravating sequences, two categories of elements were encountered to be common in each of these sequential types in the qualitative analysis, namely, modals in face mitigation, and terms of address in face aggravation. In order to prove that our qualitative-based observations were not a matter of chance, and that these elements emerged on average in their respective hypothesized contexts, i.e. face mitigating units for modals, and face aggravating sequences for address terms, two statistical t-tests were run to assess the strength of the relationship between each of these two kinds of elements, and face mitigation and aggravation. The results obtained from the statistical test conducted on modals supported our hypothesis that these linguistic devices were more regular in face mitigating sequences than face aggravating ones, and that their regularity thereto was not a product of chance appearing as highly significant in statistical terms (in 100% of the instances). This hints at some relationship between these linguistic elements and persuasion according to the connection between face mitigation and this phenomenon established in prior analyses, thereby confirming the findings of certain investigations of modals in ordinary conversation and epistolary communication. Modals largely ensued in their root versus epistemic meanings in the corpus, and debaters mostly availed themselves of the possibility modal ‘can/could’, the probability modal ‘would’, and the necessity modal ‘have (got) to’ to render their proposals fairly possible, very likely, and essential for society in their face mitigating sequences. Conversely, the results of the t-test realized for terms of address did not substantiate our observations that these linguistic devices by and large were more commonplace in face aggravating contexts than face mitigating ones coupled with
312

Conclusions

indicating that their incidence in one or the other happened because of chance. This runs counter to the conclusions of some debate studies in the subject. Two more tests for each of the two major kinds of address terms distinguished in the analysis, that is, ‘common ground claimers’ and ‘common ground disclaimers’, were performed in relation to face mitigation and aggravation to check whether a) any difference from the results obtained in the general test surfaced as for these types of address terms, and b) such difference (if any) was significant. Common ground claimers are address terms entailing closeness moves towards the hearer (e.g. first names), whereas common ground disclaimers are terms of address suggesting distance moves from him/her (e.g. honorifics). The results of both tests fell in line with our original suspicion that terms of address were more habitual in face aggravating sequences, and that this was not due to chance only in common ground claimers (they occurred in these sequences in 98% of the cases). Such suspicion was thus not valid for common ground disclaimers, which emerged indistinctively in face mitigating and aggravating units without relating more strongly to either one or the other. These results therefore only partially backed those of the global test on address terms in face mitigation and aggravation. Consequently, terms of address on the whole constitute linguistic resources politicians randomly utilize in face mitigation with the audience and face aggravation with the rival in debates. However, this tendency partly vanishes concerning their types. Candidates use common ground claimers usually in face aggravation to carry out closeness moves towards the adversary and convey power equality with him/her with the goal of further legitimizing their attacks, and attend to their own image in this way. They deploy though common ground disclaimers in both face mitigation and aggravation normally to denote distance and power
313

Conclusions

inequality with the opponent for strategic purposes related to 1) the presentation of a positive public image in keeping with the politically correct behaviour expected in debates, and/or 2) the association of the rival with negative issues like a disappointing administration and/or political party among others. Notwithstanding this, both common ground claimers and disclaimers were seen to be located right before the speaker’s immediate attack against the addressee or in its initial part in face aggravating contexts, so that S prepared the ground for it by drawing the audience’s attention towards him/herself reinforcing this attack as a result. In order to find out the location of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in the unfolding discourse debates consist of, the debates object of examination hitherto were segmented into three different parts following some debate research: the introduction, the central part, and the conclusion. The introduction includes the announcer’s words (if any at all), the moderator’s initial interchange, and politicians’ opening statements at the start of a debate. The central part begins with the first question formulated by the moderator, a journalist or questioner to any of the debaters, and the conclusion comprises the moderator’s last intervention together with contestants’ closing statements and/or any other exchange by them. The computation of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in each of these sections quantitatively corroborated the qualitative findings of some debate investigations on this point. Moreover, this computation determined which varieties of face mitigation and aggravation found in this project and dealt with below abounded in these debate parts, thereby contributing to elucidate these findings. As the majority of sequences concentrate in the body of any debate yielding the greatest amount of mitigating and aggravating units therein, percentages for each of these two sequence types over the totality of sequential
314

Conclusions

tokens in the introduction, central part and conclusion of the debates were drawn to better perceive their distribution in each of these debate parts. The results showed that face mitigation was especially predominant in the introduction and conclusion of the debates vis-à-vis face aggravation with a frequency of 89,6% as opposed to 10,3% correspondingly in the introduction, and 97,1% in contrast with 2,9% respectively in the conclusion. Even though face mitigation was still prevalent in the central part of the debates with a 74,8% frequency value, face aggravation became salient in such debate part over the others with a frequency of 25,2%. These results evince politicians’ preference for face mitigation in all these three debate parts in the main, and attest scholars’ assertions that attacks against the adversary mostly take place in the body of a debate, whilst aggression tends to be absent in its peripheral phases. The preponderance of face mitigation in the introduction and conclusion of the debates responds to the social function of each of these parts along the lines of opening and closing sections in other communicative situations, namely, establishing the social relations among interlocutors on the one hand, which is in the case of the audience is crucial for the achievement of its persuasion, and finishing the interaction in the most possible cordial manner on the other hand, which is geared towards positive self-image building moulded by S’s attention to the audience’s needs and wants. The larger proportion of face aggravation in the central part of the debates and its coexistence with face mitigation thereto is a consequence of the prime argumentative and persuasive functions of such part in these events. In spite of candidates’ inclination towards face mitigation in these three debate sections they almost equally employed the variety of non-pure mitigation, i.e. mitigation with what I
315

Conclusions

have labelled secondary rudeness or face aggravation, chiefly with a positive face orientation in the conclusion. Their attempts to be clearly differentiated from the opponent in enhancing their own image in this debate part may justify such usage. Lastly, the initial possibility that divergent results from the above obtained in the introduction and conclusion of the debates due to the influence of the combat and entertainment promoted by TV, disappeared in view of the figures and percentages for face mitigation and aggravation in these debate sections. Even though so, the influence of TV on qualitative grounds is undeniable as the media texts these events are. As for the other research questions guiding this work on the forms and features of contenders’ face mitigating and aggravating behaviours and attitudes in debates, patterns signalling the presence of two principal varieties of face mitigation and aggravation in the data, that is, pure and non-pure mitigation and aggravation, ensued in the analysis. Pure mitigating and aggravating sequences differed from non-pure ones in that the latter contained secondary rudeness or aggravation as regards non-pure mitigation, and secondary politeness or mitigation concerning non-pure aggravation. Such rudeness and politeness were called ‘secondary’, because they did not alter the overall mitigating and aggravating nature of the sequences in which they were embedded by turning them into genuine face aggravating and mitigating categories in that order. However, they did not make these sequences remain the same either acting as boosters of their mitigating force in the case of non-pure mitigation, and attenuating devices of their aggravating effect in the case of non-pure aggravation, as I explain in the subsequent paragraphs. Such rudeness and politeness did not meet the defining criteria of a pragmatic sequence to constitute face aggravating and mitigating
316

Conclusions

sequences themselves. Similarly to their pure counterparts, these non-pure varieties also had a positive or negative face orientation. The existence of all these kinds of mitigation and aggravation points to the scale or continuum politeness and impoliteness have been advocated to constitute in this study with the pure categories constituting the far ends of the scale, and the non-pure varieties emerging in the middle. These non-pure sequences capture and specify the old category of ‘softened disagreement’, later reformulated into that of the ‘half mitigating and aggravating’ MFTA in past analyses. Each of these varieties of face mitigation and aggravation were encountered to have determinate shapes and characteristics which I describe next. Firstly, mitigating varieties outnumbered aggravating ones with 1581 (75,9%) units for face mitigation and 503 (24,1%) instances for face aggravation. Considering the connection between mitigation and persuasion identified in prior investigations, these results supported the central claim raised in this research, namely, that, besides antagonistic exchanges, political debates are fundamentally persuasive discourses, whose persuasive dimension has not received due attention in the debate literature. As opposed to non-pure mitigation, pure mitigating sequences sometimes surfaced as kinesic and embedded units with the former in a larger proportion than the latter. Out of these mitigating varieties, mitigating sequences with a positive or negative face orientation, positive face-oriented categories of the non-pure sort prevailed over the other varieties discounting anomalous occurrences, i.e. mitigating sequences that were oriented towards the rival as their primary target, hence were not really faithful to the reality of mitigation in debates. Therefore, these positive face-oriented sequences illustrated the usual form face mitigation takes in these events, thus constituting the
317

Conclusions

paramount expression of persuasion in these contexts. This substantiates the findings of research on persuasion and politeness in general, and political communication in particular, establishing that persuasion and its effectiveness lies in the combination of strategies of face mitigation and aggravation, and that positive face orientation characterizes this phenomenon. Additionally, as the most abundant non-pure variety of all, non-pure mitigating sequences with a positive face orientation best exemplified the trilogic condition of debaters’ communicative acts, which is based on the presence of primary and secondary addressees in the talk, highlighting the adversary as the indirect receiver of the discourse. These sequences comprised monologic exchanges, viz, interventions analogous to the monologues compounding rhetorical speeches, where S appealed mainly to the audience’s ‘logos’ or rationality, with the dimensions of ‘pathos’ (emotions) and ‘ethos’ (the speaker’s image) standing out in their secondary rudeness element. Appeals to logos materialised in diverse types of evidence, e.g. authority references, candidates utilised to reinforce the feasibility of their policies in these sequences in order to attain the audience’s persuasion. Such appeals also involved cultural values and premises constituting greatly influential cognitive metarepresentations. Appeals to pathos in the face aggravating component of these sequences were regularly enacted as denounces of a present social situation habitually ascribed to the opponent and/or his/her party, which sometimes cooccurred with face enhancing or boosting acts directed towards the audience. Ethos appeals in this constituent appeared essentially as the ‘we/us’ versus ‘they/them’ dialectic typical of political discourse with the ‘we/us’ pole of the dialectical pair foregrounded over the ‘they/them’ term. Consequently, secondary rudeness in these sequences contributed to emphasize their mitigating force. Such
318

Conclusions

secondary aggravation also oriented to the moderator, panelists or questioners on occasion enabling S to express his/her disagreement with these debate participants’ premises or statements in their questions, and manipulate or change the topic under discussion. This rudeness was sometimes targeted at the audience and the speaker him/herself too for rhetorical purposes related to S’s image and his/her proposals. By and large, these sequences attended to the audience’s positive face implicitly satisfying the speaker’s own positive face wants as well. Non-pure mitigating sequences with a negative face orientation exhibited the same overall shape and features as their positive face equivalent consisting, however, of soft impositions of the speaker’s position on a determinate issue tailored as pieces of advice, general rule statements, warnings about a potential negative situation in the future, and threats to a third party portrayed as the enemy. A peculiarity of these sequences in comparison with positive face ones is that they sometimes targeted at the rival to request information from him/her with secondary aggravation oriented towards a third party, and mitigate S’s impositions of his/her views on H with S actually lecturing the latter through secondary rudeness. In these sequences politicians primarily oriented to the audience’s negative face respecting its freedom of action as a result. Positive face-oriented categories within pure mitigation chiefly constituted monologic interchanges, which sporadically adopted dialogic forms as in ordinary conversation when S addressed concrete interlocutors like the moderator, a panelist or questioner, and the adversary in order to joke. In these monologic interventions, S paid the audience positive face considerations by principally appealing to logos and pathos with ethos relegated to a secondary position. Pathos appeals here encompassed greatly metaphorical even sometimes utopian and bucolic depictions of life and U.S. society frequently
319

Conclusions

juxtaposed to a negative current or past situation, and narratives containing autobiographical information or personal anecdotes. Finally, negative face sequences in the pure variety were more conversational than monologic and exclusively targeted at the moderator, a panelist or questioner, and the opponent, taking the shape of apologies, thanking moves, information and clarification requests posited only to the moderator and a panelist or questioner, permission petitions especially from the moderator, short corrections, and justifications for debate rule breaches. All in all, these sequences oriented to the negative face of these interactants with such orientation in the case of the counter candidate ultimately aimed at bespeaking the speaker’s politically correct behaviour, so that s/he built his/her own image before the audience. Face aggravating varieties were not as lengthy as mitigating ones and were constituted by ‘strategic’ rudeness with ‘volcanic’ impoliteness, viz, aggravation motivated by an emotion of anger, merging with it. Contrary to non-pure sequences bar only one instance in the corpus, pure categories occasionally emerged as kinesic and embedded units with these abounding over embedded ones of a mitigating nature. Among pure and non-pure aggravating sequences with a positive or negative face orientation, negative face-oriented categories of the pure kind noticeably predominated over the rest dismissing anomalous incidences, that is, aggravating sequences whose primary addressee was other than the adversary, in such a way that they did not truly adjust to the reality face aggravation in debates. Negative face aggravation of the pure sort therefore illustrates the distinctive form impoliteness adopts in these encounters along with candidates’ common manner of exerting power over the rival therein in light of the salient relation between aggravation and power spotted in past analyses. Contenders’
320

Conclusions

predilection for this aggravating variety over the positive face one may be accounted for by the fact that they try not to seem too hostile, and the importance of positive face in debates, which leads to the perception of positive face attacks hitherto as more serious than negative face ones. Nevertheless, politicians’ avoidance of excessive aggression is prompted by self-interests associated with the protection of their own image from a potential boomerang effect their aggravating actions may cause. Debaters’ preference for pure negative face aggravation over non-pure sequences finds a justification in that pure aggravation leaves no doubt about contestants’ intents to discredit the counter candidate with the consequent enhancement of their own image and reaffirmation of their views vis-à-vis the adversary’s. In this fashion, S also reinforces those if his/her supporters, thereby strengthening his/her bond with them. On the other hand, overusing non-pure aggravation against the rival, who is sometimes the target of its secondary politeness, would imply some acknowledgement of him/her that could jeopardize the differences S constantly draws between him/herself and the latter, whilst concurrently making an impression of S being weak or not firm enough in his/her position on the issues. These sequences were moulded as short monologic interchanges and seldom dialogic ones, whereby candidates interactionally coerced the opponent via a) attributions of certain negative actions and/or words to him/her sometimes revealing a reproaching attitude from the speaker, b) challenges requiring an explanation from H normally on determinate positive actions and/or words s/he has declared his/hers implying s/he cannot provide it, and c) impositions of S’s views about a specific topic on the latter masqueraded as information seeking questions. These sequences constituted clear bids for power, which further attest
321

Conclusions

the relationship between coercion and power noted by many pragmaticians. Such bids for power mainly amounted to claims for ‘expert power’, namely, an individual’s especial knowledge or expertise that another one lacks. On the whole, debaters impinged upon the rival’s autonomy and freedom of action in these sequences. Pure aggravating sequences with a positive face orientation were also cast as short monologic exchanges and sometimes dialogic ones. In these sequences the speaker soiled the adversary’s reputation by employing ‘aggravated dissents’ and ‘opposition formats’ with the former downplaying the relevance of H’s utterances for the issue in hand, and the latter co-opting his/her words to use them for one’s own side. Such sequences ensued as ironic and sarcastic occurrences from time to time entailing greatly eristic ad hominem attacks that politicians intended to keep away from. Candidates’ bids for power in these sequences were instantiated in their disagreement with the hearer, and their attempts to control the topic of the interaction. Negative and positive face-oriented sequences within pure aggravation with dialogic shapes sometimes gave place to a supra category in the data beyond the pragmatic sequence I have labelled ‘negativity cycle’. Negativity cycles were constituted basically by a chain of positive and negative face aggravating sequences, which were often exchanged in a fairly rapid conversational tempo and showed contenders’ struggle for interactional resources and the floor. Concerning non-pure aggravating categories, sequences with a negative face orientation were patterned as somewhat lengthy monologic interventions including the same types of communicative actions referred to above for their pure counterpart. Through these actions candidates coerced the opponent claiming expert power over him/her. Nonetheless, they diminished this aggravating coercive action by means of
322

Conclusions

secondary politeness targeted at the audience, the speaker him/herself or the counter candidate even though the latter also constituted the principal addressee of the talk. Albeit such politeness was eventually geared towards the achievement of the audience’s persuasion, when directed towards S him/herself, it was primarily meant to realize ‘image restoration’ for previous face damage; when targeting at the rival, it was oriented to help S save face and exhibit politically correct conduct. Non-pure categories with a positive face orientation surfaced as short and lengthy monologic interchanges where S conveyed his/her disagreement with H via aggravated dissents. Such disagreement toned down in the secondary politeness component of these sequences, which was directed towards the audience, S him/herself, and the adversary performing the same functions as secondary mitigation with these distinct debate participants in negative face categories. Nonpure aggravating sequences were found to best exemplify the attack/defence or defence/attack dynamics defining politicians’ intercourse in debates. In their face mitigating and aggravating communicative acts, debaters elude being 1) too obvious, since they run the risk that the selfish interests underlying their persuasive messages could be detected, and that audience members feel that their intelligence is insulted and/or they are being patronised, or 2) too obscure, as they may not be understood. Consequently, on cognitive grounds their best option is to metarepresent the audience as a category of interpreter capable of dealing with an intermediate level of intelligibility in the discourse, namely, a ‘cautious’ understander or a hearer who infers S’s utterances in tune with what s/he thinks S thought it was optimally relevant to him/her. This kind of interpreter also corresponds to the ideal receiver with average understanding capabilities researchers have established speakers target at in
323

Conclusions

institutional public mass communication. Thus, metarepresenting the audience as a cautious understander be a general tendency, which by no means precludes the possibility that contestants metarepresent it as a distinct type of understander throughout the interaction in debates. Conversely, they seem to metarepresent the opponent as a ‘sophisticated’ understander or a hearer that believes S may not be truthful and his/her utterance is inappropriate, as it does not give evidence of his/her real meaning, based on the assumption that politicians are familiar with the conventions of political communication, and exploit them consistently to discuss issues in a way that helps them attain their persuasive goals. In addition to metarepresenting the audience’s and the adversary’s communicative competence and level of attention, they also metarepresent their relationship with each in their mitigating and aggravating interventions. In so doing they deploy ‘content’ and ‘relationship’ level assumptions, i.e. assumptions on propositional meaning and politeness assumptions respectively, which they also exploit to their advantage. In sum, this project has principally aimed to explore the form and functioning of politeness or the context-sensitive cognitive-based linguistic enactment of social bonds in the communicative context of electoral debates of the 2000 U.S. elections. In this fashion, this research is expected to have modestly contributed to studies of linguistic politeness in context in the main. The different conclusions drawn from this study have substantiated our socio-cognitive view of politeness involving a continuum of face mitigating and aggravating behaviours and attitudes, which predominantly appeared in a positive face orientation as for mitigation, and a negative face orientation regarding aggravation in these contexts. Furthermore, this investigation has evinced the multifunctionality of politeness sequences in relation to distinct addressees displaying face mitigation towards
324

Conclusions

some, i.e. the audience, the moderator, the panelists and the questioners, and face aggravation towards others, viz, the rival. The preponderant face mitigating function of polite sequences over a face aggravating one in debates has therefore supported the major claim underlying this work, namely, that political campaign debates are first and foremost persuasive discourses besides zero sum games. The present research could be developed and improved, for example, through a more thorough examination of the characteristics of face mitigating and aggravating sequences identified hitherto coupled with the search of others. Thus, a more exhaustive study of micro strategies could be carried out entailing the quantification of these, so that the qualitative-oriented observations on the kind of face mitigation and aggravation discussed in this investigation could be quantitatively corroborated or contravened. Such study of micro strategies was not realized here due to space limitations and our focus on pragmatic sequences. Concerning potentially recurrent elements within face mitigating and aggravating sequences, other linguistic devices or categories different from modals and terms of address could be looked for and put to test. Likewise, elements not necessarily seen to be habitual in one of these two sequential types on qualitative grounds could be tested, e.g. rhetorical questions, which have usually been linked to face aggravating contexts in the debate literature. Apart from modals and terms of address, no other linguistic devices were encountered to be salient in either face mitigation or aggravation, whilst the test of elements that did not emerge as more common in one of these two polite categories was not performed for reasons of space. As regards the location of face mitigating and aggravating sequences in debates, another conceptualization of the introduction, central part, and conclusion of these events, hence a distinct segmentation for each of these parts, from the one
325

Conclusions

established in this project, could be offered and implemented to check if our results are validated or contradicted. In relation to the varieties of face mitigation and aggravation found, independent studies on each debate participant, that is, the moderator, the panelists, the questioners, and the studio audience, could be carried out taking also into consideration the discourses of all these interlocutors along these lines. Additionally, further research into the aggravating category of the ‘negativity cycle’ could be conducted. Greater attention to the persuasive dimension of politicians’ talk, within which conflict and aggression is subsumed, constitutes one of the implications of the present work for future investigations of political discourse in pragmatics in all its different manifestations, i.e. political speeches, party political conferences and broadcasts (known as ‘negative ads’ in political communication), diplomatic exchanges, and parliamentary discourse, among others. Moreover, the findings of this study should also be incorporated in future research of politeness and impoliteness in distinct discourse genres to a) find out which of the varieties of face mitigation and aggravation best illustrate the typical shape and functioning of politeness across contexts, and b) test the conversational strategy framework put forward in this project on the micro strategy plane. Finally, both future studies of political discourse and investigations of politeness in different discourse types in pragmatics should also contemplate the suggestions offered on the development and improvement of this work.

326

V. REFERENCES

References

REFERENCES

Abbot, B. (2000) “Presuppositions as Nonassertions”, Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1419-1437. Adams, K. L. (1992) “Accruing Power on Debate Floors”, in K. Hall et al. (eds) Locating Power: Proceedings of the 2nd Berkeley Women and Language Conference vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California Berkeley, 1-10. -----. (1999) “Democrats v. Republicans v. Others: The Construction of Major and Minor Identities in Televised Political Debates”, in J. Verschueren (ed) Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference vol. 1. Antwerp, Belgium: IPrA, 1-13. Agha, A. (1997) “Tropic Aggression in the Clinton-Dole Presidential Debate”, Pragmatics 7, 461-497. Airenti, G. et al. (1993) “Failures, Exploitations and Deceits in Communication”, Journal of Pragmatics 20, 303-326. Allbritton, D. W. (1995) “When Metaphors Function as Schemas: Some Cognitive Effects of Conceptual Metaphors”, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 33-46. Anderson, J. A. (1996) Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations. New York: The Guildford Press. Andrews, F. M. et al. (1981) A Guide for Selecting Statistical Techniques for Analyzing Social Science Data (2nd edition). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
327

References

Antaki, C. (1994) Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts. London: Sage. Antaki, C. et al. (1996) “Social Identities in Talk: Speakers’ Own Orientations”, British Journal of Social Psychology 35, 473-492. Arundale, R. B. (2005) “Face as Relational and Interactional: Communication Approaches to Examining Face as Culture-General and Culture-Specific”, paper delivered at the Linguistic Politeness Research Group Conference. Nottingham, March 2005. Atkison, M. (1988) Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics (3rd edition). London: Routledge. Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (1984) “Transcript Notation”, in J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ix-xvi. Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. (1987) “Relevant Questions”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 711-712. Balz, D. (2000) “Bush: Inconsistent but Underestimated”, The Washington Post (October 2, 2000), A1, A11. Bateson, G. (1972) “A Theory of Play and Fantasy”, in G. Bateson (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler, 177-193. Bauman, R. (1984) “Verbal Art as Performance”, in R. Bauman (ed) Verbal Art as Performance (2nd edition). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 3-58. Baxter, L. A. (1984) “An Investigation of Compliance-Gaining as Politeness”, Human Communication Research 10, 427-456.
328

References

-----. (1997) “Locating the Social in Interpersonal Communication”, in J. S. Trent (ed) Communication: Views from the Helm for the 21st Century. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 60-65. Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery B. M. (1996) Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. New York: The Guilford Press. Bayraktaroğlu, A. (1991) “Politeness and Interactional Imbalance”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 92, 5-34. Beck, C. S. (1996) “‘I’ve Got Some Points I’d Like to Make Here’: The Achievement of Social Face through Turn Management during the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate”, Political Communication 13, 156-180. Beebe, M. L. (1995) “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as Pragmatic Competence”, in J. E. Alatis et al. (eds) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1995. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 154-168. Bell, A. (1984) “Language Style as Audience Design”, Language in Society 13, 145204. -----. (1991) The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell. Benoit, W. & Wells, W. T. (1996) Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Berg-Andersson, R. E. (2004) “How Did We Get Here, Anyway?: A Historical Analysis of the Presidential Nominating Process” (electronic version), in The

329

References

Green Papers: 2004 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions (2004). (available: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/Definitions.html) Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday Anchor. Bilmes, J. (1999) “Questions, Answers, and the Organization of Talk in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Fundamental Considerations”, Research on Language and Social Interaction 32, 213-242. -----. (2001) “Tactics and Styles in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Question Placement”, Research on Language and Social Interaction 34, 151-181. Blakemore, D. (1993) “The Relevance of Reformulations”, Language and Literature 2, 101-120. -----. (1994) “Relevance, Poetic Effects and Social Goals: A Reply to Culpeper”, Language and Literature 3, 49-59. -----. (1995) “Relevance Theory”, in J. Verschueren et al. (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 443-452. Blas-Arroyo, J. L. (1998a) “Estructuras Triádicas en el Debate Político-Electoral”, Cahiers de L’ Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 24, 85-108. -----. (1998b) “‘Pero No Me Interrumpa Usted, Haga el Favor...’: Las Interrupciones en el Debate Político-Electoral”, Mediterranean Language Review 10, 54-88. -----. (1998c) “Funciones y Estructuras Discursivas del Moderador en el Debate Político”, Langues et Linguistique 24, 3-45. -----. (1999) “‘Diga Por Qué, Diga Por Qué...’: La Repetición en el Debate PolíticoElectoral”, Revista de Investigación Lingüística 1, 5-42.

330

References

-----. (2000) “Mire Usted Sr. González... Personal Deixis in Spanish PoliticalElectorate Debate”, Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1-27. -----. (2001) “‘No Diga Chorradas...’ La Descortesía en el Debate Político Cara a Cara: Una Aproximación Pragma-Variacionista”, Oralia 4, 9-45. -----. (2002) “En los Límites de la (Des)cortesía: Formas Atenuadas de la Agresividad Verbal en el Debate Político Español”, International Review of Applied Linguistics 137-138, 181-204. -----. (2003) “‘Perdóneme Que Se Lo Diga, pero Vuelve Usted a Faltar a la Verdad, Señor González’: Form and Function of Politic Verbal Behaviour in Face-toFace Spanish Political Debates”, Discourse & Society 14, 395-423. Blum-Kulka, S. (1990) “You Don’t Touch Lettuce with Your Fingers”, Journal of Pragmatics 14, 259-288. Bou-Franch, P. (2001a) “Conversation in Foreign Language Instruction”, in V. Codina-Espurz & E. Alcón-Soler (eds) Language Learning in the Foreign Language Classroom. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I, 53-73. -----. (2001b) “Pragmática y Enseñanza de Lenguas”, paper delivered at the Jornadas de Pragmática. Valencia, November 2001. -----. (2001c) “Understanding Misunderstanding in Interaction”, paper delivered at the 11th Susanne Hübner Seminar. Zaragoza, February-March 2001. -----. (2002a) “Misunderstandings and Unofficial Knowledge in Institutional Discourse”, in D. Walton & D. Scheu (eds) Culture and Power: Ac(unofficial)knowledging Cultural Studies in Spain. Bern: Peter Lang, 323345.

331

References

-----. (2002b) “A Model of Politeness for Gender Studies”, paper delivered at the I Seminar on English Discourse Analysis. Valencia, November 2002. -----. (2006) “Solidarity and Deference in Spanish Computer-Mediated

Communication: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Students’ Emails to Lecturers”, in P. Bou-Franch (ed) Ways into Discourse. Granada: Comares, 74-94. Bou-Franch, P. & Garcés-Conejos, P. (1994) “La Presentación de la Imagen en Conversaciones entre Hablantes Nativas y No Nativas de Inglés”, Pragmalingüística 2, 37-61. -----. (2003) “Teaching Linguistic Politeness: A Methodological Proposal”, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 41, 1-22. -----. (2005) “Openings and Closings in Spanish and English Text-Based CMC: A Politeness-Theoretical, Community of Practice Approach”, paper delivered at the 16th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, Bloomington, April 2005. Bou-Franch, P. & Gregori-Signes, C. (1999) “Pragmática Intercultural: Emisiones del Oyente en Inglés Británico y Español Peninsular”, in A. Sánchez et al. (eds) Quaderns de Filologia, Estudis Lingüístics IV: Pragmática Intercultural. Valencia: Universitat de València, 123-134. Bou-Franch, P. & Maruenda-Bataller, S. (2001) “Entrevistas Televisivas y Comunicación: Enfoque Multidisciplinar”, in F. Fernández (ed) Los Estudios Ingleses: En el Umbral del Tercer Milenio. Valencia: Universitat de València, 105-115.

332

References

Briz, A. (1998) El Español Coloquial en la Conversación: Esbozo de Pragmagramática. Barcelona: Ariel. -----. (2000) “Turno y Alternancia de Turno en la Conversación”, Revista Argentina de Lingüística 16, 9-32. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960) “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”, in T. A. Sebeok (ed) Style in Language. MA: MIT Press, 253-276. -----. (1989) “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies”, Language in Society 18, 159-212. Bryant, D. C. (1953) “Rhetoric: Its Functions and Scope”, The Quarterly Journal of Speech 39, 401-424. Bryski, B. G. (1978) “An Analysis of Evidence in the First Ford/Carter Debate”, Journal of Applied Communication Research 6, 19-30. Bultlinck, B. (2001) “Review of S. C. Levinson, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000” (electronic mail). (available from: <bultinck@uia.ua.ac.be>) Burke, K. (1950) “Traditional Principles of Rhetoric”, in K. Burke (1950) A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 49-180. Buss, D. M. et al. (1987) “Tactics of Manipulation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 1219-1229.

333

References

Campbell, J. L. (1992) “An Applied Relevance Theory of the Making and Understanding of Rhetorical Arguments”, Language and Communication 12, 145-155. Carbaugh, D. (1995) “The Ethnographic Communication Theory of Philipsen and Associates”, in D. P. Cushman & B. Kovačić (eds) Watershed Research Traditions in Human Communication Theory. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 269-297. Carl, W. J., & Duck, S. W. (2004) “How to Do Things with Relationships...and How Relationships Do Things with Us”, in P. Kalbfleisch (ed) Communication Yearbook 28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1-34. Carlin, D. P. & Bicak, P. J. (1993) “Toward a Theory of Vice Presidential Debate Purposes: An Analysis of the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate”, Argumentation and Advocacy 30, 119-130. Carlin, D. P. et al. (1991) “The Effects of Presidential Debate Formats on Clash: A Comparative Analysis”, Argumentation and Advocacy 27, 126-136. Carretero-Lapeyre, M. (1995) La Pragmática de las Expresiones de Modalidad Epistémica en el Inglés Hablado, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Complutense University, Madrid. -----. (1995/96) “The Relevance of Politeness in the Epistemic Interpretation of the English Modals”, Pragmalingüística 3/4, 241-259. Carston, R. (1996) “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed” (electronic version), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 1-30. (available: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/ PUB/WPL/96papers/carston.pdf)
334

References

Caspi, D. (1986) “Electoral Rhetoric in Israel and Political Polarization: The BeginPeres Debates”, European Journal of Communication 1, 447-462. Chafe, W. (2001) “Laughing while Speaking”, paper delivered at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C., March 2001. Chaffee, S. H. (1978) “Presidential Debates — Are They Helpful to Voters?”, Communication Monographs 45, 330-346. -----. (1979) “Approaches of U.S. Scholars to the Study of Televised Political Debates”, Political Communication Review 4, 19-33. Cherry, R. D. (1988) “Politeness in Written Persuasion”, Journal of Pragmatics 12, 63-81. Chilton, P. (1990) “Politeness, Politics and Diplomacy”, Discourse & Society 1, 201224. Chilton, P. & Ilyin, M. (1993) “Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of the ‘Common European House’”, Discourse & Society 4, 7-31. Chilton, P. & Schäffner, C. (1997) “Discourse and Politics”, in T. A. Van Dijk (ed) Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage, 206-230. Chodorowska-Pilch, M. (2001) “Politeness: A Metaphor Grounded in Metonymy”, paper delivered at the 11th Susanne Hübner Seminar. Zaragoza, FebruaryMarch 2001. Christie, C. (2002) “Politeness and the Linguistic Construction of Gender in Parliament: An Analysis of Transgressions and Apology Behaviour” (electronic version), Sheffield Hallam Working Papers 3, 1-27 (available: http:

335

References

//www.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/christie.htm) Clark, H. H. (1987) “Relevance to What?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 714715. Clayman, S. E. (1993) “Booing: The Anatomy of a Disaffiliative Response”, American Sociological Review 58, 110-130. Cohen, A. A. (1976) “Setting the Political Agenda, Radio vs. TV: The Effect of the Medium”, Journal of Communication 26, 29-35. Commission on Presidential Debates (2005a) “Hosting Your Own Debate” (electronic version), in Commission on Presidential Debates: Voter Education (2005) (available: http://www.debates.org/pages/education.html/budget) -----. (2005b) “Commission Reports” (electronic version), in Commission on Presidential Debates: About Commission on Presidential Debates (2005) (available: http://www.debates.org/pages/report.html) Connolly, C. (2000) “Gore: Methodical, Skilled, Aggressive”, The Washington Post (October 2, 2000), A1, A10. Connor-Linton, J. (1995) “The Role of Lexical Variation in Crosstalk: Pronominal Reference Choices in a Soviet-American Spacebridge”, Journal of Pragmatics 23, 301-324. Conrad, C. (1993) “Political Debates as Televisual Form”, Argumentation and Advocacy 30, 62-76. Cook, G. (1990) “Transcribing Infinity: Problems of Context Presentation”, Journal of Pragmatics 14, 1-24.

336

References

Coupland, N. et al. (1988) “Politeness in Context: Intergenerational Issues (Review Article)”, Language in Society 17, 253-262. Coupland, N. & Jaworski, A. (1997) “Relevance, Accommodation and Conversation: Modeling the Social Dimension of Communication”, Multilingua 16, 233-258. Craig, R. T. et al. (1986) “The Discourse of Requests: Assessment of a Politeness Approach”, Human Communication Research 12, 437-468. Croft, W. (1993) “The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies”, Cognitive Linguistics 4, 335-370. Culpeper, J. (1994) “Why Relevance Theory Does not Explain ‘The Relevance of Reformulations”, Language and Literature 3, 43-48. -----. (1996) “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”, Journal of Pragmatics 25, 349367. -----. (2005) “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: ‘The Weakest Link’”, Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1, 35-72. Culpeper, J. et al. (2003) “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects”, Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1545-1579. Curcó, C. (1996) “The Implicit Expression of Attitudes, Mutual Manifestness, and Verbal Humour” (electronic version), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 1-12. (available: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/96papers/curco. pdf) Cutler, A. (1987) “The Task of the Speaker and the Task of the Hearer”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 715-716.

337

References

Davis, D. K. (1987) “Television and Political Debates”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4, 201. Davis, L. K. (1978) “Camera Eye-Contact by the Candidates in the Presidential Debates of 1976”, Journalism Quarterly 55, 431-437/455. Del Saz-Rubio, M. M. (2000) La Cortesía Lingüística en el Discurso Publicitario, Studies in English Language and Linguistics Monographs 8. Valencia: Universitat de València. Delia, J. G. (1987) “Communication Research: A History”, in C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (eds) Handbook of Communication Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 20-98. Delin, P. S. et al. (1994) “What Is an Assumption?”, Informal Logic 16, 115-122. Diamond, E. & Friery, K. (1987) “Media Coverage of Presidential Debates”, in J. L. Swerdlow (ed) Presidential Debates 1988 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: League of Women Voters Education Fund, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 4351. Diez, M. (2000) “La Incongruencia en la Publicidad: Una Aproximación Pragmática”, paper delivered at the V Encuentros de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada. Seville, March 2000. Dolón-Herrero, R. (2003) “Private Discourse within Institutional Discourse: Presentation of the Self as a Persuasive Tool in Letters of Application”, paper delivered at the II Seminar on English Discourse Analysis. Valencia, November 2003. Donatelli, F. J. & Francis, L. C. (1987) “Sponsorship of Presidential Debates: Who Does It?, Who Cares?”, in J. L. Swerdlow (ed) Presidential Debates 1988 and
338

References

Beyond. Washington, D.C.: League of Women Voters Education Fund, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 65-72. Drew, P. & Sorjonen, M-L. (1997) “Institutional Dialogue”, in T. A. Van Dijk (ed) Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage, 92-118. Drucker, S. J. & Platt-Hunold, J. (1987) “The Debating Game”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4, 202-207. Duck, S. W. (1993) Social Context and Relationships. London: Sage. -----. (1998) “Influencing Strangers, Acquaintances and Friends”, in S. W. Duck (1998) Human Relationships (3rd edition). London: Sage, 127-154. Duck, S. W. & Condra, M. (1990) “To Be or not To Be: Anticipation, Persuasion and Retrospection in Personal Relationships”, in G. J. Neimeyer & R. A. Neimeyer (eds) Advances in Personal Construct Psychology vol. 1. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press, 187-202. Duck, S. W. & Pond, K. (1989) “‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen, Lend Me Your Retrospections’: Rhetoric and Reality in Personal Relationships”, in C. Hendrick (ed) Close Relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 17-38. Duck, S. W. et al. (1997) “Sewing the Field: The Tapestry of Relationships in Life and Research”, in S. W. Duck (ed) Handbook of Personal Relationships (2nd edition). New York: Wiley, 1-23. DuFon, M. A. (1993) “Referential and Relational Meaning in Interpreted Discourse”, Journal of Pragmatics 20, 533-558. DuFon, M. A. et al. (1994) “Bibliography on Linguistic Politeness”, Journal of Pragmatics 21, 527-578.

339

References

Duranti, A. (2001) “The Voice of the Audience in Contemporary American Political Discourse”, paper delivered at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C., March 2001. Earnshaw, S. et al. (eds) (2002) Sheffield Hallam Working Papers: Linguistic Politeness and Context 3 (electronic version). (available:

http://www.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/). Edelsky, C. (1981) “Who’s Got the Floor?”, Language in Society 10, 383-421. Edelsky, C. & Adams, K. (1990) “Creating Inequality: Breaking the Rules in Debates”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9, 171-190. Edwards, J. A. (1993) “Principles and Contrasting Systems of Discourse Transcription”, in J.A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (eds) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-31. Eelen, G. (2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Emerson, R. M. et al. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Engel-Lang, G. (1987) “Still Seeking Answers”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4, 211-214. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976) “Is Sybil There?: The Structure of Some American English Directives”, Language in Society 5, 25-66. Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (1993) Introducción a la Pragmática. Barcelona: Anthropos.

340

References

-----. (1994) “La Noción de Estilo en la Teoría de la Relevancia”, in E. Dehennin & H. Havertake (eds) Lingüística y Estilística de Textos. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 5564. -----. (1996) “Towards a Cognitive Approach to Politeness”, Language Sciences 18, 629-650. -----. (1998a) “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory”, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11, 45-57. -----. (1998b) “Cortesía y Relevancia”, in H. Havertake et al. (eds) La Pragmática Lingüística del Español: Recientes Desarrollos. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 7-24. -----. (2002) “Relevancia y Cortesía”, paper delivered at the I Seminar on English Discourse Analysis. Valencia, November 2002. Evans-Davies, C. (2004) “Developing Awareness of Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Case of American/German Sociable Interaction”, Multilingua 23, 207-231. Fairclough, N. (1998) “Manipulation”, in J. L. Mey & R. E. Asher (eds) Concise Encyclopaedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 537-538. Felderer, B. (1997) “Do’s and Don’ts: Gender Representations in a Political Debate”, in H. Kotthoff & R. Wodak (eds) Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 371-400. Fernández-Amaya, L. (2002) Análisis Contrastivo, Pragmático y Conversacional de las Secuencias de Cierre de Conversaciones Telefónicas en Inglés Americano y Español, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Seville, Seville. Fernández-García, F. (2000) Estrategas del Diálogo: La Interacción Comunicativa en el Discurso Político-Electoral. Granada: Método Ediciones.

341

References

Fernández-Lagunilla, M. (1999) La Lengua en la Comunicación Política I: El Discurso del Poder. Madrid: Arco Libros. Fetzer, A. & Weizman, E. (2006) “Political Discourse as Mediated and Public Discourse”, Journal of Pragmatics 38, 143-153. Firestone, C. M. (1987) “Legal Issues Surrounding Televised Presidential Debates”, in J. L. Swerdlow (ed) Presidential Debates 1988 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: League of Women Voters Education Fund, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 17-26. Fitch, L. K. (1994a) “A Cross-Cultural Study of Directive Sequences and Some Implications for Compliance-Gaining Research”, Communication Monographs 61, 185-209. -----. (1994b) “The Issue of Selection of Objects of Analysis in Ethnographies of Speaking”, Research on Language and Social Interaction 27, 51-93. -----. (1998) Speaking Relationally: Culture, Communication and Interpersonal Connection. New York: The Guildford Press. -----. (2003) “Cultural Persuadables”, Communication Theory 13, 100-123. Fitch, L. K. & Philipsen, G. (1995) “Ethnography of Speaking”, in J. Verschueren et al. (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 263269. Fitch, L. K. & Sanders, R. E. (1994) “Culture, Communication and Preferences for Directness in Expression of Directives”, Communication Theory 4, 219-245. Fitzmaurice, S. (2002) “Servant or Patron? Jacob Tonson and the Language of Deference and Respect”, Language Sciences 24, 247-260. Flowerdew, J. (1999) “Face in Cross-Cultural Political Discourse”, Text 19, 3-23.
342

References

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994) “Interviewing: The Art of Science”, in N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 361-376. Franken, N. (1999) “The Status of the Principle of Relevance in Relevance Theory”, in J. Verschueren (ed) Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference vol. 2. Antwerp, Belgium: IPrA, 142158. Fraser, B. (1980) “Conversational Mitigation”, Journal of Pragmatics 4, 341-350. -----. (1983) “The Domain of Pragmatics”, in J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (eds) Language and Communication. London: Longman, 29-60. -----. (1990) “Perspectives on Politeness”, Journal of Pragmatics 14, 219-236. -----. (2002) “Whither Politeness?”, paper delivered at the I Encuentros de Pragmática Intercultural, Cognitiva y Social. Seville, April 2002. Fraser, B. & Nolen, W. (1981) “The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27, 93-109. Friedenberg, R. V. (1979) “‘We Are Present Here Today for the Purpose of Having a Joint Discussion’: The Conditions Requisite for Political Debates”, Journal of the American Forensic Association 16, 1-9. -----. (1981) “‘Selfish Interests’, or the Prerequisites for Political Debate: An Analysis of the 1980 Presidential Debate and Its Implications for Future Campaigns”, Journal of the American Forensic Association 18, 91-98. Galasiński, D. (1998) “Strategies of Talking to Each Other: Rule Breaking in Polish Presidential Debates”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17, 165182.
343

References

Gallardo-Paúls, B. (2001) “Teoría de la Persuasió”, in A. López & M. Pruñonosa (eds) Fonaments de la Comunicació. Valencia: Universitat de València, 267290. Gallup, G. Jr. (1987) “The Impact of Presidential Debates on the Vote and Turnout”, in J. L. Swerdlow (ed) Presidential Debates 1988 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: League of Women Voters Education Fund, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 34-42. Garcés-Conejos, P. (1991) La Ira y La Cortesía: Codificación Lingüística del Cambio Social en el Teatro Inglés de los Años 60, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Valencia, Valencia. -----. (1995) “Revisión Crítica de Algunos de los Postulados de la Teoría de la Cortesía Lingüística Propugnada por Brown y Levinson”, in C. HernándezSacristán et al. (eds) Quaderns de Filologia, Estudis Lingüístics I: Apectes de la Reflexió i de la Praxis. Valencia: Universitat de València, 43-61. -----. (2001) “Production, Interpretation and Garden-Path Utterances in Advertising”, paper delivered at the 11th Susanne Hübner Seminar. Zaragoza, FebruaryMarch 2001. Garcés-Conejos, P. & Bou-Franch, P. (1995) “Estudio Práctico de Retórica Interpersonal: Tema Conversacional y Cortesía Lingüística en The Deep Blue Sea y Look Back in Anger”, Stylistica 2/3, 73-80. -----. (2004) “A Pragmatic Account of Listernership: Implications for Foreign/Second Language Teaching”, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 17, 81-102.

344

References

Garcés-Conejos, P. & Sánchez-Macarro, A. (1998) “Scientific Articles vs. Popularizations”, in A. Sánchez-Macarro & R. Carter (eds) Linguistic Choice across Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 173-190. Garcés-Conejos, P. & Torreblanca-López, M. M. (1997) “Estrategias de Énfasis y Mitigación en el Discurso del Profesor de Inglés como L2”, in M. Martínez Vázquez (ed) Gramática y Pragmática. Huelva: Grupo de Investigación de Gramática Contrastiva (PASHUM 0269), 1-13. García-Pastor, M. D. (1999) “Directive Use and Performance in a U.S. Hispanic Community: A Cultural Approach”, Studies in English Language and Linguistics 1, 147-170. -----. (2001a) Pragmatics and the 2000 U.S. Elections: Issues of Politeness and Power in Political Campaign Debates, Studies in English Language and Linguistics Monographs 10. Valencia: Universitat de València. -----. (2001b) “A Politeness Approach to Persuasion and Power in Political Discourse: The Case of Political Debates of the 2000 Elections”, paper delivered at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C., March 2001. -----. (2002a) “A Relevance Theoretic Approach to Metaphor in a U.S. Political Campaign Debate”, in J. V. Gavaldà-Roca et al. (eds) Quaderns de Filologia, Estudis de Comunicació I: La Cultural Mediàtica, Modes de Representació i Estratègies Discursives. Valencia: Universitat de València, 103-114. -----. (2002b) “Face Aggravation, Mitigation, and ‘Unofficial’ Power in a Political Campaign Debate”, in D. Walton & D. Scheu (eds) Culture and Power:

345

References

Ac(unofficial)knowledging Cultural Studies in Spain. Bern: Peter Lang, 346367. García-Pastor, M. D. & Narbona-Reina, B. (2000) “‘Unofficial Power’ in Political Campaign Debates: Towards a Theoretical and Empirical Account”, The Newsletter of Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University 3, 38-46. Garrett-Millikan, R. (1987) “What Peter Thinks When He Hears Mary Speak”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 725-726. Gass, R. H. & Seiter, J. S. (1997) “On Defining Persuasion: Toward a Contemporary Approach”, paper delivered at the Western Speech Communication Association Convention. Monterey, CA, February 1997. Glenn, E. S. et al. (1977) “Cultural Styles of Persuasion”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 3, 52-66. Goatly, A. (1994) “Register and the Redemption of Relevance Theory: The Case of Metaphor”, Pragmatics 4, 139-181. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. -----. (1974) “Keys and Keying”, in E. Goffman (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper Colophon, 40-82. -----. (1981) “The Lecture”, in E. Goffman (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 160-195. Gómez-Morón, R. (1997) “La Descortesía no Intencionada y el Discurso no Cortés: El Fallo Pragmático”, The Grove 3, 33-49. -----. (1998) Aproximación Pragmática al Estudio del Género: La Utilización de Estrategias de Cortesía en los Artículos Médicos y Lingüísticos, unpublished

346

References

doctoral dissertation, University of Seville, Seville. -----. (2001) “Conflicto Interpersonal y Ataque contra la Imagen: Una Aproximación desde las Teorías de la Cortesía y de la Relevancia”, paper delivered at the 11th Susanne Hübner Seminar. Zaragoza, February-March 2001. Goodwin, C. (1986) “Audience Diversity, Participation and Interpretation”, Text 6, 283-316. Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990) “Conversation Analysis”, Annual Review of Anthropology 19, 283-307. Gottman, J. M. (1994) What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gregori-Signes, C. (1996) “‘Bueno, Hasta Luego’: El Uso de Bueno en Conversaciones”, Miscelánea 17, 157-170 -----. (1998) Telling It All: A Genre-Based Approach to the Analysis of the American Tabloid Talkshow, doctoral dissertation, University of Valencia, Valencia. -----. (2000a) A Genre Based Approach to Daytime Talk on Television, Studies in English Language and Linguistics Monographs 1. Valencia: Universitat de València. -----. (2000b) “The Tabloid Talkshow as a Quasi-Conversational Type of Face-toFace Interaction”, Pragmatics 10, 195-213. -----. (2005) “Descortesía en el Discurso Televisivo de los Dibujos Animados: La Serie South Park”, in M. L. Carrió-Pastor (ed) Perspectivas Interdisciplinares

347

References

de la Lingüística Aplicada vol. 2. Valencia: Universitat Politècnica de València, 117-126. Grice, H. P. (1975) “Logic and Conversation”, in P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58. Gruber, H. (1993) “Review of John Wilson, Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990”, Journal of Pragmatics 19, 371-376. -----. (1998) “Disagreeing: Sequential Placement and Internal Structure of Disagreements in Conflict Episodes”, Text 18, 467-503. Gumperz, J. (1984) “The Retrieval of Sociocultural Knowledge in Conversation”, in J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (eds) Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 127-138. Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (1998) “Rhetorical Questions, Relevance and Scales”, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11, 139-155. Hall-Jamieson, K. (1987) “Television, Presidential Campaigns, and Debates”, in J. L. Swerdlow (ed) Presidential Debates 1988 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: League of Women Voters Education Fund, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2733. Harris, S. (1995) “Pragmatics and Power”, Journal of Pragmatics 23, 117-135. -----. (2001) “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse”, Discourse & Society 12, 451-472. Hatch, E. & Farhady, H. (1982) Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

348

References

Held, G. (1989) “On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness”, Multilingua 8, 167-206. -----. (1992) “Politeness in Linguistic Research”, in R. J. Watts et al. (eds) Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 131-153. Hellweg, S. A. et al. (1992) Televised Presidential Debates: Advocacy in Contemporary Communication. Heritage, J. & Greatbatch, D. (1986) “Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences”, American Journal of Sociology 92, 110-157. -----. (1991) “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews”, in D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (eds) Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Polity Press, 93-137. Hill, B. et al. (1986) “Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese and American English”, Journal of Pragmatics 10, 347-371. Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (1996) Communication and Group Decision-Making (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holmes, J. (1984) “Modifying Illocutionary Force”, Journal of Pragmatics 8, 345365. Hutchby, I. (1997) “Building Alignments in Public TV Debate: A Case Study from British TV”, Text 17, 161-179. America. New York: Praeger Series in Political

349

References

Hymes, D. (1962) “The Ethnography of Speaking”, in T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (eds) Anthropology and Human Behavior. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington, 13-53. -----. (1964) “Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication”, American Anthropologist 66, 1-34. -----. (1972) “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life”, in J. J. Gumperz & D. H. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 35-71. Ide, S. (1989) “Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness”, Multilingua 8, 223-248. Ilatov, Z. Z. (1993) “Manipulations in Argumentation”, Argumentation 7, 359-376. Jackson-Beeck, M. & Meadow, R. G. (1979) “The Triple Agenda of Presidential Debates”, Public Opinion Quarterly 43, 173-180. Jary, M. (1998a) “Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness”, Journal of Pragmatics 30, 1-19. -----. (1998b) “Is Relevance Theory Asocial?”, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11, 157-169. Jaworski, A. & Galasiński, D. (1998) “The Last Romantic Hero: Lech Walęsa’s Image-Building in TV Presidential Debates”, Text 18, 525-544. -----. (2000a) “Vocative Address Forms and Ideological Legitimization in Political Debates”, Discourse Studies 2, 35-53. -----. (2000b) “Unilateral Norm Breaking in a Presidential Debate: Lech Walęsa versus Aleksander Kwaśniewski”, Research on Language and Social Interaction 33, 321-345.
350

References

Johnstone, B. (1989) “Linguistic Strategies and Cultural Styles for Persuasive Discourse”, in S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (eds) International and Intercultural Communication Annual vol. 13. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 139156. Jørgensen, C. (1998) “Public Debate: An Act of Hostility?”, Argumentation 12, 431443. Jucker, A. H. (1988) “The Relevance of Politeness”, Multilingua 7, 375-384. -----. (1997a) “Persuasion by Inference: Analysis of a Party Political Broadcast”, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11, 121-137. -----. (1997b) “Review of Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell, 1995”, Journal of Pragmatics 27, 112-119. Kasper, G. (1990) “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues”, Journal of Pragmatics 14, 193-218. -----. (1998) “Politeness”, in J. L. Mey & R. E. Asher (eds) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 677-684. Katriel, T. (1986) Talking Straight: “Dugri” Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keenan, E. O. (1976) “The Universality of Conversational Postulates”, Language in Society 5, 67-80. Kelly, G. A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. -----. (1970) “A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Theory”, in D. Bannister (ed) Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press, 9-29.

351

References

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1997) “A Multilevel Approach in the Study of Talk-inInteraction”, Pragmatics 7, 1-20. Kienpointner, M. (1997) “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances”, Functions of Language 4, 251-287. Kitis, E. (1999) “On Relevance Again: From Philosophy of Language across ‘Pragmatics and Power’ to Global Relevance”, Journal of Pragmatics 31, 643667. Kochman, T. (1984) “The Politics of Politeness: Social Warrants in Mainstream American Public Etiquette”, in D. Schiffrin (ed) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 200-209. Kotthoff, H. (1993) “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures”, Language in Society 22, 193-216. Krabbe, E. C. W. (1991) “Subtypes of Persuasive Dialogue and Dialectical Shifts”, in F. H. Van Eemeren et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 371-376. Kraus, S. (1987) “Voters Win”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4, 214-219. -----. (1988) Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy (1st edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. -----. (2000) Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kreuz, R. J. & Roberts, R. M. (1993) “When Collaboration Fails: Consequences of Pragmatic Errors in Conversation”, Journal of Pragmatics 19, 239-252.

352

References

Kurzon, D. (1996) “The White House Speeches: Semantic and Paralinguistic Strategies for Eliciting Applause”, Text 16, 199-224. -----. (1998) “The Speech Act Status of Incitement: Perlocutionary Acts Revisited”, Journal of Pragmatics 29, 571-596. Lachenicht, L. G. (1980) “Aggravating Language: A Study of Abusive and Insulting Language”, Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 13, 607-687. Lakoff, R. T. (1973) “The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s”, Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9, 292-305. -----. (1981) “Persuasive Discourse and Ordinary Conversation, with Examples from Advertising”, in D. Tannen (ed) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 25-42. -----. (1989) “The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse”, Multilingua 8, 101-129. -----. (1990) Talking Power: The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books. -----. (2001) “The Rhetoric of the Extraordinary Moment: The Concession and Acceptance Speeches of Al Gore and George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election”, Pragmatics 11, 309-327. -----. (2005) “The Politics of Nice”, Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1, 173-191. Lampert, M. D. & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1993) “Structured Coding for the Study of Language and Social Interaction”, in J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (eds)

353

References

Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 169-206. Larrue, J. & Trognon, A. (1993) “Organization of Turn-Taking and Mechanisms for Turn-Taking Repairs in a Chaired Meeting”, Journal of Pragmatics 19, 177196. Lazuka, A. (2006) “Communicative Intention in George W. Bush’s Presidential Speeches and Statements from 11 September 2001 to 11 September 2003”, Discourse & Society 17, 299-330. League of Women Voters (2002) Face to Face: A Guide to Candidate Debates (electronic version). (available: http://www.lwv.org/elibrary/pub/face/face_ 1.html) Leech, G. N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1992) “Forum Introduction: Social Approaches to Interpersonal Communication”, Communication Theory 2, 131-139. Leichty, G. & Applegate, J. L. (1991) “Social-Cognitive and Situational Influences on the Use of Face-Saving Persuasive Strategies”, Human Communication Research 17, 451-484. Lemert, C. (1993) “Part Five ‘After Modernity, Since 1979’”, in C. Lemert (1993) Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press, 489-659. Leudar, I. & Nekvapil, J. (2000) “Presentations of Romanies in the Czech Media: On Category Work in Television Debates”, Discourse & Society 11, 487-513.

354

References

Levasseur, D. & Dean, K. W. (1996) “The Use of Evidence in Presidential Debates: A Study of Evidence Levels and Types from 1960 to 1988”, Argumentation and Advocacy 32, 129-142. Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -----. (1989) “Review Article: A Review of Relevance”, Journal of Linguistics 25, 455-472. -----. (1992) “Activity Types and Language”, in P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66-100. -----. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lim, T. & Bowers, J. W. (1991) “Facework: Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact”, Human Communication Research 17, 415-450. Lindof, T. R. (1995) “Eliciting Experience: Interviews”, in T. R. Lindof (1995) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 163-196. Locher, M. A. (2004) Power and Politeness: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, M. A. & Watts, R. J. (2005) “Politeness Theory and Relational Work”, Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1, 9-33. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001) “Compliment Responses among British and Spanish University Students”, Journal of Pragmatics 33, 107-127.

355

References

-----. (2003) “The Discursive Construction of ‘Desirable’ Lifestyles in British Television”, paper delivered at the II Seminar on English Discourse Analysis. Valencia, November 2003. Lorenzo-Dus, N. & Bou-Franch, P. (2003) “Gender and Politeness: Spanish and British Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Appropriate Requests”, in J. Santaemilia (ed) Género, Lenguaje y Traducción. Valencia: Universitat de Valéncia/Dirección General de la Mujer, 187-199. Lörscher, W. & Schulze, R. (1988) “On Polite Speaking and Foreign Language Classroom Discourse”, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 26, 183-199. Mao, L. R. (1994) “Beyond Politeness Theory: ‘Face’ Revisited and Renewed”, Journal of Pragmatics 21, 451-486. Martel, M. (1983) Political Campaign Debates: Images, Strategies and Tactics. London: Longman. Maruenda-Bataller, S. (2002) Reformulations and Relevance Theory Pragmatics: The Case of T.V. News Interviews, Studies in English Language and Linguistics Monographs 12. Valencia: Universitat de València. Matsumoto, Y. (1989) “Politeness and Conversational Universals  Observations from Japanese”, Multilingua 8, 207-221. McCarthy, M. J. (1998) “Spoken Language and the Notion of Genre”, in M. J. McCarthy (1998) Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 26-48. McCawley, J. D. (1987) “The Multidimensionality of Pragmatics”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 723-724.
356

References

McIntosh. J. (1997) “Cognition and Power” (electronic version), paper delivered at the Society for Literature and Science Meetings. Pittsburg, October-November 1997. (available: http://cogweb.ucla.edu) Meadow, R. G. (1987) “A Speech by Any Other Name”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4, 207-210. Meier, A. J. (1995) “Passages of Politeness”, Journal of Pragmatics 24, 381-392. -----. (1997) “Teaching the Universals of Politeness”, English Language Teaching Journal 51, 21-28. Merida, K. (2000) “A Politician’s Perfect Example”, The Washington Post (October 10, 2000), C1, C8. Merino, M. C. (2000) “Enunciados Retroactivos y Pertinencia”, paper delivered at the V Encuentros de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada. Seville, March 2000. Mey, J. L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Mey, J. L. & Talbot, M. (1988) “Review Article: Computation and the Soul”, Journal of Pragmatics 12, 743-789. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods vol. 1 (1st edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, D. R. (1999) “Meaning Up for Grabs: Value-Orientation Patterns in British Parliamentary Debate on Europe”, in J. Verschueren (ed) Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference vol. 1. Antwerp, Belgium: IPrA, 386-404. Miller, P. J. (1996) “Instantiating Culture through Discourse Practices: Some Personal Reflections on Socialization and How to Study It”, in R. Jessor et al. (eds)

357

References

Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 183-204. Mills, S. (2002) “Rethinking Politeness, Impoliteness and Gender Identity” (electronic version), in L. Litosseliti & J. Sunderland (eds) Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (available: http://www.linguisticpolite ness.eclipse.co.uk/Gender%20and%20Politeness.htm) -----. (2003) Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1999) “Planned and Unplanned Speech Events”, in J. Milroy & L. Milroy (1999) Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English (3rd edition). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 140-156. Mishler, E. G. (1986) “Research Interviews as Speech Events”, in E. G. Mishler (1986) Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Moerman, M. (1990) Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Morgan, J. L. & Green, G. M. (1987) “On the Search for Relevance”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 726-727. Mullany, L. (2002) “‘I Don’t Think You Want Me to Get a Word in Edgeways Do You John?’ Re-assessing (Im)politeness, Language and Gender in Political Broadcast Interviews” (electronic version), Sheffield Hallam Working Papers 3, 1-20 (available: http://www.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/mullany.htm) Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. (1998) “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing”, Journal of Pragmatics 29, 225-256.

358

References

Narbona-Reina, B. (1998) Funciones Comunicativas de la Acentuación en las Entrevistas Televisadas en Lengua Inglesa: Visión Pragmática, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Seville, Seville. -----. (2000) “The Relevance of Stress Functions in the Development of Information and Topic”, paper delivered at the V Encuentros de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada. Seville, March 2000. Newfield, J. (2000a) “Bully Pulpit Backfired on Lazio”, New York Post (October 3, 2000), 020. Newfield, J. (2000b) “You Should Have Signed it, Hillary”, New York Post (September 14, 2000), 32. -----. (1979) “Transcription as Theory”, in E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (eds) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 43-72. Nir, R. (1988) “Electoral Rhetoric in Israel — The Televised Debates: A Study in Political Discourse”, Language Learning 38, 187-208. Norrick, N. R. (1994) “Involvement and Joking in Conversation”, Journal of Pragmatics 22, 409-430. O’Connell, D. C. et al. (1990) “Turn-Taking: A Critical Analysis of the Research Tradition”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19, 345-373. O’Driscoll, J. (1996) “About Face: A Defence and Elaboration of Universal Dualism”, Journal of Pragmatics 25, 1-32. O’Keefe, D. J. (1990) Persuasion Theory and Research. London: Sage. O’Neill, J. (1988/89) “Relevance and Pragmatic Inference”, Theoretical Linguistics 15, 241-261.

359

References

Otto, S. A. (1999) “‘Like an Animal I Was Treated’: Anti-Immigrant Metaphor in U.S. Public Discourse”, Discourse & Society 10, 191-224. Padilla-Cruz, M. (2000) “Paradigm Levelling: A Relevance Theoretic Account”, paper delivered at the V Encuentros de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada. Seville, March 2000. Penman, R. (1990) “Facework and Politeness: Multiple Goals in Courtroom Discourse”, in K. Tracy & N. Coupland (eds) Multiple Goals in Discourse. Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 15-37. Pennock-Speck, B. (2003) “‘It’s not What You Say, It’s the Way You Say It’: Voice Quality and Male and Female Stereotypes”, paper delivered at the II Seminar on English Discourse Analysis. Valencia, November 2003. Philipsen, G. (1989) “An Ethnographic Approach to Communication Studies”, in B. Dervin et al. (eds) Rethinking Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 258268. -----. (1992) Speaking Culturally: Explorations in Social Communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Pons-Bordería, S. (2002a) “Notas a Propósito de ‘Presumptive Meanings’ de S. C. Levinson”, Oralia 5, 333-348. -----. (2002b) “Relevancia y Marcadores del Discurso”, paper delivered at the I Seminar on English Discourse Analysis. Valencia, November 2002. Power, R. J. D. & Dal-Martello, F. D. (1986) “Some Criticism on Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson on Turn-Taking, Semiotica 58, 29-40.

360

References

Riley, P. (1989) “‘Well Don’t Blame Me!’: On the Interpretation of Pragmatic Errors”, in W. Oleksy (ed) Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231-249. Roberts, L. D. (1991) “Relevance as an Explanation of Communication”, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 453-472. Rojas, E. (1999) “Estrategias de Persuasión en Documentos Coloniales”, paper delivered at the University of Valencia Linguistic Circle Meetings. Valencia, October 1999. Rosaldo, M. (1973) “I Have Nothing to Hide: The Language of Ilongot Oratory”, Language in Society 2, 193-223. -----. (1982) “The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy”, Language in Society 11, 203-237. Rudanko, J. (1995) “The Bill of Rights in the Balance: The Debate of June 8, 1789”, Multilingua 14, 391-409. Ruiz-Moneva, M. A. (2001) “Cognition and Interpersonal Communication in Relevance Theory”, paper delivered at the 11th Susanne Hübner Seminar. Zaragoza, February-March 2001. Russell, B. H. (1995) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Altamira Press. Sacks, H. et al. (1978) “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation”, in J. Schenkein (ed) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. London: Academic Press, 7-55.

361

References

Saft, S. (1999) “Rethinking the Connection between Harmony and Interaction in Japanese: Back-Channels on a Political Debate Program”, in J. Verschueren (ed) Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference vol. 1. Antwerp, Belgium: IPrA, 477-491. Sai-Hua, K. (2001) “Generating Applause and Laughter: A Study of Rhetoric and Response in the 1998 Taipei Mayoral Debates”, paper delivered at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C., March 2001. Sampson, E. E. (1993) Celebrating the Other: A Dialogic Account of Human Nature. Boulder, CA: Westview Press. Sanders, R. E. (1987) “Persuasion: Constraining Individuals and Changing Social Aggregates”, in R. E. Sanders (1987) Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech: Controlling Understandings in Conversation and Persuasion. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 229-245. Sanjosé, V. et al. (2006) “A Connectionist Extension to Kintsch’s Construction Integration-Model”, Discourse Processes 42, 1-35. Schegloff, E. A. (1972) “Sequencing in Conversational Openings”, in J. Gumperz (ed) Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 346-380. -----. (1992) “On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions”, in P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101-134. Scholfield, P. (1995) Quantifying Language: A Researcher’s and Teacher’s Guide to Gathering Language Data and Reducing it to Figures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
362

References

Schulze, R. (1987) “Persuasive Strategies and Face-Work in Impromptu Speech”, in K. Sajavaara (ed) Discourse Analysis: Openings, Reports from the Department of English 9. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 21-49. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (1995) “Interpersonal Politeness and Power”, in R. Scollon & S. W. Scollon (1995) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Blackwell, 33-49. Searle, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -----. (1975) “Indirect Speech Acts”, in P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 59-82. -----. (1976) “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts”, Language in Society 5, 1-23. Seibold, D. R. et al. (1994) “Communication and Interpersonal Influence”, in M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (2nd edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 542-588. Shapiro, M. J. (1986) “Language and Politics”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 7, 74-85. Shaw, S. (2000) “Language, Gender and Floor Apportionment in Political Debates”, Discourse & Society 11, 401-418. Sheatsley, P. B. (1983) “Questionnaire Construction and Item Writing”, in P. H. Rossi et al. (eds) Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Academic Press, 195230. Sherblom, J. & Reinsch, N. L. Jr. (1981a) “Stylistic Concomitants of Persuasion in Conversations”, Communication Quarterly 29, 55-63.

363

References

-----. (1981b) “Persuasive Intent as a Determinant of Phonemic Choice”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 10, 619-628. Shotter, J. (1992) “What is a ‘Personal’ Relationship? A Rhetorical-Responsive Account of ‘Unfinished Business’”, in J. H. Harvey et al. (eds) Attributions, Accounts, and Close Relationships. New York: Springer-Verlag, 19-39. -----. (1993) Conversational Realities: Constructing Life through Language (1st edition). London: Sage. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000) “Rapport Management: A Framework for Analysis”, in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, 11-46. -----. (2002) “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations”, Journal of Pragmatics 34, 529-545. Sperber, D. (1994a) “Understanding Verbal Understanding” (electronic version), in J. Khalfa (ed) What Is Intelligence?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179-198. (available: http://dan.sperber.com/intel.htm) -----. (1994b) “The Modularity of Thought and the Epidemiology of Representations”, in L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (eds) Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 39-67. -----. (1995) “How Do We Communicate?” (electronic version), in J. Brockman & K. Matson (eds) How Things Are: A Science Toolkit for the Mind. New York: Morrow, 191-199. (available: http://dan.sperber.com/communi.htm)

364

References

-----. (1997) “Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs” (electronic version), Mind and Language 12, 67-83. (available: http://dan.sperber.com/beleifs.htm) -----. (2000) “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective”, in D. Sperber (ed) Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117-137. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition (1st edition). Oxford: Blackwell. -----. (1987) “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 697-754. -----. (1990) “Rhetoric and Relevance” (electronic version), in D. Wellbery & J. Bender (eds) The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory and Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 140-155. (available: http://dan.sperber.com/ rhetoric.htm) -----. (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell. -----. (1997) “Remarks on Relevance Theory and the Social Sciences” (electronic version), Multilingua 16, 145-151. (available: http://dan.sperber.com/relsoc.htm) Spradley, J. P. (1980) “Making Descriptive Observations”, in J. P. Spradley (1980) Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 73-111. Stewart, J. & Philipsen, G. (1984) “Communication as Situated Accomplishment: The Cases of Hermeneutics and Ethnography”, in B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (eds)

365

References

Progress in Communication Sciences vol. V. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 177-217. Sun-Song, N. (1998) “Metaphor and Metonymy”, in R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds) Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87-104. Swerdlow, J. L. (1987a) “The Strange-and Sometimes Surprising-History of Presidential Debates in America”, in J. L. Swerdlow (ed) Presidential Debates 1988 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: League of Women Voters Education Fund, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 3-16. -----. (ed) (1987b) Presidential Debates 1988 and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: League of Women Voters Education Fund, Congressional Quarterly Inc. Tannen, D. (1987) “Remarks on Discourse and Power”, in L. Kedar (ed) Power through Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 3-10. -----. (1993) “What’s in a Frame?: Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations”, in D. Tannen (ed) Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 14-56. Tannen, D. & Wallat, C. (1993) “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination/Interview”, in D. Tannen (ed) Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 57-76. Thomas, J. A. (1983) “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure”, Applied Linguistics 4, 91112. -----. (1985) “The Language of Power: Towards a Dynamic Pragmatics”, Journal of Pragmatics 9, 765-783.

366

References

-----. (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Todorov, T. (1995) Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle (6th edition, W. Godzich, trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (original work published in 1981) Torreblanca-López, M. M. (1998) “El Poder”, in M. M. Torreblanca-López (1998) El Énfasis y la Mitigación: Recursos Afectivos en el Discurso del Profesor de Inglés como L2, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Seville, Seville, 29-52. Torreblanca-López, M. M. & Garcés-Conejos, P. (1996) “La Clase de Inglés como L2: Discurso Interactivo o Informativo? Una Aproximación desde la Teoría de la Cortesía Lingüística”, Babel-Afial 3-4-5, 123-143. Tracy, K. (1991) “Discourse”, in B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (eds) Studying Interpersonal Interaction. New York: The Guilford Press, 179-196. Tracy, K. & Tracy, S. J. (1998) “Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing Face and Face Attack”, Human Communication Research 25, 225-251. Turnbull, W. & Saxton, K. L. (1997) “Modal Expressions as Facework in Refusals to Comply with Requests: ‘I Think I Should Say ‘No’ Right Now’”, Journal of Pragmatics 27, 145-181. Turner, K. (1996) “The Principal Principles of Pragmatic Inference: Politeness”, Language Teaching 29, 1-13. Vancil, D. L. & Pendell, S. D. (1984) “Winning Presidential Debates: An Analysis of Criteria Influencing Audience Response”, The Western Journal of Speech Communication 48, 62-74.
367

References

Van Dijk, T. A. (1989) “Structures of Discourse and Structures of Power”, in J. Anderson (ed) Communication Yearbook 12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 18-59. -----. (1997) “Discourse as Interaction in Society”, in T. A. Van Dijk (ed) Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage, 1-37. -----. (2003) "Critical Discourse Analysis", paper delivered at the University of Valencia Linguistic Circle Meetings. Valencia, November 2003. -----. (2004) “Text and Context of Parliamentary Debates”, in P. Bayley (ed) CrossCultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 339-372. Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1982) “The Speech Acts of Arguing and Convincing in Externalized Discussions”, Journal of Pragmatics 6, 1-24. Verschueren, J. (1995) “The Pragmatic Perspective”, in J. Verschueren et al. (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-19. Vicente-Cruz, B. (1991) Mecanismos Semántico-Pragmáticos en el Análisis de la Metáfora. Vizcaya: Doctoral Theses Series, University of the Basque Country. -----. (1993) “En Torno a la Semántica y la Pragmática de la Metáfora: Una Revisión Crítica”, Pragmalingüística 1, 307-334. ------. (1996) “On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Metaphor: Coming Full Circle”, Language and Literature 5, 195-208. Von Drehle, D. (2000) “Informative, If Not Electrifying”, The Washington Post (October 6, 2000), A1, A20. Voss, J. F. et al. (1992) “Experts at Debate: The Use of Metaphor in the U.S. Senate Debate on the Gulf Crisis”, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 7, 197-214.

368

References

Walker, R. C. S. (1989) “Multiple Review of Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (1st edition). Oxford: Blackwell, 1986”, Mind & Language 4, 151-159. Walsh, E. & Edsall, T. B. (2000) “Cheney and Lieberman Go Positive in Debate”, The Washington Post (October 6, 2000), A1, A20. Walton, D. N. (1993) “The Speech Act of Presumption”, Pragmatics and Cognition 1, 125-148. Watts, R. J. (1989) “Relevance and Relational Work: Linguistic Politeness as Politic Behavior”, Multilingua 8, 131-166. -----. (1997) “Relevance Theory and Verbal Interruptions: Assessing Discourse Status”, Multilingua 16, 153-186. -----. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wayne, S. J. (2000) Presidential Electoral Politics (code: Government 242), course offered in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., August-December 2000. Werkhofer, K. T. (1992) “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution and the Power of Politeness”, in R. J. Watts et al. (eds) Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 155199. Werner, H. (1989) “Credibility and Political Language”, in R. Wodak (ed) Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115-135.

369

References

Wierzbicka, A. (1985) “A Semantic Metalanguage for Crosscultural Comparison of Speech Acts and Speech Genres”, Language in Society 14, 491-514. Wilks, Y. (1987) “Relevance Must Be to Someone”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 735-736. Wilson, D. (1993) “Relevance and Understanding”, Pragmalingüística 1, 335-366. -----. (1999) “Metarepresentations in Linguistic Communication”, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 127-161. -----. (2000a) “Relevance and the Acquisition of Pragmatics”, paper delivered at the V Encuentros de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada. Seville, March 2000. -----. (2000b) Metarepresentation and Linguistic Communication, seminar conducted in the Department of English at the University of the Basque Country, Vitoria, May 2000. Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1992) “On Verbal Irony”, Lingua 87, 53-76. -----. (1993) “Linguistic Form and Relevance” (electronic version), Lingua 90, 1-25. (available: http://dan.sperber.com/form.htm) Wilson, J. (1990) Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Winkler, C. K. & Black, C. F. (1993) “Assessing the 1992 Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates: The Public Rationale”, Argumentation and Advocacy 30, 77-87. Wood, J. & Duck, S. W. (1995) Under-Studied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track. London: Sage.

370

References

Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (1994) “The Analysis of Facework in Discourse: Review and Proposal”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13, 248277. Yus, F. (2000) “On Reaching the Intended Ironic Interpretation” (electronic version), International Journal of Communication 10, 27-78. (available: http://www. ua.es/dfing/personal/profs/yus-irony.htm) Zajdman, A. (1995) “Humorous Face-Threatening Acts: Humor as Strategy”, Journal of Pragmatics 23, 325-339. Zupnik, Y-J. (1994) “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse”, Journal of Pragmatics 21, 339-383.

371

VI. CITED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited Bibliography

CITED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burke, K. (1931/1968) Counter Statement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. New York: Double-Day. Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris. Walton, D. N. (1989) Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woolfolk-Cross, D. (1979) Word Abuse: How the Words We Use Use Us. New York: Cowards, McCann & Georgehegan.

372

VII. RESUMEN

Resumen

RESUMEN

1. Introducción Desde los orígenes de la pragmática con los llamados filósofos del lenguaje como Austin (1962), Searle (1969, 1975, 1976) y Grice (1975), cuyas obras han sido desarrolladas y cuestionadas a través del tiempo (cf. Keenan, 1976; Rosaldo, 1982; etc.), dicho campo de investigación ha evolucionado dando lugar a lo que constituye hoy en día, a saber, un amplia área científica que abarca un gran número de disciplinas y tradiciones todas con ontologías, epistemologías y metodologías diferentes o parecidas, pero unidas por un hilo común: el hecho de ser ‘pragmáticas’. Entre las distintas definiciones y descripciones que se han hecho de dicho campo (cf. Escandell-Vidal, 1993; Leech, 1983; Levinson, 1983; Mey, 1993; Thomas, 1995; etc.), consideramos que la más acertada es aquella que concibe el mismo más que como un campo, como una perspectiva siguiendo a Verschueren (1995). La concepción de la pragmática como una perspectiva permite una descripción más precisa de ésta en tanto en cuanto a que da mejor cabida a su carácter interdisciplinar y a las flexibles fronteras existentes entre las disciplinas y tradiciones que la componen. Dicha perspectiva consiste en un enfoque al estudio del lenguaje, el cual tiene en cuenta toda la complejidad cognitiva, social y cultural de su funcionamiento en la vida de los seres humanos. Esta perspectiva pragmática es la que se ha adoptado de forma general en el presente trabajo, el cual pretende explorar el fenómeno de la cortesía lingüística en el contexto de debates políticos electorales de las elecciones Norte-Americanas del año 2000.
373

Resumen

Desde la pragmática entendida como una perspectiva que tiene en cuenta las dimensiones cognitivas, sociales y culturales del lenguaje en su uso, dichas dimensiones no están por tanto reñidas como algunos autores han dado a entender, sino que constituyen aspectos complementarios del mismo fenómeno. De este modo, creemos que, a pesar de basarse en distintos postulados sobre la comunicación humana y centrarse en diferentes facetas de la misma, a saber, la social y la cognitiva respectivamente, las dos teorías pragmáticas que constituyen los fundamentos teóricos de este proyecto — por un lado la Teoría de la Cortesía de Brown y Levinson (1987) y por otro la Teoría de la Relevancia de Sperber y Wilson (1986/1995) — pueden ser utilizadas de forma conjunta para explicar le fenómeno de la cortesía lingüística en el contexto comunicativo de debates políticos de campaña. Sin embargo, ello requiere que la cortesía entendida en el presente trabajo como la manifestación lingüística de las relaciones sociales en contexto fundamentada en la cognición de los individuos, sea considerada a la vez como conocimiento interno sobre lo que es o no socialmente apropiado o inapropiado en un evento de habla determinado (Bou-Franch, 2001c, 2002a, 2002b; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2003; Bou-Franch & Maruenda-Bataller, 2001; Escandell-Vidal, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2002; Garcés-Conejos & Bou-Franch, 2004; Jary, 1998a, 1998b; Jucker, 1988; Locher, 2004; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003). Por tanto, aunque es la Teoría de la Cortesía de Brown y Levinson (1987) la que esencialmente utilizamos en esta investigación, también aplicamos la Teoría de la Relevancia únicamente a nivel teórico con el fin de ahondar en ciertas características de la cortesía en el evento de los debates políticos en términos cognitivos. A pesar de constituir un complemento cognitivo que puede contribuir a dar una visión más completa de la comunicación humana en estudios sociológicos,

374

Resumen

la Teoría de la Relevancia no ha sido generalmente invocada en dichos estudios. Es por ello que la realización de este trabajo desde las dos teorías mencionadas vislumbrando así un enfoque socio-cognitivo a la comunicación en general, y a la interacción política en particular, ha sido considerada adecuada. No obstante, el modelo de Brown y Levinson sólo se ha tomado en este proyecto como punto de partida para teorizar y explorar de forma empírica la cortesía lingüística en dichos contextos comunicativos. De este modo, el presente trabajo se inserta dentro de los estudios sobre imagen social (face) en su sentido amplio y lo que esta conlleva en relación a la comunicación (facework) en general, así como los estudios de cortesía o mitigación y descortesía o agravación en determinados tipos de discurso o contextos (cf. Bou-Franch, 2006; Brown & Gilman, 1989; Coupland et al., 1988; Culpeper, 1996, 2005; Culpeper et al., 2003; Del Saz-Rubio, 2000; Garcés-Conejos, 1991, 1995; Garcés-Conejos & SánchezMacarro, 1998; Gómez-Morón, 1998; Gregori-Signes, 2005; Penman, 1990; Torreblanca-López & Garcés-Conejos, 1996; Torreblanca-López, 1998; Tracy & Tracy, 1998; Wood & Kroger, 1994; etc.). No ha sido hasta hace poco que las investigaciones de cortesía y descortesía en distintos géneros discursivos han empezado a considerar de forma seria la importancia de los participantes en la comunicación social y lo han hecho a través de la noción de ‘comunidad de práctica’ de Wenger (1998) como miembros de grupos sociales unidos por un objetivo común (cf. Bou-Franch, 2006; Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2005; Christie, 2002; Gregori-Signes, 2005; Harris, 2001; Mills, 2003; Mullany, 2002). Por medio de esta noción estas investigaciones subrayan la influencia de los participantes en la forma y el funcionamiento de la cortesía en un contexto de habla específico como miembros de grupos sociales que desarrollan y comparten
375

Resumen

una serie de ‘prácticas’ o formas de hacer las cosas en su cumplimiento de un mismo objetivo. Sin embargo, el concepto sicológico de ‘evento de habla’ (speech event) empleado en este trabajo, aunque de forma diferente, también contempla a los participantes conversacionales, sus actividades y sus objetivos, entre otras cosas, además de ser una noción muy operativa a nivel analítico. Por tanto, consideramos que estudios de cortesía en diferentes contextos que muestran una línea más clásica en relación al estudio de dicho fenómeno lingüístico como el presente proyecto siguen siendo de gran utilidad a la hora de llevar a cabo con éxito un objetivo común a todas estas investigaciones: la búsqueda e identificación de tendencias, las cuales revelen cualidades de la cortesía lingüística en diversos géneros discursivos. De tal forma, el presente estudio pretende ser una modesta contribución a dichas investigaciones pragmáticas. Así pues, el objetivo principal de este trabajo es la búsqueda de regularidades o tendencias definitorias de la cortesía lingüística en el contexto comunicativo de debates políticos electorales. En dicha búsqueda se ha contemplado además y sobre todo la dimensión persuasiva del habla de los candidatos políticos en estos eventos, así como otros aspectos tales como la naturaleza trilógica de los discursos de los mismos y la doble cortesía que los impregna. La naturaleza trilógica de dichos discursos hace referencia a la acción simultánea de persuadir a la audiencia a la vez que se debate contra el oponente en éstos, mientras que la doble cortesía que los caracteriza se basa en las implicaciones de este hecho en términos de las imágenes sociales de ambos tipos de interlocutores, de manera que los contendientes atienden a la imagen de la audiencia al intentar persuadirla dañando indirectamente la del oponente y viceversa, dañan la imagen de este último en sus intentos de desacreditarlo
376

Resumen

atendiendo de forma implícita a la de la audiencia. Además de la naturaleza trilógica y la doble cortesía que define a los discursos de los contendientes en el debate político electoral, las reacciones de la audiencia y el tema del poder también se han tenido en cuenta. El estudio de la cortesía o la mitigación y la descortesía o la agravación en este contexto de habla es un tema de investigación al que no se le ha dedicado demasiada atención como señala la escasez de estudios sobre debates desde la perspectiva de la cortesía. Se añade a ello, el hecho de que a nuestro entender, hasta la fecha no hay ninguna investigación sobre la cortesía lingüística en estos eventos que adopte un enfoque socio-cognitivo, además de considerar el fenómeno de la persuasión en éstos a nivel teórico o analítico. Con todo, se consideró que el estudio de la cortesía lingüística en debates políticos de campaña teniendo en cuenta también el tema de la persuasión en el marco pragmático que hemos determinado para esta investigación constituía un proyecto interesante de realizar. Se suma a lo anterior, el hecho de que las investigaciones de cortesía en debates políticos que conocemos hasta ahora, no contemplan el tema de la descortesía o no examinan suficientemente el aspecto persuasivo de las intervenciones de los contendientes políticos a nivel teórico o analítico. En cuanto a otros estudios pragmáticos sobre debates, los estudios dentro del marco del análisis de la conversación no se interesan por dicho aspecto con las excepción de unos pocos que, sin embargo, no exploran como los candidatos establecen una base relacional positiva en primer lugar para alcanzar sus objetivos persuasivos. Dichos estudios tienden a enfatizar la confrontación en el discurso de los contendientes centrándose especialmente en las propiedades estructurales de los mismos y dejando de lado como consecuencia el antagonismo relacional que lo
377

Resumen

subyace. Las investigaciones de debates desde el enfoque del análisis del discurso por otro lado, sí que tratan este antagonismo relacional realzándolo no obstante sobre la buena relación que establecen los políticos con la audiencia, la cual examinan de manera superficial en consecuencia y con ello el carácter persuasivo de los mensajes de éstos salvo en el caso del autor Blas-Arroyo en su trabajo del 2000. Se suma a todo ello el hecho de que todos estos estudios no incluyen aspectos cognitivo. Con todo, a través la exploración de la cortesía o mitigación y la descortesía o agravación en el contexto comunicativo de debates políticos electorales atendiendo a su vez al fenómeno de la persuasión y demás factores mencionados anteriormente, los cuales caracterizan el habla de los candidatos, el presente proyecto intenta también contribuir de forma modesta a toda esta bibliografía. Con ello, este trabajo podría además proporcionar información que podría ser de alguna ayuda a la investigación de debates políticos en el campo de los estudios de comunicación. Desde lo que se ha podido observar, dicha investigación trata de una forma muy indirecta fenómenos de cortesía como se entiende ésta en este proyecto por medio de conceptos tales como ‘choque’ (clash), ataque y defensa persuasivos, etc., sin profundizar en dichos fenómenos. Asimismo, en muchos casos las distintas categorías que constituyen la confrontación y/o la no confrontación en esta investigación son establecidas a priori no teniendo con ello una base empírica. La investigación sobre debates en el campo de los estudios de comunicación también observa el par relacional ‘candidato-adversario’ y ‘candidato-audiencia’, y sus respectivos intercambios comunicativos por separado, de manera que dicha investigación no consigue captar la complejidad relacional e interaccional que caracteriza a los debates políticos. Finalmente estudios de
378

Resumen

debates en el mencionado campo científico tampoco parecen prestar demasiada atención a la parte cognitiva de estos eventos con algunas excepciones como es el caso de Conrad (1993). A parte de las investigaciones de debates en pragmática y estudios de la comunicación, el presente trabajo podría también ser de alguna utilidad a los estudios pragmáticos sobre discurso político en general, ya que podría arrojar algo de luz sobre el plano interpersonal del mismo y la interrelación de este con el fenómeno de la persuasión y el tema del poder. Finalmente, este proyecto podría además aportar información útil a las investigaciones sobre ciencia política en general, puesto que según Chilton (1990), los estudios de cortesía lingüística pueden llegar a solucionar los problemas teóricos y metodológicos detectados en la aplicación de perspectivas de otros campos a dichas investigaciones. En concreto, este autor aboga por la aplicación de la Teoría de la Cortesía de Brown y Levinson (1987) a estas investigaciones, dado que las nociones básicas de la misma, bajo su punto de vista, se asemejan o son prácticamente equivalentes a conceptos políticos clásicos. En base al objetivo principal de este proyecto y la relevancia de la faceta persuasiva de los discursos de los contendientes así como otros aspectos de los mismos ya mencionados, se decidió dividir el presente estudio en tres partes principales diferenciadas, a saber, los Fundamentos Teóricos, la parte de Metodología, y la parte de Resultados. Estas dos últimas partes son las que detallamos en este resumen tratando más brevemente la parte de Fundamentos Teóricos, cuyas ideas principales han ido siendo establecidas a lo largo de los párrafos anteriores.

379

Resumen

2. Fundamentos Teóricos Esta sección la componen cuatro capítulos de los cuales el primero versa sobre las dos teorías pragmáticas que constituyen la base teórica del presente trabajo: la Teoría de la Cortesía de Brown y Levinson (1987) y la Teoría de la Relevancia de Sperber y Wilson (1986/1995). En cuanto a la primera, Brown y Levinson parten de la premisa principal de que la comunicación social es inherentemente agresiva y que por ello los individuos intentan suavizar dicha agresividad en sus intercambios comunicativos con otros. Para ello utilizan una seria de estrategias conversacionales o estrategias de cortesía que se dirigen a mitigar la imagen positiva del oyente, a saber, su deseo de sentirse aprobado por otros miembros de la sociedad, o la imagen negativa del mismo, es decir, su deseo de no sentirse oprimido y tener libertad de acción. Por tanto, estos autores conciben la cortesía en términos de estas estrategias. Entre las críticas más importantes que este modelo teórico ha recibido desde que surgió destacan a) su desatención de la secuencialidad de la conversación, b) el carácter universal que sus autores le han querido dar, y c) su descripción de la cortesía como el único motivo por el cual los individuos se desvían de los principios comunicativos que estableció Grice (1975), y que estos autores identifican con un tipo de comunicación en donde lo que prima es la eficiencia comunicativa y no tanto la atención a la imagen social de los interlocutores. A pesar de que al igual que estos autores la cortesía lingüística se ha concebido en este trabajo como una serie de estrategias conversacionales sobre las que se sustentan las relaciones sociales de los participantes de un intercambio conversacional determinado, partimos, sin embargo de una concepción distinta de éstas, y consideramos la posibilidad de que dichos participantes las utilicen tanto para atender a la imagen de su interlocutor
380

Resumen

como para dañarla. Además, en el estudio de la cortesía se ha tenido en cuenta el contexto discursivo y socio-cultural de la interacción social objeto de estudio así como la dimensión cognitiva que subyace a la comunicación humana. Respecto a la segunda, Sperber y Wilson entienden la comunicación más allá de la mera codificación y descodificación de información definiéndola como la interpretación de la intención comunicativa del hablante por parte del oyente en base a un estímulo ostensivo que este produce, el cual consiste en la mayoría de los casos en un enunciado. Por tanto consideran que la comunicación humana es ostensiva e inferencial y que lo que guía la producción verbal o la comprensión es la relevancia. La noción de metarepresentación o interpretación de otra interpretación es clave pues en la visión de la comunicación que tienen estos autores, así como las tres estrategias de interpretación que distinguen, las cuales se corresponden con tres tipos diferentes de interpretadores, a saber: el interpretador ‘inocente’ (naïve), el cual cree que el hablante es competente y benevolente en la producción de su enunciado, el interpretador ‘cauto’ (cautious), el cual asume que el hablante es competente pero no necesariamente benevolente en dicha producción, y el interpretador ‘sofisticado’ (sophisticated), el cual cree que el hablante no es ni competente ni benevolente en la producción de su enunciado y que por puede que mienta. Entre las críticas más importantes que ha recibido este modelo teórico en relación a los objetivos de esta investigación destaca la desatención de éste a la dimensión social de la comunicación. En el capítulo dos, nos centramos en el fenómeno de la persuasión en el contexto de los debates políticos definiendo éste como el intento por parte de un político de cambiar el comportamiento, los sentimientos, las intenciones o el punto de vista de la audiencia a través de medios comunicativos, los cuales pueden ser
381

Resumen

lingüísticos o no lingüísticos (gestos, etc.), pero son abstractos y simbólicos. Aunque nos centramos en la intención del hablante, tenemos en cuenta las reacciones de la audiencia como parte influyente en el mismo. A nivel lingüístico de entre los elementos característicos de este fenómeno en el contexto de debates políticos destacan las estrategias de cortesía positiva. A nivel cognitivo dicho fenómeno se refleja fundamentalmente en un estilo entimemático de argumentar que consiste en hacer una serie de premisas explícitas en el discurso dejando a la audiencia la responsabilidad de inferir la conclusión. En el capítulo tres de esta parte de Fundamentos Teóricos ofrecemos una descripción de los debates políticos como discursos esencialmente persuasivos siguiendo el trabajo de Lakoff de 1981, sin descuidar su naturaleza antagónica, la cual plasmamos en su descripción como los llamados ‘juegos de suma cero’ (zero sum games) según Levinson (1992), es decir, eventos en donde la victoria de un participante implica la derrota de otro y viceversa. En base a Lakoff (1981) establecemos que los debates políticos son discursos persuasivos que se caracterizan por no ser del todo espontáneos o semi-prescritos, ser novedosos en base a un uso original del lenguaje distinto al habitual, no ser recíprocos, pues los participantes del intercambio social en cuestión no participan de la misma manera, y ser unilaterales, ya que la comunicación va sobre todo en la dirección del hablante al oyente y no al revés. Siguiendo a Levinson (1992), hemos descrito los debates políticos como eventos en donde el ataque de un candidato a otro supone la victoria del que ataca y la derrota del atacado mostrándose así el poder en el discurso como algo dinámico que los hablantes retienen de forma temporal perdiéndolo de manera inmediata cuando el oponente ataca y viceversa. En este capítulo también se revisa la bibliografía de debates en pragmática y estudios de la
382

Resumen

comunicación con las distintas conclusiones que ya hemos expuesto en la parte de Introducción de este resumen. Finalmente el capítulo cuatro de los Fundamentos Teóricos consiste en una aplicación de las dos teorías pragmáticas en las que se basa el presente estudio, de forma que por un lado, los debates políticos se describen como eventos corteses o mitigadores y descorteses o agravadores, a la vez que constituyen una serie de metarepresentaciones cognitivas sobre el discurso político, la persuasión, las relaciones sociales de los participantes en el debate, y la sociedad y la cultura Norte-Americanas. La mitigación y la agravación que define a estos encuentros comunicativos desde el punto de vista de la cortesía van dirigidas a la audiencia, el moderador, los panelistas y los interrogadores o miembros de la audiencia encargados de realizar las preguntas a los contendientes políticos (si éstos sean incluidos en el evento en cuestión) la primera, y al adversario la segunda principalmente. Ello se debe en el caso de la mitigación a la relación positiva que los candidatos quieren establecer con todos estos participantes en el debate con el fin de alcanzar la persuasión de los mismos, la cual se traduce en votos, y en el caso de la agravación a la relación de rivalidad que les une al oponente y que desean mostrar ante la audiencia. En cuanto a la descripción de los debates electorales en términos cognitivos, y en concreto, la cortesía o la manifestación lingüística de las relaciones sociales entre sus participantes, estos eventos son equivalentes a lo que se conoce como ‘marco’ (frame) o ‘esquema’ (schema) cognitivos basándose por tanto en conocimiento estructurado (structured knowledge) que se compone de una seria de metarepresentaciones o interpretaciones cognitivas sobre el plano del discurso, las relaciones sociales, y el socio-cultural en los mismos. Respecto a la cortesía, aplicando los conceptos ya
383

Resumen

expuestos de la Teoría de la Relevancia, hemos argumentado que los políticos metarepresentan o interpretan a la audiencia y al rival en sus intercambios comunicativos y que la metarepresentación de la primera puede que sea más sobresaliente en aquellas intervenciones en las que ésta constituye el oyente principal, siendo la metarepresentación del adversario más sobresaliente en aquellas intervenciones en donde éste es el receptor primario del acto comunicativo en cuestión. Por tanto, los políticos meterepresentan la relación que tienen con la audiencia además de competencia y nivel de atención cognitivos en sus discursos, de modo que interpretan dicha relación como una relación en donde hay poca distancia social entre los participantes de la misma y un poder equiparable, que, sin embargo, los candidatos tienden a incrementar en la audiencia otorgándole un poder simbólico por medio de la aparente reducción del suyo propio (Schulze, 1987). En relación a la competencia y nivel de atención cognitivos de la audiencia, hemos sugerido que se espera que los contendientes metarepresenten a ésta como un interpretador ‘cauto’, es decir, aquel que asume que el hablante es competente pero no necesariamente benevolente en la producción de su(s) enunciado(s). Nuestra sugerencia se basa en el hecho de que la metarepresentación de la audiencia como un oyente ‘inocente’ o con habilidades cognitivas básicas podría dar a entender a ésta que el político esta subestimando su inteligencia hasta el punto de sentirse insultada. Por otro lado, si el político metarepresenta a la audiencia como un oyente sofisticado o con habilidades cognitivas muy superiores, podría peligrar la comprensión de sus argumentos por aquellos miembros de la audiencia cuyas habilidades cognitivas realmente no se ajustaran a esta categoría de oyente. Por tanto, la mejor opción de un político es el término medio, es decir,
384

Resumen

la metarepresentación de la audiencia como un oyente cauto. Ello no quita que a lo largo de sus discursos los candidatos metarepresenten a la audiencia según las otras categorías de interpretadores que hemos mencionado, sino que generalmente la tendencia es a su metarepresentación como un oyente cauto. Esta categoría cognitiva de oyente está en consonancia con el oyente ideal con una capacidad media de comprensión al cual normalmente la comunicación institucional en los medios de comunicación de carácter público suele dirigirse. Por otro lado, mantenemos que los políticos tienden a metarepresentar su relación con el oponente como una relación en donde impera la mayor o menor distancia social según convenga a sus intereses persuasivos en determinados momentos de la interacción, y una diferencia de poder generalmente beneficiosa para el hablante. Además, hemos establecido que metarepresentan al rival como un oyente sofisticado, el cual no es ni competente ni benevolente en la producción de su enunciado, porque éste no se corresponde con su significado real, de forma que el hablante seguramente miente. Esto se debe a que los políticos se atribuyen los unos a los otros lo que Jaworski y Galasiński (2000b: 325) llaman ‘competencia política’, es decir un conocimiento de los distintos recursos lingüísticos y retóricos en política, y la explotación de ésta en el discurso para producir enunciados que no se corresponden con lo que el hablante realmente piensa, y que están orientados a facilitarles el alcance de sus propios fines.

3. Metodología En base al objetivo principal de este trabajo, a saber, la búsqueda de tendencias definitorias de la cortesía lingüística en el contexto comunicativo de
385

Resumen

debates políticos electorales, se han formulado las siguientes preguntas de investigación: Pregunta de Investigación 1: Cuales son las características generales de aquellas secuencias

conversacionales con una función principalmente mitigadora en el contexto de debates políticos Norte-Americanos de campaña, por ejemplo, en términos del tipo de mitigación predominante en este tipo de secuencias, elementos lingüísticos que puedan aparecer de forma habitual en las mismas, y la localización típica de éstas en el discurso que los debates políticos en sí constituyen de haber alguna? De esta pregunta principal se derivan las que a continuación se detallan: 1.1. Adoptan estas secuencias mitigadoras alguna forma específica de modo que se observe la emergencia de patrones indicativos de distintos tipos de secuencias? 2.1. En el supuesto de que sí, cuáles con dichas formas y las características de las mismas? Pregunta de Investigación 2: Cuales son las características generales de aquellas secuencias

conversacionales con una función principalmente agravadora en el contexto de debates políticos Norte-Americanos de campaña, por ejemplo, en términos del tipo de agravación predominante en este tipo de secuencias, elementos lingüísticos que puedan aparecer de forma habitual en las

386

Resumen

mismas, y la localización típica de éstas en el discurso que los debates políticos en sí constituyen de haber alguna? De esta segunda pregunta principal se derivan las que a continuación se detallan: 2.1. Adoptan estas secuencias agravadoras alguna forma específica de modo que se observe la emergencia de patrones indicativos de distintos tipos de secuencias? 2.2. En el supuesto de que sí, cuáles son dichas formas y las características de las mismas? Para poder contestar a estas preguntas de investigación las cuáles se plantean y justifican en el primer capítulo de la parte de Metodología, se procedió a la recogida de un corpus de datos lo suficientemente amplio para poder contestarlas con cierta solidez y seguridad. La recogida del corpus de datos, la cual se especifica en el segundo capítulo de dicha parte, constó de dos fases diferenciadas, a saber, la fase de España, en la cual sólo se pudieron recoger tres debates de la campaña presidencial, y la fase de Washington, en la que se recogió el resto del corpus. Esta última fase incluye un período de estudio de tres meses en la Universidad de Georgetown, el cual permitió un mayor conocimiento y familiarización con el proceso electoral que se estaba desarrollando en esos momentos, permitiendo además, entre otras cosas, la asistencia en vivo y en directo a un debate senatorial. El corpus de datos de esta investigación se compone de un total de 89 debates electorales de distintas campañas políticas, a saber, la presidencial, las senatoriales, las gubernatoriales, y las del Congreso. Dada la inmensa extensión

387

Resumen

del corpus, se decidió dividir el mismo en un ‘corpus de análisis’ (Corpus A) y un ‘corpus de referencia’ (Corpus B). El corpus de análisis se compone de 16 debates, de los cuales 10 son debates presidenciales y el vicepresidencial de las elecciones a la presidencia del país, y los 6 restantes consisten en 3 senatoriales y 3 gubernatoriales. En total todos estos debates suman 20 horas de habla que se consideraron suficientes para la obtención de respuestas firmes a nuestras preguntas de investigación. Otros tipos de datos que se recogieron incluyen recortes y artículos de diversos periódicos nacionales e internacionales entre los que destaca ‘The Washington Post’, diversos programas de televisión de índole política, anuncios de televisión o propaganda política diseñada y pagada por los distintos partidos políticos, una película sobre la vida de un político en período de campaña electoral (Primay Colors), y finalmente las respuestas de dos ciudadanos Norte-Americanos a una serie de preguntas que se les realizó en dos entrevistas. Todos estos datos se recogieron con el fin de facilitar la correcta interpretación y comprensión del contenido de los debates recogidos. Posteriormente a su recogida, se procedió a la preparación del corpus utilizando un sistema de trascripción similar al propuesto por Jefferson (Atkinson y Heritage, 1984), el cual se adaptó a las necesidades y los objetivos de la investigación. Una vez preparado el corpus, se pasó al análisis del mismo, cuya metodología se detalla en el último capítulo de esta parte de Metodología (capítulo tres). Para analizar el corpus de datos se tomaron dos unidades principales de análisis, a saber, una unidad macro constituida por la ‘secuencia pragmática’, y una unidad micro consistente en la ‘micro estrategia’. La utilización de la primera se basa en los resultados de análisis anteriores realizados sobre una pequeña muestra de los datos, que nos llevaron a preferir la noción de secuencia sobre la de
388

Resumen

‘macro-acto contra la imagen’ (MACI). Hemos concebido la secuencia pragmática como un conjunto de enunciados, los cuales constituyen un todo discursivo identificable y coherente en virtud de la función global que realiza en términos de imagen social (face). En cuanto a la micro estrategia, esta unidad de análisis se tomó del modelo de Brown y Levinson (1987) con una concepción radicalmente diferente a la de estos autores como ya se apuntaba anteriormente. Aunque el análisis de secuencias es el que nos ocupa fundamentalmente en este trabajo, en vista de la parte de las dos preguntas principales de investigación en dónde se pretendía averiguar el tipo de mitigación o agravación como una de las características de las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras respectivamente, se necesitó hacer un análisis de micro estrategias (análisis1), el cual se llevó a cabo de forma exhaustiva en una pequeña muestra de los datos consistente en dos horas y treinta minutos de habla, y de forma más impresionista o general en el resto del corpus. Dicho análisis culminó en el marco de estrategias de mitigación y agravación con orientaciones a la imagen positiva o negativa propuesto en este proyecto. Por otro lado, el análisis de secuencias (análisis2) se basó en una serie de procedimientos cualitativos y cuantitativos, de los cuales los primeros básicamente consistieron en una serie de pasos analíticos guiados por los resultados de análisis anteriores sobre una pequeña muestra del corpus. Estos pasos se relacionan sobre todo con la segmentación del discurso que los debates en sí constituyen en secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras, lo cual no fue complicado dada la tendencia natural de los políticos a dirigir sus intervenciones mitigadoras a la audiencia y sus actos comunicativos agravadores al oponente, y la clasificación de las mismas en secuencias orientadas hacia la imagen positiva del oyente o dirigidas hacia la
389

Resumen

imagen negativa del mismo. Esto último tampoco supuso demasiada dificultad, ya que se observó que una de estas dos posibles orientaciones siempre llegaba a prevalecer sobre la otra. En cuanto a la imagen del hablante, tomamos como referencia la imagen social del oyente para definir la secuencia pragmática en sus funciones esenciales de mitigación y agravación en base a que la función del habla de los políticos en relación a su propia imagen social ha sido establecida como mitigadora en la bibliografía sobre discurso político en general. No obstante, la imagen del hablante la tuvimos en cuenta a nivel cualitativo en el comentario de nuestros ejemplos dentro de la parte de Resultados de este proyecto. En dicho análisis surgieron ciertas secuencias que no reflejaban la tendencia general de la mitigación o la agravación, ya que sus principales receptores eran distintos a los esperados, es decir, el oponente en la mitigación, y la audiencia, el moderador, los panelistas y los interrogadores en la agravación, denominándose secuencias ‘anómalas’ por su condición. Además de estas secuencias, se encontró una unidad secuencial mayor que la secuencia pragmática en forma de cadenas de secuencias agravadoras, las cuales se denominaron ‘ciclos de negatividad’ (negativity cycles). Finalmente, los procedimientos cualitativos también integraron la búsqueda de elementos recurrentes en secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras, para lo que se siguió el mismo procedimiento utilizado por Edelsky y Adams (1990) en su estudio. En cuanto a los procedimientos cuantitativos, estos responden a nuestra filosofía de que las investigaciones cualitativas de la cortesía deberían complementarse con métodos cuantitativos, que ayuden a reforzar la validez de las mismas como han propugnado diversos autores en el campo, por ejemplo, Brown y Gilman (1989), Locher (2004), y Mills (2003), entre otros. Los procedimientos
390

Resumen

cuantitativos que se siguieron se reducen fundamentalmente lo que se conoce como estadística descriptiva o parca en sofisticación y estadística inferencial, la cual requiere operaciones más complicadas que en nuestro caso se tradujeron en cuatro pruebas de t realizadas sobre los elementos lingüísticos que aparecieron como recurrentes en las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras en el análisis cualitativo, a saber, verbos modales en las primeras, y términos deícticos en las segundas. La cuantificación de micro estrategias no se llevó a cabo dado nuestro interés principal por las secuencias, y el gran esfuerzo que ello hubiera supuesto. Por tanto, sólo se realizó un cómputo global de secuencias en sus distintas variedades secuenciales. En lo que respecta a las pruebas de t, éstas se llevaron a cabo frente a cualquier otra operación estadística, porque dichas pruebas permitían comparar la presencia de un determinado elemento, valor o característica en dos poblaciones distintas de individuos, animales, seres vivos en general o categorías. Se obtuvo una medida de centralización o ‘tendencia central’ calculando la media de ambos tipos de elementos lingüísticos en las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras, así como una medida de dispersión estimando la desviación estándar de éstos en ambos tipos de secuencias. Se calculó a continuación el valor de t junto con los grados de libertad y el valor de la significación para éste por medio del programa de ordenador SPSS 12.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Para que las relaciones entre un determinado tipo de elemento y las secuencias mitigadoras o agravadoras se consideraran significativas, dicho valor de significación debía resultar mayor o igual a un 5% (p ≤ 0.05), que es el valor aceptado por la comunidad científica para considerar que las relaciones entre distintos elementos son significativas, ya que sólo un 5% de los casos ocurre debido a la casualidad, cumpliéndose por tanto en
391

Resumen

el 95% de éstos. Para la parte de las preguntas principales de investigación que trataba sobre la localización de secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras en el discurso que los debates en sí constituyen, se dividieron los debates en tres partes diferenciadas siguiendo las investigaciones sobre debates en relación a este punto, a saber, introducción, centro y conclusión. Se sumaron entonces las frecuencias de las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras en todas sus variedades en estas tres partes de los debates, y se calcularon los porcentajes de éstas sobre el total de secuencias en cada parte para poder ver claramente su distribución.

4. Resultados La parte de Resultados de este proyecto consta de cuatro capítulos en los que se detallan y comentan los resultados de la investigación a nivel cualitativo y cuantitativo apoyando éstos con ejemplos ilustrativos del corpus. El primer capítulo de esta parte ofrece una visión global de lo encontrado en el análisis cualitativo y cuantitativo de los datos, y por tanto de la mitigación y la agravación en los 16 debates objeto de estudio. Así pues en éste se establece que de entre la mitigación y la agravación en el corpus, la primera resultó ser con diferencia más abundante que la segunda, ya que se encontraron 1581 unidades mitigadoras correspondientes a un porcentaje del 75,9% en comparación con 503 unidades agravadoras, cuyo porcentaje ascendía a un 24,1%, de un total de 2084 secuencias en el corpus. Considerando la conexión entre la mitigación y la persuasión encontrada en análisis realizados en el pasado sobre una parte de los datos, estos resultados no sólo confirman esta conexión en base a que la mayoría de secuencias mitigadoras se dirigían a la audiencia, sino que apoyan una de las hipótesis

392

Resumen

centrales del presente estudio ya comentada arriba, a saber, que los debates políticos electorales son sobre todo discursos persuasivos además de ser situaciones comunicativas hostiles, haciendo así pues patente la importancia de la dimensión persuasiva de éstos, a la cual la bibliografía sobre debates no le ha prestado la atención debida. Se observó que tanto la mitigación como la agravación adoptaban a veces la forma de secuencias cinésicas, es decir, de índole no verbal basadas en gestos o lenguaje corporal únicamente, o insertadas en otra secuencia mayor. Y en cuanto a las secuencias anómalas, se encontraron 140 unidades en la mitigación correspondientes a un 6,7%, y 17 unidades en la agravación correspondientes a un 0,9%. Las distintas variedades de mitigación y agravación que surgieron en el corpus se refieren a la mitigación pura y la mitigación no pura ambas en sus dos orientaciones hacia la imagen positiva o negativa del oyente, y la agravación pura y la agravación no pura también en estas dos orientaciones. Las variedades de mitigación y agravación no pura se denominaron así porque se observó que contenían descortesía secundaria o indirecta la primera, y cortesía secundaria o indirecta la segunda. En un principio se pensó que tal descortesía o agravación y cortesía o mitigación constituían secuencias mitigadoras por un lado, y secuencias agravadoras por otro. Sin embargo, se vio que ninguna cumplía con los criterios definitorios de la secuencia pragmática para ser consideradas como unidades secuenciales en sí mismas. Se decidió denominarlas descortesía y cortesía secundarias, porque se observó que no alteraban la función global primaria mitigadora y agravadora de la secuencia de la que formaban parte respectivamente. Sin embargo, tampoco dejaban dicha secuencia indiferente, ya que en el caso de la descortesía secundaria, ésta reforzaba la fuerza mitigadora de la secuencia
393

Resumen

mitigadora en la que se insertaba, mientras que la cortesía secundaria contribuía a suavizar la fuerza agravadora de la secuencia agravadora en donde aparecía. La existencia de todas estas variedades de mitigación y agravación refleja, y por tanto apoya, nuestra concepción de la cortesía como una escala de comportamientos y actitudes cuyos extremos están constituidos por las variedades puras de mitigación y agravación con las variedades no puras de ambas emergiendo en el centro de la misma. Se observó que las variedades de mitigación y agravación no puras captaban de forma clara la antigua categoría de ‘el desacuerdo mitigado’, que fue reformulada a posteriori para dar lugar a la categoría del ‘macro acto contra la imagen mitad mitigador/mitad agravador’. De entre todas las variedades de mitigación y agravación presentes en los datos, la mitigación no pura con orientación hacia la imagen positiva del oyente resultó ser la más común de todas constituyendo por tanto la mejor expresión de la persuasión en el contexto de los debates políticos de campaña. Además de ello, resultó también ser el mejor ejemplo de la condición trilógica de las intervenciones de los contendientes, ya que su cantidad era notablemente superior a la de la agravación no pura en sus dos orientaciones hacia la imagen positiva y negativa del destinatario. De las variedades secuenciales constituyentes de la agravación, la agravación pura con orientación a la imagen negativa del oyente apareció como la más abundante, siendo por tanto el mejor ejemplo de la relación antagónica existente entre los candidatos políticos, así como la mejor ilustración de la esencia hostil del debate político electoral. El segundo capítulo de la parte de Resultados ofrece una respuesta a las dos preguntas principales de investigación formuladas en este proyecto, de modo que las secciones que lo integran se refieren por tanto al tipo de mitigación y
394

Resumen

agravación típico de las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras respectivamente, a los elementos lingüísticos recurrentes en cada una de estas variedades secuenciales, y a la localización o situación típica de estas secuencias a lo largo del discurso que los debates en sí constituyen. En relación al tipo de mitigación y agravación que surgió como típico en la mitigación por un lado, y la agravación por otro, se observó que la cortesía positiva era la que predominaba en las secuencias mitigadoras basándose sobre todo en las micro estrategias de ‘presupone/establece/afirma algo en común con el oyente’, ‘afirma/presupone tu conocimiento y preocupación por las necesidades y deseos del oyente’, y ‘ofrece y promete’, las cuales aparecieron como las más usuales. Se vio que la primera de estas estrategias, a saber, ‘presupone/establece/afirma algo en común con el oyente’, constituía una estrategia crucial a la hora de la construcción de una relación positiva con la audiencia como el primer paso necesario para poder conseguir la persuasión de la misma. Esta estrategia permitía a los candidatos formular una serie de opiniones en sus discursos presentándolas como compartidas por la audiencia y verdaderas, de modo que a) creaban así un espacio cognitivo controlado desde el que manipular de alguna manera la interpretación de la audiencia presentado información nueva como información ya conocida, a la vez que b) reclamaban para sí el llamado ‘poder de experto’, o conocimiento profundo sobre algo atribuido a alguien que otros carecen (Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Tannen, 1987; Thomas, 1995), en relación al oponente. Esta estrategia generalmente aparecía bajo la forma de enunciados en los que se establecía una relación de identidad entre personas, cosas y/o eventos como ‘Esto es A’, ‘El problema es C’, ‘Lo más importante es X’, etc. Estos enunciados se asemejan a la llamada estrategia de ‘recapitulación’ característica de la oratoria política.

395

Resumen

Las estrategias de ‘afirma/presupone tu conocimiento y preocupación por las necesidades y deseos del oyente’, y ‘ofrece y promete’ permitían a los contendientes del debate erigirse como representantes o sirvientes de la audiencia otorgándole a ésta un poder simbólico por medio de la aparente reducción del suyo propio. Respecto a la primera de estas estrategias, algunos políticos la ponían en práctica sirviéndose de cuidadnos Americanos que formaban parte de su campaña, a los cuales traían a los debates con el fin de ofrecer un ejemplo vivo de las necesidades y deseos de la audiencia, y resaltar su conocimiento y preocupación por dichas necesidades y deseos. En cuanto a la forma de estas estrategias, únicamente la estrategia ‘ofrece y promete’ resultó aparecer normalmente bajo una forma determinada consistente en enunciados en donde aparecía los auxiliares ingleses de futuro y condicional ‘will’ y ‘would’. En conjunto, todas estas estrategias estaban orientadas a la creación de solidaridad con la audiencia atendiendo a su vez de forma indirecta a la imagen positiva del hablante. Estas estrategias regularmente se solapaban o combinaban entre sí y otras estrategias de cortesía. Por el contrario, el tipo de agravación que se encontró como típico de las secuencias agravadoras fue la descortesía negativa, la cual apareció sobre todo a través de las micro estrategias agravadoras ‘incrementa la imposición sobre el oyente’, ‘alude a derechos, deberes y reglas no respetados o cumplidos’ y ‘desafía a tu interlocutor’. La estrategia ‘incrementa la imposición sobre el oyente’ emergió como la más frecuente permitiendo a los políticos ejercer una gran acción coercitiva sobre el adversario presionándole a actuar de una determinada manera, infligiendo en éste una visión específica del mundo, o invadiendo su espacio de una forma literal o metafórica. Se observó que esta se estrategia no adoptaba
396

Resumen

ninguna forma en especial. Las estrategias ‘alude a derechos, deberes y reglas no respetados o cumplidos’ y ‘desafía a tu interlocutor’ eran empleadas por los candidatos para atribuir al rival acciones y/o palabras negativas expresando a su vez una actitud de reproche hacia éste en la primera, y exigirle que probara sus afirmaciones implicando su incapacidad de hacerlo y expresando el desacuerdo con él/ella en la segunda. De estas dos últimas estrategias sólo la estrategia ‘desafía a tu interlocutor’ mostró a nivel formal algunas de las características establecidas para los desafíos en la bibliografía sobre desacuerdos tales como la aparición de marcadores como ‘well’ al principio de la misma, o de las típicas partículas de interrogación en inglés ‘when’, what’, ‘who’, ‘why’, y ‘how’. En resumen, todas estas estrategias eran usadas por los políticos para cuartear la autonomía y libertad del adversario, y tendían a aparecer superpuestas y/o en combinación entre sí y otras estrategias agravadoras. La doble cortesía que impregna el discurso de los candidatos en los debates políticos se hizo patente en todas estas estrategias mitigadoras y agravadoras, ya que el efecto positivo que las estrategias de cortesía positiva mencionadas producían sobre la imagen del hablante a su vez implicaba un efecto negativo en relación a la imagen del otro contendiente en virtud de la naturaleza antagónica de estos eventos. De la misma manera, el efecto dañino que producían las estrategias de descortesía negativa mencionadas sobre la imagen del adversario generaba a su vez y de forma indirecta un efecto positivo sobre la imagen del propio hablante. Todas estas estrategias también mostraron una orientación dual o doble, de modo que las estrategias de cortesía positiva en algunos casos se orientaban a su vez hacia la imagen negativa del destinatario, y las estrategias de descortesía negativa en algunas ocasiones se orientaban simultáneamente hacia la imagen positiva de
397

Resumen

éste. Con todo, se observó que la dualidad de orientación hacia la imagen social del receptor era más común en estrategias de cortesía o descortesía negativa que de estrategias de cortesía o descortesía positiva. Estas observaciones no sólo apoyan lo encontrado en cuanto a estas estrategias en la bibliografía, sino que además revelan la tendencia de los candidatos en los debates electorales a moverse de lo específico a lo general a nivel de micro estrategias en base a la esencia concreta y ligada al acto comunicativo en cuestión de la imagen negativa, y la naturaleza más amplia de la imagen positiva. En cuanto a elementos lingüísticos recurrentes en secuencias mitigadoras o agravadoras, como ya se comentaba en párrafos anteriores, se observó en el análisis cualitativo de los datos que dos tipos de elementos en concreto solían aparecer habitualmente en estos dos tipos de secuencias, a saber, verbos modales en las primeras, y términos deícticos en las segundas. Para probar que nuestras observaciones a nivel cualitativo eran acertadas, y que estos elementos lingüísticos aparecían de forma regular en estas secuencias, y ello no era debido a la casualidad, se realizaron dos pruebas de t, una para verbos modales, y otra para términos deícticos. Los resultados obtenidos en la prueba estadística llevada a cabo para verbos modales apoyaron nuestras observaciones iniciales de que estos elementos tenían una relación más estrecha o fuerte con las secuencias mitigadoras que con las agravadoras y que ésta no era producto de la casualidad resultando ser significativa en un 100% de los casos. Por tanto, estos resultados indicaban algún tipo de conexión entre dichos elementos y el fenómeno de la persuasión en base a la relación de éste con la mitigación, como ya hemos apuntado varias veces a lo largo de este resumen, confirmándose así lo encontrado en ciertos estudios de modales en la conversación cotidiana y la comunicación epistolar.
398

Resumen

Los 8 modales distintos que se sometieron a la prueba estadística, es decir, ‘have (got) to’, ‘must’, ‘would’, ‘should’, ‘ought to’, ‘be able to’, ‘can/could’, y ‘may/might’ en todas sus manifestaciones, dado que eran los que abundaban en los datos, se observó que surgían sobre todo en su significado deóntico-causal a diferencia de su significado epistémico. La modalidad deóntico-causal hace referencia a un mundo potencial y deseable basado en leyes sociales y naturales o psicológicas relativas a las acciones de individuos moralmente responsables, y sus disposiciones o habilidades causales junto con las de estados o entidades particulares que llevan a actuar. Por otro lado la modalidad epistémica hace referencia a un mundo potencial basado en leyes de raciocinio y las creencias de los hablantes según éstas. De entre todos estos verbos modales, los candidatos de los debates analizados mostraron su preferencia normalmente en sus

intervenciones mitigadoras por el uso del modal de posibilidad ‘can/could’, el modal de probabilidad ‘would’, y el modal de necesidad ‘have (got) to’ en sus descripciones de sus propuestas políticas como muy posibles en primer lugar, muy probables a la hora de su implementación, y muy necesarias para la audiencia y la sociedad en general. En cambio, los resultados obtenidos en la prueba estadística realizada para términos deícticos no apoyaron nuestras observaciones iniciales de que estos elementos tenían una relación más estrecha o fuerte con las secuencias agravadoras que con las mitigadoras, y por tanto su aparición en uno u otro tipo de secuencia era debida a la casualidad. Para confirmar estos resultados en relación a los dos tipos de términos deícticos principales que se distinguieron en el análisis, a saber, ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo común’ (common ground claimers) y ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo no común’ (common ground disclaimers), y así ver si alguna
399

Resumen

diferencia surgía respecto a éstos y si ésta era significativa, se llevaron a cabo dos pruebas de t adicionales, una para cada una de estas categorías de deícticos en la mitigación y la agravación. Los primeros comprenden aquellos deícticos que implican cercanía con el destinatario, por ejemplo, los nombres propios, mientras que los segundos sugieren distancia del mismo, por ejemplo, los llamados honoríficos en inglés. Los resultados de ambas pruebas estadísticas fueron positivos para los ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo común’ apoyando así nuestra sospecha original de que los términos deícticos tenían una relación más estrecha o fuerte con las secuencias agravadoras que con las mitigadoras, y que ésta no era producto de la casualidad (la presencia de estos términos en la agravación se cumplía en el 98% de los casos), pero resultaron ser negativos para los ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo no común’, los cuales tenían lugar indistintamente en las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras siendo su presencia en las mismas producto de la casualidad. En conclusión, los términos deícticos en su globalidad constituyen recursos lingüísticos que los políticos emplean aleatoriamente en la mitigación con la audiencia y en la agravación con el oponente en los debates electorales. Los candidatos usan ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo común’ generalmente en secuencias agravadoras para expresar cercanía con el rival y transmitir igualdad de poder entre ambos con el fin de legitimar todavía más sus ataques contra éste, atendiendo así a su propia imagen. Sin embargo, utilizan ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo no común’ en secuencias bien mitigadoras o agravadoras regularmente para expresar distancia respecto al oponente y denotar desigualdad de poder por razones estratégicas relacionadas con a) la presentación de una imagen positiva ante el público que es acorde con el comportamiento políticamente correcto que se espera
400

Resumen

de los políticos en estos eventos comunicativos, y/o b) la asociación del adversario con asuntos negativos como un gobierno o partido político decepcionante entre otros. A pesar de esto, se observó que ambos, ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo común’ y ‘deícticos de llamamiento a lo no común’, se situaban por lo general justo antes del ataque inmediato del hablante contra el rival o en su inicio en secuencias agravadoras a modo de recursos de preparación de dicho ataque por medio de los cuales el hablante pretendía llamar la atención de la audiencia sobre sí mismo para reforzar así dicho ataque. Como ya se apuntaba en los párrafos anteriores, para averiguar la localización o situación de las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras en el discurso que los debates en sí constituyen, éstos se dividieron en tres partes fundamentales siguiendo a las investigaciones de debates en este punto, a saber, la introducción, la parte central, y la conclusión. La introducción incluye las palabras del anunciante (si éste aparece), la intervención inicial del moderador, y los turnos de apertura de los candidatos al principio del debate. La parte central comienza con la primera pregunta formulada por el moderador, un panelista o un interrogador a cualquiera de los políticos, y la conclusión se compone de la última intervención del moderador junto con los turnos de cierre de los contendientes y/o cualquier otro tipo de intercambio conversacional de los mismos. El cómputo general de las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras en cada una de estas partes corroboró cuantitativamente lo encontrado a nivel cualitativo en los diferentes estudios de debates que tratan la localización de la agravación o la mitigación en estos eventos de habla. Además, dicho cómputo ayudó a determinar qué variedades constitutivas de la mitigación y la agravación abundaban en estas partes distintas de los debates. Dado que la mayoría de las secuencias se concentra en la parte central de cualquier
401

Resumen

debate dando lugar a la mayor cantidad de secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras ahí, se decidió calcular los porcentajes de estas secuencias sobre el total de unidades secuenciales en cada una de las tres partes mencionadas para así percibir mejor la distribución de las secuencias mitigadoras y agravadoras en las mismas. Los resultados mostraron que la mitigación era especialmente predominante en la introducción y conclusión de los debates frente a la agravación con una frecuencia del 89,6% sobre una del 10,3% correspondiente a esta última en la introducción, y una frecuencia del 97,1% frente a una del 2,9% respectivamente en la conclusión. Aunque la mitigación también prevalecía en la parte central de los debates con una frecuencia del 74,8%, se observó que la agravación tenía un mayor protagonismo en esta parte respecto a las otras con una frecuencia del 25,2%. Estos resultados demuestran la preferencia de los políticos por la mitigación en la introducción, la parte central, y la conclusión de los debates en general atestiguando así las declaraciones de muchos investigadores de debates afirmando que los ataques contra el rival tienen lugar primordialmente en el cuerpo de un debate político, mientras que la agresión tiende a estar ausente en las fases periféricas del mismo. La supremacía de la mitigación particularmente en la introducción y la conclusión de los debates, se debe a la función social que cada una de estas partes desempeña en la misma línea que las secciones de apertura y cierre en otros contextos comunicativos, es decir, el establecimiento de las relaciones sociales entre los interlocutores por un lado, lo cual, en el caso de la audiencia es crucial para alcanzar su persuasión, y la finalización de la interacción de la manera más cordial posible por otro lado, lo cual está encauzado a la presentación de una imagen positiva del hablante modelada por su atención a las necesidades y deseos de la audiencia. La mayor proporción de agravación en la
402

Resumen

parte central de los debates y su coexistencia con la mitigación ahí es una consecuencia de las funciones principales argumentativa y persuasiva de dicha parte en estos eventos. A pesar de la inclinación de los candidatos hacia la mitigación en estas tres partes de los debates, se vio que éstos utilizaban casi con la misma regularidad la variedad de la mitigación no pura en su orientación hacia la imagen positiva del receptor en la conclusión. Los constantes intentos de los políticos por ser claramente diferenciados del oponente al atender a su propia imagen en esta parte podrían justificar este hecho. Finalmente, la posibilidad original de que otros resultados distintos a los obtenidos tuvieran lugar en la introducción y la conclusión de los debates debido a la influencia del combate y el entretenimiento promovido por la televisión, desapareció en vista de los números y porcentajes para la mitigación y la agravación en dichas secciones. No obstante, la influencia del medio televisivo a nivel cualitativo aquí parece innegable dada la naturaleza mediática de estos eventos. Por lo que respecta a las preguntas de investigación de índole menor, a saber, aquellas que pretenden indagar sobre las formas de la mitigación y la agravación y sus características, los resultados del análisis cualitativo y cuantitativo de las secuencias mitigadoras en el corpus, advirtieron de la preponderancia de la variedad de la mitigación no pura en su orientación a la imagen positiva del destinatario con un total de 549 unidades correspondientes a un porcentaje del 34,7% descontando las unidades anómalas, las cuales no eran realmente fieles a la realidad de la mitigación en los debates políticos, que se dirige esencialmente a la audiencia en su función típica de intentar persuadirla. A esta variedad la seguía por orden de abundancia las secuencias mitigadoras puras en su orientación a la imagen positiva del oyente con un total de 446 unidades
403

Resumen

(29,5%), las secuencias mitigadoras puras en su orientación a la imagen negativa del receptor mostrando un total de 227 unidades (17,4%), y por último las secuencias mitigadoras no puras orientadas a la imagen negativa del oyente con un total de 149 incidencias (9,5%). Por tanto, la variedad de la mitigación no pura en su orientación a la imagen positiva del destinatario resultó ilustrar la forma característica de la mitigación en los debates electorales como ya se mencionaba en los párrafos anteriores, y con ello la mejor expresión de la persuasión en estos contextos. Estos resultados apoyan lo establecido por estudios sobre persuasión y cortesía en general, y comunicación política en particular, los cuales determinan que la persuasión y su efectividad yacen en la combinación de estrategias de mitigación y agravación, y que la orientación hacia la imagen positiva del oyente y/o hablante caracteriza a este fenómeno. Se suma a ello el hecho de que por ser la variedad no pura más abundante, las secuencias mitigadoras no puras orientadas hacia la imagen positiva a su vez ejemplifican la condición trilógica de los actos comunicativos de los contendientes, que como ya habíamos apuntado, consiste fundamentalmente en la presencia de destinatarios primarios y secundarios en el discurso. Pudimos observar que dichas secuencias comprendían intercambios monologales, es decir, intervenciones semejantes a los monólogos que normalmente componen los discursos retóricos, en los cuales los candidatos apelaban principalmente a la razón de la audiencia (logos), con apelaciones a sus emociones (pathos) o a la imagen del propio hablante (ethos) más sobresalientes en la descortesía secundaria de las mismas. Las apelaciones a la razón de la audiencia se materializaban en y a través de distintos tipos de lo que se conoce como ‘evidencia’ en argumentación, por ejemplo, referencias a fuentes de
404

Resumen

autoridad, las cuales eran empleadas por los políticos para reforzar la viabilidad de sus propuestas en estas secuencias con el fin de conseguir la persuasión de la audiencia. Estas apelaciones también incluían valores y premisas culturales, que a nivel cognitivo constituyen metarepresentaciones de gran poder persuasivo como han subrayado algunos autores. Las apelaciones a las emociones en el componente de descortesía secundaria de estas secuencias habitualmente aparecían en forma de denuncias de una situación social presente, la cual era adscrita al oponente y/o su partido. Dichas denuncias se combinaban a veces con actos de atención exaltada a la imagen la audiencia (face enhancing acts). Las apelaciones a la imagen del hablante en este componente se manifestaban esencialmente por medio de la dialéctica ‘nosotros/ellos’ típica del discurso político con el polo ‘nosotros’ resaltado sobre el polo ‘ellos’. En consecuencia, la descortesía secundaria de estas secuencias contribuía a enfatizar la fuerza mitigadora de las mismas. Dicha descortesía o agravación secundaria iba destinada a veces al moderador, a los panelistas o a los interrogadores permitiendo al hablante expresar su desacuerdo con las premisas o afirmaciones que estos interlocutores establecían en sus preguntas, así como manipular o cambiar el tema de la conversación. En ocasiones esta descortesía secundaria se dirigía a la audiencia o al hablante mismo por razones retóricas relacionadas con la imagen de éste último y sus propuestas. En general, estas secuencias atendían a la imagen positiva de la audiencia e implícitamente a la del hablante. Las secuencias mitigadoras no puras con orientación a la imagen negativa del oyente mostraron la misma forma que su homónimo positivo en general consistiendo sin embargo en imposiciones mitigadas de la postura del hablante sobre un asunto determinado formuladas como consejos, afirmaciones de verdad
405

Resumen

generales o absolutas, advertencias sobre una situación negativa potencial en el futuro, y amenazas dirigidas a terceros descritos como el enemigo. Una peculiaridad de estas secuencias en comparación con las de orientación a la imagen positiva del receptor es que a veces eran destinadas al rival para 1) requerir información de éste con la descortesía secundaria de las mismas orientada a un tercero, y 2) mitigar las imposiciones de las opiniones del hablante sobre el oponente aleccionándole a través de la descortesía secundaria de estas secuencias. En estas secuencias los contendientes atendían a la imagen negativa de la audiencia respetando su libertad de acción como resultado. Las secuencias de mitigación pura orientadas a la imagen positiva del destinatario comprendían principalmente intercambios monolages que esporádicamente adoptaban formas dialogales características de la conversación cotidiana cuando el hablante se dirigía a participantes conversacionales concretos tales como el moderador, un panelista o interrogador, y el adversario para bromear. En estas intervenciones monolages el hablante atendía a la imagen positiva de la audiencia apelando sobre todo a su razón y sus emociones y relegando las apelaciones a su propia imagen a un segundo puesto. Las apelaciones a las emociones de la audiencia incluían descripciones altamente metafóricas incluso bucólicas de la vida en general y la sociedad Norte-Americana frecuentemente yuxtapuestas a una situación negativa presente o pasada, y narraciones de contenido autobiográfico o con anécdotas personales. Finalmente las secuencias mitigadoras puras con orientación a la imagen negativa del oyente eran más dialogales o conversacionales que monologales y se orientaban exclusivamente al moderador, un panelista o interrogador, y al contendiente contrario en forma de disculpas, enunciados dando las gracias, peticiones de información o clarificación formuladas sólo con el

406

Resumen

moderador y un panelista o interrogador, peticiones de permiso especialmente dirigidas al moderador, correcciones cortas, y justificaciones por el

quebrantamiento de las regalas del debate. En resumen, estas secuencias atendían a la imagen negativa de estos interlocutores que en el caso del rival dicha atención se orientaba en última instancia a destacar el comportamiento políticamente correcto del hablante de modo que éste así ensalzaba su propia imagen delante de la audiencia. Las variedades que componen la agravación no eran tan extensas como las de la mitigación y consistían en descortesía ‘estratégica’ fusionada con descortesía ‘volcánica’, es decir, descortesía motivada por enfado. Al contrario que la variedad no pura con la excepción de un solo caso en el corpus, las categorías de agravación pura resultaron aparecer como secuencias cinésicas e insertadas con éstas últimas en mayor proporción que sus equivalentes en la mitigación. De entre todas las variedades secuenciales constitutivas de la agravación, las categorías puras con orientación hacia la imagen negativa del receptor emergieron como las predominantes sobre el resto con un total de 227 unidades correspondientes a un 45,2% excluyendo las secuencias anómalas, las cuales no se ajustaban verdaderamente a la realidad de la agravación en los debates políticos, la cual se dirige por norma al oponente con la función de dañar su imagen. A éstas les seguían por orden de abundancia las secuencias agravadoras puras orientadas a la imagen positiva del oyente con 164 unidades (32,6%), las secuencias no puras con orientación a la imagen negativa del destinatario con 63 unidades (12,5%), y las secuencias no puras orientadas a la imagen positiva e éste con 32 unidades (6,3%). Por tanto, la agravación pura con orientación hacia la imagen negativa del rival constituye el mejor ejemplo de la forma que adopta la descortesía en los debates
407

Resumen

electorales junto con la manera más común que tienen los candidatos de ejercer poder sobre el oponente dada la relación intrínseca entre descortesía y poder identificada en anteriores análisis de una pequeña muestra de los datos. La preferencia de los contendientes políticos por esta variedad de agravación sobre la orientada hacia la imagen positiva podría justificarse en sus intentos por no ser percibidos como demasiado hostiles por el público, y la importancia de la imagen positiva en general en estos eventos. Esto lleva a la conclusión de que los ataques a la imagen positiva son percibidos como ataques más graves o serios que los ataques a la imagen negativa en estos contextos. No obstante, el hecho de que los políticos intenten evitar demasiada agresión contra el rival se debe fundamentalmente a intereses propios asociados con la protección de su propia imagen frente a un posible efecto boomerang que sus actos comunicativos agravadores podrían ocasionar. La predilección de los políticos por la agravación pura a diferencia de la no pura se debe a que con la primera no dejan lugar a dudas sobre sus intenciones de desacreditar al adversario con el consecuente efecto positivo para su propia imagen, y la reafirmación de sus posturas respecto a las de éste. De este modo, el hablante refuerza también las de aquellos que le apoyan fortaleciendo con ello el lazo que le une a éstos. Por otro lado, un uso excesivo de la agravación no pura contra el oponente, el cual es a veces el destinatario de la cortesía secundaria de esta variedad de agravación, podría conllevar cierto reconocimiento de éste poniendo así en peligro las diferencias entre ambos que el hablante constantemente intenta hacer patentes a la vez que daría una imagen de éste último como alguien débil y no suficientemente firme en sus propuestas.

408

Resumen

Las secuencias puras orientadas a la imagen negativa del receptor surgían en forma de intervenciones monologales cortas y rara vez intercambios dialogales, por medio de los cuales los candidatos coaccionaban al oponente con a) atribuciones de ciertas acciones y/o palabras negativas a éste, las cuales revelaban de vez en cuando una actitud de reproche del hablante, b) desafíos en donde el hablante exigía una explicación al oyente sobre determinadas acciones y/o palabras positivas que este último declaraba suyas implicando que no era capaz de darla, y c) imposiciones de las opiniones del hablante sobre éste enmascaradas como simples preguntas en búsqueda de información. Estas secuencias constituían claras reclamaciones de poder primordialmente del tipo de ‘poder de experto’, el cual ya hemos definido arriba. En general, en estas secuencias los políticos restringían la libertad de acción y la autonomía del oponente. Las secuencias agravadoras puras orientadas a la imagen positiva del oyente emergían en forma de intercambios monolages cortos y a veces dialogales. En estas secuencias el hablante dañaba la reputación del adversario a través de ‘desacuerdos agravados’ (aggravated dissents) y ‘formatos de oposición’ (opposition formats), de los cuales los primeros infravaloraban la importancia de las intervenciones de éste en relación al tema que se estaba discutiendo en esos momentos, y los segundos utilizaban las mismas palabras del rival dándoles un significado totalmente opuesto en ventaja propia. Estas secuencias aparecían más infrecuentemente como actos comunicativos irónicos o sarcásticos que implicaban ataques personales altamente hostiles que los candidatos intentaban eludir. Las reclamaciones de poder de los políticos en estas secuencias se observaron en el desacuerdo que éstos expresaban con el destinatario, y sus intentos de controlar el tema de la conversación.

409

Resumen

Las secuencias de agravación pura con orientación hacia la imagen positiva y negativa del receptor en ocasiones surgían como intervenciones dialogales que daban lugar a una supra categoría más allá de la secuencia pragmática que hemos denominado ‘ciclos de negatividad’ (negativity cycles). Estos ciclos consistían básicamente en cadenas de secuencias agravadoras orientadas hacia la imagen positiva y negativa del oyente, que los contendientes intercambiaban de forma rápida y que mostraban la lucha de éstos por recursos interaccionales como la toma de turno. Respecto a la agravación no pura, las secuencias con orientación hacia la imagen negativa del destinatario tendían a aparecer como intervenciones monologales largas, las cuales incluían el mismo tipo de acciones comunicativas referidas anteriormente en relación a su homónimo puro. Por medio de estas acciones los candidatos coaccionaban al oponente y reclamaban ‘poder de experto’ sobre él/ella. Sin embargo, disminuían la fuerza de esta acción agravadora coercitiva sobre el rival en estas secuencias por medio de cortesía secundaria dirigida a la audiencia, el propio hablante o el oponente aunque éste último constituyera a su vez el destinatario principal del discurso. Aunque dicha cortesía iba esencialmente dirigida a alcanzar la persuasión de la audiencia, cuando se orientaba al propio hablante, el hablante pretendía sobre todo restaurar su imagen previamente dañada con ésta; cuando se dirigía al adversario ésta principalmente contribuía a proteger la imagen del hablante, el cual exhibía además un comportamiento políticamente correcto. Las categorías no puras orientadas hacia la imagen positiva del oyente surgían como intercambios monologales de mayor o menor longitud en donde el hablante expresaba su desacuerdo con el rival por medio de ‘desacuerdos agravados’. Dicho desacuerdo menguaba en el componente de cortesía secundaria de estas secuencias, el cual iba dirigido a la audiencia, al

410

Resumen

propio hablante y al oponente con las mismas funciones que hemos determinado para la cortesía secundaria en las secuencias agravadoras no puras orientadas a la imagen negativa del receptor. Se observó que la agravación no pura era la variedad que mejor ilustraba la dinámica de ataque/defensa o defensa/ataque típica del discurso de los políticos en los debates de campaña. Los ejemplos del corpus dieron muestras de que nuestras afirmaciones o hipótesis a nivel cognitivo no iban mal encaminadas, pues tanto en la mitigación como en la agravación, los candidatos dieron signos de metarepresentar a la audiencia como un interpretador ‘cauto’ capaz de lidiar con un nivel de inteligibilidad medio en el discurso, ya que asume que el hablante es competente pero no necesariamente benevolente en la producción de su(s) enunciado(s), y al oponente como un interpretador ‘sofisticado’, el cual piensa que el hablante no es ni competente ni benevolente en la producción de su enunciado, porque éste no se corresponde con su significado real, de forma que el hablante seguramente miente. Además de esto, los contendientes también indicaron de alguna manera en sus intervenciones su metarepresentación de la relación con la audiencia y el adversario en los términos expuestos anteriormente.

5. Conclusiones En general, los diferentes resultados obtenidos en este estudio apoyan nuestra visión de la cortesía como la manifestación lingüística de las relaciones sociales en contexto, la cual se fundamenta en la cognición de los individuos, y que se sustenta en una escala de comportamientos y actitudes cuyos extremos son por un lado la mitigación, y por el otro la agravación. De este modo, se espera que
411

Resumen

este trabajo haya aportado su modesta contribución fundamentalmente a los estudios de cortesía lingüística en diferentes contextos. Dichos resultados también corroboraron la relación entre la mitigación y la persuasión, y la agravación y el poder detectada en investigaciones pasadas sobre una muestra del corpus, así como la orientación a la imagen positiva del oyente y/o hablante que los estudios sobre persuasión y cortesía en general y en contextos políticos en particular establecen como característica de este fenómeno. Además de ello, esta investigación ha evidenciado la multifuncionalidad de secuencias de cortesía en relación a distintos interlocutores mostrando mitigación hacia algunos como son la audiencia, el moderador, los panelistas y los interrogadores, y exhibiendo agravación hacia otros: el rival. La preponderancia de la mitigación sobre la agravación en los 16 debates objeto de análisis apoyan una de las hipótesis de partida de este trabajo, a saber, que los debates políticos son esencialmente discursos persuasivos más que encuentros antagónicos u hostiles.

412

Appendix

INDEX

APPENDIX A: List of North-American Elections with Televised Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates .................................................................. APPENDIX B: Memorandum of Understanding of the 1988 Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates .......................................................................... APPENDIX C: 1. Chart of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Bald-on-Record Strategies ...................................................................................... 2. Chart of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Positive Politeness Strategies ...................................................................................... 3. Chart of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Negative Politeness Strategies ...................................................................................... 4. Chart of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Off-Record Strategies .... APPENDIX D: 1. Chart of Lachenicht’s (1980) Positive Aggravation Strategies .... 2. Chart of Lachenicht’s (1980) Negative Aggravation Strategies .. APPENDIX E: Questionnaires and Subjects’ Responses ........................................... APPENDIX F: Corpus A ...........................................................................................

415 418 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 439

413

Appendix LIST OF NORTH-AMERICAN ELECTIONS WITH TELEVISED PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES NOTE: Elections in the U.S. run every four years. D = Democrat I = Independent R = Republican PRE = Presidential Debate VPRE = Vice Presidential Debate

Election Year 1960

Candidates

Date and Location of Debates

Kennedy, John F. (D) Nixon, Richard M. (R) Kennedy, John F. Nixon, Richard M. Kennedy, John F. Nixon, Richard M. Kennedy, John F. Nixon, Richard M. 1976 Carter, Jimmy (D) Ford, Gerald (R) Carter, Jimmy Ford, Gerald Carter, Jimmy Ford, Gerald Mondale, Walter F. (D) Dole, Robert (R) 1980 Anderson, John B. (R) Reagan, Ronald (R)

(PRE) Sept. 26, Chicago, IL.

(PRE) Oct. 7,Washington, D. C.

(PRE) Oct. 13, Los Angeles, CA.

(PRE) Oct. 21, New York, NY.

(PRE) Sept. 23, Philadelphia, PA.

(PRE) Oct. 6, San Francisco, CA.

(PRE) Oct. 22, Williamsburg, VA.

(VPRE) Oct. 13, Houston, TX.

(PRE) Sept. 21, Baltimore, MD.

414

Appendix (Continued) Carter, Jimmy (D) Reagan, Ronald (R) 1984 Mondale, Walter F. (D) Reagan, Ronald (R) Mondale, Walter F. Reagan, Ronald Ferraro, Geraldine (D) Bush, George (R) 1988 Bush, George (R) Dukakis, Michael S. (D) Bush, George Dukakis, Michael S. Bentsen, Lloyd (D) Quayle, Dan (R) 1992 Bush, George (R) Clinton, Bill (D) Perot, Ross (I) Bush, George Clinton, Bill Perot, Ross Bush, George Clinton, Bill Perot, Ross Quayle, Dan (R) Gore, Al (D) Stockdale, James B. (I) 1996 (PRE) Oct. 11, St. Louis, MO. (PRE) Sept. 25, Winston-Salem, NC. (PRE) Oct. 13, Los Angeles, CA. (PRE) Oct. 7, Louisville, KY. (PRE) Oct. 28, Cleveland, OH.

(PRE) Oct. 21, Kansas City, KS.

(VPRE) Oct. 11, Philadelphia, PA.

(VPRE) Oct. 5, Omaha, NE.

(PRE) Oct. 15, Richmond, VA.

(PRE) Oct. 19, East Lansing, MI.

(VPRE) Oct. 13, Atlanta, GA.

415

Appendix (Continued) Clinton, Bill (D) Dole, Bob (R) Clinton, Bill Dole, Bob Gore, Al (D) Kemp, Jack (R) 2000 Bush, George W. (R) Gore, Al (D) Bush, George W. Gore, Al Bush, George W. Gore, Al Cheney, Dick (R) Lieberman, Joe (D) 2004 Bush, George W. (R) Kerry, John (D) (PRE) Sept. 30, Coral Gables, FL. (PRE) Oct 3, Boston, MA. (PRE) Oct. 6, Hartford, CT.

(PRE) Oct. 16, San Diego, CA.

(VPRE) Oct. 9, St. Petersburg, FL.

(PRE) Oct 11, Winston-Salem, NC.

(PRE) Oct. 17, St. Louis, MO.

(VPRE) Oct. 5, Danville, KY.

Bush, George W. Kerry, John Bush, George W. Kerry, John Cheney, Dick (R) Edwards, John (D)

(PRE) Oct. 8, St. Louis, MO.

(PRE) Oct. 13, Tempe, AZ.

(VPRE) Oct. 5, Cleveland, OH.

Main Source: Kraus (2000)

416

Appendix MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES OF THE 1988 U.S. ELECTION PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This document constitutes an agreement between Vice President Bush’s representatives and Governor Dukakis’ representatives regarding the rules that will govern any Presidential and Vice Presidential debates [sic] in 1988. 1) Number There will be two (2) Presidential debates and one (1) Vice Presidential debate. The parties further agree that they will not issue and challenge for additional debates during the broadcast of any of the three debates. 2) Dates The parties agree that the Presidential debates will be held on Sunday, September 25, 1988 and Thursday, October 13, 1988 unless there is a 7th game of the American league play-offs in which case the second Presidential debate will be held on October 14, 1988. The parties further agree that the Vice presidential debate will be held on Wednesday October 5, 1988. 3) Sponsorship The first Presidential debate and the Vice Presidential debate will be offered to the Commission on Presidential Debates for their sponsorship. The second Presidential debate will be offered to the League of Women Voters for their sponsorship. Sponsorship will be conditioned upon agreement to all provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding. In the event that either the Commission or the League does not accept the conditions of sponsorship per this agreement, representatives of the two candidates will immediately use their best efforts to obtain a mutually agreeable alternate sponsor. 4) Location The cities of Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Omaha, Nebraska; and Los Angeles, California will be the sites of the first Presidential debate, the Vice Presidential debate and the second Presidential debate respectively. 5) Times The first Presidential debate will begin at 8:00 p.m. Washington D. C. time. The Vice Presidential debate will begin at 8:00 p.m. Omaha time. The beginning time of the second Presidential debate will be either 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Los Angeles time as determined by the sponsor. 6) Format The parties agree that the following format will be in effect for both Presidential debates as well as for the Vice Presidential debate [sic]: a) Each debate will last for a total of ninety (90) minutes, including all questions, answers and closing statements subject to the provisions in 6(a) in this section.

b) The moderator will open and close the debate and will be responsible for strictly enforcing all the time the time limits. The moderator will use his best efforts to ensure that the questions asked of the candidates will be approximately equally divided between domestic and foreign policy. In addition, the moderator will identify each topic before the questions are asked by the panelists and will ensure that the agreed upon format is adhered to. If mu-

417

Appendix

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Continued) ally agreed upon by representatives of both candidates, the moderator may, if he chooses, ask the first question of each candidate. c) There will be no opening statement by either candidate. d) Each candidate will have the option to make a closing statement that will not exceed two minutes in duration. In the first Presidential debate the first closing statement will be made by President Bush and the second closing statement will be made by Gov. Dukakis. These positions will be reversed in the second Presidential debate. e) Irrespective of whether or not the debate broadcast runs beyond the planned ending time, each candidate will be entitled to make a closing statement not to exceed two minutes in duration. The sponsors will use their best efforts to ensure that the networks will carry the entire debate even if it runs past the specified ending time. The question and answer sequence will be as follows: 1) The moderator will indicate the topic, such as “arms control”. 2) A panelist will ask a question of Candidate “A”. (NOTE: The questions asked by the panelists will not exceed 45 seconds in duration). 3) Candidate “A” will have 2 minutes to respond. 4) Candidate “B” will have 1 minute to rebut. 5) The same panelist will then ask a question on the same subject of Candidate “B”. 6) Candidate “B” will have 2 minutes to respond. 7) Candidate “A” will have 1 minute to rebut. 8) The moderator will then indicate a second topic for questioning and the process will continue. The order in which the candidates are asked questions will be reversed for the Second Round and so forth throughout the debate. For example, on all odd numbered topics the first question will be directed to Candidate “A” and on all even numbered topics the first question will be directed to Candidate “B”. NOTE: A coin flip has determined that in the first Presidential debate Vice President Bush will be the Candidate “A” and Gov. Dukakis will be the Candidate “B”. In the second Presidential debate Gov. Dukakis will be Candidate “A” and President Bush will be Candidate “B”. g) A coin flip for the Vice Presidential debate will be held as soon as possible with representatives of each candidate present. The coin flip will determine which candidate will receive the first question. That same candidate will make the first closing statement. h) The order of questioning by the panelists will be determine by a draw supervised by the sponsor with representatives of each candidate in attendance. i) j) There will be no direct candidate-to-candidate questioning. It is further agreed that excerpts from the debate programs will not be used out of context and will not be used in a false or deceptive manner.

f)

k) Each candidate will determine the manner by which he prefers to be addressed by the panelists and the moderator and will communicate this to the sponsor. 7) Selection of a Moderator a) Representatives of each candidate will submit a list of one (1) to two (2) possible moderators to each other. Each side will then have the opportunity to approve or delete names from the others [sic] proposed list. When one (1) or more possible moderators on each side are agreed upon, then these two (2) or more names will be submitted to the sponsor who will then select one of these individuals to be the moderator for the first Presidential debate. If necessary, this process will be repeated until the agreed upon number

418

Appendix

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Continued) of names are submitted to the sponsor. b) This same process will be followed for the second Presidential debate. c) There will be a different moderator for each of the three debates. d) As indicated in 6 (b), the role of the moderator will be to open the program, introduce the panelists, keep time on the length of answers, identify each topic before the questions are asked and close the program. The moderator can ask the first question of each candidate if this is mutually agreed upon by representatives of the two candidates. The moderator will also use his best efforts to ensure that the questions asked of the candidates will be approximately equally divided between domestic and foreign policy. 8) Selection of Panelists a) Representatives of each candidate will submit a list of at least 6 (six) and not more than ten (10) possible panelists to each other. Each side will then have the opportunity to approve or delete names from the other’s proposed list. When two (2) or more possible panelists are agreed upon from each list, these final two (2) names on each list will be sumitted to the sponsor who will then select one from each list to be a panelist for the first Presidential debate. If necessary, this process will be repeated until the agreed upon number of names are submitted to the sponsor.

b) To select the third panelist, the sponsor will submit a list of ten (10) possible panelists to representatives of each of the candidates. These representatives will then mutually agree on two (2) or more possible panelists from the sponsor’s list. The sponsor will then pick one (1) panelist from this list and that individual added to the two (2) selections from the process indicated in the previous paragraph will constitute the three (3) panelists for the first Presidential debate. c) e) The same process will be followed for each of the three debates. All discussions, lists, or other writings between the parties regarding the inclusion or exclusion of potential moderators and/or panelists shall remain confidential between representatives of the candidates. After the debate program goes on the air the candidates will proceed simultaneously onto the stage from opposite wings per a verbal cue (to be determined) from the moderator. d) There will be different panelists for each of the three debates.

9) Staging [...] a)

b) The candidates will each stand at a separate podium for both Presidential debates as well as for the Vice Presidential debate. c) The sponsor will construct podiums identical to view for the candidates to use. These podiums will be constructed in a style mutually agreed upon by representatives of both candidates. Specifically the Vice President’s podium will measure 48 inches from the stage floor to the outside top of his podium facing the audience. Gov. Dukakis’ podium will not exceed 48 inches when measured from the stage floor to the outside top of his podium facing the audience. Neither candidate’s height will exceed 74 inches above the stage floor when the candidates are standing at their podiums. Other requirements for these podiums will be verbally transmitted to the sponsor by the representatives of the two candidates. There will be no writings or markings of any kind on the front of these podiums.

d) The microphones for each candidate will be attached to the podium. In no case will any microphone be physically attached to either candidate. e) For both Presidential debates, the Vice President will be standing at the stage right podium and Governor Dukakis will be standing at the stage left podium. For the Vice President[ial] debate, Senator Bentsen will be standing at the stage right podium and Senator Quayle will

419

Appendix

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Continued) be standing at the stage left podium. f) The candidates’ podiums will be equally canted to the center of the stage at a degree to be determined by the producer and will not be more than 10 feet apart. [...]

g) Camera placement shall be as indicated on the attached diagram unless changed by mutual agreement. h) All cameras shall be locked into place during all three debates. They can, however, tilt or rotate as needed. i) TV coverage will be limited to shots of the candidates, panelists or moderator during the question and answer period of each debate. In no case shall any television shots be taken of ay member of the audience (including candidate’s family members) from the time the first question is asked until the conclusion of the closing statements. All members of the audience shall be requested by the moderator before the debate goes on the air and by the moderator after the program goes on the air not to applaud or otherwise participate in the debate by any means other than the closing statements.

j)

k) Each camera to which a candidate will direct his answer shall be outlined with a distinctively lighted color so that each candidate can clearly determine where he should direct his remarks if desiring to do so into the camera. l) The moderator and the panelists shall be seated so as to be positioned between the candidates and the cameras to which the candidates may direct their answers. [...]

m) A green light, clearly visible to the candidates, will be on when the candidates are asked their question. It will be a constant light and not a blinking one. The time cue given to indicate 30 seconds remaining for a candidate’s answer shall be an amber light that will go on when that time remains. It will be a constant light and not a blinking one. Similarly, a red light shall go on at the same location as the green and amber lights 15 seconds before a candidate’s time has expired. It will be a constant light and not a blinking one. There shall be two sets of these lights (one for each candidate) and these lights shall be large and in each candidate’s direct line of sight to the camera to which he is giving his answer. The candidates shall not be required to look up, down or sideways to see these lights. n) Each candidate shall be permitted to have a complete production and technical briefing at the location of the debate on the day of the debate. Each candidate can have a maximum of one hour for this briefing. Production lock down will not occur for either candidate until that candidate has had his technical briefing an [sic] walk-through. o) There will be no taping allowed during the candidates’ technical briefing at the location of the debate on the date of the debate. p) All of Vice President Bush’s representatives shall vacate the debate site while Governor Dukakis has his technical briefing and vice versa. q) No press will be allowed into the auditorium where the debate will take place during the candidates [sic] production briefing. r) s) Each candidate may use his own makeup person. The candidates can take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each prefers. Neither candidate will be permitted to take any notes or other material into the debate. Neither candidate shall have any staff member in the wings nor backstage later than five minutes after the debate has begun nor sooner than five minutes before the program concludes.

t)

420

Appendix

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Continued) u) Other than security personnel not more than 2 aides will accompany each candidate to the stage before the program begins. v) There will be no cut-aways to the candidate who is not responding to a question while his opponent is answering a question nor to the candidate who is not giving his closing statement while his opponent is doing so. w) The color of the backdrop will be mutually determined. x) The set will be complemented and lit no later than 3 p.m. on the day before the debate will occur. y) There will be no tally lights lit on any of the cameras during the broadcast of the debate. 10) Ticket Distribution & Seating Arrangements a) Each candidate shall directly receive one-third of the tickets with the remaining one-third going to the debate sponsors.

b) The candidates’ families and supporters shall be given seats on the side of the auditorium from which their candidate is speaking. Each candidate shall have the first four rows for his personal use and succeeding rows will be made available for supporters of that particular candidate. c) Any press seated in the auditorium can only be accommodated in the farthest two rows of the auditorium. Two still photo pool stand’s [sic] can be positioned near either side of the TV camera stands located in the audience. (A press center with all necessary feeds will be otherwise available).

d) Tickets will be delivered by the sponsor to the Chairman of each candidate’s campaign by 12 noon on Monday, September 19 preceding the first Presidential debate unless other arrangements are made between each candidate and the Commission. Tickets for the succeeding two debates will be made available in a similar manner no later than six days before each debate. 11) Dressing Rooms/Holding Rooms a) Each candidate shall have a dressing room available of adequate size so as to permit private seclusion for that candidate and adequate space for whatever number of staff that candidate desires to have in this area. An equal number of other backstage rooms will be available for staff members of each candidate. All of these rooms can be furnished as deemed necessary by the candidate’s representatives. The number of individuals allowed in these rooms shall be self-imposed by each candidate. Backstage passes (if needed) will be issued to the candidate’s representatives as requested. The sponsor will not restrict the issuance of these passes. The rooms mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be available at least 84 hours in advance of each debate. For example, if the first debate is held at 8 p.m. on September 25 then these rooms shall be available to the candidate representatives no later than 8 a.m. on Thursday September 22. b) Each candidate shall have dressing and staff holding rooms on opposite sides of the stage from those designated for the opposing candidate. If sufficient space is not available, the sponsor will rent a trailer of agreeable size for each candidate to use as desired by representatives of the candidates. 12) Miscellaneous a) Each candidate shall be allowed to have a photographer present on stage before the program begins, in the wings during the debate as desired, and on the stage immediately upon conclusion of the debate. Photos taken by these photographers may or may not be distributed to the press as determined by each candidate.

421

Appendix

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Continued) b) Each candidate shall receive no less then 30 passes for The Press Center and more if mutually agreed upon. c) Each candidate shall be allowed to have an unlimited number of people in The Press Center upon the conclusion of the debate. The sponsor will invite from their allotment (two tickets each) an agreed upon list of office holder’s [sic] such as the U.S. Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders, the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor of the state holding the debate, that state’s congressional delegation, appropriate state legislative representatives and the Mayor and City Council members of the city holding the debate.

d) The sponsor of each debate shall be responsible for all press credentialing. e)

13) Announcement of Agreement This agreement shall not be announced publicly until signed by all parties and until a time for an announcement is mutually agreed upon. ____________________ James A. Baker, III _________ Date ____________________ Paul P. Brountas _________ Date

Adapted from Kraus (2000)

422

Urgency or desperation Formulaic entreaties (e.g., Pardon me) Metaphorical urgency and maximum efficiency Cases of non-minimization of the face threat. Channel noise and maximum efficiency S’s want to satisfy H’s face is small Doing FTA is in H’s best interest Bald-On-Record Cliché farewell formulae (e.g., Take care) Metaphorical entreaties (e.g., Send me a postcard) Task-oriented focus in interaction (e.g., Give me the nails) Acceptable rudeness (e.g., Get angry!) Comforting advice (e.g., Don’t be sad) Granting permission (e.g., Yes you may go)

423

Welcomings (e.g., welcome) Farewells (e.g., I’m staying, you go) Cases of FTA-oriented baldon record usage Offers and invitations (e.g., Come in) Imperatives addressed towards H’s reluctance to transgress on S’s positive face (e.g., Don’t worry about me)

Appendix

1. Chart of Bald-On-Record Strategies (Brown &Levinson, 1987).

1. Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) Convey ‘x’ is admirable, interesting Claim ‘common ground’ (S and H belong to the set of persons A who want ‘x’) Claim in-group membership with H point of view opinions attitudes knowledge empathy 2. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) 3. Intensify interest to H 4. Use in-group identity markers 5. Seek agreement 6. Avoid disagreement 7. Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 8. Joke Positive Politeness (Do FTA on record plus redress) Claim common

424

Indicate that S knows H’s wants and is taking them into account If H wants (H has x) then S wants (H has x) If S wants (S has x) then H wants (S has x) Claim reciprocity Fulfil H’s want (for some X)

9. Assert/presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants 10. Offer, promise

Convey that S and H are co-operators

Claim reflexivity

11. Be optimistic 12. Include both S and H in the activity 13. Give (or ask for) reasons 14. Assume or assert reciprocity 15. Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Appendix

2. Chart of Positive Politeness Strategies (Brown &Levinson, 1987).

Be direct Don’t presume/assume

Be direct clash Make minimal assumptions about H’s wants, what is relevant to H

1. Be conventionally indirect 2. Question, hedge

Be indirect Negative Politeness Do FTA x (a) on record (b) plus redress to H’s want be unimpinged upon Don’t coerce H (where x involves H doing A) Give H option not to do act Don’t assume H is able, willing to do A Assume H is not likely to do A Minimize threat Make explicit R, P, D values 3. Be pessimistic 4. Minimize imposition 5. Give deference 6. Apologize 7. Impersonalize S and H: Avoid the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ Dissociate S, H from the particular infringement Redress other wants of H’s, derivative from negative face 8. State the FTA as a general rule 9. Nominalize Appendix 10. Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H

425

Communicate S’s want to not impinge on H

3. Chart of Negative Politeness Strategies (Brown &Levinson, 1987).

Violate Relevance Maxim

motives for doing A conditions for A 2. Give association clues 3. Presuppose 1. Give hints 4. Understate 5. Overstate 6. Use tautologies 7. Use contradictions 8. Be ironic 9. Use metaphors 10. Use rhetorical questions

Invite conversational implicatures, via hints triggered by violation of Gricean Maxims

Violate Quantity Maxim

Violate Quality Maxim

426

Off Record Do FTA x, but Be indirect

Be vague or ambiguous

Violate Manner Maxim

11. Be ambiguous 12. Be vague 13. Over-generalize 14. Displace H 15. Be incomplete, use ellipsis Appendix

4. Chart of Off-Record Strategies (Brown &Levinson, 1987).

(a) Express dislike for H and for H and H’s things (b) Use non valid imperatives Convey that H is not liked (c) Offend H’s sensibilities and beliefs (d) Wish H ill Deny ‘common ground’ (e) Use sarcasm (f) Use negative politeness Deny in-group membership opinions Positive Aggravation: Do FTA on record, positive face (S does not want what H wants) (g) Deny in-group status (h) Disclaim common opinions (i) Ignore H and interrupt H’s speech Show you are not taking H’s wants into account Convey that S and H are not co-operators Deny reflexivity (f) Use negative politeness Deny H’s wants (l) Refuse Appendix (j) Show disinterest in H’s projects (k) Don’t give or ask reasons

427

1. Chart of Positive Aggravation Strategies (Lachenicht, 1980).

Be indirect

(a) Be indirect (b) Use speech of powerful persons Stress and increase S’s power (c) Refer to S’s status/power (d) Question (e) Insist on H being humble

Communicate ability And want to coerce H

(f) Tease and bait (g) Use positive politeness Minimize H’s power (h) Indebt H (i) Deflate (j) Challenge indirectly Challenge (k) Challenge explicitly (l) Refer to rights and obligations

428

Negative Aggravation: (a) Off record (b) On record Aggravate H’s want to be unimpinged

Coerce and impinge on H Increase imposition Use force

(m) Disagree/contradict (n) Increase imposition weight (o) Use threats and violence

Appendix

2. Chart of Negative Aggravation Strategies (Lachenicht, 1980).

QUESTIONNAIRES AND SUBJECTS’ RESPONSES Questionnaire 1.

429

Appendix

430

Appendix

Questionnaire 2.

431

Appendix

432

Appendix

Questionnaire 3.

433

Appendix

434

Appendix

Questionnaire 4.

435

Appendix

436

Appendix

Questionnaire 5.

437

Appendix

438

Appendix

Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Des Moines, IA. CNN Especial Event Aired January 8th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Announcer (AN) Dennis Ryerson (DR(M)) Al Gore (AG) Bill Bradley (BB) Audience (A) Kim Myzenheimer (KM) Derrick Billand (DB) AN: The Democrats hope to retain control of the White House in the year two thousand (0.5) the two Democratic candidates seeking their party’s nomination for president meet at the ‘Des Moines Register’ presidential candidates debate (.) here’s the editor Dennis Ryerson welcome (.) we’re very glad you’re with us today for what has become an important Iowa campaign tradition (.) the ‘Des Moines Register’s’ pre-caucus presidential candidate debates today you’ll be hearing the viiews of the two Democratic nominations (.) or I’m sorry (.) the two Democrats seeking their party’s nomination and they are vice president Al Gore of Tennessee (0.5) and former U.S. senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey (0.5) next week (.) we’ll be hearing from the Republican candidates and by the way I should add that today’s debates are closed-captioned and on some stations are being translated into Spanish (0.5) this caucus season’s campaign for the support of Iowans has been one of the more hotly contested campaigns that we’ve seen in many years (.) candidates have spent (.) more days in the state than many have in the past (.) they and especial interests are spending a looot of money on advertising (0.5) (general shot of the studio audience) for their part many Democrats tell me that they find much to like about both of these candidates (.) but they are having a tough time making a decision (.) (looking at both) well gentlemen I trust that (.) by the end of today’s session that choice will be much much easier (.) it’s our hope that viewers today will see clear distinctions between the two of you (0.5) in your styles (.) your expectations (.) your hopes and your general approach to government (0.5) our ↑questions today have (.) all come from Iowans (.) but before we address those questions we’ll have opening statements from each candidate (.) vice president Gore let’s begin with ↑you. you have one minute. ↑thank you it’s it’s ↑really an ↑honour to be here (.) and (.) for those of you I’ve not yet had a chance to meet personally I’d like to start by briefly introducing my↑self (.) Tipper and I have been married for twenty nine and a half years↑ (.) we have four ↑children (.) and one grandchild as of July ↑fourth (.) I’m a Vietnam ↑veteran and for ↑↑sixteen ↑years I served in the U.S. ↑Congress House and ↑Senate (.) alongside Tom ↑Harkin (.) for the ↑↑LAAST seven ↑years I’ve served as viice president (.) and the ↑↑other ↑night in the debate uh senator Bradley criticized mee and other Democrats for being in what ↑↑he ↑caalled a ‘Wasshingtoon bunnker’ (.) so I ↑↑want to ↑↑start by telling you what we were ↑do↑ing (.) in that Washington

DR(M):

AG:

439

Appendix ↑bunker. (.) we’ve created twenty million new jobs cut the welfare rolls in haalf (.) passed the toughest gun control in a generation (.) and cre↑ated the strongest e↑conomy in the history of the United States of America. (.) ↑NOOW we have a fight to continue our future with proosperity (.) I want universal ↑health ↑care (.) dramatic im↑provements in all of our ↑schools (.) and help for farmers (.) that’s not a bunker. (.) those are the ↑front ↑liines in the fight for our future. and that’s where I want to fight for yoou for the next four years. thanks Mr. vice president ↑senator Bradley uh let me ↑thank the sponsors of the debate for the ↑opportunity to (.) be here to↑day (0.5) uhm (clears throat) ↑I grew ↑up in a small town in Mis↑souri (.) on the banks of the Mississippi River. (0.5) it was a town that had three thousand four hundred ninety-two people in ↑it there were ninety-six in my high school graduating ↑claass (.) and it had one stop light (1.) it was a TOOWN (.) it was a factory ↑town (.) most of the people worked in the glaass ↑factory and yet a lot of the students in ↑high school ↑came in ↑bused in from faarms in the neighboring ↑area (.) it was a multi- racial multi-ethnic town (.) it was a very especial place (.) to grow up (0.7) ↑II (.) learned a lot of ↑values there. (.) courage discipline respect responsibility resilience (0.5) I carry them with me. (.) a lot of the ↑small towns that I’vvve (.) gone through (.) and met people in in ↑Iowa (.) remind me of that small town (.) in uh in in in Mi↑ssouri (.) and you ↑know (clears throat) ↑I ↑find that (.) in the course of this campaaign (.) I’ve had a chance to talk about a lot of things with ↑Iowans and I look forward this debate (.) to continue that discussion thanks senator (0.5) well now ↑moving to some questions fromm some Iowans and as both of you ↑knoow (.) Iowa has a higher percentage of older residents than most other states and (.) many of our older residents (.) and I might add their sons and daughters like me (.) are increasingly concerned about medical costs (.) one of the questions we received is from Margaret Rooney from Des Moines (.) and here’s what she wrote to me (.) ‘my entire Social Security check (.) ↑seven hundred and two dollars a month (.) goes for health care expenses (.) four hundred and seventy dollars is spent on supplemental insurance’ (.) I’m sorry ‘on prescription drugs (.) a hundred and eighty ↑two dollars is spent on supplemental insurance and the last fifty is owed to an ambulance company which charged mee three hundred and seventy eight dollars for a five-mile trip to the emergency room. (.) now ↑Medicare refused my claim in spite of my doctor’s writing two letters stating that my injury was a medical emergency (.) what are you prepared to do to help me’ (.) […] senator ↑Bradley [(0.5) you go thank you] first on this one a minute and thirty seconds please ↑I think that th (.) the lady in question hass a lot off company out ↑there (.) in the world to↑day (0.5) I think thatt senior citizens aarre really (.) ↑↑INUNdated by ↑high medical costs in↑deed particularly ↑high drug costs. (.) ↑that’s why as a ↑PART of an overall health care program that I’ve propoosed (.) that I ↑↑COver (.) ↑drug ↑costs for senior citizens. (.) after they’ve paaid the first eight hundred doollars they pay twenty five percent a↑bove that (0.5) and this will be a tre↑mendous ↑↑benefit (.) the ↑other ↑night for example I was out on the ↑picket line at uuh Local one forty-seven of the Teamsters Union (0.5) ↑HAD a chance to

DR(M): BB:

DR(M):

BB: DR(M): BB:

440

Appendix ↑TALK to a lady ↑THEEre who ↑told me that (.) her ↑mother paid ↑↑TEN thousand dollars a ↑year (0.5) for (.) ↑drug ↑costs (.) ↑all of her ↑Social Se↑curity ↑check went right to paay (.) for the drugs. (.) and I ↑THOUght as she was ↑taalking that she was pre↑↑CISEly (.) the person (.) that I intend to help (0.5) because (.) if she had had the program that I’m ↑ADvocating and the most she would have paaid is about three thousand ↑dollars not ↑ten thousand dollars. (.) and we’ve got to re↑↑member that when we HAAVE the ↑elderly treated with life-saving ↑drugs they will live ↑↑longer ↑chronic disease catas↑trophic disease (.) so if we ↑make ↑sure they get access to the right ↑drugs and we ↑↑paay for them that will save overall health care ↑coosts cause cause they will not be put into (.) ↑hospitals orr have to pay very much high expenses for ↑↑doctor bills (.) so it makes good sense in a ↑↑HUman ↑area but it also makes tre↑MENdous sense in terms of saving money ↑thank you Mr. ↑viice president how much was herrr prescription ↑drug ↑bill ag↑ain something like ↑four ↑hundred annd seventy dollars a month. OK (0.5) uuh two things (.) ↑first of ↑all (.) she depends upon Medicare (.) and (.) ↑Medicare is one of the best programs we’ve ever en↑aacted but ↑here’s the ↑↑prooblem (.) there are ↑forty ↑million A↑mericans on Medicare today (.) and ↑yet that number is going to ↑double over the next twenty-five to thirty ↑years to ↑↑eighty ↑million (.) ↑soo the ↑TRUST fund is going dooown ↑rapidly (.) by the year twenty fifteen Medicare will be com↑PLEtely bankrupt unless we start acting to to save it ↑noow (.) uh ↑I have a plan to take us toward ↑↑high quality health care for ↑aall in a way that does ↑↑NOT eliminate ↑Medicaid or put ↑Medicare at risk (.) in ↑order to accomplish that ↑goal without doing ↑↑harm to Medi↑care I ↑allocate ↑three hundred and seventy-four BIllion ↑dollars over the next ten ↑years to the Medicare ↑program (.) now one of the disa↑greements you may have beenn reading about inn the presidential campaign so ↑faar is is my concerrn that under senator ↑Bradley’s ↑plan he doesn’t put a ↑penny (.) INTO (.) ↑MEdicare (.) andd (.) I I (.) I ↑↑don’t think that’s a good ap↑proach because I think we need to (.) to take care to protect Medicare. (.) now ↑secondly (.) on ↑her prescription ↑drugs (.) under ↑senator (.) under ↑myy ↑plaan (.) shee would get the ↑cost of her prescriptions drugs covered. (.) under senator ↑Braadley’s ↑plaan she would have a ↑fiive hundred dollar de↑↑ductible (.) and and then ↑threee hundred (.) dollar (.) ↑premiums (.) so she wouldn’t get a ↑↑PENny (.) of ↑help (.) under senator ↑Bradley’s plan. (.) and ↑↑if she gets ↑Medicaid which ↑DOES pay prescription ↑drugs she wouldn’t get it there ↑↑either because he cancels Medicaid senator ↑↑Bradley (.) thirty seconds for rebuttal again a slight misrepresentaation. I replace Medicaid with something that is ↑BETTER that’s always con↑veniently (laughs) ignoored. (.) let (.) let me saay (.) I ↑↑think ↑AAAl has the vieew (.) thaat (.) if we pro↑viide universal health coverage for everybody (.) that we can’t protect ↑Medicare (.) if we protect ↑Medicare (.) we can’t provide universal health ↑coverage for everybody. (.) now (.) ↑I ↑don’t ↑↑agree with ↑that (.) ↑I ↑think we can do ↑↑BOTH (.) and THIS ↑MOORning the Congressional Budget ↑Office AAND the Office of Management and Budget SAID that the net ↑surplus over the next ↑decade is going to be another ↑eight ↑hundred ↑billion ↑↑doollars (.) so we can do ↑↑both

DR(M): AG: DR(M): AG:

DR(M): BB:

441

Appendix all right↑ (0.5) Mr. vice ↑president= =↑WELL uh (.) that wasn’t a (.) a re↑port (.) it was sources ↑SPEculating (.) and this (.) and the people who (.) whoo uh make up the ↑↑numbers ↑say (.) the natural growth in government ↑↑services is going to take ↑up almost ↑↑↑all of ↑that over the next ten years (.) now the ↑↑prooblem withh Bill’s approach saying we can wait untilll Medicare goes bankrupt to ad↑dress it (.) it’s the ↑kind of remiinds me of the guy who (.) fell out of a (.) ten-story ↑building (.) and as he paassed the fifth ↑↑floor he ↑shouted ‘so ↑far so ↑↑good’ (.) ↑well (.) that’s where ↑we are with the Medicare ↑↑trust ↑fund (.) it’s going down raapidly (.) our ↑population is ↑aaging and we need to start putting ↑more money into Medicare (.) noow. thank you (.) ↑here’s an agriculture question from David Schoenbaum who lives in Iowa City he writes ‘candidates from both parties have told ‘The Des Moines Register’ (.) that they support genetic engineering (.) something Iowa agriculture is heavily invested in (0.5) we’re ↑also heavily dependent on exports as both of you know (.) ↑BUT (.) genetically engineered products meet heavy resistance in west (.) in European countries and in Japan (.) now a century ago we could deploy our ships and threaten to shoot (.) if other nations didn’t (.) open up their markets (.) ↑what (.) can we do today’ (.) senator Bradley you’re first on this one as ↑well. I think the ↑most important thing we can dooo is tooo↑uuse our au↑thority under the World ↑Trade Organization. in order to pe↑TItion to get ACcess to markets (.) when for exaample Europe blockedd uh our ↑beef because of beef ↑hormoones we went to (.) the WT↑Oo wee (.) ↑farmed a dispute settlement ↑mechanism (.) we presented ↑our ↑case and they ruled in our favour. (.) they’re still de↑laaying the ↑entry of ↑that ↑beef into (.) ↑Europe but the but the de↑CISION was ↑↑MADE (.) I think we have to con↑↑tinue to ↑push under the ↑remedies that are av↑ailable to us under the ↑World ↑Trade Organization to get ↑aaccess to ↑↑markets for our agricultural goods. (.) but we ↑aall ↑knoow that the problem of ↑agriculture in this ↑↑country (.) is ↑serious in ↑Iowa it’s dead serious (.) I’ve talked to (.) ↑thoousands of family farmers over the laast year (.) and it means we have to chaange ↑policy (.) it means we have to get (.) the anti↑trust division to (.) get ↑aafter (.) these large ↑↑packers that are th are dis↑criminating against ↑family ↑↑farmers (.) it meeans that we have to have a conservation rev re↑serve ↑program expanded it meeans that we have to provide ↑income ↑supplement (.) ↑to ↑farmers based upon the relationship between ↑PRIce and their ↑COSTS and it has to ↑GO to them with a ↑cap so it ↑↑only goes to ↑family ↑farmers and not to big ↑corporate ↑farmers (.) and ↑↑then we have to ↑help oour ↑faamily ↑farmers get a bigger chunk of the food dollar. now they only get twenty cents of the food dollar (.) they should ↑get ↑moore I was down in Delaware ↑County not so long a↑go talking to some ↑↑hog producers. and ↑theey (.) had an i↑dea they ↑butchered their own ↑meeat they didn’t sell it to a big (.) big ↑hog pro↑ducer and when they ↑did that they were able to SELL it we need to help ↑faamily ↑farmers move ↑further ↑up that chain and get a ↑bigger ↑piece of that ↑food dollar. Mr. vice president well if I re↑call the question’s about ge↑neticallyyy ↑moodifiied organisms and (.) you ↑know the ↑KEY point is we ↑CAN’T let ↑Europe and Japaan determine our farm ↑policy (.) this (.) th the de↑↑cisions on GMOos as they’re re↑ferred too or uh

DR(M): AG:

DR(M):

BB:

DR(M): AG:

442

Appendix ↑hoormones in ↑livestock (.) ↑↑really ↑ought to be ↑based on sound sci↑eence NOT SCI↑ence controolled byy (.) ↑people working for the ↑companies that ↑profit from these new tech↑nologies but (.) ↑NEEUtral dis↑PAAssionate ↑EXperts (.) who will ↑give us th (.) the ↑best and most ↑accurate conclusions about their ↑↑safety (.) ↑if they’re ↑safe and ↑if they enhance produc↑tivity at ↑no ↑↑risk then we ought to be ↑able to ↑↑use ↑them (.) nooow. the decision on ↑beeef. uh you ↑know (.) uh ↑actually what happened ↑is that (.) they decided to accept ↑compensating tariff ↑increases on CHEEEse and (.) a lot of the products that are important to ↑them (.) but ↑↑NOW uh ↑I’ve ↑personally been in↑voolved in trying to per↑suade uh ↑France and the European ↑Union Ja↑pan uh to take a SCIentific reasonable rational approach uh on thesse new ↑PROducts (.) now (.) withh consumer ↑preferences uh e↑merging and e↑↑volving at ↑some ↑↑point (.) we’ve really got to take a ↑hard ↑↑look annd l↑ook at our ↑↑↑hole ↑cards here (.) because we don’t want ↑↑farmers to be (.) ↑out on a ↑liimb and left (.) holding the ↑↑baag (.) but the best approach (.) is to use SOUnd sci↑ence (.) make the careful and correct de↑cisions and not let ↑Europe and Ja↑pan (.) make them ↑↑for ↑us (.) now of course (.) we have got to also address these other issues. in↑cluding (.) it’s tiime to get ↑rid of (.) almost ↑all of the so-called Freedom to ↑Farm act because it’s been (.) the ↑freedom to faail (.) and it’s not working senator Bradley (.) thirty second rebuttal uuhm ↑I’d like to take ↑my thirty seconds and go back to the question of Medicare quite ↑frankly. [uuuhh (collectively laughs) beca]ausse uh the vice president saaid that I was prepared to let Medicare g ↑↑ABSOlutely not (.) for ↑↑eighteen years in the United States Senate ↑I ↑fought to protect Medicare (.) protected ↑PREmiums from going up for senior citizens tiime and time again (0.5) I will ↑aalways do that ↑Medicare is ↑SOlid now until twenty ↑fifteen twenty ↑seventeen if we con↑tinue to have this ↑economic growth we’re going to have it even ↑loonger and if we con↑tinue to have a ↑health care program that’s going to make the ↑elderly peop when before they be↑↑come elderly because of the program that I’ve offered ↑↑healthier it’s going to cost us less money Mr. ↑vice president= =well you ↑know ↑e ↑↑even John Mc↑Caain on the Re↑↑publican side of this race. has said that it’s fiscally irres↑ponsible (.) to put out a budget plaan that spends aall of the surplus either on some tax scheme or somme spending proposal with↑out setting as↑iide money for ↑↑Medicare (.) now uh it’s ↑↑one thing to (.) hav have cast votes in the ↑↑paast on Medi↑care (.) but ↑↑this is about the ↑future (.) and this ↑race is about the ↑future (.) and a question that ↑seniors here in ↑↑Iowa need to ↑ask is (.) ↑who is going to ↑fight (.) to pro↑↑tect Medicare in the future (.) is it going to be an ↑aafterthought (.) or is it going to be (.) riight up there at the top of the health care agenda OK thank you (.) now we’d like each of you to ask a question of each other (.) and you will each have an opportunity for a follow-up question (.) ↑senator ↑Bradley please go ahead with (.) your question for the vice president you’ll have thirty seconds to state the question and he’ll have a minute and thirty seconds to respond. uuhm (0.5) ↑AL inn ↑nineteen sixty-foour seventy-six percent of the people in this

DR(M): BB: A: BB:

DR(M): AG:

DR(M):

BB:

443

Appendix

AG:

A: DR(M): BB:

DR(M): AG: DR(M): AG:

A:

country said they trusted the government to do the right thiing most of the time. (0.5) ↑that number is now down too twenty-nine percent (0.5) ↑why do you think that’s so. I ↑↑think it’s ↑haappened forr a variety of reasons ↑Bill (.) I ↑think that the as↑sassination of president ↑Kennedy marked aa rite of passage in ourr ↑nation when ↑many people began to think that (0.5) uh something baadd uh started to go ↑wrong because right after that we got mired in the Vietnam ↑↑War. (.) you know ↑I wass uh eh uh in the Army at that ↑tiime and I came homme ↑thoroughly disillusioned with ↑politics partly because of the SAME KINd of changes thatt uh uuh a ↑↑lot of ↑other people (.) were seeing in our country. (.) right after ↑thatt uh our hopes were ↑raaised with thee civil rights ↑movement with the cam↑paaign of Bobby ↑↑Kennedy and then with the as↑sassination of Dr. ↑King AAND Bobby ↑Kennedy those hopess uh for many were ↑daashed and then Richard ↑↑Nixon was elected (.) AAND ↑↑WAtergate took place (.) and (.) ↑you ↑↑know (.) at ↑↑that time I thought ↑politics would be the very laast thing I ever did with ↑my ↑life. (.) but ↑I ↑saaw how people who were willing to fight ag↑↑ainst those (.) uh problems and against ↑↑cynicism (.) could make (.) a REal difference and that’s why ↑I decided to start (.) ↑fighting for a better future (.) I ↑↑think that we need campaaign ↑↑finance re↑↑foorm in order to restore a sense of ↑trust and in↑tegrity in our ↑↑government (.) and that’s why I’ve supported for ↑↑twenty ↑years FULL PUblic ↑FInancing of elections. that’s why I don’t accept any PAC contributions (.) and that’s why I’ve ↑I have sug↑gested (.) that we have twice-weekly debaates and (.) in↑stead of de↑pending on ↑these thirty second television (.) aads and sixty second television aads (.) let’s depend on debates like ↑this ↑one maybe the ↑next ↑one could be on ↑Agriculture I know that you have (.) said ↑noo but as they say on thatt ↑millionaire show is (.) is ↑↑that your ↑final ↑↑answer [(3. collectively laughs) ↑senator ↑Bradley (.) you have time for a follow-up. ↑YA ↑KNOOW I I I’]m ↑glad you mentioned campaign finance re↑form (.) I think that it’s terribly im↑portant (.) I think the rich should have the ↑right to buy as many homess and caars and houses that they want but they shouldn’t have a riight to buuy de↑mocracy (.) but I ↑think there’s another element ↑tooo and ↑↑THAT is ↑candidates going out and telling people what they beliieve (.) ↑↑not ↑↑taking ↑↑poolls but telling what they believe. (.) and in THIRty seconds (.) you can say a ↑↑lot (.) I’m for a woman’s right to chooose. I’m for affordable quality health care. accessible to all A↑meericans (.) I’m for edu↑cation im↑provement in this country. I am for (.) trying to make sure campaign finance reform is a re↑ALIty that ↑working families have a better chance to advaance and that we eliminate child poverty in this country. [how’s that I didn’t hear] a ↑question theere but uh [uh well you had] a ↑chance for a follow-up but uh [go ahead well I I] I I ↑think that the ↑reason you ↑↑didn’t uh hear a ↑question (.) is because thirty seconds ↑ACTually ↑↑WASN’T ENOUgh to say (laughing) [what he wanted to ↑saay (4. collectively laughs)]

444

Appendix and still ask uh the question (.) ↑aand (.) ↑↑let me say a↑gaain uh (.) you can pick (.) whatever ↑state you ↑wish you can pick New ↑Haampshire where the polls say you’re aheead uuh you cn you can pick any ↑↑state and say wee↑‘ll (.) get rid of the thirty second television aads (0.5) and (.) just debate twice a week now. (.) I think the ↑first debate and ↑↑I’ve ↑really (.) I I’m sincere in ↑saying I think we ought to come ↑back to ↑Iowa (.) and have a debate on agricultural ↑policy and I’ll come ↑anywhere ↑anytIime as long as is as it is (.) IN ↑Iowa (.) because this is the number one ↑farm state (.) the number one ↑caucus state (.) and ↑↑farmers are ↑facing a crisis here [and they deserve to have a ↑↑dee your question] TAIled discussion of what needs to be done to save the family farm your ↑question foor the senator (.) [Mr. vice president oh is it ↑my turn to ask the questions your turn to ask a question of ↑him ↑now.]= =absolutely uh ↑↑ welll ↑let me just stay on whatt uh I was talking about right there (.) ↑↑let me introduce a friend of mine to you Chris Peterson is here. ↑could ↑you ↑stand up ↑Chris (shot of a man in the audience standing up) (.) ↑Chris is a ↑faarmer with four hundred acres (.) ↑he he farms be↑eans and ↑coorn he’s gott (.) he says unfortunately he’s got some ho↑ogs not many ↑cattle uuh (0.5) ↑↑back in nineteen ninety-three. (0.5) THRee hundred of his FOUR hundred acres were flooded out (.) ↑I joined with ↑Tom Harkin t too get thee extra billion dollars of disaaster reliief to help Chris and the others who were flooded out and your ↑question ↑why did ↑you vote (.) against theee the disaster relief for Chris Peterson when HEE and thousands of others other ↑farmers here in ↑Iowa (.) ↑needed it after those ninety-three floods you ↑know ↑Aaal uuhm I ↑think (.) that the premise of your question is ↑wroong. (0.5) this is not about the PAAAst (.) this is about (.) the future (.) this is about what we’re going to do to chaange the agri↑culture policy we’ve ↑↑haad the last ↑eight ten ↑↑years (.) the Re↑publicans and ↑↑Democrats (.) the ↑family farmers that I’ve talked to in this ↑state (.) were the baackbone of this agricultural e↑conomy (.) have had ↑no ↑real ↑↑↑help (0.5) Freedom to Farm ↑faailed (.) there was supposed to be a ↑safety ↑net (.) the ad↑ministration said they were going to put a safety ↑net ↑in and the ↑first year after it ↑paassed no safety net whatso↑ever (.) the re↑ALIty iis (.) that we ↑NEEEd to ↑HAAAve a chaange in agriculture ↑policy (.) ↑↑every ↑family ↑farmer and I can’t tell you how many (.) have told me this year that they’ve been at it for ↑generations they’re on the brink of ↑bankruptcy they’re not getting any ↑help the corporations are getting ↑all the ↑help Freedom to ↑Farm gives ↑all the money to the corporations and to the ↑big corporate farms not to the small family ↑farm (0.5) and ↑↑that’s ↑whyy (.) the sug↑gestions that I’ve maade for a CHAANge in agriculture ↑↑policy are aimed to dra↑MAtically improve the circumstance (.) forr (.) uh small family farms in this country (.) soo ↑↑you can talk about the ↑paast but I prefer to talk about the future WELL I UNDER↑STAND why (laughing loudly) you don’t want to talk about (.)

AG:

DR(M): AG: DR(M): AG: DR(M): AG: DR(M): AG:

DR(M): AG:

BB:

AG:

445

Appendix the paaast (.) uh because in addition to to voting againstt thee (.) ↑you ↑↑know those ↑↑floods (.) ↑they created a new ↑great ↑↑lake on the satellite pictures out ↑here. it was it was a genuine catastrophe and uh ↑most people (.) said ↑yes these farmers need ↑↑help and there were (.) many ↑↑other dr droughts and disasters facing farmers where you were one of a ↑↑HANDful who ↑↑didn’t (.) [help the farmers quick follow-up question] ↑well uuh LET me ↑ask a↑↑gain. you ↑know (.) we know you voted against ↑ethanol. (.) uh and (.) tried to kill it and (.) crop insurance and price supports but a↑↑gain what was the ↑theory (.) on which you based your vote (.) too vote against uh Chris Peterson getting some help when his farm was under↑↑water well let’s take ↑ethanol ookk you raised that question (0.5) ↑uuhm ↑I opposed the mandate for ethanol uh bad for my state. it would have meant higher ↑prices. it would have meant alsoo the fact thattt uh people had to pay higher cosstss I ↑still oppose the mandate for ethanol (.) but I do ↑not op↑pose tax subsidies for ethanol. (.) ↑that was the change (.) and ↑that came after talking to a lot of family farmers (.) and you ↑know something (.) when they said (.) FDR wasn’t going to be good for agriculture you know what ↑he. ↑did. he came to Iowa and appointed uh Henry Wallace as his agricultural secretary now ↑I’m not saying Tom Vilsack’s interested (0.5) [(4. laughs) but WHAT I’M SAAying is under my administration] the agricultural secretary will think of the family farmer first all across this country thank you (.) let’s go to another question from a reader now (.) this one’s from Roger Sitterly from Des Mooines and ↑he wants to know (.) under what circumstances (.) should U.S. armed forces be used for international peacekeeping (.) and under whose command (.) Mr. ↑vice president (.) you go first on this one. we aalways retain command of our armed forces. if we’re part of an internationall alliaance uh our commander in chief always retains commaand. (.) now ↑this is a question that actually comes up quite a ↑bit as you would expect in thee (.) age of uh Bosnia and Kosovo and ↑here’s my answer to it (.) I think we have to have a national security interest at stake. I think that we ↑have to have assurance that military force is the ↑ONly option that can (.) really solve the problem (.) uh we have to make sure that (.) uh we’ve tried everything else and we ↑have to make sure that military force if ↑used will in ↑fact SOLVE the problem we ought to have ALlies who are ready to go in ↑with ↑us and share the burden we ought to also be absolutely certain that the expected cooost (.) is worth (.) what we are (.) uh (.) protecting by way of our national security interests (.) now I have uh been a part of the National Security Council and our (.) national security teeam for the last (.) seven YEEars and uh I can tell you I am so proud of the military forces that have ↑helped us to (.) establish peace in the Balkans and ↑also have supported our re↑↑soolve to get peace in the Middle ↑East and ↑Northern Ireland and uh ↑East Timor and other (.) areas where (.) they’re looking to us for moral leadership in the world to show that ↑people of different ethnic and racial and religious groups can not only get along but can actually dream that one day they’ll have the kind of freedom with security (.) that we have senator Bradley

DR(M): AG:

BB:

A: BB: DR(M):

AG:

DR(M):

446

Appendix ↑↑I ↑think the most importannt challenge for the next president of the United States in the international arena is maintaining strategic stability that now exists (.) between China Japan Russia Europe and the United States (0.5) if ↑wee have any disruption of that there’ll be another ↑arms raace we’ll lose a lot of momentum that we have going forward that is the central most important thing (0.5) ↑SECOND I think we need to take our defence budget and move it moore to a post-Cold War defence budget we’re still locked in the Cold War with a lot of assumptions and weapon systems (.) that should change to meet the new threats like nuclear proliferation biological and chemical weapons like uuh cyberwar terrorism ↑and threats in the Persian Gulf and in northeast Asia (.) AND (.) ↑I think that (.) ↑↑THIIRD we need to be (.) making a ↑STROONG decision (.) about the question that was aasked I don’t think that we can be the policeman to the world (.) I don’t think we have the ↑wisdom. or the reesources to do that (.) and that means we’re going to have to move ↑moore and ↑moore to ↑multilateral forums to resolve this such as the United Nations I personally think the action in East Timor is an example of how things work ↑↑right and so I believe that the KEY thiing is too (.) ↑↑never relinquish control of our troops our commaand but integrate more fully into a United Nations operation to DEAL with these ethnic disputes (.) that are popping up all over the world today we can’t be involved in all thirty two ethnic disputes in the world with our own forces (.) it has to be something we do together Mr. vice president a re↑buttal. ↑well ↑I ↑I I don’t really have a rebuttal to that because I I I ↑think Bill made a pretty good ↑↑statement there. ↑by and ↑↑laarge. (.) uuh (.) I WOUld add just a (.) just a couple of things (.) I be↑lieve thatt uh and I’m sur know he doesn’t disa↑gree with this (.) we also need to have di↑↑plomacy (.) to go aloong with our military force (.) because it is a (.) a way to protect our national security if we can get the U.S. Senate to ratify (somewhat laughing) the Comprehensive ↑Test Ban Treaty I’ve ↑previously said that my first act as president with your support will be to resubmit that treaty to the United States Senate with your deeMAaND that they ratify it ok uh re↑buttal (0.5) I think that of course we want to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (.) but we ↑↑aalso ↑neeed to ↑haave an administration that is going to put push to reduce the threat of nuclear war ↑everywhere. aand one of the things that strikes ↑meee is thaat we haven’t moved ↑quickly enough in the last several years to reduce uh strategic nuclear weapons (.) between the United States annd (.) the former Soviet Union (.) I believe we need to move on ↑quickly. beyond start ↑two to a negotiation for start ↑three in order to lower nuclear weapons thank you (.) we have a couple of community college students in the audience (.) and we want to give some of them a chance to ask a question at this debate (.) our ↑first student is ↑Kim Myzenheimer (.) of Mitchellville (.) she’s a student at Des Moines Area Community College in Des Moines (0.5) Kiim (.) ↑please go ahead and first of all welcome to the debate go ahead and ask your question (close shot of a middleaged woman in the audience) senator ↑Bradley (.) you said we don’t need to cut (.) defence spending and (.) Mr. vice president you seem (.) you said we may need to increase defence spending (.) I’m studying for a position in the human services field and this is one of the first

BB:

DR(M): AG:

DR(M): BB:

DR(M):

KM:

447

Appendix

DR(M): BB:

DR(M): AG:

areas (.) to be cut when money gets tight (.) if we beef up the military as many candidates are sug↑gesting (.) where will we get money for human services and other important areas senator Bradley you may go first well ↑I think thaat we can haave a steady-state military budget (0.5) and have money left over to do the pressing (.) social needs in this country. (.) for example I’ve proposed a national health insurance ↑bill. (.) that (.) will ↑provide access to affordable quality health care for all Americans I’m the only candidate in the race that’s done that. (.) I am ↑aalso taking a ↑laarge amoount of the money and helping middle class ↑families. I was out on that Teamster’s picket line the other night (.) and a man came up to me and said uh ‘I have (.) I have a health insurance here (.) but my child has cerebral palsy and I can’t get any coverage’ (.) and so what ↑↑I would doo is make sure the money goes to them even if they ↑↑have ↑health insurance so they can ↑upgrade their health insurance. ↑we can ↑do that for about fifty five to sixty five billion dollars a year (0.5) you know it ↑↑used to bee uuh popular in ↑politics to say that you were fighting forr the people who work hard and play by the rules (.) I am still fighting for the people who work hard and play by the rules (.) we have tre↑↑mendous economic growth driven by ↑technological change and globali↑zation inno↑vation entrepre↑neurship in the ↑private sector that is producing this tremendous ↑↑surplus (.) ↑that means we can do ↑MOOre to try to help community ↑colleges I’ve proposed a way to do that two billion dollars for community colleges cause that’s where people eaar l ↑leearn more so that they can earn more for a lifetime (.) and one of the things that strikes ↑mee. relative to your ↑question is if you look at what Al wants to ↑spend money on he wants to spend one hundred and twenty seven billion dollars on de↑fence increases annd wants to spend less than that for education ok (.) Mr. vice president ↑well. (.) that’s not right (.) uh first of all I’ve presided over thee so-called reinventing government programm to downsize our federal bureaucracy including more than (somehow laughing) any other in the Pentagon and the Defence Department (.) I ↑do be↑lieve that we have to stand for a strong national se↑curity the United ↑States ↑like it or ↑not is the natural ↑↑LEADER uh in the world especially in this post-Cold War world (.) but you know even as we’ve kept our military strong (.) we’ve turned the biggest deficits into the biggest surpluses in history (.) and NOOW we have an opportunity to invest in education and human services and if you work in the field of human services (.) you know how important ↑Medicaaid iss to the people who receive those human services (.) ask yourself this question what kind of shape would they be in (.) if the Medicaid program was completely e↑liminated and replaced with a little hundred and fifty dollar a month HMO VOUcher or insurance company VOUcher you ↑knoow. there’s not a SINgle PLAAN that is offered anywhere in the state of Iowa (.) that you can purchase (.) for a hundred and fifty (.) dollars (.) for an individual uh so th the mail handlers’ budget uh cut rate uh option for a family of ↑four will just baarely squeeeze iin there but ↑that has a ↑six hundred dollars deductible for prescription drugs ↑no vision no hearing and they can make ↑↑your clients when you get to ↑work pay ↑four ↑thousand dollars out of their own pockets for the health care services they face so

448

Appendix (.) ↑what kind of shape are those folks going to be in. if they lose their Medicaaid (.) and do not have any viable option to replace it senator Bradley [thirty second rebuttal well again misre]presentinng uuhm there aare programs under the federal health system in Iowa for a hundred and fifty dollars (.) but the POINT is this is not a hundred and fifty dollar ↑↑voucher and ↑I think the people of ↑Iowa ought to understand this (.) ↑↑this is not a hundred and fifty dollar voucher (.) this is a weighted average (.) ↑↑what ↑does that mean. (.) that means in some states you’ll do it for a hundred dollars in other states you’ll do it a ↑hundred and ↑↑eighty dollars a hundred and ↑↑ninety dollars so ↑what we ↑haaave here is a scaare tactic to try to make people say that what I want to doo in terms of replacing Medicaid with something better so that forty percent of the people who live in poverty in this country who don’t have Medicaid or any health insurance will have some health insurance (.) will be afraaid to make this change (.) I re↑ject that kind of politics uh Mr. Ryerson I want to give to your newspaper a list of aall of thee the health care plans here in Iowa aand you can look at it at your leeisure if any of your reporters want to print it I (.) certainly hope they ↑wiill (.) because it shows what I saaid (.) there’s one (.) budget rate plan for a family of ↑four (.) but it’s inadequate (.) and all of the others are (.) more than that (.) now (.) uh (.) ↑↑here’s the reason I’m bringing this ↑up (.) the ↑people that you are ↑↑training yourself to serve are the ones who most need a champion (.) and a ↑↑president of the United States and I think ↑candidates for president need to be willing to FIGHT for those who most need the help and the people who are now getting Medicaid those who who have Aalzheimer’s the dissabled those who are pooor [those who don’t haave any option time] they deserve somebody who’s willing to fight for them not just ↑theorize about them thank you Mr. vice president (.) here’s a question from Ken Shy he’s a retired school superintendent from Nevada ↑Iowa ‘if elected president ↑what would ↑you ↑do that would result in improved learning for all students in public school classrooms’ (.) senator (0.5) well first of all what I would do is look at education a little more broaadly (.) I think we should have a STROOng federal commitment to education (.) I think it should begin at ↑birth and extend for ↑lifetime and be available for everyone (.) so I think we need a ↑maajor investment in early education and early ↑child ↑care (.) I would get kids ready to leearn by doubling the slots in ↑head start (.) I would then propoose adding ↑SIX HUNDRED thousand great new teachers (.) to the public schools of this country over the next decade (.) I would (.) increase dra↑maatically the number of after-school programs that are available to (.) children in this country between the hours of three and eight which is when most of the juvenile crime takes place (.) and I would MAKE a ↑↑maaajor investment in community colleges across this country (.) for the reasons I stated earlier but (.) ↑↑I think there are other things too that are relevant to ↑↑education (.) I think that when a child arrives at the first graade and hasn’t had any ↑health care and is sick (.) a good health care insurance is education policy as well (.) I think last year when eight hundred thousand kids took a gun to school. that (.) ↑sensible gun control (.) is good education policy as well (.) so ↑you can look at education in terms of where ↑↑people live their ↑↑liives and that’s

DR(M): BB:

AG:

DR(M): AG: DR(M):

BB:

449

Appendix the way I ↑look at it (.) or you can ↑look at it as if it’s some bureaucratic box that says ‘education’ that’s ↑↑unrelated to ↑everything else we do in our liives (.) ↑I think it’s a different perspective on how we view education in this country (.) I have the perspective of ↑life (.) and I think the vice president has a perspective that it’s a BOX called education (0.5) Mr. vice president (0.5) well you’re right that I’ve made it (somehow laughing) my top pri↑ority for investing in the ↑future uh and I’m proud to have the support of thee ↑Iowa teachers for this plaan and for my candidacy. in fact I came here to Iowa to beGIN my issues campaign for the ↑presidency I ↑went to the alma mater of ↑Leonard and Dottie ↑Boswell Graceland ↑College at La↑↑monii and presented a comprehensive plan for education reform. (.) and ↑here’s what it ↑has (.) it ↑haas a ↑↑plan to turn around every failing school a proposal thatt uh is not in senator Bradley’s (.) proposal (.) in factt uh this is not the only speech (somewhat laughing) that I’ve made about it I’ve made a number of speeches uh and I saw every time it’s the top priority (.) going on (.) it will reDUUCE the SIIze of each class siz each class so that teachers have more one-on-one time to spend with their students (.) it is desiigned to provide universal ↑preschool (.) all across the United States for every chiild and every faamily all across our nation (.) it is designed to put new ↑REsources not just ↑↑technical assistance for the community college ↑buildings but ↑new resources in the form of a national tuition savings plaan and uh for ou one jeei plaan for lifelong learning to pay the tuition for those who (.) want to go to college and their families don’t have the (.) income and it reebuilds failing schools by making it possible for the communities in ↑Iowa where you got a (.) sixty percent ↑threshold to pass a new ↑boond. issue to float these ↑boonds for school construction and modernization interest free (.) which means you’ll be able to pass them the federal government will pick it up and finally (.) I want to (.) connect ↑every classroom and library to the Internet= =Ok= = and give the teachers the training they need in the new technologies= ↑thank you (.) ↑senator Bradley (.) you ↑know when I was growing up in that small town in Mis↑soouri. (.) I went to public school public grade school public high school (0.5) myyy mother was a public school teacher my aunt was a public school teacher (0.5) I’m committed to public edu↑cation (.) the ↑MOST im↑portant thiiing that we can doo to improve public education in this country in the next decade (.) is to make sure that there’s a great teacher in every classroom (.) we have to be FOcused in order to a↑↑chieve these things (.) ↑we can ↑spread our interest over the horizon but if we’re FOcused we can get a great new teacher in every public school classroom in this country and THAT is what’s important thank you Mr. ↑vice president let me introduce you briefly to a great teacher Shawn Grady would you ↑stand up she teaches TWENty NIIne students in the saame class (close shot of a young woman in the audience standing up) at first grade at Willard School here in Des Moines (.) she needs some hellp (.) and ↑not just ↑taalk (.) she needs ↑new ↑resources to be put into our schoools to build new schools to hire new teachers (.) I have I’ve proposed a twenty first century ↑teacher coore with TEN thousand dollar

DR(M): AG:

DR(M): AG: DR(M): BB:

DR(M): AG:

450

Appendix hiring ↑↑bonuses with higher teacher ↑↑paayy in return for better performance in those areas where teachers are most needed we’re out of time on this one thank you sir (.) uh ↑now let’s go to our second student he’s Derrick Billand of Aames (.) he’s another Des Moines area community college student and Derrick thanks for being with us today (.) go ahead with your question please what would ↑you intend to do about thee the increase in school violence (.) particularly thee lack of uh guidance at home for children regarding what they (.) see and hear Mr. vice president ↑well (.) you know the ↑number one cause of this ↑↑PROblem (.) s is the need for better parenting (.) aand (somewhat laughing) that’s not a copout that’s a real (.) issue and we need to help parents with an increase in the minimum waage an expansion of the earned income tax credit more flexibility to balance work and FAmily and a lot of ↑other measures to help these working families (.) but now the one thing that all these incidents have in ↑common is that they in↑volve ↑↑guns (.) and that’s why I’ve pr I’ve helped to pass the toughest new gun control measure in the last generation I’m now proposing (.) photo-license I↑Dss for the purchase of a new handgun (.) a baan on assault weapons and Saturday night specials and so-called (.) junk guns and (.) a policy of zero tolerance in our schools (.) but ↑frankly I think be↑↑yond ↑gunns we ↑also need to ask for more self-restraint in the meedia because the average child now sees twenty thousand murders on television before high school gradu↑ation. (.) and ↑I think some children are ↑↑vulnerable to to imitating that behavior most r are not going to be af↑↑fected ↑by it (.) but it’s not sensible for us to allow that (.) to con↑tinue we also need more guidance counselors more psychologists in the schools smaller class size so that teachers and the principals can do a better joob of (.) spotting kids that are headed in the wrong direction and then we also need t to fight this drug problem and the methamphetamine problem that is so so serious here in ↑Iowa nd and the Midwest and ↑finally we need to give aall of our children (.) a feeling that their ↑liives have meaning and purpose and we need to fill that emptiness so many of them haave (.) with loove and caring and a commitment to their future thank you ↑senator ↑Bradley I’ve talked to so many young people who ask me the same question so many parents who live through ↑Columbine and ↑saw it and saw their ↑high school (.) aand wondered if that could happen in their community (.) I mean (.) thirteen kids were killed at Co↑lumbine. but thirteen kids are killed every day on the streets in this country (.) eight hundred thousand kids took a gun to school. (.) so the ↑first step is common sense gun control and by that I ↑mean registration and licensing of all hand guns in America if we ↑↑can do that for ↑automobiles we ought to be able to doo that we ought to be able to doo that (.) for ↑hand guns I’m the only person who’s called for registration and licensing of all ↑↑hand guns (0.5) that takes ↑↑leadership (.) and that’s what a president should proviide (.) the next thing is every year in New Jersey I used to have a high school seminar we discussed different topics five hundred kids would come one year (.) we had a topic on violence (.) and I walked into (.) the seminar room and I said to the kids ↑could you (.) I’m trying to be

DR(M):

DB:

DR(M): AG:

DR(M): BB:

451

Appendix provoocative (.) ‘↑have you ↑↑ever seen anybody ↑killed’ (.) and ↑↑two of the kids raised their ↑haands (.) and I said ‘↑describe it’ (.) he described how (.) somebody stepped up next to somebody on the siide on on on the street corner and blew off the back of his head and he described it in vivid detail and then he said ‘you ↑↑know something ↑senator it was nothing like it looked on TV’ (.) in other words there wasn’t a commercial followed by a ↑sitcom. (.) it was a moment of FInality (.) so we have to hold the ↑meedia accountable (.) for what THEY do (.) and ↑then we have to create some (.) opportunity for kids to believe in something deeper than simply the possession of material things (.) ↑thoose are ↑three elements to try to deal (.) with your problem and of course parents didn’t know that their kids are should know their kids are not building boombs in the basement as well thank you Mr. vice president I said most of what I (.) [I wan ok] ted to say earlier on that we can go on if you want to senator anything more on ↑this one uuhm Yeah (.) ↑I ↑I would say that (0.5) this is an issue that challenges the very best in ↑us (0.5) and there is real fear out there in the country (0.5) I mean I was in a middle school about kids worried about worried about ppp violence in the middle school escalating to violence in the high school and I was sitting around a table talking too the people and some counselor I said ‘↑what’s the difference between now and twenty five years ago.’ (.) said ‘the ↑first difference is that there are not enough adults in these kids’ liives (.) the ↑SEcond difference is (.) the media inundates them with sex without meaning and violence without context and they don’t want to hear it’ [time’s up ↑we can chan]ge that with a new ethic of responsibility thank you (0.5) ↑here’s another question from a reader Liz Gilbert of Iowa Falls and here’s what she wrote to me (.) ‘re↑gardless (.) of who is president (.) monied corporate especial interests still will lobby for and receive especial favours where the so-called ‘little guy’ is ignored (.) why should the average American care (.) what happens in this election’ (.) senator ↑Bradley (2.) that’s a fundamental question for our democracy (0.5) one of the reasons that I got into this race was try to restoore confidence in the collective wiill aand a belief in public integrity (0.5) ↑I think that the single most important thing is campaign finance reform (.) money distorts the democratic process in a fundamental ↑way (.) I mean ↑↑I was on the Senate Finance Committee for ↑eighteen years ↑↑I saw what ↑haappened. (.) you’d be in a ↑meeeting (.) and you would have a big tax bill ↑hundred billions of dollars at stake (.) ↑CELL phones ↑LOBBYists the whole ↑ROOM men lined up outside somebody wrote a book about it called ‘The Shootout at Gucci Gulch’ [(.) and (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] (.) they’d be getting on the phone said ‘I got your thing in the tax code I got your thing in the tax code you don’t have to pay any taxes’ (.) but of course that leaves the rest that leaves the rest of us paying more taxes than we should be paying (.) three days later in the same room there would be a discussion about child poverty (.) it

DR(M): AG: DR(M): AG: DR(M): BB:

DR(M): BB: DR(M):

BB:

A: BB:

452

Appendix

DR(M): AG:

DR(M): AG:

DR(M): BB:

would bee virtually empty (.) we’d be talking about tens of millions of dollars (.) there would be no cell phones (.) and the only noise you would hear would be a murmur (.) of (.) TOO FEW people dividing TOO few money to deal with too big a problem (.) the ↑rich in this country should be able to buy as many (.) va↑CAtions and ↑HOmes and ↑CARS as they want but they shouldn’t be able to buy our democracy and until we have ↑public financing of elections we spend NIne HUNdred million dollars on (.) democracy aBROoad we ought to be able to spend the same amount of money to ↑↑TOtally take the especial interests out of democracy at home and then our government will be returned to the people and this woman will believe once again (.) and trust government to do the right thing (.) most of the time thank you Mr. vice president well wee basically agree onn campaign finance reform. we support the same (.) uh proposals (.) uh uhm (.) I feel like we could make the im↑mediate progress that I talked about uh earlier by getting rid of the (.) ma↑jority of the campaign finance that (.) goes into these thirty second TVv aads (.) but ↑you know I support the McCain-Feingold (.) ↑measure. I support full public financing of of federal elections I refuse to accept any PAC contributions (.) I have the smallest average contributor uh in the Democratic ↑raace. uh I called two and a half years ago for both political parties to give up the so-called soft money and (.) I ↑↑honestly be↑liieve that we ought to try to ↑revolutionize the way we go about our democracy by doing in the rest of the country whatt uh we see happening in ↑Iowa and in New ↑Haampshire where people rely on going into ↑living rooms more frequently uh that’s that’s been a great experience for me (.) ↑now the ↑↑reason I think this question goes beyoond campaign finance reform (.) is that I remember when I came back from Vietnam (.) I was soo disillusioned with the whole notion of POlitics and public service I’d watched my daad be defeated for supporting civil rights so many years agoo (.) I watched Watergate and all of the mistakes that were (.) being foisted on the American ↑people. (.) and ↑↑here’s to your questioner here’s what changed ↑my ATtitude I SAW people like many of the ones here in this Audience (.) who had a full day of work and yet they were still willing to roll up their sleeves and go to their (.) ↑town ↑↑meetings and caucuses and they were willing to get deeply invoolved in ↑↑making democracy work [the ANswer time’s up] to THIS question must come in part from the person who asked the question and a president who LEEADS in that direction can help unlock that potential (.) to rekindle the spirit of America. senator (.) a re↑buttal welll ↑speaking of leadership I think it’s terribly important here (0.5) it’s leadership on campaign finance reform (.) ↑Al said he’s supported it for ↑twenty years. (0.5) well. (.) nothing’s haappened (.) he said he supports campaign ↑finance. reform (.) the administration has not introduced ONE bill on campaign ↑finance. reform (0.5) there is a question here is WHO’s going to ↑mobiliize and get this changed (.) ↑I’ve put it out there and talked about it in ↑↑every meeting I go to because ↑I believe the American people have to take over here. (.) ↑↑I believe the American ↑people by voting for mee to give me the maandate will ↑overcome the especial interests in Washington and that is the oonly thing that’s going to overcome the especial

453

Appendix

DR(M): AG:

DR(M):

interests in Washington thank you Mr. vice president well uh a president doesn’tt uh introduce bills in the House or Senate we rely on ALlies like uh Tom Harkin in the Senate and Leonard Boswell in the House (.) and we fought for the McCain-Feingold bill so hard that we got ↑every (.) single (.) ↑Democrat who had ↑stayed and fought ↑for it and then the Republicans went in lockstep there were only a few of them who split ranks so that’s the reason it didn’t pass ↑↑don’t blame the Democratic party for it because the ↑Democrats were un↑animous (.) in supporting it (.) and if you elect me president I will make it happen here’s one more question from a reader and we won’t have time for aa rebuttal on this one (.) as you know the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that (.) for every dollar a man makes a woman makes something like (.) seventy three cents Kathy Neale of Ankany is president of the Business and Professional Women of ↑Iowa and she asks (.) as president what would ↑you do to ensure that working families (.) do not ↑suffer as a result of the gender wage gap’ (.) Mr. vice president you may go first I support uh an equal day’s paay for an equal day’s work (.) I support vigorous enforcement of our laaws against dis↑crimination (.) in↑cluding affirmative action which aall the Republicans are attacking today and inci↑dentally remember they’re saying that the next president’s likely to appoint three maybe four justices of the Supreme ↑Court (.) not only a woman’s right to CHOOse but a ↑lot of our (.) individual rights and civil rights are going to be at risk (.) iif the Republican party controls the majority on the Supreme Court for the next thirty or forty years (.) so ↑those of you who are thinking about going out to your caucuses get mobilized (.) and stay mobilized for the general election no matter which one of us is the nominee because this is a big FIGHT about our future (.) now ↑I feel strongly about this Mr. Ryerson because uh (somewhat laughing) I’m the son of a (.) mother who grew up a poor girl in rural west Tennessee at a time when (.) wom girls weren’t supposed to dream for much but she DREAMED of a day when women and men would be ↑equal and she worked her way through schoool took her blind (.) sister my aunt Dellie ↑with her. (.) got a (.) wo worked her way through college as well (.) and and got a loan and went to Nashville worked as a waitress in an aall-night coffee shop and became one of the first women in history to graduate from Vanderbilt Law School (.) believe me (somewhat laughing) (.) aall the years that I was growing up and all the years of my life I have knoown that women and men are equal if not more so [(.) as the father of ↑three ↑daaughters and at th (3. almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] as the husband of Tipper Gore I guarantee you this is going to be right in the center of my commitment to public service senator Bradley well I support an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s woork (.) I think thaaat it is (.) very important that (.) leadership uses affirmative aaction to ADVaance to break through the glass ceilings that are in our country to↑day. (.) I think ↑thaat appointments should reflectt uh that you SEEE a world without gender (.) I think that ↑women that are in the country today have sso much talents burgeoning into the

AG:

A: AG: DR(M): BB:

454

Appendix sceene in the corporate sector and slowly in government I ↑think that there’s an opportunity to unlock e↑↑normous potential (.) in our so↑ciety so that we can be as good as we can possibly ↑be (0.5) I ↑↑also think thoough that you have to help women who maybe are not headed toward the glass ↑↑ceiling but are ↑↑struggling to make ↑↑ENDS meet every day (.) and that’s where increasing help for the Family and Medical Leave Aact is enormously im↑portant. (.) that’s where increeasing child caare the dependent child tax credit is im↑portant. (.) that’s why increeasing the child care block grant is im↑portant. (.) that’s why increasing the minimum wage’s im↑portant. and yess (.) ↑↑that is ↑why providing affordable accessible health care to aall Americans is important (.) because ↑↑LAST year (.) one million more people loost (.) their jobs and lost health insurance (.) ↑↑↑WHO ↑↑WERE the ↑most of those ↑people (.) ↑MOST of those people (.) were women so when you talk about health care (.) you’re talking about taking ↑money and putting it on the table (.) for those ↑workers that were on the ↑picket line on t Local one forty ↑seven who ↑neeed that health care (.) and for the women in this country who if they don’t get it (.) are going to faall deeper and deeper into poverty ↑thank you (.) thatt ends the question portion of this debate and now we’ll go to closing can comments ↑each of you will have a minute and forty five seconds we’ll begin with the viice president (.) ↑go a↑head well it’s beenn uh I said at the ↑outset it’s an honour to to be HERe and I want to say that it is an honour to to be in a race for the ↑Democratic nomination with Bill Braadley. (.) I don’t want any of you aall to mistake the (.) heated disagreements that we have about issues ass uh disagreements about th the character or basic goodness of the (.) individual (.) uh ↑I believe senator Bradley is a good maan and I’ve uh learned a lot (.) during these debates (.) and I’m grateful for it. (.) but I ↑do think we have a different approach different experiences a ↑↑different phi↑losophy of what a president should do (.) ↑I don’t think that the presidency is an academic exerCIISe or a seminar onn theories (.) I think the presidency has to be a day-to-day resolute FIGHT for the American people (.) the presidency when you ↑think about it (.) is the only position mentioned in our Constitution (.) where the individual who holds it (.) has a responsibility to fight ↑NOT just forr some especial interest or one particular reegion or the weealthy or the connnected (.) he has t (.) he or she has a responsibility to fight for aall of the people (.) ↑I want to ↑↑fight for ↑you and I want to ask you to go to the caucuses on January twenty fourth at seven p.m. and when you ↑do. (.) just IMAAAgine (.) what it will be like (.) when we have a nation with high quality health care for ↑aall. (.) when we have truly revolutionary improvements in our public ↑schoools with the new teeachers and smaller class ↑siize (.) when we have a safety net for farmers that worrks (.) when we restore a sense of meaning and purpose to the lives of our children (.) when we are able to provide the kind of model and leadership here in the United States of A↑merica. that causes other nations all around the world to say (.) ‘we want (.) the kind of freedom that America stands for’ (.) I want to fight for yoou (.) and I’d I’d like to close by asking for ↑your support in the ↑Iowa caucuses January twenty fourth. thank you thank yoou senator Bradley this election’s not about experience (.) we both have experience. (.) it’s about leadership (.) it’s about presidential leadership (.) what ↑leadership is about I believe

DR(M):

AG:

DR(M): BB:

455

Appendix

DR(M):

is taking a NAAtional prooblem (.) health care (.) education turning it intoo aa ↑public issue and then engaging the i↑↑dealism of the American people (.) in order (.) to make something happen (.) that’s what ↑FDR did in the nineteen ↑thiirties. (.) with Social ↑Security. (.) that’s what (.) Lyndon Johnson did with civil rights and ↑Medicare in the nineteen ↑sixties. (.) ↑they didn’t saay ‘well we’re just going to cover TWENty percent of the people (.) and see how it works out’ (.) they said ‘we’re going to cover ↑everybody with Social Security (.) ↑everybody with Medicare’ just like I want to cover ↑everybody with health care (.) and when they ↑↑did ↑that they made us aaall better ↑↑off. (.) and so (.) ↑boold leadership is im↑↑portant (.) and the absence of bold leadership also has results (.) for example (.) let’s take agriculture (.) Al’s been hammering me on my agriculture votes fifteen years agoo. (.) but I would simply ask the family farmers of Iowa todaay. (.) ↑are you better ↑off than you were seven years a↑go (.) or ↑do we need (.) a change (.) ↑do we need to take a step to make things haappen (0.5) my father was a small-town banker (.) I once aasked him what was his proudest moment. (.) he said his PROUdest moment was throughout the Great Depression he never forecloosed (.) on a single home (.) I was naturally prooud of him (.) ↑I’m my father’s soon (.) and as a ↑president of the United ↑States I will not rest until ↑rural America and ↑urban America move ahead (.) I will not rest until we leave ↑NO ↑ONE be↑hiind because ↑only (.) if we leave ↑NO ↑ONE behind can we bring everybody together thank you senator (.) I’d like too thank both of our candidates for being with us today vice president ↑Gore (0.5) senator ↑Bradley and I’d like to thank you for being with us as well (.) ↑next week we’ll be back with the Republicans (.) have a great day

456

Appendix

Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Manchester, NH. CNN Especial Event Aired January 26th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour and 30 min. Participants: Karen Brown (KB(M)) Bernard Shaw (BS(M)) Gary Bauer (GB) John McCain (JMC) George W. Bush (GWB) Steve Forbes (SF) Alan Keys (AK) KB(M): Good evening and thank you for ↑joining us for this final round of presidential debaates before Tuesday’s primary here in New Hampshire (.) this ↑evening we offer voters in this state and across the nation an u↑nusual opportunity to see Republicans square off and then the Democrats on the saame ↑night. in back-to-back debates the Republican contenders will go first (.) during the next ninety minutes Karen and I will be posing different questions to each of these candidates then we will ask questions that aaall the candidates will answer (.) the candidates will also have time to question one another and (.) then to give closing remarks= =We want to welcome the five Republican candidates who are with us here tonight (.) former Reagan administration official Gary Bauer (.) senator John McCain of Arizona (.) Texas governor George W. Bush (.) publisher Steve Forbes (.) and former State Department official Alan Keyes (.) by draaw we determined that we would begin the questioning with Gary Bauer (.) good evening Mr. Bauer hi Karen how are ↑you. good (0.5) let me ask you this there’s been relatively little discussion on the issue of health care between the Republican candidates for president (.) muhm HERE in New Hampshire seventy three percent of uninsured families have at least one family member who is working full tiime yet they cannot afford coverage for their families which would cost anywhere (.) from seven thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars a year (.) ↑what do ↑you propose to help these families Karen there are a lot of things we can do I’m in favor of medical saavings accouunts so that in good years people can put a little bit of money of aside (.) that they can take off of their taxes and then if there’s a medical crisis the next year (.) they can use it for thaat or for health insurance cossts (.) uh I think we can do things on the whole area of the ↑paatient bill of ↑rights (.) uh I I think a lot of people in my party got off on the wrong on the wrong foot on this my seventy-six year-old mother (.) has to deal with an H.M.O. ↑why in the world would somebody think it’s a conservative idea or a ↑Republican idea to say that she shouldn’t have the right to get reDRESS if she’s uh th the victim of medical mal↑↑practice I think we need to do something on long-term care (.) and on prescription drugs (.) and what I would do is let older Americans buy into the ↑REAlly nice health care plan that ↑POliticians in Washington D.C. ↑have (.) they’ve got a ↑great plan that covers ↑them and

BS(M):

KB(M):

GB: KB(M): GB: KB(M):

GB:

457

Appendix

KB(M): GB: KB(M):

GB:

KB(M): BS(M): GWB:

BS(M): GWB:

federal employeees (.) they get to pick among two hundred policies (.) that cover things like long-term care and prescription drugs (.) we can let older Americans buuy into that plan (.) and end up saving tens of billions of b dollars in ↑Medicare while providing better coverage for more Americans. so (.) those are some of the things we can do a follow-up question specifically aimed now at long-term care= =yes= =in New Haampshire (.) according to Citizens for Long-Term Care eight thousand people reside in nursing facilities (.) twenty-five thousand more receive care from home health care agencies (.) it’s really not an elder issue there are many young people who suffer from disabilities or chronic illness (.) there are also those who suffer from Alzheimer’s (.) ↑long-term care often forces patients into poverty so what do you specifically propose on long-term care that would help these patients and their ↑families well Karen ther there are people in a lot of different age groups but the overwheelming ma↑joority of people in long-term care are older Americans (.) and so my plan of allowing them to buy into the federal health insurance ↑program (.) which provides long-term care would work (.) ↑let me mention another area of longterm care. and that’s veterans benefits (.) many Americans are treated in those veterans hospitals and I have to tell ↑ya (.) ↑I think it’s out↑↑RAgeous that we are closing veterans’ ↑↑hospitals (.) my father was in a veterans hospital for two years (.) my mother was able to visit him there because he was close to hoome (.) these men kept their end of the bargain and now we’re many making them stand in liine hat in haand to beg for the benefits that are theirs (.) when I am president of the United States these men and women are going to be taken care of thank you governor Bush (.) if you could write a twoo-sentence (.) amendment to the United States Constitution oon abortion (.) ↑what would it ↑be it would bee uuh that (.) ↑every chiild born and unborn should be protected in law (.) and every child should be welcomed in life. (0.5) I be↑lieve it’s important for our party to (.) maintain our pro-life position (0.5) I believe it’s important for the next president (.) to recogniize good people can disagree on ↑this issue (.) and so the next president must ↑elevate the issue of life (.) to convince people of the ↑preciousness of life not only for the youung but for the elderly as well (.) the next president must leead our country towaard (.) uh toward policies that will reduce abortions I will sign a partial-birth abortion baan (.) I I I will promote adooption. (.) I will promote abstinence prograams (.) uh in our in our school systems (.) the life issue is an important ↑issue (.) for our party and our party must not abandon our pro-life position (.) but we must welcome ↑people from different persuasions ↑into our party or different points of view ↑into our party so will thee Republican partyy platform plank on abortion be your ↑bible. I’m a pro-life (.) ↑candidate (.) and I’ve been a pro-life ↑governor I have set (.) the TOne in my state to bring people together I I I’ve fought for and signed the first (.) parental notification bill in my state’s ↑HIStory. (.) I brought Democrats and Republicans together to value life (.) this is a bill that will will reduce the number of abortions in the state of Texas (.) I also worked with both Democrats and

458

Appendix

KB(M):

AK:

KB(M): AK:

BS(M):

JMC:

Republicans to encourage a↑doptions in my state of Texas (0.5) Mr. Keeyes (.) you advocate a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax (.) let’s assuume for a moment that (.) Congress doesn’t pass (.) your national sales tax plan (.) ↑what then (.) what would be your ↑faall-back position on taxes well I have to tell ↑↑↑I ↑↑I ↑I actually think that that that would not be an appropriate question for me to answer (.) I think that we HAVE to move away from the slave income tax (.) and that I am working to put together a coalition of people around the country (.) who understaand that we have (.) surrendered control of our income to the government (.) giving them a preemptive claim uh that ↑they then determine the ↑extent of (.) over our ↑↑money (.) as long as that is the case in principle the government controols EVEry penny that is made and EARned in the United States and ANYthing left in our pockets is left there by the sufferance of our politicians (.) this is an unac↑↑ceptable. situ↑ation. (.) and so I’m not going to answer a question based on the notion that (.) the people of this country should acquiesce (.) and that we should simply continue to do what my colleagues want to do (.) tinker around with the system where they get to be the gate-keepers of our ↑↑money (.) I will not allow that to continue (.) I will work to to to change ↑that (.) and we must moove to ABOlish the income tax and replace it with the original Constitution of the country (.) ↑I beliieve that that is the alternative that needs to be placed before the A↑merican people (.) aand if we can effectively put together in this election (.) the coalition to to support that then the Congress will respoond to the will of the people ↑can ↑↑yoou (.) offer us some more specifics on your national sales tax proposal is it a tax on goods and services and what (.) percentage would you put on that tax ↑I sup↑↑port (.) a fair tax proposal that is out there on the table that would replace both the income tax and the payroll tax (.) the rate would probably have to bee for that purpose arouund twenty to twenty-three percent it would be on (.) the (.) ↑REtail sales that is it’s not a tax on production uh I think that what the Euro↑peans have done (.) in the way of (.) that and other taxes that intervene in the production process actually burdens productivity and discourages it (.) you want an (.) EEND tax oon consumption (.) of ↑retail sales (.) ex↑↑cluding a certain market basket of goods and services that represent the essential necessities of life so that the pooor and those on fixed incomes (.) would be able to ex↑empt themselves from taxation through their oown judicious use (.) of the proper choice (.) and ↑↑others (.) who feel that they cannot bear the burden of the ↑income tax would be able by following ↑that frugality track to do the same thing senator McCain (.) you have an ad running heere (.) in New Hampshire (.) underscoring your service in uniform (.) but ↑one of the implications is that Bush (0.5) Forbes (0.5) Keeyes (.) and Bauer (0.5) would be lesser leaders ↑is that ↑fair. it’s neitherr (.) the intention nor the implication of the ad. (.) the ad states clearly what I believe (.) and that is that I am fully ↑qualified. (.) I am the best prepared (.) to lead this nation in the next century in very dangerous tiimes (.) unfortunately this administration has conducted a feckless photo-op foreign policy (.) for which we may have to pay a very heavy ↑price. in the ↑future. in American blood and ↑treasure. (.) I have a coherent cohesive concept (.) of what I want the world to ↑look like (.) and what the interests and the values are and where the threats lie (.) I

459

Appendix

BS(M): JMC:

KB(M): SF: KB(M):

SF:

KB(M):

SF:

under↑stand the problems of the men and women in the military (.) I think it’s an absolute disgrace that there’s ↑fifteen thousand twelve thousand proud brave young enlisted families that are on FOOD stamps in the military (.) there will be no foodstamp military (.) when I am president of the United States. (.) I am simply stating and will re↑peat. (.) I am fully prepared (.) to be president of the United States is not having seerved in the military a handi↑cap. no it’s ↑not (.) a handicap (.) it’s not at ↑all (.) but this is the first administration with a president of the United States and a secretary of defence and a secretary of state (.) that have never spent one ↑minute wearing the uniform of the armed services of the United States and I promise ya (.) ↑that won’t happen on my watch (1.) good evening Mr. Forbes good evening India’s nuclear testing in nineteen ninety-eight prompted the United States to impose economic sanctions (.) president Clinton is expected to visit India (.) in March and administration officials now talk off (.) wanting closer relations (.) is it ↑TIIme to lift those economic sanctions and resume a two-way trade with India (.) trade I might add that’s worth about ten billion dollars a year well I think in the case of India and Pakistan (.) both of which are now nuclear powers (.) it’s essential to go beyoond their stop-go approach with the Clinton-Gore adminis↑tration. (.) they had no ↑clue. (.) that those tests were going to take ↑place. (.) they had no ↑clue. (.) that Pakistan would try to ↑heat up (.) the conflict in Kashmir which is the real flashpoint in the subcoontinent (0.5) and so when you have a cluueless adminis↑tration. (.) it’s no surpriise they’re always caught (.) short (.) they’re always surprised (.) so ↑putting on the economic ↑sanctions. (.) ↑did not work. (.) India’s going ahead with their nuclear ↑program. (0.5) so we need far more effective di↑↑plomacy. (.) our people did not ↑↑knoow. in the White House (.) that apparently Pakistani ↑operatives. (.) were behind that recent ↑hijacking (.) and so what we have to do (.) is have real diplomacy there (.) and try to defuse those tensions (.) but ↑also ↑↑TOO (.) we have to rebuild our own military and we must move ahead (.) with energy and a sense of emergency with our own missile defence system (.) to tell these states that aspire to be nuclear powers (.) ‘forget it (.) as soon as your rocket leaves the launch pad (.) we’re going to knock it doown’ (.) or our allies are going to be able to knock it doown (.) have those defensive measures (.) and you reduce the likelihood (.) of a nuclear waar (.) with India and Pakistan and elsewhere you’ve indicated that you don’t think economic sanctions work in cases such as this (.) but siince that is what we’ve imposed against India (.) would ↑you (.) then (.) ↑advocate lifting those economic sanctions at this point in ↑tiime I would advocate having a real diplomacy (.) with India and find out what their true intentions ↑arre (.) and then yes then we can lift those sanctions if it looks like that they want to have a real settlement on the ↑continent. (.) subcontinent after all they’ve had over three ↑↑waars and they nearly went to war this summer (.) when Pakistan started to heat things up in Kash↑↑miir (.) and so those flashpoints have to be dealt with this (.) administration’s taken a passive ap↑proach (.) they probably had to look on the map where India and Pakistan werre. (.) so ↑clearly it’s not woorked there (.) and I think in the case of Pakistan they did nothing when the

460

Appendix Chinese ↑transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan which helped heat things up this administration winked an ↑↑eeeye that’s why India set off its ↑↑boomb thank you beginning with governor Bush (.) this next question is for all candidates too respond to (.) according to population experts within years whites will no longer bee the racial majority in the United States of A↑merica (0.5) ↑should our national dialogue (.) drop the words (.) ‘minority’. (.) ‘majority’. it’s a great question (.) I’m from a state wheeerre uh (0.5) over fifty percent of the (.) kindergarten students are Hispanic (.) and we view each other as Texans (0.5) we view us all under (.) under the great flaaag of the lone star (0.5) ↑↑YEAH I think so I would ↑hope our country would get beyooond (.) group thought (.) and we’d herald each individual (.) regardless of their heritage and regardless of their background that the the I↑↑DEAL world is one in which ↑all of us are viewed as Americans first and ↑foremost Mr. Keyes (0.5) ↑↑I think that it would be (.) ad↑visable (.) and I have always argued in fact (.) that categorizing people according to race and group is baad in this country (.) I think one of the things that has been done by quotas and other approaches that people saay (.) are to benefit minorities is that in fact we have retained the categories of (.) racial discrimination and racial consciousness (.) I think we would do better to focus on our common American identity to renew our allegiance to those moral principles that deFIINE that common American identity (.) so that we can move forward uh and if there are ↑people in this society who need HELP (.) we should give them that help based on their ↑NEED. (.) based on the scaars that they have suffered perhaps from past (.) abuse and discrimination (.) not based on race and minority background of that kiind ↑senator ↑I would think so because then we could eliminate quotas which I I think neither helps the beneficiary norr (.) improves the effort to improve equality in America (.) but I ↑also think that it’s very important that we preseerve (.) our rich heritage in ↑my state Hispanic heritage has made us wonderful and great and noble (.) and I want to pre↑serve that. (.) I also want to underscore the fact that we still have a lot of people down at the economic bottom rung (.) of the economic la ladder (.) that need a lot of help and a lot of assistance no matter what their ↑ethnic. Make-up iss and we have to address this issue Mr. Forbes (0.5) well QUOtas are WROOng (.) what makes America unique (.) is judging us as individuals (.) not as members of groups (.) my grandfather was a penniless immigrant as tens of millions of other Americans werre. (.) what ↑brings us together (.) is not a single ancestry or religion or a common race (.) what U↑NItes us (.) is a shared set of ↑IDeas and ↑IDeals (.) the belief in ↑freedom. and ↑liberty. (.) de↑moocracy. (.) individual equality before the ↑laaw. (.) oppor↑tunity. (.) that’s what makes us unique (.) and that’s what we need to get back to Mr. Bauer ↑Winston ↑Churchill referred to us as ‘the American race’ (.) ve very interesting phrase (.) it it obviously wasn’t a reference to the color of our skins (.) ↑hee kneew

KB(M): BS(M):

GWB:

KB(M): AK:

BS(M): JMC:

KB(M): SF:

BS(M): GB:

461

Appendix

KB(M): AK:

JMC: AK:

JMC:

AK:

JMC:

that there was an IDEa that defined Americans and it’s in the Declaration of Independence (.) all men created equal etc. (.) but ↑I want to ↑↑aadd (.) one of the reasons for the ↑trends you’re talking about and I don’t have any problem with the trends but one of the reasons for them I ↑do have a problem with (.) and that’s il↑legal immigration in governor Bush’s ↑state. (.) and ↑southern California. (.) il↑legal immigrants are ↑pouring into this country (.) and ↑myy party ought to stand against it a great nation protects its borders thank you (.) we’re now going to move to a round (.) where ↑candidates (0.5) are allowed to question each other by draaaw (.) Mr. ↑Keeyes. you get the first question ↑thank you very much (.) well ↑senator Mc↑↑Cain in my paast uh questioning I think I’ve kind of established that you support the Clinton (.) policy (.) uh ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ on gays in the military [but I ↑HEARD to↑↑day I think we’ve pretty well massaged that (somehow laughing) I ↑HEARD to↑day that you had been asked] a question about what you would say if your daughter uuh was ever in a position where she might need an a↑↑bortion and you said that (.) at first that as I understand it that the choice would be up to HEER (.) and then that you’d have a family conference ↑I’ve ↑↑got to admit (.) ↑I think that that displayed a profound lack of understanding (.) of of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion ↑AFter all if your daughter came to you and said she was contemplating killing her graandmother (.) for the inheritance you wouldn’t say ‘let’s have a ↑family ↑↑conference’ (.) you’d look at her and say JUST say ‘NOO’ because that is morally wrong (.) well it is ↑↑GOD’s ↑choice (.) that that child is in the womb (.) and for us to usurp that choice in CONtradiction of our declaration of principles (.) is JUST as ↑wroong (.) therefore ↑how can you take the position that you would subject such a choice (.) to a ↑FAmily conference or any other human ↑choice (.) ↑isn’t it ↑↑God’s choice (.) that protects the life of that child in the ↑womb I am proud of my pro-life record (clears throat) in public life (.) I’m the only one heere (.) who has gone to the floor of the Senate (.) and voted in the preservation of the life of the unborn (.) I have I ↑worked very hard (.) for the ban of partial-birth abortion (.) I have sought forr ap↑proval and legislation requiring parental consent and parental notification (.) I am proud of that pro-life record and I will continue to maintain it (.) I ↑will not draw my children (.) into this discussion. meaning no offence senator the question wasn’t about your ↑reecord it was about your under↑↑standing (.) if we take a position on this issue and are then nominated by this paarty (.) we will have to go forward to deFEND that position (.) in a field where Bill Bradley and Al Gore aren’t going to take your record as an answer (.) ↑they’ll need a per↑suasive justification before the American ↑people as to WHYY. that position is consonant with our principles and our ↑heritage (.) and the answer you ↑gaave today does NOT display that ↑kind of under↑↑standing how can we trust you to move forward (.) and defend our position on this issue because unlike youu. (.) I have a seventeen-year voting record and record of service to this country (.) including doing everything that I can to preserve the rights of the unborn. (.) I have spoken (.) as ↑eloquently as I can on that ↑issue. (.) I am proud of my record and that record I will stand on (.) aaand (.) I am (.) completely ↑comfortable with the fact (.) that as a leader (.) of a pro-life party (.) with a pro-life

462

Appendix position that I will persuade which is what really this is all ↑about (.) to have young Americans understand the importance of the preservation (.) of the rights of the unborn Mr. Forbes you get the next question (0.5) I’ll ask it of uh ↑governor Bushh (smiling at him) I was hoping so (somewhat laughing) I’m sure (somewhat laughing, and smiling and nodding at him) (.) when you ran for governor in nineteen ninety-foour you criticized Ann Richards for the fact that Texas had thirteen thousand more state employeees than did New York ↑state (.) since then (.) the gap is now thirty-↑six thousand Texas has thirty-six thousand more employees than the state of New ↑↑York does state level under your leadership spending has gone up thirty-six percent almost ↑↑TWIce the rate (.) of the ClintonGore administration (.) on your so-called ↑↑tax cut your own budget director said that six out of ten Texans (.) did ↑not get a tax cut in this last round (.) and on education (.) you’ve dumped down the ↑↑standards. to the point (.) where uh in ↑Texas (.) your S.A.↑Tt. ranking has gone from fortieth in the ↑nation. to forty-sixth in the nation (.) what can you tell (.) the people of New Hampshire (.) and of America (.) that you won’t do in Washington what you’ve done in Texas (1.5) so many half stories (0.5) so little time (.) (general almost inaudible laughter from all the candidates) Ii uh let’s start with education (.) uuuh people who’ve looked at the state of Texas have consistently said (.) that because we have set ↑high standards a↑bolished social promotion uh got a vibrant charter school movement (.) have got a public school choice movement (.) that we’re making the best progress in the nation for improvement (.) amongst minority s↑tudents (.) that our minority students because of our stroong accountability system (.) are making tre↑↑mendous improvement (.) that our ↑↑schools are some ranked as some of the best in the ↑↑country ↑Steeve our public ↑schoool system (.) is ↑meeting the challenge (.) in terms of the budget I’ve slowed the rate of growth down (.) and when you take out population growth and inflation (.) it’s by faar the slowest rate of growth ever in my state’s history in terms of tax cuts (.) I not only led our state to a BIllion-dollar tax cut in ninety-seven (.) I led our state to a (.) ↑↑TWO billion dollar tax cut in nineteen ninety-niine (.) real (.) meaningful (.) tax cuts (.) but I ↑↑guess the way to answer your question is you know the people of Texas took a look at my record the second biggest state in the union (.) a ↑miighty important electoral state for any Republican running for president (.) and they saaid ‘Mr. governor we accept your record’ (.) and they over↑wheelmingly voted me back into ↑ooffice (.) I nearly got (.) seventy (.) percent of the vote (1.) well George on (.) again on S.A.T.’s (.) Texas is one of the few states where minority scores have gone down ↑not ↑up (.) standards have been dumped down eighth-grade science tests in ↑Texas shows four a picture of four insects and says pick out the fly (.) so that’s why the test scores have been not going up (.) now again how are you going to improve education ↑nationally (.) when in Texas (.) it’s gone and in terms of ↑tax cuts (.) yours is a ↑tax cut (.) that only Clinton and Gore could love when most people ↑don’t ↑↑get ↑it Steve [(laughing)

KB(M): SF: GWB: SF:

GWB: GWB:

SF:

GWB:

463

Appendix

SF: GWB:

SF: GWB: SF: GWB:

SF: GWB:

KB(M): JMC: GB: JMC:

GB:

JMC:

your own budget director said six out of ten didn’t get it Let let let let let me answer it Ok] ↑Ii uh (0.5) you know the ↑↑people of Texas (0.5) looked at the real facts (.) I’ve just ex↑plained them to ya (.) [our ↑↑TESTS ↑SCOres well what are the real facts on S.A.↑Tt.’s ↑↑PLEEAASE (.) don’t interrupt me.] let me finish Ok.= =well answer the ↑question. (0.5) the test scores in my state (1.5) on the ↑NAP test (.) which compares state to state show draMAAtic improvement and that’s (.) ob↑jective analysis after objective analysis has ranked Texas as one of the (.) best education states in the ↑country. it’s not only because of ↑↑mee. it’s because of teachers and principles and parents (.) ↑one ↑↑reason our our S.A. S.A.T. scores have improved since I’ve been the governor you need to get your researcher to do a better job (.) but ↑UNLIKE (.) ↑MANY states (.) [↑WE ↑↑MAKE sur your your ran]king went ↑doown. (0.5) un unlike many states (.) we make SUURE as MAny kids can take the S.A.T. as ↑↑possible (.) we include (.) all ↑kiiinds of children we want our children in Texas to ↑↑take the S.A.T. thank you very much (.) senator McCain (.) you get the next question (1.) Gary yes senator the United States Supreme Court issued a decision day before yesterday concerning campaign finance reform (.) it was a marvelous decision (.) it affirmed everything that I have fought for (.) including the fact in the words of one judge (.) ‘money is not free s (.) money is property not free speech’ we know the corruption that’s taken place in the Clinton and Gore campaign as a result of the nineteen ninety-six election and the (.) ↑unlimited campaign contributions. (.) we know how important it is now to have an oppor↑TUnity (.) to enact real meaningful campaign finance reform (.) I’d like your views on that very important Supreme Court decision= =uh ↑senator your your summary doesn’t even get close to how bad the situation is I mean as you know in the last election we had Chinese ↑money (.) coming in through companies controlled by the People’s Liberation Army (.) into the American presidential campaign. (.) UN (.) BELIEVABLE. (.) and unacceptable I think there are a couple of things that can be done here my own approach on this is that indi↑viiduals should be able to give more to candidates like us than they can right now. I think one thousand dollars is too little (.) I hope none of us can be bought for a thousand ↑dollars. I know that I ↑can’t. (.) uh I think as long as we get that money repoorted immediately that that would be an acceptable change (.) but I agree with you on a major point (.) there is ↑SOMething TERribly wrong (.) when big unions and big corporations (.) can dump FOUR FIVE SIX ↑million dollars into the coffers of the two po↑litical parties (.) now reform is important I want to make sure it doesn’t hurt just our party (.) that’s not acceptable (.) but when Teddy Roosevelt and the early reformers said that ↑big unions and ↑big business should not be able to ↑buuy that kind of access (.) they knew what they were talking about (.) and as ↑president (.) I would do away with that kind of soft money in campaigns. the Supreme Court said. (.) there is little reason to doubt that sometimes large

464

Appendix

GB:

SF: GB: SF: GB: SF: GB:

JMC: SF: JMC: KB(M): JMC: KB(M): GWB: AK: GWB: AK: GWB:

AK:

contributions will work actual corruption of our political system and no reason to question the existence (.) of a corres↑ponding suspicion among voters. (.) do you know that the Republican party is now taking (.) ↑setting up a mechanism for this huge soft money thing the Democrats are also (.) we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars if not biillions that are going to be washing around in this next presidential campaign (.) ↑USually in the form of negative ads. and don’t you ↑think we as candidates ought to say (.) we’ll have nothing to do (.) with that corruption of our system I I I agree and let John let me tell you a very real way where this money is hurting our ↑↑party (.) we (.) and I must say ↑this to some of my ↑↑↑colleagues up here tonight there is a loot of fuzzy soft thinking about ↑↑↑China (.) some of these debates from some of you (.) I I thought I was de↑↑bating Bill ↑↑↑Clinton (.) and why is that why is the party of Ronald Reeagan (.) conFUsed about about mostfavored-nation status (.) very simple reason (.) because there are some ↑big corporations giving a loot of money to the Republican National Committee (.) and pulling strings on that issue (.) ↑STEVE FORBES you CAN’T figure ↑out where you are on most favored-nation status for China [oh come on Gary I’ve laid out a policy on China (.) what we can say (.) one thing (.) what we can say (.) something else (.)] [you should listen to it governor Bush you agreee] [Gary I’ll give you a copy (.) I’ll give you a copy of my book and you can find it USE your own time USE your own time] governor Bush you’ve got a policy on China that looks just like Bill Clinton’s when it comes to most favored-↑nation status (.) so I think you guuys (.) are already affected by some of these big money contributions [could I mention some (.) I’m the no one’s ever bought me Gary and never will I’m the only guy that has [has a commercial] running that (unintelligible)] morphs Bill Clinton’s face into mine [(some of the candidates laugh) governor Bush] you get to ask the next question uh to Alan Keyess (0.5) ↑what’s it like to be in a ↑mosh pit. [(laughing) (loud laughter)] it was a ↑lot of ↑↑fun [(laughing) (laughing)] actually I enjoyed it on this stage after us will be two Democrats and if you listen carefully to what they’re saaying it sounds liike (0.5) they love what uh the Clintons tried to do to health care they want to federalize health care (.) they want uh the federal government to manage our health care (.) I know you and the rest of us heear (.) concerns about health care all over New Hampshire (.) ↑what is your view (.) ↑give us ↑give us your principles on health care for America= =↑I actually think it’s very important not to (.) turn health care over to government domination (.) because we’ll get the ↑SAAMe kind of results that sadly we have gotten (.) in our education system where we spend moore and we get less in terms of

465

Appendix

KB(M): GWB:

AK:

KB(M): SF: GB:

quality as a result (.) we have to take an approach that empowers those who are out there looking for health care services to ↑↑BE the ↑ONES who can ↑MAke the choices and MAke the decisions (.) that will en↑↑FORCE within that system a relationship between the MOney you pay and the quality you get (.) ↑that’s something that empowered consumers should be able to do (.) we should ↑VOUcherize the federal program (.) so that individuals will haave a stake (.) in ↑making the right judgments about how they get their health care (.) we need to set up medical savings accounts and other mechanisms that will allow people (.) to (.) ↑↑build ↑up (.) what they need in order to meet their health care neeeds by making judicious choices (.) that will give ↑THEM the power to go to the RIGHT doctor to the RIGHT way of providing medical services according to their choice (.) I think ↑THAAT is the principle that we need (.) and ↑by the ↑↑way that will help to keep costs down (.) bureaucracies ↑↑cann’t do that job (.) but as we find in every other sector of our economy (.) when you emPOwer consumers to make choices when you GIVE them (.) a raange of choices so they can ↑go ↑↑away from those providers who are not giving them cost-effective (.) provision of services that’s when you’re going to get the costs doown (.) and when we’ll haave (.) MORE medical dollars available (.) to meet problems like long-term health care (.) which is CAtastrophic (.) for individual families and which they can’t bear on their own (0.5) [you get (.) you get a follow-up do you (.) do you] agree with me that it seems like the administration kind of (.) loves to dangle Medicare refoorm. (.) kind of get people talking about it and then turn the tables for political reasons well I think they have done that in (.) every respect (.) as a matter of fact (.) their ↑↑AIM. ↑I believe. (.) is to try to lure more and more people into a governmentdominated system (.) and once you get the reiigns of controol (.) over medical care into that government system you will then as unfortunately we have fouund in other countries (.) be able to ↑lower the quality (.) and not give people the kind of service that they need (.) while at the same tiime (.) shortchanging the pro↑VIders of services so that you reduce the incentive for training and quality care (.) ↑that is the result we’ll get from socialism (.) and I frankly am proud of the Republican party for HAVIng stood together to reSIST the socialization of medicine in this country (.) it was the RIGHT thing to do (.) and I ↑I think it also helped by the way to safeguard the situation that allowed us to continue (.) oon the road of prosperous expansion in our economy Mr. Bauer you’ve got the last question in this round of ↑candidate questioning and it will go to Mr. Forbes= =ok well Steve we can continue this conversation about ↑Chiina. (.) Steve ↑you’ve had about FOUR different positions on this during this cam↑paign (.) I ↑still don’t know quite where you are (.) ↑let me summarize for you what’s been happening with China. (.) they’re in the middle of a massive arms build-up. (.) they’ve taken technology from the United States ↑↑sold to them by American companies (.) we’ve got ↑↑companies from China controlled by the People’s Liberation Army (.) pouring stuff in here (.) uuh we’ve got ↑threats on Taiwan this Chinese defence minister said two weeks ago (.) war with the United States was inevitable. (.) ↑will you

466

Appendix re↑↑peeal. most favored-nation status for ↑China (.) ↑I ↑will (.) in my first week in office good Gary thank you for the question oon China. (.) I belieeve that we must let the Chinese know (.) what the rules of engagement are. (.) if they want a prosperous relationship they can have it. (.) but you have to lay down the ruules because then (.) if they break those rules (.) then you can take a course of action and unite this country and unite our alliies (.) the rules of engagement would include the under↑staanding. (.) we’d make it ↑clear. that they cannot run us out of Asia as they’re trying to do ↑noow (.) and they ↑cannot use force against ↑Taiwan. (.) where they’ve made an agr↑eement. (.) not to use force against Taiwan we’re going to hold them to it (.) and that means we must re↑build our military instead of run it do↑own. (.) and we must move ahead with the missile defence system (.) on human rights a↑buses (.) we will ↑criticize them in every international forum ↑poossible. (.) ↑dissidents in China have told me and others how important that is to put the spotlight oon (.) in terms of traade (.) of ↑course we want trade with China (.) but it has to be two-way they have to genuinely reduce barriers (.) not the fake promises they’ve made to the to the gullible Clinton-Gore administration (.) and if China wishes to pass technology ↑oon (.) to rogue states like North Korea or to Pakistan we should put sanctions on specific Chinese companies (.) par↑ticularly those controlled by the People’s Liberation Army (.) so you let them know what the rules ↑aare (.) if they don’t adhere to those rules (.) then you take the appropriate steps including th taking trade sanctions Steve you know (.) you you’ve done it again (.) you’ve had over a minute and fifteen seconds and you can’t answer a simple ↑↑question [I said GARY ALL the (.) LET] [good ME] FINISH My follow-up= =good ↑ALL of the ↑thiings that you just said hypo↑thetically (.) has already been done by China (.) ↑YOU REFUUSE to answer a simple ↑↑question (.) will ↑YOU repeal most favored-nation ↑status (.) for China (.) ↑or ↑↑not I’m trying to make it clear Gary (.) in very simple terms (.) if China violates those rules of engagement when they know (.) now now that they know what they ↑aare. (.) then trade is going to be on the ↑table (.) including most favored nation (.) and most favored nation will be withdraawn if they want that confrontation (.) but you must first if you’re a responsible president (.) lay out to the Chineese what those rules arre. (.) then if they break those rules you can take the appropriate steps (.) you want to do it when you get right ↑in. (.) I want to let the Chinese know there’s a new foreign policy in the United States of America (.) a real one ↑based on strength based on vaalues (.) and if they want a relationship with ↑us here’s how you can haave it. (.) if not (.) they can have that confrontation and we’ll win against them just as we did against the Soviets (.) and other tyrants in this century =you’re ignoring ten years of history [the verdict’s already in Steve. thank (.) thank you] very much we’re going to move to the next round (.) one question you all will have an opportunity to answer it thirty seconds each (0.5) thee

SF:

GB: SF: GB: SF: GB: SF: GB:

SF:

GB: KB(M):

467

Appendix ↑president tomorrow night is expected in his State of the Union message to propose federal subsidies to help low income families overcome the so-called digital diviide (.) is it an appropriate use of government funds to hand out computers and provide Internet access to those who can’t afford it (.) and if not (.) why not (.) we’ll begin with Mr. Keyes ↑↑actually I ↑think this is another case where politicians try to jump on the baandwagon of something that’s going on in the economy (.) so ↑↑everybody’s going to ↑think (.) that they actually had something to do with the result when they don’t (.) there is ↑no. ↑neeed. for this (.) we are already seeing out there proposals for the distribution of free PC’s (.) ↑↑not based on (.) some politician making a judgment and spending taxpayer money (.) but based on the self-interest of those who are involved in a ↑new ↑worlld a ↑NEW ↑WORLLD in which participation is the key to profit (.) and in which there is actually a ↑STRONG incentive (.) among those who participate in the private sector to GIVE access to individuals (.) so that ↑THEY can improve ↑THEIR opportunities for profit for information sharing (.) that’s what has (.) ↑ALready been going on it will continue there is no need for the government to pretend (.) that it needs to take leadership here (.) I think that’s just political [posturing thank you] (.) senator McCain I believe that (.) we do have a problem (.) and that is that there’s a growing gap (.) between the haaves and the have-nots in America those that are able to take paart in this information technology (.) and those that haven’t we took a major step forward when we decided to wire every school and ↑library in America to the ↑Internet (.) that’s a good program (.) we have to have step two three and four which means good equipment good teachers (.) and good classrooms (.) ↑no (.) I ↑wouldn’t d (.) do it directly (.) but there’s lots of ways that you can encourage corporations (.) who in their oown self-interest (.) would want to provide would receive taax ↑benefits would receive ↑credit. (.) and ↑many. other ways for being involved in the schools and ↑upgrading (.) the quality of the eq (.) e↑quipment that they haave the quality of the students (.) and thereby providing (.) a much-needed (.) well-trained (.) work force= =thank you (.) Mr. Forbes the key to helping Americans who are born with the least in terms of education (.) is al↑lowing parents to pick the schools they think best for their children (.) then those schools will get their act together ↑government getting invoolved in this (.) will just breed corruption (.) lot of interest raking off money oon thiis (.) the way to get universal access is to let technology flourish (.) the price of computing is plummeting aaccess (.) is becoming easier (.) and more and more accessible (.) the government won’t guarantee universal aaccess (.) the FREE flow of technology will thank you (.) Mr. Bauer well (.) the facts of the matter are that rural areas of America and in the inner city kids are being left behiind when it comes to the Internet (.) once again we’re leaving some of our ↑children uh ↑↑baack (.) instead of making sure they can take part in all the advances that I think are down the roaad. (.) the marketplace is ↑great. but it doesn’t always work ↑perfectly (.) and as president I would be willing to use the bully pulpit of ↑my ↑office. (.) uh in order to try to make sure that access was

AK:

KB(M): JMC:

KB(M): SF:

KB(M): GB:

468

Appendix ↑there. (.) also tax incentives for companies I ↑think. that’s a fair thing to ↑do. (.) while we’re running a ↑surplus. (.) it seems to me these are some useful ways to use a little bit of that money governor Bush I want to (.) take off where Steve was I ↑think one of theee uuh (.) what he what he mentioned was right (.) and that is our technology is changing so quickly (.) that government programs are often obsoleete (.) as the marketplace changes (.) uh and I think about my rural Texas where we’re going to have two-way ↑SAtellite technologies broad-band uh broad broad-width technologies that will enable us to (.) beam information from big cities to (.) to rural Texas (.) and I ↑worry about (.) uuh government funding and government programs that are haaphazard and will be obsolete before they’re even funded it was [a government program thank you] that invented the Internet noow questionss [from we ↑moderators (unintelligible)] [for you candidates (some laughter ) I ↑did with Al Gore] I invented television senator McCain sir you and president Clinton proposed setting aside about two-thirds of the federal budget surplus and making it off limits for ↑tax cuts (.) ↑what do you saay to critics (.) who say your tax plan ↑looks too much like (.) president ↑↑Clinton’s well I think (.) maybe president Clinton’s looks (.) too much like miine (.) he looked too much like me when he signed the Welfare Reform act (.) you see (laughing) (.) he looked too much like me on a number of shifts that he made to the center (.) for (.) political expediency (.) look (.) we all know we’ve got a ticking time bomb out ↑there and it’s called the social security trust fund Bernie (.) and (.) starting in twenty fourteen there’ll be more money going out than in (.) according to (.) senator ↑Gregg uh governor Bush’s uh campaign chairman here in New Hampshire there’s a five trillion dollars unfunded (.) liability out there in the form of the social security trust fund (.) it has to (.) if we ↑can put the money in quick then we will be able to allow ↑peeople to invest their payroll ↑taxes. into investments of their ↑choosing (.) and make a huuge amount of difference. in the solvency of their re↑tirement uh fund. (.) this is a very very important issue because in ↑good tiimes (.) in ↑good tiimes not ↑bad. times when we have a surplus ↑↑we should give the middle income Americans a tax break they ↑need it (.) they pay as much as forty percent of their income in taxes (.) but at the ↑saame time people in New Hampshire are telling ↑mee. ‘↑senator McCain save Social Security put some money into Medicare (.) and pay down that debt and don’t (.) put that (.) burden on future generations of Americans’ ↑more young Americans believe Elvis is al↑iive (.) than believe that they’ll ever see a Social ↑Security check but if this budget surplus= =yes projected surplus=

KB(M): GWB:

JMC: KB(M): JMC: BS(M): GWB: BS(M): JMC: BS(M): JMC: BS(M):

JMC:

BS(M): JMC: BS(M):

469

Appendix

JMC: BS(M): JMC: BS(M): JMC:

KB(M):

SF:

KB(M):

SF:

=sure [which is one trillion which is less (.) is ↑less] (.) if it’s ↑less what do you ↑↑do less than what (.) [less than pro↑jected less than projeected]= =that’s why I had percentages of the surplus to be put in sixty-two percent of the surplus to be put into social se↑curity. (.) from twenty-three percent in the tax cuts ten percent into ↑Medicare. and the remainder (.) into paying down the ↑debt (.) and I agree with you these estimates arre uh e↑conomists’ words for guesses (.) and I’m not ↑POsitive that we will continue to have the surpluses as they (.) are presently en↑viisioned (.) so therefore we want to be cautious (.) I think it’s con↑↑servative (.) in good tiimes to put money into Social Security (.) it’s it’s con↑↑servative to pay down the debt and it’s con↑servative clearly to try to uh save Medicare and at the ↑same time (.) give these tax breaks to uh (.) American families in↑CLUuding making that tax flat flatter ↑up and ↑up and ↑↑up (.) I want to lift the fifteen percent tax bracket up to (.) couples making seventy thousand dollars a ↑year (.) I think we can do it Mr. Forbes NASA has aall but given up on its Mars Explorer the Mars lander that is a one hundred sixty-five million dollars loss (.) it is the ↑second such hiigh ↑profile Mars mission that’s gone bust if ↑you are elected president (.) would you en↑courage con↑tinued funding for Mars exploration I think the answer is basically yes I would (.) I think NASA still has a role it’s very different today than it was thirty years ago (.) when they were the only agency to be able to get real exploration (.) and win that race to the ↑Mooon. (.) so they are very good in terms of trying to get (.) ↑satellites up there rockets up there to do research. (.) what happened with ↑Maars. (.) was a clear case of mismanagement (.) they tried to HAASten (.) the building of that particular vehicle (.) and then micromanage it on the ↑waay (.) that doesn’t work what I think we need more (.) with ↑NAaSA (.) and with the ↑Pentagon (.) is less of this micromanaging which adds hugely to costs (.) and I have a ↑fundamental reform of contracting. (.) where you say what your goals are with the vehicle or a weapons system (.) and ↑then (.) put it ↑in what they caall (.) ‘↑↑skunk works’ (.) wheere you saay ‘get the job done we’re not going to micro↑manage you’ (.) when that has been tried in government contracting with the ↑Pentagon. (.) it has led to good weapons ↑system (.) it has led to far lower costs and a far better timetable and the same thing should be done with NASA (.) ↑we want to go out to the stars ↑we want to go out to space we are curious people (.) and that’s not going to stop but NASA has to realiize it’s got to do it better (.) and use those resources better to lead for the private [sector well then] let me follow up with a question as to hoow agggrressive America would (.) America’s space program would be in the twenty-first century if you should become president oh we’re going to have a very aggressive space ↑prograam (.) but unlike what we had (.) thirty ↑years ago in the nineteen sixties thirty forty ↑years ago (.) you’re going to see a lot more involvement by the ↑priivate sector (.) thanks to tech↑nology (.) this is becoming (.) in effect ↑cheaper and ↑↑cheaper (.) they’re finding new ways to ↑get these rocket ships up (.) and they should bear the risks when they don’t work instead of American ↑taxpayers (.) so NASA has a role as a proodder as

470

Appendix

KB(M): BS(M):

GB:

BS(M): GB: GB:

BS(M): KB(M):

GWB:

getting uh doing explo↑ration. getting infor↑mation. (.) but I want the private sector to be more aggressively invoolved (.) just as we did exploring the ↑Earth (.) we can do noow thanks to technology the same thing with space thank you (0.5) Gary Bauer (.) six loyal and six capable Republicans dropped out of this race for your party’s nomination (.) a prime ↑reason. (.) the front-loaded campaign calendar not to mention money (.) is it ↑tiime. to change the process (.) boy Bernie I don’t I don’t know (.) but I have to tell you I would rather not answer process questions uuh you know we can have those debates in college universities and on TV talk shows I guess (.) but ↑I (.) I ↑don’t think Americans are sitting around worried about the proocesss of electing a ↑president (.) I think they’re worried about REAL problems (.) that are affecting real families (.) uh you know (.) th the Second Amendment is under attaack in courts all over this country uh th the fact that to↑day ↑↑FOUR ↑THOUsand unborn children (.) lost their lives (.) because of abortion on demand. uh th the schools not working of ↑babies being found in trash caans (.) those are the issues Bernie that I think voters in this state and around the country are ↑focused oon. (.) instead of the process of gee ‘are we electing the president riiight should it be a priimary or a caaucus’ (.) I think people want this campaign to be about them. (.) about their families their jobs and their futures (.) and that’s what I want to spend my time dealing with in this debate if it becomes clear that you would not (.) ↑win your party’s presidential nomination (.) when would you drop ↑out. there you go ag↑↑ain ↑Bernie (someone laughs) (.) look (.) you know (.) ↑process questions may be great for ‘Inside Politics’ when you’ve got about ↑ten minutes and you’ve got a few seconds with the ↑candidate (.) you think that a worker here in New Hampshire (.) that’s not making enough money to get health insurance (.) orr uh a mother here who sends her child off to schoool (.) worried about whether there’s going to be a shoot a school shooting (.) or a ↑laawabiding citizen of this state that sees these liberal judges trying to change the laws (.) so that men can marry men and women can marry women do ↑you think they’re worried about whether Gary Bauer’s going to drop ooout stay iiin or whatever (.) this campaaign shouldn’t be about questions like thaat (.) it ought to be about the real concerns of these voters in this state thank you (almost inaudible)= =governor Bush laast week in New Hampshire the wind chill temperature dropped in some places to thirty below (.) also last week home heating oil prices spiked forty percent (.) to where it now averages a dollar and seventy-two a gallon (.) there are shortages of heating oil and kerosene and diesel fuel (.) yesterday Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said he would not tap U.S. strategic petroleum (.) reserves in order to drive down prices saying those reseerves are for (.) e↑mergencies but given the shortages that exist (.) do ↑you consider this an appropriate tiime to tap ↑those reserves no I ↑don’t. (.) I think (.) I I agree with the energy secretary that the strategic petroleum reserve is meant for a (.) naaational wartime emergency (.) what I think the president ought to do is he ought to get on the ↑phoone. with the OPEC cartel (.)

471

Appendix

KB(M): GWB:

KB(M): GWB: BS(M): AK:

BS(M): AK:

and say ‘we expect you to open your spigots’ (.) one reason why the price is so high is because the price of ↑↑crude oil has (.) been driven up OPEC has gotten its uh supply act together and it’s driving the ↑↑price like it did in the ↑paast (.) and the president of the United States must ↑JAWBOONE OPEC ↑members. (.) to lower the price (.) and if ↑in faact (.) there is (.) collusion amongst ↑BIG ↑↑↑OIL (0.5) he ought to intercede there as well I I used to be in the oil business I was little oil (laughing) really little oil (.) and so I UNDER↑STAAND. tha (.) I under↑stand. what can happen in the marketplace uh ↑ I think it’s very important for ↑us ↑thoough. to recogniize that our country better become less dependent on foreign crude (.) that’s why I’m for the exploration of Aanwar (.) that’s why I’m for (.) the exploration of natural gaaas which is ↑hemispheric. it’s not subject to price (.) in the ↑MEANtiime. I support thee congressional delegation here in New England attempt to fund ↑LI Heap which is that low-income uh heat heating assistance program let me follow up by asking what pressures specifically what pressures should be brought on OPEC nations too lift those production curves= =↑well (.) we’ve got good relations with a lot of uh members of OPEC if (.) if the president does his joob (.) the president will earn capital in the far in the ↑Middle East (.) and the president should have good standing with those nations (.) ↑↑it’s im↑portant for the president to explaain in clear terms what high energy prices will not only do to our e↑coonomy (.) but what high energy prices will do to the ↑↑world economy (.) it is in the ↑Saudis’ best interests (.) for the price of ooil to (.) mellow out (.) it’s not only in our country’s best interest it needs to be explained to them it’s in ↑their best interests and [I will thank you] I will do so Mr. Keyes ↑what is your position on the death penal↑ty. I believe that there are certain circumstances in with in which the death penalty is in fact es↑sential (.) to our respect for life if we do not in OUR LAW send the message to every↑↑body (.) that by calculatedly coldly taking a human life in a waay that for instance assaults the structures of law in a society or shows a cold-blooded and studied (.) dis re gaard (.) for the value of that life (.) if WE are not willing (.) to implement the death penalty in those circumstances then ↑we are ↑↑actually (.) sending a message of contempt for human life (.) we are en↑couraging people to beliieve that that step is not in fact a terminal step when they fatefully and fatally decide (.) to move against the life of another human being so I think that there are circumstances under which (.) it is essential in fact that we (.) haave and apply the death penalty (.) in order to send a clear moral message to people through ↑out our society (.) that we will not tolerate that kind of disrespect for life ↑in particular (.) in your judgment what should be the ↑minimum (.) the ↑minimum death penalty aage for young felons convicted of deadly crime (0.5) ↑↑↑I AM ↑↑NOT one of those folks who thinks that we ought to be lowering the aage at (.) which we judge people to be adults (.) I believe that the tendency in that direction now to want to treat our children as if they are adults is a confession of our OOWN ↑failure. (.) our own failure as a society to maintain the structures of faamily life to maintain (.) the basis of moral education (.) ↑AS a re↑sult (.) yes (.) we have children now in whom there exists a HOWling moral vooid (.) and those

472

Appendix children engage in some acts that are heinous and shocking ↑to us (.) but at the same time ↑I think we need to resPECT the th the ↑difference that exists (.) between children and adults we need to insist from ADULTS on mooral accountability and mooral responsibility we need to HELP our children develop that ability to be mature adults (.) but I ↑DON’T think that we should take out (.) our ↑failure of moral education on younger and younger children (.) I think that this is a great error beginning with Mr. Forbes this question for aall candidates (.) ↑should it be a felony (0.5) for the president to liie to the American people this president has liied re↑peatedly aand I don’t think it’s going to work to say (.) try to get in a (.) in a situation where he may not say something for national se↑curity reeasons. as Dwight Eisenhower did (.) but that is very different (.) from ↑lyiiing. under oath (.) which this president did that is a ↑felony. and he should have been removed for it (.) it’s ↑also. very different when he takes has the F.B.I. send ↑over. (.) ↑niiine hundred fiiles on his political opponents (.) to his political operatives (.) that should have b (.) made (.) removal from office ↑real crimes (.) yes (.) absolutely. (0.5) Bernie uh lying under oath is a ↑felony. (.) that’s absolutely right the president I worked for for eight years Ronald Reagan uh talked to me several times about what the Oval Office meant to him (.) that he would not go into that room without his coat and tie on (.) ↑presidents had SAT there (.) in that office and had made decisions that resulted in our sonns (.) going off to foreign battlefields (.) this president sat in that office and we know what he did (.) in FACT (.) he was on the phoone with a member of ↑Congress (.) ↑↑talking about sending our sons to ↑Boosnia. (.) while he was in the middle of a disgusting act with a White House intern this brings shaame to our country lying under oath is a felony. and all of us on this stage. (.) can make the pledge that we will swear to uphold the laaws of the laand and the honor and integrity of the office to which we would be have been elected (.) that is going to be my pledge to the people of the country (.) and it is a pledge ↑I’ll ↑↑keep should I be fortunate enough to earn the presidency ambassador ↑well ↑↑I think that lying under oath is clearly a felony (.) but we ↑shouldn’t think that that’s how you take care of a president when he liies and disregards ↑his oath (.) that is the responsibility not of the courts but of Congress (.) and I think that this Congress under the corrupt pressure from a Democrat party that surROUUNded its corrupt president that RE↑↑FUUUSED in fact to apply the necessary strictures (.) in order to ↑CAAALL this nation back to accountability and integrity (.) they need to be held accountable the waay in which you deal with a president’s failure to respect his oath is the impeachment process (.) and a willingness to remoove him from office (.) if Congress doesn’t have the guts to do that (.) then our Consti↑tution has been gutted senator McCain (0.5) I voted (.) to convict the president (.) of the United States. (.) on grounds that he lied under oath in fact there was a discussion at the ↑tiime. as to whether (.) we expect the same standards of a member of the military as the president of the United ↑States (.) ↑no (.) we don’t expect the same ↑staandards we expect higher standards

BS(M): SF:

GB:

GWB:

BS(M): AK:

BS(M): JMC:

473

Appendix

BS(M): JMC: GWB: JMC:

GWB:

JMC:

GWB:

from members from the president of the United States than members of the military. (.) the people of this country are suffering from Clinton fatiigue (.) and it’s because they want someone who will look them in the eeye and tell them the truth (.) that’s the pledge Ii’ve made (.) to the people of New Hampshire (.) and the people of this country senator McCain (0.5) it is your turn now to lead the part of the debate that all of you candidates seem to enjoy most (.) ↑questioning (.) one an↑other George (0.5) strangely enough (laughing) my buddy (laughing) ↑we all know Washington spends too much money (.) in fact (.) last Novemberrr uh there was an incredible bill paassed (.) full of earmarked pork barrel spending they spent the then fourteen billion dollar (.) surplus that was going to (.) supposed to be there for this yeear. (.) and uh you said you supported that bill and that you would ↑siign it as president of the United ↑States (.) I voted against it (.) said as president I would ↑vetoo it and SAW it as one of the most egregious practices (.) ↑tell me (.) ↑what corporate loopholes would you ↑cloose. (.) and ↑what spending cuts would you ↑make. I’ll tell you what I’m going to do (0.5) if I’m the president and you’re a senator (0.5) you can come in my office and you can outline all the different corporate loopholes you think are wroong and we can pick and choose (.) but what ↑↑I’m doing Joohn is I’m selling my ↑tax cut plaan without (.) claiming I’m going to close some kind of corporate loophole (.) ↑I believe we’ve got four trillion dollars over ten years (.) ↑TWO trillion dollars of which will go to save Social Security and pay down debt (.) ↑one trillion dollars available for debt repayment and other prograams (.) and ↑↑ONE trillion dollars over a ten-year period (.) for a MEAningful (.) subsTANtial (.) REAL tax cut to the people (.) ↑YOUR plaan uses so-called corporate loopholes to ↑↑pay for it (.) I used cash to pay for it (.) and if the ↑↑money ↑stays in Waashington (.) my ↑↑problem with your ↑plann (.) is that it’s going to ↑be spent on bigger government (0.5) ↑I believe that (.) cutting the taxes will encourage economic ↑growth. (.) ↑I believe cutting all marginal rates will keep the e↑conomy groowing (.) ↑I believe we ought to get rid of the death tax I believe we ought to get rid of the (.) ↑earnings test on Social Security I believe we ought to mitigate the marriage penalty (.) I believe we ought to use this time of prosperity to get money ↑out of Washington and into the pockets of the taxpayers (0.5) George you seem to depict the role of the president as a hapless ↑bystander (.) this president is threatening to shut down the government and vetoing ↑biills (.) to force the Congress to spend ↑↑moore money (.) uh an active president of the United States i.e. ↑↑mee (somewhat laughing) will will veto bills and threaten to shut down the government to make them spend ↑↑leess money (.) look (.) you have been talking about how you want to in↑crease the ↑↑military (.) we don’t have ↑un limited funds (.) ↑tell me (.) is there ↑any military programs that you would reduce spending on well o ob obviously Joohn what’s needed to happen is the top down review of the military so that there’s a strategic plaan to make sure that we spend properly (.) I’ll give you an example of the Crusader Howitzer program looks like it’s too heavy it’s not lethal enough (.) there’s going to be a lot of programs that aren’t going to fit into

474

Appendix the stra↑tegic plan uh for a long-term uh uh (.) change of our military (.) but ↑LET me ↑also say to you (.) THAT it’s the ↑PREsident’s JOOB to make sure ↑Congress doesn’t have the money to spend in the ↑↑first place (.) it is the ↑PREsident’s joob to stand up (.) to express the will of the people ↑advocate and ↑fight for (.) a meaningful real tax cut and that’s what I’m going to ↑do and I appreciate your newer dedication to reducing the[ee to paying down the ↑debt (unintelligible)] [I looked at your plan and I could have written it myself I congratulate you thank you thank you (.) thank you senat]or no no [Al gover] Gore would have written your plan [Mr. senator (laughs) governor Bush] you get to ask the next question uh to John [(0.5) (laughs)] EDU↑cation has been a top priority of mine (.) and I’ve laid out aa comprehensive plan to reform our schools (.) I believe in local control of schools high standards and accountability (.) so part of my plan John says that schools that receive federal money to help disadvantaged students (.) must measure the results if the students im↑prove (.) the schools will be rewarded (.) if not the parents will be ↑free (.) to make a different choice for their ↑students their children (.) I ↑know this works (.) because I’ve seen dramatic improvement in schools in Texas by setting high standards and results (.) but two people have openly criticized this plan you. and the vice president (.) ↑↑why don’t you ↑think (.) ↑↑why don’t you ↑think (.) that (.) ↑high expec↑tations (.) will ↑work (.) ↑↑why don’t you think this plan will ↑work well (.) first of all George (.) if you’re sa ying that I’m (.) like Al Gore (.) then you’re spending (.) like Bill Clinton (.) O↑k (.) let’s clear that one up (.) SEcond of all uuh ↑I believe that we need choice and competition in schools the ↑↑problem with ↑yoouurs is you give too much power to the federal bureaucracyy in Washington (.) ↑I want the states to make those decisions (.) ↑I want to encourage charter schoools (.) ↑I want to have a test voucher programm (.) using ↑ethanol (.) gas and oil ↑subsidies and sugar ↑subsidies so we can start a test program in the poorest school districts in every state in A↑merica (.) ↑you want to ↑↑use funds from public education I don’t want to take funds from public education (.) I want to take it (.) from the subsidies that you sup↑port (.) you went to uh Iowa and support ethanol subsidies you went to Florida and (.) support the sugar subsidies and we know how you ↑feel about oil and ↑gaas subsidies (.) that’s why I had the question about which subsidy (.) would you do a↑↑way with (.) but the ↑point is (.) that if we haave choice and competitions charter schools voucher programs merit pay for teachers based on student performance (.) then we will ↑give every American pre uh uh uh parent the choice that they deseerve (.) and that is to send their child to the school of their chooice (.) and that’s an important element in any overall education pro program and proposal (.) and ↑mooms and ↑daads (.) and kids (.) deserve a lot better than what they’re getting today SO you SUPport (.) continuing spending federal money on Title ↑One (0.5)

JMC: GWB: JMC: KB(M): GWB: KB(M): GWB: JMC: KB(M): GWB: JMC: GWB:

JMC:

GWB:

475

Appendix

JMC: GWB:

JMC:

GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC:

BS(M): GWB:

BS(M): GWB: KB(M): AK:

SF:

[sure (nodding) without any ↑↑measurement] (.) with↑out any ↑↑knowledge as to whether or not children are ↑↑learning (.) with↑out any information whatsoever (.) as to whether or not local authorities have developed high standards and accountability measures (.) you support the ↑current ↑↑system George as a governor you should understaand (.) and I thought you would cherish the rights and authority of the state rather than handing it over to ↑Washington. (.) your pro↑↑posal has that de↑cision. (.) made by some nameless faceless bureaucrat (.) in Washington ↑D. ↑↑C. they’re the ones that tell the states they’re not ↑meeting the ↑↑standards (.) ↑I want the folks in ↑↑my state to have set the standards and tell them when they’re meeting the ↑standards. [that’s the critical part well that’s what my plan does John] [no you have the federal bureaucracy no I beg your pardon I wrote the plan but] the ↑↑overaall problem too (.) is that you’re ↑aasking you’re ↑asking to money to take out of public education for ↑vouchers (.) when they ↑↑need that money (.) let’s ↑let’s kill ↑ooff that sugar subsidy ↑let’s kill ↑off that ethanol subsidy that helps nobody uh except perhaps uh Archer Daniels Midland (.) and ↑let’s take that moneey and put it in the education of our children (.) that’s where we can really help parents in America governor Bush you have a rebuttal (0.5) to thaat. (.) thirty seconds my re↑buttal is that (.) we spend a lot of money on disadvantaged children which I support (0.5) but there must be high standards set at the state level my program says ‘↑STATES’ John ↑↑I am a ↑governor and ↑I understand what federal controls are and ↑I understand federal (.) maandates which I have oppoosed (.) but ↑↑I BElieve we owe it to our children (.) to say to the state ‘you ↑oow (.) you you you ↑↑NEEd to set staandards and you need to measure’ and if the ↑↑SCHOOOLS don’t riise to the challenge as opposed to allowing the status quo to reign (.) we need to free the children (.) we need to free the PArents [time’s up so they can make] a different choice Mr. Keeyes you get the next question thank you very much (.) I’d like to address my question tooo Steve Forbes (.) Steve I’m very concerned with the surrender of America’s national sovereignty and steps that have been taken in recent years that undermine our allegiance and application of our Constitution (.) PAR↑TIcularly I’m conceerned that by joining the World Trade Organization and subjecting the American people directly to decisions taken by an unrepresentative body (.) that will ↑then be ap↑pliiied directly to their affairs without the intervention of their elected representatives in the Congress or elsewhere (.) we SUBvert the American constitutional system (.) ↑would ↑↑you join me in a pleedge becaaause of that assault on the Constitution which it represents (.) to withdraaw this ↑nation. uh from this unrepresentative body the World Trade Or↑ganization. (.) and re-esTAblish the sovereignty of the American people in their international economic af↑fairs I beLIeve in the sovereignty of the American nation and the American people (.) I believe in a U.S. not a U.N. foreign ↑policy. (.) I believe that we should destroy or

476

Appendix

AK:

SF:

BS(M): SF:

GB:

(.) send the International Monetary Fund to the (.) political equivalent of Ju↑rassi. Paark given what it’s ↑donne. (.) concerning the World Trade Organi↑zation. Clinton and Gore have made a total ↑haash. of the thing (.) the whole thing was supposed to be desiiigned to (.) mediate trade disputes (.) so they can reduce barriers that in the way of our products and services we’re the biggest trading nation in the ↑worlld. (.) and they discriminate against our products like no other nation (.) the W.T.O. is like the wooly ↑maammoth I think we have to take direct action if that organization can’t get its act together (.) ↑let it stay on the siide and we take direct action as ↑I propose to do (.) in reducing trade barriers with our partners (.) starting with the North ↑Atlantic Free Trade agreement with ↑Ireland and Britain (.) and we should do the same thing with Australia and other countries in the Pacific ↑Rim (.) ↑that way we can stop this discrimination against our products (.) and the W.T.O. can go its own way sadly speaking though I (.) I will try to be as as polite about it as I can I ↑seem to suffer from Gary’s ↑↑problem (.) I asked you a yes or no ↑question. and could not get a ↑yes or no ↑↑answer (.) I think that the World Trade Organization and ↑↑this ↑isn’t a question just of its effects out there in the world in principle we have done something that under cuts (.) the SOvereignty of the American people and that puts us in a position that ↑violates the constitutional principle (.) ‘no legislation without represen↑↑tation’. will you with↑↑DRAAAW us from this unrepresentative ↑↑↑body I’m ↑not going to withdraw us from that (.) uh body for the very simple ↑reeason (.) it’s supposed to be there to help reduce ↑barriers (.) if it ↑doesn’t (.) then ↑wee uh bid it good↑byye (.) we are a sovereign ↑nation if they do something that is truly egregious and breaks agreements on reducing trade ↑barriers (.) ↑we have the power to take direct action and pull out and say ‘no we’re not going to abide ↑↑with it’ (.) so this is an organization we should try to ↑UUSE to re↑↑duce our ↑barriers because our ↑farmers are discriminated a↑gainst. our manufacturers are discriminated ↑against. (.) our services are discriminated a↑gainst. (.) we need every vehicle and diplomatic tool possible to ↑get. those barriers down (.) because when you have a levelled ↑playing. field America reigns supreme (.) and that’s what I want and if the W.T.O. can’t ↑do it (.) I’ve got direct action in reducing those barriers (.) that’s the keey (.) we are ↑sovereign. (.) other nations are discriminating a↑gainst. us as a businessmaan I’ve seen how they do it (.) I know how to get these barriers down unlike the Clinton-Gore administration Mr. Forbes it’s your turn to ask a question of Mr. ↑Bauer Gary there’s a lot of ↑moovement. noow (.) that we read about peace in the Middle East (.) and a lot of pressure being put by president Clinton on Barak to make an agreement with Syria and make an agreement with the Palestinians (.) it’s a ↑twopart. question do you be↑lieve as ↑I do that this administration is pushing them to make a premature a↑greement. that could hu hurt the sovereignty and hurt the security of ↑Israel. our own democratic al↑ly. in the Middle ↑East. (.) AND (.) if they do push them into an a↑greement. (.) would ↑you go aloong (.) with using tens of billions of taxpayers’ ↑dollars (.) to finance an agreement with Syria and ↑Israel Steve this administration has been tougher on Israel (.) than it has been on China (.) you know it looks the other way (.) every time the Chinese have another affront

477

Appendix against us (.) it it ↑gives them most favored-nation status as you want to give them Most Favored-Nation status (.) [it con↑tinues (unintelligible)] to make deeals with China as you want to make deals with China but to specifically address your ↑question (.) I I think it’s out↑↑rageous that our ↑aally ↑Israel (.) has been getting the back of the ↑haand. from this adminis↑tration. (.) you’ve got this ↑little democratic country in the middle of the Mideast (.) surROUNded by (.) ↑adversaries. with much more laand (.) and ↑what are we doing and the rest of the world expecting that little Israel has to sacrifice more laand (.) for peace and security (.) if somebody told us that governor Bush had to sacrifice a ↑little bit of Texas for peace and security (.) we’d tell them where to go (.) I will stand with ↑Israel. as president of the United States (.) and I will not waste billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money to try to make up for mistakes that this administration’s making in the Middle East in terms of uuh Syria (.) I think we would all agree and I hope you do ↑too. (.) that at the very least we should demand of Syria that they CEASE financing terrorist organi↑zations. (.) this administration’s turned a blind eye ↑to it. (.) and we should de↑maand. that Syria (.) withdraaw its strategic alliance with North Korea and I↑raan. in terms of developing ↑↑missile technology. (.) would you ↑join. with ↑me. in making that minimal demaand of ↑Syria. ↑Steve I (.) of ↑↑course I will (.) but I just think you’ve got ↑↑↑bliiinders on you know th the threat to America is not Syria (.) ↑I will be very tough on Syria about their transfer of weapons of supporting ↑teerrorists. (.) but I’ll ↑do that to ↑China ↑↑too. (.) you know that’s the big chaallenge for America (.) I’m going to be tough on American foreign policy not just against Syria but also against the Chinese in Beijing (0.5) Mr. Bauer for Mr. Keeyes ↑Alan a couple of weeks agooo uuh (.) you criticized my good friend John McCain because he uuh expressed some (.) support of or interest in a a controversial music group (.) in ↑↑view of that I was a little surpriised this week to see you fall into a mosh pit (.) while a baaand called the Ma↑chiine Rages ↑oon or ↑Rage against the Machine ↑played (.) that band is (.) anti-↑family. it’s pro-cop ↑killer. and it’s pro ↑↑terrorists uh it’s the kind of music that the killers at Columbine High School were immersed in (.) [I don’t ↑question] ↑don’t you think you owe an apology to parents and policemen on ↑that one. ↑actually I ↑↑don’t (.) because I was in no accusing me of having some complicity in that music would be accusing me of of ↑I don’t know being responsible for the color of my ↑skin (.) when you ↑can’t control things Gary you’re not morally responsible for them. (.) and I was not morally responsible for the music that was playing as I stepped out of ↑myy. ↑raally. (.) uh and faced Michael Moore whatever his name was ↑doing whatever he was ↑↑doing. that’s ↑his concern not mine and until you told me this fact I had ↑no idea what that music ↑was (.) ↑↑contrary too our friend John Mc↑Caain (.) who expressed the viiew thatt uh ↑this was his favorite ↑↑↑rock group (.) I think telling somebody that it’s your favorite thus and such is ↑actually taking responsi↑↑bility for the ↑choice (.) and making it ↑clear to folks

SF: GB:

SF:

GB:

BS(M): GB:

BS(M): GB: AK:

478

Appendix that this is something that you pre↑fer. (.) and that this is something that you ↑care about and so forth and so on to do it in a lighthearted ↑way uuh rather than having it imposed on you by circumstances which (.) over which you have no con↑trool. is something that I think is totally unacceptable. uuh so ↑I think that I would beg to differ with you. uuh I had ↑nothing. to do with that ↑music. disCLAIM any ↑knowledge. of it ↑↑admittedly (.) I was willing to fall into the ↑↑mosh ↑pit (.) but ↑I’ll ↑↑TELL you something (.) you know ↑why ↑I did ↑↑that. (.) because I think that exemplifies the kind of trust in people that is the HEART and soul of the Keyes campaign. (.) it’s about time we got back to the understaanding that we trust the people of this country to do what’s decent [and when time] you trust them they will in fact ↑HOOLD you ↑up whether it’s in terms of giving ↑help to you. when you’re ↑falling doown. or caring for their own children (.) so I thought that as an ↑EMblem of that trust (.) it was the right thing to do (.) and ↑↑anyway (.) my daughter thought it was a good idea [(laughing) well daughters daughters are extremely important] uh Alan let me read a quote from you (.) ↑you said that ‘one of the most important things is the dignity of the presidency’ (.) in fact (.) you said that it’s important that those of us that aspire to be president (.) ↑NOT act like guests on the ‘Jerry ↑↑Springer Show’ (.) which is incomPAtible with the dignity of politics now ↑I’ll conceede from your answer (.) you didn’t know about the ↑music. but nobody made you jump in the mosh pit [do ↑you think that’s oh ↑that’s very ↑↑true do ↑you think] that’s consistent with the dignity of the ↑presidency. well ↑↑I would leave that to the judgment of the American people I (.) I ↑do know that when I got dooown. one of the folks who was therre with one of the news crews looked at me and he said you ↑know (.) ‘you’re the ↑↑only person I’ve ever seeen. dive into a ↑mosh pit. and ↑come out with his tie straight’ (.) and I think that you know the real test of dignity (.) the real test of dignity is how you carry it though hard times I I think I learned that from my ↑people. (.) we went through ↑slavery. when we didn’t have the ↑OUT ward siigns of what OTHERS would call ‘dignity’ because we understood that DIGnity comes from within and that (.) what ever circumstance you are going through you can carry that dignity with you (.) and no one can take it away uh so ↑I think you may have a misunderstanding of dignity (.) it doesn’t come from what you do in a ↑mosh pit. it coomes from what you do as a result of the convictions of your heart (.) and I’ll leave it to the American people (.) to judge the convictions of ↑my heart. ↑senator McCain because of Mr. Keyes references to you you’ve earned a ↑rebuttal thirty seconds you know Mr. Keyes you attacked me earlier on about my position on (.) defending the rights of the ↑un born. (.) I want to ↑tell you something (.) I’ve seen enough killing in my life (0.5) ↑I know how precious human life is (.) and I don’t need a lecture from you thank you [we’re going to move on now excuse me ↑you ↑you] you ↑↑gave Mr. Bush a rebuttal to his rebuttal one one small comment ↑I didn’t lecture you senator Mc↑Cain [I simply pointing out

BS(M): AK:

GB:

AK: GB: AK:

BS(M): JMC:

KB(M): AK:

479

Appendix

JMC: AK:

KB(M):

GB:

KB(M): GWB:

KB(M): AK:

KB(M): JMC:

GWB: JMC:

the next time try decaf] [(some candidate laughs) that your answer showed] ↑no understanding of the ↑issue of moral principle (.) involved in abortion (.) and ↑that in↑adequacy is not a lecture it’s simply an observation of ↑faact. we’re going to move on to a question that all of you will have an opportunity to answer thirty seconds each beginning with Mr. Bauer (.) the question is this (.) the Commission of Presidential Debates has issued its criteria for determining which ↑candidates will be admitted to the nationally televised debates this fall one of the requirements is that (.) all ↑candidates must be showing fifteen percent in the poolls (.) some feel that fifteen-percent rule has the potential to ex↑cluude independent candidates specificallyy (.) the Reform party nominee ↑do you think that’s fair= =I I don’t think it’s fair in fact I think we should stop relying on poolls ↑↑period (.) whether it’s to pick who’s a serious presidential ↑candidate. (.) or what’s even ↑worse. to decide what policies we ought to be pursuing in Washington D.C. (.) ↑this process ought to be as open as possible the American people deserrve that (.) and they ↑certainly deserve. not to have elites (.) whether it’s some organi↑zation. or ↑↑pollster somewhere. deciding ↑who they’re going to get a chance to ↑↑hear from. and who they’re not going to have a chance to hear from. governor= =↑↑yeah I think it’s fair I ↑do (.) because I think otherwise there’s going to be a stage with ffifty people and it’s going to be haard for (.) the ↑candidates who are (.) who have a chance to become the president to be to able to make their case (.) I ↑HOpe the debates don’t turn out to bee uh kind of a Oprah Winfrey styyle who can walk aroound and (.) who can (.) feel people’s pain the best (.) I ↑HOpe they’re open honest straightforward dialoogues (.) based upon the philosophy and I’m ↑CONfident that ↑any of us up here. can take our philosophy and make the case to the American people compared to who we may be running against Mr. Ke[yes ↑↑I think it’s totally ↑unfair. (.) and I think it would give a ↑daangerous power to ↑pollsters. and to those who are capable of manipu↑lating those ↑poolls. and I think it would be ANAthema (.) to the process that ought to leave these choices in the hands of the ↑people (.) ↑YOU WON’T get fifty people on a ↑staage. if you set the threshold (.) of participation in those debates at the proper level of qualification in states around the ↑↑country (.) it was not ↑eeasy for the Reform party to meet the qualifications but ↑once they have objectively ↑met the qualifications to ↑bee on the ↑↑ballot. (.) in a sufficient number of ↑states. to win the electoral votes needed for the presidency. (.) no ↑polls or anything else ought to keep them out of the debates. (.) you are depriving the American PEOple when you do ↑that. of a proper choice= =senator McCain I don’t know I love debates they’re all ↑fun. and the more the ↑merrier. uuuh it’s fine with ↑me. (.) by the way George we’ve had several offers for you and ↑I to debate one-on-one I’ve accepted them I hope [youu’ll (.) you’ll accept one well that’s because I wanted my other] buddies to be here with us [I didn’t want to excluude anybody we can (.) we can (.) we can] in↑cluuude them and we can excl we can have lots of

480

Appendix

KB(M): SF:

KB(M): SF: KB(M): JMC: KB(M): JMC: KB(M): JMC: KB(M):

GWB:

KB(M): GWB:

KB(M): BS(M):

de↑bates we’ve had severaal that they’ve just asked (.) you and me too (.) e engage in (.) look (.) it’s an important part of the political proocess (.) I think it’s a great chance for people to reeally get to know the candidates it’s ↑part of this political proocess (.) and ↑I enjoy it (.) and I hope we can have lots of them Mr. Forbes I think it is grossly unfaair to put that kind of power in the hands of pollsters and elites (.) in Iowa the pollsters had me down (.) the media elites wanted to cut me out of the debates as best as they ↑could. (.) so ↑I want to put it in the hands of the peeople and not the elites (.) in terms of the de↑bates (.) the reason they get to set those criteria is because taxpayers’ money is using to fi↑naance those campaigns (.) I want individuals to be able to finance America’s campaigns (.) and not have it subsidized by the federal ↑government. (.) where ↑your money is uused (.) to subsidize views you may not a↑gree with (.) and ↑also ↑tooo in New York state (.) I’ve ↑seen what the elites have done to try to knock us off the ballot (.) if we’re not chosen Soviet-↑style= =thank you= John Mc↑Caain’s a victim ↑of it (.) [↑I’ve been too we’ve got to stop it thank you Mr. Forbes well said Steve] well said (laughing) we’re going to move on noow to another round of [questions from the moderators help me out George] [governor Bush (laughing)] the federal sentencing guidelines which are applied for all federal convictions have been ↑criticiized by many federal judges (.) for being too inflexible (.) and for not allowing a sentencing judge to (.) take into account all relevant circumstances (.) in passing sentence (.) should we restore greater discretion to the judiciary in deciding the appropriate sentence in each case (somewhat laughing) NO NO (.) I worry about federal judges who wiilll use the bench to interpret the law the way they see fit. (.) I think it’s really important to have a president who (.) appoints people who strictly interpret the Constitution and do not use the benches to write ↑laaaw. and ↑I think it’s very important for the (.) legislative braanch with the signature of the president to instruct federal judges as to (.) as to how they ought to handle ↑each (.) a ↑case (.) across jurisdictional lines there ought to be a certain commo↑↑nality. (.) so no I don’t think we ought to be giving federal judges a lot of flexibility on sentencing guidelines under the guidelines that exist though many non-violent first-time offenders are in↑carcerated (.) is that ↑necessary or ap↑↑propriate not necessarily I don’t know all the federal laaaws to be frank with you in ↑my state (.) we we we have given first-time offenders some leniency (.) and I don’t know all the federal laaw. I just worry about giving federal judges who’ve been appointed for (.) for life all kinds of leeeway. and latitude when it comes to sentencing thank you Mr. Keeyes in the interest of human rights (.) ↑should the United States government (.) fully open to the world (.) its fiiles on gen Augusto Pino↑chet. (.) the former dictator of Chile

481

Appendix (1.) ↑↑I believe that ↑would in fact (.) beee a proper move to make (.) ↑I I believe that information (.) the kind of thing that where you would spreead knowledge amongst people (.) in order to make suure that ↑everyone will understand what the record iis is a correct and appropriate thing to ↑do (.) we are a so↑ciety. (.) in which that kind of freedom of expression is the foundation of in↑tegrity. uuh so I would haave (.) no argument with it pro↑↑VIded (.) that you scrutiniize that information to make sure that you release ↑NOTHING (.) that would be damaging to the national se↑curity. (.) of the United States with that proviso (.) I think we ought to do what is ↑necessary. uh in order to help people in the world understand the ↑truuth (.) in order to help people who may have been victims of in↑justice. (.) to seek redress of their ↑grievances. uh ↑I think that that is a step that is not only (.) ↑in the best interest of justice (.) but it’s most con↑↑sistent. with America’s ideal of justice (.) for individual human beings ↑could the United States be culpable (.) in the disappearance of thousands of Chileans under the Pinochet regime ↑WELL ↑↑I would certainly hope not (.) but it seems to ↑mee (.) that that’s the kind of question that you ought to examine with an open mind (.) look at the faacts and if those facts lead to culpability on the part of (.) individuals who happen to be Americans then we would we pur↑suue (.) thaat. according to our laaw and consti↑tution. (.) just as ↑I believe it’s ap↑propriate for people in Chile and other countries to pur↑suue (.) those matters in ways that are appropriate with ↑their laaws and their constitution and their sovereignty (.) WE SHOULD not ↑countenance in this country human rights’ abuses uh by people uh who are Americans we don’t be↑lieve. in thaat and I think we would move forward to do something a↑bout ↑it (.) I don’t think we ought to as↑suume however that that is the case (.) but I don’t think that we should ↑fear. (.) to pursue ↑justice. in those cases senator McCain I want to return to a subject matter you alluded to earlier in our debate (.) the U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld the rights of states to cap the amount of an individual’s contributions to political candidates (.) the court re↑jected (.) the notion that contributions deserve First Amendment free speech protection althoough the court (.) ↑didn’t address the issue (.) of sofft money contributions (.) is this court’s ↑ruling ↑seen as a steeping stone (.) in ↑your eyes (.) to further campaign finance ↑reform this court’s ruling is a magnificent affirmation of the efforts that I and reformers have been making for many ↑years. (.) and you ↑know (.) governor Bush saays (.) that it’s ↑unilateral. disarmament if we get the special interests out of Washington (.) ↑I see it as a clear road to victory (.) because when I’m in a debate with Al Goore (.) ↑↑I’m going to ↑turn to Al Gore and I’m going to say (.) ‘you and Bill Clinton debased the institutions of government in nineteen ninety-six (.) and you engaged in reprehensible conduct and then you saidd (.) there was no controlling legal au↑thority’. (.) ↑I’m going to give you the controlling legal authority (:) and ↑I’m going to make what they did illegal (.) and George when ↑you’re in that debate (.) ↑you’re going to ↑stand there and ↑you’ll have nothing to say (.) because ↑you’re defending this system (.) you know you’ve saaid that it’s bad for our party (.) if we have campaign finance reform (.) ↑↑I’ve always had the belief (.) that what’s good for our country is good for our party

AK:

BS(M): AK:

KB(M):

JMC:

482

Appendix

KB(M):

JMC:

KB(M): JMC: KB(M): JMC: KB(M): GWB: JMC: GWB:

JMC: GWB: JMC: JMC: GWB:

KB(M): JMC:

let me follow-up by asking you then senator by and large the Republican establishment (.) op↑poses (.) the campaign finance reforms (.) that you propose (.) ↑why is that because there’s an iron triangle in Washington D.C. my friends that have deprived you of your representation. (.) it’s big money and lobbyists and legislation that deprive you of your representation (.) ↑I’m going to break that iron triangle (.) ↑they’re scared to death down in Washington. (.) in the lobbying com↑munity. (.) because ↑they know it’s not going to be business as usual (.) and if there’s ↑↑anybody around (.) that wants business as usual (.) they don’t want to vote for John Mc↑Cain. (.) ↑I’m not proud when the Republican party has taken seven million dollars from the tobacco companies (.) I’m appalled when I hear of these new set-ups of millions and millions (.) of ↑uncontroolled (.) money that will never (.) be disclosed we know what happened in ninety-six ↑Chinese. money flowed into the United States of America and our national security was ↑compromised. (0.5) ↑that’s wrong that’s wrong= =thank [you senator and until the last] breath I draaw (.) I’ll give the go[vernment back tiime] to the American people= =governor Bush I’m going to gi[ve you thirty seconds Joohn I don’t appreciate] the way you’ve characterized my position I’m for reform (.) I sure am [↑wait a minute (laughs) (he is about to say something)] I’m for re↑form (.)↑I’m for getting rid of the corporate soft money and labor union soft money (.) but I want to make sure ↑BIG ↑LAbor (.) ↑big ↑labor toes the line too (.) and that’s the difference between what ↑you’re for and ↑I’m for (.) you are not [you know and I know that labor gives millions of dollars you are not (.) you are not (0.5) may I finish please John (.) may I finish please and it would be affected ↑also] (0.5) fine [I’d be glad to please (.)] thank you (.) ↑your ↑paycheck protection is important to make sure the playing field is ↑levelled (.) and you can ↑call all kinds of names you want (.) but the truth of the matter is an o ver↑whelming mem uh number of your members of the United States Senate on the Republican ↑side (.) do not support your ↑plan. because it’s not ↑↑fair. (.) and that’s the reason why (1.) thank you (.) McCain John McCain we’re going to give you thirty seconds to rebut well. (.) I mean. (.) look. (.) ↑we know what haappened. (.) we know what’s ↑haappening. (.) it’s now ↑legal in America for a Chinese Army owned corpo↑ration. (.) with a subsidiary in the United States of America to give unlimited amounts of money to an American political cam↑↑paign. (.) I don’t know how you de↑fend. ↑that. (.) ↑we know that the labor bosses go down (.) with the (.) with the big ↑checks. (.) ↑we know the ↑triial lawyers (.) go down with the big ↑checks. (.) we would ↑baan ↑↑thaaat. (.) ↑↑clearly we want paycheck pro↑tection. but ↑↑really we also ↑know what’s going on with some of your people right ↑now. (.)

483

Appendix

KB(M): JMC: BS(M):

SF:

BS(M): SF:

BS(M):

SF:

KB(M): GB:

they’re setting up soft money to be uused (.) in the in the general at least the media reports in the general campaign my ↑friends (.) we’ve got to fix this system (.) before it lurches out of controol (.) and young Americans won’t take ↑part (.) in the political process we had the lowest voter turnout in ↑history (.) [in the nineteen ninety-eight e↑lections. thank you senator] theese young people need to be brought back into the political process (.) ↑I’ll do that. Steve Forbes (.) this question for you (.) if local and network television (.) were to grant presidential candidates fiiive minutes (.) fiiive minutes of ↑freeee air time (.) collectively in prime time nightly (1.) ↑would you foregoo (.) using thirty-second ads Bernie the answer is no. (.) for a very basic reason (.) you just saw it heere (.) you ↑violate. the rules that you set for this de↑bate. (.) and the American ↑people. want to hear from all of the candidates (.) they want to hear it straight from the candidates (.) when ↑you set (.) when you say (.) you’ll give candidates free tiime (.) nothing comes free from the federal government (.) there’ll be strings attached (.) there’ll be regulations (.) and this ↑whoole system in the laast twenty-five years has been desiigned to keep outsiders out and to give incumbents real protection (.) ↑that’s why the Supreme Court was wrong when it allowed those limits to stay in place (.) I want indi↑viduals. (.) to be able to have the freedom. to give as much as they want to a ↑candidate. or a cam↑paign. as long as there’s full and prompt dis↑clooosure (.) thirty years ago in nineteen sixty-↑eight (.) that was how a senator from Minnesota could challenge a sitting president (.) the ↑ruules are de↑siigned to perpetuate the establishment (.) and so if you can get your message out in thirty ↑seconds. (.) ↑do. it (.) if you want to do it and raise the funds for thirty ↑minutes. go ↑do. it (.) if you ↑do. it with the ↑Internet. which ↑I’ve done. getting a whole message ↑out. and showing that I have the real tax re↑form. unlike two of my colleagues here tonight who want to preserve the I.R.S. as we ↑know. it and not make fundamental tax re↑foorm. (.) ↑thaat is hoow you get the message oout you have a ↑variety of ways to do it. the government suppresses the free flow of information Mr. Forbes I’m confuused by part of your answer (.) at one point you said you broke the ruules here (.) were you r referring to the way this debate is being con↑ducted. I was referring to the fact that you had a set with George Bush and John McCain because let’s face ↑it. (.) the media thinks that’s where the contest is (.) I wanted to put it in the hands of the voters [and I’m tired of these de↑bates what was a↑greed to sir] (.) what was agreed to sir was that if one of you attacked the other (.) the person being attacked (.) would have a chance to res↑pond (.) for thirty seconds ok but (.) in these de↑bates. they always seem to try to (.) ↑have the ruules and they make rules and then they violate those rules (.) Gary and I could have a real set ↑too on China (.) ↑Alan and Ii could probably do it on that wooly mammoth W.T. ↑↑O. but it should be equal tiiime for (.) the candidates Mr. Bauer you have said that you would require a litmus test for your Supreme Court nominees on the issue of abortion= =yes

484

Appendix ↑↑how ↑faar (.) would you take that litmus test (.) would you also require it for your secretary of education (.) your secretary of state (.) your secretary of [defence mhum] and ↑others= =right. (.) ↑Karen I’m going to doo as president what ↑ever. I haave to doo (.) to ↑end abortion on demand (.) this is the preemier moral issue of our tiime (.) if ↑we don’t get this ↑right. (.) ↑we’re not going to get (.) any thing ↑right. (.) we are destroying one and a half million children a year (.) we’ve been ↑doing that. for TWENty-seven years (.) America is better than this (.) it’s ↑interesting that you would call it a ‘↑litmus test’. (.) ↑that’s. the word ↑liberals uuse to COwer conservatives (.) into doing what they (.) ↑ought not to do (.) a ‘litmus test’ is just another word for a ↑deeply ↑held principle (.) this is a ↑deeply ↑held principle for me (.) I’ve got a twenty-year record on it (.) I’m going to appoint pro-life judges and pro-life people (.) to ↑every place in my adminis↑tration. (.) because I’m going to ↑want. the people in my adminis↑tration. to a↑greee. with me (.) and I would just add that governor Bush said this ↑↑week. that he thought Roe versus Wade was quote-unquote a ‘↑REACH’ (.) governor a ↑reach (0.5) ↑ONE and a ↑HALF million children a ↑↑YEAR. (.) it’s a ↑darn ↑sight more than a ↑reach. (.) it’s a national traagedy (.) ↑my judges will be pro-life and abortion on demaand will be oover in my administration well Mr. Bauer since you have criticiized governor Bush about his stance on abortion (.) are you willing to state right now that you would not consider him for a post in your adminis↑tration. [(laughing) you know Karen (.) I I I’ll ↑answer] the question but I want to be [suure you better ask ↑mee that question first (laughing) I want to be sure that you’d] give the ↑governor] thirty seconds to res↑poond to my at↑tack on ↑him as we’ve seen several times here tonight (.) the ↑governor is a fine man. (.) but I’m going to make sure that my running mate agrees with me on the issues (.) and ↑I have asked the governor in four straight debates whether he will agree to appoint pro-life ↑↑judges (.) if he gets the nomi↑↑nation (.) and four times in a row ↑governor you ↑↑won’t answer the ↑queestion= =well let’s make it fiive OK. (.) uh [I’m glad that you’re ↑honest about ↑it I will I will I will appoint] judges who strictly interpret the Constitution (.) and who will not use the bench (.) to ↑legislate. (.) and you ↑know what’s inte↑resting (.) Ronald Reagan was asked this question. in the nineteen ninety-eighty debate you probably re↑↑member it= =I do remember I was ↑with him.= =same ↑↑aanswer mhum I gave the same ↑aanswer (.) and ↑I don’t remember you standing up and saying now (.) ↑↑governor [(.) you gave the wrong answer there’s a big difference] there’s a big there’s a big] difference governor and here’s the difference that we’ve been PROomising as Republicans (.) for ↑TWENty years (.) that we would do something about this (.) and instead of keeping our ↑promise (.)

KB(M): GB: KB(M): GB:

KB(M):

GWB: GB: GWB: GB:

GWB: GB: GWB:

GB: GWB: GB: GWB: GB:

485

Appendix ↑we put judges like David Souter on the court (.) seven of the current niine judges (.) were appointed by ↑my party (.) a↑bortion ought to be ↑over. (.) we have not been serious about ↑it. (.) that’s why I’m pressing you so hard on it thank you very much (.) we are now going to move to closing statements from the candidates thirty seconds each beginning with you Mr. Forbes thank you very much it’s been a great pleasure to be here to↑night. (.) I’m an independent outsider the Washington special ↑interests. have no hooks in ↑mee. (.) I’ve got the conservative principles (.) getting rid of this tax ↑coode. and allowing you to keep more of what you eearned (.) do it ↑now (.) not five years from now (.) ↑I’ve got a plan of action on moving the life issue forward to the human life a↑mendment. (.) I’ve given you choice in choosing your own schoools and choosing your own dooctors and having control of your Social Security system (.) of re↑building our military and ↑keeping faith with our veterans. time but ↑that. can’t be down (.) with politics (.) as usual and I plead for your support thank you very much senator McCain (.) ↑this may be the last time I have a chance to talk directly to the people of New Haampshire (.) my dear friends thank you for letting Cindy and me be your temporary neighbors (.) this has been one of the most wonderful and uplifting experiences of my ↑life. I will cherish this memory always (.) I ↑just had my one hundred and third town hall meeting (.) in in in uh (laughing nervously) ↑↑Plymouth ↑Armory (.) and it (.) like every other (.) was an enlightening and wonderful experience for me (.) I’m grateful. (.) I promise you again (.) I will ↑always tell the truuth (.) [I’ll reform the government tiime] and ↑I’ll inspire a generation of Americans to commit themselves to causes greater than their self interest and I thank you Mr. Keeyes well I ↑think the choice that Republicans face (.) you need to consider it (.) in light of the fact that standing on the stage we have one fellow who would give you (.) Clinton’s policy on gays in the military (.) don’t ask don’t tell a↑nother. (.) who would support Clinton’s policy on Social Security a↑nother. who will give you Clinton’s ↑traade policy and Clinton’s (.) globalism in foreign policy (.) I ↑think that ↑aas Republicans we need to have a consistency in principle (.) ↑go before the American people challenging them to meet the moral crisis (.) that is the chiIef issue of our day (.) and standing on conservative principles a↑CROSS the board in a way that will allow us effectively and coherently to answer the attacks of our Democratic opponents (.) and offer (.) a positive alternative to the American people governor I want to thank senator Greegg and (.) congressman Baass and all my friends here in the great state of New Hampshire for your HOSpitality and for your hard work ↑keep at it. (.) election time is right around the corner (.) I ap↑preciate the people of this state giving me a chance to talk about my ↑economic. tax cut plan (.) to talk about educational ↑excellence. (.) to talk about re↑building the military to keep the

KB(M): BS(M): SF:

BS(M): SF: KB(M): JMC:

BS(M): JMC: BS(M): AK:

BS(M): GWB:

486

Appendix

BS(M): GB:

BS(M):

peace (.) I want to re↑miind the folks of this state I’ve got a poositive record as the governor of the state of Texas (.) that I’m a u↑niter not a di↑vider and I intend to ↑leead our country to a better day (.) thank you very much and I’m asking for your vote Mr. Bauer I’m the son of a ↑janitor. (.) and I ↑knoow what it’s like to live in a house where the paycheck lasts till ↑Thursday. but the bills last till Friday. (.) I’m not going to forget average Americans (.) I’ve had ↑eight years of experience at the ↑highest levels of government with Ronald Reagan (.) I know how the city ↑works. (.) I know how to get things ↑done. (.) I know what Reagan’s values were and I want to finish his unfinished work (.) ↑finally. (.) I’m going to defend your vaalues (.) I’ll stop abortion on demaand (.) I’ll pro↑TECT the Second A↑mendment. (.) we’re going to STOPP illegal immigration (.) with ↑your vote (.) I can help America together with ↑you (.) be↑come a shining city upon a hill again. (.) God bless you and thank you very much that concludes our Republican debate (.) Karen and I thank each of you the candidates (.) please stay tuned for in one-half hour right here our colleagues Tom Griffith and Judy Woodruff will be here with the Democratic de↑bate. between vice president Al ↑Gore (.) and former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley (.) thank you

487

Appendix

Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Columbia, SC. CNN Especial Event Aired February 15th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour and 30 min. Participants: Larry King (LK(M)) George W. Bush (GWB) Alan Keys (AK) John McCain (JMC) Audience (A) Anonymous Audience Member 1 (AAM1) Anonymous Audience Member 2 (AAM2) LK(M): Good ↑evening (.) a couple of notes before we start we’re at Seawell’s Banquet Center here in Columbia South Carolina the capital of this state (.) this event tonight is sponsored by BIPEC (.) that’s the South Carolina Business and Industry Political Education Committee this is the second such event they’ve held they held one (.) four years ago (.) we are live as you can tell there is an audience here of people enjoying it we have asked them too remain attentive so that you can listen to everything our guests say (.) a couple of ↑other notes (.) this is going to be a ↑free↑wheeling debate if one guest wishes to comment on what another says after they finish they can (.) we’re going to cover as many subjects as we caan for the next ninety minutes (.) there will be only ↑two commercial breaks at nine thirty eastern time the bottom of the hour a two-minute break (.) and at ten o’clock eastern time a two-minute break (.) and one personal note if I cough a little forgive mee I’ve got a scratchy throat tonight. (.) we’ll start with governor Bush ↑let’s ↑SINce we’re being ↑seeen all over the ↑world. we’re on CNN International (.) ↑what area (0.5) of American international policy would ↑you change immediately as president our relationship with China. (.) the current president uh has called the relationship with China a strategic partnership. (.) I believe our relationship needs to be redefiined as one as competitor (.) com↑PEtitors can find areas of agreement but we must make it clear to the Chineese that we don’t appreciate (.) ↑any. attempt to spread weapons of mass destruction. around the world. (.) that we don’t appreciate any threats to our friends and alliies in the Far Eeast. (.) this president is one who (.) went to (.) China and ignoored our friends and allies in (.) Tokyoo and Seooul (.) he sent a ↑CHIlling signal about the definition of friendship when I become the president I’m going to strengthen our alliiances in the Far East (.) I’m going to work with the Russians to get rid of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so we can bring certainty into an (.) uncertain part of the world and that’s the Far East as well we must (.) say to people in that part of the ↑world ‘don’t ↑threaten our friends’ (.) ‘don’t ↑threaten our allies’ (.) so I’m going to change the relationship and you’re going to let them knoow of ↑↑course I’m going to let them know (.) ↑that’s what a president ↑↑does [a president mhum] ↑let’s them know ambassador Keyes what would you change

GWB:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M):

488

Appendix ↑↑I think the first thing I’d want to do is to restoore respect for the national sovereignty of this country= =byy= =I was very much in disagreement with our entry into the World Trade Organization (.) I think we gave awaaay a portion of our sovereignty that we should never have su↑rrendered to an ↑unrepresentative body that can (.) make decisions according to that treaty that would have direct affect on the lives of A↑mericans. (.) it ↑violates the fundamental principle of our way of life ↑no legislation without representation repre↑sentative government (.) I want to see us withdraw from the World Trade Organization and put our approach to ↑trade. (.) ↑back on a ↑↑footing that maximizes the results that we get for the American people I’m not interested in (.) protectionism or withdraawal from the world but I ↑do think if you happen to be the spoonsors of the (.) most lucrative market in the woorld uh that folks ought to be paying a premium price to ↑enter this market. or ↑else. (.) giving us something concrete in return that’s of tangible benefit to the whole American people not just to a handful of international corporations senator China is obviouslyy a place where this one of the signal failures of this adminis↑tration. although (.) there are certainly many failures throughout the world. but ↑I ↑would alsoo mhm look very (.) reVIIse our policies concerning these rogue states (.) Iraq Libya North Korea those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them and you’d do what= =as loong I’d ↑institute a policy that I call ‘rogue state rollback’ (.) I would arm ↑train equip both from without and from withiin (.) forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments (.) as ↑loong as Saddam Hussein is in power (.) I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security ‘The New York Times’ reported just a few days ago (.) that Sadam administration officials worry (.) that Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. (.) ↑Congress passed a law a couple of years ago called the Iraqi Liberation act the administration has done nothing. (.) we should help them with ↑aarms ↑training e↑quipment ↑radio and a uh a ↑broad variety of ways untiil those governments are overthrown (.) they will pose a threat to U.S. national security the governor mentioned nuclear (.) ↑are you in favor of the continuation of abandonment of nuclear weapons around the world now well ↑↑I think we ought to put (.) where nuclear weapons are concerned we have put our own (.) strategic safety first (.) I think it is very important that uh we TAKE thee Anti-missile Defence treaty and set it aside (.) in order to RApidly develop and deplooy an anti-missile defence for the United ↑States (.) I think it has been a travesty that this administration has stood in the schoolhouse door dragged its feet uh acted as if we were suppose to thank them when they were even willing to talk about this vital (.) necessity for our national security (.) ↑NOO. it’s ↑tiime. we gave the American people and the ALlies of this country the assurance that can COMe from our superior technology (.) make uuse of it to secure ourselves against ↑rogue. states and their ↑missiles. (.) as well as against the communist Chinese threat that this administration has con[↑tributed to

AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): AK:

489

Appendix

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): GWB:

do you agree with him] well I agree I think one of the things we Republicans staand forr is to use our technologies in research and development uh to the point where we can bring certainty into an uncertain world (.) all ↑THREE of us agree (.) that the president has drug his feet on the development of an anti-ballistic missile system (.) all ↑THREE of us understand (.) just like ↑I understand (.) that this nation must not retreat but can lead the world to peace I ↑do believe there’s an area where we can work with Russia in the post-Cold War era and that’s to work with them to (.) dismantle strategic and tactical nuclear warheads it’s called Nunn-Lugar (.) and when I’m the president I’m going to continue to fund Nunn-Lugar to make sure that we (.) ↑work with the Russians to bring ↑certainty into that part of the ↑world. you see the ↑Russians have got to understand the post-Cold War era (.) is one where we need to cooperate to to bring peace (.) and as ↑John mentioned and rightly ↑soo. we must convince ↑them as well not to spread weapons of maass des↑truction senator would you meet with assuuming Mr. Putin is elected in March= =mhum= would you want to ↑meet with him as a candidate (0.5) [other can uuh] didates have gone overseeas while running for office or right before [the campaign begin I’m not] I’m not sure that would be necessary (.) it might be an interesting experience (.) because I know what’s going on in Russia so do an a whole lot of my ↑friends.= =[but you don’t know but the fact is (.)] weell w we ↑know. that he was an apparatchik (.) we ↑know. that he was a member of the KGB (.) we know that he came to power because of the military (.) brutality and massacre that’s been (.) taking place in in Russia to↑day. (.) I mean in Chechnya to↑day. we ↑know. that he worked a deal withh uh Yeltsin so that Yeltsin would have immunity and he would be assured of the presidency rather than basically a contested uh (.) ↑I’m very con↑ceerned (.) about Mr. Putin I’m afraid Mr. Putin might be one of thoose who wants to make the trains run on time soo yeah ↑I I I would ↑meet with him as a candidate but I think thaat what I would really like to do is send a message to Mr. Putin (.) that we expect certain behavior out of the ↑Russians. (.) and particularly in Chech what’s going in Chechnya today a cessation of that bru↑tality. and ↑that. is a very important strategic part of the world for us would you meet with him= =uh no I ↑wouldn’t. (.) and I think in fact it would be vital uh noow and during the course of the campaign and also in the first months of an administration to make it clear that we were deTERmined uh to work agaainst uh the mobocracy and the mafia that has taken over in in Russia and that we are going to (.) ↑seek to work at all levels with those folks who are actually seeking to establish real self-↑government. that respects basic human rights and (.) and that is ↑also going to take an approach that re↑↑MOOves. power from the hands of those who basically have been using it for criminal purposes= =would you meet ↑with him. I don’t ↑knoow (.) probably ↑not. (.) uuh [in thee ss

490

Appendix

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): A: GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: AK:

LK(M): AK

GWB: AK: GWB:

AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK:

wouldn’t you want to meet with thee [leader ↑MAYbe] but I I’m going to be trying to win the election= =[NO I MEAN (laughing)] after you get (.) [this is aafter the nomination (laughing)] oh aafter the nomination= =right I was asking if you are the can[didate well (.)] (.) [would you want to well I intend to try to] win the nomination in the faall as welll (.) if ↑he CAME over and knocked on I imagine any of our doors we would open it and listen to the guy (.) ↑here’s the question though and th the verdict on Mr. Putin is out. (.) and it’s this (.) will ↑HE reject (.) the politics inside of Russia that has allowed folks to siphon off aaid (.) will ↑HE stand up to the corruption inside (.) that country will he welcome rule of law will he welcome the marketplace and the great freedoms of the marketplace (.) ↑that’s the question for Mr. Putin [how will you know without talking to him (unintelligible) that’s not (.) that’s not en]couraging when he cut a deal with the coommunists rather than the reformers in order to [con mhm] solidate his [power ↑I think] ↑I think we’re also going to have to be clearer certainly that the Clinton administration has ↑beeen. that (.) a good relationship with the United ↑States. is conditioned on this kind of respect [for basic human rights right (.) I want to] and the requirements of the ↑people. (.) we shouldn’t be transferring capital and doing aaall kinds of things that send a message of business as ↑uusual. uh to a regime that hasn’t yet shown itself [willing to show respect for these basics let me say one other thing sir] (.) [sorry (to Keyes) no] uuh this current administration has been sending all kinds of signals uuh confirming Mr. Put (.) ↑we don’t know enough ABOUT him (.) we don’t know enough about this person. (.) America must be ↑diligent (.) and ↑fiirm. (.) we must expect there to be a market evolution in these countries. (.) we under↑staand freedom. (.) we under↑staand freedom (.) and there are some who want to isolate our nation (.) we can do (.) we must reject isolationism because freedom’s our greatest export= =↑see but there is one problem though and I would have to distinguish myself uuuh in one respect because (.) if we’re going to talk that way then I think we ought to apply it to China as well uh and ↑sending. a business-as-usual signal by con↑tinuing. most favored-nation status is ↑↑wrooong. (.) we ought to ↑take. the reins of that policy [uhu Back] in our haands and condition each element of the trade relationship on their right willingness to respect the basic requirements of decency and of oour values and

491

Appendix

LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC:

AK: JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

interests senator you concerned about Austria (0.5) I’m conceerned (.) uh (.) a guy who (.) who’s name was Adolf Schicklgruber uuh was born theere (.) was a corporal in the (.) German army in World War I and (.) obviously caused us great problems (.) but this was a free and fair ↑election Larry. (.) this was (.) a free and fair election by a sophisticated electorate (.) Hitler was elected [aand (.) and (.) uuuh. yyy uuuuh (0.5) he was in a free election (.) well he won a majority of (.) and appointed democratically]= =I was going to say there’s uh your interpretation of history but the ↑point is (.) that this ↑was a free and fair election (.) we have to watch it (.) we have to pay close attention to what’s haappening in the middle of ↑Europe. in what is viewed by most people as one of the most sophisticated countries (.) uh in ↑Europe. (.) ↑OBviously we need to keep an eye on it (.) but ↑I don’t think the United States of America right noow is prepared to overturn a free and fair e↑lection. (.) and I’ll ↑tell you what (.) when the European ↑↑Union. started weighing ↑in. (.) they ↑got a negative reaction from the Austrian ↑people. (.) and gained more sup↑port for this guy than he otherwise would have had governor in what occasion (.) could you describe where you would use arms. when it’s in our national strategic interests (.) ↑Europe. is in our national strategic interests (.) the Far ↑Eaast. is in our national strategic interests (.) our own HEmisphere is in our national strategic interests (.) the Middle East protecting ↑Israel is in our ↑national. strategic interests and I’ll give you one clear example in our own hemisphere if for whatever reason somebody tries to block passage through the Panama Canal (.) as president of the United States I will make sure the Panama Canal remains open for trade it’s in our interests. (.) to have a hemisphere that is peaceful and open for trade.= =[what if it wasn’t what if it ↑was a moral question senator I I I (unintelligible)] I just want to say it’s not that simple (.) it’s not that simple because we are driven by Wil↑sonian. principles as well as others (.) there are times (.) when our principles and our values are so offended that we have to (.) do what we can to resoolve a terrible situation (.) if RWAnda (.) again (.) became a scene of horrible geno↑cide. (.) ↑IF there was a way that the United States could ↑↑stop that. (.) and bene↑ficially. affect the situation. by the ↑waay. (.) we couldn’t. in ↑Haiti. (.) we spent sent twenty thousand troops and spent two billion dollars Haiti is arg arguably worse off (.) obviously it’s the last resort (.) but we can never ↑saay. that a nation driven by Judeo-Christian principles will ↑only intervene (.) where our interests are threatened because we ↑also have values and [those values are very important but our but our I think our soo] you ↑know. I’m Alan] not interrupting you ↑Alan. ok so I think that it’s important (.) that wee always have some complex challenges as to where we must interveene (.) because sometimes we find that if genocide is allowed

492

Appendix the consequences of ↑in action. later ↑on. in ↑history are far more severe= =well several things are true (.) ↑ONE I think we need to end the Clinton policy of interventionism on behaalf of all kinds of globalist ideas and interests (.) that are (.) of not direct relevance to ↑our interest or to our values uh and ↑I frankly think that Kosovo was an example of that (.) I ↑also. think we ought to av↑OOID interventions that are based es↑↑sentially on exaggerated propaganda. (.) and that set the threshold of atrocity so loow (.) that in ↑point of fact (.) other nations could uuse that threshold as an excuse to dis↑rupt the peace of the world (.) ↑let me finish (.) by going into ↑other countries in ↑theeir region on the same excuse (.) we should be very careful (.) not to become practitioners of aggression ↑↑even in the name of good purposes (.) ↑I think ↑basically we’ve got to send a message to the rest of the world that (.) we will NOT be stepping in to intervene in the affairs of other countries on any kind of routine basis (.) unlesss (.) the level of atrocity is soo ↑clear. (.) that it ↑justifies. violating that principle of non-aggression (.) for the ↑sake. of which we have ↑sacrificed. tens of thousands of American ↑↑lives. uh and I think it would be irresponsible to do what Clinton in fact has donne (.) and take us on a road of interventionism that sets that threshold so ↑low. that I think it’s a threat to ↑peeace ↑yeah I ↑think there needs to be a clear statement of (.) when and if we’ll commit troops (.) I worry about Rwanda I didn’t like what went on in Rwanda (.) but I don’t think we should commit ↑troops to Rwanda. (.) nor do I think we ought to try to be the ↑peace-keepers all around the ↑world. I intend to tell our ↑aallies. (.) that America will help ↑make the peace (.) but you get to put uh ↑troops. on the ground to keep warring parties apart ↑one of the reasons we have such low moraale in the ↑military. today (.) is because we’re over-deployed and under-↑traained. (.) if you talk to (.) the men and women who wear our uniform who are ↑married. they’re ↑coonstantly being separated as a result of deployments all around the ↑world. we’ve got to be very careful about when (.) when and if we commit our ↑troops. well we can [still deal Alan (.)] Alan let John add obviously we have too much deplooyment we should have our troops coming home from Boosnia (.) we shouldn’t have gone into Koosovo or shouldn’t have ↑stumbled. into Koosovo (.) there was no need to intervene there (.) but look (.) uhm there’s only ↑one. superpower and that’s the United States of ↑America. (.) and there will be ↑tiimes when the superpower has to do things that other nations don’t have to ↑do. (.) and I am convinced (.) that the best way to pre↑↑veent. the loss of blood (.) certainly (.) certainly the lessons of the last century showed us (.) is that there may be ↑tiimes. when we have to come in ↑early. (.) so that we will prevent a re[currence of what happened wai wai wait Ii think (.)] with the rise of Nazi [Germany which is a classic example of that I think that (0.5) I think that what we have to avooid however] (.) is taking a unilateral approach in theeese sorts of matters that encourage ↑other countries to ↑↑shrink from ↑their responsibilities not to develop their capability and potential and NOT to take responsibility for policing their regions of the world (.) ↑they should not expect that the United States is going to come in and substitute for their responsibility and if we en↑courage. them to believe that that’s going to be the case

AK:

GWB:

AK: LK(M): JMC:

AK: JMC AK

493

Appendix

LK(M):

AK: GWB: A: LK(M): AK: JMC: AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: A: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC:

we actually desTAbilize situations we don’t help them move to another area sort of a man on the sidelines we’ll ask you do ↑you think this has been a dirty campaign Alan [(some candidate laughs) ↑well ↑↑frankly] I I I haven’t given their campaign (.) a thoought [(laughs) (loud laughter) ↑not a thought I I I ↑I will confess] [(applauds to the audience) I spend too much time speaking about] (.) the moral crisis of this country (.) the priority that this nation needs to ad[dress to get back to so you have no] its basic moral principles (.) I have a poositive message of my ooown. I concentrate on that message because I think it’s of vital importance to this country (.) I frankly believe that you spend all this time beating up on somebody ↑else. because you don’t have that much to say ↑↑yourself. (.) ↑I have too much to say of a ↑poositive nature about the future of this country (.) to worry about beating up on my opponents EXCEPT when specific issues require that we call attention to dif↑ferences= =↑all right governor what do you make of all these past two weeks the charges and countercharges you goo (.) and then the senator well it’s (.) uuh it’s kind of politics (.) and John and I shook hands (.) and we said we weren’t going to run ads and I kind of smiled my way through the early primaries and got de↑fined. (.) I’m not going to let it happen again (.) and we shook haands and unfortunately (.) he ran an ad that equated (.) me to Bill ↑Clinton. (.) h he questioned my (.) ↑↑trustworthiness. [(.) and it’s are you saying] he broke the agreement with you= =no I’m just saying you can disagree on issues. (.) we’ll debate issues (.) but whatever you do don’t equate my integrity and trustworthiness to Bill Clinton (.) mhum [that’s about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary (0.7 applaud starting individually and turning collective) and that’s (.) and that’s what (.) and that’s what (.)] and that’s what got you mad too sort of fight back ↑well. I stand by my aads [I stand you wouldn’t] change any= =↑no I stand by what I’m trying to ↑doo. I mean when the man says that (.) I’m spending all the surplus on tax cuts and it’s not ↑truee. (.) I’m going to define what reality is senator McCain did you break a ↑promise. well let me tell you what happened (.) there was a (.) aad run against me we ran a counter-aad. in New Haampshire (.) governor Bush took the ad doown and (.) ↑then I was beat up very badly by all of his surrogates uh called Clinton called Clinton-lite ↑called every a hypocrite I mean [yo yo ↑you’ve seen it in New Hampshire] no here in [South Carolina

494

Appendix

LK(M): JMC:

GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB:

JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: A: AK: GWB:

uhu] ↑you’ve seen it (.) turn on the radio (.) turn on the television (.) and unfortunately now pick up the telephone (.) and you’ll hear a negative attack against John McCain. (.) but ↑let me tell you what ↑reeally. (.) went over the line (0.5) governor Bush had had an event (.) and he paid for it (.) and ↑standing. and stood next too a spokesman for a fringe veterans’ group (.) ↑that fringe veteran said (.) that John McCain (.) had abandoned the veterans (.) now ↑I don’t know if you can understand this George but that that really hurts that really hurts and ↑soo (.) ↑fiive United States senators (.) Vietnam veterans ↑heroes. (.) some of them (.) really incredible heroes (.) wrote ↑George a letter (.) and said ‘apologize’ yeah [you should you should let me let me speak to that] [you should be ashamed yeah let me speak to that] [you should be ashamed now if you want no let me (.) uuh let me now if you want to hear =is ↑he responsible for what] someone else says well this same maan he stood next to him it was his event (.) this same maan had attacked his ↑father [viciously yeah he did] [(unintelligible) so let me speak to that] all [right so] I’d be glad to tell you the reest (.) of the story if you’d let me (.) uh when when it’s appropriate [(unintelligible well let him respond on that point let me let me answer that] [you should be ashamed you should be ashamed of sponsoring an event yeah (.) yeah (.) let me say something John let me finish] with that man there who had attacked your own father [you should be ashamed let me finish (.) yeah yeah Joohn] uuh I believe that you served our country noobly (.) and I’ve said it over and over again (.) ↑that man wasn’t speaking for me (.) he may have a dispute with you [he was at your event let me finish please] please [he’s listed as your (inaudible) [let me finish] (.) let me finish (3. laughter) all right let him finish (.) Ok] the maan was not speaking for me (.) if you want to know my opinion about you Joohn. (.) you served our country ↑admirably and stroongly (.) and I’m prooud of your record just like you are (.) and ↑I don’t appreciate what he said about my dad either but let me ↑say something (.) if ↑you’re going to be hold me respoonsible for (.) uh what people for me say I’m going to do the same for ↑you. and let me give you

495

Appendix

JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: A: JMC: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: LK(M): AK: JMC: AK:

A: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: JMC: GWB: LK(M): AK: A: JMC: GWB:

one example Warren Rudman (.) the man who you (.) had as your campaign man in New ↑Hampshire. said about the Christian Coa↑lition. (.) that they’re ↑↑bigots (.) he talked about the Christian Coalition in a ↑way that was (.) incredibly ↑↑stroong. (.) I know you don’t believe that ↑do you (0.5) George he’s entitled to his opinion [on that issue well so is this man] [you paid for an event so is this man (4. collective and enthusiastic applause) you paaid for your please don’t you paaid] for an eveent= =Joohn= =you paaid for an event and stood next to a person (.) and when you were aasked if you would repudiate him you said no= =no [JOHN what I said what I said let me say what I said so let me tell you what happened let me tell you what hap]pened after that effe[ctively (.) yeah (.) Ok but I want Alan to give me one thing] if you have surrogate (.) making a speech for you todaay are you responsible for what [he says ↑Larry] [I’m sorry I I I if you set an event (unintelligible)] I really am sitting heere wondering (.) because I said we were going out to two hundred and two countries (.) and is this kind of pointless squaabbling really (.) what we want them to ↑seee. we’re [WE’RE talking about electing the president of the United States (3. collective applause) but] it happened= =no let me (.) but it ↑happened or ↑not happened (.) and I don’t know whether this is the influence of the ↑↑media corrupting our process (.) or whether it’s that ↑personal. ambition becomes a ↑substitute for our real focus on ↑substance (.) uh but it seeems to me we’ve got a lot more important things (.) ↑we have got a country that has abandoned it’s most profound and fundamental principle (.) ↑killing babies in the womb every day [is a contradiction I’m going to get to that] of the Declaration of Independence (.) we have got a country with an income tax system that enslaaves its people and [I’m going to get to that and needs] to put that back in their hands [(laughing) (laughing) I’m going to get to that we have got a schoool] system that [needs to be put back into the hands of parents (collective laughter) (laughing) (laughing)

496

Appendix and ↑aaall I’m sitting here] listening to is these two guys [go on about their aads no (.) no (.) I’m going to because he asked about it that’s because he aasked (unintelligible) I know you did He asked (.) (unintelligible) the ↑aanswer. (laughing) (laughing) (7. applause) the question IT SEEMS TO ME it seems let let let their] aad people get in the back room and fight it out and let the American people [hear what they’ve got to hear about the issues (2. almost inaudible laughter) I’m going to (.) I’m going to] let’s dis↑cuss the issues] [let’s the discuss the issues I’m going to (.) that’s what we’re going to] all right= =let me just finish up Ok.= =[(0.4 laughter) so (.) so you can finish up and hope for so here’s what happened (.) we ran] an ad (.) that was a response ad (.) at a ↑town hall meeting. a mother stood up and she said ‘senator McCain (.) my son was ↑thirteen last year we had a lot of trouble of explaining things to him that went on in Washington’ (.) she said ‘now he’s fourteen (.) he’s toold me not long ago ‘John McCain is my hero’ he’s the man I want to be like (.) ‘well last night he came into her room’ she ↑saaid. ‘and he had ↑tears. in his eyes because he had ↑answered. the phone and the ↑phone caall (.) even though he told the caller that he was fourteen’ (.) said ‘do ↑you know that John McCain (.) is a liar and a thief and cheat’. (.) well that night (.) I called my people again. (.) I said ‘take down our response ad (.) we’re running nothing but a positive campaign from now on’ (.) I committed to that (.) I promise that [now are you saying that governor Bush George I hope you (unintelligible) yourself (unintelligible) let me just say (.) let me just say one thing (2.5 applause) please don’t interrupt (to the audience) are you saying] that governor Bush was responsible for that caall I don’t know who was responsible for it (.) but I know that the attacks go on= =[let me just say one thing I know that the attacks go on] let me say one thing (0.5) about all this business Joohn. I told ↑you. I pulled them aall down. you didn’t pull [this ad yes] I did (showing him a piece of paper where there’s a negative ad about himself) ↑this had ended up in a man’s windshield yester↑day. [(unintelligible) that ques]tions myy (.) this this is an at↑tack piece

AK: LK(M): GWB: AK: JMC: GWB: A: LK(M): AK: A: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC: A: JMC: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC: GWB: A: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB:

497

Appendix

JMC: GWB: A: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: AK: JMC: AK: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: AK: JMC: GWB: JMC: AK: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: AK: LK(M):

that is not by my campaaign. well it says ‘paid for by ↑John Mc↑↑Cain’ [(4. loud collective laughter accompanied by some individual applause) it is not by my campaign] [McCain two thou (.) Joohn that’s not that is not by my campaign] [well then somebody’s I pulled them off putting stuff up] I [I a↑gree with you but you’re (.)] but you’re putting out stuff that is unbelievable George and it’s got [to stop I frank I frankly] and your aaads] have got to stop [(unintelligible) are you going to (.) well let me put my aads have all stopped I’m going to end this now] are you going to pull any↑thing. [that you now have on I’m going to stand by what I’m putting] on TV and what I put on TV was looking in that camera (.) and saaying (.) ↑you can disagree with me on issues Joohn (.) but DO not question (.) DO not question my trustworthiness and DO not compare me to Bill ↑↑Clinton and are you (.) [you’ve changed your ads already (unintelligible)] uh we’ve pulled all ours down there’s nothing negative on the aair (.) and we have in[sisted alright] that there not be a ↑mean point [would you ↑disclaim. what Rudman said the phone caalls] if he said [that you don’t agree with that his phone caalls (to George Bush) [do you disclaim what the veteran] said if he said it I think THIS MAN THIS MAN this man] served our country well I did not ab[andon well] the veterans you should have [that’s right we didn’t abandon the veterans you should have repudiated your guy (unintelligible) (unintelligible)] I STOOD UP there at that press conference and said Jooohn [you’re right] [you’re a man who served our country well you should have repudiated him see but ↑this is the problem] one one once it starts it’s almost impossible to [end and whyy I’m leaving it now]

498

Appendix

AK: A: AK: JMC: AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: A: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

A: LK(M): GWB: LK(M):

[no NO (3. laughter) I don’t mean it that ↑way though= =it’s ended= no I don’t ↑mean it that way] (.) I ↑mean it in the first place (.) [you know and I think it’s time (inaudible) said that] we began to ↑ask ourselves (.) ↑WHY it is (.) that these campaigns deGEnerate into this kind of ↑stuff (.) and I think I ↑know why it is= =which= =I think it’s because people are trying so hard to be aall things to aall people. (.) that they re↑fuuse. to staand forthrightly and make it clear on EACH given issue where they stand in a principled way (.) and ↑simply speak the truth and let the chips ↑faall. (.) and so they get into this spitting match over who did what to whoom (.) as a disTRAction from the lack of substance in their own campaigns (.) I think people need to start (.) thinking about (.) whether THIS is the kind of spectacle that ACtually characterizes [muhm a serious] political process [because tod] I don’t think it ↑iis. today you announced a campaign reform program yes [I did you said] that you’d been announcing it in in other pieces throughout thee (.) past couple of months but the first time you formulated it as a plan today= =well actually I first laid it out last summer a lot of it (.) would you like me to go through it no (.) but one of the ↑networks.= =[well why can’t I sir (collective laughter) oh NO NOO I’m sorry of course you can go through it] no what I mean is one of the networks reported [thaat it’s] a great [↑plaaan. this is the first time] you’ve used the term ‘campaign finance reform’ well that’s not true I started talking about campaign finance reform last ↑summer. (.) and I said the following things we ought to get we ought to baan corporate soft money (.) and we ought to ban labor union soft money (.) we ought to make ↑SURE thoough (.) that labor bosses cannot spend union members’ money without their permission (.) it’s big difference between what ↑Ii believe and Joohn believes (.) sc thirdly (.) we should not alloow federal candidates to take money from one campaign and roll it over into a↑↑nother campaign. (.) that ought to be a reform (.) and ↑fifthly what I saaid or fourthly [what I saaid (collective laughter) I lost count]= [(laughs) (laughs)]

499

Appendix

GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: AK: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: LK(M): JMC: AK:

because you were listening so closely ↑too closely.= ye ↑too closely. (.) was that members of the United States Congress should not be allowed to raise money (.) when there’s a legislative session (.) that members should not be allowed to raise money from federal loobbyists oon] dur]ing a session on the corporate end (.) about unions giving against the will of the member (.) should STOCKholders have the right to saay whether a corporation can give ↑noo (.) corporations should not be giving [(.) uh uh] at aall period there should be a [ban on corporate (unintelligible)] soft ↑money. you should agree with that right of course not [becaause there’s a billion dollars but today you called it a joke] yeah there’s a billion dollars loophole in it [which is and it’s] caalled ‘individual contributions’ (.) uuh Mr. Bernard Schwartz who is the head of Loral Corporation gave one million dollars individually to the Clinton-Gore campaign in nineteen ninety-↑six (.) a series of events then took place (.) the transfer of technology to China that allowed them to improove the tech their their missile aaccuracy are you saying under his plan you could do that under ↑his plaan] Mr. Schwartz could walk down there and give that one million dollar check tomorrow (.) [and that’s the reason why this is (inaudible) you can’t give yes you (.) he can give John there’s a thousand-dollar ↑limit] he can give a thousand dollars to the RNC the [DNC or anybody else (unintelligible) yeah well let me speak to that no no] ↑that’s what it’s aall a↑bout. this is called the First A↑mendment John. that is what it’s aall about one at a time one at a time that is what it’s aall about let me speak to this whoole issue] because these folks sit here (.) two politicians (.) arguing aboout whether or not (.) the ↑people. or the United States should haave under the ↑First Amendment the right ↑peeaceable to assemble (.) and seek to petition the government and seek redress of their ↑↑grievances (.) ↑I believe that aall this talk where the politicians come in and say ↑↑think about ↑this (.) they’re going to control our ability to FFUUND those processes through which ↑WE control their

500

Appendix

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): A: AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: AK: GWB:

JMC: LK(M):

activities (.) and by controlling our funding I presume they will utterly des↑trooy. our First Amendment right (.) there should be no such regulation by politicians of what ↑we the people can do in our own [political process but the Supreme Court ruled they could AALL of this AALL of this but the Supreme Court ruled frankly the Supreme Court has ruled Roe] versus Wade and a lot of other stuff [well wait a minute is the (laughing) and as president of the United States excuse me]= =[hold it as president] of the United States (.) I will I will sit in an office that is CO-equal (.) with the Supreme Court (.) in which ↑I will haave an ↑equal responsibility with the court for the interpretation of the [Constitution wait a minute] so do you agree [that the court has the final word so let me] let me finish= =you don’t think [that= the Cons]titution doesn’t ↑say that (.) let me finish [the court is not the final word let me] finish Larry. (.) ↑I think that it’s very simple on campaign finance reform (.) instead of saaying that because theese politicians can’t act with integrity (.) we must give up our rights (.) ↑let the ones who don’t have the integrity give up their ↑OFfices. and let’s have a system that’s very simple no dollar vote without a ballot vote. (.) oonly individuals capable of voting= =you share that ↑view. ↑yeah absolutely [(unintelligible) publiciize] let me ↑finish though (.) publicize it (.) publicize it im[mediately so well Alan] so that people will know what’s what (.) and have ↑no limits whatsoever on the [freedoms of the people of this country (unintelligible) but you would limit] you just said you would limit ↑no I I said that [under the First Amendment no unions] th th that’s corporate that’s that’s that’s money where people have no ↑saay. [what he’s saying (0.5) no corporate no unions no corporate money] no foreign money no dollar vote [without a ballot vote WE have (.) th the great thing] about this ↑country is (.) individuals should be (.) the participants in democracy the ↑ultimate ex↑↑tension. (.) of some of these campaign funding reform plaans out of uh Washington D.C. will mean that the people who deciide who thee (.) ↑candidates are (.) and who the victors are will be the ↑preess. [I’m sure you’re looking forward to that opportunity (laughing)] if ↑I gave you one million dollars don’t you have to take my phone call

501

Appendix

JMC: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: LK(M): A: GWB:

LK(M):

A: LK(M):

JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): A: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): A: LK(M):

GWB: LK(M): GWB:

suure. (.) [ask any ask any don’t you owe me something] not neces↑sarily [but let me say something no ask any ex-senator Larry one of the things that] ask any ex-senator they’ll tell you they’ll tell you= [(laughs) (4. laughter) one of the things that we need to do (.)] ↑one of the things we need to do (0.5) is to have full dis↑cloosure (.) is to let the ↑sun shiine in (.) is to let ↑everybody know who’s giving to whom (.) I have done that in this campaign (.) I put it on the Internet (.) who gave to (.) whom I’ve got a (.) lot of con↑tributors. my average contribution by the way is about three hundred and fifty dollars per person (.) and I want you to know and I want you to know who’s ↑given. (.) because I I I don’t want to ↑↑hiiide anything (.) so this business about limiting individuals’ capaacity (.) to put aads on the air for example ↑I don’t like some of the ads running about me (.) ↑I don’t like them at ↑↑aall. (.) we have the pro-abortion people running ads on me (.) ↑I didn’t like it (.) but it’s their right in America to ↑do so (.) ↑this is America well let me take a break we’ll come back this is a two-minute break there will be only one other break and that’s in another half hour (.) wee’ll reintroduce the candidates like if you don’t know them (.) uh when we come back we will get into other issues including abortion other key domestic issues uh as well (.) this is a ‘Larry King Live’ election special don’t go away (applause) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) the primary is this Saturday this is the BIPEC debate at Seawell’s Banquet Center in Columbia South Carolina and our guests are (.) Alan ↑Keeyes the former ambassador (0.5) governor George W. Bush the governor of Texas (.) and senator John McCain (.) the Republican senatorr (.) from Texas= =Arizona= [from Arizona all right thank you I moved you over (4. laughter) one state over I don’t think I’m] [I don’t think I’m allowed in Texas uuh (2.) true (4. laughter) true even a goof helps] when you want to have laughs Ok ↑you say today that you’re the reformer you’re the outsider (.) yet (.) thirty eight senators support you (.) a hundred and seventy-five congressmen and twenty-six governors (.) that’s not establishment well let’s start with the governors those who know me best support me (0.5) but isn’t that establishment I’ve worked with ↑let me finish] I’ve worked with the governors (.) they know me

502

Appendix

AK: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: A: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): GWB: AK:

weelll (.) they know I can lead these are CItizens that care about the future of the country (.) they’ve stood up and said (.) ‘we ↑know. the man’s record (.) we ↑know. his capaacity to bring people together (.) we ↑know. his record of reform in the state of Texas has had great results for our citizens and we want him to be the ↑↑leader’. (.) and you mentioned the United States ↑senators. (.) thirty-eight have (.) endorsed my candidacy for which I’m grateful these are citizens from all around the ↑woorld. (.) all around the country (.) including one from South ↑Carolina named Strom Thurmond (.) they took a ↑look. (.) at the ↑three of us (.) and decided that ↑I ought (.) to be the leader (.) they’re looking for a (.) FRESH voice (.) from outside they want somebody to provide leadership and that’s why they supported me (.) you know ↑I got defined early on as the insider (.) and I kept telling people ↑my ZIP code (.) is Austin TExas (.) that’s where I made (.) ↑my stake (.) that’s where I’ve developed my repu↑tation. and that’s where those results are ↑coming from (.) and uh ↑Joohn and ↑AAlan both have got Washington D. ↑↑C. addresses well Maryland (looking at Alan Keyes) [I guess and so I anyway mmhum mhm (smiling)] OK fair answer (.) [he said he’s still a reformer well (0.5) it’s fair] he’s still an outsider they support him because they like him well it’s fair to say (.) that I did not win again this year Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate [so I have to admit that to you (2. laughter) you’re not popular in the Senate] ↑noo because I’ve taken on the iron triangle (.) special interests (.) money (.) and legislation (.) which we’ve been grid locked byy in Washington D.C. (.) we’ve taken government away from the people and young people are being turned off in droves (.) and the fact is (.) that I’ve been involved in ↑lobbying ↑↑gift. ↑lobbying ↑↑baan ↑gift baaan ↑line-item veto I’ve attacked ↑pork-barrel spending and wasteful spending which is now worse than it’s ever ↑been. (.) in fact George said that he would have he supported and would have signed a biill (.) Citizens against Government Waste it was the woorst most wasteful spending bill in ↑history. (.) and I fffought ag↑ainst it. (.) and ↑I didn’t make a lot of ↑friends (.) because ↑I point out these pork-barrel spendings these wasteful spendings [so and ↑I’ll] fight for reform (.) until the last breath I draaw (.) so that we can get the American people back connected with their government (.) [↑I’m trying (unintelligible)] to change this ↑party (.) to bring it into the twenty first century as a reform party (.) in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt Alan [would I find] it so fascinating we talk about outsiders (.) I was so far outside this process at one point that the last (.) cycle when we held this debate I wasn’t allowed to par↑ticipate in it [↑heere. (laughs) I think] that’s pretty far outside. [that’s right herre

503

Appendix

JMC: AK:

GWB: AK:

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): GWB:

AK: A: GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M):

(laughs)] and in Atlanta and elsewhere as ↑well. (.) the only reason I’m sitting here right now (.) is because (.) I ar↑ticulate better than most anybody in this country (.) what’s on the ↑↑HEEART of real Republicans and real conservatives around the ↑country (.) and because I have been out there not fighting in Waashington but fighting at the grass roots (.) as ↑↑head (.) for instance of Citizens Against Government Waste where where you value the ↑praaise. (.) I did the work (.) and so the (.) ↑point being that that for both of these gentlemen who have all the ad↑vantages. sit at the apex of a system that sup↑ports them in every way ↑darlings of the media th the person who’s out there (laughs) excuse me the person who is oout theere] ↑striiving at the grass roots right noow (.) to organize folks because of what they have in their heart not what ↑I have in my pocket (.) is Alan Keyes (.) and ↑reaching folks to such a de↑gree. (.) that ↑everybody (.) even your supporters acknowledge (.) that the person who presents the Republican message best is sitting here not sitting ↑there. (.) and it’s a↑bout time [we asked ourselves then why aren’t you] [why aren’t you ↑doing better whyy the question ↑I asked] ↑↑why on Earth don’t we want to send our BEST person to face Al Gore and Bill Braadley (.) instead of sending folks into the debate the haalf-hearted the unconvicted the folks who in point of fact ↑can’t make our case (.) as well and effectively as we ↑should make it= =how do you respond to that well I res↑poond to it (.) I put my my record on the line in ↑Texas. (.) it’s the second biggest electoral state in the union (.) it’s an important state you better be able to carry Texas in order to become the president (.) and the people in ↑my state. (.) gave me a chance to be the governor (.) for the first time to hold four-year consecutive year terms I mean I put my liine ↑myy reputation out ↑there. (.) I’m a re↑sultsoriented person. (.) I want to say two things ↑one (.) I’m not the darling of the media. (to Alan Keys) [(laughs) (4.5 laughter) (laughs) if I and number two] AND NUMBER ↑TWOO it’s a fundamental question (.) and and and this is the question (.) ↑WHO can go to Washington with an agenda that’s ↑poositive and hopeful and optimistic (.) and convince people to ↑↑follow. (.) ↑WHO can gather up support necessary (.) ↑WHO is it that’s got the capacity to stand up in the haalls of Congress and say ‘follow me’ (.) ↑who has had the (.) experience necessary to earn the will of the people= =and you’re saying that John doesn’t and so (.) Well I’m saying] well I’m saying of the ↑↑three of us here (.) I’ve had the experience and the resuults that prove I can ↑do so (.) these are good men (.) don’t get me ↑wrong. (.) but ↑I’ve been there (.) ↑I’ve been there I look ↑forward to saying to those United States senators ↑HERE’s a (.) a fresh perspective (0.5) well if you have trouble getting along with them doesn’t he have a point

504

Appendix

JMC:

AK: JMC: AK: GWB: AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M):

I’ve had two hundred and thirty four major pieces of legislation and amendments paassed when I’ve been in the United States ↑Senate. (.) and Congress (.) one of the most successful records whether it be in the area of reform whether it be in the important issues of telecommuni↑cations. such as it be Y2K product lia↑bility. whether it be Internet ↑tax moratorium. (.) or whether it be in ↑↑every ↑major foreign policy issue that has confronted this country (.) my credentials are well known (.) but I’ll tell you ↑what (.) the Republican party has lost its way (.) ↑they have selected an establishment ↑candidate (.) I don’t ↑blaame them for doing that (.) but they lost the last two presidential elections they lost the last two con↑↑gressional elections. (.) and unless we open up this paarty (.) unless we do what I did in New Haampshire and that’s get thousands and thousands of young people out to register to vote Republican (.) unless we get independents reconstitute the oold Reagan Democrats (.) I’m being criticized now because ↑Democrats may ↑like me. (.) I want to reconstitute that governing coalition (.) I can do it. I can leead and I have had experience in a lot of ↑ways [tht th that will well I think I think that] I think that what we did laaast time (.) uuh we ran experience last time and it really worked well. [(.) in terms of the re↑sult. (laughs)] (.) I would ↑LOOve to take both of these records and sit them in an empty chair in a debate against Al Gore and see who wins (.) uh I think that [we’ve got to remember (unintelligible)] (.) that ↑WHAT you can dooo to stand before the American people (.) articulate what’s on ↑theeir heeart. how it re↑lates to the great principles of this country (.) and how we have to (.) address those principles in order to enter the next century with the coonfidence that as a decent people we will re↑taain our liberty not keep handing it off to the government (.) that’s the challenge we face in a ↑↑year by the waay. when if the ↑spokesman of the Republican ↑party isn’t able to meet the ↑moral challenge of this nation’s life (.) we will loose the election [because ↑that’s where the Democrats are you questioning the moral] are vulnerable are you questioning the moral challenge [oof I don’t] I question their ability to articulate on the moral issues of our tiime (.) a clear and passionate and convicted case that can persuade and moove the people of this country (.) and if you CAAN’T do it by the way (.) in this election ↑year economy ↑booming world relatively at peace (.) if ↑we don’t go out (.) and attack that moral flank exposed by Bill Clinton’s ↑lyying. ↑perfidy. ↑oath-breaking. and utter shameless betrayal of our moral heritage (.) we will lose and we will deserve to lose let’s take a moral issue= =yeah ↑let me ↑let me say (.) one thing about this (.) this is a really important part of the debate (.) this is this is the fundamental issue (.) that Republicans and independents in this state are going to have to ↑look at (.) ↑who can lead (.) [↑who can lead morally with all due] respect are you talking morally

505

Appendix well morally ↑↑ANY of us at this table can perform better than William Jefferson Clinton (.) [↑any of us (.) will bring will bring honor to the office (3. applause) but the ↑fundamental] question iis (.) when we talk education for example (.) ↑WHO’s got a record (.) [↑WHO’s and he] got a record of reform let me finish his question was a mooral question.= =well that’s ↑paart of it (.) no question about it (.) ↑part of it is to bring honor and dignity to the ↑ooffice (.) and all ↑three of us will do that (.) all three of us will do that (.) [but ↑part and so] of it as ↑weell is to (.) ↑eearn the creditbility of the American ↑people so like when we talk about edu↑cation. (.) ↑who is it that has reformed the system (.) ↑WHO has got ↑taangible results and can say that (.) our test scores amongst African-American students or Hispaanic students are up (.) ↑WHO’s vision is it (.) that is improving a lot of people because you see if we don’t educate our ↑children (.) it’s un↑liikely that the American dream will be able to touch every willing heart ↑that’s where ↑that’s m ↑that’s my record ↑are you saying education uh governor is a moral issue well ↑I’m saying education is an incredibly im↑↑portant issue and if we ↑don’t educate our ↑children we’re going to have real moral problems er] could I make a quick comment] (.) look the joob that I want to take (.) is to inspire a generation of young Americans to commit themselves to caauses greater than their self-interest (.) ↑that’s what the great presidents in history have been ↑able to do (.) on election day in New Hampshire thousands of yooung people (.) went out (.) ↑registered Republicans and voted (.) and voted for me (.) ↑Cindy and ↑I got on a plane arrived at the airport in Greenville at three a.m. there were eight hundred [college students out there (.) now I’ll admit there was not ooh (.) (unintelligible) come on] a ↑mosh pit (.) but there was certainly an en↑thuuusiastic group of young Americans out there (.) and that’s the enthusiasm we’re generating= =excuse me= =and ↑that’s what inspirational leadership [is two] things I would have to say from what would I first senator McCain you’ve served these youngsters enough beer I suppose they’ll look really enthusi↑aastic aall about and I can do that [(3.5 collective laughter) I I I ↑FRANkly (.) I ↑FRANkly you know that’s quite a commentary on those young people ↑yeah it’s quite a commentary] on ↑theem. but it’s quite a commentary on those who would uh (.) take young folks some of them not even of age and serve them beer (.) but leave that aside (.) [I BELIEEVE are you saying he served beer to minors well look I b] ↑hee ↑he did not do this=

GWB: A: GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC:

AAM1: JMC: AK: JMC: AK: JMC: A: AK: JMC: AK:

LK(M): AK:

506

Appendix

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): GWB:

=ok= =I presume his campaign ↑did. (.) but ↑second point though (.) ↑let’s take an example of leadership (.) leadership in this campaign (.) we had a ↑coontroversy over Boob Jones University and its policies ↑right right but now it ↑seeems to me when you have a problem like that (.) uh does ↑leadership consist of going into Boob Jones University where serious questions ↑in fact. ↑do exist about religious ↑bigotry. and racial ↑bigotry. (.) going ↑iin. taking the ap↑plaause. RISKING nothing because you reFUSE to raise the ↑issues. (.) that’s what G.W. Bush did (.) ↑OOR does it consist of ↑getting on your hiigh horse (.) refusing to go talk to good-hearted Christian people because you believed a bunch of prejudicial ↑slaanders. (.) in the ↑press. (.) and then ↑staaying away. not even carrying a message of integrity to them (.) ↑OR does it consist in fact in going ↑in. (.) carrying a message of truth and integrity about this country’s moral ↑principles. and then looking them in the eye and saying ‘I’m a black (.) Roman (.) Catholic (.) Christian married to an ↑Indian-American woman and if you can’t ↑deal with the ↑demons of racial ↑bigotry. (.) and religious ↑bigotry. and ↑caast them out (.) ↑you’ll accomplish no good for this country’= =whyy= =↑which is the better leader ↑YOU ↑tell ↑me why didn’t you speak against bigotry at Bob Jones I was aasked the question (0.5) do ↑I support his policy of no interracial dating I said of ↑course not. (.) of ↑course not. (.) my little brother ↑Jeeb th the governor of ↑Floorida (.) married a girl named Columba (.) from ↑Mexico. (.) a fabulous part of our family (.) a great person (.) [(to Alan Keyes) so PLEASE but they couldn’t] don’t insinuate in any shape way shape or [form that I support they couldn’t date couldn’t they] well ↑that’s fine (.) but I walked in (.) and taalked about hoow (.) our con↑servative caause must be compaaassionate (.) that’s what I’ve talked about (.) I talked about how the principles of con↑servatism. (.) can lift the spirit of America how we can im↑proove people’s lives. that’s what [↑I’ve talked about. in your that’s what] I talked you ↑didn’t [hear my ↑speeech. in your speech sir] you said nothing about the religious [↑bigotry. and racial bigotry I I talked that haad] in fact to be dealt with (.) on and ↑iif aasked basis these questions are not enough (.) you what ↑↑I did was look folks in the eye and ↑tell them. (.) ‘Ii’m ↑willing to lose every vote over the issue of de↑fending young babes in the woomb (.) and I’m willing to lose every vote over the issue of standing with integrity against religious [and racial alright] [you did not speak bigotry’ ↑what votes] have [↑theese yeah] folks been [willing to risk to stand for ↑↑any principle don’t don’t dominate Alan [uh (.)

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

AK: GWB: AK: GWB: AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M):

507

Appendix

GWB: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M):

(laughs)] John well Alan I’ve been taking a few risks in my life and I’m proud of those risks (.) some of them are proudest points of my life (.) look (.) ↑I was not invited to attend Bob Jones ↑I understand that it’s a fine ↑academic. school if I ↑had been invited I would have gone and I would have started by saying (.) as ↑I have gone to ↑other places. (.) that people are not in favour of me (.) and I would have said (.) ‘look (.) ↑what you’re doing in this baaan on interracial dating (.) is stupid (.) it’s idi↑otic. (.) and it is incredibly crueel (.) to many people’ I also happen to have an ad adoptive daughter ↑who’s from Bangla↑↑desh. (.) and I don’t think that ↑sheee should be subjected to those ↑kiinds of things. in fact (.) ↑I will stand up and fight against those and so (.) look but you would have gone and said that [but you weren’t invited if ↑I’d have been if ↑I’d have been] invited of ↑↑course. because you’ve got to bring the message (.) [to get these people up into the modern times and you said you went you went to deliver a message] I ↑DIID.= =ok (.) ↑why didn’t you then go to the Log Cabin Republicans a gay group who you don’t agree with (.) to deliver a message to them I’ve got gay supporters I don’t ask their sexual orientation though but I mean ↑why didn’t you speak then before that group well they had made a commitment to John Mc↑Cain. [oh and uh] [uh but] they invited you ↑well I wanted to come down and speak and then so I have no no knowledge [that they have made a commitment to my campaign then th (.) well I thought they raised money for you [it doesn’t mean. it doesn’t matter] let’s [↑let’s talk about that issue that that (unintelligible)] (.) ↑eeach person needs to be judged with their heart and soul (.) I don’t ↑↑aaask the question (.) what somebody’s sexual orientation is (.) [I don’t ask the question so if you have gays working for you] that’s fiine and you don’t have a problem you’d appoint gays in the Cabinet [etc ↑well] (.) I’m not going to ↑aask [what their sexual orientation is oh so you wouldn’t know I’m going to appoint] I’m going to appoint con↑servative people in the Cabinet (.) it’s ↑none of my ↑↑business what somebody’s. now when somebody ↑makes it my business like on gay ↑marriage (.) I’m going to stand up and say I don’t sup↑port gay marriage. (.) I support marriage between men and ↑women. so even if a state were voting on gay marriage you would suggest to that state (.) not to approve it the ↑state can do what they want to do don’t try to trap me in this state’s ↑issue. like you’re trying [to get me into [you just ↑did] you have an opinion

508

Appendix

A: GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): AAM2: GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC:

(2. laughter) I ↑have an opinion] do you have [an opinion in ↑my state] of Texas if we tried to have gay ↑marriage. (.) I would I ↑would campaign a↑gainst. it if your state of Texas then proposed the Confederate flag you would campaign against it oooh oooh (with a disapproving tone) we’ve got the Loone Star flag] flying over Texas= =yeah (laughing)= ↑let’s talked about that issue [we’re going to moove that are you offended Larry La La Larry before we leave that issue] ↑can I saay (.) look (.) I met with the Log Cabin Republicans (.) I think (.) Republicans and presidents (.) should meet with ↑↑every group (.) we should meet with ↑every group of people. they don’t have to agree or ↑disagree (.) and to say somehooow (.) that some people are excluded from our party who identify ours themselves as Re↑publicans ↑I disagree with the Log Cabin Republicans on gay ↑maarriages. on the ‘don’t ask don’t ↑teell.’ on a broad variety of issues but I a↑↑gree with them (.) on a s stronger de↑fence. lower ↑taxes. less regu↑lation. (.) so we’re in agreement on some issues and ↑I as president of the United ↑States. (.) and ↑I as the nominee of my party (.) will ↑↑meet with. (.) and not necessarily a↑gree with. everyone [in the in the Republican party Oh do you do you] the senator’s had a little less time so I want to hear him out do you a↑greee as Barry Goldwater who [you succeeded in the Senate I believe (.) mhum mhum] told me once that there are gaaays at Normandy (0.5) true and there are gaays on Bataan I’m sure that all that is true [why do you sort of but the fact is] but the fact is that those gays were people (.) as is today in the military (.) in a in a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ situation I strongly support that that policy (.) I think that George does as ↑well [I do when you] have when you have people like general Colin Powell general Norman Schwarzkopf (.) our most respected military leaders who ↑tell uus (.) that ↑that’s the policy that works (.) that ↑that’s the best way we can have the finest army in the ↑woorld. (.) which we don’t for ↑↑other reasons. (.) then ↑I have to support a policy that the most respected people in America would support [do ↑you disagree well se]veral things it’s a ↑whoole lot easier (.) to go meet withh homosexuals when as senator McCain said in a meeting the other day ‘I understand you believe homosexuality is not a ↑sin’ (.) if you be↑lieve it ↑is a sin then going and meeting with sinners (.) and identifying yourself in that way when you’re educating your

LK(M):

JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

GWB: JMC:

LK(M): AK:

509

Appendix children to think otherwiise is a little ↑↑harder for you [but you and now] I under↑staand. that that is ↑let me finish (.) I under↑stand. that that’s an issue of conscience (.) and I’m not trying to dictate it to anybody and wouldn’t ↑try to dictate it (.) but WE ↑aare living in a society today where there is the use of coercive government power to try to prevent people (.) from speaking out and acting according to their religious ↑view. on this particular ↑issue. (.) trying to define hate criimes in such a way that Biblical be↑liefs are going to become incitement to ↑hatred. (.) a ↑↑loot of the Christian folks in this country understaand what’s going on but apparently these two gentlemen ↑↑don’t. the other thing that I would have to say the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is is is (.) ↑typical of the Clinton administration (.) it is a dishonest shameful dishonourable policy that ↑winnks and nods at gay folks to get them into the military (.) ↑↑leeaves the regulations ↑on the books so that people in authority if they come into information that somebody has violated those regu↑lations. ↑don’t know whether they should or should not [enforce them what would be your policy ↑↑what happens] (.) in a military when you have regulations on the books that you selectively enforce in a way that shows favouritism you undermine cohesion morale res[pect for authority all right (unintelligible) and ↑ho]nesty (.) ↑military people should be ‘what you see is what you get’ not ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ the roole of the commander in chiief is to clearly defiine what the mission of the military is (.) the mission of the military is to ↑fight and be able to win warr and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place (.) the commander in chief must let the general officers under↑staand. what the ↑goal is (.) and ask the general officers [to prepare a military (someone caughs)] of ↑HIIgh morale. and ↑HIIgh standing. (.) capable of meeting that ↑mission. (.) and the senator is right (.) generals came together (.) and said ↑this is the best way for us to prepare our military for the ↑mission (.) and that’s what’s important to understand as the commander in chief ↑it ↑iis (.) that’s what’s important for the commander [in chief Alan ↑governor ↑governor] I think it’s a little disingenuous [the rest of us nothing is disingenuous ↑let me finish] I just said a little (.) [disingenuous to pre↑TEEND (3. laughter) ↑hold it (.) that] the generals came together and beegged for this policy when we ↑good and well know that it was a policy impooosed (.) [by the political forces in this society well let me put this way what would to ↑turnn] the military [into an arena of sexual experimentation and the people Alan (.) what would your policy be (.) Alan who are in [chaarge politically ↑↑didn’t. have the guts to stand up and defend their military against Alan (.) all right (.) Alan you’re getting (.) uh hold it

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK: GWB:

GWB:

AK: GWB: AK: A: AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M):

510

Appendix

AK: LK(M): GWB: AK: GWB: LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): JMC:

AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: LK(M): JMC: GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: LK(M): GWB:

these pressures that’s what happened] [Alan you’re getting repetitive (unintelligible) that’s what happened]= [(laughs) =what would your policy be that’s what happened] I would re↑turn. to the baan on homosexual [activity aaan] in the military return to the ↑baan (.) it’s the only policy consistent with both the integrity of the military the ↑effort to limit sexual tension throughout the military and the ↑need to have a policy that can be clearly understood [and rigorously enforced why is that ↑wrong I don’t mind being] criticized by by Alan Keyes it’s getting to be a regular kind of routine in these debates (.) but I ↑really do question his comments about our military leaders General Colin Powell is one the finest men I’ve ever known in my life (.) and to ↑somehoow infer that general Colin Powell was coerced orr forced to adopt a policy that he didn’t believe in (.) is a great disservice to one of the greatest men [in the history of this country ↑but ↑but (.) excuse me= =[by the way since ↑we a point of personal privilege] it is not (.) factually on the ↑record. (.) you go back and take a look (.) [those military leaders ↑DID not favor this policy (.) in the beginning they were brought] is he (.) is he to favor it after po↑litical leadership faailed to stand up [in their defence all right is he going to ↑be (.) either of you the secretary of state [Colin Powell sure sure]= =(laughs) [that’s one thing SUURE] I’m sure we’ll agree on= =(laughs)= =your secretary of state too I’m not telling it’s definite that you’re saying [yes oh he’d be marvelous [oh he’s] a great man no question about it but one of the things we shouldn’t be doing he’d be marvelous he’d be marvelous there’s noo question] (0.5) right here on the eve of the South Carolina primary is speculating out loud on who we’re going to ↑pick wh ↑why well be↑cause ↑it’s (.) it’s it’s (.) listen (.) we we’re talking about phi↑losophy. (.) you know we go to one state and so and so is going to bee (.) aa you know in the Cabinet and go to another state and name somebody ↑that ↑that you know ↑that’s kind of (.) that ↑cheapens the ↑proocess what we need to do is get elected on

511

Appendix

JMC:

GWB: JMC: GWB: LK(M): AK:

LK(M):

GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: GWB: JMC:

[principles and issues (unintelligible) there’s a few] (.) there’s a few outstanding men I’ve had the chance to know in my life (.) ↑he can serve anywhere he wants to in my administration [(laughs) (laughs)] ↑he’s a great man no question [about that anywhere he wants] (.) [he’s the eight hundred-pound gorilla how about your administration all right] Alan weell. let me just say (.) I think I’m going to wait and seee (.) the ↑kind of folks who are putting together the Keyes campaign will be offering (.) an entirely different perspective on our politics because aaall of them come (.) from the grass roots of this country and speak for its heart ten years ago (0.5) sorry eight years ago on this program I asked uuh vice president Quayle (.) ↑what he would doo in the terrible instance that his daughter needed an abortion he’s very pro-life (.) and he said (.) well he’d try to talk her out of it (.) and he would support her (.) and he would go with her to the clinic (.) and hold her hand (.) and love her yeah [I’m not would you] I’m not going to drag my daughter into the discussions= =what do you mean (0.5) [all right your niece I don’t (.) my (.) no I’m not] dragging personal look you want my views on abortion [I’ll give you my views on abortion [should (unintelligible= I believe the ↑next] president should set this ↑goal for America (.) every child born and unborn protected in laaw and welcomed into ↑life. that’s what the next president ought to do (.) the president and the question is which one of us (.) can lead America to appreciate life (.) the po↑litical questions r ar around a↑bortion. are ↑↑these (.) and this is one that’s going to differentiate us fromm uh the Democrat nomi↑nee. (.) for example (.) is I will ↑sign a ban on partial-birth abortion (.) all ↑three of us will sign a ban on partial-birth abortion (.) vice president Gore if he’s the nomi↑nee. will sit there and JUStify [(0.5) alright] partial-birth abortion I don’t know how he can justify partial-birth abortion (.) a ↑LEADER (.) is someone that (.) brings people together and understand the power of a↑doption. (.) Joohn is a loving adoptive parent that’s a it’s a loving aact it’s a loving alternative to abortion (.) a ↑LEAder is someone (.) who brings people together both Republicans and Democrats in ↑my state (.) to pass a parental notifi↑cation law. (.) a parental notification law that will reduce abortions (.) in the state of Texas ↑should the woman be punished ↑Joohn. noo. [she she starts the crime George do you believe in the exem]ption in abortion case of abortion for rape incest and [life of the mother yeah I do I do] then you know it’s ↑interesting you were talking about (.) printed material that’s

512

Appendix mailed out (.) (taking some paper out) ↑here’s one that says that George W. Bush supports the ↑pro-life plank [the ↑pro-life plank I do] yes soo in other words [yes (unintelligible) your (.) your po↑sition iis] that you believe there’s an exemption for (.) rape incest and the life of the ↑mother but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption= =[yeah but help me] out there will you [I will I will thank you the plaatform] talks about it doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional am[endment that’s it doesn’t have no the exemptions in it please let me finish John and you know that very ↑well John let me finish] (.) let me finish (.) the platform speaks about a constitutional amendment it ↑doesn’t refeeer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined [it ↑does not George= =↑Jooohn. if you reead the platform it has no ex[ceptions John] I think we need to keep need to keep the platform the way it is this is a ↑prolife party. [we need to then you were may I finish please contradictory may I finish please. you were contradictory in all right] please (0.5) we need to be a pro-life party (.) we need to say ‘life is precious’ (.) and ↑that’s what our platform refers to (.) and ↑that’s why we need to leave it the same now I fully recognize good people can disagree on this issue (.) but the ↑fundamental question amongst the Republicans is ↑WHICH one of us (.) has got the capacity (.) to lead our nation to understand the vaalue of life those of ↑living. (.) those yet un un↑born. (.) and ↑those elderly (.) in America who uh uh who who are subject to physician-assisted suicides for example Alan you say a life is a life period ↑right no fi first of all I think that’s a perfect illustration this discussion of the problem we’ve got in the ↑party. (.) one individual who doesn’t really accept the pro-life position of the party and a↑↑nother who says he ac↑cepts it (.) but ↑theen takes positions that are ↑inconsistent with it so when push comes to shove he won’t be able to defend it (.) and ↑↑↑both (.) willing to take at a personal level a position that

GBW: JMC: GWB: JMC:

GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB:

JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): AK:

513

Appendix

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): JMC:

AK: A: JMC: A: AK: JMC: AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): A: LK(M):

LK(M):

will des↑troy you in debate against the Democrats when Al Gore stands there or Bill Bradley and looks you in the eeye (.) ↑one of you or the ↑both of you (.) and says uh ‘↑↑senator Mc↑Cain you said your daughter that would be herr decision it would be up to her to deciide ↑how on ↑Earth can you represent a party that would ↑take away from every other American woman (.) what ↑you would give to your oown daughter’ (.) ↑theese are folks ↑let me finish who ↑take a position (.) that they can’t defend and will ↑then go out and represent us in such a way that we get de[fea ok] ted by our opponents [↑isn’t it time we ok are wee we stopped doing this because this doesn’t make any sense all right we owe we owe] senator McCain some time so I’m going to let him [take the stage I told you this once] before Alan and I’m sorry I have to tell you again (.) I’ve ↑seen enough killing in ↑my life (.) a lot more than you have (.) I know (.) I know how valuable and precious human life ↑is. (.) and I will not listen to your lectures about how I should treat this very important issue (.) of the sanctity of human life so I hope you’ll give ↑me the respect that I give ↑you. (.) and do not (.) bring pleease my daughter into it (.) it’s a family decision [thank you very much see but it’s a fam]ily decision [excuse me (.) let’s be fair (2. applause) thank you very much] [(2. applause) let’s be fair to the American people senator hold it thank you very much let’s leave my daughter out of it please let’s be fair] to the American ↑people. (.) you are taking a position (.) ↑I’m a pro-life person (.) ↑that pro-life position applies to women ↑who are daaughters (.) and ↑who are wiives [and who are raped we had better be able to] staaand before the American people (.) and ↑justifyy what we staand for (.) ↑in applyying to [↑my daughter I’ve got to] and ↑your daughter and [everybody’s daughter I’ve got a get a break] and if ↑you’re not willing [to do it you can’t defend our position we’ve got to get a break (.) Alan] (.) Alan. got to get a break. (.) [we’ll be right back with moore (some laughing)] we have a half-hour to go and by the way Jeff Greenfield will moderate a panel talking about what you’re watching (.) don’t go away (COMMERCIAL BREAK) we’re back (.) on this special ‘Larry King Live election two thousand’ edition coming to you from Seawell’s Banquet Center in Columbia South Carolina (.) under the auspices of BIPEC the South Carolina Business and Industry (.) Political Education Committee senator McCain (.) much has been made (.) in these past debates [about

514

Appendix

JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

GWB: JMC:

LK(M): JMC:

LK: JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

mhum] tax proposals [yours mhum] and George Bush’s and we know that Alan Keyes [is a↑ mhum] gainst the tax (.) would you ↑simplify for me what’s the essential difference between your’s and the governor’s (0.5) we have two surpluses (.) onee that goes into the Social Security trust fund there’s ↑two trillion dollars there (.) if (.) George Bush or Alan Keeyes or Donald Duck were president of the United States there would be two trillion ↑dollars in there [because (laughs)] that’s (.) the payroll ↑tax that people pay (0.5) ↑then we have the other noon-Social Security surplus (.) I want a balanced approach (.) middle uh working families tax cut governor Bush has thirty-eight percent of his tax cut go to the wealthiest one percent of A↑mericans. (.) pay down the debt (.) Social Security and Medicare (.) if we’re going to ↑save Social Security we’ve got to take a bunch of the ↑↑nooon-Social Security ↑surplus. (.) pump it into the ↑Social Security system (.) because we all ↑know. (.) that it’s going ↑broke. (.) if we ↑↑do that. (.) then people can theeen (.) invest part of their ↑own payroll taxes in investments of their choice (.) the difference between ↑governor Bush’s proposal and mine (.) is that I put a ↑whoole lot of money into Social Security Medicare and paying down the ↑debt (.) he puts a whole lot of money in to ↑tax cuts (.) and that’s the difference and ↑whyy before he responds is reducing the debt more important than a tax cut because we’d lay this obligation on another generation of young A↑mericans. three point six TRIllion dollars at ↑town hall meeting after ↑town hall meeting (.) I have average Americans stand up to me and say to me (.) ‘senator Mc↑Cain. aall these years of running deficits we’ve accumulated this debt (.) we’re paying ↑more interest (.) as much interest almost on it (.) aas we are in spending on national de↑feense’. (.) we ↑ought to pay down that ↑debt (.) and not saddle (.) [the next generation of young Americans with it one of the problems in selling that though] is the debt doesn’t call you (.) [well (.) to pay that debt the debt doesn’t bug you today right I i it uh (.) look (.) [(laughs) right↑] (.) I mean it didn’t bug A a Alan ↑Greenspaan Alan ↑Greenspan just recently said (.) we shouldn’t ↑haaave these massive tax cuts like governor Bush is proposing (.) we should pay down the ↑debt [but ↑working yeah (.) lel let let (.) alright] families need the tax cut= =[governor yeah what A]lan ↑Greeenspan said is if it’s poossible to discipline Congress to pay down the debt ↑that’s fiine. (.) but but but (.) ↑ASSUURED of being able to discipline Congress which ↑I don’t think we can ↑doo. (.) that we ought to ↑HAve a tax cut. (.) that’s exactly what Alan Greenspan said (.) now my ↑plaan is thiis. (.)

GWB: JMC: LK(M): GWB:

515

Appendix

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB: JMC: GWB:

JMC:

theere iis a four trillion dollars projected surplus two of it goes (.) as John mentioned (.) to Social Security which ↑by the way. (.) pays down debt in the Social Se↑curity system we retiire two trillion of debt (.) I sp (.) I spent about ↑HAAALF of that on th (.) the remaining on tax cuts and half of it as a cushion (.) perhaps more debt re↑payment (.) perhaps emergency ↑spending. (.) the difference between our plaaans is (.) I’ve uh (.) I ↑know where the who’s ↑↑money it is we’re dealing with we’re dealing with the ↑gover (.) we’re dealing with the ↑people’s money not the government’s money and I want to give people their ↑money back. (.) and if you’re ↑going to have a tax cut ↑everybody ought to have a tax cut. (.) this kind of Waaashington D.C. view about targeted tax cuts (.) is is is ↑tax cuts driven by pooolls and focus groups (.) if you pay ↑TAxes in America. (.) you ought to get a tax cut under myy plan (.) if you’re a faamily of four in South Carolina making fifty thousand doollars you get ↑ffifty-percent tax cut (.) I’ve reduced the lower rate from fifteen percent to ten percent which does this and ↑this is important (.) there are ↑PEople on the outskirts of poverty (.) like SSINgle moooms who are working the TOUGHest joob in America (.) if she has two kids and making twenty-two thousand dollars for every additional dollar she earns (.) she pays a ↑hiiigher marginal rate on her taxes (.) than someone making two hundred thoousand dollars (.) you ↑bet I cut the taxes at the top. that encourages entrepreneeurship what we Republicans should stand for is growth in the e↑↑[COoonomy but the per (.)] we ought to make the pie hiigher (.) but I also hear those voices (.) Larry I hear those voices on the ↑outskirts of poverty (.) and I’ve got a ↑plaan that ↑says to her. (.) we’re gonna (.) redduuce the toolls to the middle class that’s what we’re saying (.) we re↑dduuce their high marginal rate (.) if SSOmebody’s working hard they ought to put more ↑money in their pocket and there is a fundamental difference of opinion (.) so ↑my plan uh (.) saves and strengthens Social Se↑curity. (.) it pays doown ↑debt. (.) but it it recognizes the most ↑RIsky proposition (.) is to leave money (.) to be spent in Washington D.↑C. the person making one million dollars a year gets what kind of reduction goes from thirty-niine point six to thirty-three percent but by faaar [the it’s fifty thoousand let me finish please] (.) but by ↑faar the vast majority of my tax cuts (.) go to the boottom end (.) of the spectrum and this ↑LAAnguage about governor Bush’s only has tax cuts for the rich sounds exaactly like Al Gore see that’s what (.) he he took offence of when I talked about Bill Clinton but let me just make one comment (.) it’s ↑not. (.) it’s not the Washington mentality (.) it’s the grown-up mentality (.) it’s the grown-up mentality that recognizes that we have oobligations (.) and we’ve got to pay them off (.) again (.) a↑gain George saays that it’d be if it come in Washington (.) Congress might (.) do something about ↑it. (.) assume it might (.) might spend it (.) as↑↑suming (.) that the president of the United States is a hapless bystander (.) ↑right nooow. Bill Clinton is forcing the Congress of the United States with threats of veto and shutdown of the government to spend ↑more money (.) I as president of the United ↑States (.) will force with vetoes and threats of shutdown the government to pay ↑less (.) and ↑Ii believe that’s what a president can ↑doo. [(.) and I if they (.)

516

Appendix

AK: GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: LK(M): GWB:

JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB:

excuse me let me say one thing else (unintelligible) my thing ↑override my veto I'll make them famous (off-mike) he had a long time] because I can ↑stop it. (.) I won’t be a hapless bystander I won’t say Congress [will just spend the ↑money. (.) I will not let them let me STOP Alan has got to go yet one thing and then he can speak] (0.5) ↑that shows the difference in men↑taaality (.) I don’t trust Congress (.) I trust ↑peeople (.) and I want to give people their money back this is a rrealistic plaan that I am going to get done (.) a and and and and JOOhn you know (.) grown-up or non-grown-up (.) y you know (.) I know that’s kind of uh (.) a liiiine you’re trying to come across with. [pretty good one (.) but with it or no (.)] it’s weak [yeah (.) that was pretty good (laughs) I it’s weak] (.) either you trust the people (.) or you trust government (.) and our Republican party ought to (.) ought to stand for trusting the ↑people to spend their own money (.) to give ↑people the highest (.) the taxes are the highest they’ve been since World War two (.) (to Alan Keyes) sorry yeah d don’t a↑pologize because I actually think that last sentiment is exactly ↑riight= =thank you= don’t trust the people trust the ↑government (.) [the only prooblem is no trust the people if you ↑really (.) if you ↑re]ally (.) no (.) if you’re ↑really going to (.) right= =[(almost inaudibly and collectively laughs) you should trust the people trust the people yeah] if you’re ↑really going to trust the people (.) then ↑WHY have this debate in which you have two folks arguing over (.) hhow they’re going to use their ggatekeeper roole to de↑termine (.) hhow much of your ooown money you get to ↑↑keep (.) that’s what the income tax system ↑doooes to America (.) it is not the system our founding faathers put in place (.) the system ↑they put in place. as compaatible with the status of a truly free people is a system where you go out (.) you earn a hundred dollars (.) you bring that hundred dollars home and until ↑YOU decide what to do with it (.) the government doesn’t get a look at it [let me ↑finish and who lights your street lamp] you DON’t] (.) let me finish (.) you DON’t wait for the government (.) too (.) to you don’t have to wait for (.) some politician to give you your tax cut (.) by avooiding expenditures ↑OOon the taxed items out there (.) you will be able to avoid the tax ↑why because (.) under that original Constitution the government was funded with tariffs duties (.) and ↑eexcise taxes. (.) ↑saales taxes. that you don’t pay on your income (.) and ↑since you don’t pay them on your income by the ↑way. (.) you don’t get into this hhuumiliating business of having these politicians arguing (.) over hhow

AK: GWB: AK: GWB: AK: A: GWB: AK: GWB: AK:

LK(M): AK:

517

Appendix

much of your own money [you get to keep (.) and you don’t LK(M): AK: LK(M): GWB: A: AK: JMC: AK: do any of you favor excise taxes let ↑let me finish] (.) you didn’t interrupt their description of [their plan don’t interrupt mine yes because they’re owed some time and you’re not (laughs) (collectively laughs) one laast question] (.) because it’s ↑also true [though how surprising it’s it’s] (.) it’s also true (.) you don’t have this hhumiliating business of politicians arguing over (.) how much money you get to keep (.) and you are ↑AAlso put in a position finally (.) where you control (.) every last dollar of your ooown money and you have the first use of it [THAT’S what we should be debating over uh we started the] they shouldn’t have this con↑trol (.) [they’re arguing about. we started the tax cut with senator Mc]Cain this question will be for the governor (.) the ↑governor of Illinois a supporter of yours (.) has stoopped all executions in his state (.) discovering (.) that people (0.5) were freed foor (.) not doing the ↑criiime they got out (.) because of DN↑Aa (.) can we as↑suume that that’s a pretty good idea (.) if DNA is proving people a lot of people have been released from prison from death ↑roow. (.) that you should curtail (.) executions in Texas (.) [untill none ↑noo. ↑noo. (.) I’ve presided over executions in my state (.) I’m aactually convinced (.) that everybody wh who who was con↑victed. (.) was guilty of the ↑cri[ime are you let me finish convinced that EV]erybody on death row now is (.) [is guilty that we’ll] (.) we’ll adjudicate those cases when they come up for [but what if someone isn’t let let let let me finish] (.) if someone isn’t they should be put to ↑death. [well but (.) let’s say that let me let me ↑finish] (.) let me finish we’ve haad (.) we’ve haad a series (.) of of of of of people executed in my ↑state (.) these are people who were found guilty by a jury of their peeers (.) these are people who have had full ↑Aaccess to the courts of laaaw (.) there’s no doubt in my ↑miind that each person who’s been executed in our state (.) was guilty of the crime com↑mitted I support the death penalty for this reason (.) when the ↑death penalty iiis uh (.) i i is administered in a shift and suure and fair way it will save lives (.) [it will save lives well let’s say an in]nocent iis (.) electrocuted ↑no one has been executed= =but ↑Illinoois knows that= well if ↑that’s the case then that’s fine for the governor to do what he ↑did you’re asking I’m the governor of Texas [I’ve presiiided if ↑you fooound over executions in my ↑state]

LK(M): AK: LK(M):

GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

518

Appendix

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC:

if DNA got some people off Texas (.) off the death row= =then we would examine every case on death row. [if we but ↑you]’re asking me ↑you’re asking me about the people who have been put to ↑death in my state (.) [and this and you] know they all did it oh yes absolutely how do you staand on this oh I think that the new technology of DNAaa (.) uuh we would uuh (.) I think (.) provoke a re↑viiew. (.) ↑clearly. (.) of cases that may bee (.) uuuh (.) questionable (.) but I certainly wouldn’t abandon the ↑death penalty. (.) but if there is evidence that maybe there is some controversy where a DNAa (.) with this new tech↑nology could help (.) authenticate the fact that the person was guilty of the crime com↑mitted there’s nothing wrong with ↑thaat. (.) uuh but (.) I think it’s important that we recogniiize uuh (.) that (.) that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for some ↑criimes. do you agree I think that’s absolutely right= =ev[en though I think in FAACT] (.) the death penalty is required if we’re to show proper respect for life (.) IN the mo↑raaality (.) that we inculcate through the law (.) the law has to be the first educator (.) and the death penalty is ↑PAART of educating people that there’s an aabsolute line you shouldn’t crooss all right hopscotching to some other things (.) what do you think aboout (.) racial profiling governor I’m a↑gainst it. and f (.) if you were president you would sign that executive order that [would (unintelligible) I would work] I would with state police authorities to make sure they don’t racially ↑profile. of course [of course of course (unintelligible)] but let me (.) point out now (.) that we had some people come across our (.) or try to come across our border that were tterrorists (.) if you can sspe↑cifically identify a suspect (.) and haaave the the the drawing that the des↑cription. then ↑clearly (.) you will want to stop (.) people that would fit that description [but you don’t stop everyone with a turban or a but you don't stop you ↑don't stop everybody] (.) uh just for (.) any (.) reason but ↑let’s be clear. (.) uuuh (.) the security of our borders was nearly ↑violated (.) a short time a↑goo. (.) and we have to be f (.) far more vigilant than we’ve been in the past Alan I ↑know everybody thinks that this doing soome uh (.) favor to a racial group but (.) ↑IF (.) ouur police and enforcement people (.) haave the experience (.) that a given criiime (.) is ↑disproportionately being committed. by folks from a given ethnic group (.) we are now going to pass a (.) ↑laaaw. that says you can’t ↑notice ↑↑thaat. I I (.) I I I

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: JMC: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): AK:

519

Appendix

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK:

LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: GWB:

JMC: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: A: JMC: GWB: JMC: A: JMC:

but they haven’t done the criime yet ex↑cuse me no no no] (.) no (.) all I’m saying is (.) we’re going to ↑paass a laaw and we’re going to en↑foorce. a law (.) that says that we caan’t notice the characte↑ristics. (.) of individuals who commit crimes. (.) and develop profiles to help folks pur↑suue. thee (.) ↑SOolving of crimes based on our experience (.) ex↑perience by the way is not ↑prejudice (.) prejudice is an (.) opinion you form apart from experience prior to experience (.) an o↑pinion formed based on experience. is not prejudice it is judgment (.) and I think our law enforcement officers [ought to be ↑able to use that judgment you wouldn’t mind being stopped by a car] if there was a high prevalence of= =you ↑↑know the person I would ↑blaame for thaat. (.) if there are black folks out there disproportionately committing certain kinds of criime (.) ↑my parents raised me to know that I represent the race in every thing I do (.) and I wissh that everybody would take that attitude and stop committing criimes and doing things that bring a ↑baad repu[tation so but but (.) but if (.)] O[on to people but if you were stopped ↑that’s what I resent if you were stopped] you wouldn’t be angry I jus (.) I just ↑told you who I would be angry [aat. we ↑had] uh (.) we had uh (.) a a (.) an advance man of miine a Hispanic guy in (.) in the state (.) uuh earlier primary state I’m not going to tell you which one who got ↑stopped (.) and he got ↑stopped. because he was in the wrong part of ↑toown. evidently (.) he was (.) y you you know (.) and and I didn’t ap↑preciate that (.) [now you know this this George is right] some bad things have happened they should be stopped all right this conservative-liberal thing are ↑you saying John McCain is a liberal no I’m not weell (.) you mentioned conservative lie (.) implying that he is not ↑↑no I’m not implying anything [John ↑no John (laughs) McCain can define his ↑own positions. and I’ll define ↑miine do you ↑think he is a conservative. yes (.) [I also why men] think he’s a fine man why mention conservative in a race where everybody’s conservative because I’m more conservative on certain issues [(individually laughs) because we all (.) we (.) we don’t] like to go around portraying ourselves as ↑liberals.= =[(laughs) (laughs) (collectively laughs) (laughing) ↑that’s number one]=

520

Appendix =YOU SEE ↑let me say something about aall this business and (.) you know and I know you’re taking umbrage of John and I arguing but the truth of the matter is (.) what ↑we’re trying to do (.) is to nominate somebody to end the ↑Clinton era that’s exactly what we’re in the process of doing (.) our ob↑JEECtive is to (.) is to end the Clinton era in Washington D. ↑C. (.) and that’s what this primary is all about (.) and one of us is going to emeerge (.) one of us is going to emerge (.) aaand uh (.) a a and the ob↑JECtive (.) has got to breathe some common and som sense and integrity into Washington D. ↑C. [that’s what (unintelligible)] the primary’s all a↑bout. that is wonderful you know no let John go [so we can (.) get ↑squared on time. (.) John (individually laughs) I believe that by the way I ↑call you by your first names] forgive me but I know you all so well and so long that sometimes it slips I don’t say governor I don’t say ambassador I don’t say senator we won’t hold it against you Ok (.) thank you [(almost inaudibly and collectively laughs) (laughs) thank you governor] please call me senator [(bursts into laughter) (collectively bursts into laughter) oor (.) or your Highness look [(bursts into laughter) look (0.5) (collectively laughs)] George Bush is a good man Alan Keyes is a good man we have some differences of opinion (.) thisss (.) campaign spiraled down (.) I want the negativism out of it the people of South Carolina deseerve better than what they’re ↑getting. (.) and we want to lift ↑up America. and not tear down ppeople but let me just say (.) I’m a proud con↑servative (.) I believe that my two opponents are proud conservatives (.) but what this is really all about (.) is articulation of a viision for the future of this country and how we’ll lead it (.) ↑no one knows what challenges we face both ↑foreign. and domestic as we go into the next century (.) and I think this campaign is aall about vision do you think (.) you’ve been labeled ↑liberal. oh well (.) I’ve I’ve I’ve (.) I have been labeled everything (.) e exCEPT (.) I have (.) I think (.) they missed ↑faaascist (.) [but uuh (almost inaudibly and individually laughs) but uuh (.) this is (.) ↑listen (.) ask aask] observers (.) this is probably the nastiest campaign that people have seen in a long ↑time. but look (.) I’m en↑jooying it this is a great and exhilarating ex[perience But you are

GWB:

AK: GWB: AK: LK(M): A: JMC: LK(M):

GWB: LK(M): A: AK: LK(M): JMC: GWB: A: JMC: LK(M): JMC: A: JMC:

LK(M): JMC: A: JMC:

LK(M):

521

Appendix

GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: GWB: LK(M): GWB: JMC: GWB: JMC: AK: A: AK: GWB: AK: GWB: AK

John you’re I’m Luke (.) I’m Luke Skywalker getting out of the Death Star JOHN IF YOU LET ME (.) O O ONE THING (.) HEY JOHN ONE THING IS (.) listen I’m having a lot of fun this campaign and I’m enjoying it] very very much [you’re playing the ↑victim here that’s too hard] wait a minute (.) re↑member who called who un↑trustworthy you remember who made the first ad that said I was going to raise remember who called who un↑trustworthy worst than] taxes by forty billion dollars George= =can I make a substantive remark here [(collectively bursts into laughter) I I I (.) I would like (.) I would LIKE (.) please do= =excuse me= =please do so]= =the rhetoric sounds good about ending the Clinton era aand (.) not (.) and have let everybody be called conservative but ↑words have no meaning (.) if you can apply those words to things so radically different that they have no similarities so let’s not (.) disrespect the ↑laaanguage. (.) and I find it hard to be↑lieve one is going to end the Clinton era by continuing his policies of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ in the ↑military. (.) continuing his trade policies toward the World Trade Organization and Chiina and so forth and so ↑on. basically continuing federal domination of education continuing the income tax system (.) WE HAVE FOLKS caalling themselves conservative all over the map (.) who are just going to continue the same junk= =all right= =we get from the Clinton administration what’s the point of the ↑label. does it annoy you that the president’s performance rating is high character rating low performance ra[ting high it doesn’t] amaze me [it doesn’t I mean it] doesn't annoy me it amazes me (.) [(laughs) it amazes me you mean] because people think he’s doing a good joob amazes [you ↑yeah] it must be the Dow Jones industrial ↑aaaverage. there’s much more to life than the Doow Jones industrial ↑average.= =two percent unemployment the Dow Jones industrial aaverage is high (.) but there’s a ↑lot of people wondering whether or not the future in America belongs to ↑them. (.) our failed schoools are creating two so↑cieties in this country (.) and we better have a president to do something aBOut it and if you’re suggesting I’m going to federalize the education system like you have (.) you don’t know my PLAN (.) [you just don’t know my plan how do you explain how do you explain] the performance= =I explain it because we are in such incredibly prosperous economic tiimes (.) but there are ↑also polls that show for example fifty-four percent of the American people are suffering from quote ‘Clinton fatiiigue’ (.) and as faaast and as faar as the vice

LK(M): AK: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC:

522

Appendix

LK(M): JMC GWB: A: LK(M): JMC: GWB: A: GWB: LK(M):

GWB: LK(M): AK: JMC: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): AK: LK(M): AK: JMC:

president wants to run away (.) from him (.) there’s an old saaying that you might remember about (.) Joe Louis said about Billy Coohn (.) and this is true about Al Gore (.) he can run but he can’t hide (0.5) do you all of you expect a tough race in November is that correct [I mean I’m sure]= =well let me say one other thing about Clinton there’s not a lot of mothers and daaads naming their soons Bill Clinton (laughs) [(6. collectively laughs) ok (.) we uuh (.) we (.) all right (.) I wanna I wanna (.) we’ve got about [ten minutes left] Jefferson perhaps (laughs) yes (individually laughs) yeah we’ve got about ten minutes left and I’m going to give] each of you a kind of minute and a half to wind things up so in theese uh (.) ↑final moments uh (.) just some hopscotching foor (.) topics around the world (.) ↑Mideast (.) Jerusalem (.) should it be the caapital of Israel= =yes ↑yes. I think we ought to recognize it yes immediately and that’ll make the peace process much simpler ↑simpleer. ↑sure (.) because as soon as the (.) Palestinians and others know exactly where that capital is then it’ll be off the table Should the United States be involved in trying to sssettle (.) not with ↑aaarms. (.) disputes yes (.) absolutely [we should show that leadership mhum] (.) we should have been involved in Irelannd and Englannd and I think it’s part of the role we play given our position in the world yes (.) where we can plaay (.) it cons↑tructively. we ought to do it I ↑I give uuh (.) senator George Mitchell and the Clinton administration credit foor (.) a fine job in Northern Ireland (.) not any place ↑else in the world that I can think of but uh ↑sure we should and a↑↑gain. (.) I want to point out (.) that being made world’s number one superpower has great luxuries (.) it also has great responsibilities and we have to understand those will you [(unintelligible) a ↑ac]tually they’re try (.) uh (.) the the the (.) unfortunately the the the Mitcheell effort was a good effort but it’s falling apart and uh (.) but I think we ought to (.) I think we ought to work (.) uuh (.) too keep the peace (.) and th the ↑danger iis is that a president wor (.) who worries about his standing in the polls will try to impose an American solution (.) for example in the Middle East we can’t have that in order for there to be a real peace (.) both parties must a↑gree to the terms they must come to an agreement amongst themselves. and so the roole of the United States is to encourage (.) and to mediate are you sayiing (.) that as president (.) the poolls won’t matter

LK(M): GWB:

LK(M):

523

Appendix they ↑shouldn’t matter (.) I mean Ii’m talking about that (.) whe[ther YEAH] or not somebody you know is trying to earn a Nobel Peace Prize and therefore (.) take our friends and (.) and demaand that our friends accept something that’s unacceptable to their ↑people (.) we can’t be a (.) we can’t dictate the terms of the peace and we must lead the process to a↑chieve peeace dooes public opinion ↑count. as president of the United States (.) on a foreign policy issue (.) I will never take a poll mhuum iif (.) in June of nineteen fifty (.) when North Korea attacked South Korea if Harry Truman had taken a ↑poll we’d have never gooone. (.) that was an important chapter in our winning the Cold War I will never take a pooll (.) in the most ob↑sceeene (.) chapter in recent American history (.) is the coonduct of the Koosovo conflict when the president of the United States re↑fuuused to prepare for ground operations. (.) re↑fuuused to have (.) air power used effectively because he wanted them flying (.) he had them flying at fifteen thousand feet (.) where they killed innocent civilians because they were dropping ↑boombs. from such (.) in high altitude no (.) I will never ever take a poll on a matter of national se[curity well] I I ↑I don’t take polls in politics noow (.) so I certainly wouldn’t be taking polls in ↑foreign policy. (.) but I would say ↑this though. I ↑hope that by that you don’t mean to implyy that the president doesn’t have a respoonsibility (.) to develop a sooound base of political sup↑port in this countr. for his foreign policy (.) in Vietnaam we leearned the ↑horrid results that occur when you don’t have that kind of presidential leadership so poolls ↑no poolls. you do have a respoonsibility to represent the American people and to persuuade them of what you end (.) are ↑doing in foreign policy and not to commit them to ↑waaar. (.) unless they support you ↑in it. we discussed the nuclear question earlier are any of you in favor of (.) reduction of nuclear ↑arms. not yet [↑noo.= I want to make sure] [the Russians comply with SALT (to the other candidates) ↑noo. (.) ↑noo.] noo (.) be[cause we need to no ↑more.] we need to uuh (.) c uh continue the triad before wee uuh (.) break one of those legs we’d better beee uuh (.) uh we’d better bee uh pretty suure that they’re not necessary but (.) we ↑do need too (.) uh pursue (.) uh wea weapons we ↑do need to pursue ballistic (.) defence systems and I want to ↑say (.) I’m going to caall some admirals and generals over and some civilian secretaries over to the White House and knock some ↑heads together. (.) we need more proogress on this mi (.) missile defen[se system well it’s] a failure of leadership in the Clinton administration they just don’t want to [put alright]

GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

AK:

LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

GWB: LK(M):

524

Appendix

GWB: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): AK:

JMC:

GWB: JMC:

AK: GWB: JMC: AK:

something in place tax the Internet UUH I ↑think we need to keep a moratorium in place (.) ↑we don’t know what the world is going to look like (.) uh three to five years from now (.) and I think we ought to keep the moratorium in place [(unintelligible) I’d ↑keep] the moratorium in place for a whiiile (.) but I also would forewarn people that coommerce on the Internet once the whole thing gets estaablished and (.) you ↑have the infrastructure and base for it (.) is going to be taxed (.) uh (.) I think it’s ↑unfair to lie to folks about that because eventually as enough commerce moves into that arena (.) don’t tell me the politicians will resist it because they won’t as president of the United States I will veto any bill that crosses my desk (laughing) (.) that reinstitutes the (.) th the the sales tax we’ve ↑got to make it ↑peermanent so these people that are making huge and maassive investments in the Internet will have the ↑cooonfidence that it won’t be taxed (.) look (.) we can’t choke this baby in the ↑craaadle. (.) I don’t care about these governors we’re talking about the en[gine of America’s (laughs)] e↑coonomy. and they ought to understaaand ↑that (.) they’re running ↑surpluses they ought to get their greedy hands off of it so that American economy can [groow and develop as it should I I I it’s are you suggesting that governors are ↑greedy. (laughs) not the governors the governors are speaking] for a lot of people out there working in the nooon-virtual (.) marketplace who are going to look at it ↑aawfully strangely. (.) that theeey’re operating a little store in their town and they’re going to be taxed but somebody who goes out to the ↑Internet. (.) once it iis (.) estaaablished ↑isn’t going to be taxed I see no [↑grooounds for it do you once it is established we should treat it like any other business there should be no access] there should be no access tax on the Internet there should be no ↑ffederal TAX (.) [on the Internet (.) and so wai and so no state tax] ↑wait a minute (.) what we need to do is make sure we understand before we say something like that that we know where where the world is ↑headed we’re just ↑leeearning (.) and that’s why the moratorium is [important that’s very wise thank you we’ve learned enough and we we we (.) we’re close on time] do ↑you do you gentlemen think that (.) inherently (.) that any American is entitled (.) to get a prescription inherently any [American is en↑titled. yes i i i in other words that] (.) entitled [in other words if someone needs in↑herently (.) i i i in (.) in↑herently] someone needs a drug

LK(M): AK: GWB: JMC: GWB:

AK: GWB: JMC: LK(M): GWB: LK(M): GWB: LK(M):

525

Appendix in↑herently what our elderly need is aaa (.) a modern ↑Medicare plan that will proviide uh (.) prescription drug ↑benefits just like federal employees get does everybody (.) i i in other words do you ↑FEEL everybody who needs a prescription should get it do I feel that UH (.) health care ought to be affordable and accessible yes I ↑do. but it’s not going to be affordable and accessible if we haave (.) an Aal Gore or a Bill Clinton try to nationalize ↑health care. uh I think you have to be very careful because if you say ↑thaaat. (.) then (.) that means that somebody ↑else. whether they’re paid or not is obliiiged to pro↑vide (.) that prescription [drug yes] but you don’t want to let someone [die ex↑cu]se me ex↑cuse me but that’s slave labor sir (.) I think we need a marketoriented system (.) that is going to proviiide ↑access and benefits to all and that’s what I would work to a↑chiieve. every American should have access to health insurancce but we’ve got a big problem in America right noow and that’s seniors who can’t afford prescription ↑druugs. and we’ve got to address that right noow (.) and if it requires a government ↑program. then I’ll support a government program to do that what’s going to happen (.) Saturday (.) in ↑Carolina. right ↑here= =we’re going to have an e[lection (laughs) [(individually laughs) ↑no] I mean are you going to ↑win. yeah I ↑am going to win] and the reason whyy is because the people have heard my message (.) that I’m coming with a message of a as a r reformer who’s gotten POOsitive results in education in welfare in business growth Alan how’re you going to do= =it’s in God’s hands I have no idea (laughs) if he turns you down do you get mad at ↑him uh God doesn’t turn you down (.) he just does the right thing in his way instead of yours [(laughs) senator McCain we’re going to do just fine] I think [we’re going to do just fine what does that mean] I ↑think we’re probably (.) uh win I think it’s going to be close uh (.) but ↑really you know when you talk about reform (.) the ↑key to reform is getting the government out of the hands of the special interests (.) and you’ve got to have a reeal campaign finance reform plan ↑not one that leaves a one billion dollar loophole we have exaaactly (.) three and a half minutes left (.) a minute each (.) Aalan anything you want to say well ↑I think it’s just very important that Republicans go to the polls and vote their heart and conscience I’ve been hearing from too many people that they think I ↑say the right things. (.) I ↑represent the right vision for the ↑country. (.) it ↑is the way we ought to ↑go. (.) we ↑need to restore our moral priorities our allegiance to the principle (.) that our rights come from ↑Goood and must be ↑exercised with respect

GWB: LK(M): GWB:

AK:

LK(M): AK:

JMC:

LK(M): GWB: JMC: A: LK(M): GWB:

LK(M): AK: GWB: LK(M): AK: LK(M): JMC: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): AK:

526

Appendix for the authority of God (.) re↑claim our liberties. a↑bolish the income tax. ↑get school choice in place in a comprehensive way (.) and ↑now I ask you going to vote for me ↑↑no (.) you ↑never get what you want if you don’t vote for what you believe in if you don’t have the gguts to vote your coonscience (.) then this country will never get back on the right track governor Bush well I want to ↑thank all my friends here in South Carolina there have been a lot of folks who have worked hard on my behaalf they’ve heard my message that if you’re (.) sick and tired of the gridlock in Washington let’s bring a leader into Washington D.↑C. (.) if your TIIIred of this business about pitting one group of (.) of people against another ↑why don’t we have a uniter not a divider as a leader (.) if you want somebody who’s going to (.) have an agenda that is pooositive and hopeful and optimistic a (.) growth agenda for our economy (.) a peace agenda for the woorld (.) an education agenda that re↑fuses to leave children behind they’re hear they’re hearing that call (.) they're saying ‘↑we want government Bush’ and so I want to thank the people of this state and I want to ask for the vote (.) I want you to go out to the pooolls on my behalf on Saaturday (.) and vote for me and if you’re ↑for me take some friends and neighbors with you (laughing)= =[(individually laughs) senator McCain] I want to thank the people of South Carolina for their wonderful and waarm (.) reception and friendships that we have made heere the town hall meetings the trips all around the state have been truly ↑marvelous. (.) I ↑want to reform the government oobviously (.) I want to reform education the military health care I can’t ↑do that (.) unless we get (.) the government out of the hands of the special interests (.) ↑some have come lately (.) to the reform a↑genda. (.) I’ve been there for years and I’ve been ↑fighting it. (.) and we’ll ↑wiin. as we’ve won on other reform issues (.) but ↑most of aall I’d like to end up by recounting a story that happened at my one hundred town hall meeting in New Hampshire (.) a lady stood up (.) and she looked me in the ↑eeeye. (.) and she didn’t have a question she said ‘senator McCaain (.) it’s ↑vitally important to me (.) that the next president of the United States always tell me the truth’ (.) I proomise you as president of the United States (.) based on my ↑life. my ↑principles and the caution of my old dear friends I will always tell you the truth (.) no matter what you’d take the same oath [↑aaabsolutely of course] (.) of course we want to thank uuh (.) everyone here the South Caarolina Business and Industry Political Education Committee (.) BIPEC for putting this thing together in extraordinary circumstances we want to thank (.) senator McCain and abassador Keyes and governor Bush (.) we want to thank ↑Seawell’s Banquet Center here in Columbia (.) we want to uuurge you to vote on Saturday if you live in South Carolina there are two big primaries coming next week ↑too Michigan and Ari↑zona. (.) please vote there (.) ↑also (.) stay tuuned as Jeff Greenfield will moderate a panel ↑following this debate (.) a↑bout. this debate (.) from Co↑lumbia South Carolina for all the folks here in the room (.) for our candidates thank you very much for joining

LK(M): GWB:

A: LK(M): JMC:

LK(M): GWB: AK: LK(M):

527

Appendix

A:

us (.) I’m Larry King (.) good night (collectively applauds)

528

Appendix Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, New York City, NY. CNN Especial Event Aired February 21st, 2000. Duration: 1: 30 min. Participants: Announcer (AN) Bernard Shaw (BS(M)) Audience (A) Al Sharpton (AS) Anonymous Audience Member 1 (AAM1) Bill Bradley (BB) Al Gore (AG) Anonymous Audience Member 2 (AAM2) William Allen (WA) Anonymous Audience Member 3 (AAM3) Anonymous Audience Member 4 (AAM4) Anonymous Audience Member 5 (AAM5) Questioner 1 (QR1) Anonymous Audience Member 6 (AAM6) Anonymous Audience Member 7 (AAM7) Anonymous Audience Member 8 (AAM8) Anonymous Audience Member 9 (AAM9) Anonymous Audience Member 10 (AAM10) Anonymous Audience Member 11 (AAM11) Anonymous Audience Member 12 (AAM12) Anonymous Audience Member 13 (AAM13) Questioner 2 (QR2) Monique Code (MC) Anonymous Audience Member 14 (AAM14) Anonymous Audience Member 15 (AAM15) Anonymous Audience Member 16 (AAM16) Anonymous Audience Member 17 (AAM17) Anonymous Audience Member 18 (AAM18) Jeff Greenfield (JG) Anonymous Audience Member 19 (AAM19) Karen Tumulty (KT) Anonymous Audience Member 20 (AAM20) Anonymous Audience Member 21 (AAM21) Tamala Edwards (TE) Anonymous Audience Member 22 (AAM22) Clayton Banks (CB) William Sweden (WS) Martin Luther King III (MLK III) Gregory Cook (GC)

529

Appendix Anonymous Audience Member 23 (AAM23) Anonymous Audience Member 24 (AAM24) Peggy Shepherd (PS) Anonymous Audience Member 25 (AAM25) Anonymous Audience Member 26 (AAM26) Anonymous Audience Member 27 (AAM27) Anonymous Audience Member 28 (AAM28) Anonymous Audience Member 29 (AAM29) Anonymous Audience Member 30 (AAM30) AN: From Harlem historic A↑pollo Theatre in New York (.) this is a debate. (.) between candidates with the Democratic presidential nomination (.) vice president Al Gore (.) (shot of Al Gore speaking) ‘and you ain’t seen nothing yet’ (.) and former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley (shot of Bill Bradley speaking) ‘we’re ready and eager to continue the fight’ (.) face each other (.) and an audience (.) of over a thousand community residents (.) the candidates will also take questions from ↑viewers (.) logged on to CNN dot com (.) time dot com and America ↑Online (.) our panel of questioners (.) ↑Jeff Greenfield (.) CNN senior analyst (.) Karen Tumulty (.) ‘Time White House’ correspondent covering the Gore campaign (.) and Tamala Edwards (.) ‘Time’ correspondent covering the ↑Bradley campaign. (.) here now (.) our moderator (.) CNN Bernard Shaaw good evening and welcome to the ↑eighth joint appearance between ↑vice president Al Goore and former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley (.) in which they will have responded to questions (.) in ↑their quest for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination (.) a ↑very especial thank you to the sponsor of tonight’s debate in this (.) historic ↑setting. (.) the United Missionary Baptist Association led by the reverend Nelson C. ↑Duukes (.) moderator [aand the (7. collectively applauds) reverend Reginald ↑Williams (.) chair (.) we ↑also want to ↑thank the Harlem Host Committee] (.) under ruules agreed to by the campaign staffs (.) ↑each candidate will be asked questions from the ↑aaudience (.) the Internet and our panel of journalists (.) each candidate will have ↑one minute to respoond and ↑thirty seconds for a rebuttal (.) the Host Committee has agreed to have the reverend Al Sharpton to ask the ↑fiirst question (.) he has played an instrumental roole in bringing about (.) [this dialogue in Harlem (12.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) (standing up among the audience) thank you (7.) thank you] (.) tonight (.) we know on March seventh there will be a primary in New York and ↑California (.) with the case of police scandal in ↑California (.) the Diallo case and Louima case in New ↑York (.) and many cases aall beTWEEN (.) many in our community have to (.) live in fear of both the cops (.) and the robbers (.) we’re asking ↑yoou. (.) ↑what (.) con (.) crete (.) steps (.) would ↑you make if you were elected president (.) to deal with police ↑brutality (.) and racial profiling with↑out

BS(M):

A: BS(M):

A: AS:

530

Appendix increasing how would you keep crime down but at the same time confront the AAM1: A: BS(M): BB: problem (.) of police brutality (.) and racial profiling [alright (.) alright (5.5 collectively applauds) senator Bradley (to Shaw) thank you (.) well (.) first] let me saay (.) I’m honoured to be at the Apollo Theatre in Black History Month and participate in thiis uh path-breaking (.) debate (.) presidential debate (.) reverend Sharpton when I think of Amadou ↑Diaallo (0.5) I think of an unarmed maan (.) who was fired at fort- one times by the police (.) who was KILLED (.) I think it was an ↑OOUTRAGE (.) ↑I feel it (.) everybody in this ↑room ↑feels it (.) I think it was also a tragedy. (0.5) but I ↑also think it reflects (.) racial profiling (.) in the sense of racial profiling that seeps (.) into (.) the ↑miind of ↑soomeone (.) so that he seees a WAllet (.1) in the haaand of a ↑whhite man (.) as a wallet (.) but a wallet in the haand of a ↑black man as a gun= =[(8.5 collectively applauds and enthusiastically shows approval) and (.) WEE (.) we have to ↑change that] (.) I would (.) issue an executive ↑order that would eliminate rocial racial profiling at the federal ↑level. (.) I would try to pass a laaw to get information gathered at local ↑levels. so that we could see (.) how the police departments are acting (.) I would make sure that the Justice Department was invoolved (.) and I would say [quite right] ↑clearly that white Americans can no longer denyy the plight of black Americans [(11.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) vice president Gore I don’t disagree with anythingg that senator] Braadley (.) just said (.) but let mee sharpen it a little bit from my part (.) by saying that if you entrust me with the presidency (.) the ↑first civil rights aact of the twenty first century will be a national LAAW outlaw outlawing racial profiling [(7. collectively applauds and shows approval) we have to ↑recognize (.) THAT RACIAL ↑PROFILING (0.5) is a problem] not ↑only in law enforcement. (.) but also in insurance (.) in banking (.) [inside ↑schoolrooms. (.) ↑INSIDE PEOPLE’S HEARTS [(8. collectively applauds and shows approval) and we have t (.) we (.) we have to confront it] (.) the (.) the (.) the Diallo caase (.) and the ↑Louima (.) caase and the ↑other cases. are jst justt uh ↑heartbreaking (.) and they have a↑wakened the conscience of many Americans who have not ↑LOOked at this problem (.) squarely (.) I think that we have to do (.) a LOT too get at police misconduct (.) uh (.) too ↑measure performance according to thee (.) uh ↑attituudes toward the com↑munity. (.) also (.) uh I think that we have to (.) make ↑certain that in this country (.) not only will (.) ↑driving while black (.) never (.) be allowed to be a criime (.) but we just (.)= =sir=

A: BB:

AG: BB: A: BS(M): AG:

A: AG:

A: AG:

BS(M):

531

Appendix AG: =w we have to say (.) that we are going to become (.) one people (.) and pre↑↑vent ↑these (.) incidents (.) ↑partly (.) by putting as much energy into ↑education as we do into in↑carceration. [(18. collectively applauds and enthusiastically shows approval) thirty seconds (.) each of you has thirty seconds] uuh] (.) ↑last month in the debate in Iowa (.) when Al said the same thing that he would issue an executive order (.) ↑I said ↑why doesn’t he walk down the hall now and [have president Clinton issue an executive order (8. collectively applauds and enthusiastically shows approval) NOW (3.) AL (.) AL SAAID] that I shouldn’t give president Clinton lectures (.) I am NOT giving president Clinton lectures (.) I am questioning why you haven’t ↑done thaat or you haven’t made this happen [in the last seven and a half years (10. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) ↑first of all president Clinton] has ↑iissued a presidential directive under which the information is now being ↑gaathered. (.) that is necessary ↑↑foorr (.) an executive order. (.) look (.) we have taken action (.) but (.) YOU KNOW (.) RACIAL PROFILING PRACTICALLY BEGAAN IN NEW ↑JERSEY senator Bradley.= =[(25. collectively applauds showing mixed reactions of approval and disapproval) NOW (4.) THE ↑MAJOR (1.5) THE ↑MAJOR (1.5) THE ↑AFRICAN AMERICAN MAJOR OF THE LARGEST CITY IN NEW ↑JERSEY SAID] THAT he came with a group of of African-American elected o↑fficials (.) or or contacted you to see if you would ↑help on this (.) and that you did ↑not did ↑you ever (.) ↑CAALL. (.) or ↑WRITE. (.) [or ↑VISIT. with respect to rocial racial your time is up Mr. vice president. profiling to make (unintelligible) to make (unintelligible) to your (unintelligible) (11.5 collectively applauds and whistles with screams of disapproval towards Bradley) your question pleease foor vice president Gore= =GO AAL]= =(standing up among the audience and addressing Gore) Are you ready (nods) my name is Willliam Allen I’m a Democratic district leader here in Harlem (.) where African-Americans own less than SIX percent of the real estate. (.) (reading from a paper) in spite of Michael Jordan (.) Spike Lee and ↑Usher. (1.) ↑African-Americans since American slavery still remains at the BOttom of economic opportunity (.) do ↑YOU think that reparations should be considered (.) if yes what would ↑YOU do to implement such a policy [alright (5.5 collectively applauds)]

A: BS(M): BB:

A: BB:

A: AG:

A: AG:

BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): AAM2: WA: AG: WA:

AAM3: A:

532

Appendix AG: ↑I believe the best reparations (.) is a good education (.) and affirmative aaction (.) to make available ↑resources (.) to make available the kiind of direct as↑sistance (.) that has brought an empowerment zone here to Harlem (.) that has created neew o opportunities (.) I think that we still ↑NEEED affirmative aaction in this country I don’t think that it’s ↑time for (.) ↑anybody to say (.) look (.) we have uh made so much progress I think that’s a ridiculous conclusion (.) the ↑AVERAGE (.) American FAMIly wealth. (.) and ↑also (.) the average Latino family wealth. (.) is less than one-tenth that (.) of the average whhite family wealth. (.) to ↑MEE (.) THAT justifies (0.5) making available capital for young A: AG: entrepre[neeurs. (.) it ma (.) (5.5 collectively applauds) it mea (.) it ↑JUSTIFIES MAKING AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITIES forr advancement] (.) and affirmative action in every sphere] (.) now (.) uh I ↑personally have supported these ↑measures. (.) and here it (.) ↑we have created in the laaast seven years (.) twenty million new jobs in America (.) and the loowest African-American unemployment rate [time. and poverty rate] in ↑history. (.) we need to keep on going (.) and make sure nobody is left behind. [(7.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) senator Bradley uh the issue of repre] (.) reparations (to Allen) is what you really raaised= =YEAH= =[yeah (individually makes comments) aaand] it ↑seems to ↑meee that what the issue raised is ↑not just the issue of MOney (0.5) but the ↑iissue of ack↑knowledging the [contributions of AfricanAmericans to this country’s history over (individually makes comments and claps) its entire history] (.) I think it is very important to DO that there are varieties of ways to do that y’ cud establish a com↑MISSION (.) which I thinkk uh has already been pro↑posed in the ↑CONgress by Mr. ↑Conyers (.) [that (individually claps and whistles) would ↑LOOK at the POSSIBILITY of ↑finding a way to acknowledge those contributions] that’ve been ↑MAADE (.) from the days of ↑slavery (.) to the days today (.) and ↑also (.) NOT DE↑NYYing anymore those contri↑butions (.) American (.) ↑whhite Americans are in de↑NIIAL f of (.) black Americans’ contributions through ↑SLAvery. (.) denial in Jim [↑Croow. (individually applauds) and CONTINUE to DENY TODAAY] the indignities that African-American suffer (.) ↑I believe that we can change THAT with a major new investment in education (.) in ↑economic development (.) and in beginning to see things a [little deeper than skin colour

BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): BB: AAM4: AAM5: A: BB:

A: BB:

A: BB:

A: BB:

533

Appendix BS(M): A: BS(M): AG: time.] [(11. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) thirty seconds for (.) the candidate ↑well the question is still about reparations] (.) if I’m not uh mistaken (.) aand I (0.5) I I do ↑believe that (0.5) what (.) what you’re getting at (.) uuh (.) is best approached and answered. (.) ↑not byy an effort to try to have a cash (.) payment. (.) I ↑do not believe that that’s gonna get through the United States ↑Congress or is the way to go. [in ↑CERTAIN CASES (individually utters opposing comments) SUCH ↑AS] (.) uh in (.) in (.) ↑Oklahoma where they are debating (.) the specific ↑tragedy ↑there. (.) then that ↑may ↑be definitely a realistic possibility there may be ↑OTHER such (.) uh (.) examples where that can be triggered [but for time.] the nation as a ↑whoole (.) we should approach ↑it in the form of (.) yes (.) recognition of the especial contributions and special suffering (.) and special roole [but ↑MASSIVE your time is up (.) Mr. vice president.] investments in [education (11.5 collectively shows approval and applauds) and economic empowerment are (.) what we need. ↑senator the ↑vice president has said that affirmative action] is a part of the aanswer (.) to this problem (.) and I would ↑simply (.) ask ↑HIM that when ↑he was in the administration chaarged with reinventing government (.) according to George Stephanop’los page two ou eight (.) that ↑HEE led the ↑effort to ↑END affirmative action at the federal ↑level (.) ↑that does not sound to ↑MEE (.) like someone who wants affirmative ↑aaction to be a part of the solution to this very big problem [(9. collectively applauds and boos) uuh LOOK Mr. Mod (.) Mr. ↑Moderator (.) can (.) as a point of pr personal privilege] (.) can I respond to ↑that according to the ruules aggred to [by both your staaffs (.) you cannot sir. [(individually makes disapproving comments) the ↑next question pleease] for (.) senator Braadley= =Helloo senator ↑Braadly (.) (reading from a notebook) the United States is uh CCURrently experiencing an unprecedented economic booom (.) in a large part due to technology (.) what specific ↑social (.) ↑educational (.) ↑legislative (.) and ↑economic policies (.) will you ↑implement (.) ↑that will ensure historically marginalized communities (.) such as Harlem where we are at. (.) will gain access (.) to technology (.) and resources (.) es↑sential to survival in this new information age [(individually claps) uhm (.)] one of the ↑first things I would doo is I would give TEN thousand

A: AG:

BS(M): AG:

BS(M): AG: A: AG: BS(M): BB:

A: AG: BS(M): A: BS(M): QR1:

A: BB:

534

Appendix scholarships a year at SEVENty five hundred dollars a year ↑scholarship (.) to ↑people who after four years would agree to TEACH (.) in an urban (.) or or rural ↑school district in the ↑areas of computer ↑science (.) math ↑science or foreign ↑languages (.) we ↑need teachers in our comMUnities who understand theese subjects and have the equipment (.) the NEXT thing I would doo is something I call ↑INFO-STAMPS. (.) which empowers those who don’t ↑HAAAVE (.) to be able to get the eQUIPment and the SOFTware that they NEED in order to (.) be a part of the digital revolution we have ↑FOOD STAMPS (.) we need ↑INFOstamps to be able to accomplish this objective. (.) and in ↑teerms of (.) uh (.) education (.) I think and you (to the questioner in the audience) mentioned race in education (.) I ↑think it is important to knoow that in niineteen eighty (.) eighty oone (.) and nineteen seventy niiine (.) there was an ↑issue before the Congress that related to (.) whhether (.) th the (.) whether the government would provide TAX-EXEMPT ↑STAAtus [to schools time] that ↑racially discriminate ↑Al ↑Gore supported those measures (.) and [I’d like to know today whhy. (denying with head)] [(7.5 collectively applauds) vice ↑president (.) one ↑minute] ↑welll I made a speech last weekk] on how to close the digital divide I’ll deal with this briefly and then respoond to Bill’s uh (.) false charge. (.) [uh (.) I be (individually laughing and making comments) lieve that (.) we] ↑need to get computing centres ↑IIN the community for children and for ↑a[dults we need to finish connecting every classroom and (collectively applauds and screams showing approval) library to (.) the ↑Internet we need to get computers in the schools we] need to train the teachers we cannot allow a digital diVIIIDE (.) to exacerbate the gap between (.) rich and poor (.) uuh (.) now (.) ↑ass for this false charge (.) two in a row (.) ↑first of all (.) onn government procurement there was no change ↑there. that’s a false charge. (.) ↑secondly (.) ↑look (.) ↑you have ↑misrepresented that vote entirely senator Bradley. (.) that was NOOT about affirmative action ↑that was about (.) QUOtas (.) it was three hundred (.) and thirty (.) seven (.) members of the Congress (.) voted against thaat. ↑YOU voted for th (.) the same ↑↑way on final ↑passage (.) now (.) let me (.) let me talk about a more reecent vote not twenty ↑years ago. (.) in nineteen ninety-↑fiive= =COME OON= =[GET OUT (unintelligible) (individually makes comments mixed with claps) ↑YOU were the ↑ONLY (.) DEMOCRATIC ↑SENATOR] time

BS(M): BB: AG: A: BS(M): AG: A: AG: A: AG:

AAM6: AAM7: A: AG: BS(M):

535

Appendix AG: to vote a↑↑gainst affirmative action to help expand the number (.) of AfricanAmerican-owned (.) broadcasting outlets (.) radio stations and TV stations (.) [↑why did you. (.) (13.5 individually claps, boos, screams and makes comments of approval and disapproval) ↑why were you the ↑ONLY Democratic senator on the Finance Committee to vote against that jst (.) just a second (.) just a moment (.) senator Bradley (.) candidates] (.) we have to bee (.) respective of your one-minute time limit (.) and your thirty-second rebuttal (.) ↑please respect that (.) when you see the X before you (.) try too (.) end (.) your remarks (.) senator Bradley= =uuh (.) given ↑Al’s answer (.) I ↑kind of expected his aanswer oon his vote (.) to preserve TAX-exempt status (.) for schoools like Bob Jones that racially discriminate (.) (taking a handout in his hands) so ↑Ii brought todaay uh a copy of all five of those [votes (.) I’ve ↑also OOUUH YEAHH [(11. collectively applauds and shows approval) brought TODAY MY (2.) MY STAT (4.)] I’ve ↑also brought today ↑my statement in opposition the Congressional Black Caucus’s statement in opposition (.) and ↑TRENT Lott’s statement in supPORT saying that [this would go to Bob Jones University (individually claps) YYEEAAH time I’D ↑LIKE] to give it to EACH member of the paanel (.) and ↑Bernie at the break but I’d like you to have it now Al. (handing handout to Gore)= =[(20. collectively bursts into laughter and screams showing approval) (lifts palm refusing to take the document) (to moderator) CAN I RESPOND ↑NOW (.) can I respond ↑now no sir (.) we’re going to the Internet ↑what we’re going to (.) an Internet question I THOUGHT THAT] (.) I thought there was a thirty-thirty now thirty second res↑ponse] (1.) go ahead= =ok thank you very ↑much. (.) ↑first of all (.) THIS (.) was (.) a vote on ↑quootas (.) are y (.) I ta (.) I take it you’re not in favour of quotas (.) ↑Bob Jones University (.) lost its TAX exemption under the law that I sup↑↑ported (.) they ↑STILL do not have a tax exemption so ↑that is a ↑phony and scurrilous ↑charge. [↑now (.) (5. collectively applauds)

A: AG: BS(M):

BB:

AAM8: AAM9: A: BB:

A: AAM10: BS(M): BB: A: AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG:

BS(M): AG:

A:

536

Appendix AG: LET ME ASK YOU A↑GAIN] (.) ↑I (.) ↑I think this country is better off for] having the ‘Tom Joyner (.) show’ and for having ‘April Ryan’ and for having ‘WLIB’. (.) ↑NOne might be available [time sir. except for] the extra (.) affirmative action for black-owned radio stations. [↑why did you vote against them ↑why did you vote tiime against ↑↑em (Bradley with handout extended to Gore) (3. individually makes loud comments) gentlemen] (1.) we now have (.) an ↑Internett (.) reaction (1.) uh (.) a question from the ↑Internet (.) aand before Ii (.) quote the question pleeease in the audience (2.) you’re delaying the progress of this interesting debate. (.) please restrain your outbursts so that we can proceed= =[(individually makes comments) THIS] is a question from America Onliine foor vice president Gore (.) (reading from screen in the lectern) ↑what will you ↑doo to redefine affirmative actions gooals as an asSUrance against present and ↑future. (.) discrimi↑nation ↑well (.) I think that the policy ‘aMENND it (.) don’t END it’ (.) is the RIIGHT approach (.) in order (.) in order to make certain that we keeep affirmative action (.) we have to reject the ↑idea of strict numerical quotas (.) and in the instance that tht Bill was talking about that is exactly what was involved strict (.) numerical (.) ↑quotas (.) af↑firmative aaction that opens up (.) new opportunities (.) and makes a↑vailable the reesources of the spots in universities (.) the (.) uh (.) the the loans (.) the investment capital THAt is the direction that we should go in. (.) but we should ↑ALso understaand (.) the importance of communi↑cations ↑media. (.) uh (.) television stations (.) radio stations (.) ↑one of the changes that ↑I would (.) uh (.) sseekk is to repeal the measure that senator ↑Braadley supported (.) the only Democrat on the Senate ↑Finance Committee to support this number one goal of th (.) of the Newt Gingrich uh Republicans when they came in (.) to END affirmative action in broadcasting for broadcasters and I would hope (.) that senator Bradley (.) would change his position (.) and support a change in that law and and re (.)= =[time and add back] that affirmative action (1.) ↑senator= =↑uh (.) ↑well (.) let me briefly respond to thiss uh (.) thee (0.5) I think that we neeed moore (0.5) minority media (.) THAT’S the importance of the ↑Madison Avenue Initiative. (.) that is why I’ve ↑met with the Madison Avenue Initiative at (.) th the Black ↑Caucus last ↑FAALL we ↑TAALked there are important ↑waays that ↑advertising dollars should go to African-American media (.) I voted against that a↑MENDMENT (.) but do you know ↑WHHYY there is ↑NOt (.) you know ↑WHHY that there’s now ↑NOT (.) UH (.) the affirmative action

BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: A: BS(M):

A: BS(M):

AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

537

Appendix you’re talking about for African-Americans in the ↑media because Bill ↑Clin’on signed the ↑↑LAAW that ↑made it happen (.) it was a ↑LAAW that was signed and that’s whhy it happened. (.) (to Gore) and I’m STILL going to offer you [the opportunity to explain YEAH (collectively makes comments of approval and some claps) a little more ↑CAREfully ↑why you voted (.) to preserve TAX-exempt] staatus for schools (.) ↑NOT ↑just Bob Jones all of those schools in Mississippi and other where those white schools that started t’ be built whenever we had integration (.) to preserve TAX-exempt staatus (.) for those schools (.) you ↑HAAVE to face up to this (.) if you’re going to be a strong ↑leader [(10. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) YOU KNOW (.) I THINK IT’S PRETTY clear (.) what’s going ooon.] Bill. (.) you’re sounding a little desperate. because you’re trying [to build yourself [(11. collectively and noisily boos, makes disapproval comments and whistles) up. by tearing everybody else down. very clear very (.) very clear (.) NOW] I ↑still haven’t got any ↑answer (.) to whyy you voted against (.) WLIB (.) uh (.) a and (.) the ‘Tom Joyner Show’ (.) and AALL [of the AfricanRIGHT YE American-oowned] (.) stations [and outlets that are there beCAAUSE we had (6. collectively applauds) that affirmative action (.) now (.) THAT (.) the a↑MENDment that you were the ↑ONly Democrat on the committee] to sup↑↑port= =[Now (1.) time was made a part of the Republican effort] to sshut down the government time (.) ↑senator uuhm (.) I think thee ee (.) the question was aboutt (.) the future of affirmative aaction= =RIGHT= =AND ↑I BELIIEVE (.) that we need a stroong president (.) who’s not gonna back a↑way. from ↑leading on affirmative ↑aaction (.) ↑I believe affirmative aaction is common sense (.) ↑I believe it’s reaching out to the broadest possible community th this country in order to bring AALL talent into our country’s BEST per↑formance (.) ↑that’s what I believe (.) and YOU KNOW (.) ↑I think th the things that have happened in California (.) the Proposition two ou NIINE the things that happened in TEXAS the Hopgood Decision are the ↑WRONG di↑rection (.) and the ↑only way you’re gonna to ↑change that is if a president is willing to leaad with the bully-pulpit on this issue and not follow. [(6. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) (clears throat) your question please (.) forr senator Bradley] ↑senater if you’e elected (.) what would you do to help ccombat the AIDS epidemic in the minority community=

AAM11: A: BB:

A: AG: A: AG:

AAM12: AG: A: AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB: AAM13: BB:

A: BS(M): QR2:

538

Appendix BB: =mhm (.) uh ↑I think that it’s a very important question (.) I would fully fund the RYAN WHHITE ↑act (.) b’cause I think that is especial importance (.) in the health care ↑PROGRAAM that I have outLIINED (.) I have uh (.) I have allocated (.) a ↑very large sum of money (.) to community health ↑clinics. (.) and community health ↑centres. (.) which is whhere a lot of the minority population could get ↑treated (.) I ↑ALSO have PASSED aaa (.) uh uh suggested a health care bill that would allow HIV ↑↑POSitive (.) uh (.) people (.) to be able to get aaccess to ↑health ↑caare (.) because ↑noow they’re ↑not (.) they’re denied access (.) to health care (.) I think making those investments in ↑INFRA↑STRUCTURE (.) we need the ↑CLINICS (.) in the ↑neighborhood (.) in the ↑funds to reach out (.) the ↑Ryan ↑Whhite (.) and in making sure that they can see a doctor before they get ↑AAIDS when they have HI↑VV is a (.) way that I would go (.) and think it would be an an important way to deal with this issue. [(6. collectively applauds) vice president Gore (clears throat) I think we have too (.) I think we have to attack] this problem (0.5) not only here at home but around the world I went before the United Nations Se↑curity Council. to (.) ask them to redeFIIne se↑curity to take on the challenge of HIV/AIDS in (.) Africa [and in other parts of the world where this is (6. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) such a crisis. and here at ↑home (.) uh (.) I (.) I have worked] very hard to have (.) Medicaid eligi↑bility (.) when (.) ↑someone tests HIV-↑positive and we’re moving very aggressively on that. (.) NOW ↑here is the ↑problem that (.) you would face if (.) the country ever haad the (.) senator ↑Bradley’s health care proposal (.) ↑fifty percent of aaall of the Americans who have HIV/AIDS (.) now get Medicaid (.) ↑ninety per cent of all the ↑children with HIV/AIDS (.) get Medicaid. (.) ↑his proposal would e↑liminate (.) [the Medicaid program (individually makes comments of disapproval) and replace it with a one] hundred and fifty dollar-a-month (.) voucher with which you ↑cannot ↑purchase (.) ↑anything LIKE the health care benefits that are NOW available (.) [under MEDICAID. (collectively utters comments of disapproval) and a lot of the AIDS uh organizations time] have come out and criticize it as a result senator Bradley [UUH (6.5 collectively applauds)] ↑we’ve talked a lot about my health care proposal in this campaaign in ↑THESE terms (.) that a disability (.) the disability under ↑Medicaid (.) it saves the ↑SAME amount of ↑money (.) it’s the ↑SAME ↑services (.) it’s the ↑SAME benefits (.) the only ↑difference iis (.) that NOOW if you have HIV you can qualify for in↑surance and (.) if y n the neighborhood (.) you get a health (.) you

A: BS(M): AG:

A: AG:

A: AG:

A: AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB: A: BB:

539

Appendix get a community health benefit (.) that’s the only difference (.) and to↑NIIGHT I ↑pleedge that (.) ↑any health care biill that I would ↑↑SIIGN would HAAVE every [Medicaid time] patient a better health plaan (.) than Medicaid is today. [(10.5 collectively applauds and screams showing approval) vice president Gore Well] that’s not a plaan. (.) that’s a magic waand. (.) and it [doesn’t work that way (6. collectively laughs and applauds)] [because (1.) THE PROBLEM that that people with ↑AAIDS] (.) and CANcer (.) and (.) muscular DYStrophy (.) and otherr diseases haave in the private health insurance market (.) is that the insurance ↑companies (.) [↑don’t want to ta (individually makes comments of approval and claps)] ke ↑↑‘em (.) they wanna get rid of ↑↑‘em (.) you give them] a hundred and fifty dollar-a-month voucher ↑they can’t buuy. (.) and inci↑dent’ly (.) ↑I think that it’s tiime to move step-by-step to universal health care and give the [MEdical decisions time] BACK to the [DOCtors and the NURses and take them away from the HMOs (9. collectively applauds and enthusiastically shows approval) your question please for vice president Gore (with little notebook in her hands) ok] (.) good evening president Go (.) uh (.) vice president Gore (.) my name is Monique ↑Code.= =(2. individually claps) (smiles and raises hand slightly turning back indicating those audience members to stop) AAND] (.) I’d ↑like to ask you a question regarding Mel (.) Medicare for uu ↑elderly (.) citizens (.) within our community (.) and elsewhere (.) uhm (.) if ↑you were to be president (.) how would you adjust affordability of prescription Medicare (.) when the (.) sa salaries ↑of UU elderly patients IS limited (.) and IT IS A PROBLEM for those to afford health (.) health care in ↑g’neral (.) but pr SPE↑CIFICALLY prescription medicine (.) I need to know how you would uh (.) [how you would right] address that issue= =thank you (.) I’ve made a pro↑posal uh (.) that will give every (.) single person under Medicare (.) uh ↑eligibility for FINANcial help in purchasing prescription drugs I think it’s time to take that step (.) NOW (.) I think that it’s ↑ALSO important to recogniize the financial challenges that face the Medicare system (.) as a whoole (.) now we have uh (.) NOW (.) the ↑baby boom (.) generation getting ready to retiire (.) and wher’s there are ↑FORTY million people under Medicare to↑daay. (.) in not too many ↑yeaars (.) that’s gonna double to ↑eighty million (.) by the year TWENTY FIF↑TEEN therefore (.) the Medicare system (.) will go bankrupt unless we put money from the surplus in ↑NOW (.) one of the

BS(M): BB: A: BS(M): AG: A: AG:

A: AG:

BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): MC: A: MC:

AG: MC: AG:

540

Appendix big differences betweeen (.) ↑TWO ↑biig differences between my health care proposal and senator Bradley’s (.) ↑first (.) ↑hee would ↑not give any prescription drug benefits until a senior citizen had paid eight hundred dollars of her own ↑money (.) uh and ↑second (.) he doesn’t put a ↑DIIME (.) into the Medicare trust fund from the surplus (.) and I’ll ask ↑again for (.) th (.) as I have in previous [debates (.) time] why not [(7. collectively laughs and applauds) sen’tor Bradley I be]lieve Medicare is a sacred trust (.) for EIGHTEEN years I fought on the Senate Finance Committee to preseerve premiums from going ↑up (.) I ↑once offered an amendment on the Senate flooor to prevent premiums from going ↑up and using TOBACCO TAX ↑money (.) in order to prevent it from [↑going ↑up UUH= =hello (.) and ↑Al Gore was one of the few De]mocrats to vote (.) against that AMENDMENT (.) preferring ↑Big Tobacco over Medicare re↑cipients [(2.5 collectively applauds) I WILL TELL YOU (.) IN ADDITION] (.) I have a prescription drug benefit (.) that will give you ↑NO ↑CAP (.) you could haave as much as your COSTS ARE (.) ↑Al would CAP it (.) let’s say I ran into a woman the I ran into a woman the other day she SAAID (.) her mother ↑HAAD a TEN thousand dollar prescription drug bill. (.) underr the program that ↑I’ve ooffered (.) the government would paay SEVENTY fiive hundred doollars of THAAT bill. (.) aand under ↑AAL’S it would pay (.) MUCH MUCH LESS (.) because he CAPS it at one thousand dollars (.) and so ↑↑I think there’s a big difference [between time] a ↑little bit (.) and making sure you give people REAL insurance for prescription drugs [vice president Gore= =well (6. collectively applauds)] I’M IN FAVOUR of the so-called catastrophic (.) ↑protec]tion. (.) uh and we put money in the budget this ↑year to take ↑care of that (.) but the fact remains under senator ↑Bradley’s plan (.) the ma↑jority of seniors on Medicare would pay ↑↑moore in premiums (.) and get ↑absolutely ↑NNOTHING in return (.) and you still haven’t answered the question senator Bradley. (.) [↑WHYY DON’T YOU PUT ANY ↑MONEY (individually claps) fromm] the surplus (.) into the Medicare ↑trust fund (.) to shore it ↑uup (.) against the financial crisis [that’s now time]

BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): BB:

AAM14: AAM15: BB: A: BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M): AG: A: AG:

A: AG: BS(M):

541

Appendix AG: BS(M): BB: pending ↑senator uuh (.) ↑Ii’ve said throughout this campaaign (.) that if we grow more than two point nine percent (.) then MONEY from ‘ll from th ‘ll go from the general revenues the surplus to ↑MEDICARE (.) we’re projected to grow (.) much ↑HIGHER than that if we continue t as we are in the path that we’re headed NOW (.) to ↑mee that is the ↑reasonable way to proceed (.) Medicare is SOLID now (.) it is SOlid until twenty seventeeen (.) nobody is ↑questioning ↑THAT (.) if we continue to ↑groow. (.) it’ll be solid ↑further. (.) if we ↑grow more. (.) [the money time] I will take from the surplus and put it in the trust fund. [now (.) we have a question from the ↑Internet forr senator Bradley (5. collectively applauds)] (.) from Middletown Maryland (reading from a screen in the lectern) senator Bradley (.) ↑can we limit (.) the number of guuns (.) an individual can ↑buuy and allow (.) only guns uused for hunting (2.) the ↑answer iis yes we can limit the number of guns that people buuy. in fact I’ve offered the ↑strongest (.) gun control propoosal (.) of any presidential candidate in ↑history (.) ↑I want registration and licensing of aaall ↑HANDGUNS (.) ↑↑aall handguns. [(8.5 collectively applauds) ↑I WANNA MAKE SUUURE (.) that (.) there]’re ↑trigger locks on guuns no gun dealers in residential neighborhooods (.) that we have ↑background checks att uh gun shows. as well as gun dealers (.) and I’ll ↑tell you something ↑else (.) ↑AL’s been Bill Clinton’s vice president foor (.) seven YEARS (.) he’s doone a good job as vice president (.) but he was ↑also a conservative CONgressman (.) [and when ↑he was a consservative ↑con oh (.) come on (laughing) (individually makes comments) gressman (.) he vo]ted with the ↑NRAA and the head of the ↑NRA said. that he was the poster child (.) or MAAN of the ↑year. (6.5 collectively laughs and applauds) (.) so there are two differences here (.) there are two differences time time ↑senator Bradley] a couple of days ago your campaign said that (.) you wanted to get some things off your ↑chest. (.)= =(individually laughs)= =well. (.) since then you’ve made personal attack (.) after personal attack. (.) th ↑problem is theese at↑taacks don’t soolve (.) any problems. (.) [they DO DI↑VIIDE US as DEMOCRATS (5. collectively applauds)

BS(M): BB: BS(M): A: BS(M):

BB:

A: BB:

AG: A: BB: A: BB: BS(M): AG: A: AG:

A:

542

Appendix AG: THEY DISTRACT US] from the ↑REAL enemy (.) the right-wing extremist Confederate flag-waving [Republicans who are trying to roll back the ↑progress that we have ↑↑made [(8. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) NOW (2.) the ↑Clinton-↑Gore administration has passed the TOUghest] gun control measures (.) in the laaast thirty (.) YEARS. (.) [↑I cast the tie-breaking ↑↑vote (individually claps) to close the gun show ↑loophole (to Bradley) ↑where were YOU [↑YOU had LEFT (.) ↑you had left (8. collectively bursts into laughter) and on the very day (.) ON THE VERY DAAY] when I cast that tie-breaking vote.] (.) you were out speaking (.) at a fund-raiser (.) [so (.) LET’S NOT KID OURSELVES. (8. individually laughs, utters exclamations, makes comments, claps and boos) we’ve got a lot of work to do.= =time time (.) senator ↑Bradley] UUH (.) well (.) what you’ve seeen] is an elaborate what I call (.) ‘Gore dance’.= =[(5. collectively bursts into laughter, applauds and ‘bravo’ screams enthusiastically) IT IS (.) IT IS A DA (.) IT IS A DAAN]CE to avoid facing ↑up to your conservative record (.) on ↑GUNS= =YEAAH= =(.) it is a it is a DAANCE (.) that denies the fact (.) that you do ↑not support registration and licensing of ↑↑AALL ↑handguns (.) ↑but ↑you’d wanna give the im↑pression of ↑thaat (.) so you saay ‘I’M for (.) licensing of all mm (emulating someone who gets mute as if resisting to pronounce the word ‘handguns’) handguns’. (.) ‘I’m for licensing of all mm handguns.’ (.) [now (7.5 collectively bursts into laughter and applauds) time (.) time what (.) what does that ↑mean it ↑MEEANS tiime (.) time time I’M FOR LICENSING OF ALL] ↑↑NEW handguns (.) only new not the sixty five million that are out there. WOOW [(6. collectively applauds and screams) ok (3.) BY ALL MEANS BILL get (.) get] (.) the negativity off your chest (.) but then when you get through. (.) [let’s return to face the real problems that (8.5 collectively applauds and boos) that we’re facing in this country. (.) now (1.5) I support] (.) I support a complete ↑baan on junk guns (.) Saturday night especials. (.) assault weapons (.) and (.) yes (.) I support (.) photo (.) license (.) IDDs (.) for the purchase of all NEW. handguns. (.) [when somebody goes

A: AG:

A: AG: A: AG:

A: AG: BS(M): BB: A: BB: AAM16: BB:

A: BS(M): BB: BS(M): BB: AAM17: A: AG: A: AG:

543

Appendix A: AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): JG: (collectively laughs) down to the gun] store (.) all right (.) and ↑THIS is (.) ↑THIS if paassed would be the toughest gun-control measures (.) that we have seeen in thirty years= =time= =and we’ve already passed the toughest (.) in the last thirty years at this point in ouur (.) debate (.) we go to our (.) panel of journalists CNN senior analyst Jeff ↑Greenfield ↑senator Bradley tonight and in other debates. (.) it seems tht that there are you’re using a policy argument to try to make a different argument. and I want to see if we can get this right on the table. (.) ↑POlicy differences a↑SIIde (0.5) and knowing that the voters will make the ↑ultimate choice is it ↑YOUR opinion (.) that the vice president HAAS (.) the character (.) the ↑trustworthiness (.) the intellectual honesty to make a good president (.) what is yoour view of this ↑my viiew iis that the people will make this de↑cision. (.) my view ↑AALso iiis that if ↑Al were the nominee (.) I would sup↑port him (.) [my viiew (4.5 collectively applauds) (nods) my viiew ↑howe]ver is that we have very different viiews of the Democratic party (.) I in in Congress (.) he introduced ↑FOUR bills that dealt with edu↑cation. (.) and ↑ZERO bills that dealt with health care (.) he was a conSERvative Democrat (.) did not support national health insurance (.) had an ↑eighty four percent right-to-life voting record. (.) and was the poster booy for the NRA (.) what ↑I’m sayying is (.) ↑THAT’S ↑ONE view of what the Democratic party can be. (.) the other viiew is (.) to go the road of making ACCESS to ↑quality affordable health care (.) available to every one in this ↑country (.) making ↑↑MAAJOR investments in ↑urban public schools [that need yeah] [those investments ↑so much (4. collectively applauds) ↑DOUBLING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT] on Title one (.) so that urban public schools [time will have] qualified teachers and be accountable to parents [vice president Gore (3.5 collectively applauds) well (.) well (.) uh] ↑you’ve got it right uuh h (.) Mr. Greenfield (.) ↑he questions the ↑character. of people who disa↑↑gree with him (.) when ↑NARaal of the leading pro-choce choice organization in America endorsed my ↑candidacy. (.) his campaign put out information (.) questioning (.) their ↑character (.) questioning the character of ↑their ↑leaders (.) when the AFL-CI↑O endorsed me. (.) he put out a statement uh attacking ↑them. (.) he confuses uh disagreement (.) with somebody not beiing a a good ↑person. (.) now (.) uh (.) ↑yesterday (.) he

BB: A: AG: BB:

AAM18: BB: A: BB: BS(M): BB: BS(M): A: AG:

544

Appendix ↑EVEN proposed (.) the appointment of a NEW especial ↑prosecutor (.) to investigate ↑Democrats (.) senator Bradley ↑you must be the ↑only Democrat in America who misses ↑Ken Starr. [yeah. (.) yeah (16. collectively laughs, applauds and screams) senator ↑Bradley UUh (.) ↑Iii did NOt propooose] (.) aa (.) especial ↑prosecutor (.) I saaid (.) thaaat (.) the ↑DEmocratic party will looose its MANtle as a reform party (.) if we don’t come to ↑terms (.) with what happened in nineteen ninety-six (.) and I think the ↑BEST way to come to terms with what happened in nineteen ninety-six (.) is for ↑you to tell people exactly what happened (.) in your own woords (.) so that (.) let me tell you (.) if ↑YOU AARE= =time= =WELL (.) LET ME JUST uh (0.5) (taking a piece of paper from the lectern) read you the front (.) th ‘The New York Tiimes’ to↑daay (.) recall’n uh (.) reporting on your statement [yesterday incorrect (reading from paper) ‘for]mer senator Bill Bradley (.) publicly endorsed today the appointment of a especial ↑PROsecutor= =it’s incorrect= =[for the Clinton-Gore BOOOOO CAMpaign] in ninety-six’= =in[correct well take it] up with ‘The New York Times’= =[yeah you’re] the one that (.) [(collectively applauds and boos) that is reported as having SAID THAT. NO in the transcript it’s incorrect (6.5 collectively applauds) THE TRANSCRIPT (1.) ↑I READ the transcript f of what you saaid.] (.) now (.) th the point is (.) the point is this (.) ↑we haave a= =time= =all right. (.) I’ll wait. the next question (.) from thee (.) panel of journalists comes from ‘Time’ magazine’s Karen ↑Tumulty= =yes (.) senator Bradley (.) if I could follow up on Jeff’s question (.) ↑clearly in delving (.) ten and sometimes twenty years back into the vice president’s record (.) you are trying to raise questions of his leadership and questions of his character. (.) if you feel the need the ↑raaise those questions (.) don’t you feel (.)

BB: A: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): AG:

BB: AG: BB: AG: AAM19: AG: BB AG: BB: AG: A: AG: BB: AG BB: A: AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): KT:

545

Appendix you have the responsi↑↑bility to tell us what (.) you think the answer ↑is.= AAM20: A: BB: A: BB: =yeaah= =[(2. individually claps) uh (.) I HAVE (.) I HAVE] told you what I think the answer is. (.) it is to nominate ↑MEE [as the Democratic nominee of this ↑↑party (7. collectively and enthusiastically applauds) that’s what I told you. (.) UH (.) YOU KNOW ME CA]lling ATtention to the faact that he was a conservative Democrat (.) before he was Bill Clinton’s vice ↑president (.) is simply ↑↑truth telling (.) it’s simply telling people what the ↑↑FACTS aare (.) it’s not embroidering the faacts (.) and LAYING out much bolder proposals on health care (.) and on education than the vice ↑president does (.) is not embroidering anything (.) it’s proposing a new ↑future (.) ↑I am (.) in in a as an example in this cam↑paign (.) ↑he proposes increasing de↑fence expenditures (.) ↑more than he proposes increasing education (.) expenditures. [that’s not true= =yeah= (2. individually claps) not true] (.) THAT’S NOT TRUE ↑EITHER. (.) LET LET ME (.) let me respond to this you ↑know (.) uh (1.) h ↑we’ve had basically the same length career (.) in the Congress. (.) and over the course of that tiime (.) I’m prooud that I have a better (.) COPE voting record (.) measuredd uh by the support of working men and women and organized labour (.) than senator Bradley (.) ↑I com↑↑piiled that (.) better record (.) IN A STAATE in the ↑south (.) where it was not always that EEASY compared (.) to New Jersey. (.) ↑I HAVE (.) ↑ I AM the one who has (.) ↑I HAVE (.) ↑ I AM the one who has been uh en↑↑dorsed (.) by the leading prochoice (.) group. (.) I [I have been endorsed by organized ↑LABOR (.) (individually claps) (.) I HAVE BEEN EN↑↑DORSED. (.) by senator uh (.) Ted ↑Ken]nedy and by [↑virtually the entire (individually claps) Congressional Blaack ↑Cau]cus now [do ↑you think (.) that they aaall have such poor judgment (individually claps)] senator ↑Bradley. [(13.5 collectively applauds and screams showing approval) what ↑I] think (.) is they don’t KNOOW (.) your record [as a conservative Democrat (12. collectively claps and boos) THEEY (2.) THEEY (.) THEY don’t] ↑KNOOW that you voted (.) FIIIVE times over ↑THREE years. (.) for a tax exemption (.) for schoools that discriminate on the basis of ↑↑race (.) it’s ↑in the record (.) the Black Caucus ↑stated ↑soo [time it’s there in their] ↑record=

AG AAM21: A: AG:

A: AG: A: AG: A: AG: A: BB: A: BB:

BS(M): BB:

546

Appendix AG: A: AG: =you know ↑what (.) in my experience (.) ↑Black Caucus is pretty ↑↑savvy they know’lot more than you ↑think [they know. [(11.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) you know (1.) THEY’RE NOT (.) Bl Congressional Black Caucus is not] out there being led aroound (emulating a blind person who does not know where s/he is) [you know (individually laughs) (.) they ↑they know] what the score is (.) and they ↑ALso knoow (.) that their brothers and sisters in New Jersey said you were NEVER for them [walking the walk. (.) just talking the talk. [(7.5 collectively boos and claps) uuh (.) Bernie (.) could I (.) on ↑that] the vice president still haas uh (.) how many more ↑se[conds SHARPE JAMES] IS HERE [Y YOUR TIME IS OUT the mayor of the largest] city he can tell you. YOUR [TIME IS OUT= =well I thought you said] I still ↑had time well (.) [I misspoke (6. collectively laughs) I misspoke (.) uh] and senator (.) your staffs agreeed (.) that you had a minute a piece (.) thirty seconds a piece. (.) we can’t allow anything other than that. (.) the last question from the journalists on the panel will be ‘TIME’s’ Tamala Edwards. yes my question is for the vice president Mr. vice president (.) twice tonight when asked about things you’ve answered (.) about edu↑cation (.) incarceration reparations in fact (.) uh a ma↑jority of the African-American community supports vouchers (.) sixty per ↑cent (.) h’wever one thing that you’re proud of is you like to say you always have opposed vouchers and you’ve ↑criticized senator Bradley (.) for even wanting to ex↑periment with them. (.) h’wever (.) ↑you your↑self are the products of private institutions as are all your children (.) in fact (.) youur (.) the only child th you still have at t home (.) your son Albert (.) is a junior (.) at Sidwell ↑Friends a very expensive Washington D.C. private schoool (.) is there ↑not a public or charter school in D.C. good enough for ↑your child. A: TE: AG: (.) [and if ↑not (7. individually makes comments and applauds) why should the parents here (.) have to keep their kids in public schoools (.) because they don’t have] the financial resources that you ↑do. WELL (.) all of my (.) all of my children (.) you y you know (.) you can leave them out of this if you want to. (.) but ↑all of my children have gone to both public schoools and private schools. (.) the ↑↑reaason I have opposed vouchers is because I think they represent (.) a big and historic mistake (.) by ↑draaining money AWAAY from public schools [at a time when we need to lift up the public schools.

A: AG:

A: BB: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): A: BS(M):

TE:

547

Appendix A: AG: (12. collectively and enthusiastically applauds and shows approval) NOW YOU’RE RIGHT THAT (.) YOU’RE RIGHT that senator Braadley] uh voted for vouchers (.) every SINgle TIME they came up for a vote during his entire eighteen years in the ↑Senate ↑I think those votes were (.) a mis↑↑take (.) the Republicans al↑ways portray them as experiments (.) because that’s how they try to get. (.) uh Democrats to go along with it (.) ↑I THINK that what we need insteead is to bring ↑revolutionary improvements to our public schools. not gradual (.) [gradual improvement (4. collectively applauds) AND WE NEED TO ↑START by ↑TREAting our teachers] like the professionals that they aare. and [rewaarding them ↑adequately (.) and raising (5. collectively applauds) staandards (.) and invest (.) ↑I’ve ↑I’ve] proposed [time a ↑fifty]-percent increase in the federal share of investment in public education.= =alright= =[senator Bradley (3.5 collectively applauds) UH (.)] when I talk to people in urban America (.) they’re very concerned about their ↑schools. (.) in NIneteen sixty eight. (.) I worked right here in Haarlem (.) at an Urban League street academy. (.) ran a little reading program. at eleven sixteenth and Lenox (.) it was called (.) ‘Then’. (.) aand it was an ex↑perience that ↑↑SEARED me with the NEEED (.) to do something about urban public education. (.) Ii (.) ↑frequently fought (.) and uh al always voted (.) to increase Title I ↑fundings (.) and in this program in this year in this e↑lection (.) what ↑I’ve doone is to (.) advocate (.) ↑DOUbling Title I money which is the LAArgest federal program that goes to urban schoools (.) and to ↑use that MOney to improve (.) the QUAlity of the teaching ↑every teacher has to be ↑qualifiied. (.) to hold SCHOOLS accountaby so that we reduce the disp’rity between minority and nonminority pe p p performance (.) and GIVE ↑PARENTS (.) GIVE ↑PARENTS (.) the (.) freedom [to move time] from ↑one public school to a↑nother public schoool (.) if the SEcond one is a better performing school. (.) that’s investment in urban public education. [(9. collectively applauds) I] (.) I believe we should make it (.) the top priority ↑also by in↑vesting in the construction of new schoools and new classrooms (.) and giving (.) and having universal ↑preschool. (.) [for every chiild and every ↑family. (.) (collectively applauds) and GIVING (.) AND GIVING FAmilies ↑help in PAying col]lege tuition. (.) now when I began my campaaign I made this the top priority. (.) senator Bradley went for fourteen ↑months before making a speech. on (.) education policy (.) per see. and I’d like to ask him a question. why now do you ↑still=

A: AG: A: AG: BS(M): AG: AAM22: BS(M): A: BB:

BS(M): BB: A: AG:

A: AG:

548

Appendix BS(M): AG: =time= =not proviide money (.) to help (.) in constructing schools or paying college tuition. (2.) [(3. individually and almost inaudibly applauds) senator ↑Bradley ok (.) UH (.) ↑we have a different view] of what education is (.) ↑Al views it as a box with some programs in it. (.) ↑I view it as begiinning at biirth extending through ↑every LIfe staage (.) and being for everyone (.) ↑THAT is whhyy I make a major investment in the first FOUR years of ↑LIfe (.) so that kids will have early education (.) [that’s why I in↑crease (individually applauds) HEAD START] by four hundred thousand ↑slots (to Gore) you ↑don’t. (.) that’s whyy ↑I create TWO thousand after-school programs (.) patterned on the ↑Beacon Schools Prograam [in this very city time] and that’s why I make ↑major investments in community colleges in this country (.) because those are the first step up the rung of achievement (.) for people in America [(8. collectively applauds) ladies and gentlemen we will contiinue] (.) this liive presidential Democratic candidates’ ↑debate. (.) from the Apolloo ↑Theatre after this commercial break. (6.5 collectively applauds) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) continuing oour debate (.) from the stage of the Apollo ↑theatre (.) a ↑question (.) for vice president Gore. good evening (0.5) my name is Clayton Banks. (.) I’d like to knoow what your criteria will ↑bee (.) for selecting your vice president. (.) aaand (.) will we see the first (.) black vice president. or minority president. [(3.5 individually makes comments and claps) well] first of all (.) let me say uh (.) I was uuh ↑interested in the story about thee (.) tree of hope that’s why I (.) ↑touched it on the WAY OUT here as senator Bradley did ↑also (.) but (.) I wanna work to make the TREE of hope the TREE of reality for Harlem [and for the (individually claps) people of of this country] (.) NOW ↑aas foor a vice presidential running mate or a ↑Cabinet or anything LIKE THAT (.) I haave uh refrained fromm (.) fromm (.) frommuh making anyy short list or long list uh (.) because (.) I don’t wannna get a↑head of myself (.) I’m focused on trying to convince (.) folks to go to the poolls uhnd support my candidacy on March the ↑seventh (.) and uh (.) so I don’t I don’t wanna get a↑head of myself () but I’ll you this the ↑ONE criterion that I (.) would ↑UUse if I have that privilege (.) is to select someone who would be capable (.) of becoming president on a mo moment’s notice (.) uh in in case that

A: BS(M): BB:

A: BB:

BS(M): BB:

A: BS(M): A: BS(M): CB:

A: AG:

A: AG:

549

Appendix had uh to happen (. ) and of couurse uh I would make that selection without regard too ra (.) to race or gender or (.) ethnicity or national origin. (.) [well national origin he’d have to be an A↑merican (laughs) (6. individually laughs and applauds) HE or SHE would have to be an A↑MERICAN (.) under the CONSTITUTION= =senator ↑Bradley] uh (.) ↑I think the first criteria is that the person should be able to step into the OFfice if the president was not theere and perform the duties exceptionally well. (.) I think the ↑second criteria is that the person should be able to HELP in a cam↑paaign. (.) the ↑third is that the person should be some one that the president haas uh the ability to get along with (.) aand can be a partner. (.) I ↑think there are PLENTY of African-Americans in this country (.) who fit that cri↑teria (.) [I think ↑one of the (individually claps) (.) you know (.) if (.) if] (.) Dr. Martin Luther King came BACK today. (.) and looked out there and saw this country. he would say on ↑one way that dream has been fulfiilled because he said ↑once the overt SHACkles of discrimination are re↑mooved. (.) then ↑African-Americans will ascend to places of prominence in every field in America and that is precisely what’s ↑haappened (.) the ↑POOOL IS OUT THERE (.) and so (.) I would ↑↑SERiously consider it (.) in my oown uh appointments of uh federal judges (.) two of the three federal judges that I appointed in New Jersey were [↑African-American time] and my STAFFS (.) both in the ↑Senate and in the campaaign (.) reflect diversity as well. [(4.5 collectively applauds) vice president Gore] I I I think that (.) I’ve. (.) I answered uh (.) the th question. (1.) [do you want is that all right with you ↑sir]= =that suits [mee well OK (.) then we’ll ↑I (.) ↑I think] that (.) if I could take my thirty (.) uuhm (0.5) I think ↑thaat thee KEY thing (.) is to recogniize that we aare truly at a new time here. (.) and we’re at a new TIIME where there are ↑new possibilities (.) and we are at a TIme where we have a ↑LOT of prosperity (.) but that prosperity hasn’t uh filtered down to everyone. (.) but we ↑also knoow that discrimination comes in different foorms (.) it’s noow (.) the baank (.) it’s now the digital diviide (.) but (.) we be↑gin to ↑also lead by ex↑AMPLES [of people time] we put before the public (.) aand (.) elected leeaders who are African-American are important to put before the public to demonstrate (.) for young people [that they too

A: AG: BS(M): BB:

A: AG:

BS(M): BB: A: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: BB: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB:

550

Appendix BS(M): BB: A: BS(M): WS: time] can have a career in politics. [(6. individually makes comments of approval and applauds) this question forr (.) senator ↑Bradley] (3.) senator Bradley (0.5) vice president Go’e (.) my name is William Swedeen (.) and he’e is my question (.) the Conf↑ederate flaaa has been flying over the statehouse in South Carolina fo as long as ↑I can remembe. (.) what would ↑you do senator Bradley and (.) vice president Go’e you can chip in. (.) to have this (.) racist symbol remooved ok (1.) [what I (.) (2.5 individually claps)] what I’ve already done (.) is GOne to Columbia South Carolina to Benedict ↑Coollege (.) and (.) maade in no uncertain teerms a speech to say (.) ‘TAKE (.) THIS (.) flaag doown’. [(5. collectively applauds) and I ↑aalso] (.) called the ↑governor (.) and ↑in the ↑↑speech I pointed oout that the Confederate flaag over the capitol (.) has ↑not been theere since the Civil War. (.) it was ↑PUT ↑UP (.) after the nineteen sixty four ↑Civil Rights ACT was paassed (.) and in the period of desegregation as a defiiant symbol (.) against desegregation in A↑merica. (.) in ↑↑MYY view it represents the PAAST not the future of America. (.) and as president of the United States I would not ↑let up on BEAting that drum ↑DAAY after daay after day (.) [the LAARGE MAJORITY (individually claps) of people] in S (.) in South Carolina ↑WANT the flag to come [doown time] and the QUESTion is whether thee (.) elected officials will HONOR what the people want. vice president Gorre [(7.5 collectively applauds) Mhum (.) uh ↑I agree with what senator Bradley] saaaid uh both of uss have made uh numerous statements and speeches uh about this. (.) I THINK it ↑is uuh (.) to the everlasting embarrassment of the modernn Republican ↑party. (.) that both of theeir (.) leading candidates for president. went to South Carolina AAND uh (.) took a positionn that they (.) were scared to say ↑anything (.) [about taking the (individually claps) Confederate battle flag down. and I I THINK that uh] (.) I think that was a (.) a very serious mistake. you ↑know uh (1.5) who we are as a people. (.) will be determined uh (.) as much as anything else. by how we address thee (.) th the challenge of diversity and inclusion and harmony. ↑this uh (.) this month is the thirty fifth anniversary (.) o of the Voting Rights act. (.) next March ↑seventh. the

BB: A: BB:

A: BB:

A: BB: BS(M) BB: BS(M): A: AG:

A:

551

Appendix day of the primary here in New Yoork. is the thirty fifth anniversary (.) of theee Pettis Bridge and the march on Selma. (.) TO↑DAY is the thirty fifth anniversary of the assassination (.) of Malcolm X= =time= [(2. collectively applauds) =↑WEE HAVE an obligation to bring oour (.) people toge]ther. (.) the A↑merican flaag UNITES us (.) the Confederate flaag DIVIIDES us (.) OONE flaag one nation [under God indivisible. that’s my position. (12.5 collectively applauds and screams showing approval) senator ↑Bradley] ↑uh (.) I ↑wonder if any of you in here knoow what the subject waas (.) of governor George Bush’s speech (.) at Bob Jones University (.) it was ↑CAALled (.) ‘The ↑Neew Conservatism’ (.) now (.) the ↑only thing that I obseerve iis that by GOing to BOB Jones University to make a speech about the new conservatism (.) the ↑neew conservatism doesn’t look a heck of a lot different to ↑MEE [than the ↑oold conservatism (2. collectively makes comments, claps and screams showing approval) AND I think (.) once ↑AGAAIN] (.) we CANnot ↑haave we MUST not ↑haave (.) tax-exempt status for schools that discriminate on the basis of race. [vice president Gore (5. collectively applauds) I agree that we shouldn’t have tax-exempt status] for schools that discriminate on the basis of race. and I’m glad (.) Bob Jones University does ↑NOT have (.) a tax exemption (.) the ↑ONLY thing I would ↑AADD to what I said earlier about the historic anniversaries that we are celebrating this year. (.) is that I would like to take just a moment. because I recognize his presence in the aaudience. too acknowledge the presence of Martin Luther King III and I’m (.) certainly honoured [that you are (.) with us. Martin. (14.5 collectively applauds) stand ↑up stand ↑up (stands up among the audience and greets Gore with hand raised)] (1.5) your question pleeease for the vice ↑president reverend Gregory Cook New Yo’k ↑Cityy Union Baptist Church. (.) ↑this past week. gove’nor Bush was AASked in the meedia (.) what was his his op’nion (.) in rega’ds tooo a moratorium oon the death penalty in light of the new DNA testing (.) too (.) ↑vice president Go’e and to senator Bill Bradley (.) what will be ↑your policy rega’ding a ↑NAtional moratorium on the death penalty (.) [in light of the ↑fact that new DNA (.) (individually claps) ↑evidence has released] an ↑Overwhelming amount of comic (.) convicted criminals (.) quote and quote (.) ‘m’nority individuals’ (.) and in view of the dispro↑↑PORtionate amount of m’norities (.) convicted by oue so-called (.) ‘injustice system’.

BS(M): A: AG:

A: BS(M): BB:

A: BB: BS(M): A: AG:

A: AG: MLK III: BS(M): GC:

A: GC:

552

Appendix A: AG: (6. collectively applauds) I ↑think that the PROblem of racial profiling that we started withh. uuh (.) is just the beGINning (.) of the problems we have to face uh (.) uh within the ↑criminal justice. (.) system. (.) including ↑sentencing (.) the disparities between crack and powder cocaine for example uh as they’re currently (.) written are not justified by the scientific ↑evidence (.) uh thee th the ↑practicess of many law enforcement ↑agencies need to be chaanged as we’ve ↑talked about uh (.) ↑↑AND where the ↑death penalty is conceerned (.) I strongly support the inquiry under way right noow (.) in the U.S. JUStice Department (.) too uh seee whether or NOT. (.) thee racial disparity uh on the ↑surface of thee (.) data uh justifies aaction (.) of a kind that they’re noww e e exploring (.) I ↑think that the record uh (.) uuh (.) that uh (.) th the governor of of Illinoois confronted. was ↑KIND of different (.) from what it is NAAtionally so faar (.) [I ↑DO time] support the death ↑penalty (.) but uh I I (.) and I ↑DO not support a moratorium at this tiime senator Bradley’s attacked me for not supporting the death penalty enough. (.) but I think that uh [this inquiry (individually makes comments) time] THIS INQUIRY UH (.) in the Justice Department should be pursuued. senator ↑Bradley uh (.) the ↑most important thing that we can do NOOW (.) to deeal with the disparity in the application of the death penalty of African-Americans. (.) is to PASS the Racial Justice aact (.) which would indeed reduce that dis↑PArity (.) but to ↑DOO that (.) you need a president who’s gonna ↑STAND up and try to tell the American ↑peeople. (.) ↑why that’s im↑↑portant ↑Ii will beee that ↑president [(6. collectively applauds) I will PUSH for the Racial Justice aact (.) I WILL (.) I WILL ↑NOT (.) at the end of the] daay ↑compromise it (.) it will either be ↑IN a ↑crime biill (.) or there will ↑NOT bee (.) a ↑crime bill (.) [if I am president (.) of the United States (7. collectively applauds) thee (.) ↑IISSUUUE] oOf the criminal justice system is though deeper than simply the death penalty. (.) there is ↑Unequal justice in this country (.) not ↑only racial profiling= =right= (.) not ↑only crack cocaiine [which I would Right] CHAANge the differential [time but ↑also] in terms of (.) ↑kiids getting ↑mandatory sentences for first-tiime nonviolent drug use [and being put away twenty yeears (.) THAT should NOT haappen

BS(M): AG:

A: BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

A: BB:

A: BB:

AAM23: BB: AAM24: BB: BS(M): BB:

553

Appendix A: BS(M): AG: (10. collectively applauds and makes comments of approval)] vice president Gore WELL UH (1.) I think that uh (.) we should (.) call for a lot of changes in including a reviiew of the kiiinds of (.) of penalties that are ↑calculated under the ‘three strikes and you’re ↑OOUT’ I think the (.) ↑focus ought to be on truly (.) VIOlent CRIme (.) uh I I ↑do believe that (.) we need to (.) as said earlier (.) continue reducing the ↑crime rate (.) AAND UH I ↑do believe that community po↑licing iss a good (.) strategy= =time= =but we ↑also need more pre↑vention. (.) and al↑ternatives [for young people [and educaation [(7. collectively applauds) sen’tor Bradley uuhm (2.)] ↑I think programmatic responses are impoortant. (.) but this is a deeeper moral issuue (.) for the ↑country (.) you can↑NOT HAAVE (.) individuals who are African-American ↑living in a community ↑law abiding citizens (.) they go OUT and they’re victimiized. (.) by criime. (.) and then theey (.) ↑tell their soon (.) who is a great kid who is doing all the things right when he goes out ‘WATCH OUT Saturday night because you’re driving while black and that’s ↑DANgerous in this ↑country (.) WE HAVE to have elected OFficials that are gonna get be[yoond time] and challenge ↑↑whhite America to stop de↑NYying the plight of black [Americans and the in↑dignities that they’re experiencing (14. collectively and enthusiastically applauds) your question please for senator ↑Bradley] yes I’m Peggy Shepherd with west Harlem Environmental Aaction. (.) senator ↑Braadley (.) would ↑you initiate new policies or expaand upon president Clin’on’s executive order on environmental justice (.) to BETTER protect communities of colour ↑like the Harlems of the woorld. (.) that are ↑disproportionately ↑impacted by pollution cited in our com↑munities. (.) by growing health dis↑parities. (.) and by an asthma. epidemic [THE AN (3.5 collectively applauds)] the ANSWER is yes (.) I think that uh there’s no QUEStion (.) that there’s environmental pollution endangering urban A↑↑merica (.) I mean jusst ↑smell the ↑buses in ↑Harlem (.) [(individually laughs and claps) just smell the diesel ↑fuel that comes out of Harlem.] (.) out of those ↑buses (.) it seems to ↑MEE that a president could have an ↑impact by getting to the MTAA and telling the MTAA ‘re↑place those (.) ↑buses (.) with natural gaas ↑buses’ (.) [(3. collectively applauds)

BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB: A: BS(M): PS:

BB: A: BB:

A: BB:

A:

554

Appendix BB: ↑second (.)] if you HAAD a ↑health care program that I’ve ↑↑ooffered (.) where every child in America is ↑covered (.) you could be seeen earlier (.) and ↑thiird (.) if you are ↑located in a community with a community health ↑centre (.) it would be easily accessible. (.) so I would do all of those things. [(6. collectively applauds) vice president ↑Gore WELL (.) uh (.)] I’ve ↑worked on thiss uh environmental problem for a long tiime including the problem of environmental justice. when I was in the UNITed States ↑SEnate (.) I wass the principal ↑sponsor along with uh Congressman JOHN ↑Leewis in the House of Representatives of the of the Environmental Justice ↑aact (.) aand I uh I ↑argued uh successfully (.) thaat president Clin’on ought to issue thee executive order on environmental ↑justice and ↑YES I think that it can be (.) strengthened. but I think that it’s DOING us somme (.) good things RIGHT ↑NOW (.) I think that we oughtta (.) to have clean aair and clean waater and we oughtta have a president who’s willing to ↑FIGHT for ↑them (.) and inci↑DENTALLY we can improve our e↑conomy (.) and create our e↑conomy (.) and create millions of good new joobs (.) if we go about building the new technologies that can help us clean ↑↑up the en↑vironment (.) we ↑also have to reclaaim the abandoned ↑broown fields (.) that are in urban areas. that often have some environmental problems associated with’em. (.) clean them ↑up have a set staandard (.) and then give ↑TAX incentives (.) to bring new ↑JOOBS into the communities that have ↑been a↑ban[doned time and bring] BACK economic hope [(9. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) Sen’tor Braadley you know] (jumping into the conversation and shouting from afar off mike) ↑vice president Gore (.) if you support en↑vironmental justice (.) what are you doing about the fact that FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS (.) of ↑your money (.) and [(unintelligible) (17. individually makes comments, replies disapprovingly, and boos to AAM 25) your questionn (.) pleease senator Bradley (.) (unintelligible) senator Bradley would you please (unintelligible) AFT’E we get this done respond to the question asked you pleease. (.) thank you. (unintelligible) (26. individually makes comments, replies disapprovingly, boos to AAM25, and screams to other audience members) (the situation starts getting out of control among audience members with both candidates attempting to speak to put some order) OK (.) we’re gonna go. (.) we’re gonna PAAUSE UH.

A: BS(M): AG:

BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): BB: AAM25:

A: BS(M): AAM25: BS(M): AAM25: BS(M): AAM25: A:

BS(M):

555

Appendix BB: A: BB: A: BS(M): A: BS(M): AG: BS(M): A: BS(M): A: BS(M): BB: A: BB: AAM26: BB: if I couldd uh (3.) I (1. collectively screams to the candidates) (to Gore) REESPOND (.) REESPOND (.) REESPOND (.) REESPOND (.) REESPOND (.) REES[POND (.) UH REESPOND (.) REESPOND (collectively makes comments) but I I want you to respond to the question aasked you. REESPOND (collectively makes comments) now I (.) I I want (.) I want I I (unintelligible) well but (.) (collectively makes comments) HE he might very well ↑do that (5. collectively applauds, screams, and boos) THEE ↑QUESTION (.) THEE THE ↑QUESTION] on thee table was asked by the lady (.) and senator Bradley will respond to that question UHM (.) ↑I was (.) driving ↑up here tonight on Fr Frederick D Douglass Boulevard (.) [and I MUST SAAY (.) (individually makes comments) as (.) I (.) drove (.) up] (.) I saaaw (.) aBANdoned building (.) after (.) aBANdoned [building. that’s right] I SAAAW incredible potential (.) unfulfilled. (.) if ↑I am president of the United Staates there will be a ↑MAJOR investment program in Harlem and urban America (.) ↑like the street that I drove up. and that means Com↑munity Reinv[estment ↑aact time] and it means ↑MAJOR investment in ↑HOme ↑ownership in Harlem and other African-American communities. [(8. collectively applauds) a now (.) an Internet question] foor the vice president. (0.5) MY apology Mr. Goore you have aa thirty [second (.) response. YEAH I THOUGHT SO thank you] (.) ↑THANK you uh ↑WE have brought new investment to (.) urban America. we haave produced twenty million new joobs in the last seven years. (.) we have the lowest African-American unemployment in the ↑history of the United States. [we brought yeah an em↑POWERMENT ZONE (.) with Charlie (.) Congressman [(4. collectively applauds) Charlie ↑Raangel’s help (.) right here. (pointing at him in the audience) to ↑Harlem (.) next door to this ↑theatre] I met with a woorkman. PUTting in a new computer sooftware store. uh just uh (.) this moorning (.) we we ↑NEED to do a lot more (.) we NEED to en↑force the Community Reinvestment aact [and broaaden it (.) to apply it to other financial institutions

BS(M): BB: A: BS(M): AG:

AAM27: AG: A: AG:

556

Appendix A: BS(M): AG: BS(M): (7. collectively applauds) time] that have investments (.) in the community. and now Mr. vice president. we go] to the Internet for (.) a question. (.) for yoou from CNN dot comm (.) from Na↑vaarre ↑Florida the question iis (.) ‘with ↑aall of thee talk about ↑tax reductions. ↑whyy won’t the candidates just ↑keep the tax rates the saaame (.) and ↑pay ↑ooff the national ↑↑debt’ mhum (2. individually applauds) pr PREtty good ↑quesstion] (.) uh I think that the ↑risky tax scheeme as ↑I always call IT that’s been proPOSED by the Re↑publican candidates (.) is reckless and would be very ↑haarmful to our ↑country (.) because (.) what we NEED to do in↑steead is to use the ↑surplus (.) to safeGUARD Social Security first and foremost. [I’m oppoosed to raising (individually applauds) the retirement (.) age.] or cutting Social Security (.) benefits. (.) ↑SECONDly we need to put money from the ↑surplus into the Me↑dicare (.) program to ↑strengthen it before the retirement. of the ↑baby boom generation. (.) ↑↑THEEN we ↑need to pay down (.) the national ↑debt (.) because that keeps interest rates loow (.) ↑we have nineteen billion dollars more this year in the budget (.) because we PAID down the debt by a hundred and ↑seventy billion (.) in the last two years (.) ↑ANY tax cut ought to be ↑targeted and ↑affordable and ↑aiimed at (.) Americans’ (.) expenses for edu↑cation and ↑health care and en↑vironmental protection. (.) we should REJECT. the Republican (.) tax scheeme (.) out of hand. BS(M): A: BB: time (.) [senator Bradley (7. collectively applauds)] ↑I don’t think. that uh (.) cutting taxes noow. is the answer. (.) I think that now we haave unprecedented prosperity. (.) we have (.) laaarge. budget surpluses. we should be fixing our roof while the sun is shining (.) we should NOOW be passing national health insurance we should NOW be ↑making major investments in our urban schools (.) and schoools across this country (.) and we should COMMIt as ↑I haaave to reduce ↑child poverty by ↑four million in the first ↑four years (.) and e↑liminate child poverty inn TEN YEARS. (.) [but you knoow (.) (individually applauds) to ↑DO THAAT] (.) we have to understand where people live their lives. (.) and earlier I was talking about Al. (.) as the conservative Democrat and he was saying twenty years ago. (.) not so long ago. (.) ↑nineteen ninety-six the welfare reform bill. (.) and the ↑welfare refoorm biill that ↑Al ↑Gore urged ↑president Clinton to siign in the middle of the cam↑paaign so as (.) to win the e↑lection (.) was truly a ↑GAAMBLE (.) with pooor children in this ↑country. =time=

AG: A: AG:

A: AG:

A: BB:

BS(M):

557

Appendix BB: A: BS(M): AG: A: AG: =[and that’s a gamble (.) that I think shouldn’t have been taken. (9. collectively applauds) vice president GOORE you KNOW] (.) you’re so FOOND of the old ↑welfare system. (.) what ↑I wass uh [concerned about and still (individually boos) ↑would be concerned about (.) WELL] (.) reforming it and changing it was the objective. because it TRAPPED people in welfare. (.) [if they got ↑OFF welfare (.) their (9.5 collectively applauds and screams showing approval) children lost health insurance (.) their public ↑↑hoousing rent went up (.) and ↑milllions of people who wanted to get] good joobs were tooold in ef↑fect (.) ‘if you go out into the work force’ =time= =you’re gonna looose money (.) it ↑NEEded to be changed (.) and it has worked for the moost part. [senator Bradley (8. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) the wel↑fare reform bill that exists] noow the welfare system. is not the welfare bill. that was paassed in nineteen ninety-six there’ve been CHAANGES (.) there’ve been sig↑NIficant chaanges for legal immigrants there’ve been sig↑NIficant changes on the TIIME (.) that people can ↑be on welfare. (.) and in addition to thaat (.) there are now ↑↑hundreds of ↑thousands of ↑CHILdren in this country who do ↑NOT have health insurance (.) because ↑↑WHEN they lose their ↑welfaare (.) and go ↑↑OFF of welfare (.) they ↑automatically lose ↑Medicaid eligibility [for their ↑health insurance. (7. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) time (.) NOW (.) we go to oour don’t I (.) DON’T I HAVE aa thirty ↑se]cond now NO SIR. ok sorry now we go to oour (.) panel of journalists ‘↑Time’ magazine’s Tamala Edwards with a question foor (.) senator (.) Bradley (.) Bradley uh ↑senator a couple of tiimes tonight as you’ve raised different issues the vice president hass (.) uuh suggested that yoour (.) positions might be a function of your standing in the race and ↑you ↑yourself have pointed out that currentlyy (.) you’re the underdog. (.) uuh in fact it’s been interesting that over a yeear some of the issues you’ve ↑raaised the endorsements you’ve (.) ↑collected including ↑Michael Jordan in recent ↑weeks you continue to laag in this community (.) and what’s been interesting to ↑mee talking to people (.) ↑about ↑that (.) is that they ↑subdivide it (.) and saay (.) experts that iis (.) and say that you ↑tend to do very

A: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): A: BB:

A: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): TE: BS(M): TE:

558

Appendix ↑well among ↑middle class and upper class blacks (.) in places like Montclair and New Rochelle but where you’re ↑laagging behiind (.) are in working- and lowerclass communities like Harlem and ↑Brooklyn (.) a few years ago ‘Public Enemy’ famously ↑played this stage and so I’m going to paraphrase (.) Chuck ↑D. and ask (.) ↑whyy is that youu’ve been able to reach the bourgeoisie (.) but not rock the boulevard. [(5. collectively applauds and makes comments) uuh (1.5) y’ know what’s ↑interesting about uh] (.) your question Tamala (.) and I (.) I I I ↑AM disappointed there’re not more support in the African-American community according to the polls. (.) because if you ↑LOOK at the ↑programs that I’ve offered (.) ↑health insuraance access to ↑all Americans ↑guaranteees for children (.) making suure that we have community ↑health centres (.) that is aaimed at a popu↑lation that’s disproportionately poor (.) for EXAMPLE (.) you have about ↑twenty five percent of African-Americans who don’t have health insurance. (.) in terms of the ↑education program the ↑PUblic education programs that I’ve explained toniight. (.) GO TO pri↑maarily urban and some rural areas that haave ↑high numbers of poor children ↑in THEM (.) if you take (.) the ↑whoole effort on eliminating child ↑poverty (.) you have ↑forty percent of ↑African-American children living in poverty (.) if you ↑look at the respective positions (.) THERE is no ↑quesstion (.) that the positions that [↑I’ve time] advocated (.) are stronger for the community (.) than the positions that Al has advocated. [vice president Gore (5.5 collectively applauds) well] (.) if if I translate that aanswer what he’s saying is that uh (.) people on the streett are in thee (.) same position that that he saaid that (.) the Congressional Black Caucus is in. (.) they just don’t. uh (.) in his view understand his his ↑proposals (.) [now I ↑TELL YOU THAT’S WHAT HE’S (collectively boos) ↑↑SAAYING (.) it’s exactly what he’s ↑saaying] (.) he’s saying that if they just understood what the proposals were. (.) they would support’m. (.) well ↑let me tell you what the problem with that is. (.) the ↑presidency is not not an Academic exerciise. (.) it’s not a SEMINAR. on some grand theory. [(4. individually applauds) people oon the streeet. know very well. (.) that the PREsidency] is a day by day fight. for RREAL people (.) who face rreal problems. (.) and they knoow that the Clinton-Gore administration has been fighting for themm. [they know that ↑I WANNA FIGHT for them (.) I WANNA FIGHT FOR (12. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) YOUR ↑FAMILIES (.) I WANNA ↑FIGHTFOR YOUR COMMUNITY (.) I WANNA FIGHT FOR MORE ↑JOOBS (.) ↑I WANNA FIGHT TO LIFT THIS COUNTRY UP (.) and that’s (.) that’s why] I am ruunning for president. (.)

A: BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M): A: AG:

A: AG:

A: AG:

A: AG:

559

Appendix ↑NOT on the basis of some of some theory. (.) uh IN ↑↑THEORY [it might BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): BB: tiime]= =oh uh (.) (referring to the people holding the ‘time signs’ for the candidates) they still have the thirty second up. I didn’t (.) wouldn’t (.) intentionally going over.= =she was just a tad. slow getting it up.= =she was ↑carried away in the emotion of the moment.= =[(4. collectively laughs) senator Bradley] I think on so many leveels. that uuh (.) the debate doesn’t reflect (.) truly the richness (.) of our country. (.) nooor (.) the opportunity of the moment. (.) and the QUESStion iiis (.) ↑NOOT (.) which person (.) can get the most (.) elected leadership supPORT. (.) the quesstion iis (.) which person’s PROOgram (.) will best BEEnefit (.) the people out theere who are working every daay (.) the people who are TRYing to make ends meeet= =time= =the people who need to ↑HAAVE somebody who’s gonna fight for them every day.= =right= =[(6. collectively applauds) our next question for vice president Goore] (.) from (.) Karen (2.5) (Gore pointing at himself and looking at the people holding the time signs with a questioning gesture) thir thiry seconds now sir. (with a smiley face) [thank you Bernie (off-mike)= =don’t mean too bul[lox you on this ↑nooo uh that’s] alright that’s alright (.) IN ↑THEORY (.) the ↑idea of eliminating Medicaiid. (.) and giving people a hundred and fifty dollar-a-month voucher. (.) MIGHT SOOUND GOOD in THEory. (.) but ↑you talk to people on the street outside the Apollo Theatre. (.) and you ASK them about it. (.) and they ↑know that you can’t [↑go out there and buy an inSUrance (individually laughs) buy an inSUrance ↑policy] (.) that will cover your health care ↑benefits (.) much less prescription ↑drug benefits (.) for a hundred and fifty dollars a month . (.) the ↑theory is one thing. (.) the reality is something else. (.) [I’m fighting. for a better reality.= =time= for the people of this country. [(10. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) OUR NEXT QUESTION foor uh (.) vice president Gore] (.) comes from ‘Time’s’ (.) Karen Tumulty. thank you (.) ↑Mr. vice president TWICE tonight you’ve been asked questions about how justice is administered in this country. (.) at a tiime when ↑CRIME rates are falling the prison population is swelling to the point. where ↑two million

BS(M): BB: AAM28: A: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG:

A: AG:

BS(M): AG: A: BS(M): KT:

560

Appendix Americans are incarcerated. (.) ↑two-thirds of federal inmates are either black. or Hispanic. (.) is ↑this something the Clin’on administration an↑ticipated whenn (.) president Clin’on siigned tougher crime laaws (.) and whyy is this happening. A: AG: [(7. collectively applauds) I think there are] (6.) I said EEARlier uh Karen. (.) that I think that we ought to review the nature of the criimes that are in↑cluded (.) in the calculation of this uh ‘three strikes and you’re out’. (.) uh (.) uh (.) provision. (.) I also think that we need to focus moore on prevention. (.) we need to give more al↑TERnatives to incarceration (.) and as I saidd of the in at the ↑start of this debate (.) I believe that w we need to spend as much ↑tiime and effort and money and uh energy on ↑education as we do on in↑carceration (.) [I THINK (individually claps) THAT preVENTION and EDUcation] and al↑ternatives really represent the longterm uh answer. (.) we have ↑got to keep our neighborhooods and our communities safe. (.) I think that ccommunity policing ↑DOES WORK (.) I think that we need to ↑AADD to ↑it uh provisions that will (.) take race ↑↑out of (.) of the equation in laaw enforcement (.) uh we talked about a lot of these issues here this evening (.) [but I think time] the long-term answer is much more prevention. for vice president Goore [this question from ↑JEFF GREENFIELD= (individually applauds) =I think he gets a II =sorry. I’m sorry (individually laughs)] uhm (.) Al (.) the ↑vice president said he wanted to take uh race out of uh (.) I think the criminal justice system. or out of policing. he said. (0.5) ↑that requiires a president who is STROOONG and willing to leaaad on the CENtral question of race in our country today. (.) and ↑THAT means sometimes telling ↑whhite Americans what they don’t want to ↑hear =that’s [right that’s right (.) and] ↑I therefore (.) don’t do it with any kind of ↑POINted ↑finger (.) but ↑take the issue (.) of white skin privilege. (.) now (.) ↑what is white skin privilege. (.) ↑WHITE SKIN PRIVILEGE did you ↑see the television program a couple years ago where (.) a black couple and a white couple (.) eXACTly parallel went to TEN places to get apartments or houses the black couple was th (.) rejected in aall (.) the white couple was accepted in ↑all (.) but in a more ↑personal sense (.) what is white prin (.) skin privilege. (.) when I was a rookie in the NBAa ↑I got a lot of offers to do ↑TElevision and commercials to do ↑ADVERTISEMENTS (.) I (.) didn’t (.) and ↑WHY DID I GET THOSE white skin privilege. (.) ↑I wasn’t the best player on the team. (.) but ↑I didn’t ↑TAKE

A: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): A: AG: BB: BS(M): A: BB:

AAM29: AAM30: BB:

561

Appendix ↑THOOSE because ↑I thought that was NOT the right thing to doo and that (.) they would should have ↑goone to my African-American TEAMmates. (.) [we have to explain white skin privilege. [(15.5 collectively applauds, boos, and whistles) vice president Gore UUH now] (.) I get thirty seconds ↑now yes sir= =all right. (.) ↑JUST uh three days ago (.) uh I talked too an African-American law enforcement officer in Sspringfield. Massachusetts. (.) innn (.) one of my open meetings. (.) aand (.) he ↑he and ↑I had an exchange on this. ↑↑here’s what he said that he thinks needs to be done. (.) ↑he ↑says that you you’ve got to (.) ↑put a lot more emphasis in the training of law enforcement officers on this ↑question (.) but ↑NOT just training in the (.) law enforcement techniiques (.) ↑also in human relations (.) ↑↑soome of the changes [time in the] heart that people sometimes go through (.) ↑↑CAAN be brought about more readily with the right ↑kiind of experiences and education and training ↑AND personnel selection (3.5) well (.) I think that (.) one of the most important ↑things here (.) is making suure that youung (.) ↑African-Americans Latinoos (.) participate in the political process. (.) and they should ↑KNOOW that nothing is going to in↑timidate them (.) from participating in that political process. (.) and ↑I think that what we NEED to doo. (.) and what ↑I would do as (.) president. if ↑I were elected (.) is to make the ↑Voting Rights act ↑PERmanent= [time =I’ve tal]ked to Martin Luther King junior a↑bout this Martin ↑King about this (.) it is very important to make the Voting Rights act (.) ↑permanent (.) so that the RIGHT to vote will ↑never be endangered for African-Americans. [(6. collectively applauds) journalist uh ↑Jeff Greenfield has a question for vice president Gore. Mr.] ↑vice president (.) uuh (.) when ↑Tamala asked you about schoools. and (.) your children (.) uuh (.) yoou (.) bristled a bit. (.) so ↑let me de↑personalize [this (individually makes comments) ok (off mike)] YOU and Mrs. Gore (.) senator Bradley (.) and his wife (.) mee. (.) ANY parent of meeans. (.) has the ↑choice (.) [you can send your child to public or private (nodding)] school. (.) but when the ↑public schools fail our children (.) we don’t wait for new legislation we protect our kids’ future (.) by ↑PUlling them out of those public schools. (.) there are ↑↑TENS of thousands of parents disproportionally black and broown (.) who ↑DO not have that choice (.) and I would ↑put on the

A: BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG:

BS(M): AG:

BB:

BS(M): BB:

A: BS(M): JG: A: AG: JG: AG:

562

Appendix JG: table one of the ↑staunchest ↑↑opponents of that choice (.) are the twoo major ↑teachers unions that happen to supplyy (.) one in niine of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention (.) the ↑QUEStion iis (.) after ↑thirty five years and ↑a hundred billion dollar in Title I money (.) with ↑SAT scores that gap ↑no narrower (.) ↑why shouldn’t theese parents conclude that the ↑Democratic party’s op↑↑position to choice (.) is an example of supporting a ↑ESPECial interest (.) rather than (.) their interest.= AG: A: AG: =[well it’s ↑not thee (.) (5. collectively applauds) it’s ↑not the opi]nion of the (.) NEAa and the AFT that’s reflected in the policies supported by ↑Democrats (.) it’s the opinion of the over↑whhelming majority (.) of A↑mericans (.) this ↑issue of public funds to (.) private and parochial schools is not a ↑new one in America (.) Abraham Lincoln faced it in his race for the state legislature (.) in Illinoois (.) it is a pe↑rennial issue (.) but a ↑higher percentage of American students go to public schools to↑daay (.) than ever in our ↑history (.) the ABSOlute ↑number is an all-time ↑record (.) now if ↑I felt that the only alternative to vouchers uh was to continue things the way they aare (.) (laughing) THEN I would feel (.) perhaps the same ↑way. (.) that’s why ↑I think that the alternative must be (.) ↑not the same kind a ggradual change much less status quo that we’ve had. (.) ↑we have to have revo↑lutionary improvements (.) ↑I have proposed a ↑fiffty percent ↑increase in the federal role (.) a ↑ten thousand dollar hiring ↑bonuses for teachers [time that teach] in areas (.) ↑PLANS to turn around failing schools and if I had more tiime I’d give you th (.) rest of it. [↑GO to algore two thousand dot com on the In Internet. (8.5 collectively applauds) and see the details] senator ↑Bradley you know Jeff] I think you raaised a ↑very important point (.) there’s not a parent. (.) in an urban area in America th’ doesn’t think about it. (.) and in FACT the reason I voted for ex↑periments in vouchers on several occasions (.) was because I was listening (.) to those ↑parents (.) I’ve represented New Jersey second highest per capita income in the country but FIVE of the poorest places (.) ↑I would do TOWN meetings in Newark Jersey City (.) and ↑African-American parents would come up to me and say. (.) ‘our school is a disaster (.) ↑drugs ↑violence ↑teachers that aren’t ↑qualified nobody ↑caares (.) what are you gonna do about it’. (.) and I said ‘↑well you oughtta join the school board’. (.) they’d look at me like I just descended from ↑Maars (.) they’d say ‘↑wait a minute we join the ↑school board we ↑can’t we go to work at six get home at ↑niine’ (.) so I ↑voted to give them a CHANCE with a couple of ex↑periments (.) there are now experiments in in Milwaukee and in ↑Cleveland (.) but I think the ↑aanswer is NOT (.) uh ↑vouchers because the system isn’t ↑big enough (.) the ↑answer (.) is

BS(M): AG:

A: AG: BS(M): BB:

563

Appendix a ↑major new investment in PUblic education under ↑Title one (.) but ↑NOT the BS(M): BB: A: BS(M): AG: money just flowing ↑↑IIN (.) but the money flowing [in (.) time] making the ↑schools acCOUNtable for results and qualified teachers. [(8 collectively applauds) ↑vice president Gore I get (.) in (.) ↑in addition to hiring] bonuses foor new teachers (.) I have uh a ↑TWENTY five BILlion dollar plaan. worth oof uh (.) interest-free boonds to ↑build new schools ↑modernize schools (.) connect all the classrooms and libraries to the Internet (.) give the teachers the training and professional development (.) ↑opportunities (.) that they need (.) expand. head start YES. and ↑universal preschool for every child as I mentioned before. (.) HELP for ↑PArents a and families in paying college tuition (.) uh plans to ↑turn around [failing schools time] ↑we’ve got to have an ↑aall-out [national effort to llift (individually claps) up our schools dramatically] is it (.) this is the information age. it’s absolutely essential.= =senator Bradley= =[(6.5 collectively applauds) uhm] (.) if a CHILD goes to kindergarten. (.) and is sick. (.) the child is not gonna learn. (0.5) aand (.) under the health care program that I’ve ↑offered ↑every CHIILD (.) would haave a doctor. (.) I know a teacher that tells a story about a child who comes in (.) sick. (.) she puts him in the back of the room in a bed of ↑coats (.) because the child is sick and doesn’t ‘ve health insurance. (.) so ↑HEALTH insurance is education policy as ↑well (.) ↑GUN CONTROL is education policy as well. (.) [there’re ↑EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND KIIDS time (collectively applauds) that took a ↑gun to school] (.) this ONE DAY LAST ↑↑YEAR (.) so we have to ↑see this a little ↑bigger than simply a box that says ‘education’ (.) and deal with ↑aall the influences that come in on our system of education.= =[senator ↑Bradlley (.) vice president ↑Gore (collectively applauds) (.) when we come ↑↑back] (.) closing statements from each of you after this very short break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ↑welcome back to thee concluding ↑moments of this ↑Democratic presidential candidate de↑bate (.) by a draaaw be↑↑fore this debate (.) the ↑vice president will go ↑first with his ↑one-minute closing statement to be followed byy senator Bradley. (.) Mr. ↑vice president.

BS(M): AG: A: AG: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): A: BB:

BS(M): A: BS(M):

BS(M):

564

Appendix AG: thank you very much Bernie (.) I’m ↑proud of what we have achiieved together and that’s one of the ↑reasons why I have such faith and hope (.) in our ability to build a bright future together. (.) ↑let me ↑tell YOOU (.) about a ↑young woman from Louisiana who is here. (.) she’s made ↑history (.) and she’s ↑helping me make ↑history with this ↑campaaign. (.) her name is ↑Donna Brazile (.) [and ↑she’s the ↑manager of my presidential campaign nationally. (4.5 collectively applauds)] (close shot of Donna Brazile applauding) her ↑mother was a maaid her father was a jaanitor (.) ↑she worked haard to get a good education (.) she ↑helped to chaange the community (.) and ↑now she’s helping to change this country. (.) ↑I wanna proviide ↑oopportunities for aall Americans (.) to ↑BRING about the kind of future that our children deserve. (.) ↑that’s why I ↑think we have to invest in education as the number one priority. (.) ↑why we need to keep the prosperity going en↑force the civil rights laaws and make sure that ↑NOBODY is left out of the ↑prosperity (.) and have the kind of future that aall Americans deserve. (.) I ask for ↑your vote on March the seventh. (.) thank you.= A: BS(M): A: BB: =(17. collectively applauds and screams showing approval) Mr. senator (5.) senator ↑Bradley (.) ↑youur one minute sir.]= (collectively) GO] (.) GO (.) GO (.) GO (.) GO ↑someone once saaid that (.) a ↑LOT of people (.) want to change the world. (.) but ↑only a few people (.) want to change themselves. (.) when it ↑comes to the issue of race in America. (.) we have to do both. (.) we have to ↑CHAANGE the ↑underlying conditions (.) and we ↑also have to chaange the hearts (.) of the American people. (.) we have to do ↑both (.) ↑I believe the American people are good ↑people (.) ↑but (.) as the doctor (.) reverend Dr. Martin Luther King once said. (.) that (.) the ↑reason the civil rights revolution didn’t occur sooner than it did in A↑merica (.) was because of the ↑SILENCE (.) of good people (.) [what (individually claps) ↑MY CAMPAIGN IS ABOOUT] (.) is ASking ↑good people to come ↑FORward and ↑JOIN us (.) so that our ↑VOIces (.) will be heard. (.) ↑I beliieve that we can ↑move ahead in this country as ↑one ↑nation (.) I believe we can respect each other (.) but you need a STROONG ↑president who’s going to put this as the ↑number one issue on his agenda every day in his administration and I will do that. [(27.5 collectively applauds and screams showing approval) thank you gentlemen (19.) GENTLEMEN THANK YOU VERY MUUCH (clears throat) (6.) and ↑thus] (.) another ↑historic per↑formance has con↑cluded (.) onn (.) the ↑stage of this very fabled theatre. (.) and to↑night’s performance by ↑theese two gentlemen has been in the ↑↑best tradition of American politics. [(3. collectively applauds) ↑CNN (.) AND ‘TIIME’] have ex↑tended the ↑same invitation to the Republican presi↑dential candidates to have an Apollo Theatre debate.

A: AG:

A: BB:

A: BS(M):

A: BS(M):

565

Appendix A: BS(M): [(6. screams of approval and applause from the audience) COMING ↑↑UP (.) A ↑POST-DEBATE PROGRAAM (.) INCLUDING LIIVE INTERVIEWS WITH CANDIDATES Gore and ↑Bradley] hosted by ‘TIME’ magazine managing editor Walter ↑Isaacson (.) and CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield. (.) be sure to follow full ↑coverage (.) of the ↑Michigan and Arizona primary returns tomorrow ↑niight beginning at eight p.m. ↑eastern on ↑CNN. (.) and ↑also this programming note (.) ↑CNN and ‘The Los Angeles Tiimes’ will host ↑two debates (.) on March ↑fiirst (.) the Demo↑cratic presidential candidates (.) on March second (.) the Re↑publican presidential candidates. (.) FOR ↑NOOW (.) again (.) our ↑thanks to to↑niight’s sponsors (.) the U↑nited Missionary Baptist As↑sociation (.) aand to the Harlem ↑Host Committee. (.) I’m Bernard Shaaw (.) ↑good night from the [Apollo Theatre. (collectively applauds)]

A:

566

Appendix Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Los Angeles, CA. CNN Especial Event Aired March 1st, 2000. Duration: 1 hour and 30 min. Participants: Announcer (AN) Bernard Shaw (BS(M)) Bill Bradley (BB) Al Gore (AG) Audience (A) Steve Tidalbaum (ST) Noreen Robin (NR) Liz Gardner (LG) Jim Plaurra (JP) Ron Brownstein (RB) Jeff Greenfield (JG) Anita Shaft (ANS) Mayor Richard Riordan (MRR) Donna Monarch (DM) Elizabeth Green (EG) Dee Pinchback (DP) Jackie Webber (JW) Jewel Bishop (JB) AN: This is a CNN ‘Los Angeles Times election two thousand’ special presentation (.) a Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles (.) the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination face each other just days before Super Tuesday’s sixteen Democratic contests (.) from the New England states to the West Coast including California former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley and ↑vice president Al Gore (.) will take questions from the audience (.) from ↑CNN dot com and Los Angeles times dot com (.) and from our panel CNN’s Jeff Greenfield and ‘Los Angeles Times’ correspondent Ron Brownstein (.) here now our moderator CNN’s Bernard Shaw from the historic ‘Los Angeles Tiimes’ headquarters building and the Harry Chandler Auditorium ↑good evening and welcome (.) this is the ninth occasion in which ↑vice president Al Gore and former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley will have responded to questions in their quest for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination (.) we thank the ‘Los Angeles Tiimes’ for cosponsoring this evening (.) both campaign staffs have agreed to the following rules for this ninety-minute debate (.) each candidate will have one minute to respond to a question and then thirty seconds for a rebuttal (.) now most questions will come from a group of undecided Democratic voters selected here in California by the ‘Los Angeles Tiimes’ (.) a coin toss has determined that the first question goes to senator Bradley ↑sir. Steve Tidalbaum Santa Monica California many Americans were very happy to hear senator McCain condemn the Christian far right leadership for their derisive effects on American politics would you ↑each be willing to (.) echoo what the senator said about that (.) and even take it a step farther (1.) well first let meee uh thank thee ‘Los Angeles Times’ and CNN for (.) hosting this

BS(M):

ST:

BB:

567

Appendix debate uh I’m very pleased to be in this building again I’ve been in this building many tiimes with the editorial board on California water (.) on international ↑trade issuues. on diversity issuues (.) I am very pleased to be here and have a chance to (.) uh debate Al one more time in this setting (.) UH ↑let me say to you ↑I think thaat we have a country where there is uh (.) freedom of religion (.) and I think that there should be freedom of religion (.) I think that the far right has gone TOO far ↑tiime after time after time on social issues (.) and has tried to dominate this country with their particular ↑viewpoint. (.) I think it’s important to resist that (.) I’ve ↑aalways resisted thaat as a United States senator I’ve never voted in waays that they ↑wanted. (.) and ↑I would be very emphatic in saaying that religion should not be a part of politics (0.5) well (.) let meee respond to the same question and thank you for asking it I I would also like to thank the ‘L.A. Times’ and CNN for hosting this debate (.) and the people of Los ↑Angeles and Mayor Riordan for hosting us here all Democrats are looking forward to the conventionn out here (.) you ↑knooow uh I thought that senator McCain’s speech (.) made a very powerful point (.) and ↑I a↑↑gree with him on a lot of the points that he maade (.) I agree with him in his advocacy of campaign finance refoorm (.) I agree with him in taking oon big tobaccooo and the special interests (.) but I think his speech illustrated that the Republican party today is in the midst of an i↑↑dentity crisis. they’re trying to figure out who they ↑aaare. uh and and frankly (.) he was introduced by ↑Gary Bauer for that speech uh both ↑he and governor Bush are for taking away a woman’s right to chooose uh ↑neither had the guts to speak out against the confederate flag flying above the state capitol building in South Carolina both are in the (.) hip pocket of the NRA so I agreed with the speech as far as it ↑↑went= =tiime senator Bradley for thirty seconds (0.5) I think that (.) if you (.) look at what the two Republican candidates have done they have gone too South Caro↑lina. aand governor Bush has gone to Bob Jones Uni↑versity. (.) the university that practices racial discrimi↑nation. (.) and he’s gone there to give a ↑speech on the new conservatism (.) based on ↑gooing there. and sending that symbolic ↑message. I believe that the new conservatism from his standpoint is not a lot different than the ooold conservatism (0.5) I I ↑want to make one other point James Madison in the ‘Federalist Papers’ (.) pointed ooout that what he called ‘faction’ the word we would use now is maybe ‘ultrapartisanship’ (.) ↑CANN stir passions that (.) uh come about because of relatively small differences (.) and then can unleeash an amount of energy that is ↑sseeemingly out of all proportion to the cause of the disagreement (.) and I think that soome on the ex↑treme right. (.) have allowed themselves to get carried away by ↑so ↑much hostility toward the people they disagree with that they’ve lost perspective Mr. vice president (.) you have the next question all ↑riight. hello Noreen Robin Los Angeles California (.) ↑if elected president what criteria would you use to select the new uh Supreme Court justices I would look for justices of the Supreme Court (.) who understand that (.) our Constitution is a living and breathing ↑doocument. (.) that it was intended by our founders to bee interpreted in the light of thee (.) constantly evolving experience of the American ↑people. (.) uh the right of privacy just to take ↑one example. (.) was found by Justice ↑Blackman in the Constitution even though the precise worrdds (.) are not

AG:

BS(M): BB:

AG:

BS(M): AG: NR: AG:

568

Appendix ↑theere. (.) you ↑knoow (.) the proof that it should be a living and breathing document can be SEEN in the progressive unfolding of the American dreeam throughout the last two hundred and eleven years of our re↑public. (.) Thomas Jefferson (.) wrote the powerful words of our decla↑ration. (.) but didn’t absorb them in as hard enough to free our ↑↑slaves. (.) our founders created a work of genius in the Consti↑tution. (.) but didn’t absoorb the meaning deeply enough to give women the right to ↑↑vote we now understand that these things are part and parcel of the Consti↑tution. and the next president will point probably will appoint probably three justices of the Supreme Court and that makes this coourt one of the major issues in this election senator Bradley (0.5) ↑other thaaan uh war and peace I think thatt uh the appointment that the president makes to the Supreme Court (.) is the most laasting contribution that a president ever makes (.) and therefore ↑I beliieve it is imperative (.) that the president search to fiiind people of real in↑tegrity. (.) people of intellectual in↑tegrity. (.) people who haave unquestioned a↑bility. (.) PEOple who HAAVE a kind of historical perspective somebody that’s able to see a context in the tiimes in which they live (.) but not someone whose loopped into an original interpretation of the Constitution as if seventeen eighty-seven is is the year two thousand (.) but someone who ↑seees. thee ↑laaaw. as something that moves to adjust to the times and can do so in a way that ↑furthers. the deepest values of our country that ↑I believe are embodied in the Declaration of Independence (.) and therefore I think that is the ↑most important thing a= =time= =president can do I agree with that statement and I think it was a very fine statement (.) and I noticed that Kate Michaelman the head of NARAL is in the audience here in Los ↑Angeles. (.) and NARAL has pointed out that both the Republican candidates (.) have ↑pledged to overturn Roe versus Wade and governor Bush went into a private meeting with Jerry ↑Falwell and Pat ↑Robertson and when they ↑came out both patted him on the back and said ‘well we heard everything that we wanted to ↑hear’. (.) uh both governor Bush ↑aand senator McCain. (.) are as anti-choice as as you can ↑get (.) so I I ↑think it’s awfully important that we have a president who will appoint justices to the Supreme Court [time to inter]pret the Constitution (.) in keeping with America’s tradition (1.5) I’ll have to be honest with the people who asked me this question (.) I must be honest with the American people (.) if ↑I weerre going to select someone for the Supreme Court I ↑don’t think that I could select that person if I thought there was ↑one doubt in my miiind that the person would turn the clock back on civil rights (.) the court throughout our history has played a very ↑negative roole from time to time in moving our civil rights forward (.) in other cases a very poositive roole time so I’d] have to have that answered for myself before I made the appointment senator Bradley the next question is for you good evening uuh Liz Gardner from Santa Monica uuh I just ↑wanted to aask with technology becoming more a part of our daily liiives (.) the Internet specifically with e-

BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M): LG:

569

Appendix mail e-commerce (.) ↑where do you find the government uuh taking a role in that with either regulating or not regulating what’s going to be happening ↑I think the government should plaaay a rooole but a small role it’s an emerging technology (.) the Internet is growing in directions that we don’t know fifteen years ago the only people that ever heard of the Internet is the Defence Department and now (.) look at where it is to↑day. (.) I ↑think thaat the most important role for government to play is making a major investment in edu↑cation (.) but spe↑↑cifically in technology I think that ↑trying to set a standard for encryption is very important because the ↑most important thing that could prevent the growth of the Internet (.) is if people felt their privacy could be invaded (.) if people felt their privacy could be invaded in terms of fi↑nancial records. in terms of ↑health records. and therefore I think some standard for encryption (.) is a very important part off uh of a policy that you would follow (to Liz Gardner) I ↑thought I saw you kind of glance quickly over at me when you said the word ‘Internet’. [mhum (laughs) aand (3. laughter) I appreciate thaat] I didn’t in↑vent it (.) but I worked hard to get the funding for it (.) to help the scientists and engineers (.) who took that smaall network in the Defence Department called ↑Garfonet and then gradually expanded it to what it is to↑day. (.) uuh ↑president Clinton and I are now pushing a project called the next generation Internet (.) Internet two (.) ↑that will be a thousand times faster than the present (.) Internet one. (.) I ↑think that the ↑government’s roole should not bee too regulate content ↑obviously (.) I think thee the government ↑shoouuld give parents more tools to protect their young ↑children. (.) give citizens more protections against violations of ↑privacy. uh I think we should keep the moratorium on ↑taxing (.) transactions on the ↑Internett. uh while the questions are dealt with by all the ↑parties. (.) and I think we have got to close the digital di↑↑viiide. so that ↑e verybody regardless of income or social circumstances [time has access] to the Internet thank you= =senator Bradley for thirty seconds well I wass uh waiting during the campaign of maybe (.) being able to (.) you make that joke but since you (.) made it first about the Internet inventing the Internet I am glad ↑you did it and not me (.) [uh let let (almost inaudible laughter)] me say that I I think that another thing that’s very important (.) is finding ↑some way that people who don’t have access to the Internet can get aaccess to the Internet (.) and I think wiring schools is im↑portant. but I ↑aalso would look at something that would maybe give them more direct assistance something we might call ‘↑info stamps.’ that would be terribly important (.) and ↑also taxing the ↑Internet.= =time= =not now uh ↑Bill Kennaard the chairman of the FCC iiis uh (.) from Los ↑Angeles. and (.) has (.) implemented a laaw that I helped to write called the e-rate (.) which puts ↑two billion dollars a year into subsidizing the connection of all classrooms and libraries (.) to the

BB:

AG: LG: AG: A: AG:

BS(M): AG: LG: BS(M): BB:

A: BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

570

Appendix Internet (.) to ↑even up. access uh I made a proposal in the last ten days on how to close the digital divide by ↑re defining what we mean by universal service (.) and moving toward Internet access for every hoome (.) in America [tiime we can reach] that goal vice president Gore question for you I am Jim Plaurra from Los Angeles (.) uhm when the Clintons were elected to office it was very much a team spirit (.) and as a result Mrs. Clinton was put in some substantive roles how will you defiine the role for the first lady well if I am entrusted with the presidency I I I agree with Tipper on that question (4. laughter) whatever] her answer is I agree with it (0.5 laughter) butt let me tell] you a little bit a↑boout her. (.) she has been a passionate advocate (.) fooor mental health care (.) and I agree with her that we should have access to mental health care that is ↑Equal (.) to the access that we have for health care if the condition or disease affects some part of the body other than the ↑↑brain ↑whyy should we have discrimi↑nation. (.) against people who have diseases of the ↑brain (.) compared to the heart or the lungs or the liver (.) now she has also been an advocate for the homeless (.) too try to get these people off the sidewalks and the ↑streeets. and I strongly agree with that ↑too because of her work (.) and our family’s work (.) I had thir↑teen. major workshops on (.) how to end homelessness and she would be working on those issues and advocating for children and families (.) but uh I am concentrating on [trying to win time] this thing before we look too far down the road (1.5) whenn I I was in my Senate campaigns my wife Ernestine would go out and visit some place and I would come two weeks later (.) and then we would have a call inevitably from the host saying if you’re going to send someone back send her aaand that is because of who she ↑is. uh my wife is (.) an ↑immigrant (.) she would be the first immigrant first ↑laady if she (.) if I was successful (.) she’s a college professor a professor of comparative literature (.) she just finished a book called ‘The Language of ↑Siilence’. (.) about how western literature did or did not come to terms with the ↑Holocaust (.) she’s a breast cancer sur↑viiivor. (.) she’s a dy↑namic human beeeing. (.) she’s a conscientious mother and in ↑terms of defining the role she would have in aaa presidency that ↑I would head (.) I ↑I don’t ↑know what it would ↑be. (.) she’s just finding it now my guess is one of the things she would do is try to shine the light (.) on people in this country who are doing good things but are not recognized (.) this country is so rich and has so ↑much capacity that is untapped I think she would want to be a catalyst for that time both Bill and I are blessed with partners in liffe whho are wonderful people who enrich our lives (.) my wife Tipper iis my closest adviser as of May nineteenth we will have been married thirty ↑years. (.) we have four (.) children and as of last summeer (.) our oldest daughter and her husband made us ↑grandparents for the first time (.) uh aand I am telling you looking at (.) the world through the eyes of a new grandchild is a whoole neeew experience for me and I am (.) loving it as

BS(M): AG: BS(M): JP:

AG: A. AG: A: AG:

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): AG:

571

Appendix BS(M): BB: AG: A: BB: time (.) senator Bradley for ↑you (.) an Internet question (0.5) I’m sorry thirty seconds uhm well I can talk a lot more than thirty seconds about my wife [I am glad you gave me that opportunity (somehow laughing) (smiles) (3. laughter) uuuh] the ↑thing about her is that (.) she iis real (.) there’s nobody who has ever met her (.) that doesn’t see ↑energy burst forth and honesty b burst forth and I can guarantee you you need an honest wife in this profession (.) because ↑she’s the one who is going to tell you ↑you’re terrible (.) and a lot of people don’t so ↑she’s she’s told me that a few times in this campaign I must say time now senator Bradley for you an Internet question (.) from ↑CNN dot com (.) ‘we sent our armed forces to the Persian Gulf in nineteen ninety-one to return a country to its owners (.) now we see higher gas prices (.) what will ↑you do (.) to ensure this does not happen again’ well I can’t quite tell what the question means (.) iff uh nineteen ninety-one we did fight the Persian Gulf ↑Waar. (.) we did ↑wiin. and now gas prices are very ↑hiiigh. (.) ↑highest they have been (.) and I think the reason they’re (.) ↑HIGH nooow is because we more or less asked the OPEC to (.) ↑raise oil prices in hopes of helping Russia be able to sell ↑its ooil on the international ↑market. (.) make more foreign ex↑chaange. and be able to develop its economy (.) I think that noow in California and across this country oil prices are skyrocketing (.) and we need ↑aaction ↑frankly we needed ↑action (.) about six months ago we needed to release the oil from the strategic petroleum reserve something I built from ten million barrels to fifty-seven ten days of supply to fifty-seven days of supply (.) but ↑more importantly we need to go to Kuwait and Saudi A↑rabia. (.) those countries that we de↑fended in the Gulf Waar. (.) and we need to tell them to increase their ↑↑oil production (.) we needed to tell them to increase their ↑oil production six ↑↑months ago in order to prevent the price increases that [we’re now experiencing time] uh (clears throat) (.) secretary of energy Bill Richardson just (.) completed a tour of thee Middle East (.) and we have been in communication in this administration with the OPEC countries and ↑franklyy Kuwait which was freed from Iraqi domination during the Persian Gulf War hass responded very ↑positively (.) and if you have been reading the public signals from Saudi Arabia (.) they have too (.) but ↑frankly we can get much more dooone (.) uh on this the less we talk about it (.) in ↑↑public (.) one thing we haven’t done is take the strategic petroleum reserve off the table I also worked on that (.) legislation I was in the House of Representatives at the time while Bill was in the Senate (.) in those ↑years. (.) noow we ↑also need to get bussy (.) and develop al↑ternative fuels (.) more energy efficiency a ↑whoole new generation of vehicles that (.) will rely on technologies like fuel cells to cut ↑way down on the pollution and have much more efficiency time (0.5) ↑senator the first part of the question might deal with the Persian ↑GULF. which of course is a place of insecuure (.) sources of ooil (.) there’s Iraaq there’s Iraan there’s Saudi Araabia (.) ↑each of which has its own vulnerabilities () and so I believe that we have to (.) try to con tinue to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein (.) we have to seek to better the

BS(M):

BB:

BS(M): AG:

BS(M): BB:

572

Appendix relationship with Iraan (.) we have to keep a solid relationship with Saudi Arabia (.) and (.) it’s im↑portant that we ↑also keep a strong relation[ship time with] Turkey. so that we have encircled diplomatically Saddam Hussein both the pro↑ducers and the consuming nations have an interest in (.) stable prices (.) over time (.) there’s just no question about that (.) but ↑WEE have an interest in being less de↑pendent (.) on sources of oil from a ↑region that is over time vulnerable to instability (.) I he ↑helped to put in place a program called ‘The Partnership’ for a new generation of vehicles (.) which commits the big three automakers in our country (.) to getting ↑new vehicles into the marketplace (.) that have three times [the efficiency time] of today’s vehicles that’s part of the answer (1.) an Internet question for you vice president Gore (.) from thee (.) Los Angeles times dot com. (.) on ↑California’s ballot is Prop twenty-two if paassed (.) only marriages between a man and a woman would be valid or recognized in California do yoouu sup↑port (.) or oppose it I op↑pose it. (0.5) ↑RIGHT NOW under current California law (.) only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized (.) ↑frankly I think that we should have legal recognition for domestic partnerships (.) that have legal protections (.) I ↑↑do not favor changing the definition of a traditional marriage as it has always been understood between a man and a woman (.) but ↑this Knight initiative Prop. twenty-two as it’s also ↑known as (.) ↑I thinkk uh is in paart a kind of a mean-spirited wedge initiative (.) and ↑I ↑↑just think it’s tiiime for us to (.) put this discrimination against gays and lesbians behind us (.) ↑we are a brave people in America (.) we address the issue of racial discrimination we’ve still got work to do (.) discrimination against people with (.) disabilities or with different a different religion (.) ↑I think that it’s time just to leave people aloone (.) because of the way God made them [and stop time] the discrimination ↑senator I don’t support the Knight in↑itiativvve. like Aal (.) I don’t support gay marriage (.) but I do support (.) domestic partnership legislation (.) that would proviide to gays and lesbians all the legal and financial rights that accrue to a state of marriage (.) but ↑this is an issue that is bigger than just this initiative and this year (.) because we’re going to have our work cut out for us (.) in a general election (.) and ↑I started that work (.) last March I was down in Austin Texas aand uh there was an anti-hate criime bill pending befoore the Texas state legislature (.) there was a hate-crime bill in the wake of the James Byrd ↑murder. and the Matthew Shepard ↑murder. (.) and it said that there will be additional penalties for hate crimes based on race gender sexual orientation and disa↑bility and the governor of Texas let it be known (.) he ↑did not want to see that (.) bill come forward (.) I called a ↑press conference. (.) I told the ↑governor’s press corps. (.) that if ↑I am the nominee of the Democratic party (.) and ↑he’s the nominee of the Republican party and he has FAAIled to support this legislation (.) that I would make it an issue in the pre[sidential time camp]aign and I will

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M):

AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB:

573

Appendix AG: I think it ↑will be an issue in the presidential campaign (.) and it should be I met here in Los Angeles two weeks ago with Judy Shepard the mother (.) of Matthew Shepard what ↑sufferinnng that family went through. (.) when that young man was crucified on a split-rail fence (.) by bigots (.) yes we need (.) hate crimes legislation those crimes are fundamentally different. (.) we ↑also need the Employment Non- Discrimi↑nation aact to (.) end discrimination in the workplace (.) I worked on that two ↑years ago and we came within one vote of ↑passing it in the Senate if you entrust me with the presidency= =time= =we’ll make it law senator I ↑think that another thing that’s important (.) sure and assure (.) gays and lesbians in the military (.) openly (.) yes adding thee uh sexual orientation to the Civil Rights act of sixty-four but (.) what’s↑also important is for us to conveey to people that gays and lesbians are no different than the ↑rest of us they just have a different attitude (.) like a different color of haair (.) it’s no different (.) and (.) we have to respect them and we have to accord them the ↑dignity that every person in this world deserves our first (.) panel question comes from Ron ↑Brownstein (.) national political correspondent for the ‘Los Angeles Tiimes’ and analyst for CNN Mr. vice president (.) in your answers both of you on the question about the Supreme Court you each expressed a desire to ↑seee that the laaaws remain adjusted to the times (.) in ↑light of that I want to ask you about a subject that’s on the minds of a lot of people here in California and elsewhere around the country (0.5) a a generation ago (.) to safeguard the civil rights of black Americans (.) the federal government mooved in and overrode a tra↑ditional state function (.) in terms of registering voters and running uh the ruules of local elections TO↑DAY (.) in light of the Diallo case in New York the Rampart scandal here (.) do ↑you see a need for the federal go government to take an active assertive role in systematically involving itself and intervening in cases of local (.) police (.) malfeasance I ↑think we have a problem (.) with uh racial disparities in ↑law enforcement (.) I think you see it in the ↑sentencing differences forr uh crack cocaine and powder cocaine (.) uh the experts say you can’t ↑justify that wide disparity (.) today (.) we are now in the administration uh investigating in↑tensively. within the Justice Department to see (.) whether or not there is a paattern of racial discrimination and distortion (.) in federal law enforcement (.) uuh I ↑think that (.) we are justifiiied in co↑llecting information (.) to see whether or not racial profiling is common throughout the United States anecdotal ↑evidence. would have us believe that it ↑is. (.) ↑I think it is (.) and I think it has to stop (.) ↑I want to be ↑tough on crime (.) ↑I want to be ↑tough on discrimination too our ↑FUture de↑peends. (.) on a much lower crime rate and ↑ending discrimination especially in law enforcement well you mentioned voting rights the first thing I would do is make the Voting Rights act permanent (.) I wouldn’t let it expiire every this period of time (.) uh racial profiling is a deep and serious issue it challenges ↑all of us. it’s not simply a police issue it’s also how we view African-A↑mericans. and La↑tiinos. (.) it’s whether we can see deeper than ↑skin coloor. and ↑eye shape and ethnicity to the individual (.) the Amadou Diallo case is a case in point (.) as you ↑know a west African was surrounded by police in New York they fired forty-one shots nineteen hit him (.) he fell died. (.) and (.) that was a

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): RB:

AG:

BB:

574

Appendix traagedy (.) but what it said to ↑MEE ↑waaas. that the real tragedy was how deeply racial profiling had seeped into the mind of thoose who were in the po↑lice department (.) ↑soo ↑thaat (.) a ↑waallet in the haaands of a ↑↑white man (.) would be viewed as a wallet (.) but a wallet in the hands of a ↑black man would look like a gun (.) I looked at this and I say we have to challenge ourselves [time there] are things the national government can do (.) but we need to challenge ourselves to not de↑nyy any longer the indignities that African-Americans and Latinos experience every day in our country well I I agree with that (.) and I would ↑make one further point (.) ↑racial profiling is bad policing because (.) the policing techniques that ↑↑work. are com↑munity policing. (.) that develop good close relationships within all parts of the community and ↑frankly we need to recruit more African-American and Latino and Asian-American law enforcement (.) officers and look at San Jose (.) uh in northern California in the Bay area (.) the po↑LICE ↑CHIEF there has voluntarily on his ↑own initiative [started time] a requirement for reporting on the race and ethnicity of all the people who were ↑apprehended. (.) to see whether or not they have a problem and address it them↑seelves wi↑↑thout any outside interference (.) be↑cause it’s the ↑best way to im↑prove ↑↑law enforcement well what ↑I would do (.) in addition to the challenge that I offered to ↑everyone. (.) is that I would issue an executive order ending racial profiling in federal agencies (.) I would pass a ↑laaaw to make sure that every police department had to (.) KEEP track of who they arrested and what the race of the person they arrested was (.) I would then ↑uuuse the Justice Department to inter↑veene. to intervene. ag↑gressively if there was a pattern theere (.) if there was sufficient evidence there (.) ↑Ii believe that ↑this is the civil rights issue of our ↑↑TIIme. (.) it is ↑no longer blocking people from schools (.) it is no [loonger time] trying to eat in a restaurant it is having (.) the justice system in this country ↑finally provide equal justice for aall question from CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield vice president this whole question of racial justice (.) brings us back to (.) answers that you and the senator gave a few moments ago and it raises the question (.) of how consistent outrage has to be you have both condemned the flying of the Confederate flag you’ve spoken out about anti-gay bigotry (.) yoou’ve spoken out about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (.) neither of whom I think it is fair to say are likely to support either of you anyway (.) uh but ↑↑both of you have met with reverend Al ↑Sharpton (.) a person who was found by a jury to have libeled a New York state prosecutor (.) with hhighly inflammatory remarks alleg faalsely alleging an attack on a young black woman (.) which ↑could have led to a genuine racial dilemma (.) and he is ↑also been someone (.) who has repeatedly used very inflammatory language about whites and other ethnic groups (.) now I I’m ↑aasking (.) if the Republican candidates have an obligation to forcefully unambiguously condeemn extremists on their side ↑↑don’t you have an obligation to be equally forthright in condemning such language by people (.) who tend to be more on the Democratic side of things=

BS(M): BB:

AG:

BS(M): AG:

BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M): JG:

575

Appendix AG: =uuh I ↑do condemn the language that he used (.) I think that in A↑merica. (.) we believe in redemption and thee capacity of all of our people to transcend (.) limitations that they have (.) made evident in their liives in the past (.) I did not meet with reverend Sharpton publicly (.) I ↑met with him privately (.) and I talked with himm about some of the conceerns that I ↑have. (.) uh I will ↑not violate the ↑priivacy of that conversation (.) but these subjects were discussed aaand ↑↑I will ↑point you toward a couple of facts (.) number one (.) he received something like I think one hundred and thirty-one thousand votes in the last New York city (.) election (.) he is undeniably a person to whom some people (.) in the city (.) look as aa as a ↑spokesperson (.) and you know there is a racial divide in the way people in different races perceeeive certain events (.) I would not be so quick as to completely dis↑miss. what he has to saay about some of theese (.) issues [time uuh] ↑I think I’ll come back to it (0.5) senator uuh (.) yes Ii (.) went tooo thee House of Justice in Harlem (.) last summer (.) for a community meeting thaaatt uh reverend Sharpton invited me to at↑tend. (.) the laaast tiime a primary candidate for president had a large public meeting in (.) HARlem (.) was Robert Kennedy in nineteen sixty-eight (.) ↑Ii went in order to ↑heear the concerns ↑firsthand of the six hundred people that came to share them with me (.) ↑that was a legitimate thing to do (.) I don’t agree with everything reverend Sharpton has ↑said. or ↑done. (.) but I think thaat hee haaass ↑grown (.) we have to allow people the right to ↑grooow. (.) we have to allow people the right to e↑vooolve. and in the process he haas (.) in ↑many cases (.) kept the lid on otherwise dangerous situations that were (.) beginning to deve↑lop time and ↑I look at that and saay uh ‘that’s not someone who would be CHAracterized solely by the language that you used’ ↑↑LOOK at the number of rabbiiis (.) who went to joooin reverend Sharpton (.) in his (.) uh orga↑nizing. oof demonstrations and pickets (.) following the Abner Lou↑ima. (.) case. (.) and thee uh we had ↑that. case and the ↑Amadou Diallo. case. (.) aaand uh ↑I don’t ↑think it’s that hard to understand (.) that there a lot of people who have felt (.) ↑disrespect themselves (.) ↑victimization. themselves (.) who when he has ↑spoken. into the void silence that others [have ↑left. time] has have uh felt that he has spoke for ↑themm (.) and those of us whoo uh who want to know what the community is speaking about and communicate with them (.) I ↑think uh (.) [should time] ↑listen and try to learn (1.) the real question here is how did the voiceless get a voice (.) HOW is proogress maade (.) in very difficult areas of raace and poverty and discrimination (.) it ↑sometimes takes someone that ↑rubs (.) a part of the population the wrong ↑way. (.) in order to get the attention focused (.) on the issue at hand I view his activities in that light (.) as I saaid there are things that he’s doone (.) things that he saaid [time

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG:

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M):

576

Appendix BB: BS(M): that] I con↑demn. but that’s where I think you have to see him in that tradition of civil rights in this country (0.5) I have this question for vice president Gore (.) both you and senator Bradley acknowledged (.) in that Internet question (.) thaatt Middle East oil prices affect American liiives so do world ↑tensions. (.) China is threatening (.) to use force against Taiwan (.) if Taiwan (.) drags out reunification talks (.) if ↑you were president (.) to what extent would you commit American military power to defend Taiwan the ↑last four presidents in both political parties (.) have purposely refrained from s↑pelling out the details (.) of what kinds of circumstances would trigger a direct military action (.) on the part of the United States in the Taiwan Straits (.) ↑THAATT uh ambi↑guity. is ↑not duue to (.) a failure to think it through. it is due to a considered judgment (.) that we do ↑not want to give the (.) hot heads on either side of the Taiwan Straits (.) an ability to driiive circumstances toward (.) American involvement for their own purposes now re↑member in interpreting these recent statements uh uh Bernie (.) that the election in Taiwan iiis just a short time away (.) aand ↑some analysts said well ↑maybe this was a cruude effort by Beijing to try to influence (.) that election (.) it was ↑nonetheless troubling we im↑mediately challenged it (.) we took them to taask (.) and we do ↑not accept (.) their effort to change the description of what would justify (.) force there senator (0.5) ↑I think that (.) the most important thing we can do on this issue (.) is try to keep some pers↑pective on it. (.) and try to think long term (.) it’s difficult for Americans to think long term it’s easy for Chi↑↑nese to think long term. (.) the basic fact is we’re (.) the two exceptionalist cultures in the ↑woorld. which means we each think we’re the center of the ↑universe. (.) so we’re going to bump into each other but on ↑Taiwaan and ↑China it’s a very specific problem (.) we should tell the Taiwa↑neese that if they take steps toward independence (.) that we would reconsider the Taiwan Relations act (.) we should tell the Chi↑neese that if they moove by force to overtake Tai↑wan (.) that we haaave responsibility ↑under that aact. to take appropriate actions the ambiguity that Al talks about. (.) I ↑think that if we can ↑keeep that going then we will wait to see how things evolve uh the ↑white paper (.) that you referred to (.) said ↑some things that were threatening (.) overtake Taiwan ↑also said some en↑couraging things to deal with Taiwan directly as a partner (.) so I agree that it was an attempt possibly to affect the outcome of the election (.) [in Taiwan time] because one of the candidates is ↑pro-↑maainlaaand. and one of them is not in ↑previous periods like this (.) uh Beijing has also done some even more threatening things in the past (.) and I was ↑part of thee (.) decision that the that president Clinton and the administration made (.) to ↑QUIIEtly without notice (.) without ballyhooing it (.) send the U.S. Pacific fleet right down not the entire fleet but send (.) warships right down the middle of thee Taiwan Straits (.) without (.) ballyhooing it aand it was a very deft demonstration of diplomacy aand time power (.) in a way that defused the situation without a ↑word being saaid and without ↑face being lost anywhere (.) on either side senator

AG:

BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M):

577

Appendix BB: (0.5) there’s another dimension to our relationship with China beyond Taiwan aand the mainland (.) and the military dimension it’s the economic dimension (.) ↑I think that the agreement that was negotiated (.) should be ↑ratified (.) I think thaaatt uh people should see this (.) I’d rather have China ↑insiiide the world trading system subject to multilateral ↑ruules (.) than I would have China outside the system making bilateral deals and playing one country off against another (.) fran ↑frankly I don’t know whether communist leadership agreed to it because it’s going to end up with thousands of Internet companies and hundreds of thousands of people (.) in China creating ↑prooblems because political activity will result I agree with that incidentally more questions for these candidates from the ↑audience. (.) from the ↑Internet. (.) from the ↑journalists. when we come back (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [...]∗ this debate senator Bradley a question for you hi my name is Anita Shaft from Venice California (.) I’m ↑sure you’re a↑ware of the shocking incident of the six-year-old boy shooting a six-year-old girl inside a first-grade classroom (.) and still the Columbine tragedy remains strong in our minds (.) ↑EIGHT years ago when I graduated from school I didn’t have to worry about the safety of my life I just had to worry about the security of my goals for my future (.) and you know when I do have kids (.) I want to (.) ensure that they feel the same way (.) how will you ensure that (.) our schools will be a safe haven for our children (1.) well first of all (.) how loong is it going to take (.) how ↑many (.) liives will have to be taken by gunfire (.) how ↑many faaamilies will have to be marred for liife (.) because of the loss of a loved one (.) ↑I was in El Serino Middle School in east L.A. here not so long ago (.) and in one meeting heard the story of the seven-year-old (.) a parent tell the story of a seven-year-old who was (.) caught in the ↑crossfire. killed (.) another parent told the story of a young man waalking through (.) a HIGH school ↑hallway. (.) killed and the students at El Serino ↑↑Middle School (.) decided they would (.) raise money (.) to try to buy guns back and they asked me if I would contact Mayor Riordan and ask him to meet with them Mayor Riordan will you ↑meet with ↑them sure [thank you very much (.) (3. almost inaudible, weak, and isolated laughter)] [I have kept my word I have kept my word (with thumb up indicating ‘Ok’) (3. strong and collective laughter beginning very weakly though)] ↑what we need to haave here (.) is we need very tough (.) gun legislation registration and licensing of aall hand ↑guns. (.) gun dealers out of residential neighborhoods (.) trigger locks (.) background checks and banning Saturday night specials [time but a↑bove] all what we need(.) is a leader who is committed to this every day he is in ooffice (.) ↑otherwise you’ll never beat the NRA and I am there to beat the NRA (1.) ↑let me say first of all thaat (0.5) I I ↑feel so deeply for the faamily (.) of this little girl who who was killed (.) this is an almost unimaaginable tragedy (.) in the ↑ffirst grade. a seven-year-old boy shoots a six-year-old ↑girl. (.) NOOW with some of uh thee

AG: BS(M):

BS(M): ANS:

BB:

MRR: BB: A: BB: MRR: A: BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

∗

Talk missing because of a network failure.

578

Appendix details coming out uh thee (.) little boy waass uh in a home (.) where ↑he didn’t ↑even have a bed his dad is in jail (.) his mother (.) moved in with her brother it was what the local (.) D.A. called a ‘↑flop house’ people were coming in allegedly uh buying drugs with gunns the guns were laying aroound theere (.) we need ↑child safety trigger locks (.) we need to baan ↑junk guns and Saturday night specials (.) we need to require a photo license I.D. for the purchase of a new (.) handgun (.) we need RE IN↑staate (.) the three-day waiting period (.) under the Brady laaw (.) we need to ↑also deal with ↑↑drugs that was a part of this (.) problem we need more psychologists and guidance counselors (.) in our schools and more teachers with smaller (.) classes so [tiime they can] keep (.) traack of these students and their (.) family situations and sooo much more (0.5) we make a mistake when we take an incident (.) like the first grader or like the kids outside Pittsburgh that were killed the five who were killed today (.) and we look at that ↑oone individual case (.) and we failed to realiiize a much broader case (.) ↑Columbine. (.) everybody was struck by (.) ↑Columbine. ↑WHYY because we saw our own ↑↑kiids they looked like our ↑kids we thought (.) but ↑thir teen kids are killed e↑very day in America with a gun and nine eight hundred thousand kids took a gun to ↑schoool. last ↑year (.) now that is not going to chaange unless [there’s time] con↑certed leadership from the ↑naational government that is willing to maarshal ↑public opinion to ↑overcome the vested interests (.) the special interests [time in Wash]ington that’s embodied in the NRA ↑I agree with ↑that (.) I was a co-sponsor of the Brady law I cast the tie-breaking vote too (.) to close the so-called ‘gun show (.) loophole’ the NRA has targeted me as a as a re↑sult. (.) I believe that we have got to take them oon (.) strongly and pass new gun control legislation (.) ↑not ↑↑aimed at ↑hunters. and sports↑men. (.) but at these ↑handguns. that are causing so so much distress in our country (.) this is a (.) now incidentally here in California you saw what leadership can do (.) governor Gray Davis paassed (.) TOUGH new gun control legislation [here time] and first lady Sharon Daviss (.) is here and I wanted to acknowledge her vice president Gore the next question is for you ok (0.5) hi (.) my name is Donna Monarch and I live in Los Angeles and my question is in your liife what mistake have you learned the most from (laughs) claiming that I created the Internet [no (.) uuuh (3. collective laughter) I ↑think that early in my career (.) in public service (.) uh ↑I fell prey to what a lot of people (.) who get into the work force and get excited about their work ↑do (.) and they get drawn into it so much that they don’t balance their liives enoughh uh by enrichiiing their life with the joy and fun and family interaction (.) and uuh as I ↑got a little bit older I came to understand (.) the overriding importance of balancinng (.) work and home and finding time for yourself I have embarked on a career that is very (.) uh d demanding of a lot of hard work and commitment I be↑lieve in ↑it (.) I want to ↑fight

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: DM: AG: A: AG:

579

Appendix for the people of this country but I have long since leearned nearing the age of (.) fiftytwo doesn’t sound like very old to some people here but sounds very old [to others time] that you have got to (.) make time for your your spouse your kids and and yourself senator I think the thing the mistake that I learned the most from uuhm was really (.) a mistake to beliieve thaaatt uh (.) yoou you never fail (.) in other words coming to terms with failure (0.5) aand it took me a while to ↑do that (.) I remember when I was a rookie in the NBA uhm I was thought to be the white hope I was going to save the Knicks I knew I wasn’t the white hope I knew I wouldn’t save the Knicks (.) it got pretty rouggh (.) cause the faans thought I ↑was (.) people ↑spit on me people threw ↑coins at me people ↑stopped me in the street (.) it caused me to ask myself really ‘well you you have to come to terms with this’ that meant I worked harder in order to achieve things (.) it ↑AALso meant I began to see that life is not aall good not all baad that individuals are not all good or all baad but we have each in both of us and that’s what makes us human ↑I want to say on one other thing because your question sort of invittes uh a focus on one big [right decis]ion or turning point if ↑I if I reframed your question a little bit aand and asked (.) ↑what are the kiiinds of mistakes (somewhat laughing) that I have learned the most from (0.5) you ↑know. (.) every tiiime you’re you’re in a situation with a FRIEND or a small group where you’re unkiind (.) unnecessarily (.) that is a mistake (.) whether it’s (.) and ↑there’s no ex↑cuuse for it [whether time] it’s stress or whatever and as you get older and mature (.) if things go well you learn from those mistakes and stop ↑doing that. I think another mistake for mee that I learned from (.) waas the mistake of not speaking out when you feel something deeply (.) for a chunk of my life I sometimes held back (.) and then ↑I realiiized that life is short my wife got breast cancer I realized life was short you might not live another ↑day (.) so speak from your heart what you beliieve that’s how I run this campaaign I believe the new politics is a politics of belief and conviction of ↑hoonestly telling people the truth (.) and thinking you can leead by appealing to their idealism all that came time from that mistake and senator the next question is for you (3.5) Elizabeth Green Lakewood California (.) I have ↑recently read stories about military families who have qualified for and re↑ceeiived welfare assistance (.) as president (.) what would ↑you do to sup↑↑port the people who risk their lives for our country the first thing I would do is a pay respect b raise benefits and pay uh (.) and I think we can ↑do that with a steady state defence budget (.) if we make tough decisions on ↑base cloosings tough decisions on unnecessary weap weapons systems and negotiate with the Russians in order to get a much lower level of nuclear weapons (.) and ↑then make take that savings and make investments in pay and benefits I had the same experience I ran into a young woman not so long ago she said she was in the Marines four years I asked

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

AG: DM: AG:

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M): EG:

BB:

580

Appendix her why she didn’t re-↑up. (.) she said she didn’t re-↑up because she wanted to have a family and she didn’t want to go on ↑↑food stamps (.) if there’s ↑anything that’s important in the military of the future it’s the TAAlent of our military person↑nel. (.) we will make investments in research and development ↑stay on the cutting edge in terms of technology (.) but you need the talent in order to operate that technology effectively (.) and that’s why they have to get moore pay and better benefits and (.) better training I served as an enlisted man in the United States Army uh I served in Vietnam (.) uh when Tipper and I were first married we lived in ↑Daleville ↑Alabama outside the gates of Fort Rucker (.) and we lived on a private’s pay (.) ↑I think it is unaccceptable for the men and women who serve in uniform (.) to ↑NOT have adequate pay (.) and for some of them to have families on food stamps I think that needs to ↑change. and I have sup↑ported efforts to change that (.) now they’re having ↑trouble (.) in the military now recruiting enough people to fill out the positions we have the finest military forces (.) in the entire world (.) we need to ↑keep them that way. (.) but we have to give them the resources to work with to ↑↑paay the people give them the ↑↑training give them the edu↑cation give them the stable uh social services look at that tragedy in Germany involving thee uh teen-aged family members over there (.) ↑terrible situation. (.) ↑well (.) you ↑know. (.) maybe that’s a special case but (.) we need to respond to what some people there are saying [time we need] to do more to support the ↑families. (.) and thee thee men and women in uniform I think it’s important to have clarity of mission too (.) so that those who are in the military know what they’re (.) fighting for (.) the ↑Cold War was clear. (.) now it’s a little less clear (.) I think clarity of mission is important uh and BE↑yond ↑that I think presidents or generals (.) have to recognize that they might be the point (.) but in order at the point of the ↑pyramid. but in order for things to work you have to have support of talented people aaall the way down the pyramid ack↑nooowledging that contribution (.) of the enlisted perso[nneel time] the sergeants I believe is critical uh in addition to serving in the United States Army I served on the (.) ↑Armed Services Committee in the United States Senate (.) and on the In↑telligence Committee in the House of Representatives (.) I have served on the National Security Council for the last seven years and have participated in reviewing our military (.) ↑policy. and these personnel issues are extremely significant (.) I would (.) and I think they have to be addressed ↑adequately. I also want to aadd. (.) that ↑I support adequate programs for our veterans (.) in↑cluding ↑increases in veterans’ health care [where it’s tiime] greatly needed the next question for you sir good evening my name is Dee Pinchback and I am an advocate for (.) disabled people and I’m a disabled person myself (.) my ↑question to you both tonight is the plight of this big voting bloock of people (.) who want to work (.) aaand will lose their benefits if they do so (.) our health benefits are the most important things in our lives to keep us going if we lose them (.) and we want to ↑↑work. (.) we want to go on we want to be

AG:

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): DP:

581

Appendix ↑fruitful. (0.5) I pro↑posed a neew national program as part of my campaign called ‘The Disability to Work’ program (.) we have the welfare to work prograam (.) to give ↑job skills. and ↑life skills. and other (.) hhelp to those who have been on welfare (.) to get into the ↑workforce you know what the businesses are ↑finding. (.) these people are the ↑most enthusiastic and productive people in their in their businesses (.) because ↑they (.) they ap↑preciate it so much more (.) they’re thrilled to be there (.) ↑well (.) we now have sixty percent of the businesses in America ↑unable. to fill high-paying jobs that they have ↑open. (.) and we have millions of disabled A↑mericans. seven million. uh uh who want to get into the workforce but can’t because they will lose their health benefits now we just passed the Jeffords-Kennedy legislation to extend for seven ↑years. (.) uh the health benefits and you won’t have to you ↑won’t lose them if you go into the workforce (.) we should do (.) more (.) we should also use (.) assistive tech↑nology. (.) to close the ↑gap and ↑not ask ‘what is ↑Disabled’ ‘what is’ (.) ‘↑what what are you ↑able to do’. [not what doesn’t work but how can we get you to work (laughs) (.)] we want to work uh (clears throat) ↑I think that the most important thing is to make suure that they won’t lose their health care (.) because a national government is standing be↑hind them and making sure that they get health care (.) that’s the proposal that ↑I have maade would provide access to y affordable quality health care for all Americans (0.5) disabled Americans would now be able to ↑earn money and would not ↑looose their coverage (.) I think that the most important thing is to ↑also recognize the di↑sabled. (.) as not being a kind of special population (.) for exaample (.) my father was disabled (.) had calcite arthritis of the lower spine I never saw him tie his shoes or throw a ball or drive a car (.) we ↑never thought of my faather (.) my mother and I even though my mother dressed him every day and ↑I (.) fixed his suspenders we ↑never thought of him as dif↑ferent. (.) we thought of him (.) as ↑that’s just who he ↑↑was. (.) and we have to have POlicy that takes that feeling and makes it a reality so the disabled can con[tribute to time] our society as much as my father did to that small town in Missouri we have to get all every disabled person in America who wants to work into the workforce (.) we need to moove toward universal ↑health care. we need to (.) continue the (.) Medicaid benefits tht that disabled Americans now get and we ↑need to pass a health care patients’ bill of ↑↑rights (.) to pre↑vent the health care decisions from being ↑made. (.) whether it’s a disabled child like Ian Ma↑loone. in Everett ↑Washington. or ↑any American (.) we those ↑health care decisions cannot be ↑maade. by bureaucrats and accountants (.) the power should be given back to [the doctors and to the nurses tiime] I’ll ↑say to you that (.) for this to happen again will take leadership at the very top leadership that’s willing to take a ↑biig issue and push it (.) not a ↑small issue not something step by step (.) but something that is compre↑hensive and that will deal with the problem (.) and at ↑this tiime given our tremendous economic pros↑perity. (.) ↑this is the time when we can do big things a↑gain. if we have ↑leadership that says that’s what we ↑↑will do. (.) I am running for ↑president because I want to [offer time] that kind of leadership on big things just like health care for all Americans

AG:

DP: BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB:

582

Appendix BS(M): JW: and you sir (.) have the next question hi I am Jackie Webber from Culver city uhm big money has big influence in Washington (.) and that influence starts with election campaign financing (.) ↑what steps will you take to curb that influence specifically with regard to campaign finance reform (1.5) I think there’s no more important issue in oouur ↑COUNtry (.) it’s one of the main reasons I made this ↑raace (.) it’s one of the issues that I think is most im↑portant (.) most people in this country think democracy is like a broken ↑thermostat you turn the dial and nothing ↑↑haappens and money is at ↑core of that problem. (.) and so ↑I believe you need to have fundamental campaign finance re↑foorm. which means uh noo soft money (.) ↑public financing of elections both general (.) general elections. partial ↑financing of primary elections. (.) and free television time for people who are in campaigns in the last six weeks of that campaign (.) ↑I beliieeve that the rich (.) the rich have a right to buuy as many (.) houses or vacations or cars as they ↑↑want. (.) but they ↑don’t have a right to buy our democracy (.) and this will take again leadership that is ↑unencumbered. and ready to challenge (.) we need a ↑COOOLD mountain stream [to run time through Washington (.) ↑carry away the special interests (.) and empower the people once again to make decisions ↑I agree with Bill Bradley and John McCain. (.) on the need for campaign finance reform (.) I would ↑point out to youu. that in ↑this Democratic contest (.) we are agreed on this issue. (.) I first pro↑poosed complete public financing of federal elections more than twenty years ago. ↑I don’t accept PAC contributions. in ↑this race. (.) I called ↑two years ago for the elimination of so-called ↑soft money. (.) from campaigns. (.) I think that we can do ↑more (.) I proposed legis↑lation. ↑ten years ago. to require ↑broadcasters radio and T↑V to give free time in election years to qualified candidates as a condition of their license. (.) I think the American people are calling ↑out for thiis (.) and while ↑I disagree with senator McCain ↑and (.) governor Bush on lots and lots of other issues choice gun control health care education Social Security Medicare all down the line (.) I a↑gree with John McCain on this issue (.) and I agree with Bill ↑Bradley on this issue. (.) if you entrust me with the presidency time I will [put time] this in the HHIGHHest priority category and make it happen (1.5) uhm (.) I believe that as I said this is the most important issue that we can deal with in this country today (.) that’s why I maade the run for president (.) in ↑part. (.) because I think that I was the ↑oonly candidate who could make this happen (.) ↑unencuumbered (.) ready to make this as a big fight (.) and I believe that John McCain and ↑I (.) we don’t agree on ↑this. (.) he only wants no soft money I also I want public financing of elections so I want bigger reform (.) but (.) I ↑also offer reform plus out there for all of those [tiime who are won]dering about who they’re going to ↑vote for (.) reform plus pro-choice (.) good on environment (.) major investments (.) in health (.) and in education which John

BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB:

583

Appendix McCain doesn’t want uuh (clears throat) you ↑know (.) I think Bill made a good point (.) in the process of trying to give John McCain credit for what ↑he has proposed uh I don’t want to gloss over the fact that both senator Bradley and ↑I have proposed public ↑↑financing (.) of federal elections uh a annd senator McCain does not (.) but he ↑dooes want to take on the role of special interests up to a ↑point. (.) and I think that he should be com↑mended for for that (.) now (.) ↑I think that a president who is ↑willing to lead on this (.) who has taken the in↑itiative for more than twenty yeears= =time= =CAN make a difference and (.) I ask for your help to make that difference an Internet question for you vice president Go↑ore. (.) from CNN dot com (.) now that we have a shortage of workers (.) do ↑YOU think we should open our dooors to more immigrants ↑well (.) uuh (.) you know the fact that we have this issue in the Congress every year now (.) to raise the limits for more (.) highly educated people to come in and take joobs that (.) ↑SIXty percent of the businesses in America have ↑open noow that they can’t fill (.) should lead to uuss (.) to take two steps ↑↑FIRST of all (.) we should address this on its own merits (.) ↑yes I think that (.) we ↑shouuld (.) allow more immigrants to come in uh as my Latino friends saay uh ‘somos una nacion de imigrantes y con orgullo’ we are a nation of immigrants and with ↑priiide (.) it is what has made us a great ↑naaation. (.) ↑all of us save the (.) Native Americans need only count backk uh (.) the generations to find when our ↑families immigrated here. or when they were brought here in chains we all came from somewhere else (.) but we should ↑also recognize that we have to do more to educate our own people and give the ↑job training necessary (.) [for American tiime] citizens who are already here to fill those good jobs (0.5) senator uhh (.) yes I do think that we need to open our doors to more ↑immigrants. (.) I think raising theee number for H1B ↑visas which are the talented highly talented individuals that the vice president is ↑talking about is im↑portant. (.) but I ↑also think something else is important in ↑nineteen eighty-six we paassed an immigration law (.) the immigration law provided for aamnesty (.) provided for an amnesty for those who were here before nineteen eighty-two (.) un↑FOOORtunately (.) a lot of the people who were here before nineteen (.) eighty-↑two. ↑didn’t get too the place they were supposed to goo (.) to ↑FFIILE for that ↑↑amnesty (.) ↑I beliieeve we should have ↑late amnesty for thoose who haaad (.) not gotten to it in time because they’re hhaardworking people they’re ↑in America to↑daaay. they’re the backbone of the country in many respects so yes H1B ↑visas (.) but ↑also late aamnesty for thoose (.) people who were here in the country before nineteen eighty-two (0.5) [time I was] discussing this with lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante the firstt uh (.) statewide elected Latino in modernn California (.) ↑history just ↑recently. (.) I be↑lieve that and I supported the eighty-six amnesty also (.) I think that any ↑subsequent aamnesty (.) has to be ↑carefully draawn to avoid creating (.) tensions that are unnecessary ↑and to be ↑coupled (.) with the kind of job training and ↑education (.) and

AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M):

AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): AG:

584

Appendix health care (.) necessary to fffully ↑integrate immigrants legal and illegal into [this time con]ditions that they deseerve to ↑live in (.) I think thatt uh this has been a ↑failing of of the Republican Congress and we need to address it well as I said earlier my wife is an immigrant (.) she’d be first immigrant first lady (.) I know what it is to be caught in be↑tweeen. one place and another place I’ve lived it (.) for (.) aall of our marriage (.) it’s an inncredible experience (.) I ↑also know that those who ↑come here (.) have to feel a part of this place I was down in Santa Cruz not so long ago with the group called ‘Barrios Sadidos’ (.) great group (.) TALked to a young woman who was a ↑junior in ↑coollege. (.) and I ↑asked her she was Latino and I said [‘what do time you] ↑hope for’ (.) and she said ‘↑what I hope for is that someday in America (.) I can be treated like everybody else’ (.) that is also a part of immigration policy making people welcome senator Bradley (.) for you (.) an Internet question (6.) from CNN dot com (.) ‘what ↑will you do as president (.) to fix the corrupting power of the lobbyists and the special interests on our electoral process’ the most important thing that uh you can do (.) is to CUT off the flow of money (.) from loobbyists from special interests groups (.) ↑too elected officials (.) ↑and ↑to ↑↑parties (.) it’s ↑pretty difficult for somebody to saayy that they’ve bought me for a thousand dollars (.) but ↑if they’ve made a five hundred thousand dollar contribuution (.) ↑to (.) a ↑party (.) in myy naame (.) it’s a more difficult thing to disprove (.) so (.) back to the question I believe that ↑fundamental campaign finance refoorm is ↑absolutely critical (.) it is the ↑one way that would ↑disconnect the way this whole system in Washington ↑↑works (.) secret deeals special interests money (.) that’s the connection and you have to ↑break it by making suure that you take money out of politics ↑that will only happen when people give someone who runs for president a ↑mandate (.) to ↑do that (.) because otherwiise the culture will not ↑↑change in Washington (.) and it is the culture in Washington [that time has to chan]ge and the people are the only in place in America that have the chance to make that happen (0.5) uh I ag↑ree with thaat (.) I think that we’ve talked about the issue of campaign finance reformm (.) in response to a previous question (.) but we ↑can’t talk about it too nt too much it ↑needs to be (.) uh e↑nacted. it is ↑one of the major issues in this in this campaign (.) it unites ↑UUS but it diviiides the two Re↑↑publican candidates (.) again senator McCain has made thisss (.) ↑pitch (.) and has attracted some support but thee ↑weeight of the Republican uh establishment is (.) apparently coming down on him as a re↑sult. (.) I sup↑port his efforts on that. (.) and I support the fact that bothh those senator Bradley and I go ↑farther (.) than he does (.) I ↑also support tough new restrictions oon (.) ↑loobbyiists (.) we should have we should let sun shiine in withh full disclosure and we ↑↑ought to fiind waays to uuse the Internet (.) to empoower whistle blowers with moore of an ability to to make public (.) ↑any tiiime there is some kind of situation that is (.) untoward [and then time]

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB:

BS(M):

BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M):

585

Appendix AG: BB: let’s just ↑jump on it. (.) and make sure thatt uh we ex↑pose it. (.) and get rid of the influence of special interests money (0.5) uh ↑last winter in Claremont New Hampshire John McCain and I shook hands (.) it was the exact place that president Clinnton annnd Newt ↑Gingrich shook hands (.) promised the American American people campaign finance reform (.) the only ↑DIFference is we made a commitment to each other that we could each fulFILL. (.) we wouldn’t have to (.) point to the Congress and say they didn’t want to do it (.) and the commitment we made was that if ↑we were nominees of our ↑paarty that we would not accept soft money (.) I believe that that is [an important time part] to consider as we’re looking at this presidential election (0.5) uh (.) I made that pledge too ↑two years ago called on Republican party (.) uh to do it (.) and I renew it today (.) I will ↑↑also say this (.) that if ↑you entrust me with the Democratic nomination for president (.) the ↑FIRST ACT I will take (.) if if you give ↑me that privilege (.) is to ↑challenge the Republican nominee (.) to eliminate the thirty second and sixty second radio and T↑V ads. (.) and debate twice a week (.) on the ↑Internet and before anybody else who will ↑cover it. (.) on specific issues [each time] time this question for you vice president Gore Jewel Bishop Redondo Beach California (.) it ap↑pears we have a system of dueling primaries (.) do ↑you beliiieve that the American populous would be better served by a system in which all the states that have primaries have them at the same ↑time.= =(laughing) well we have something close to that next week (laughing) (.) we have California New York annd fourteen other states (.) and the ↑reeason whyy uh (.) well actually you know (.) I think we ought to consider (.) a system ↑like that. (.) I think it’s a thoughtful sug↑gestion. uh but under our current laaaws (.) states (.) decide for them↑seelves. (.) when they will have primaries and uh and ↑caucuses (.) and then the two paaarties provide a framework within ↑which. the states uh (.) uh line ↑up a aand (.) in our federal system states (.) have that ↑right. (.) now in the future should we look at some changes ↑there. ↑sure (1.) uh (.) ↑I’m not sure any particular fix of timing (.) is going to resolve the major problem in our De↑mocracy today. (.) sure these primaries are a bit (.) uuh idiosyncratic (.) who knows what’s the rationale for when they occur other than whoever controlled the DNC or the RNC were able to shape it the way they want their candidate to have the ↑primaries (.) ↑maybe it would make more sense to have four regional primaries once a month (.) and have a focus on issues (.) but↑ I think it’s a deeper question than that (.) ↑I don’t think that’s going to necessarily give you better de↑moocracy. (.) when ↑I left the Senate I said I thought politics was ↑↑broken (.) by that I meant (.) way too much money in ↑politics. (.) the media was too super↑ficial. and ↑not enough politicians led from their core convictions (.) I got into this race to try to deal with that (.) to push campaign ↑finance refoorm. to try to be di↑rect with the mediaa. and ↑truthful with the mediaa and to try to ↑speak from my core convictions because we need a new ↑↑politics in this country (.) ↑not a politics of a thoousand attaaacks and a thousand promises (.) but a politics of [be↑liief time

BS(M): BB: AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): JB:

AG:

BB:

BS(M):

586

Appendix BB: AG: and conviction and direct comment to the American people if ↑you entrust me with presidency (.) I will have rregulaar open meetings (.) all across this country with citizens invited t to come in (.) and speak just as we’re speaking right now (.) and I’ll do it on a regular basis (.) frankly one of the reasons I ↑do support the u↑nique role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played in (.) giving were a smaaall audience (.) to the to too uh ↑let the candidates talk about their platforms in small groups is because you [can [have time] open meetings (.) like ↑that (.) I’ve had them here in California ↑too. (.) but I (.) with your ↑help. I want to have them as president ↑I think the most important thing that politicians can doo is to respect the people (.) to ↑NOOOT play scare tactics with the ↑people. (.) to ↑NOOOT use innuendo with the ↑people. (.) to ↑NOOT tell half-truths with the people (.) but to ↑level with them. (.) and if a ↑leader levels with the people (.) then that engenders trust (.) and TRUST is the absolute ingredient that’s needed in tough times [between a lea time] der and the people now questions from a panel of ↑journalists. (.) beginning with (.) ↑Jeff Greenfield CNN’s senior analyst senator Bradley a few moments ago you answered a question about (.) mistakes in your life by talking about coming to grips with failure (.) this raises a very uncomfortable question I can see but there is an ↑elephant in this room and I don’t think it serves any purpose not to recognize it (.) you have been ↑talked about as a potential president from the days you were in college (.) you have been ↑talked about as a serious candidate from the time you entered the Senate (.) ↑SIX months ago you were outraising the vice president his campaign was in some disarraay (.) you were aheead or competitive in in many of the key primary states uh you have not won a contest (.) Washington state went badly (.) and unless there is a miracle it seems that this journey will end on Tuesday the simplest way I can ask this question is ↑how do you think you got here (.) well I’m not prepared Jeff tooo buy the premise of your question (.) because to ↑daate the delegate count is ↑forty-one (.) to twenty-seven (.) only two hundred and fifty thousand people have voted in this presidential e↑lection for ↑↑delegates (.) on next Tuesday eight and a half million people will vote (.) and about a third of the delegates will be selected (.) ↑THAT is the ↑DAAAY that (.) we will have a ↑NAAtional primary (.) and that is the day that I think that you have to take off (.) and so ↑I’m looking at the next Tuuesday as thee take-off day for me (.) I ↑ALso know that uht in this raace that (.) I am ↑in it to change the political process (.) I’m ↑in it because of an ↑open and v an open commitment to i↑dealism (.) to get beyond the ↑interest group politics of Washington where you try to stuff groups (.) with money but instead appeal to individuals as Americans and as human [beings time] that is what I will continue do through the duration I ↑think one of the things thatt uh senator Bradley and I agree onn and probably a lot of others running for president (.) agree on is that we prefer to get questions about substance rather than (.) process (.) I respect your (.) ↑question. (.) but ↑let me say that I beliiieve that there are many purposes (.) in a presidential campaign (.) ↑one that (.)

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M): JF:

BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

587

Appendix ↑tends to dominate is to give the American people an opportunity to ↑chooose ↑WHO will lead this country (.) for the next four years (.) but the purpose of a campaign is ↑also for us to define who we are (.) as a people and as a nation (.) and to haave uh uh an en↑nobling educating revealing dis↑cussion. (.) about ↑aaall the challenges that we ↑↑face (.) review some of the propoosed solutions (.) now (.) we have been ↑doing that in this campaign. aand (.) ↑I believe very deeply (.) that once this dialogue is over with (.) those who who agree with the common values= =time= =that we have expressed are going to want to see ↑them enaacted (.) in the general election another thing about this kind of campaign national campaign is quite ↑frankly (.) ↑those people you meet along the road that enrich your life (.) and leave indelible imprints (.) I was out in Spokane Washington for example last ↑week at the United Steel Workers’ ↑picket line at the Kaiser plant (.) they had been out eighteen ↑months (.) I talked to a man lines on his face calluses on his hands (.) and I asked him ‘is it ↑tough’. he said ‘↑↑yeah it is tough’ I said ‘↑when is it tough’ he said ‘holidays’ (.) I said ‘what do you ↑mean’. (.) he says ‘for the laaast two Christmases I haven’t bought a Christmas tree for my family [cause I couldn’t ttiime]. do it’ I met a couple three days ago named Dillon and Christine Malone (.) who haaave a sixmonth-old baby Ian I referred to him earlier (.) he ↑needs nursing care at ↑home. (.) theeir insurance company informed them that it was going to be cut ↑↑off (.) even though the pediatrician said it is needed (.) they asked ↑mee if I would contact the ↑company (.) and ask him to change their minds (.) I did so (.) I made contact first of all by ↑publicly confronting them (.) and then I had th the [time pleasant expe]rience of being able to call the company and thank them for changing their minds (.) but it shouldn’t take going on national television (.) we need to pass a health care patients’ bill of rights to give ↑every family (.) the opportunity to [time have the] medical decisions (.) made by doctors and not accountants Ron Brownstein with a question senator Bradley I feel a personal obligation to uphold yoour characterization of the media as superficial so (.) let me ask you about another elephant in the room uuh you have been a ↑bit more miild in your comments tonight (.) but over the last several weeks you have rather forcefully questioned vice president Gore’s congressional record on guns on abortion on tobacco (.) are ↑↑you saaaying that as president you think he would revert (.) to an agenda that would be ↑sympathetic to the NRAa (.) ↑unsympathetic to federal regulation of tobaccoo (.) and questionable in its commitment to abortion is ↑that the indictment you are ↑leveling= =uuh ↑what I’m saying is that when you run for president your public record iis important (.) it defines who you aaare (.) it defines what fights you have ↑↑made. (.) and that is precisely what I was saying when I pointed out those aspects (.) uuh I think no ↑quesstion. eighty-four percent right-to-life voting record in ↑Congress (.) uh in terms of the NR↑Aa (.) he has e↑vooolved (.) I’m glad he has evoolved (.) in the course of this

BS(M): AG: BB:

BS(M): BB. AG:

BS(M): AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): RB:

BB:

588

Appendix campaign his campaign said on three separate gave three answers on Medicaid abortions in a forty-eight-hour ↑period. (.) he said there was no he never voted against Roe versus ↑Wade. (.) but indeeeed I think that there is a (.) counter to that in the course of this campaign (.) TO ↑MEEE the question is not (.) is what kind of president you are going to be (.) and ↑Ii beliieve thaat if you are consistent on matters of ↑principle. (.) that that is ↑relevant. to conside↑ration. in a campaign time ↑let me tell you where I staand on both of those ↑issues (.) I’m pro-choice (.) I will defend a woman’s right to choose regardless of her economic circumstances (.) I will not al↑loow. Roe v. ↑Wade. to be overturned (.) early in my career I oppoosed public ↑funding for abortions (.) I never (.) supported the criminalization (.) of abortion (.) in thoose daays many us saw the phrase ‘pro-↑choice’. as referring to supporting Roe v. ↑↑Wade ↑I was always attacked in those ↑days. for for sup↑↑porting Roe v. Wade on guns uh (.) ↑I have ↑seen the ↑rising ↑tide of ↑violence. we had another incident to↑day. a tragic incident ↑yesterday. HOW MAny ↑↑millions of Americans have come to the same view I have (.) that we’ve got to take ↑oon the NRA. (.) we have GOT to have meaningful common sense gun controls ↑not for ↑hunters. and ↑sportsmen. and in ↑ways. tht that arre ↑contrary to (.) our country (.) our country’s values (.) but to get guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn’t have them= =time (0.5) uh ↑let me give you an example where I think the record will be a problem in this campaign (.) uuuh in the in his congressional career Al voted ↑five times to (.) support the tax-exempt status for schools that practice racial discrimination such as Bob Jones (.) Re↑↑publicans are down at Bob Jones Universi↑ty preaching the ↑old conservatism (.) and I guarantee you we should be at↑↑taaacking them for that (.) but when we at↑tack them (.) if you attack them for thaaat. then they are going to come right back and point to ↑those ↑↑votes. and it is going to be [time a very] difficult case to make WELL I’m ↑SORRY you brought that up again. because I dis↑posed of that in the last debate. by pointing out to you that Bob Jones University (.) still doesn’t haave its tax exemption because it ↑lost its tax exemption [under the laaaw LIKE Bob Jones University] that I sup↑↑ported and that was a vote on quotas (.) now those of ↑us who support affirmative action (.) have to oppose quotas there is a (.) ffundamental difference (.) and if you ↑WANT to go back twenty years we can talk about thee vote for the ReaganBush budget cuts uuh again. (.) because that was the same year. time (0.5) senator Bradley (.) a few minutes agoo (.) you said you are looking at next Tuesday as the take-off point (.) at the Apollo ↑Theater (.) last Monday in the debate (.) you said you would support vice president Gore if he wins your party’s nomination ↑was ↑thaat a concession to the inevitable (.) uh no (laughing) (.) ↑I don’t think that was a concession to the inevitable (.) I think take-off time is ↑Tuuesday (.) and Ii would like to take the remaainder of my tiime to come back to the last question (.) uuh because I ↑don’t think it is unimportant (.) I meeean we ↑know what happened in America (.) there was deesegregation of educational institutions (.) then white ↑uh southerners began to take their students to

BS(M): AG:

BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB: AG:

BB: AG:

BS(M):

BB:

589

Appendix private academies that had tax-exempt staatus. (.) Jimmy Carter came in as president of the United States he said ↑this is we are finished with this (.) and he got his IRS to go after them (.) the ↑IRS went aafter them (.) they disallowed the deduction (.) and then those individuals went to the ↑↑Congress to try get the ↑↑Congress to overruule the IRS decision (.) to disallow tax-exempt status ↑that is what this was all about (.) and the people who said this was ↑↑quootas was really Bob Dornan (.) in California you know who Bob Dornan is that was the author of one of the a↑↑m[endments tiime] well the ↑people who said it was quotas are those who reeead the underlying regu↑lation drafted by the IR↑↑S (.) it had spe↑cific numerical ↑↑quotas (.) that is why three hundred and seventy-three members of the House of Representatives voted the same way (.) ↑I did (.) including (.) the majority of ↑Democrats (.) noow uh the ↑↑pooint is (.) the ↑underlying law which I supported (.) took a↑waaay the tax exemption for Bob Jones University. (.) listen (.) Bob Jones University discriminates. and the LEAders of that university (.) have condemned ↑Catholics (.) have condemned the Church of the Latter-Day ↑Saints (.) have condemned have criticiiized the ↑Poope (.) uh in some of the ↑MOOOST. int↑eeemperate. (.) statements that you can possibly (.) i↑magine (.) now to for some of those on the other side to throw their lot inn with ↑theem. (.) now I welcome thee the letter that governor Bush sent (.) but ↑you know (.) that that was a calculated decision that he made early oon =time= =and ↑Ii do not. (.) support that kind of approach or discrimination (3.) thirty seconds well you know the point is you might have voted (.) for the underlying biiill (.) but this was an the a↑mendment. aaand the a↑mendment. actually gaaave and protected the taxexempt status of these segregated a↑cademies (.) that is why the Black Caucus uniformly op↑↑posed it (.) ↑they knew what was going ↑↑ooon (.) they under↑stood what this meant in America (.) and if you can saay that you have learned and evolved on abortion (.) on guuns I think it is important that you be able to face up to this vote and say how you have changed and whyy. (4.5) well. (.) ↑I (.) oppose quotas. aand I would vote against quotas every tiime they are put up (.) president Clinton and I have taken the approach known by the phrase ‘mend it (.) don’t end it’ (.) and ↑frankly the court decisions (.) that have struck down ↑some affirmative action. (.) ↑scheemes. can only be overcoome (.) if we strictly avoid the ↑↑quota approach which thatt (.) uh (.) represented and instead ↑mend it. [time and and ↑ke]eep affirmative action and en↑force it and en↑force our civil rights laws (.) because they are still needed for ↑↑women and La↑tinos as well as African-Americans we are down to closing statements fromm both candidates Mr. vice ↑president the floor is yours I I think that we flipped and [I think I go second this time I I I’m sorry] we’re going to pause and then we will have (.) closing statements (.) we’ll be back in a moment (COMMERCIAL BREAK) aa ninety-minute debate seems like a long time (.) but it really isn’t and we have come to the final segment (.) of this debate between these ↑candidates (.) leading off with a

BS(M): AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): AG: BS(M):

BS(M):

590

Appendix closing statement vice president Al Gore we can ALL be ↑prooud of the record of accomplishments in these past seven ↑years. (.) look at California for example (.) we have just entered the period of the loongest economic recovery in the entire history of the United States of America (.) instead of the biggest deficits that the Reagan-Bush years left us ↑with (.) we ↑now have the biggest surpluses here in California thanks in significant part to the great leadership of governor Gray ↑Davis (.) we are ↑seeeing an economic boom in↑↑stead of looosing eleven thoousand jobs a ↑yeear (.) California is now gaining three hundred thousand jobs a year we have the cleanest air in water in a generation (.) the ↑core of my candidacy is to build upon that progress and make sure no one is left behind (.) and use it to ↑reach out to make the sweeping changes necessary to pro↑tect California’s coast against any new oil drilling (.) imaaagine the country we can have (.) when we educate ↑every child to the utmost (.) when we move step by step to uni↑versal health care (.) when we (.) drop the level of violence and make our communities safe (.) ↑I ASK for your support (.) in the California primary March seventh and around this ↑country= =time= =to be president (.) and if you en↑trust me with the presidency (.) I will fight for you senator (clears throat) I have been on the road in America for thirty years (.) there has been ↑one continuum to all that travel (.) and that’s me going out and asking (.) people to tell me their ↑stories many of which I have shared with you tonight (.) and (.) ac↑cumulation of all those stories has given me a sense of who the American people are (.) and ↑basically I think we are good people (.) I think there is ↑goodness. (.) in moost of us (.) and yet as Dr. Martin Luther ↑King saaid trying to explain why the civil rights revolution (.) didn’t occur ↑sooner (.) he said (.) it was because of the ↑SIIlence (.) of good people (.) what my campaign is abooout is asking ↑good people to come foorward and join us (.) so that our ↑↑voices can be ↑heard (.) so that we will create a world of ↑new possibilities where we can get fundamental reform of our political ↑process (.) where everyone will have health insurance where our ↑schoools will be res↑ponsive where poverty will be reduced [time and where] we will be able to live as brothers and sisters in a great democracy (1.5) and thus this debate’s concluding appeals from two very honorable candidates (.) again we thank thee ‘Los Angeles Tiimes’ for co-sponsoring this evening (.) ↑please stay tuned for a special post-debate edition of ‘Larry King Liive’ (.) both candidates will appear (.) and tomorrow ↑↑night from the same location the Republican presidential candidates debate (.) moderated byy Judy Woodruff (.) at nine p.m. eastern (.) I’m Bernard Shaw (.) ↑good night from the Harry Chandler Auditorium (.) at the ‘Los Angeles Tiimes’

AG:

BS(M): AG: BS(M): BB:

BS(M): BB: BS(M):

591

Appendix Republican Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Manchester, NH. CNN Especial Event Aired March 2nd, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Judy Woodruff (JW(M)) Jeff Greenfield (JG) George W. Bush (GWB) Doyle McManus (DMCM) John McCain (JMC) Alan Keys (AK) Audience (A) JW(M): Good evening and welcome to the headquarters of ‘The Los Angeles Tiiimes’ (.) we are here in the ↑Harry Chandler Auditorium (.) this is the tweelfth tiime the Republican presidential candidates have met and the last time they will answer ↑questions be↑fore they compete in their thirteen crucial primaries (.) across the country next Tuesday (.) we want to thank ‘The Los Angeles Times’ for cosponsoring this event (.) which will laast sixty minutes (.) and for which the candidates’ staffs have agreed to a few simple ruules (.) the candidates will have ↑one minute to answer each question and thirty seconds to answer a follow-up (.) the questions will come from our panelists aand from me (.) a draw determined the order of the first round of questions and we begin with governor Bush and Jeff Greenfield [Jeff thank you] governor since Republicans are going to decide who gets the delegates here and in New York (.) let me channel the question from an undecided Republican (.) ↑you and senator McCain are both conservatives uuh your policy differences don’t seem matters of life and death you have both been elected and reelected in your home states (.) and you BOTH say according to the surveys you’ll get the lion’s share of the Republican vote whichever of you is the nominee (.) but (.) ↑senator Mc↑Caain has shown an ability the get independents and Democrats and if the ↑surveys are right (.) they’ll stay with him in the fall if he is the nominee but not with you so unless there is a reason why senator McCain is unaccceptable as a Republican (.) ↑why shouldn’t I go as an undecided Republican with a clearly more electable ↑candidate well I disagree with thatt presumption thatt uh independents are going to stay only with him (.) what A↑merica is looking for is someone to set a hopeful vision future what A↑merica wants (.) is somebody to speak clearly about education (.) what A↑merica is looking for is somebody who is going to (.) who’s going to strengthen the military to keep the peace what A↑mericans are worried about is the high tax burden on the working people what A↑merica is looking for is somebody who has been a ↑prooven ↑leader (.) somebody who has set an agenda (.) somebody who has (.) risen above ↑politics when given the chance to be the chief executive officer and that’s my record in the state of Texas Jeff (.) people are looking for a fresh start after a season of cynicism in Washington D.C. (.) I want to (.) con↑solidate our (.) Republican party I am going to energize the party like I have been doing in the ↑primaries and when I become the nominee I am going to reach out to get

JG:

GWB:

592

Appendix Democrats and independents it has been my record in the state of ↑↑Texas and it will be my record as the nominee of the Republican party but just to follow up (.) is there a ↑reason why a Republican voter should think that senator McCain is somehow unacceptable as a Republican nominee or are you just saying (.) you would be better no I think uh (.) you know I like Alan ↑Keeyes and ↑John (.) I just would be a better ↑↑candidate (.) I am a person who when (.) given the responsibility of being the chief executive officer of a state I have performed our test scores are up (.) in the state of Texas for African- American students and Hispaanic students (.) I reformed our tort laws and premiums are down on smaall ↑businesses in my state. (.) we reformed ↑welfare (.) but also confronted suffering (.) which remaains by rallying faith-based organizations (.) I have got a ↑record (.) a record that is conservative and a record that is compaassionate all right the next question for John McCaaain from Doyle McManus senator McCain I want to ask you in a sense the ↑flip side [the mirror image of uh Mhum] Jeff’s question to governor Bush (.) ↑↑earlier this ↑week you called Pat Robertson and other leaders of the Christian conservative movement ‘agents of intoolerance’ a little later you even called them ‘e[vil’ although mhum] you explained that that was a joke (.) but you do sound as if you have kind of declared war on a large portion of your own ↑party (.) and it’s a portion whose supporters make up a large part of the electorate including here in California so (.) what I want to ↑aask you is (.) can ↑you win the general election in November without the votes of Christian con↑servatives. if you win the nomination (.) ↑aren’t they likely to simply (.) stay home or perhaps even vote for Patrick Bu↑chanan well I don’t think so Doyle I think the fact is thaat uh (.) uh I have rejected the leadership of these two individuals they have led our party in the wrong directionn we have lost the last ↑two presidential elections we have lost the last two con↑gressional elections (.) the message of intolerance and ↑exclusion rather than inclusion is directly in contradiction (.) to the message that I have been trying to send around America (.) and that is (.) ↑come to our proud conservative ↑baanner. we will reform the ↑government. ↑we’ll give it back to you but th ↑ours is a message of ↑in clusion ↑ours is a message that saays come take part in this noble experiment (.) this is the greatest opportunity that America has had (.) and I want aaall of you there and that’s the Ronald Reagan Theodore Roosevelt Abraham Lincoln tradition (.) and Ii aam ↑positive that Christian conservatives all over America will flock to that banner (.) they will desert (.) I hope (.) the intolerant and and wrong-headedness of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson now senator as as you know the way the ↑rules work is that you could win the popular vote in California and other states but end up with (.) no delegates (.) because in (.) many statess uh only Republican votes uh will ↑count now you just mentioned Theodore Roosevelt (.) your (.) political hero (.) in ↑NINEteen ↑TWElve Theodore Roosevelt waalked out of the Republican convention (.) he said ‘thou shalt not steal’ he walked out to protest the ↑ruules that had been put there by the party establishment if ↑you end up in Philadelphia (.) with a big popular vote but a

JG:

GWB:

JW(M): DMCM: JMC DMCM:

JMC: DMCM:

JMC:

DMCM:

593

Appendix minority of the delegates (.) are you going to follow the example of Theodore ↑Roosevelt I would love to follow the example of Theodore Roosevelt he’s (somewhat laughing) my ultimate hero (.) but in this particular example nooo (.) I am a loyal Republican the Republican party is my home (.) what ↑I want to do is lead the Republican party baack (.) back to where we were before ↑back when Ronald Reagan was able to (.) assemble a coalition of the people we used to call the Reagan Democrats (.) proud conservatives who shared our vision for the future of this country and that’s really what I am trying to do with this party I am loyal (.) no matter who our nominee is [I will time] support that nominee next question for Alan Keyes Mr. ambaassador (.) a ↑central target of your campaign has been what you called the moral crisis (.) gripping this country (.) and yet ↑aall independent surveys show over the last six seven eight years (.) the abortion rate is doown (.) teen pregnancy rate is doown (.) welfare rolls are down (.) violent ↑crime rate is down. (.) now granted none of these are acceptable they’re all too ↑hiigh. (.) but my ↑question is (.) ↑GIVEN all of these trends are you prepared to give the current administration some ↑credit. (.) for these (.) very clear improvements oh not at all (.) not at all because most of those improvements came as a result of the work of ↑governnors. and Republican mayors like Rudolph Giu↑liani. (.) uuh I may not agree with him ↑on ↑everything. but I sure think he cleaned up crime in New York to such an extent (.) that ↑by itself (.) New York’s drop in the crime rate (.) has accounted for part of the drop in the ↑national crime rate as everybody knows (.) so noo. you don’t give to a shameless lying oath-breaking president (.) ↑any kind of credit for an improvement in the nation’s moral atmosphere which he has pol↑lluted. (.) with his lack of integrity and which the Democrats have polluted by circling the wagons (.) arooound that lack of integrity (.) as a ↑matter of ↑fact (.) ↑I think that that issue is going to be the ↑key issue on which Republican victory depends in the faall (.) in a ↑booming economy such as the one we have it is ↑↑HIGHly unlikely (.) that we’re going to defeat the Democrats on the basis of some economic arguments and things of that kind (.) uh but ↑we will be ↑able to defeat them if we driive home the point (.) that that betrayal of this nation’s moral heart ↑wasn’t the result of Bill Clinton’s foibles (.) it’s the re↑sult of the fact that the De[mocrats time have betraaa]yed the basic moral principles of this nation’s life Mr. Keyes if a president ↑matters and I’m (.) assume that you believe he dooes (.) ↑↑why did all of these indices go down during a Democratic administration (.) albeit (.) not enough (.) while they went ↑up during previous Republican administrations= =well you make a ↑wrong assumption (.) I don’t think the president ↑does matter that much (.) I am running for the office of president not because I think his POwer matters (.) but because I think the a↑BUUses of power that have ↑under mined the position of Americans (.) control of money control of schools control of their lives (.) it is the American ↑people (.) that have produced this booming economy (.) it is people who have ↑come to their ↑senses and ↑started in their ↑churches and neighborhoods and ↑schoools (.) pushing ↑abstinence prograams and ↑marriage

JMC:

JW(M): JMC: JW(M):

AK:

JW(M): AK: JW(M):

AK:

594

Appendix counseling (.) they’re the ones who have achieved this turnaround (.) not politicians (.) I ↑know the politicians like to hog the credit [time but it’s] the ↑peeople who have made the change all right the next question foor senator McCain (.) ↑senator up until the South Carolina primary there’s ↑no record that I can find of your ↑criticizing either Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell ↑or the religious right (.) in [fact muhm] (.) you appeared on the seven hundred Club back in nineteen ninety-fiive (.) in the last session of Congress you had a hundred percent rating from the Christian Coalition (.) you have been consistently supportive of ↑most of their agenda against abortion against funding for the aarts (.) [against muhm] including sexual orientation uh in ↑hate criimes (.) for school prayer for the constitutional amendment to outlaw (.) flag burning (.) my ↑question ↑iis (.) ↑isn’t your denunciation three days ago (.) moore politically (.) motivated and does it speak uh in a more po↑litical connotation than the sup↑↑port that you have given these groups for so many years well first of all I share their ↑values. and their ↑gooals. of the rank and file of thee so-called Christian right as I have ↑said. I am a proud conservative with a strong conservative ↑record (.) in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln I am ↑prooud of that record (.) I am proud that I have been one who has supported (.) ↑many (.) of the issues that have to do with family ↑values where I have differed in the paast and con↑tinue to differ (.) with Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson is on issues such as uuh the issue of president ↑Clinton (.) uuh ↑I voted to impeach president Clinton ↑I don’t believe he’s a ↑murderer (.) Mr. Falwell believes that he’s a ↑murderer (.) Mr. Robertson has s espoused some cockamamie theories about the ↑Freemasons (.) I beliieve that they have ↑leeed the some very good and wonderful people in a message of ↑in tolerance (.) we share the same values but th ↑their practice of politics is ex clusionary and not ↑in clusionary. [I want ti] the party of A Abraham Lincoln not the party of Bob Jones tii uh uh ↑senator (.) you [caa mm] lled governor Bush a ‘Pat Robertson Republican’ [are ↑you muhm saay]ing that you believe that Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell would play an active role in a Bush adminis↑tration. I have no idea but I know that they actively sup↑ported him (.) I know that they made ↑phone calls on his behaalf which cc accuused a a good and decent man (laughing) Warren Rudman (.) uuuh of being a ↑bigot a vicious bigot and many other things (.) but look (.) uh those phone calls were made they are done (.) ↑I’m interested in the issues of the daay and stop the squabbling and address the issues of education health caare the military and others that are important to the future of this country

JW(M): AK: JW(M):

JMC: JW(M):

JMC: JW(M):

JMC:

JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JMC:

595

Appendix JW(M): JG: all right next question Jeff Greenfield senator McCain let’s talk about education for a minute (.) uh under ↑yoour proposal as I understand it (.) you ↑faavor vouchers to give parents an alternative to the public school system (.) you talk about taking the money from vouchers from pork barrel (.) but you ↑leave it to the ↑states (.) to decide whether to use standardized tests to seee when parents can bail out (.) now (.) the ↑↑teachers’ unions (.) the public school ↑teachers’ unions th whose power you deplore (.) ↑given their poower at the state and local level (.) ↑wouldn’t it make sense (.) to have federal mandates for these tests to insulate theese states from the power of the teachers’ ↑unions. well I think you would a↑gree with that if you believed that the power of the teachers’ unions cannot be ↑broken the powers (.) the teachers’ unions in my state of Arizona (.) fought t tooth and nail against charter ↑schoools (.) yet we pre↑vaailed and the best schools in myy state (.) happen to be (.) charter schools (.) ↑I believe that it’s a serious mistake to allow some bureaucrat in Washington to deciiide (.) about the standards to be set by the people of the state of Ari↑zona (.) we have a ↑wonderful state superintendent (.) of education her name is Lisa Graham Keegan (.) I ↑think she’s perfectly capable as are the parents and the teachers (.) to be able to make those de↑cisions. (.) ↑↑I want those decisions made not by some Washington ↑bureaucrat. (.) but by somebody who knows my children’s names and that’s all got to do with local and parental control uhm to to follow up [sure ↑ssome] of your critics have said that while you’re very stroong in the area of foreign policy domestic policy (.) may be a different stoory (.) with education in the in the f forefront (.) of so many Americans’ minds (.) ↑look back if you would on your eighteen years in Coongress and and the House and Senate (.) and tell us (.) ↑what (.) is your most important contribution in the field of education ↑probablyy in leading the effort (.) in my being involved in the effort in my state for reform in many ↑areas uh supporting various education ↑programs uh a member of the Education Committee in the House of Representatives years a↑go and being part of those efforts as ↑well (.) ↑uusing the bully pulpit (. ) in favor of the examples that are set in my state and by other reformers in the school system in America (.) I mean (.) that are reformers of the school system in America (.) I’m glaad to have been involved in the t in the military uh to ↑teachers’ programs [time where] people who leave the military can become teachers if they’re qualified to do ↑so Doyle McManus ↑governor Bush my question for you is about (.) guns (.) over the years [you have op↑po[osed requiring not about education] but go ahead [(almost inaudible laughter) I’m sure you’ll get your chance] [(almost inaudible laughter) good] but ↑over the years you’ve opposed requiring gun manufacturers to include trigger

JMC:

JG: JMC: JG:

JMC:

JW(M): JMC: JW(M): DMCM: GWB: A: DMCM: A: GWB: DMCM:

596

Appendix locks or similar safety devices on the new guns they sell (.) you’ve said it ought to be (.) just (.) voluntary and senator McCain I think has disagreed with you on that (.) now (.) in view of all the ↑recent tragedies we’ve haad of children s (.) children getting a hold of guns and killing other children just (.) this week down to six years of age (.) ↑what’s wrong with requiring trigger locks on new guns= =I don’t ↑miiind trigger locks being sold Doyle (.) but (.) the question is how do we enforce it (.) are we going to have trigger lock police knock on people’s doors saying (.) ‘show me your trigger ↑lock’. (.) I have no ↑problem eighty percent of the guns sold today have trigger locks with them and ↑I think that’s ↑fine (.) ↑I think there needs to be laaaws that say (.) that if a parent is irresponsible (.) and a child ends up with a weapon (.) the parent ought to be held ac↑↑countable. (.) ↑I think laaaws on the books I signed such a law in Texas we ought to enforce those kinds of laaaws (.) I think we ought to have instant background checks where guns are sooold (.) I know we need to enforce ↑LAAW (.) and I I be↑lieve that’s the best (.) gun-control policy there ↑is (.) ↑law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves and their families I believe (.) [I think that’s now (.) but] I think that’s in (unintelligible) [I think that’s uh uhm now on] trigger locks governor the the law that’s being proposed wouldn’t have a trigger lock police out there (.) it would be imposed on the manufaacturer [at the faactory well that’s ↑fiine] [you can that’s pret]ty easy to endorse [but it’s a (.) there’s nothing (.) there’s no it’s a requi]rement that you haven’t supported until now [have I DON’T] ↑MIND I don’t ↑mind (.) trigger locks being sold with guns (.) I just don’t understand how you’re going to en↑↑force it (.) I think the ↑ultimate solution is for guns smart guns to be manufactured that require a certain haaand print in order for the gun to be used (.) I think that’s hopefully where society is headed (.) but ↑I have no i problem with trigger locks being sold Doyle what ↑I have a problem with is figuring out how you’re going to en↑↑foorce. (.) whether or not somebody is actually using the trigger lock on the gun in the first place now (.) we have paassed a law in ↑my state that says if a (.) adult is irresponsible in securing that gun and a child uses ↑it= =time then the adult ought to be held ac↑countable. Jeff Greenfield ambassador Keyes this campaign has been surrounded by a lot of talk about religion (.) so let me broaden it out (.) article six of the Constitution flatly says that there shall be no religious test ever required (.) as a qualification to any ooffice (.) that’s a prohibition on the government (.) but as an ↑individual matter (.) if a candidate for office professed to believe in no religion at all (.) do ↑you think that would be a good and sufficient reason (.) a justi↑fiable reason. (.) not to vote for that candidate ↑actually I have to confess that I think it’s kind of an irrelevant question at one level [uuh because (3. laughter)

GWB:

DMCM GWB: DMCM:

GWB: DMCM: GWB: DMCM: GWB:

JW(M): GWB: JW(M): JG:

AK: A:

597

Appendix AK: ↑no ↑seriously uh] th th the ↑first of all (.) that prohibition against religious tests was for the NAAtional government (.) just as the First Amendment was intended to make sure that at the NAAtional level (.) there would be no established religion in America (.) the ↑specious doctrine of separation as developed by liberal judges in the last forty fifty years uh which extended that doctrine to the states through a perverted interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment is simply ↑↑wroong. (.) and has been interfeering in faact with the free exercise of religion in this country (.) at AALL levels (.) at the ↑time that amendment was put in place ↑THERE ↑↑WERE religious tests (.) in ↑most of the states in this country (.) the founders couldn’t possibly have meant (.) for that amendment to eliminate those tests and in fact it was ↑worded in such a way as to make sure the federal government did not interfere (.) ↑as for the question of somebody’s religious viiews ↑I follow ↑Christ you know (.) by their fruits ye shall know them (.) and I will judge an individual ac↑cording to those fruits because I think they are the best indication [of heart time] not professions but actions and results let me follow up with an (.) another perhaps irrelevant question [uhm sup sup↑pose a can (6.5 collective laughter) (smiles) (laughs)] SUP↑pose a candidate beliieved that as a matter of deeeply held religious faith (.) that while he respected other faiths (.) ↑hiiis faith was the one road to salvation (.) would ↑those of other faiths (.) be justified in voting against him ↑see a a a↑↑gain I’d say (.) that’s a question that everybody has to make that’s why everybody gets into the voting ↑boooth. (.) in privacy and votes their own conscience (.) and it’s ↑not an issue that I think we have to dis↑cuss (.) people will applyyy those tests for their own vote that they beliieve are appropriate (.) uh and I think that that’s the way it ought to be left (.) and not Ii or anybody else should try to dictate or ↑influence that (.) I do think it’s im↑portant to remember one ↑thing though (.) that this nation was ↑founded on the principle that all men are created ↑equal and endoowed by their creator. (.) with certain (.) un alienable rights (.) and that means that A↑merica [time must] believe in God alright the next question for governor Bush and governorrr uh I want to give you a chance to (.) speak up on education but while we’re on the subject of religion uh there is a religion question I want to pose ↑do you have apo a↑pologized this week (.) to cardinal O’Connor of New York for ↑NOT (.) taking on the anti-Catholicism at Bob Jones University when you were there and (.) YET (.) there iiis as as you know a long-standing anti-Catholic strain among southern fundamentalists and evangelists (.) evangelicals I’m sorry (.) Billy Sunday for example waged a holy war against Al Smith as long ago as nineteen twenty-eight (.) uuh (.) many (.) many people opposed John F. Kennedy when he was running for president (.) uuh fundamentalists have long charged that loyalty to the pope to the Virgin Mary (.) uh means that they’re not really Christians (.) my ↑question ↑iiis were ↑youu (.) una↑↑waaare of this history

JW(M): AK: JG: A: AK: GWB: JG:

AK:

JW(M): AK: JW(M):

598

Appendix when you made the decision to go to Bob Jones (0.5) you know when I went to Bob Jones Ii uh (0.5) I followed a long tradition of both Republican and Democratic candidates that went to lay out their vision (0.5) Ronald ↑Reagan went to Bob Jooones. my ↑dad went to Bob Jooones. Bob Dole the Democrat governor from South Carolina the week before (.) III uh I talked about bringing people together so America (.) can achieve its ↑greatness. (.) I ↑talked about lifting the spirit and the soul of this country (.) I regret I did not ↑speak out (.) against that school’s anti-Catholic bias (.) I missed an oppor↑tunity. I make no excuses (.) I make no excuses (.) I was on one of those talk shows one Sunday morning and the (.) talk show host said you know (.) one of the Joneses’ referred to my ↑daad. in a (.) very impolite way I didn’t I wasn’t aware of that. (.) but I missed it what I REGRET (.) is somebody ascribing to me (.) opinions and views that are not my views. (.) calling me an anti-Catholic bigot (.) is not ↑right [time It] but you don’t regret (.) having gone there no I don’t regret (.) going to ↑many. ↑places. (.) but I ↑do regret guilt by association in ↑politics. (.) I ↑do regret people labeling me for somebody I’m not I have got a ↑record. of inclusion in the state of Texas (.) I have got fifty percent of the His↑panic vote in my state because I have reached out to people from ↑aall walks of life (.) when I talk about edu↑cation I talk about the education of ↑↑everybody in ↑my state of Texas. (.) what ↑I regret is the politics of of smearing somebody’s repu↑tation that’s what ↑I regret (.) and ↑I don’t ap↑preciate it one bit (.) and the good news is ↑Catholics from all around the country are coming to my defence and I am grateful for that Judy I think I (.) need my thirty seconds all rightt we do have an agreement among the candidates that if there is uh (.) a an attack well I ↑didn’t attack senator Mc↑Cain (hesitating) senator McCain I think we’re going to (.) we do have a disagreement (.) but I think we’re going to wait for you to (.) have your next turn and then you can comment if you would like ↑oo[ok. Doyle] McManus has a question well senator McCain I’ll give you your turn right now (.) but let me (.) ↑frame it strangely enough as a question about foreign policy [(9.collective laughter burst) (laughing loudly) we’ll see how] you can make the moove [(4. laughing) all right uuh] ↑during this campaign sir you you’ve talked about something that you have called ‘rogue state rollback’ [which means mhum] as I understand it arming and paying forr rebel armies in countries like Iraq to overthrow governments that we don’t like now (.) if we go a↑head with that policy

GWB:

JW(M): GWB: JW(M): GWB:

JMC: JW(M): GWB: JW(M):

JMC: JW(M): DMCM: A: JMC: DMCM: A: JMC: DMCM: JMC: DMCM:

599

Appendix and we start paying and and and and arming and training and encouraging people to attack a strong ↑government. (.) they may get into trouble (.) if there’s an insurrection in Iraq (.) they’re on the ground they’re fighting Saddam Hussein but [they need mhum] just a little bit of help to get there and if we don’t help them they may get wiped out (.) will ↑we have a moral obligation under ↑your policy to send American armed forces to help those folks ↑out Doyle I think youu have made a very narrow interpretation of what I call rogue state (.) ↑rollback (.) and that means that you do whatever you can (.) whether it beee the use of propa↑ganda. whether it be used to organize groups ↑ooutside. the country whether it be (.) arming and training and equipping de↑pending oon. what the possi↑↑bilities are (.) and by the way (.) the Congress of the United States three ↑years ago paassed the the Iraqi Liberation act which calls for basically exactly the same ↑thing (.) so I am sure that was taken (.) into consideration then no this is a this is an attempt to a↑voooid U.S. military involvement (.) we do what we ↑can. to overthrow these countries which pose a clear and present danger (.) to the security of the United States of America (.) clearly Saddam Husse↑in. (.) if you read any peri↑odical including the ‘L. A. Tiimes’ (.) will ↑tell you (.) that he is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to de↑↑liver them that’s a direct threat to the United States’ national se↑curity. (.) so you ↑really kind of have two choices you react militarily risking American lives or do you tryy to over↑throw that government. which is by the way according now to existing laws (.) I would uh [time I would] support such (.) thank you senator just to clarify [that (.) o o one more ↑step though (.) mhum mhum mhum] HIStory does tell us that when we go out and try [to overthrow another government it often mhum mhm reaacts by sponsoring more terroriism [or in some m↑hum] other unpredictable way now you you have ↑never listed which states you’re talking about (.) d does this include Iraq Iran and North Korea which (.) has missiles and weapons already (.) are you willing to go in there and (.) and poke a ↑stick through those baars and see what comes back ↑at you I accept the fundamental principle Doyle that they pose a threat to the United States’ national se↑curity. when North Korea tests a three-stage missile over Japan (.) they pose a ↑threat (.) and when there’s transfer of technology (.) which allows (.) nations to acquire these weapons of mass destruction they are a ↑threat (.) I am willing to explore ↑all options (.) all options to prevent that (.) threat from ever being ↑realiized and clearly those are countries that threaten our security (.) and ↑this administration has conducted a feckless photo-↑op foreign policy for which the next president of the United States may pay a very heavy ↑price. [in American time blood and treasure

JMC: DMCM

JMC:

JW(M): JMC: DMCM: JMC: DMCM: JMC: DMCM: JMC: DMCM:

JMC:

JW(M): JMC:

600

Appendix JW(M): DMCM: all right Doyle you have the next question as well ↑uhm ambassador Keyes if you’ll allow me to switch subjects (.) we are in Los Angeles this is the (.) capital of the world’s enter↑tainment industry (.) and a ↑lot of Americans worried about thee uuh th th the texture of our culture (.) uh the civil morality (.) ↑↑point their finger at ↑Hooollywood (.) if you were the ↑president of the United States a few ↑moments ago you said it wasn’t that (.) big a job it wasn’t a job that could do everything but what specifically (.) would you ↑doo. (.) to stop what many feel is the coarsening of our culture what actions would you take ↑I think the most important way to stop the coarsening of our culture is to return that culture to its basic moral ↑principle (.) ↑I think the most incredible coarsening of American ↑liife occurs. when we sanction things like a↑bortion. (.) which are bas ↑basically on the argument that might makes right (.) because the mother has absolute power over the chiild uh she can dispose of the child’s life according to her will. (.) uh ↑THAT NOtion that you do what you can get away with that you go after anything that’s successful (.) that you ↑make your profits exploiting human lust greed and what↑ever effects it might have on the decency of a society uh you go forward (.) ↑↑that is what is destroying us (.) so ↑I think the first thing we better do is get the house in order of the government it↑self. (.) so that ↑innn decisions like this that turn their back on our fundamental principle of moral character (.) ↑we go back ↑home to the principle that our rights come from ↑Good and must be ↑exerciiised with respect for the authority of God (.) having established that foundation we can re ↑introduce a proper understanding of the ↑limits and cons↑traints upon freedom (.) that we ↑inculcate with moral education (.) in order to produce people in ↑↑aaall these walks of life that will have [greater time] respect for our moral decency I think I understand your framework I didn’t hear a lot of specific actions though (.) the president appoints members of the Federal Communications Commission (.) the FCC has the ability to regulate television some conservatives have proposed (.) yanking licenses from (.) stations and networks if they don’t follow a ↑ratings system. would ↑yoou (.) favor that kind of measure ↑I ↑I would be willing to look at (.) approaches that were going to hold people accountable for their respect for public decency after all the licensing process (.) is a process that through out its existence has been (.) ↑understood to be based upon a respect for the neeeeds and requirements of the public and the ↑obligations that those holding licenses have ↑to the public (.) I don’t think that that would be a chaaange but only perhaps a re↑↑newal of the kind of understanding that we have always had of that licensing process (.) in the ↑EEND though I think moves in the direction of government censorship are noo substitute (.) for the willingness of our citizens to do what ↑↑they ought to do [time which] is police the use of their money and their time to withdraw support from those who are destroying our moral fabric next question foor governor ↑Bush (.) governor you’ve said that if China were to forcefully impose its rule over Taiwaan (.) you would see to it in effect that the United States came to the defence of Taiwaann (.) in so doing you departed from a

AK:

JW(M): AK: DMCM:

AK:

JW(M): AK: JW(M):

601

Appendix long-standing policy of the United States oof ambi↑guity in such a situation leaving ambiguous what the United States would do (.) are we ↑then to assume that you as president would commit U.S. forces to de↑fend Taiwaan no what the Chinese need to assume is that if they ↑violate the oneChina policy the long-standing oneChina policy (.) which has ↑clearly said that the United States expects there to be a peaceful resolution between China and ↑Taiwan. (.) if they decide to use ↑force. (.) the United States must help Taiwan defend itself (.) now the Chinese can figure out what that means (.) but that’s going to mean a resolute stand on ↑my part (.) it’s im↑portant for the Chinese to to recognize thaat we our relationship is going to ↑↑change. from one of (.) strategic partner (.) to one of competitor but competitors can find areas of agreement such as in ↑trade (.) but when it comes to to VIolating the ↑one China policy (.) the Chinese must hear loud and clear that we will help China (.) I mean Taiwan de↑fend itself the other side of that question governor is what would you do if Tai↑waann (.) were to declare independence and as president (.) would you take steps to dis↑courage them from doing that I would hope Tai↑waan would also hear (.) the call that a one China policy (.) is important for the peaceful resolution (.) of the dispute between China and Tai↑wan (.) Tai↑WAAN (.) must be must be told by our country (.) that the one China policy haas I mean re↑↑minded by our country that the one China policy has allowed this country to (.) Taiwan to develop into a market-oriented e↑coonomy (.) and to a flourishing de↑mocracy (.) it has ↑worked and the role of the United States is to use our prestige in the ↑woorld to make sure the one China policy remains intact Jeff Greenfield ↑senator McCain it’s often been said that (.) when potential presidents speak every word weighs a ton (.) on occasion by your own testimony uh you have had an occasion to use humor (.) and sometimes it doesn’t always go over so well (.) but to↑day William Bennett [th (.) though (.) (some individual and almost inaudible laughter) I think I am] (.) paraphrasing what you have said in the past (.) but TO↑DAY William Bennett the former education secretary the prominent conservative who came very close to endoorsing you a few days ago (.) caaalled some of your comments (.) irresponsible and intemperate (.) he talks about an emerging pattern with you in which and this is a quote ‘you portray those with whom you disagree (.) as not just wrooong but wicked’ (.) and he add ‘those who have been drawn to the McCain campaign now have cause to worry’ (.) now (.) ↑is the temperament (.) not temper of a potential president fair gaame and should ↑yours be a source of worry well I don’t think it should be a source of ↑worry but anything is fair ↑game (somewhat laughing) as I have found out during this uh this campaign (.) the fact is I respect Bill Bennett’s views he has criticized me on several times in the past (.) and I am sure that (.) ↑criticism has been constructive but look. (.) I have been in this uh in this campaign for (.) fourteen months ↑now. (.) uh I believe that I have conducted it with ↑honor with ↑dignity and in a way that has made mee and the people surrounding me proud (.) that’s why we have attracted ↑sooo. many yooung people so much en↑thusiasm to to our banner (.) so many people who have never been involved in this camp in politics before en↑thusiasm and the commitment to young

GWB:

JW(M):

GWB:

JW(M): JG:

A: JG:

JMC:

602

Appendix people show (.) that ↑my message and ↑my temperament and ↑my view and my vision for the future of the country is something that they’re able to look ↑up to. respect admire and be part of (.) we’re ↑changing the face of politics in America and I am very proud of this campaign and the way we’ve aall conducted it= =on a on a related and and more specific matter [I guess (.) mhum] ↑YOU had a couple (.) about a week or so ago repeatedly denied that your campaign was the source of [these calls m↑hum.] from the so-called ‘Catholic Voter Alert’ [and then mhm] said ↑well (.) it was because you thought you were being asked about caalls that were about anti-Catholic ↑bigotry (.) and that’s not what those calls said= =mhum= but is there ↑↑any reason why your campaign didn’t say (.) this is the Mc↑Cain campaign calling instead of a non-existent group was ↑that straight ↑talk I think it was straight talk because I wanted to tell people exaactly what governor Bush had done (.) I did not (.) I did ↑not accuse him of beeing an anti-Catholic bigot (.) it did not call say anything except he was there and waited three weeks before (.) he re↑pudiated it (.) but the ↑fact is (.) that that was a factual and fair statement and ↑one that I stand by unlike many of the phone calls that are being made as we ↑speak (.) and the negative aaads that are being broadcast all over ↑television (.) but ↑↑I am not here to squabble about that (.) I am here (.) to talk about the issues that are important for the ↑daay [time and that]’s why I am proud of this campaign and I staand by the [words time] in ↑that message governor Bush you have an opportunity to respond thirty seconds yeah uh I ap↑preciate that I[ii (2.) (2. some individual laughter)] if you don’t ↑think those phone calls labelled me an anti-Catholic ↑bigot (.) then you weren’t paying at↑tention to what your campaign was putting ↑out I guess (.) because the clear message was I ↑↑WAS an anti-Catholic bigot (.) that’s ↑WHYY (.) that’s why people all over the country are wondering about my ↑↑heart for a while (.) the ↑GOOD news (.) is that America rejects ↑that kind of politics the good news iis (.) we put that behind us in nineteen sixty with John Fitzgerald Kennedy (.) and Catholic leaders all across the ↑country are coming to my defence Jeff you have the next question governor Bush aafter governor Ryan of Illinois declared a moratorium on the death penalty because thirteen (.) uuh prisoners on death row werre released after DNA evidence (.) ↑you expressed coonfidence that all of the one hundred and twenty-one executions under your watch had been fair (.) but ↑just yesterday a prisoner in Texas on death row a man named Calvin Berdene I think it’s pronounced (.) was releeased from prison after a ↑federal judge found that his lawyer (.) had slept through much of the trial (.) re↑markably the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals had up↑↑held that

JG: JMC: JG: JMC: JG: JMC: JG: JMC: JG: JMC:

JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JMC: JW(M): GWB: A: GWB:

JW(M): JG:

603

Appendix conviction (.) and state prosecutors missed a four-month deadline for granting him a new trial (.) ↑press reports say that the idea of lawyers sleeping through (.) death penalty cases is common enough that it’s there’s a ↑↑phrase for that in Texas it’s one of those ‘sleeeping lawyers [cases’ (laughs)] now in ↑LIGHT of this (.) are you ↑still confident that the four hundred and fiftyeight prisoners on death row (.) have had their legal rights protected in these life and death ↑cases= =well you just made your ↑caase (.) the man is uuh (.) the man is uh ↑↑out (.) I’m sorry he’s out he’s a really violent person I hope he gets retried ↑soon (.) but the system ↑worked in this case Jeff (.) and the ↑question isn’t about the (.) ones that are coming up the question is the ones that have been put to ↑↑death (.) and I am absolutely ↑coonfident that everybody has been put to death is (.) two things one they were guilty of the crime ↑charged. (.) and secondly they had full access to our ↑↑courts both state and ↑federal. (.) I support the death penalty because I believe when the death penalty is administered surely swiftly and justly (.) it will save ↑liives (.) and ↑I understand good people can disa↑gree on this (.) but that’s my personal opinion (.) ↑I have also got the job of upholding the ↑laaw of the laand in the state of Texas (.) it’s the ↑law of my state (.) a chief executive doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws I am going to uphold (.) I will make sure every death penalty case that comes to my desk so long as I am the governor I hope it’s not that long by the way [(.) that I will make sure (some individual laughter) that the innocence or guilt] th that I weigh [heavily time] the innocence and guilt of each ↑person but governor (.) the ↑question in this case (.) is not whether (.) that guy may have in fact committed the criime (.) but whether in a capital case he has been affoorded full legal rights there are states (.) which provide to to criminal defence lawyers in capital cases the SUMS they need to (.) investigate to deal with witnesses but in ↑your state (.) many of these lawyers are being paid at barely (.) minimum wage levels once they get through all the ↑work (.) my question is do yo ↑are you convinced that the capital cases under yoour watch (.) not just produce the right result but have (.) protected the rights of the ac↑↑cused= ↑I ask two questions ↑Jeeff. (.) and that’s what a governor should aaask in a death in a state that has the death penalty (.) ask the question of innocence and ↑guilt. (.) and aask the question ‘does the ↑person have full access to both state and federal ↑↑courts’ (.) that’s the law of the land in ↑my state (.) and I upheld it ↑well and I am going to con↑tinue to uphold the law of the land ambassador Keeyes a question (.) another criminal justice (.) question (.) as you are well awaare a New York jury this past weekkk returned a verdict (.) ac↑quitting ↑four white New York city police officers in the shooting death of a west African im immigrant Amadou Diallo (.) he was hit ↑nineteen tiiimes (.) by the officers even though he was un↑armed he was carrying a wallet. (.) no weapon (.) are you comfortable with that verdict well ↑I I don’t know that I’m qualified to comment on it (.) or anyone else who

GWB: JG:

GWB:

A: GWB: JW(M): GWB: JG:

GWB:

JW(M):

AK:

604

Appendix didn’t sit ↑through the triial and hear all the evidence (.) the notion that because you are unhappy with the ↑overaall policies of the New York city Police Department (.) you will ↑scapegoat four police officers rather than base your judgment on the specific details of the case is a travesty (.) and we should never surrender to that kind of injustice the ↑people who are enforcing the law on our streets deSEERve that they be treated (.) with the saaame justice ↑we would expect and that means judge according to the facts (.) uh and the reason I withhold judgment ↑↑I didn’t sit through all the testimony ↑I haven’t gone over all the details (.) the ↑jury DID uh and they reached a con↑cluusion. that ↑I think they in conscientious detail thought uh was the correct conclusion (.) the ↑↑ONly thing I have heard from a lot of the ↑critics of this case have to do with the number of bullets and other things (.) ↑I haven’t ↑YET heard (.) a good case maade that (.) ↑on the facts that were presented and that existed (.) one should question that verdict (.) uh and until I ↑hear that case I’m not going to indulge in sort of emotional rhetoric [scape time] goating police officers ↑SHOULD there bee Mr. Ambassador (.) an automatic federal Justice Department review (.) in a case ↑like this (.) where you have alleged police abuse and the verdict goes in favor of the police= =↑↑noo absolutely not (.) Ii I really protest against the liberal tendency to want the federal government (.) to take over those responsibilities which rightly beloong to states and localities (.) on the as↑sumption I suppoose that we are to consider people at the state and local level too de↑↑PRAAved. to do justice without fe federal supervision (.) ↑I believe that assumption that the people of this country are too de↑praaved. to defend their rights and acquit their responsibilities as citizens (.) is a wroong. assumption (.) and therefore we should not turn over power to the federal government based on that assumption time (.) Doyle McManus [next question senator McCain] to try to get a real debate going here tonight I would like to ask you to answer the same question about Taiwan and China policy that was (.) posed earlier to governor ↑Bush (.) now. Taiwan is going to have a presidential election this spring there’s a lot of pro-independent ↑sentiment (.) on that island (.) if the ↑people of Taiwan through a democratic process (.) whether through their election or a refe↑rendum (.) move toward (.) declaring independence from China would you act as president (.) to ↑stop them to ↑dissuade them (.) or would you ↑step in and pro↑tect them well of course I would and the fact is thatt uh there has been a strategic ambiguity but the person who des↑troyed the strategic ambi ambiguity was president Clinton (.) when he went to China and called Jiang Zemin and the Chinese his strategic partner (.) and he destroyed the delicate balance of ambiguity which is ↑CAUUsing many of these problems now (.) which is again (.) an example of the fecklessness of the Clinton foreign policy (.) of ↑course I would tell the Taiwanese that they should obseeerve the one China policy which calls for peaceful unification reunification (.) of ↑course the Taiwanese will react (.) because the people of Taiwan and the government of Taiwan recogniize that the provocation of China would only lead to increased tensions (.) so (.) ↑yes (.) ↑obviously I would exercise our suasion over

JW(M): AK: JW(M):

AK:

JW(M): DMCM:

JMC:

605

Appendix them. but have no ↑doubt (.) as to why we’re in the situation we’re in and that’s because of the of president Clinton’s trip to China where this ↑long-↑staanding strategic ambiguity was shattered byy (.) in↑temperate remarks by the president of the United States well to keep moving away from ambiguity then (.) right now Taiwan is asking (.) us to ↑sell them four advanced missile destroyers (.) Taiwan is also [asking mhum] to be included in (.) missile defence projects JMC: DMCM: JMC: mhum= =are you ready to say right now (.) yep (.) they’re in no matter what Beijing ↑wants not no matter what it would be a careful assessment made by the Department of Defence and the State Department as to what (.) as wee has been our tradition in the paast (.) but I’ll tell you what I ↑would do without a ↑↑doubt (.) and that is that I would push the development of sea-based missile defence systems as from (.) the U. ↑S. standpoint so that in case of tensions in the region I could move those ships (.) very ↑close but in international waters and make it clear to the Chinese that the ↑COONsequences of aggression against Taiwan faar far exceed anything they might gain from committing that aggression time (.) governor Bush another I have another long-winded question (.) ↑you and senator McCain argue over who is the real reformer in↑cluding on the issue of campaign finance reform now the Supreme Court recently again upheld limits on campaign contributions (.) and yet ↑YOU have suggested that any such limits (.) violate free speech (.) ↑do you (.) my question is ↑do you therefore disa↑gree with justice Souter writing for ↑six justices including the chief justice (.) that leaving the perception of impro↑priiety (.) jeopardizes our democracy in other words do you think there should be (.) ↑no contribution limits at aaall that people who are wealthy should be able to give as much as they want to ↑you or any other candidate well it would be a little odd for me to argue against that simply because in ↑my state that’s the way it is (.) people can give individuals can give to a candidate the amount they want to ↑give so looong as there’s there’s dis↑closure (.) I believe that I believe that Supreme Court case uuh uuh (.) was a liberal interpretation of the Constitution I do (.) I believe in freedom of ↑speech I understand there’s going to be limits and I I ↑live with them. (.) but ↑I believe the best re↑↑form policy (.) is to say individuals can ↑give (.) and we ought to have instant disclosure on the Internet (.) we ought to let everybody know who’s giving to ↑whom (.) and we ought to do it on a real-time basis (.) so that nobody has anything to ↑hiiide (.) I ↑HAVE a campaign f reform package (.) a campaign funding reform package it includes banning of corporate money (.) and uuh labor union soft money (.) so ↑looong aas the reforms are com↑↑plete (.) so loong as labor union bosses (.) can’t spend AF of L-CIO members’ money for example without their permission time (.) ↑governor are you saying then that you th that ↑people who give (.) ↑hundreds of thousands of dollars even ↑miillions of dollars to campaigns that these folks ↑hooonestly believe whether it’s a Carl Lindner or a Dwayne Andreas (.) or a (.) trial lawyers’ association or some other group (.) that they le that they expect ↑nothing in return [for these gifts Judy you] ↑can’t ↑give (.) millions of dollars to a campaign [there’s limits

DMCM: JMC:

JW(M):

GWB:

JW(M):

GWB:

606

Appendix JW(M): GWB: JW(M): GWB: tooo a political] party you can well you said a cam[paign which] then funnels too the campaign =well. there are ruuules and there are laaaws and we ought to have an attorney ↑general (.) that enforces the laaws that’s what we need (.) we need an attorney general that enforces the laaws and we need an administration that’s hoonest (.) if you want campaign funding reform (.) let’s have hoonest people in ooffice (.) now I believe in freedom of speech (.) ↑I don’t like some of the aads running against ↑me. (.) I ↑don’t (.) but nevertheless people have a right to run ↑↑issue ads in America (.) that’s freedom of speech it’s it’s it’s an inherent part of our country Jeff Greenfield governor Bush you wanted the chance a couple of minutes ago to talk about education soo (.) here we go (.) uhm ↑one of the (.) ↑central objections that conservatives had about federal aaid to education back in the sixties was it was going to come with strings attached (.) as soon as Washington gives money they’re going to tell the states what to do (0.5) ↑unlike senator McCain ↑yooour proposal that that would permit students to opt out of public schools in in states requires (.) ffederally standardized ↑↑tests no it doesn’t [what does it require it it it] then sir Jeff it requires ↑ANY state (.) that receives ↑Title one money (.) to develop ↑staandards and accountability at the local level sorry I misspoke but it’s a federal mandate on the states to do that it is aa re↑quiirement that states in re↑tuuurn for receiving federal money (.) show us whether or not the children are ↑↑learning well ↑that’s my (.) Ok so let me go then I stand corrected but I think the point survives ba[rely it’s the] conservatives’ [(9. collective laughter) well let’s see (7.5)] let me climb back and see if I can (.) get to a higher standard [ok (laughing) (2. laughter) it ↑seems to me] a conservative’s worst nightmare to say (.) once you take federal money we will requiiire you to impose standardized ↑tests why not leave it (.) as most conservatives say in most areas to the local and state au↑↑[thorities ↑that’s] what we ↑do we ↑leave the testing to local and state authorities like ↑my state of Texas one of the reasons why Te our children are doing so well is because we (.) hold people ac↑↑countable (.) but there ↑must be consequences for an accountability system in order for it in order for it to ↑work Jeff (.) and therefore (.) ↑how about the system like it is to↑day (.) you re↑ceive Title one money you don’t have to show anybody whether or not the children are ↑↑learning that doesn’t work (.) that’s a system that gives ↑↑up on children (.) ↑that’s a system that just simply shuf shuffles children through the system and guess who gets ↑shuffled through (.)

JW(M): JG:

GWB: JG: GWB: JG: GWB: JG: GWB: JG: GWB: JG: A: JG: GWB: A: JG:

GWB:

607

Appendix poor children (.) guess who gets ↑shuffled through children whoose (.) parents don’t speak English as a first language that’s unacceptable to me (.) what’s acceptable to me is to say if you receive Title ↑one money (.) you must ↑show us (.) ↑you get to develop the staandards ↑you get to develop the tests but ↑you must prove (.) that the children are (.) learning to read and write and add and subtract (.) and you mark my words what’s going to happen (.) our children are going to start to learn (.) but if ↑NOOT (.) I won’t accept I won’t accept mediocrity (.) ↑I’ll challenge the status quo and this is what this plan does it seems to me governor that we’re saying the same thing but with different words (.) what you’re saying as a consservative (.) to these states is once you take federal money (.) the Department of Education an agency that (.) president Reagan wanted to abolish (.) is going to tell you that you must develop t tests correct= =to judge your children abso↑↑[lutely ↑ok] ↑youuu the state of Texas if we receive Title one money (.) you must (.) ↑show the taaxpayers that the children are ↑learning (.) ↑Jeff we have states and systems and school districts that receive money and we don’t ↑know (.) accountability is the core to successs (.) in order to make sure children are not left behind (.) it’s important to measure so we can correct problems early before it’s too ↑late (.) a system without accountability is a system that quits on our children in America (.) and that is unac↑ceptable to me [time I’m not] going stand for it as the president of the United States= =Doyle ambassador Keyes too ↑borrow a phrase from my friend Jeff Greenfield here there’s an elephant in this room that we haven’t talked about but it’s a wee little elephant as it’s (.) the limited success of your campaign (.) in attracting votes (.) and I’d like to ask you about that (.) ↑what does that ↑mean what has gone ↑wrong (.) is the Republican electorate it is Republicans you’re you’re appealing to you’ve been very eloquent throughout this entire campaign but (.) they’re not flocking to your staandard [are they well I’d] rejecting the ↑↑message or are they rejecting the ↑messenger I’d be willing to bet a great many of them have no idea that I’m running (.) becaaause of the media blackout on this campaign (.) I always find it interesting (.) you guys ↑play the gaaame (.) put the mask over the eyes of the people and then ↑aask why they don’t see me (.) and I refuse to dignify that little tactic uh with any more of a response than that (.) ↑other people in the country know what you are like and your colleagues are doing (.) and I’ll say CNNnn and people like this may not be (unintelligible) the ↑↑these debates have never occuurred on the broadcast ↑media (.) that reach the maass of the American people (.) you guys do all ↑right. but you don’t get the numbers that ABC CBS NBC get (.) and they have ↑NEVER ↑Even put ooon one of these Republican debates (.) and I think it’s in part because a lot of black people also watch what they do (.) uuh a↑side from that I ↑DO have to make

JG:

GWB: JG: GWB: JG: GWB:

JW(M): GWB: JW(M): DMCM:

AK: DMCM: AK:

608

Appendix one comment on what governor Bush just said (.) because I ↑just one short remaark because I think it reveals a lot about the prooblems uh with the educational approach that was being ↑talked about there (.) ac↑countability is ↑wonderful (.) but it shouldn’t be accountability to ↑government (.) it should not be accountability to the ↑↑federal government (.) it should be parents who hold schools accountable and they should be em[powered time] to do that through school choice so the money (.) [follows time] their decision and they [open time] and close the schools with their [patronage time] may may (.)= =Doy= =no I’m sorry go ahead [no you go Doyle] [you have a follow-up well let me just say one thing] about that if you don’t mind aand uh (.) the accountability isn’t to the government (.) accountability system lets parents know whether their children are ↑↑learning (.) ↑that’s what an accountability system does Alan (.) it’s it’s and I ↑know what I’m talking about because I we’ve done it in my ↑state (.) we post results so people ↑↑knooow and when we find ↑failure (.) we correct it early before it’s too late and if the but but wait a minute (to Alan Keyes who manifests the intention to intervene) and what I said was to ↑Jeeff (.) is that if the (.) sschool is not measuring up to the standards the parents get to make a ↑different choice the ↑money doesn’t go only to fund medi↑ocrity the parent gets to make a different [choice time (.)] with the ↑↑money we’re going to have to move on here [with a follow-up sorry ↑he gets thirty more seconds I’m sorry yes I do] [I get a follow-up Doyle I butted in on him I can use that follow-up DOYLE] [to answer governor Bush (laughing) (laughing) (laughing) ambassador forgive me] because I’m still genuinely interested in your political future (.) if ↑you’re in this to carry on your message and maybe at this point (.) not get the job let’s go out on a limb and say that one (.) of these other two gentlemen is likely more likely to get the nomination than you are (.) are you ↑going to go out and support one of these two (.) and ↑which of these two gentlemen is better-equipped (.) to carry your message=

JW(M): AK: JW(M): AK: JW(M): AK: JW(M): GWB: JW(M): GWB: AK: JW(M): GWB:

JW(M): GWB: JW(M): GWB: AK: JW(M): GWB: AK: JW(M): AK: JMC: GWB: DMCM:

609

Appendix AK: GWB: AK: A: AK: =well ↑first of all [I I I I’m sorry (.) ↑I have got to tell you (.) I’ve got to (approaches him and says something to him) (bursts into 3. laughter) (11. laughter and applause) LET ME ↑answer (.) the short answer to that question (.) I I I an↑noun (.) short answer] I I announced several years ago to ↑anybody who will listen (.) I will never again cast a vote for an individual I in conscience believe to be pro-choice proabortion not pro-life uuh uh based ooon the con↑fession of his ↑heart in New Hampshire (.) when John McCain told us ↑clearly that he would tell his ↑daughter it was ↑her choice (.) and every woman is somebody’s daughter so if you ↑tell the daughters of America it’s their choice you’re pro-choice (.) he is pro-choice he is not pro-life (.) I will not support a pro-choice pro- abortion ↑candidate (.) so [↑that’s time clear] enough and I’ve said it every[wheere and I say it good (.) tiime again] ↑here it’s not possible for me to do that senator McCain you get thirty seconds to comment uh I won’t waste more than fiiive. the fact is I (clears throat) am a proud pro-life candidate (.) it’s a very (.) very difficult issuue with that was raised concerning (.) one’s family decisions I am pro-life and that’s my positionn and I’m sorry that Mr. Keyess uh continues to miscons↑true it (.) but that’s his privilege I ↑would like to also comment (.) no matter how governor Bush slices it it’s it’s federal control of education that his plan is about (.) and ↑finally that description of campaign finance reform is one of the most bizaarre that I have experienced (.) [he ↑is now saying uh (.) time] all right thank you thank you. Jeff ↑senator McCain (.) whenever you’re asked why so many congressional Republicans your colleagues people you have worked with have supported governor Bush uuh the ↑answer that you say is it’s because you’re trying to break through the iron triangle (.) mhum they are captives of soft money (.) mhum. more than ↑↑forty House Republicans who support governor Bush (.) [vo mhum] ted for the most sweeping campaign finance reform bill in yeears the Shays-Meehan bill mhum. they in↑↑cluuude congressman Shays (.) a man who not only wrote that bill but has spent much of the past couple of years fighting the congressional ↑leadership mhum SO if ↑these folks who clearly are not part of the iron triangle or at least are willing to vote to ↑break it. (.) if ↑theey’re not standing with you if ↑they’re going with

JW(M): AK: JW(M): AK: JW(M): JMC:

JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JG:

JMC: JG: JMC: JG: JMC: JG: JMC: JG: JMC: JG:

610

Appendix governor Bush (.) ↑how come JMC: ↑well I think plenty of them respect and admire him more than ↑me (.) but the major reason (.) and the majority reason why ↑most of them obviously in ↑my view are (.) very concerned about my ↑candidacy (.) in↑↑cluding being frightened is because I am taking on the establishment and the iron triangle and everybody ↑knows that. (.) and campaign ↑finance reform is a key element of that (.) and governor Bush just said that he wants ↑un ↑limited contributions from individuals maybe that’s explains why there have been the sleepovers (.) in Austin at the governor’s mansion by the pio↑neers. (.) maybe that’s why it’s being set up the apparatus right ↑nooow of the so-called pioneers and other apparatus to raaise (.) ↑un limited amounts of money to funnel (.) ↑into this political campaign coming up in the same waay (.) that Clinton and ↑Gore did (.) that’s a matter of published reports (.) campaign finance reform is the key element (.) and an im↑portant element and a ↑vital element if we’re going to give the government back to the people and if ↑you’re going to allow people like Bernard Schwartz of Loraaal (.) to give a million dollars [time and tech]nology is transferred to China we have got (.) a continuing [time big pro]blem in America governor Bush you have a thirty-second (.) comment thank you uh you talk aboutt uh people (.) staying with me at the governor’s mansion (.) ↑these are my friends Joohn. good these ar (.) these are my relatives these are people thattt uh ↑eight people you mention in some scathing press release that ↑somehow questioned my integrity (.) you talk a lot about the iron ↑triangle. (.) and you’re ringing it like a dinner bell with all of those fund raisers with loobbyists in Washington D.C. [(2. some laughter) ok ok did you want to follow up Jeff uhm uhm yes on a ↑ffollow up] senator McCain ↑should you happen to win the presidency (.) the reforms that you advocate can’t happen unless you get the Congress to work with you (.) now you have described yourself as (.) frequently the also ran-in-the-miss congeniality contest [mhum (laughs) uuhm but] but ↑nothing can ↑haappen (.) with the Congress unless the president has a power (.) to persuade (.) ↑given the mass endorsements of your oppoonent (.) even though these people have worked with you (.) ↑should ↑that give voters pause about whether you can actually get something through the Congress should you be the ↑president. I don’t ↑think so uuh by the way George if I am ringing it like the dinger dinner bell you have got ↑both feet in the trough because you have raised five times the amount of money in Washington (.) that ↑I have (laughing) uuh (.) [look (.) I I get along ↑with them (some audience members laugh)] two hundred and thirty-four pieces of legislation is has borne my name (.) I’m proud

JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JMC: JW(M): GWB: JMC: GWB:

A: JW(M): JG:

JMC: GWB: JG:

JMC:

A: JMC:

611

Appendix of many major pieces of legislation playing a major roole (.) in foreign defence policy Y2K product liability refoorm (.) my committee ch ↑churns out more legislation than any other. I am very proud of my ↑record (.) and the work that I have done with all of my colleagues and if I have a ↑mandate [they’re going to follow all right time] all right we just have time for ↑one (.) last question and I’m going to (.) take the privilege of asking all three of you to comment ↑we’re interested in knowing how much (.) each one of you uses (.) the Internet how much ↑time do you ↑spend on it uuuh how much do you ↑know about it we’ll start with ambassador Keyes well I use it quite a bit my campaign has used it quite a bit uuh though though I ↑↑have to make one (.) comment though (.) and because I think that this whole campaign finance reform thing on senator McCain’s part (.) is just another example of the hypocrisy of these politicians (.) they have ↑shoveled the money in their mouths hand over fist (.) then walk into the arena professing to be ↑sshhoocked at the discovery that it’s there (.) and ↑then ↑turn to us and say ↑we should give up ↑our ↑right (.) to give money to support the causes we believe in (.) because ↑they don’t have the integrity to do their jobs [↑HOW about the Internet ↑we shouldn’t give up ouur] rights [they should give up their ooffices and (laughs)] [and that would be the right kind of campaign finance reform do you enjoy the ↑Internet] [(burst into laughter) and I think it’s the kind that senator McCain may very well ↑need (9. laughter) what it said what’s he ↑said (laughs) (laughs)] [do you enjoy the Internet (3. laughs loudly) (laughs) (3. laughs)] [I ↑answered I said ↑yes (laughs) ↑GOVERNOR BUSH (laughs)] what do ↑you think (.) about the In[ternet well] I put my contributors on the Internet for people to seee (.) ↑I believe in full dis↑closure and I think all candidates ought to do ↑that. do you go oon[line ↑↑yeah] I ↑↑do (.) I e-mail back and forth (.) e-[mailed how] my ↑mother the other day as a matter of fact [(laughter) how about the World she told me to stand] ↑straight (burst into laughter) (5.5. bursts into collective laughter) by the way when I was at your debate how how] familiar are you with the World Wide Web ↑I am fa↑↑miliar I can (.) click around and surf around [and but you know (burst into laughter)

JW(M):

AK:

JW(M): AK: JW(M): AK: JW(M): AK: A: GWB: JW(M): AK: JW(M): A: AK: JW(M): GWB: JW(M): GWB: JW(M): GWB: A: JW(M): GWB: JW(M): A: GWB: JW(M): GWB: JW(M):

612

Appendix A: GWB: JW(M): A: GWB: JW(M): JMC: (4.5 laughter) but let me tell you something] we don’t have tiime running for [president (.) we’re out there (laughing softly) (almost inaudible laughter)] we’re out there talking to the vooters senator McCaaain not as nearly as well as I should Judy my wife Cindy is a whiiiz and when I want to (.) find out what’s on CNNn or ‘The New York Times’ or ‘The Washington Post’ or other Communistt uh periodicals= (5. loud laughter) I always goo to it but th the] [phenomenal thing about the Internet as far as we’re concerned we have gotten like seven (almost inaudible laughter)] ↑million dollars in contributions over the Internet it’s been maaarvelous uh governor Bush talks about the interests in Washington I think he’s gotten seven hundred thousand (.) ↑seven million dollars people just coming in on the Internet and con contributing to our campaign because they want re↑foorm. they [want it’s (.)] the government back and they want it back in their haands [and all right that’s what this campaign is aall about and I’m exuberant about giving it to them we are nooow at the point where we would like all three of you too (.) give your closing statement aaand we’re going to begin (.) and by the ↑draaaw that wasss uh ↑done before the prograaam ambassador Keyes goes first yes one question that came up tonight is is worth answering (.) ↑why am I here= =[(bursts into laughter) (laughs) (3. laughter)] well you know] what the ↑REASON that I am honestly here is becaaaause with the ↑majoority of people in the Republican party (.) I am the sentimental favorite ↑↑I am the one you all listen to you ↑KNOOW I am saying what’s in your heart (.) you know that I speak the truth the true bedrock conservatism do it better than anybody who has appeared in these debates (.) uuh and it’s one of the reasons that my ↑colleagues uh did ↑↑not feel that they had the strength (.) to stand up and say kick him out. you ↑see because they know that that would rouse your ire (.) but if it will ↑↑rouse your ire ↑how come it doesn’t inspire you (.) to get out there in the vooting booth and staand with the same integrity for what you believe (.) that Iii stand with (.) here in this arena (.) unless ↑yoou the voters of the Republican party start to be willing to show that kind of integrity (.) our caause will be lost (.) ↑these gentlemen won’t win in the faaall. (.) because they don’t have the courage of our convictions (.) and they will not ef↑fectively communicate that to the heart of the American people (.) and THAT is what we desperately need senator McCain (0.5) as we approach next Tuuesday which may be a seminal event in this campaign (.) I hope you’ll ask yourselves a couple of questions (.) ↑who is most fully prepared

A: JMC: A: JMC:

JW(M): JMC: JW(M): JMC: JW(M):

AK: GWB: JMC: A: AK:

JW(M): JMC:

613

Appendix to be president of the United ↑States. (.) and ↑whooo is most ↑capable. (.) of defea of winning a victory in November and defeating Al Gore (.) I am ↑proud of the campaign we have run which has (.) attracted people from everywhere ↑yooung and oold ↑rich and pooor (.) to ↑our banner under the banner of proud Reagan conservatism that has expanded the base of our party (.) in a way that we haven’t experienced (.) since Ronald Reagan (.) I assure you and I commit to you that I will restore (.) honor and dignity to the White House (.) and ↑then I will inspire a generation of young Americans (.) to commit themselves to causes greater than their self-interests (.) I am very proud of this campaign (.) I am very proud of the fact that we have tried to build America ↑up (.) and tear no one down (.) I ask for your support and your vote next Tuesday (.) and I thank you for having me on this program Governor Bush Well I want to ↑thank my friends here in California for all of their support (.) and hard work (.) I am looking forward to traveling your state to earn your confidence (.) ↑Alan I dis I disagree with you I am going to become the president because I am going give this f (.) nation a fresh start after a season of cynicism (.) I have a ↑plan that says the American dream will touch every willing heart (.) by making sure every chiiild gets educated (.) ↑no child gets left behiiind (.) I have got a record of reforming education in the state of Texas I am going to take that record to (.) Washington D.C. (.) I have got a ↑plaaan that strengthens the military to keep the peace (.) I have got a ↑plaaan that keeps th the e↑conomy growing by giving (.) people some of their own money baack (.) the taxes are the ↑highest they have been since World War II and it’s going to have a draaag on the ecoonomy unless we have a president (.) who says that the ↑surplus is not the government’s money it’s the people’s money (.) and you should have some of it baack (.) I want to usher in the responsibility era in America that ↑caalls upon the best of our country it begins by (.) a president who understands that the responsibility (.) is to (.) bring honor and dignity to the office and that’s exactly what I ↑will do.= =time (0.5) governor Bush senator McCain ambassador Keyes thank you aaall gentlemen (.) thank you all three for being ↑with us (.) thank you our ↑panelists Jeff and Dooyle (.) and especially we want to thank ‘The ↑Los Angeles Tiiimes’ for cosponsoring this evening (.) ↑PLEEASE stay tuned for a special post-debate edition of ‘Larry King Liiive’ with special guest host (.) Wolf Blitzer (.) I’m Judy Woodruff and ↑good night (.) from the ↑Harry Chandler Auditorium at ‘The Los Angeles Tiiimes’ (collectively applauds)

JW(M): GWB:

JW(M):

A:

614

Appendix Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Boston, MA. CNN Especial Event Aired October 3rd, 2000. Duration: 1 hour and 30 min. Participants: Jim Lehrer (JL(M)) Audience (A) Al Gore (AG) George W. Bush (GWB) JL(M): Good ↑evening from the Clark Athletic Centre at the University of Massachusetts in Boston (.) I’m Jim Lehrer of ‘The NewsHour’ on PBSs (.) and I ↑welcome you to the first of three (.) ninety-minute debates (.) between the Democratic candidate for president vice president Al GOOre (.) and the Republican candidate governor George W. Bush of Texas (.) the debates are sponsored by the Com↑mission on Presidential Debates and they will be conducted within formats and ruules agreed to by the Commission (.) and the two campaaigns (.) tonight’s we’ll have the candidates at podiums (.) NO answer to a question can exceed two minutes (.) rebuttals are limited to one minute. (.) but as moderator ↑I have the option to follow ↑up (.) and to extend any particular give and take annother three and a half minutes (.) but even ↑theen. (.) no single answer can exceed two minutes (.) the ↑candidates under their ruules. may not question each other directly (.) there will be no ↑opening statements but each candidate may have up to two minutes for a closing statement (.) the questions ↑and the subjects were chosen by mee alone (.) I have told no one. from the ↑two campaaigns or the Commission or anyone else invooolved what they are (.) there is a small audience in the hall tonight they are not here to participate (.) only to listen (.) I have ↑aasked and they have a↑greeed. to remain silent (.) for the next ninety minutes (.) except for right now when they will ap↑plaaud as we welcome the two candidates (.) governor Bush and vice president Gore [(30. collectively applauds) (candidates appear on the stage, shake hands and go to their respective podiums)] and NOOW the first questionn as determined by a flip of a coin it goes to vice president Goore (.) vice president Gore ↑yoou have questioned whether governor Bush (.) has the experience (.) to be president of the United States (.) ↑what exactly do you mean. well Jimm uh ↑first of aall I would like to thank thee sponsors of this debate and the people of Booston for hosting (.) the debate (.) uh ↑I’d like to thank governor Bush for par↑ticipating. (.) and I I’d like to say I’m happy to be here with Tipper and our FAmily (.) uh ↑I have ↑ACtually not questioned (.) governor Bush’s uh ex↑perience. I have questioned his proposals and ↑here is why. (.) ↑I think this is a very important moment for our country. (.) we have achieved an ex↑traaordinary prosperity (.) and in ↑this election America has to make a an important choice ↑will we uuse our prosperity (.) to enrich not just the few (.) but aall of our families (.) ↑I believe we have to make the riight and responsible choices (.) if ↑I’m entrusted with the presidency heere are the choices (.) that I will make I will ↑balance the budget. every year (.) I will pay ↑doown. the national debt (.) I will put ↑Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox. and protect them (.) and I will cut ↑taxes for middle-class

A: JL(M):

AG:

615

Appendix families. (.) ↑I believe it’s important to ressist the temptation (.) to squander our surplus ↑if we make the right choices (.) ↑we can have a prosperity that enduures (.) and enriches aall of our people (.) if ↑I’m entrusted with the presidency ↑I will help parents and strengthen families (.) becaause (.) you know (.) ↑if we have prosperity that grows and grows we still (.) ↑won’t be successful unless we strengthen families (.) by for example ensuring that children can ↑aalways go to schoools that are safe. by giving parents the tools to protect their children (.) against cultural pollution (.) ↑I will make sure that we invest in our ↑country (.) and our families (.) and I mean investing in edu↑cation. (.) ↑health care. the en↑vironment. (.) uh (.) a and ↑middleclass tax cuts and retirement security (.) that’s myy agenda (.) and ↑that is why I think that it’s not just a question of experience governor ↑Bush one minute rebuttal well we do come from different ↑places. (.) and I come from west Texas (.) I’ve been a governor (.) the governor is the ↑chief executive officer and learns how to set agendas (.) and I ↑think you’re going to FIIIND uh th the difference reflected in our ↑budgets (.) I want to take one half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security (.)QUARter of the surplus for important projects (.) and I want to SEND (.) ↑one quarter of the surplus. back to the people who pay the ↑↑bills (.) I want everybody who pays taxes to have their (.) tax rates ↑cut (.) and that stands in contraast to my worthy opponent’s plaaan (.) which will in↑crease the siiize of government dramatically. (.) his plaan is (.) three times larger than president ↑Clinton’s proposed plan eight ↑years ago. (.) it’s a plaan that will haave uh ↑two hundred new prograammes as well or ex↑panded programs it’ll create twenty thoousand new ↑bureaucrats. in other words ↑it empowers Washington and to↑night you’re going to hear (.) that ↑my passion. and ↑my vision. is to empower Americans to be able to make de↑cisions for themselves in their own lives (0.5) so (.) I take it by your answer then Mr. vice president that in yoour (.) uh an ↑interview recently with ‘The New York Times’ when you said (.) that you questioned whether or not the vice president uh uh uh governor Bush was ex↑perienced enough to be president you were talking about (.) ↑strictly policy (.) differences uh ↑yes Jim (.) I said that his tax cut plan for example raises the question (.) of of (.) whether it’s the right choice for the ↑country. and ↑let me give you an example of of what I mean (.) underr governor Bush’s tax cut proposal (.) ↑he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest one per cent (.) than ↑AAALL of the new spending that he proposes for edu↑cation. (.) ↑health care. (.) pres↑cription drug. and national defence all com↑biiined. (.) now (.) ↑I think those are the wroong priorities. (.) now under ↑my proposal. for every dollar that I propose in ↑spending for (.) things like education and ↑health care (.) ↑I will put another dollar into middle class (.) tax cuts (.) and for every dollar that I spend in those ↑two categories I’ll put ↑two dollars toward paying doown (.) the national ↑debt (.) I think it’s very important to keep the debt going ↑doown. and completely e↑liminate it. (.) and I ↑also think it’s very important (.) to go to the ↑next staage of welfare reform. (.) our country has cut the welfare rolls in ↑haaalf. (.) I fought hard from (.) my days in the Senate ↑and as vice president. (.) to ↑cut the welfare roolls and we’ve (.) uh moved millions of people in America into good ↑jobs. but it’s ↑now time for the next staage of welfare

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

AG:

616

Appendix re↑foorm.= =we’re= and in↑clude fathers. and not only mothers we’re going to get a lot of those (to Bush) y’ have (.) go ahead well (.) ↑LET me just saay that (.) o obviously tonight we’re going to hear some (.) phoney numbers about what I think and what we ought to do (.) uhm (.) ↑PEOple need to know (.) thaaat over the next ten years it is going to be twenty-fiive trillion dollars of revenue (.) that comes into our treasury and we anticipate spending twenty↑one trillion. (.) and ↑my PLAAN say ↑why don’t we pass one point three trillion of that back (.) to the people who pay the bills SSURELY (.) we can afford fiiive per cent (.) of the twenty-five trillion that are coming into the treasury to the hard working people that pay the ↑bills there’s a difference of o↑↑pinion. (.) my opponent thinks the government uhm (.) it’s the the surplus is the ↑government’s money. that’s not what ↑I think I think it’s the hard-working people of A↑merica’s money and I want to share some of that ↑money with you (.) so ↑you’ve got more money (.) to buiild and saave and dreeam for your families it’s a (.) difference of opinion it’s a difference between ↑government making decisions for you. (.) aaand you getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself= =Jim= =so when y (.) let me just follow up one one ↑quick question. when when ↑you hear (.) vice president Gore question yoour experience do ↑you read it the same waay. (.) that he’s talking about policy differences ↑only. yes (0.5) I take him for his word (.) I mean I (.) look (.) I I fully ↑recognise I’m not ↑oof Washington (.) I’m from ↑Texas (.) and he’s got a lot of ex↑perience. (.) but so do ↑Ii. (.) and ↑I’ve been the chief executive officer of the second biggest state in the ↑union (.) I have a prooud record of working with both Republicans and Democrats which is what our nation ↑neeeds. (.) we need somebody that can come to Washington and say ‘look (.) let’s forget about ↑all the politics. and ↑aall the finger pointing. and get some POOsitive things done on Medicaare prescription druugs Social Securityy’ (.) aaand uh (.) so I take him for his ↑word uh Jim (.) if I could just [uuh (.) respond just quick because we need] to move oon I I I ↑know that. (.) the governor used the phrase ‘phoney numbers’ (.) but if yoou. (.) if you ↑look at the plan and add the numbers up (.) these numbers are correct (.) he spends ↑mmore money for tax cuts for the wealthiest ↑one per cent. (.) than aaall of his new spending proposals for health care (.) prescription ↑druugs. (.) edu↑cation. and national defence aaall com↑biined. (.) ↑I agree that the surplus (.) is the American people’s money it’s your money (.) ↑that’s why I don’t think we should give nearly ↑HAALF of it to the wealthiest one per ↑cent (.) because the other ninetynine per cent have had an awful lot to ↑doo. (.) with ↑building the surplus [in our prosperity. uuhm (.) alright (.) one] Three and a half minutes is up (.) new question well that’s about wealthy people [(laughs) (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs)]

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB:

AG: JL(M):

GWB:

AG: JL(M): AG:

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): A:

617

Appendix JL(M): GWB: JL(M): governor Bush (.) yoou have a question (.) this is a companion question to the question I asked (.) vice president [Gore ok ↑yoou have questioned whether viice president GOOre (.) has demonstrated (.) the ↑leadership qualities (.) necessary to be president of the United States. ↑what do you [mean by that. well ↑HERE’S what I’ve said] I’ve said Jim I’ve saaaid uhm (.) that ↑eight years ago they campaigned on prescription drugs for ↑seniors. (.) and ↑four years ago they campaigned on getting prescription drugs for ↑seniors. (.) and noow they’re campaigning on getting prescription drugs for ↑seniors. (.) it ↑SEEMS like. (.) they can’t get it ↑↑done (.) now they may blame other ↑folks. (.) but it’s time to get somebody in ↑Washington. who is going to work with both Republicans and Democrats (.) to get some positive things ↑↑done when it comes to our seniors (.) and so what ↑I’ve said is that there’s been some missed oppor↑tunities. (.) they’ve had a chance (.) they’ve had a chance to form consensus I’ve got a plaan on Medicare for e↑xample. that’ss (.) a two-stage plan that says we’ll have immediate help for ↑seniors. and what I caaall (.) immediately Helping Haand a forty-eight billion dollar program (.) but I ↑also want to say to seniors if you’re happy with Medicare the way it is ↑↑fine you can stay in the ↑program. (.) but we’re going to give you additional choices just like they givve (.) federal emplo↑yees in the (.) federal employee ↑health plan. (.) federal employees they’ve got a variety of choices from which to choose so should seniors (.) and ↑MY point has been as opposed to politicising an issue like Medicare (.) in other words ↑hholding it up as an issuue hoping somebody biites it and try to clobber them over the head with it for political purposes (.) ↑this year in the year two THOOUSAND it’s tiiime to say ‘let’s get it done (.) once and for all’ (.) and that’s what I’ve been critical about the adminis↑tration. for the same with Social Se↑curity I think there was a good oppor↑tunity to bring Republicans and Democrats to↑gether. (.) to reFORM the Social Security system so that ↑seniors will never go with↑out. (.) those on Social Security today will have their promise ↑made. (.) but ↑also to give younger workers the option at their ↑CHOIce. (.) of being able to manage ssome of their own money in the private sector to make sure there’s a Social Security system around to↑↑morrow there are a lot of young workers at our raallies we go to (.) that when they hear that I’m going to ↑trust them. (.) at ↑their ooption to be able to managge (.) under certain guiidelines some of their own money to get a better rate of return (.) so that they’ll have a retirement plan in the ↑future. (.) they begin to nod their ↑heads and they WAANT a different attitude in Washington one minute rebuttal vice president Gore w well ↑Jim under myy plan all seniors will get prescription drugs under Medicare (.) the governor hass (.) described Medicare as a government HM↑O. (.) it’s ↑noot. and let me explain the difference (.) under (.) the Medicare prescription drug proposal ↑I’m making here is how it works (.) you go to your ↑oown doctor. (.) and your doctor (.) chooses your prescription and no HMO or insurance company can’t take those choices a↑way from you (.) then you go to your ↑OOwn pharmacy (.) you fill the pres↑cription. and Medicare pays half the ↑coost (somewhat laughing) if you’re in a very poor family or if you have very high ↑costs. Medicare will pay (.) ↑all the costs (.) a twenty-five dollar ↑premium. and mmuch better benefits than you can

GWB:

JL(M): AG:

618

Appendix possibly find in the private ↑sector. (.) now here is the coontrast (.) ↑ninety-five per cent of aaall seniors would get no help whatsoever under my op↑ponent’s plaan. for the first foour or five ↑years. (.) now (.) one thing I don’t understand ↑Jim. is (.) ↑why is it that the wealthiest one per cent get (.) their tax cuts the ↑first year. (.) but niinety-five per cent of ↑seniors. have to wait four to ↑five years before they get a single ↑↑penny. governor I ↑guess my answer to that iis (.) the man is running on Medi-scare. (.) trying to frighten people in into the ↑voting booth. it’s just not the way (.) what I think and that’s just not (.) my intentions (.) and it’s not my plaan (.) I want ↑aaall seniors to have prescription drugs in Medicare we need to re↑↑form ↑Medicare (.) there’ve been an oppor↑↑tunity to do so but this administration has failed to do it (.) and so seniors are going to HAVE (.) not only a Medicare plaan where the poor seniors will have prescription ↑drugs p paid for. (.) but there will be a variety of oooptions (.) the ↑CURrent system today has meant a lot for a lot of seniors and I I really appreciate the intention of the current ↑system (.) and as ↑Ii mentioned. if you’re happy with the system you can stay ↑in it. (.) but there’s a ↑loot of procedures that have not (.) ↑kept up uuh in Medicare with the current ↑↑TIIImes (.) there’s no prescription drug ↑benefits. there’s no drug ↑therapies. there’s no preventive ↑medicines there’s no vision ↑caare. (.) I mean (.) ↑we need to have a MODERN system to help ↑seniors (.) and the ↑idea of supporting a federally controlled a one hundred and thirty-two thouusand page document bu↑reeaucracy. (.) as being a compaassionate way for ↑seniors. is (.) and the ↑↑only compassionate source of care for seniors is just not my vision (.) ↑I believe we ought to give seniors more ↑options. (.) ↑I believe we ought to make the system work ↑better. (.) ↑I know this I know it’s going to require a different kind of ↑↑leader (.) to go to Waashington to say to both Re↑publicans and ↑Democrats ‘↑let’s come together’ (.) you’ve had your chance uh vice president you’ve been there for eight years (.) and nothing has been ↑doone. (.) and my point iis is that (.) ↑my plan not only (.) trusts seniors with ↑ooptions. (.) my plAan sets aside three point four trillion dollars for Medicare over the next (.) ten YEARS (.) my plan ↑also saays it’s going to re↑quiire a new approach in Washington D.C. (.) it’s going to require somebody who can work across the partisan divide if if if I could res↑pond to that. (.) Jimm uh (.) under ↑my plan I will put Medicaare iiin an iron clad lockbox (.) and prevent the money from being used for ↑anything other thaan Medicare (.) the governor has decliined to en↑dorse that i↑dea. even thoough (.) the Republican as well as Democratic leaders of Congress have en↑dorsed it. (.) I’d be interested if this eve (.) if if he would this ↑evening say he will put (.) Medicare in a ↑lockbox (.) I ↑don’t think he will because under his plan (.) if you work out the numbers a ↑hundred billion dollars comes out of Medicare just for the wealthiest one per cent in the ↑tax cut (.) now ↑here iis (.) the difference ↑some people who say (.) the word refoorm actually mean cuts (.) under the ↑governor’s plaan. if ↑you kept the same feee for service that you have ↑now under Medicare your premiums would go UP by between eighteeen and forty-seven per ↑cent. (.) and ↑that’s the study of the congressional plan that he’s uh modelled ↑his proposal on. by the Medicare ↑aactuaries let me give you one quick exaample (.) there’s a ↑maan here tonight named George McKinney (.) from Milwaukee he’s seventy ↑years oold.

JL(M): GWB:

AG:

619

Appendix uh (.) he has ↑hhigh blood pressure his wife has ↑heeart trouble. they (.) they have an income of twenty-five thousand dollars a ↑year. (.) they ↑cannot pay for their prescription druugs (.) and so ↑they’re some of the ones that go to Caanada regularly (.) in order to get their prescription ↑drugs (.) under ↑my plan half of their costs would be paid right away under ↑governor Bush’s plan they would get not ↑one penny (.) for four to fiive years and ↑↑then they would be (.) uh forced to go into an HM↑Oo. o or to an ↑insurance company. and ask ↑them for coverage but there would be no limit on the premiums or the deductibles or any of the terms and conditions I I I I cannot let (.) this go by the old-style Washington politics. (.) if we’re going to ↑scare you in the voting booth. (.) under ↑my plan the man gets im↑↑mediate help with prescription drugs it’s called Immediate Helping ↑Haaand. instead of squaabbling and finger pointing he gets immediate help (.) let me ↑let me say something (.) and I (.) I understaand [I und ouur] (.) excuse me sir (.) [I think our (unintelligible) minutes is up uh Jim Jim can I say something] but but [we’ll finish that ↑can I can ↑I make] one other point= =↑wait a mi[nute they] (.) they get twenty-five thousand dollars a year ↑income. (.) that makes them ineligible. look (0.5) THIS is a ↑maan who’s got great numbers. (.) he talks about numbers I’m be↑ginning to think not only did he invent (.) the Internet. (.) but he invented the calculator.= =[(collectively laughs) it’s fuzzy MAATH] (.) it’s ↑SCAryy trying to scare people in the ↑voting booth. (.) under ↑my tax plan that he continues to criti↑ciise. I set a third (.) note [the go ye] vernment the federal government should take moore (.) no more than a thiird of anybody’s check (.) but I ↑also dropped the boottom rate (.) from fifteen per cent to ten per cent (.) because by ↑faaar the vast majority of the help goes to people at the boottom end of the economic ladder if you’re a ↑FAAmily of foour (.) in Massachusetts making fifty thousand dollars you get a ↑fifty per cent cut (.) in the [fede one] ral income taxes you pay (.) it’s from four thoousand to about two thousand now the ↑difference in our plans is (.) [↑I want that two thousand to go (breaths out signalling disapprovement) to you (.) [and the vice president would like to be spen alright let me (.) one (.) one] ding the [↑two thou sand dollars on your behalf one] sand on your behalf= =one quick thing (.) gentlemen. these are ↑yoour ruuules. (.) I’m doing my best if you we’re (.) we’re ↑way over the three and a half I have NO problems with it (.) [butt uuh (laughs)]

GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: GWB: AG: GWB:

A: GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

AG:

620

Appendix JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: we want to (.) ↑do you want to have a quick response or we’ll move oon.= =yeah (.) [I m we’re] already almost ↑fiive minutes on this (.) [↑alright yeah (.) I I] mean (.) it’s just (.) it’s ↑just clear that you can go tooo the the website and ↑look. (.) ↑if you make more than twenty-five thousand dollars a year you don’t get a penny of help under the (.) the Bush prescription ↑drug proposal. for at least four to five ↑years. (.) and then yoou’re (.) pushed into a Medicare uh (.) into a (.) an HMOo or (.) uh (.) an in↑surance company plaan. and there’s no limit on the ↑premiums. or the de↑DUctibles. or (.) any of the con↑ditions and the insurance companies [saay (.) and if let let] it won’t work and they won’t ↑offer these plans. ↑let me ask you both this and we’ll move oon on this subject (.) as a practical maatter ↑BOTH of yoou (.) want to bring prescription drugs (.) too (.) seniors (.) cor↑rect= =[correct correct but alright the dif]ference iis (.) [the difference iis alright (.) (unintelligible) (looking at moderator smiling and pointing with finger to Gore)] [I want to bring it to a ↑hundred per cent and ↑he wants to bring it to five per cent (collectively laughs) alright (.) alright it’s just (.) alright] that’s just (.) [that’s just totally ↑↑faalse. ONE DIIFFERENT MENTAALITY]= =[Wait a minute (.) alright] [that’s just totally ↑faaalse (laughs)] (.) for him to ↑stand up here and say that. (.) ↑let let me (.) let me make sure the seniors hear me loud and clear (.) they have haad their chance to get something ↑done. (.) ↑I’m going to work with both Republicans and Democrats to reform the ↑system. (.) ↑all seniors will be covered (.) ↑all poor seniors will have their prescription drugs ↑paid for. (.) in the ↑MEANtiime we’re going to have a plaan to help poor ↑↑seniors and in the ↑meantiime it could be one year or two years= =[ok let (.) y I don’t kno]ow let ↑let me c (.) call your attention to the key word there he said ‘aaall (.) poor (.) seniors’ ↑noo. wait a minute all seniors are covered [under prescription drugs in my plan= in the ↑first year.] (.) in the ↑first year. if we can get it ↑done in the first year. you bet (.) yours is faced in in eight years no no no no (.) no no] (.) it’s a ↑two-phase plan Jim (.) and for the ↑fiiirst foour years

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: GWB: AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB: AG: A: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

AG: GWB: AG: GWB: AG: GWB: AG:

621

Appendix (.) it it takes a year to pass it and then for the ↑fiirst four years ONLY (.) the poor are ↑covered. (.) ↑middle class seniors like George Mc↑.Kinney and his wife are ↑NOT covered for [four ok] to five years I’ve got an idea OK if you have any more to say [about this you can say it in your closing statements and we’ll move oon o↑k. (laughs) new question (.) uuuh vice president Gore ↑HOW would you contrast ↑your approach (.) to pre↑venting (.) future (.) ↑FUTUre oil price and supply problems like we have noow to the approach (.) of governor Bush uh (.) excellent ↑question and here is here is the simple difference (.) ↑my plaaan has not only a short-term component but ↑also a long-term component (.) and it focuses not ↑ONly on increasing the supply which I think we have to ↑do. (.) but ↑aalso on working on the con↑↑sumption siide. (.) now in the in the short-term we have to (.) to free ourselves from the domination of the (.) the ↑big oil companies. that (.) uh have the ability to manipulate the ↑price. (.) from ↑OPEC. Uh when they want to raise the priice. (.) and in the ↑loong-term we have to give new incentives for the development of domestic (.) resources like deep ↑gaas. in the (.) western ↑Gulf like uh stripper ↑wells. for oil (.) but also re↑↑newable sources of energy uh (.) and do↑mestic sources that are cleaner and better (.) a and I’m proposing a plan that will give tax credits and t tax incentives (.) for the ↑rapid development of new kinds of caars and trucks and buses (.) and factories and boilers and furnaces (.) that ↑don’t have as much pollution (.) that ↑don’t buurn as much energy (.) uh and that ↑help us get out on the cutting eedge of the new technologies that will (.) create millions of new ↑jooobs because when we sell these new products here (.) we’ll then be able to sell them over↑seas. and there is a ravenous de↑mand for them overseas (.) now another big difference ↑iis. uh (.) governor Bush is proposing to open up ouur (.) some of our most precious environmental treasures like the Arctic National ↑Wildlife Refuge (.) for the big oil companies to go ↑in. and start (.) uh (.) producing ↑↑ooil there. (.) ↑I think that is the wroong choice (.) it would only give us a few months’ worth of ↑oil. (.) and the ooil wouldn’t start flowing for many yeears into the ↑future (.) and I ↑don’t think it’s a fair price to pay uh (.) to to (.) destroy precious parts of America’s environment ↑WEE have to bet on the future (.) and move be↑yooond the current technologies to have a ↑whoole new generation of more efficient cleaner energy technology= =governor Bush one minute well it’s an issue I ↑know a lot about (.) uh uh I was aaa smaall oil (.) person for a while in west ↑Texas. (.) uhm ↑this is an administration that’s had no ↑plan. (.) and all of a ↑sudden. (.) the results of having no ↑plan. have caught up with America first and foremost we’ve got to make sure we have to fully fund light’nd heat which is (.) uh a way to help low income folks particularly here in the ↑east to pay for their high high fuel bills (.) uh SEcondly we need an ↑aactive exploration program in America the ↑OOnly way to become less dependent on foreign sources of crude ooil is to

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M):

AG:

JL(M): GWB:

622

Appendix exploore at home (.) and YOU BET I want to open up a small part of uh (.) a part of A↑laska when that field is onliiine it will produce one million barrels a day (.) today we ↑import a million barrels from Saddam Hussein (.) ↑I WOULD RAther that a million come from our ↑oown hemisphere our ↑oown country as oppoosed to Saddam Hussein I want to build more ↑pipeliines to move naational gaas throughout this hemis↑pheere. (.) I want to develop the ↑cooal resources in America and have coal (.) uh clean coal tech↑noologies. (.) we’ve got a↑bundant of supplies here in America and we better get ↑aafter them and better start exploring it ↑otherwiiise we’re going to be in deep trouble in the future because of our dependency upon foreign sources of crude so (.) if ↑somebodyy is watching tonight (.) and listening to what the two of you just said (.) is it ↑FAIR to say ok the differences be↑tweeen (.) ↑vice president Goore and G.W. Bush governor Bush are the following (.) ↑you are fooor doing something on the consumption eend (.) you are for doing something on the pro↑duction. (.) [eeend I I’m] (.) let me clarify (.) ↑I’m for doing something both on the sup↑ply siiide. and production siide ↑and on the consumption siide (.) and ↑let me say that I found one thing uh inn governor Bush’s aanswer that we certainly a↑gree on and that’s theee (.) low income (.) heating assistance program. and I commend you for sup↑porting that (.) uh I worked uh (.) to get four hundred million dollars just a couple of weeks a↑goo AND too uh establish a ↑permanent home heating oil reseerve here in the north↑east. (.) now (.) as for the proposals uh (.) that I’ve ↑worked for for renewables and conservation and efficiency and the ↑new technologies (.) the ↑fact is that for the laast few years in the Congress we’ve faced a lot of oppo↑sition to them= =mhum= =they’ve only (.) they’ve only approved about ten per cent of the agenda that I’ve helped to to (.) ↑send up there and I ↑think that we neeed to get serious about this energy crisis (.) ↑both in the Congress. ↑AND in in the White House and (.) if ↑you entrust me with the presidency (.) I will taackle this problem and focus on ↑nnew technologies= =time= =that will make us lless dependent on (.) big oil or foreign oil how would you draw the difference= =well I would ↑first say he should have been ↑taackling it for the last seven ↑years. (.) and secondly the difference iiis is that we need to explooore (.) at ↑home (.) and the vice president doesn’t be↑↑lieve in exploration for example in Alaska there’s a lot of shut-in ↑gaas that we need to be moving out of Alaska by pipeline (.) there’s an ↑interesting issue up in the north-↑west as well. and that is whether or not do we remove daams (.) uuh that produce hydroelectric ↑energy I’m against removing daams (.) in the north-west I don’t know where the vice president stands but that’s a renewable source of energy we need to keep in line (.) I ↑I was in coal country in west Virginia there is an aBUNdant supply of cooal in America I ↑know we can do a better job of clean coal tech↑nologies. I’m going to ask the Congress for two billion doollars to make sure that we have the cleanest coal technologies in the ↑world (.) ↑my answer to yoou iis (.) is that in the short-term we need to get aafter it here in America (.) we need to exploore oour (.) ↑resources and and we need to develop our ↑reservooirs of domestic production (.) we also need to have a (.) ↑HHEmispheric

JL(M):

AG:

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB:

623

Appendix energy policy where ↑Canada (.) and ↑Mexico and the United States come together I (.) brought this up ↑recently with Vicente Fox who’s the newly elected president in Mexico he’s (.) a MAN I knoow from ↑Mexico. I talked to him about how best to expedite the (.) thee exploration of natural gaas in ↑Mexico and transport it up to the United ↑States so we become less dependent on (.) foreign sources of ↑crude oil this is a maajor problem facing A↑merica. the administration (.) did not ↑deal with it it’s time for a ↑new administration to deal with the energy problem.= =if I (.) just just quickly Jim I know I found a couple of other things we agree on and we ↑may not find that many this ↑evening (somewhat laughing) so I wanted to emphasize it I stroongly support new investments in clean coal tech↑nology. (.) I made a proposal three months ago on ↑this. uh (.) and also domestic exploration ↑yes but noot in the environmental (.) treasures of our country we don’t haave to do ↑that. (.) that’s the wroong choice I know the oil companies have been itching to ↑do that (.) but it is not the right thing to do for the future= =no it’s the right thing for the con↑↑suumers (.) less dependency upon foreign sources of ↑cruude. (.) is good for con↑sumers (.) and we can ↑do soo in an environmentally (.) friendly way (to the moderator) well can I have the last word on ↑this. new question= =ok (.) [ok is (.) (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) ok (.) alright new question new subject] (.) governor Bush (.) if elected president would ↑you try to overtuurn the FDA’s approval last week of the abortion piiill (.) RUu four eighty-six ↑I don’t think a president can do ↑that (.) I was disappointed in the ↑ruuling. because I think abortions ought to bee more ↑↑rare in America (.) and I’m worried that that pill will create (.) ↑more abortions and caause more people to have abortions (.) this is a very important topic and it’s a very ↑sensitive topic because a lot of good people disagree on the ↑issue (.) I think what the next president ought to ↑do. is to (.) is to promote a culture of life in America. (.) is the (.) life f (.) life of the ↑elderlyy and life of those living (.) all across the ↑country life of the un↑boorn (.) as a matter of fact I think a noble ↑goal for this country is that every chiiild (.) born or unborn ought to be protected under the laaaw and welcomed to ↑↑life (.) but I know we need to change a lot of ↑miinds before wee (.) before we get there in A↑merica. (.) what I ↑do believe is that we can find good common groound on issues like (.) parental notifi↑cation. or parental con↑sent. (.) and I ↑know we need to baan partial birth abortions (.) this is a place where my opponent and Ii (.) have strong disa↑greements (.) and that (.) I I believe (.) banning partial birth abortions would be (.) a ↑POOsitive step to reducing the number of abortions (.) in A↑merica. (.) ↑this is an issue that uh (.) that’s going to require a (.) ↑new attitude we’ve been battling over abortion for a long period of time (.) ↑SSUREly this nation can come together to (.) to promote the value of life (.)↑SSUREly we can fight off these laaaws that will (.) encourage uh doctors to to allow doctors to take the liives of our seniors (.) ↑SSUREly we can have (.) work together to create a cultural life so (.) some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a (.) a neighbour’s life with a gun will underS↑TAAND that that (.) that’s not the

AG:

GWB:

AG: JL(M): AG: JM(L) A: AG: JL(M): GWB:

624

Appendix way America is meant to be (.) and ↑SSUREly we can find common ground (.) to reduce the number of abortions in America (.) as to the drug itself I mentioned I was disappointed I ↑HHOpe (.) and I’m (.) I hope the FDA uh (.) ↑took its tiime to make sure that American women will be ↑SSAFE who use this (.) who use this drug vice president Gore well (.) uh Jim (.) the FDA took twelve ↑yeears and (.) I I ↑do support that decision (.) uuh they determined it was medically safe for the women who ↑uuse that drug (.) noow (.) this is in↑deeed. a (.) a very important issue ↑FIRST of all on the issue of partial biirthers or so-called late-term abortions ↑I would sign a laaw banning banning that procedure (.) proVIIded that doctors have the ability to ssave a woman’s ↑life. or to ↑aact if her health is severely at risk (.) and ↑that’s not the main issue the ↑main issue (.) is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overtuurned (.) ↑I support a woman’s right to ↑chooose. (.) my opponent (.) does ↑not. (.) it is important because the ↑next president is going to appoint ↑threee and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court (.) and governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice ↑group. that he will appoint justices in the moold of uh (.) Scalia (.) uh and Clarence Thomas who are ↑knooown for being the mmost vigorous oppoonents of a woman’s right to ↑choose. (.) here is the difference (.) ↑he trusts the government to order a woman to do what (.) ↑it thinks she ought to do ↑I ↑TRUST women to make the decisions that affect their ↑liiives (.) their ↑destiniiies uh (.) and (.) and their bodies and ↑I think a woman’s right to choose ought to be protected and defended governor I will (.) I will go to the Supreme Court question in a moment but (.) make sure I understand your position on RU four eighty-siix. if you’re elected president would ↑you (.) not through the appointments of the FDAa (.) you (.) you won’t support legislation to over↑turn this. I don’t I don’t think a president can ↑unilaterally overturn it (.) I think it’s the FDA that has to make its de↑cision that means that you wouldn’t through appointments uuh= =no= =↑to the FDA and and ask them too (.) to [reassert it I ↑I think once a decision] has been made it’s been ↑maade unless it’s proven to be unsafe to women [alright well (.)] JIMM uuh (.) you know (.) uh (.) the question you ↑aasked uh if I heard you correctly was (.) would ↑he support (.) legislation to to overturn it aand (.) if I heard the statement uh the (.) the day before ↑yesterday you said you would oorder he said he would oorder hiis uh (.) FDA appointee ↑to reviiew (.) the de↑cision a and now (.) that sounds to me (.) a a little bit ↑different and (.) I ↑I just think that we ought to support the decision God I said I would make sure that uh that uh (.) that women would be safe who used the= =ok= =used the ↑druug= =ok (.) alright (.) on thee on the Supreme Court question ↑should a voter (.) assume you’re pro-life= =[I am pro-life

JL(M): AG:

JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG:

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

625

Appendix JL(M): you’ve just stated your position] (.) should a ↑voter assume that aaall judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Coourt or any other coourt federal court will (.) will also be pro-↑life. voters should assume I have no ↑litmus test on that issue or any ↑other issue. (.) and the voters will knoow I’ll put competent judges on the ↑bench. (.) uh people who will strictly interpret the Consti↑tution and we’ll not use the ↑bench. to write social policy (.) and that is going to be a big difference between my opponent and ↑me. (.) I ↑I believe thaat (.) I believe that the judges ought noot to take the place of the legislative branch of ↑government. (.) that they’re (.) appointed for life (.) and that they ought to look at the Constitution as ↑↑sacred they (.) they ↑shouldn’t (.) misuse their bench (.) I don’t be↑lieve in liberal aactivist judges (.) I believe in s (.) uh I believe in strict cons↑tructionists and those are the kind of judges I will ap↑point. I’ve I’ve named four Supreme Court judges in the state of ↑Texas. (.) and I would aask the people to check out their qualifi↑cations. (.) uuh (.) their their delibe↑rations. (.) they’re good solid men and ↑women. (.) who have made good soound ↑judgments on behaalf of the people of Texas what kind oof uh (.) appointments should they expect [from you vice president Gore BOTH ↑OF US UUSE similar lan]guage to reach aa (.) an exaactly opposite outcome (.) uuh (.) ↑I don’t favour a litmus test but I ↑know that uh there are ways to assess hhow a potential justice (.) interprets the Constitution and in ↑my view. (.) the Constitution ought to be in in (.) interpreted as a doocument that ↑groows (.) with uh (.) with with our country and our history (.) and uh (.) I I be↑lieve for example that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth A↑mendment. (.) and when the phraase uh ‘strict constructionist’ (.) is ↑uused. (.) and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as (.) benchmarks for who would be ap↑pointed (.) those are those ↑code woords. and nobody should mis↑take thiis. (.) for saaying that uh (.) the governor would ap↑point. people who would over↑tuurn. Roe v. ↑↑Waade. I mean it’s just uh it’s very clear to me (.) and I (.) ↑I would appoint people (.) who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphoold Roe v. Wade is is the vice president ↑right (.) is that a code word for overturning the Roe v. ↑Wade it sounds like the vice president is not very right many times to↑niight (.) uuh I I I just told you the criteria on which I’ll appoint ↑judges. (.) I have a ↑record. of appointing judges in the state of Texas that’s what a governor gets to ↑doo (.) a governor gets to name Supreme ↑Court judges and uuh (.) [I I’ve given (unintelligible) alright] he ↑also reads all kinds of things into my tax ↑plaan.= =alright= and into my ↑↑Medicare plan (.) and [I just alright] want the viewers out there to listen to what I have to ↑say about it= =that’s the idea (.) just the code reverse the question (.) reverse the question] [what what (laughs) (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs)] what code phraases should we reead by what ↑you said about what kind of people ↑you will appoint [to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be likely] that they would uphold Roe v. ↑Wade but I ↑do believe it’s wrong

GWB:

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: AG: JL(M): A: JL(M): AG:

626

Appendix to use aa (.) a ↑LITmus test but (.) (laughs) if you if ↑YOU look at the (.) the history of aa lower court judge’s ↑ruulings. you can get a pretty good ↑idea. of how they’re going to interpret ↑questions now (.) a lot of questions aare (.) a first im↑pression uh and (.) and theese (.) these questions that have been seen many ↑times come up in a new coontext and so (.) but uuh (.) you know (.) this ↑this is a very important ↑↑issue because a lot of young women in this country (.) [take this right (unintelligible)] for ↑graanted and it could be LOOST (.) it is ↑oon the ballot in this election [make ↑no mistake about it I’ll (.)] I’ll ↑tell you what kind of judges he’ll put on there. (.) he’ll put liberal activists ↑justices. who will use their ↑bench. (.) to subvert the ↑legislature (.) ↑that’s what he’ll do.= =uh that’s ↑not right. new subject (.) new question (.) vice president Goore if president Milosevic of Yugoslavia re↑fuses to accept the election results [and lea mhum ve ooffice ↑what action if any (.) should the United States take to get him ↑out of there WELL MI↑LOsevic has looost (.) the election (.) uh his his opponent Kos↑tunica has won the election it’s overwhelming (.) uh uh Milosevic’s government refuses to release the ↑vvote count (.) there’s now a ↑general sstrike going oon uh they’re ↑demonstrating (.) I think we should sup↑poort. the ↑people of Seerbia (.) uh aand the Yugoslavia as they call the Serbia plus Monte↑negro. (.) uh ↑and (.) put pressure in every way ↑possible. to (.) recognize the lawful outcome of the e↑lection the ↑people of Serbia (.) have acted very braavely in in kicking this guuy out of ↑↑office (.)↑NOOW. he is trying to ↑not release the votes (.) and ↑theen. (.) go straight to a so-called ↑run-off election. without even (.) an↑nouncing the results (.) of the first vote (.) now we’ve made it clear along with our allies (.) that ↑when Milosevic (.) leeaves then Serbia will ↑be able to have a more normal relationship with the rest of the ↑world. (.) that is a very stroong incentive that we’ve given them to do the right ↑thing (.) bear in mind ↑also Milosevic has been (.) in↑dicted as a war criminal (.) and he should be held accountable for his ↑aactions. (.) now (.) uh we have to take ↑measured steps because the sentiment with↑in Serbia is for understandable ↑reasons. stilll (.) uh uh a↑gainst the United States because their naationalismm has le (.) uh even if they don’t like Mi↑losevic they still have some ffeelings lingering fromm uh the NATO ↑aaction there. (.) so we ↑have to beee (.) intelligent in the way we go a↑bout it (.) but ↑make no mistake about it we should do (.) ↑everything we caan to see that the willl of the Serbian people expreessed in this ex↑traaordinary election is doone (.) and and ↑I hope that he’ll be out of office very shortly governor Bush one minute well I’m pleased with the results of the election (.) as as the vice president is it’s time for the man to ↑go (.) and uh (.) it means that the United States must have a strong diplomatic haand with oour (.) our friends in ↑NATO. (.) that’s why it’s important to make sure our al↑liances are as stroong as they possibly can ↑be (.) to keep the ↑pressure ooon Mr. Milosevic (.) but ↑this will be an interesting moment for the ↑RUssians to step up and lead as ↑well. (.) be a wonderful time for the (.) president of

JL(M): AG: GWB:

AG: JL(M): AG: JL: AG:

JL(M): GWB:

627

Appendix Russia to step intoo (.) the ↑BAALkans and convince Mr. Mi↑losevic. (.) it’s in his best ↑interest and his country’s best interest to leave ↑ooffice the Russians have got to (.) swaay in that part of the ↑world. (.) and we’d like to see them ↑use that sway (.) uh too (.) to (.) to to encourage demoocracy (.) uh to take ↑hold (.) so it’s an encouraging e↑lection (.) uuh it’s time for the man to ↑leave but what if he doesn’t ↑leeave Mr. vice (.) what if ↑aaall the things aall the diplomatic efforts aaall the pressure from aall of the world and he still doesn’t ↑go is ↑this the kind of thing and be specific (.) that ↑yoou as president (.) would consider (.) the use of U.S. military force to get him ↑gone. in ↑this particular situation no (.) ↑bear in miind that wee have a lot of sanctions in foorce against Serbia right now (.) a and (.) the ↑people of Serbia (.) knoow that they can escape all those sanctions ↑if this guuy is turned out of ↑power. (.) now uh (.) ↑I understand what the (.) governor has said about asking the Russians to be in↑voolved. (.) and under ↑some circumstances that might be a good idea (.) but ↑BEing as they have ↑not yet been willing to recogniize uh Kos Kos↑tunica as the lawful winner of the election (.) ↑I’m not sure that it’s right for us to invite the the (.) the president of Russia to (.) to mediate this (.) this uh dis↑pute theere (.) becaause we might not like the result that comes ↑out of that (.) ↑they currently favour (.) going forward with a run-off election. (.) ↑I think that’s the wroong thiing I think the governor’s ↑instinct. is not necessarily (.) ↑BAAD. because we haave worked with the (.) the Russians in a constructive way in ↑Kosovoo uh for example to end the conflict ↑theere. (.) but but I ↑think we need to be very careful in the present situation (.) before we invite the Russians to (.) to play the the lead role in mediating= =well ↑obviously we wouldn’t use the Russians if they didn’t agree with our ↑aanswer. (.) (laughs) Mr. vice president well they don’t but let me say this to you ↑I wouldn’t use force. [↑I wouldn’t use force (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs)] you wouldn’t use force] no why not because it’s not in our national ↑interest to use force in this case (.) I would keep ↑pressure. I would use di↑plomacy. (.) there is a ↑difference between what the president did which I sup↑ported. (.) inn uh in Kosovo and ↑THIS (.) and it’s up to the people in this region to figure out how to take control of their ↑country new question (.) hhow (.) would you go about as president deciding when it ↑↑waas (.) in the national interest to use U.S. force ↑generally ↑well if it’s in our VIItal national ↑interest (.) and that means whether oour (.) territory our our our our territory is ↑threatened or people could be haarmed. whether or not our alliiances uh (.) ouur defence alliances are ↑threatened. (.) whether or not our friends in the Middle Eeast are ↑threatened. (.) uuhm that would be a time to seriously consider the use of ↑force secondly whether or not the mission was ↑clear. (.) whether or not it was a (.) clear unders↑tanding. as to what the (.) what the mission would be (.) uh thirdly whether or not we weere (.) prepaared and trained to (.) to (.) ↑WIN whether or not our (.) our ↑forces were of (.) high morale and high standing and well-equipped (.) and finally whether or not there was an ↑exit strategy (.) uh I

JL(M):

AG:

GWB: AG: GWB: A: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

628

Appendix would take the (.) uh use of force very ↑seriously I would be guaarded. in my approach (.) I don’t think we can be aaall things to aaall ↑people in the world (.) I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops the vice president and I (.) have a big disa↑greement about the use of troops he believes in (.) ↑nation building (.) and I I would be very ↑careful about using our troops aas nation builders (.) I believe the roole of the ↑military is to fight and win ↑waaar. and therefore prevent waar from happening in the ↑first place. (.) and so I’d take myy I take myy (.) my responsibility ↑seriously (.) and it ↑STAARTS with making sure we rebuild our ↑military power. (.) moraaale in today’s military is too ↑low (.) we’re having trouble meeting re↑cruiting gooals. we (.) met the goals this year but in the previous years we have NOT (.) ↑met. recruiting gooals some of our troops are ar (.) aare are not well (.) well-e↑quipped (.) I believe we’re overex↑tended in too many ↑places. (.) aand uuuh and therefore I want to rebuild the (.) military ↑power. it starts with a billion dollar pay raaaise for the men and women who wear the uniform a billion dollars moore than the (.) president recently signed into ↑laaw. it’s to make sure our troops are well↑hooused. and well-e↑quipped. bonus plaans to keep some of our high-skilled (.) folks in the ↑services. (.) and a com↑MANder in chief. that clearly sets the mission (.) and the mission is to fight and win ↑waar. and therefore prevent waar from happening in the ↑first place. vice president Gore one minute ↑let me tell you what I’ll do (.) first of aaall I I want to make it clear (.) our military is the ↑strongest. (.) ↑best-traained. (.) ↑best-equipped. (.) ↑best-led. fighting force in the woorld and in the ↑hhistory of the world (.) ↑nobody should have any doubt about that (.) ↑LEAST of aaall our adversaries (.) or potential adversaries Ii (.) if ↑you entrust me with the presidency I will do whatever is necessary (.) in order to make sure our forces STAY the strongest in the world (.) in fact in my (.) ten-year budget pro↑posal I have set aside more than ↑twice as much for this purpose as governor Bush haas in his proposal (.) now (.) I think we should be reluctant to get invooolved in some place uh (.) in a foreign country (.) but (.) if our national security is at ↑stake. (.) uh if we have al↑liies. if we’ve triied every other ↑course. if we’re sure military action (.) will suc↑ceed. (.) uh ↑AAND (.) if the costs are proportionate to the benefits (.) we shoould (.) get involved (.) now just because we can’t don’t want to get involved ↑everywhere it doesn’t mean we should baack OOFF (.) uh uh anywhere it comes up and I ↑disagree (.) with the fact with the proposal that maybe ↑oonly when oil supplies are at stake then our national security is at risk (.) ↑I think that (.) that there aare situations [↑like in Boosnia governor Bush] or Kosovo where there’s a ↑genociiide (.) where our national security is at stake there. governor= =↑I agree that our (.) military is the strongest in the world to↑day. that’s not the question (.) the question is will it be the strongest (.) in the years to ↑come (.) and the warning siiigns are ↑real. (.) everywhere I go around the campaign trail I see people who (.) are moooms and daaads whose (.) son or daughter may wear the uniform. (.) and they ↑tell me about how discouraged (.) their son or daughter may ↑be. (.) a (.) recent pooll was taken amongst a thousand enlisted uuh (.) person↑neel uh (.) as well

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB:

629

Appendix as ↑officers over half of whom are going to leave the ↑service. uh (.) when their tiime of enlistment is ↑↑up (.) there (.) the captains are (.) ↑leaving the service there is a prooblem (.) and it’s going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the ↑military power. (.) uuh the other day I was honoured to be flanked by Colin ↑Poowell. (.) and general Norman Schwartzkopf who (.) stood by my siide and a↑greed with me (.) they they said we could (.) even though we have the strongest military that if we don’t do something ↑quickly. (.) if we don’t have a clear vision of the military if we don’t stop extending our troops aall around the woorld uuuh (.) and nation building missions (.) then we’re going to have a ↑serious problem. coming down the ↑road and I I’m going to pre↑vent that. (.) I’m going to rebuild our ↑military power. it’s (.) one of the major priorities of my administration vice president Goore (.) ↑how should the voters go about deciding which one of you is better suited to make the kinds of decisions we’ve been dealing with whether it’s Mi↑losevic or whether it is =mhum= whatever (.) in the military and foreign policy area well they should ↑look at our proposals and and (.) look at ↑us as as people and (.) make up their own ↑miinds. (.) uh (.) when I was a young man I volunteered for the Army (.) I served my country in Vietnam (.) my father was aa senator who strongly op↑posed the Vietnam Waar. (.) I went to college in this (.) great ↑city and (.) most of my peers (.) felt against the war as as I did but I went ↑anyway. (.) because I ↑knew if I didn’t somebody else in the small town of Carthage Tennessee would have to go in my place. (.) I ↑seerved uh for (.) eight years in the House of Representatives and I served on the In↑telligence Committee specialiized in (.) looking at ↑aarms control I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee (.) for the last eight years I’ve served on the National Se↑curity Council (.) and when the conflict came up in Boosnia (.) ↑Ii saw a genociide in the heart of Europe with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War two (.) look ↑that’s where World War one ↑staarted (.) in the ↑Baalkans (.) ↑my unclle (.) was a victim of poisonous gas there millions of Americans saw the results of that coonflict (.) ↑wee have to be willing to make good (.) ssound judgments and ↑incidentally (.) I know the value (.) of making sure our troops have the latest tech↑nology. the governor has proposed ↑skiipping the next generation of ↑weapons. (.) ↑I think that’s a big mistake [because governor I think we have to stay at the cutting edge governor how would yoou advise the voters to make the decision on this issue I ↑think you’ve got to look at uh (.) how one has handled responsibility in ↑ooffice. (.) uh whether or noot (.) it’s it’s the ↑same in domestic policy as ↑well Jim. whether or not you’ve got the capacity to convince people to ↑follow. (.) whether or not one makes decisions based upoon sound ↑principles (.) or whether or not you rely upon poolls. and ↑focus groups (.) on how to decide what the course of action is (.) we have too much poolling and ↑focus groups going on in Washington today we need decisions made on soound principles (.) I’ve been the governor of a big ↑state. (.) I think one of the ↑haallmarks of my (.) my (.) my relationship in Austin ↑Texas is (.) is that I’ve had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats (.) I think

JL(M):

AG: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB:

630

Appendix that’s an important part of ↑↑leadership (.) I think that what it meeans to build con↑↑sensus I’ve shoown I know how to ↑do so as a matter of fact tonight in the ↑audience there’s (.) uh one elected state senator who is a ↑Democrat. a former state rep who is a ↑Democrat. (.) coupled with a one state-wide uh (.) officers that are Democrats (.) I mean there’s a lot of Democrats who’re (.) [↑here in the debate to (with warning finger to the moderator) wee’re] (.) go ahead go ahead becaause they want to ↑show their support. that shows I know how to ↑leead and so the ↑fundamental aanswer to your question who can lead and who is shoown the ability (.) to get things done if (.) if I could say [one thing (unintelligible) we are ↑waay] over the three and a half minutes go ahead [(laughs) but just just very (unintelligible) I think one of the (.) I think one of] the ↑key points in foreign policy and national security policy (.) is the need to re-establish thee old-fashioned principle that ↑politics ought to stop at the water’s edge. (.) when ↑I was in the United States Congress I worked with former president Reagan (.) to moderniise our strategic weapon↑ryy and to pursue arms control in a responsible way (.) when I was in the United States ↑Senate. I worked with former president Bush your father and (.) I was one of the (.) only a feew Democrats in the Senate to support the Persian Gulf ↑War. I think bipartisanship (.) is a naaational ↑aasset (.) and we have to ↑find ways [to re(unintelligible)] establish it in foreign policy and national security po[licy in a] (.) in a word do you have a ↑problem with ↑that. yeah why haven’t they done it in seven years. (0.5) new subject new question (.) should the voters of this election (.) vice president Gooore ↑see thiis on domestic area in the domestic (.) uh area (.) as a major choice between com↑peting political (.) philosophies oh ↑aaabsolutely. this is a veery important moment (.) in the hhistory of our country (.) look we’ve got the ↑biiiggest surpluses in aall of American history (.) look the the key ↑question that has to be aanswered in this election is will we ↑uuse that prosperity wiisely (.) in a way that benefits aall of our people and ↑doesn’t goo. (.) just to (.) the few (.) almost hhalf of all the tax cut benefits as I said under governor ↑Bush’s plan. (.) ↑go (.) to the wealthiest one per cent (.) ↑I think we have to make the right and respoonsible choices (.) ↑I think we have to invest in (.) education (.) protecting the en↑vironment. health care (.) a prescription drug benefit that goes to ↑aaall seniors not just to the ↑pooor. (.) under ↑Medicare. not relying on HMOs and insurance ↑companies. (.) ↑I think that we have to help ↑paarents. and sstrengthen ↑families. by dealing with the kind of (.) inappropriate entertainment material that (.) ↑families are just heart sick that their children are ex↑poosed to. (.) I ↑think we’ve got to have welfare re↑foorm. taken to the nnext staage (.) I think that we have got to ↑balance the budget every single ↑year. (.) pay ↑doown the national debt and in fact under ↑my proposal (.) the the national debt will be com↑pleetely eliminated (.) by the year twenty twelve (.) I think we need to put ↑Mmedicaare (.) ↑AND Social Security in a loockbox (.) the governor will ↑not put Medicare. (.) in a lockbox. (.) ↑I

JL(M): GWB:

AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

AG:

631

Appendix don’t think it should be uused as a ↑piggy bank. (.) for other ↑programs. I think it needs to be moved (.) ↑OUT of the budget (.) and protected ↑I’ll veto anything (.) that takes money out of Social Security (.) ↑OOR Medicaare (.) for anything other ↑thaan. (.) Social Security (.) or Medicare (.) now (.) the priorities are just very ↑different I’ll give you (.) a a couple of examples (.) for every. ↑new. ↑dollar. that I propose for spending (.) on health care (.) governor Bush spends ↑↑THREEE dollars (.) for a tax cut for the wealthiest (.) one per ↑ceent (.) now (somewhat laughing) (.) for every ↑dollar. that I propose to spend on edu↑cation. (.) he spends (.) ↑FIIVE dollars (.) on a tax cut (.) for the wealthiest one per ↑cent. (.) those are very clear ↑differences. ↑governor (.) one minute the man is practicing fuzzy ↑maath again. (.) there’s differences (.) under vice president Gore’s plaan he is going to grow the federal government (.) in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in nineteen sixty-five and we’re talking about a ↑maaassive government folks. (.) we’re talking about a ↑adding to or (.) increasing two hundred new ↑prograammes (.) two hundred programs twenty ↑thooousand new bureaucrats i↑MAAgine how many IRS agents it is going to take (.) to be able too ↑figure out his (.) targeted tax cut for the middle claass that excluudes fifty million Americans (.) there ↑is a huge difference (.) in this campaign (.) ↑he says he’s going to give you ↑TAAX cuts fifty million of you won’t receive it (.) ↑he saaid in his speech (.) he wants to make sure the right ↑people (.) get ↑tax relief (.) ↑↑that’s not the role of a president to deciiide (.) right and ↑wroong. ↑everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief (.) AAfter my ↑plan is in place the wealthy (.) the wealthy of (.) the wealthiest Americans will pay a hhigher percentage of ↑taaxes (.) than they do to↑day. (.) and the POOrest of Americans six million f (.) ↑faamilies seven million ↑people won’t pay any tax at ↑aaall. (.) it is a huuge difference (.) it’s a difference between ↑biig exploding federal government that wants to think on your behaalf. (.) and a plaan that meets priorities and liberates ↑working people to be able to make decisions on your own let me just say Jimm you haven’t heard the governor de↑nyyy. (somewhat laughing) these numbers he’s called them ‘↑phoney’. he's called them ‘↑fuzzy’. (.) but the fact re↑maains (.) almost ↑thirty per cent of his propoosed tax cut (.) goes ↑oonly to Americans that make more than one million dollars ↑per ↑↑year (.) [↑more let's] money goes to the can I have a rebuttal ↑here sure but I just want to see if he (.) if if he (.) ↑buys that well here let me just tell you what the ↑↑facts are (.) the ↑facts are aafter my plan the wealthiest of Americans pay ↑moore taxes than the of the percentage of the whole than they do today (.) SEcondly if you’re a family of four making fifty thousand dollars in Massa↑chusetts you get a fifty per cent tax cut. (.) ↑let me give you one example the Strunk family in Allentown Pennsylvania [I campaigned with them (somewhat laughing)] the other day. (.) they make fifty-one ↑thoousand dollars combined income. they pay about ↑thirty-eight hundred dollars in taxes. (.) and uh thirty-five hundred dollars in taxes under ↑my plan they get an eighteen hundred dollars of ↑tax relief (.) under vice president ↑Goore’s plan they get a hundred and forty-↑fiive dollars of tax relief.

JL(M): GWB:

AG:

JL(M):: AG: JL(M): GWB:

AG: GWB:

632

Appendix (.) now you ↑↑TELL me (.) who stands on the side of the [fence (.) ↑YOU ask the Strunks you ask the you ask the Strunks look (.) if ↑he's (unintelligible) (.) ok (.) if I can get my (unintelligible)] whose plaan (.) [it makes more sense and there is (laughs) fine a dif]ference of o↑pinion (.) he would rather speend (.) the Strunk's eighteen hundred ↑dollars. (.) and I would rather the ↑↑Strunk spend their own money you say it that way vi[ce president ↑Gore ↑no I don’t] and I’m not going too (.) go to (.) to to (.) calling ↑NAAAmes on his facts I’m just gonna tell you (.) what the real facts are the analysis that ↑hee’s talking about leeaves out more than hhaalf of the tax cuts (.) that I have pro↑posed. (.) and if you just (.) ↑add the numbers up (.) he ↑still hasn’t denied it (.) he spends ↑more money. (.) on a tax cut for the wealthiest one per ↑cent. (.) than ↑↑ALL of his new proposals for prescription drugs education and national de↑fence. (.) com↑biined. (.) now those are the wrong priorities (.) ↑six hundred and sixty-fiive (.) ↑billion dollars over ten years (.) for for the wealthiest one per ↑↑cent (.) now (.) and as I said almost uh (.) thirty per cent of it goes to Americans that make (.) more than one million dollars per ↑year (.) every middle class family (.) is is eligible for a tax cut under my proposal ↑let me give you some specific exaamples (.) ↑I beliieve (.) that (.) college tuition up to ↑ten thousand dollars a ↑yeear. (.) ought to be taax de↑ductible. so middle-class families can ↑chooose. (.) to send their children (.) to ↑college. (.) ↑I believe that aall seniors (.) should be able to chooose their own ↑dooctors. (.) and get prescription druugs from their own ↑pharmacists. uh (.) with Medicare paying (.) half the ↑bill I believe that parents ought to have more ↑chooices (.) with charter schools and public school choice (.) to send [their (unintelligible)] kids always to a safe school ↑I think we need to make education the nnumber one priority in our country and treat teachers like the pro[fes (unintelligible) sionals] that they aare (.) and ↑that’s why I have made it a number one priority in my budget (.) not a ↑tax cut for the weal[thiest (somewhat laughing) yeah] let me talk about tax cuts one more time (.) this is a maan whose plaan excludes fifty million Americans= =not ↑so he doesn’t beliieve (.) well ↑take for example the marriage penalty (.) if you if you ↑itemiiize (.) your tax return you get no (.) marriage penalty relief (.) he picks and ↑chooses (.) he de↑ciides. wether who the ↑right people are (.) it’s a fundamental difference of opinion (.) I ↑want my fellow Americans to hear one more time (.) we’re going to speend twenty-↑fiiive trillion dollars. (.) we can collect twenty-fiive trillion ↑dollars of revenue over the next ten years. (.) and we’re goint to pro↑ject it (.) to spend twenty-one trillion and SSUrely (.) we can send five per cent back to you all who pay the bills (.) there is a ↑prooblem I want to say something Jim wait a minute =ok= =this man has been disparaging my plaan with all this Washington fuzzy math (.) I

AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG:

GWB: AG: GWB: AG: GWB: AG: GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

633

Appendix ↑want you to hear a prooblem we’ve got in America if you’re a single mother making ↑twenty-two thoousand dollars a year. and you’ve got two children (.) under ↑this tax code (.) for ↑every additional dollar you ↑make. you pay a ↑hiigher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making more than two hundred thoousand dollars a ↑year and that is not right (.) and so ↑my plan drops the rate from ↑fiifteen per cent to ten per cent (.) and increases the ↑chiiild credit (.) from five hundred dollars to a thoousand dollars to make the code more fair for ↑↑everybody (.) [↑not just we’re] a few (.) [not just alright] you know (.) a haandful everybody who pays taxes ought to get some tax re↑↑lief ALRIGHT HAVING ↑CLEARED that up (laughs)= =[(collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) we’re going to a new question] [(laughs) (laughs) education] (.) governor Bush (.) ↑both of you have promised dramatically (.) to to chaaange dramatically public education in this country (.) but of the ↑public money spent on education only six per cent of it is federal money right you want to change ↑one hundred per cent of the public education on six [per cent of the money (laughs) is ↑that possible] well I tell you we can make a huge ↑difference (.) by saying if you receive federal ↑money. we expect you to (.) show re↑sults (.) ↑let me give you aa (.) story about public ed if I might Jim (.) it’s about Kipp Academy in Houston Texas it's a (.) it's a CHARter school (.) run by some people from Teach for A↑merica. (.) young folks that say ‘well I’m going to do something good for my country I want to teach’ (.) a guy named Michael runs the school (.) it’s a ↑school full of (.) so-called ↑AT-risk children it’s uh (.) it’s how we (.) unfortunately label certain children it means basically they can’t learn (.) it’s a ↑school of ↑strooong discipline. and high standards it’s one of the best schools in Houston (.) and ↑here are the key ingredients high expectations (.) strooong accountabily what ↑Michael says is (.) ‘↑↑don’tt put all these ruules on ↑us. (.) just let us ↑teach. and hold us accountable for every grade’ (.) and that’s what we ↑doo (.) and as a result these young (.) mainly Hispanic ↑youngsters. are some of the best learners in in Houston ↑Texas (.) that’s ↑MY VIsion for public education (.) all around America. many of you viewers don’t know but Laura and I sent our ↑giirls to. (.) public school they went to Austin high-school and ↑many of the public schools are (.) are meeting the caall. (.) but un↑FORtunately a lot of schoools are (.) trapping children in schools that (.) just won’t ↑teach and won’t ↑change so (.) here is the role of the federal government (.) one is to change head start to a reading ↑program. (.) TWOO is to SAAY that (.) if you (.) ↑want to access reading money you can do so because the goal is for every single child to learn to ↑read. (.) there must by K through two ↑diagnostic tools. (.) teacher training money a↑vailable. (.) ↑three we’ve got to consolidate federal programs to ↑FREE

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG: A: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

634

Appendix districts to ↑free the schools to en↑courage innovators like Michael (.) to ↑let schoools to reach out beyooond the ↑coonfines of the current structure. (.) to recruit teach-for- (.) teach-for- (.) the-children type teachers (.) uh FOUR we’re going to say ‘if you receive federal money (.) ↑measure (.) third grade fourth grade fifth grade sixth grade seventh grade eighth grade (.) and ↑show us (.) whether or not children are learning to read and write add and sub↑tract’. and ↑if so. there’ll be a bonus plan (.) and (.) and and but if ↑noot (.) instead of continuing to ↑subsidiize failure (.) we (.) the money will go to the parents so that the parents can choose a different ↑public schoool. (.) the the federal money attributed to the chiild will go to the parent for (.) a= =mhm= =↑public school. or charter school or tutorial or Catholic ↑school. (.) what ↑I care about (.) is children (.) and ↑so does Michael Feeinberg (.) and you know ↑what (.) it can ↑happen in America with the right kind of leadership vice president ↑Goore ↑LOOK uh we a↑gree on a couple of thiings uh on education (.) uh I ↑strongly support new accounta↑bility. so does governor Bush (.) I strongly support local con↑trool. so does governor Bush (.) uh I’m in favor of testing as a way of measuring per↑formance. every school and every school district have every state ↑test uh (.) the children I’ve alsoo proposed a voluntary ↑naational test for the fourth grade (.) and eighth grade (.) ↑and a form of testing the governor has not endorsed I think that ↑AALL new teachers ought to be tested (.) in↑cluding in the subjects that they teach. (.) we’ve got to recruit a ↑hundred thousand new teachers and I have budgeted for that (.) we’ve got to reduce the ↑class siize so that (.) the ↑student who walks in (.) uh has more one-on-one time with the teacher we ought to have universal pre-school (.) and we ↑ought to make college tuition tax deductible (.) up to ten thousand dollars a year (.) I’d ↑like to tell you a quick story I got a ↑lletter. today as I left Sarasota ↑Florida. (.) I’m here with a group of thirteen people from around the country (.) uh who helped me prepaare (somewhat laughing) and we had a great time but ↑TWO days ago (.) we ate lunch at a restaurant and the ↑GUY that served us lunch (.) send (.) gave me a letter today (.) he got (.) uh his name is ↑RAndy Ellis (.) he has a fifteen-year-old daughter named Caley (.) who is in Sarasota high-school (.) her science ↑claass was supposed to be for twenty-four (.) students (.) she is the thirty↑sixth student in that classroom (.) they sent me a picture of heers (.) in the classroom (.) they can’t ↑squeeze another desk ↑in. for heer (.) [so sshee (unintelligible)] has to ↑staand. during class ↑I want the federal government (.) c con↑sistent with local control and new accountability to make (.) [im so] provement of our schools the nnumber one priority so Caley will have a desk (.) and can ↑sit down in a classroom where she can learn all right (.) soo (.) having heard the two of you (.) voters have just heard the two of you what’s the ↑↑difference (.) what’s the ↑chooice between the two of you on edu[cation well the first] (.) the first is (.) the difference iis (.) there ↑is no new accountability measures in vice president Gore’s plan (.) he says he’s for vooluntary ↑↑testing (.)

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M):

GWB:

635

Appendix you can’t have vooluntary ↑testing. (.) you must haave (.) ↑mandatory testing (. ) you must say that if you re↑ceive money (.) you must show us whether or not children are learning to ↑read. and ↑write. and ↑add. and sub↑↑traact (.) ↑that’s the difference (.) you may ↑↑claaim. you’ve got mandatory testing but you ↑don’t Mr. vice ↑president. (.) and that’s a ↑huuge difference (.) ↑testing is the cornerstone of reform you ↑know how I know. (.) because it’s the ↑cornerstone of reform in the state of Texas Re↑publicans and Democrats came together and I asked the question ‘what can we do to make oour (.) public education the best in the country’ (.) and we’ve done a looong way (.) working together to do so. and the ↑cornerstone (.) is to have ↑stroong accountability in re↑turn for money (.) and in re↑turn for flexibility (.) we’re going to aaask you to ↑show us whether or not (.) and we ask you to (.) post the results on the ↑Internet. (.) wee uh encourage parents to take a look at (. ) at the comparative results of ↑schoools. (.) we’ve got a stroong charter school ↑movement that I (.) signed the legislation to get started in the state of ↑Texas. (.) ↑I believe that if we fiiind poor children trapped in schools that won’t ↑teach. we need to free the ↑↑parents (.) I think we need to expaand education savings ac↑counts it’s something that (.) vi (.) uh (.) the vice president uh (.) my vice presidential running mate sup↑ports so there’s big differences of opinion (.) [he won’t support he won’t support I but hee] ↑freeing local districts from the striings of federal ↑money.= aright how do you ↑see the differences ↑well. first of all (.) I ↑do have mandatory testing I think the governor may not haaave (.) have heard what I (.) said clearly (.) the the ↑voluntary naational testing is in addition (.) to the maandatory testing that we requiire of states ↑all schools. ↑all school districts. (.) uh sstudents themselves ↑and (.) required ↑teacher testing which goes a step farther than governor ↑Bush has been willing to go (.) ↑HERE ↑here are a couple of differences though (.) uh Jim (.) governor Bush is in favor of voouchers which take taxpayer money a↑waay from public schools and give them to private schools that are not ac↑coountable for how the money is used and don’t have to take all ↑aapplicants (.) now private schools play a greeat rooole in (.) in our society all of our children have gone to both public ↑schools. (.) ↑and private schools (.) but I ↑don’t think private schools (.) sshould have a right to take taaxpayer money a↑waay. (.) from public schools at a ↑tiime (.) uh when Caley Ellis is ↑staanding in that classroom (.) ↑let me give you another example I went to a school in Dade County Florida (.) where the facilities are ↑so overcrowded (.) the children have to eat lunch in sshhifts with the ↑first shift for lunch starting at niine thirty in the ↑↑morning (.) look (.) ↑this is a funding ↑ccrriisis all around the ↑coountry. there are fewer parents of school age children as a percentage of the voting popu↑lation. (.) and there is the laargest generation of students ↑ever (.) we’re in an information age when learning is more im↑portant than ever. (.) ↑nninety per cent of our kids go to ↑public schools. (.) we have to make it the number one ↑priority moodernize our ↑schools. reduce the ↑class siize. re (.) uh recruit new ↑teachers. give every ↑chiild a chance to learn with one-on-one time in a quality ↑high-quality safe (.) school (.) if it’s a ↑failing school. (.) sshhut it down. and ↑reopen it. (.) under a ↑new principal. with a turnaround team of specialists the way governor Jim Hunt ↑does. (.) in North Caro↑lina. here is

AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG:

636

Appendix another difference the ↑governor (.) if it’s a failing school (.) would ↑leeave the children in that failing school for three (.) YEEARS wait a minute and ↑↑theeen (.) give a llittle bit of money to the parents a down payment on a down payment for private school tuition and pre[tend [quick that that would be e enough for them to go out and [go to a private ↑school it’s an il↑lusion let’s move oon (.) thirty sec= wait ↑wait a minute] (.) what (.) we thirty seconds governor ok (.) (muttering something)= =ok= =yeah (.) uh ↑first of aaall (.) MOST good governance is at the state level (.) see here is the mentality (.) ↑I’m going to make the state do this ↑I’m going to make the state do that (.) ↑aall I’m saying is if you spend money (.) show us results (.) and test every ↑yeear. (.) which ↑you do not do Mr. vice president you do ↑not test every year (.) you could ↑say you doo in the cameras but you don’t [unless you’ve changed your plan here on the stage I didn’t ↑say that I didn’t ↑say that] SEcondly (.) and you ↑need to test every year because that’s why you determine whether or not children are progressing to excellence (.) secondly uh ↑ONE of the things that we have to be ↑careful about. in politics (.) is (.) throwing ↑money (.) at a system that has ↑not yet been reformed ↑more money is needed and ↑I spend. more money (.) but step one is to make sure we refoorm the system (.) to have the ↑system in place that leaves noo child behind ↑stop this business about aasking ‘gosh ↑how old are you’. (.) if you’re ten we’re going to put you here if you’re twelve we’ll put you here and start ↑asking the question ‘↑what do you know’ (.) and if you don’t know what you’re supposed to know we’ll make sure you do early before it’s too late= =new question (laughs) we’ve been talking about a lot of specific issuues. it’s ooften said (.) that in the ↑final analysis about ninety per cent of being the president of the United States (.) is dealing with the unexpected ↑not with issuues that came up (.) in the campaign (.) vice president Gore can ↑you point to a decision an action you have taken (.) that illustrates your ability to haandle the unexpected the crisis under fire etcetera whenn uh the aaction in ↑Kosovo waas (.) dragging oon and we were searching for a so↑lution to the problem our country (.) uh had de↑feated the adversary on the baattlefield without a single (.) uh American ↑liife being loost in coombat (.) but thee (.) the ↑dictator Milosevic was uh hanging ↑oon. (.) uh ↑I invited the former prime ↑minister. of ↑Russia. (.) to my ↑house (.) uh and (.) took a ↑risk in asking him to get personally (.) uh invooolved along with thee (.) uh the head of Finland to go to ↑Belgrade and too take uh (.) aa a set of proposals from the United States that would constitute basically a sur↑render (.) ↑by Serbia (.) but uh I it was a calculated risk that (.) that paid ↑ooff (.) now (.) uh (.) I could probably give you some other exaamples

GWB: AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

AG: GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M):

AG:

637

Appendix uh of decisions over the laast twenty-four ↑years. I I have uh (.) been in public service for twenty-four years Jim (.) uh and throughOUT all that time (.) the ↑people I have fought for (.) have been (.) the middle-class families (.) and I have been willing to stand ↑up. to powerful ↑interests. like the (.) the big insurance ↑companies. the drug ↑companies. the HM↑Oos. the oil ↑companies. (.) the they have good ↑people. and they play (.) constructive roles some↑times. but sometimes they get too much power (.) uh ↑I caast myy loot. (.) with the people (.) ↑even when it means that you hhave to stand up (.) to some ↑powerful interests who are trying to tuurn. (.) the (.) thee uh (.) the ↑policies and the laaws to their advantage (.) that’s uh (.) you can see it in in this cam↑paign (.) the big drug companies support uh (.) governor ↑Bush’s prescription drug proposal (.) they oppose ↑miine. because (.) ↑they don’t want to get Medicare invoolved because they’re afraid (.) that Medicare will negotiate lower ↑prices for seniors who currently pay the highest prices of all governor Bush I’ve been standing up to big Hollywood (.) big trial lawyers (.) uuh (.) ↑what was the question it was about e↑mergencies ↑wasn’t it. [(laughs) (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) well (laughs) it was about] (.) well (.) [ok (smiling) (laughs)] (.) Ii (.) you know as GOvernoor uuh (.) one of the things you have to deal with iis catastrophe (.) I can remember the fiires that swept Parker County ↑Texas I remember the ffloods that swept our ↑state I remember going down to Del Rio ↑Texas (.) I’ve got to (.) I’ve got to pay the administration a compliment James Lee ↑Witt of FEMA has done a really good joob of (.) working with governors during tiimes of crisis (.) but ↑that’s the time when you’re tested not onlyy uh (.) uhm it’s the ↑↑time to test your ↑metal a ↑time to test your heart when you see people whose liives have been turned upside doown (.) it (.) broke my heart to go to (.) the flood sceene in Del Rio (.) where (.) a fellow and his family just got completely uprooted (.) the only thing I knew to doo was to (.) ↑get aid as quickly as possible (.) which we did with state and federal help (.) and to put my ↑aarms around the man (.) and his family and (.) ↑cry with them (.) uh (.) but ↑that’s what governors do (.) governors are (.) oftentimes found on the front line of catastrophic situations (0.5) new question (.) there can bee all kinds of ↑criises (.) governor. (.) a questions for you (.) there could be a crisis for instance in the financial area Yeah the stock market could take a a tumble (.) there could bee a failure of a maajor financial institution (.) ↑what is your general attitude toward government intervention in such events (1.5) Well it depends ↑obviously. (.) but what ↑I would do first and foremost is I would get in touch with the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspaan to (.) to find out all the ↑faacts and all the circumstances (.) I would have my secretary of the treasury be in touch with the (.) fi↑nancial centres not only here but at home (.) I would make sure that ↑key members of Congress were called iin to discuss the ↑graavity of the situation (.) and I would come up with a ↑game plan. to ↑deal with it that’s what governors (.) end up ↑doing we end up being problem-solvers (.) we come

JL(M): GWB: A: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

GWB:

638

Appendix up with practical common sense so↑lutions (.) fooor problems that we’re con↑fronted with (.) and in this case in the case of a fi↑naancial crisis I would gather aall the faacts before I made the decision as to what the government ought or ought not to ↑do vice president Gore= =YEAH ↑first I want to (.) compliment the governor on his response to those fires and nd floods in Texas I I ac↑companied James Lee Witt down ↑to Texas when those fires (.) broke out uh and (.) FEMA has been a major flaagship project of our reinventing ↑government efforts and I agree it works extremely well now (.) on the ↑internationall financiall crises that come up my friend Bob ↑Rubin the former secretary of treasury is here (.) he’s a very close adviisor to me and a great friend (.) uh (.) in all res↑pects. (.) ↑I have had a chance to work with him and Allen Greenspaan and ↑others. on the crisis following the collapse of the Mexican PEso (.) uh when the Asian financial ↑crisis raised the risk of world-wide recession that could affect (.) our e↑conomy. and ↑starting (.) and (.) now of course the Eurooo’s uh (.) uh value has been ↑dropping. butt uh (.) seems to bee uh (.) under control but it ↑started for me I in the last eight years when I had the honor (.) of casting thee ↑tie-breaking vote (.) to end the ooold economic plan here at ↑home. (.) and ↑put into place a new economic plan. (.) that has helped us to make some ↑progress twenty-two million new joobs and (.) the greatest pros↑perity ever (.) but it’s not ↑good enough (.) aand ↑my attitude is you ain’t seen nothing yet we need to do moore and better so (.) governor would you agree there is no basic difference here (.) on on on interven interveening. (.) the ↑federal government interveening. in what might be seen by others to be a private financial crisis [if it’s that the difference ↑no there’s no difference on that] there ↑is a difference though as to what the e↑conomy has meant. I think the economy has meant more (.) for the (.) Gore (.) and ↑Clinton folks than the Gore and ↑Clinton folks have meant for the economy (.) I I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship (.) and that’s the role of ↑government to en↑courage that (.) but in terms of the response (.) to the ↑question (.) no (.) [no OK] uh can ↑I comment on ↑that.= =you may= =↑see you know I I think the American people deserve credit for the great economy (.) that we have and it’s their ingenuity I I a↑gree with that. (.) but you ↑know they were they were working pretty hard eight ↑years ago aand uh (.) they had ingenuity eight ↑years ago. (.) the ↑difference iis we’ve got a (.) new ↑poolicy and instead of cooncentrating on tax cuts (.) mmostly for the ↑wealthy we want (.) I want tax cuts for the ↑mmiddle-class families and I want to con↑tinue the prosperity (.) and make sure that it enriches ↑not just a feew but ↑aall of our families (.) look (.) we have gone from the biggest deficits (.) to the ↑biggest surpluses (.) we’ve gone from a triple debt recession during the previous twelve years (.) to a tripling of the ↑stock market (.) instead of a ↑high unemployment. (.) we’ve got the lowest AfricanAmerican and lowest Latin American unemployment rates (.) ever in ↑history. (.) uh and twenty-two million new ↑joobs uh (.) but it’s not good e↑noough. (.) too many people have been left be↑hiiind. (.) we have got to do much more the key is job ↑training. (.) edu↑cation. (.) in↑vestments in ↑health care. and edu↑cation. the

JL(M): AG:

JL(M):

GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG:

639

Appendix en↑vironment. retirement se↑curity. (.) and incidentally (.) we have got to preserve Social Security and I am ↑totally oppoosed (.) to to diverting [one out of every ↑six dollars (muttering something unintelligible)] away out of the Social Security trust fuund as the ↑governor has proposed. (.) into the stock market (.) ↑I want neew incentives for savings and investment (.) for the ↑yooung couples who are working hard (.) so they can in (.) save and invest on their own on ↑TOP of Social Security ↑not at the ex↑pense of Social Security as the governor proposes= =[governor two points] (.) uuuh (.) one (.) a ↑lot of folks are still waiting for that. (.) nineteen ninety-twoo middle-class tax cut (.) I I remember (.) the vice president ↑saying ‘just give us a chance to get up there we’re going to make sure you get tax cuts’ (.) it didn’t ↑↑happen (.) they and now he’s having to say that a↑gain. (.) it’s just they’ve had their ↑chance to (.) deliver a tax cut to you (.) SEcondly the ↑ssurest waay (.) to bust this economy (.) is to increase the roole and ↑siize of the federal government (.) the ↑Senate Budget Committee did a study of the vice president’s expenditures (.) they had projected that they could con↑ceivably bust the budget by ↑niine hundred billion dollars (.) that means he’ll either have to raise your taxes by ↑nine hundred billion. (.) or go into the Social Security ↑surplus. for nine hundred billion (.) uh this is a PLAAN that is going to increase the bu↑reaucracy by twenty thousand people (.) his targeted tax cut is ↑so detailed so much fine print that it is going to require numerous IR↑S agents (.) now we need somebody to ↑simplify the code (.) to ↑be fair (.) to continue ↑prosperity byy (.) sharing some of the surplus with the people who pay the ↑↑bills (.) par↑ticularly those (.) at the boottom end of the economic laadder uh (.) if I could res↑pond Jim. (.) what ↑he’s quoting is NOOT the Senate Budget Committee (.) it is a paartisan (.) press releease by the Re↑publicans on the Senate Budget Committee (.) that’s not worth the government the the taxpayer-paid paper that it’s ↑printed oon (.) now ↑as for twenty thousand new bureaucrats as you ↑call them. (.) you know the ↑siize of the federal government will go doown (.) in a Gore administration in the reinventing government prograamme (.) you just look at the numbers= =ye= =it is ↑three hundred thoousand people smaller today (.) than it was eight yeears ago (.) now (.) th the ↑fact iis (.) you’re going to have a hard tiime con↑vincing folks that we were a whoole lot better off eight years ago (.) than we are to↑day. (.) but that’s not the ↑question (.) the ↑question iis ↑will we be better off four years from ↑noow. (.) than we are today (.) and (.) as for the ssurest waay to threaten our prosperity (.) ↑having aa. (.) a one point niine ↑trillion dollar tax cut almost half of which goes to the wealthy (.) and a one ttrillion dollar Social Security privati↑zation proposal. (.) [is the ↑surest way to put our our budget into deficit (.) raise interest rates (.) and out our prosperity at ↑risk I thought (.) wait (.) I cn´t (.) but (.) I cn’t (.) nd (.) I ↑can’t let the man] I ↑can’t let the man continue with fuzzy ↑maath (.) it is one point ↑↑THREE trillion Mr. vice president (.) it’s going go to ↑everybody who pays taxes I’m not going to be one of ↑these kinds of presidents that says (.) ‘you get tax relief and you don’t’ (.) [I’m ↑not

GWB: AG:

JL(M): GWB:

AG:

JL(M): AG:

GWB:

640

Appendix going to be a picker and chooser uh (.) I (.) I (.)] what is faair is everybody who pays taxes ought to get re↑liief I thought we cleared this ↑up [a while ago (laughs)] yeah= =[(collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) uuh (.) [new q (.) (Unintelligible)] new question] on Social Security (.) both of you have Social Security reform plaans (.) [so right] we could spend the rest of the eevening and ↑two or three other evenings talking about them in detail (.) [we’re not going to do that suits mee] BUT [(6. collectively burst into laughter) (laughs)] (.) MAny experts (.) including Federal Reserve chairman Greenspaan vice president Goore (.) say that it will be impossible for ↑eeither of you (.) essentially to keep the system (.) ↑viiable (.) on its ↑own. (.) during the coming (.) baby boom bay boomer boomer retirement onslaught (.) without either reducing benefits or increasing taxes do ↑you disagree I I do disagree becaause (.) if if ↑we can keep our prosperity going (.) if ↑we can continue balancing the budget and paying down the deebt (.) then the strong economy uh keeps generating ↑surpluses. (.) and ↑here’s what I would do here’s is my plan (.) I will ↑keep Social Security in a loockbox (.) and that pays doown the national debt and the ↑interest ssavings (.) I would put right back into Social Security (.) that exteends the life of Social Security for fifty-↑fiiive (.) years. (.) now (.) I (.) I I think that it’s very important to understaand that ↑cutting benefits under Social Security (.) ↑meeans that (.) thatt uh people like Winifred Skinner from Des Moines Iowa who is here (.) would really have a much harder tiiime (.) because there are ↑millions of seniors who are (.) living almost haaand to mouth (.) and you talk about cutting benefits (.) ↑I don’t go along with it (.) I am op↑poosed to it. (.) I’m ↑also opposed to a plaan that diverts one out of every six ↑dollars awaay from the Social Security ↑trust fund. (.) you know Social Security (.) uh is a ↑trust fund that pays the checks this year (.) with the money that is paid ↑into Social Security (.) this year (.) the governor wants to diveert (.) one out of every six dollars off into the ↑stock market (.) which ↑means that he would ↑ddraain a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund over the (.) uh in this gene↑ration. (.) over the next ten ↑years. (.) and Social Security under that approach would go ↑bankrupt (.) within this generation (.) his leading adviisor on this plaan (.) ↑actually said that would be o↑k. (.) because then the Social Security trust fund could start ↑boorrowing (.) it would borrow up to three trillion ↑DOllars (.) now (.) Social Security has never done that (.) and ↑I don’t think it should do that (.) ↑I think it should stay in a lockbox and I’ll tell you this (.) I will veto ↑anything (.) that takes money ↑out of Social Security (.) for privatization or anything else ↑other thaan (.) Social Security ↑governor

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG: A: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): A: JL(M):

AG:

JL(M):

641

Appendix GWB: (0.5) well I thought it was ↑interesting that (.) on the two minutes he spent about a million-and-a-haalf on ↑my plaan (.) which means he doesn’t want you to know that what he’s doing is loading up IOUus for future generations (.) he ↑puts no real aassets into the Social Security system (.) the ↑REvenuuues exceed the expenses in Social Security until the year twenty fifteen which means (.) ↑aall retirees. (.) are going to get the promises made (.) so for those of ↑yoou. who he wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him ↑hear me loud and clear (.) a promise ↑maade will be a promise kept (.) and ↑YOU BET we want to alloow younger workers to take ↑some of their own money see that’s the difference of o↑pinion. the vice president thinks it’s the government’s money (.) the payroll taxes are ↑your money you ought to put it in ↑prudent safe investments so that one trillion over the next ten years grows to be (.) ↑three trillion (.) the ↑money stays within the Social Se↑curity system. (.) it’s a ↑paart of the it’s a part of the (.) ↑Social Security system he ↑keeps claiming it’s going to be ↑out. of Social Se↑↑curity (.) it’s ↑your money it’s a part of your re↑tirement benefits it’s a ↑ffundamental difference between what we believe (.) I want you to have your own ↑aasset that you can call your oown (.) I want you to have an ↑aasset that you can pass on from one generation to the next (.) I want to get a better rate of return for your own ↑money (.) than the paaltry two per cent that the current Social Security trust gets today (.) so Mr. GREENspan miissed the uh (.) ↑I thought missed an oppor↑tunity to say there’s a thhird way (.) and that is to get a better rate of re↑tuurn. (.) on the Social Security monies coming into the ↑trust (.) there is two point three (.) trillion dollars of ↑surplus (.) that we can uuse to make sure that younger workers have a Social Security plaan in the ↑future (.) ↑if we’re smart. (.) ↑if we trust workers (.) and if we understaand th the power of the compounding rate of ↑interest ↑here is the difference (.) ↑I give a neew inccentive (.) for younger workers (.) to saave their own money (.) and invest their own money (.) but ↑not at the ex pense of Social Security (.) on ↑top of Social Security (.) my ↑plaan is. Social Security plus (.) the governor’s plaan is Social Security (.) minus (.) your future benefits would be ↑cuut. (.) by the amount that’s diverted into the ↑stock market (.) and if you make bad investments (.) that’s too ↑baad. (.) but even be↑↑fore then (.) the problem hits (.) because the money con↑tributed to Social Security this year is (.) an en↑titlement that’s how it ↑works. (.) and the money is uused to pay the benefits for ↑seeniors this year (.) if ↑YOU cut the amount going iin (.) one out of every six ↑doollars (.) then you ↑hhaave to cut th the value of each ↑check (.) by one out of every six ↑doollars. (.) un↑less you come up with the money from somewhere else (.) ↑I. would ↑like. to ↑know. from the governor (.) I know we’re not supposed to ans aask each other questions (.) but I’d be interested in ↑↑KNOwing (.) does that trillion ↑dollars (.) come from the trust fund (to the moderator) (unintelligible) (laughs)] or does it come from the rest of the ↑budget no (.) there’s e↑nough money to pay seniors todaay in the current affaairs of Social Security (.) the trillion comes (.) from the ↑surplus (.) ↑surplus is mor money (.) more money than ↑neeeded (.) let me tell you what your plan is (.) it’s ↑not (.) Social Security (.) plus it’s Social Security plus huge debt that’s what it is. (.) you ↑leave future generations with tremendous IOUs it’s ↑TIme to have a leader (.) that not

AG:

GWB: AG: GWB:

642

Appendix doesn’t put off (.) you know tomorrow what we should do today (.) it’s ↑time to have somebody to step up (.) and saay look (.) let’s ↑let younger workers (.) take some of their own money (.) and under certain guiidelines invest it in the private markets (.) uh the the the safest of federal in↑↑vestments yields four per cent (.) that’s twice the amount oof rate of retuurn than the current Social Security trust it’s [it’s a ↑fundamental difference of opinion here folks ok (.) well (.) we] younger worker after younger worker (.) ↑heears my caall that says ‘I trust you’ (.) and you know ↑what (.) th the issue is chaanging (.) because ↑seniors now understaand (.) that the promise made will be a promise kept (.) but ↑younger workers now understand we better have a government that trusts theem (.) and that’s exactly what I’m going to ↑do [could I respond to that Jim alright new question] (.) NEEW (.) [now let’s (.) we’re almost (.) we this is a big issue (.) it’s a big issue] (.) could we do another roound ↑on it we’re almost out of time. [well (.) just just just briefly when vice president Goore (.) we’ve] when ↑FDR estaablished (.) Social Security they ↑didn’t call them IOUus they called it the full faith and credit of the United ↑States. (.) (to Bush) if you don’t haave (.) trust in that I ↑doo. (.) [if you take it out of the ↑surplus. right (.) (unintelligible)] in the ↑trust fund. (.) that means (.) the trust fund goes baankrupt (.) in this generation within twenty ↑years I c’d (.) (unintelligible) go ahead this is this is a ↑government that thinks a two per cent rate of return on your money is satis↑factory (.) it’s ↑nooot (.) this is a government that says ↑younger workers can’t possibly have their own aas↑sets (.) we we ↑need to think differently about the issue (.) we ↑need to make sure our seniors get the promise made (.) uh but but I’m going to tell you if we don’t (.) trust younger workers to manage some of their own ↑money (.) [↑with the Social Security (unintelligible)] surplus (.) to grow from one trillion dollars to ↑three trillion it’s going to be impoossible to bridge the gap (.) WITHOUT (.) what Mr. Gore’s plan will do causing ↑huge payroll taxes (.) or major benefit reductions new question (.) yess governor Bush (.) are there ↑issues of character that distinguish you from vice president Gore ↑WELL (.) the man loves his wwife and I appreciate that a loot and I love mine (.) and the ↑man loves his family a lot (.) and I appreciate that cause I love (.) ↑my family. (.) ↑I think the thing that discouraged me about the ↑vice president waaas uttering those famous woords ‘no controlling legal authority’ (.) I I ↑FELT like (.) thaat (.) there needed to be a better sense of respoonsibility of what was going oon (.) in the White House (.) I be↑LIEEve thatt uh (.) I be↑lieve theyy’ve uh (.) ↑mooved

JL(M): GWB:

AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

643

Appendix that siiign ‘the buck stops here’ from the Oval Office desk to ‘the buck stops here’ on the Lincoln bedroom and that's not good for the country (.) it’s not right. we need to have aa (.) ↑new look about (.) uh how we conduct ourselves in ↑↑office there’s a huge ttrust (.) I ↑see it all the time when people come up to me and say (.) Iii uh (.) ‘I I don’t ↑want you to let me doown again’ (.) and uuh we can do ↑better (.) than the past administration has done (.) it’s time for a fresh ↑start (.) it’s time for a new look (.) it’s time for a ↑fresh start after a season of cynicism. (.) and so (.) Ii (.) I don’t know the man ↑weell (.) but ↑I’ve been disappointed about how ↑he and his administration have conducted the (.) fundraising affairs (.) you know going to a Buddhist temple (.) and then claiming it wasn’t a ↑fundraiser is just not my view of responsibility vice president Gore well ↑I think we ought to attack our country’s problems not attaack (.) each other (.) ↑I want to spend my time making this country (.) even better than it iis (.) not trying to make you out to be a (.) a bad ↑person. (.) you ↑may want to focus on scaandals (.) ↑I want to focus on results (.) as ↑I said a couple of months ago I stand here as my ↑oown maan (.) and I want you to ↑see me for who I really aam (.) uh (.) ↑Tipper and I have been married for thirty (.) years (.) we became GRAAND parents a year-and-ahalf ago (.) we’ve got four children (.) I have devoted twenty-↑foour yeears of my life to public service and I’ve said this before and ↑I’ll say it again (.) if ↑you entrust me with the presidency (.) I may not be the most exciting politician but ↑I ↑will ↑work hard for you every day. I will fight for middle-class families and working men and women and I will ↑nnever let you down so ↑governor what are you saying when yooou (.) mention theee uh (.) the fundraising (.) scandals or these fundraising charges uuh (.) that invoolve vice president Gore ↑what are you saying that the voters should take from that that’s relevant to this election= =I think they ought to factor ↑in. it when they make their decision in the ↑voting booth. [in what and do] a better job (.) ↑pardon me in what way ↑well I I just (.) I I you know (.) I think people need to be held res↑poonsible for the (.) for the ↑aactions they take in life= =ye= =I think that go ahead (.) excuse me well I think (.) that that’s part of (.) of the need for a ↑cultural change we need to say each of us need to be res↑poonsible for what we’re doing and people in the hiighest office of the laand (.) must be respoonsible for de↑cisions they make in life and uuh (.) and that’s (.) the way I’ve conducted myself as governor of ↑Texas. and that’s the way I’ll conduct myself as president of the United ↑States (.) should I be fortunate enough to earn your ↑vote are you saying all this is irrelevant vice president Go[re no] I ↑think I think the American people should take into account who we aaare (.) as individuals what our experience ↑iiis. what our positions on the issues ↑aare. what

JL(M): AG:

JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG:

644

Appendix proposals ↑aare. (.) I am asking you again to see me for who ↑Iii (.) really am. (.) ↑I am offering you my own vision my own experience my own proposals and inci↑dentally (.)↑one of them is this (.) this current uh campaign financing system has NOT reflected credit (.) on ↑anybody in either party (.) and that’s ↑one of the reasons I’ve said before and I’ll pledge here tonight (.) if I’m president the very ↑first billl that Joe Lieberman and Ii will send to the United States Congress (.) is the McCainFeingold campaign finance reform bill (.) and the ↑reason it’s that important (.) is that ↑AAALL of the other issues (.) whether prescription drugs for all ↑seniors.(.) that are op↑posed by the drug companies. (.) or the patient’s bill of ↑rights to take the decisions away from the HM↑Oos. and give them to the dooctors and nurses uh opposed by the HMOs and insurance companies ↑↑AALL of these other proposals (.) are going to be a llot easier to get paassed for the American people (.) if we limit the influence of special interest money (.) and give democracy back to the American ↑people and I wish governor Bush (.) would ↑jjooin me this evening (.) in in en↑dorsing (.) the McCain-Feeingold (.) Campaign Finance Reform bill governor you know (.) this man has no credibility on the ↑issue as a matter of faact I read in ‘The New York Tiimes’ where he said he co-s↑↑ponsored (.) the McCain-Feingold Campaign Fund (.) Fundraising bill (.) but he wasn’t in the ↑SEnate with uh senator Feingold (.) and so I (.) look (.) ↑I’m going to (.) what ↑you need to know about me is I’m going to uphoold the laaw (.) I’m going to have an attorney general that en↑forces the laaw (.) that it’s the tiime foor uh (.) the ↑time for campaign funding refoorm is (.) ↑AAfter the election (.) this man has out↑spent me. the special interests are out↑spending me. (.) and uuh (.) and I I I am ↑not going to lay down my aarms in the middle of the campaign (.) for somebody who has got noo credibility on the ↑↑issue [senator McCaain said in (.) well well it] excuse me (.) one [one go ahead] one sec uuh vice president Go[re please sena]tor McCain said in Aaugust (.) ‘it doesn’t matter which one of you is president of the United States in Jaanuuary (.) there is going to be BLOOD on the floor of the United States Senate’ and even he’ll ↑tie up the United Senate (.) until campaign finance reform is ↑paassed that includes a ban on soft money (.) first of all would you sup↑port that effort by him (.) or would you ↑siign a bill that is finally paassed that included [soft well ↑I would support] I ↑would support an effort to baan corporate soft money (.) and ↑labor union soft money so long as there was duues check-off (.) I’ve campaigned on this ever since the primaries (.) ↑I believe there needs to be instant disclosure on the Internet as to who has given to who (.) uh ↑I think we need to fully enforce the ↑↑laaw (.) I mean I think we need to have an attorney general that ↑says. ‘if laaws are broken we’ll enforce the ↑↑laaw’. be ↑strict about it (.) and ↑firm about it look uh (.) governor ↑Bushh uh you have uh attacked my character (.) and credibility

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M):

GWB:

AG:

645

Appendix (.) and ↑I am not going going to respooond in kind (.) I ↑think we ought to focus on the prooblems (.) and not attack each other (.) and and ↑one of the serious problems hear me ↑well. (.) is that ↑oour system of government (.) is being undermiined by ↑too much influence coming from special interest (.) ↑money (.) we hhaave to get a ↑handle (.) on it (.) and ↑↑like John McCain (.) I have ↑lleearned from experience (.) and it’s not a new po↑sition for me. (.) twenty-four yeears ago (.) I supported (.) full public ↑financing of all federal elections (.) and ↑anybody who thinks I’m just sssaying it it will be (.) the first bill I send to the Congress (.) I want [right you to] know (.) [I care paa let me tell you I want pe] ssionately about this and (.) ↑I will fight until it becomes law I want people to hear what he just said he is for full (.) ↑full public financing of congressional elections I’m ↑aabsolutely aadamently opposed to that (.) ↑I don’t want the government financing con↑↑gressional elections why [not and then] (.) sorry= =I would just say on that wonderful note of disagreement= =[(laughs) [(laughs) we have] to stop here] (.) and we want to go ↑now to your closing statements governor Bush is ↑first you have two minutes= =thank you Jiim thank you University of Massachusetts and Mr. vice president thank you (.) it has been a ↑good lively exchaange obviously we have huge differences of o↑pinion. (.) MIne is I want to empower ↑people (.) in their own liiives (.) I ↑also want to go to Washington to get some poositive things done (.) it is going to require a new ↑spirit (.) a spirit of cooperation (.) it’s going to require the ability of a Republican president to reach out across the (.) ↑partisan diviiide and to (.) say to Democrats (.) ↑let’s come together (.) to do what’s right for America (.) it’s been my record as governor of ↑Texas. (.) it will be how I conduct myself if I’m (.) fortunate enough to earn your vote as president of the United ↑States. (.) I want to ↑FInally get something done on Medicare (.) I want to make sure prescription druugs are available for (.) ↑aaall seniors (.) and I want ↑seniors to have additional choices when it comes to choosing their health care plaans (.) I want to ↑fiinally get something done on Social Security (.) I want to ↑make suure the seniors uh (.) have the promise maade will be a ↑promise kept but I want younger workers to be able to manage some of their own money some of their own payroll taaxes in the (.) in the private ssector under certain ↑guideliines to get a better rate of return on your own money (.) I want to ↑rebuild our military to keep the ppeace (.) I want to have a stroong haand when it comes to (.) when it comes to the U↑nited States in world affairs (.) I don’t ↑want to try to put our troops in aall places at aall times (.) I don’t ↑want to be the world’s policeman I want to be the world’s ppeacemaker (.) by having a military of high moraale and (.) a military that’s well-equipped (.) I WANT antii-bal↑listic missile systems to protect ourseelves and our allies from a (.) rogue nation that may (.) try to hold us hostage or (.) or blackmail our friend (.) I ↑also want to make sure the education system fulfills its hope and promise (.) I’ve had a stroong record of working

JL(M): AG: GWB: AG: GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB:

646

Appendix with ↑Democrats and Republicans in Texas to make sure no chiild is left behiind (.) I understaand the limited roole of the federal government (.) but ↑it could be a constructive roole when it comes to re↑foorm. (.) by insisting that there be (.) stroong accountability systems (.) now my intentions are to (.) ↑earn your vote and earn your confidence (.) I’m aasking for your vote (.) I I I (.) I ↑want you to be on my team and for ↑those of you working (.) thanks (.) thanks from the bottom of my heart (.) and for ↑those of you making up your miiind (.) I’d be honored to have your support vice president ↑Gore two minutes I ↑want to thank everybody whoo watched and listened tonight (.) because this is in↑deed. (.) a ↑ccrrucial time in American history (.) we’re we’re at a fork in the rooad (.) because we have thiis incredible pros↑perity. (.) but a lot of people have been left be↑hiind. (.) and we have a very important decision to make (.) will we ↑uuse the prosperity (.) to enrich (.) ↑aall of our families (.) and not just a ↑few. (.) ↑ONE important way of looking at this is to aask (.) who are you going to fight for (.) throughout ↑my career in public service (.) I have fought. for the working men and women of this country (.) middle-class families (.) ↑whyy. (.) because ↑YOU are the ones who have the hardest tiime paying ↑taaxes. (.) the hardest time making ends ↑meet. (.) you are the ones who are making (.) ↑car payments. and ↑mortgage payments. and (.) ↑doing right by your kids (.) and a ↑lot of times there are powerful forces that are against you (.) make no mistake a↑bout it. (.) they do have undue influence in Washington D.↑C. (.) and it makes a ↑ddifference if you have a president who will fight for you (.) I ↑know one thing about th position of ↑president. (.) it’s the ↑OONly position in our Constitution that is filled by an individual (.) who is ↑given the respoonsibility to fight (.) ↑not just for (.) one staate or one district or (.) the well-connected or ↑wealthy. (.) but to fight for ↑↑aall of the people (.) including especially (.) those who ↑most need somebody who will stand up and take on (.) ↑↑whatever powerful forces might stand in the way (.) there is a ↑woman named Winifred Skinner here tonight from Iowa (.) I mentioned her earlier (.) shee’s seventy-↑niine years oold. (.) she has Social Se↑curity. (.) I’m not going to cut her benefits or support any proposal that ↑would. (.) she gets a smaall ↑pension. (.) but in ↑order to pay for her prescription drug ↑benefits. (.) ↑shee has to go out seven days a week several hours a day (.) picking up caans (.) she came aall the way from ↑Iowa. (.) in a Winne↑bagoo. with her (.) poodle in order attend here tonight (.) and I want to ↑tell her (.) ↑I am going to ↑fight for a prescription drug benefit for ↑aaall (.) seniors (.) and I’m going to fight for the ↑people of this country for a prosperity that benefits aall and we will continue this dialoogue next ↑week on Octobeer (.) the e↑leventh at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem North Caro↑lina (.) the format ↑then. will be more in↑formal. more conver↑sational. with the two candidates seated at a table with ↑me. (.) the ↑THIRD will be October seventeenth at Washington University in St. LOUis (.) and that will follow a town-hall type format (.) also AAD the day after to↑morrow. (.) on October fifth there is thee ninety-minute debate between the Democratic candidate to viice president senator Joe ↑Lieberman (.) and the Republican candidate (.) former secretary of defence Dick Cheney (.) it will be held at Center ↑College in Danville Ken↑tucky (.) the moderator will be Bernard Shaw of CNN (.) thank you governor Bush (.) vice president Goore (.) ↑see you next week

JL(M): AG:

JL(M):

647

Appendix [AND FOR NOW ↑FROM BOSTON I’M JIM LEHRER (.) thank you and good night (collectively applauds) (candidates approach each other to shake hands)

A:

648

Appendix Vice Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Danville, KY. CNN Especial Event Aired October 5th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour and 30 min. Participants: Bernard Shaw (BS(M)) Joseph Lieberman (JL) Dick Cheney (DIC) Audience (A) BS(M): From historic Danville Kentucky (.) good evening and ↑welcome to this year’s only vice presidential debate sponsored by the Commission oof Presidential Debates (.) I’m Bernard Shaw moderator (.) TO↑night we come to you from the haaall in the Northern Center for the Arts on the campus of Centre College to President John Rausch the faculty here students aand community leaders state wide weee thank you for hosting (.) this debate (.) the ↑candidates are the Republican nominee former defence secretary Dick Cheney of Wyoming (.) aand the Democratic nominee senator Joseph Lieberman off Connecticut (.) theee Com↑mission these candidates and their campaign staffs have agreed to the following rules (.) a candidate shall have two minutes to respond to the moderator’s question the ↑other candidate shall have two minutes to ↑comment on the question or the first candidate’s aanswer (.) when I exercise the moderator’s discretion of extending discussion of a question (.) no candidate may speak for more than two minutes at one time (.) this audience has been told no disruptions will be tolerated (.) a prior coin toss has determined that the ↑first question (.) will goo too the Democratic candidate (.) ↑senator few hard working Americans would base their well-being on bonuses they hope to get (.) five or ten years from now (.) why do ↑youu (.) and you secretary Cheney predict surpluses you cannot ↑↑possibly guarantee to pay for your proposed programs Bernie befoore I answer thatt very important question let me first thank you for moderating the debate let me (.) thank the wonderful people here at Centre College and throughout Kentucky for being such gracious hosts (.) and let me give a special thank you to the people of Connecticut (.) without whose support over these last thirty years I would never have had the opportunity Al Gore has given me this year (.) and ↑finally let me thank my family uh that is here with me my wife Hadaassah our children (.) our ↑siblings and my mooom (.) my eighty-five year-old mom gave me some good advice about the debate earlier today (.) she saiddd ‘↑sweetheart’ as she’s prone to call me uuh ‘remember be positive (.) AAND know that I will love you no matter what you’re opponent says about you’ [(.) well WELL mom uh (2. laughs)] as always that was both reassuring and wiiise I ↑AM going to be positive tonight (.) I’m not going to indulge in negative personal attacks (.) I’m going to ↑talk about the issues that matter to the people of this country education health care retirement security and moral vaalues (.) I’m going to ↑describe (.) the plaan that Al Gore and I have for ↑keeping America’s prosperity going and making sure that it benefits more of America’s families particularly (.) the hard-working middle class families who have not yet fully benefitted from the good times we’ve haad (.) anddd uh Bernie I’m going to explain tonight (.) hhooow we’re going to do all this and remain

JL:

A: JL:

649

Appendix fiscally responsible let me get to your question you have about ten seconds [(laughs) All right (laughs)] we’re not spending any ↑mooore than is projected from the experts we’re setting aside three hundred billion dollars in a re↑SEErve fund (.) the projections the nonpartisan experts make are not quite right (.) ↑wee understand that ba[lancing the budget keeping America out of debt your time is out senator] is a way to keep interest rates doown and the economy growing secretary Cheney well Iii I too want to join in thanking the folks here in Center College in Danville Kentucky for sponsoring this and making all of this possible and I’m delighted to be here tonight with you Jo (.) I want tooo avoid any personal attacks (.) I promise not to bring up your singing (.) [(laughs) so Iiii (laughter) (laughs)] [I I promise not to ↑sing (laughter) really (.) good] Iii think this is an extraordinarily important decision we’ll make on November seventh uuh we’re really going to choose betweenn (.) what I consider to be an ↑oold way offf governing ourselves offf uh off uh high levels of spending high taxes ever more intrusive bureaucracy or a new course a new era if you will (.) and and governor Bush and I want to offer that new course of action (.) with respect to the ↑surplus Bernie we have to make some kind of of forecast we can’t make twelve-month decisions in this business (.) we’re talking about (.) the kiiinds of (.) fundamental changes in prograaams and ↑government that are going to affect people’s liiives for the next twenty-five or thirty years (.) and while it may be a little risky in some respects from an eco↑nomic standpoint too uh to try to forecast surpluses I think it’s uuh wee have to make somme planning assumption to ↑proceed (.) we care a great deal about the issues that are at stake here and one of the ↑difficulties we have frankly is for the last eight years we’ve ignored a lot of these problems (.) we haven’t moved aggressively on Social Security we haven’t moved for example on Medicare (.) there are important issues out there that need to be resooolved and it’s important for us to get on with that business that’s what governor Bush and I want to do you alluded to problemss there’s no magic ↑bullet secretary Cheney (.) in this question to you (.) no magic bullets to solve the problems of public education but what is the next best so↑lution ↑well I think public education ↑is a solution (.) our desire is to (.) find ways to reform our educational system (.) to return it to its former glory I’m a product of public schools my family wife and daughters all went to public schools (.) uh we believe very much in the public school system (.) uuh but if you look at where we ↑are from the standpoint of the nation uh recentt exaaams for example the National Assessment of Educational Progress independent no-partisannn uh testing service shows that there’s been no progress on reading scores in the last eight years (.) almost no progress on math. (.) the achievement made between minority and non-

BS(M): JL: A: JL:

BS(M): JL: BS(M): DIC:

A: JL: A: DIC:

BS(M):

DIC:

650

Appendix minority students is as biggest as it’s ever ↑been (.) uh we’ve had a significant increase in spending for education nationwiide but it has produced almost no positive re↑sults. (.) that’s really unacceptable from our standpoint because if you ↑look at ↑it (.) and ↑think about ↑it (.) we now haaave in our most disadvantaged communities nearly seventy per cent of our fourth graders can’t read (.) basic level uh we’ve graduated fifteen million kids from high school in the last fisteen years who can’t read at basic ↑level (.) they are ↑permanently sentenced to a life timme uh failure (.) and uh what we want to doo what governor Bush and I want to doo is to change that (.) we think we know how to do ↑it governor Bush has done it in ↑Texas we want to emphasiize local controol so that the people here in Kentucky decidde uh what’s best for their kids (.) we want to insist on high standards. one of the worst things we can do is fail (.) to s establish high standards (.) in effect to say to a (.) youngster because of their ethnic baackground or their income level (.) ‘we don’t have the same kind of expectations from you that we have from everybody else’ (.) and we want accounta↑bility we have to test every child every year to know whether or not we’re making ↑progress (.) with respect too uh achieving those goals and objectives (.) so we ↑think it’s extraordinarily important this is uuh probably the single most important issue in this campaign (.) governor Bush has made it clear that when he’s elected this will be his number one priority as a legislative made it measure tooo (.) submit to the Congress senator Al Gore and I are committed to making America’s public schools the best in the woorrlld and uh ↑I I disagree with what my opponent has said a lot of progress has been made in recent years uh average ↑testing scoores uh are up and a lot of extra↑ordinary work is being done by tens of thousands of parents and teachers and administrators all around America but there is ↑more to be ↑↑doone (.) and if you’ll allow me ↑I I want to go back to to your last question cause it leads to this question (.) I think ↑↑both of us agree that ↑leaving aside the Social Security and Medicare surpluses (.) there’s ↑↑one point eight trillion dollars in surplus available to spend over the next ten years as I said before we’re being fiscally responsible about it we’re taking (.) ↑THREE hundred billion dollars off the top to put in reserve fund (.) the ↑↑RREST of it we’re going to use for middle class tax cuts and investments in programs like education (.) now there’s a ↑↑big difference here between these two tickets (.) our opponents are going to spend ↑one point six trillion of the ↑one point eight trillion (.) surplus projected on a big tax cut that Al Gore talked about the other night so effectively (.) ↑we’re saving money to invest in education you can↑not reform education and im↑prove it in this country without spending some money (.) Al Gore and I have committed a hundred and seventy billion dollars for that purpose (.) to recruit a ↑HUNdred and thousand new teachers to re↑duce the size of claassrooms (.) uh to ↑help local school districts build big buildings so our children are not learning in crumbling classrooms (.) and we’re ↑NOT just going to stop att uh high school (.) we’re going to go ooon and give the middle class the ability to deduct up to ↑↑TEN thousand dollars a year in the ↑cooost of college tuition (.) now ↑that’s a tremendous life-saving change (.) which will help people carry on their education (.) and allow them too develop the ↑↑kinds of skills that will help them succeeed (.) in the hi-tech economy of today

BS(M): JL:

651

Appendix DIC: BS(M): DIC: BS(M): DIC: A: JL: BS(M): JL: DIC: very important issue Bernie maybe we could extend oon (.) education for a moment you’re asking me to invoke the moderator’s dis↑cretion. [and forward the discussion I am (.) asking you to invoke the mo]derator’s discussion (.) yes your discretion it is so ↑granted thank you sir [(3. laughs) your ↑honor] do I have a chance too respond of course you ↑do (.) uh the secretary will have two ↑minutes (.) and then (.) ↑you will have two minutes thank you ↑let’s talk about this question of the surplus because it really driives a lot of what we’re talking about here Jooe (.) aand uh (.) if you look at at our proposal (.) we take (.) half of the projected surplus and set it aside for Social Security uuh over (.) two point four trillion dollars (.) we take roughly a ↑fourth of it for other urgent priorities uuh such as Medicare reformm and uuh education several of these other key programs we want to support (.) and we ↑take roughly one fourth of it and and return it in the form of a tax cut to the American taxpayer (.) we think it’s extraordinarily important to ↑do that (.) but it is a fundamental difference between our twooo uh our two approaches (.) if you ↑look frankly by ↑our numbers and the numbers of the Senate Budget Committee which has totalled up all the promises thatt uh vice president Gore has made during the course of the campaign there are some ↑nine hundred billion dollars in spending over and above that surplus already (.) and we still have a month to go in the cam↑paign (.) uuuh the fact iiis that the program that we put together we think is very responsible suggestion that somehow all of it is going for tax cuts isn’t true (.) another way to l↑ook at it is over the course of the next ten years we’ll collect roughly ↑twenty-five trillion dollars in revenue (.) we want to take about five per cent of that (.) and return that to the American taxpayer in the form of tax relief (.) weee’re have the highest level of taxation now we’ve had since World War II (.) the average American family is paying about forty per cent in federal state and local taxes (.) we think it ↑is appropriate to return to the American people so that they can (.) make choices themselves in how that money ought to be spent whether they want to spend it on education or on retirement or oon ↑paying their bills (.) it’s ↑their choice it’s their prerogative (.) we want to give them the opportunity to make those kinds of choices for themselves and we think this is a totally reasonable approach senator uuh Bernie (.) let me ↑start with the numbers with all ↑due respect the ↑Senate Budget Committee estimates said that Dick Cheney has just referred to are the ↑estimates of the partisan Republican staaff of the Senate Budget Committee (.) ↑we’re using the numbers presented by the noonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and (.) we ↑START with an agreement which is the surplus in the Social Security fund ↑↑should be locked up and used for Social Security (.) that’s where the agreement ends we ↑also agree and believe and pledge that the surplus in the ↑↑Medicare (.) trust fund should also be locked up with a sign on it says that politicians keep your haaands off (.) our op↑ponents do not do that in fact they raid the Medicare trust fund (.) to pay for (.) well their tax cut and other programs that

BS(M): JL:

652

Appendix they can’t afford because they’ve ↑spent so much on the ↑taax cut (.) ↑LET me come back to the remaining one point eight trillion thaatt uh we both uh talked about (.) the ↑numbers show that one point six trillion gooes to the big tax cut which as Al Gore said the other night (.) sends ↑forty-three per cent to the top one per cent but really ↑↑worse than that (.) when you add on the ↑↑other spending programs that our opponents have committed to PLUS their the cost of their plan to privatize Social Security by ↑oour calculation (.) they’re one point one trillion in in ↑debt (.) and that means we go back down the road to higher interest rates to higher unemployment (.) to a kind of self-↑tax increase on every American family because when ↑interest rates go up (.) so ↑↑too do the cost of mortgage payments car payments student loans credit card transactions so (.) if ↑we’ve learned anything over the last eight years (.) it is that one of the most important things the government can do the federal government ↑↑probably the most important is to be fiscally respooonsible (.) and that’s why Aal Gore and Ii are committed to ↑baalancing the budget every year in fact the ↑↑paaying off the debt by the year two thousand twelve (.) when by our calculation our opponents’ economic plan still leaves America two point eight trillion dollars in debt= =time (0.5) the next question goes to you (.) gentlemen this is the twenty-first century (.) yet on average (.) an American working woman in our great nation earns ↑seventy-fiive cents (.) for each dollar earned (.) byy a working male (.) what do you maales propose to do about it well (laughs) (.) it’s it’s a gooood and important question (.) uuh obviously (.) in our time fortunately (.) great advances have been made (.) by women achievinng the kind of equality that they were too long denied but Bernie your ↑question is absolutely right. (.) uuhm women actually the number I have received seventy-two cents for every dollar a man receives in a in a comparable job (.) ↑Al Gore and I have issued an economic plan in which we’ve we’ve stated spe↑cific goals for the future and ↑↑one of thoose gooals is to e↑liminate the ↑↑paay gap between (.) men and women it’s unfair and it’s unacceptable and uh (.) the ↑first way we will do that is by supporting the Equal Pay act which has been proposed in Congress which ↑gives women the right to (.) file legal actions against employers (.) who who are ↑not treating them fairly and not paying them equally (.) secondly we’re going to do everything we can using governmental support of business agencies such as the Small Business Administration to help women business owners to have an opportunity tooo invest and begin businesses and make larger incomes themselves (.) and there are other civil rights and human rights laws that I think can come to play here so ↑bottom liine this is an unfair and unacceptable situation andd even though as the economy has risen (.) inn uh in the laast eight years America’s women have risen with it and received more income (.) unttil women are receiving the ↑same (.) amount of pay (.) for the saame job they’re doing as a man receives we’ve not achieved genuine equality in this country Al Gore and I are committed to closing that gap and achieving (.) that equality (.) now in ↑so many families (.) women are a significant bread earner or the only bread earner so thiss uh this this caaause affects not only the women (.) but families and the children as well Mr. secretary Bernie Iii (.) certainly share the view that we ought to have equal pay for equal work

BS(M):

JL:

BS(M): DIC:

653

Appendix regardless offf uh of someone’s gender and we’ve made progress in recent years but I think we’ve still got ways to go (.) but I I ↑also think it’s not just about uh the the differential with respect to women if you look at our opponents’ tax proposal (.) uuhm they dis↑criminate (.) between stay-at-home moms with children that they take care of themselves and those whooo go to work or who in fact have their kids taken care of outside the ↑home (.) uuh you in effect as a stay-at-home mom get no tax advantage under the Gore tax plan (.) as contrasted with the ↑Bush proposal which in fact provides tax relief for everybody who pays taxes (.) aand uuh it’s important to understand (.) that the things we’re trying to ↑change (.) and address in the course of the campaign and what our agenda is for the ↑future or plans are for the future (.) focus very much upon giving as much control as we ↑caan to individual Americans be theey men or women uh be they single or married as much control as possible over their own lives (.) uuh especially in the area of ↑taxation we want to make certain that the American people have (.) the ability to keep more of what they ↑eaarn and then they can get to decide how to ↑spend it (.) the proposal we have from from Al Gore basically (.) doesn’t ↑↑do that it in effect lays out some twenty-nine separate tax credits and if you (.) live your life the way they want you to live your ↑life (.) if you behave in a certain way you qualify for a tax credit (.) and at that point you get some re↑lief. (.) bottom ↑line though is fifty million American taxpayers out there get nooo advantages at all out of the (.) Gore tax proposal whereas under the Bush plan everybody who pays taxes will get tax relief Bernie might I have an opportunity to respond you you can respond senator but I caution (.) you gentlemen thaat if (.) you ↑do this con[sistently (.) we’re not going (laughs)] cover a lot of topics= =ok= =and after the senator responds you don’t have (.) to feel compelled to respond to the senator it depends on what he says Bernie [right (.) UUUH (laughs)] THiss uh ↑this is an important difference between us and I and I want to clarify it briefly if I can the ↑first thing is uh (.) in fact the tax relief program that we’ve proposed one of the many taax credits for the middle class that I just referred to includes a ↑FIVE hundred dollar tax credit for stay-at-home mooms just as a as a way of saying we understand that you are performing a service for our society we want you to have that tax credit (.) ↑SEcond uh the ↑number of fifty million Americans not benefitting from ouur tax cut program is absolutely wroong (.) it’s it’s an estimate done on an earlier form of our our tax cut (.) program and it’s just plain wrong and ↑secondly although governor Bush says thatt uh ↑his tax cut program large as it is gives a tax cut to everybody as the newspapers indicated earlier this week uuh the Joint Committee on Taxation again a ↑nooonpartisan group in Congress says the twenty-seven million Americans don’t get what the governor (.) said they would in the tax program (.) again Al Gore and I want to live within our meeeans we won’t give it all away in one big tax cut and ↑certainly not to the one

JL: BS(M): JL: BS(M): JL: BS(M): DIC: JL: A: JL:

654

Appendix per cent of the public that doesn’t ↑↑neeed it now (.) we’re focusing on the middle class in the areas where they tell us they ↑need it (.) tax credits for better (.) and more expensive child care (.) tax credits for middle class families that (.) don’t have health insurance from their employers the tax deduction I talked about earlier very exciting deduction for up to (.) ↑↑ten thousand dollars a yeear in the cost of a college tuition (.) a ↑three thousand dollar tax credit (swallows) for the cost (.) well actually for (.) a ↑family member who staays home (.) with a parent or grandparent who’s ill and a very exciting tax credit program that (.) I hope I’ll have a chance to talk about later Bernie (.) thatt uh encourages savings by people early in life and ↑any time in life by having the ↑federal government (.) match savings for the seventy-five million Americans who make one hundred thousand dollars or less (.) up to two thousand dollars a year (.) [so very brief time] very briefly if if a young couple making fifty thousand dollars a year (.) saves a thousand dollars the government (.) will put another thousand dollars in that account by the ↑time they retire they’ll ↑not only have guaranteed Social Se↑curity (.) but more than ↑↑two hundred thousand in that retirement fund now ↑that’s= =your time is up senator thank you sir Bernie you have to be a CPA to understand what he just said (.) [thee uh Oh well.] the fact of the matter is thatt uh the plan is so com↑plex that the ordinary American is never going to ever figure out what they even qualify for (.) and uh it’s a classic example of wanting to have aa (.) a ↑program in this case a tax program that will in factt uh direct people to live their lives in certain ways rather than empowering them to make decisions for themselves it ↑is a big difference between us (.) they like tax credits we like tax reform and tax cuts (1.) Mr. secretary (.) this question is for you (.) would you support the effort of House Republicans who want legislation to res↑trict distribution (.) of the abortion drug (.) RU four eight six Bernie the abortion issue is a very tough one without question and a very important one (.) and uh (.) governor Bush and I haavve uh emphasiized while we arre clearly are both pro-↑life (.) uh that’s what we be↑lieve (.) thatt uh we want to ↑look for ways to try to reduce the incidence of abortion on our society (.) many on the prochoice side have said exactly the same thing (.) even Bill Clinton who’s been a supporter of of abortion rights has advocated reducing abortion uuuh to make it as rare as possible (.) uh with respect to the question of RU-four eight ↑six we believe thatt uh of course that it’s recently been approoved by the FD↑A (.) that really was a question of whether or not it was safe to be used by women they didn’t address the (.) sort of the question of whether or not there should or should ↑not be (.) abortion in the society so much as evaluate (.) that particular drug (.) what we would ↑like to be able to do is too (.) look for ways to reach across the divide between thee two points of view (.) and fiind things that we CAN do together (.) to reduce the incidence of abortion within such things as promoting adoption as an alternative (.) encouraging a parental notification (.) AND uuh we ↑also think banning the horrific practice of partial birth abortions is an area where there could be agreement (.)

BS(M): JL:

BS(M): JL: DIC: JL: DIC:

BS(M)

DIC:

655

Appendix Congress has twice passed by overwhelming margins aa significant number from both parties the ban on partial birth abortions twice it’s been vetoed by by Bill Clinton and Al Gore (.) and we would hhope that eventually they would recognize that’s not a good position for them to be in with respect to the RU four eight ↑six (.) proposal at this stage I haven’t looked at that particular piece of legislation (.) governor Bush made it ↑clear the other nightt uh he did not anticipate that he would be able to go in an direct the FDA to reverse course on that par↑ticular issue mhum primarily because the decision they made was on the drug (.) not the question of whether or nott uh it would support abortion (1.) uh (.) ↑Bernie this is a it’s a very important question aaand uh it is one on which these two tickets have dra↑maatically different points of view my answer is ↑no (.) I would not support legislation that is being introduced in Congress to ↑overriiide the Food and Drug Administration decision on RU four eight six (.) thee uh administration FDA worked ↑twelve years on this serious problem (.) they made a judgment based on what was ↑good for women’s health a doctor has to prescribe and care for a woman using it (.) I think it’s a decision we ought to let stand because it was made (.) by experts (.) but ↑let me saay more generally that the sig↑nificant difference here on this issue is that ↑Al Gore and I respect and will protect a woman’s right to chooose (.) and our opponents (.) will not (.) ↑we know that this is a difficult personal moral medical issue but it (.) that is e↑xaaactly whyy (.) it ought to be left (.) under our laaaw to a woman (.) her doctor and her Good nooow one area in which we agree (.) Al Gore and Iii is that we believe that the government ought to do everything it can to reduce the number (.) of unwanted pregnancies (.) and therefore the number of abortions and incidentally ↑↑heeear (.) there is good news to report (.) the ↑number of abortions is actually doown (.) in America over the last eight years in fact over the laast eight years (.) the number of ↑↑teenage pregnancies has dropped twenty per cent and the reason it haaas is that there are good programs out there that ↑Al Gore and I will continue to support such as uuh family planning (.) and programs that encourage abstinence (.) but when the ↑hhealth of a woman is involved I think the government has to be respectful (.) uh ↑I supported in fact a bill in the Senate that would have pro↑hibited late-term abortions except in ↑cases (.) where the health or life of the mother was invoolved (.) I did ↑not support the so-called partial birth abortion bill (.) because it would have prohibited abort that form of abortion at ↑any stage of the pregnancy (.) re↑↑gaardless of the effect (.) on the health and life of the woman and that’s unacceptable this question is for you senator (3.5) if Yugoslavia president Slobodan Milosevic prevails (.) ↑notwithstanding (.) the election results (.) would ↑you support his overthrow welll (.) there’s good news fromm Belgrade today Bernie as you know but it’s unconfirmed (.) the en↑couraging news is that the state news agency is reporting that uh Mr. Kos↑tunica iiis the president-elect (.) and uh there are ↑some press reports but they’re unconfirmed that Milosevic has actually left uh Belgrade (.) now that (.) is a very happy ending to a terrible story and it’s the end (.) of a reign of terror if if ↑that isn’t (.) if that is not confirmed and does not happen (.) thennn uh I

BS(M): DIC: JL:

BS(M):

JL:

656

Appendix think the United States with its European allies ought to do everything we can (.) uuh to en↑courage the ↑↑people of Serbia (.) to do exactly what they’ve been doing over the last few days to rise up and end the reign of terror and and ↑bring thems by Milosevic and ↑bring themselves baack into the family of nations where they will be (.) uh ↑welcomed. (.) by the United States and others (.) you knoow uh I’m very proud o on this night as it ap↑pears that Milosevic is about to or has (.) fallen of the ↑leadership role the United States played (.) in uh in the effort to stop his aggression and genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo (.) I I ↑↑know opponents have said that (.) they thought it was overreaching it wasn’t (.) it was a matter of principle in America’s naational interest and values (.) andd the fact is that we stopped the aggression we stopped the genocide (.) and therefore ↑strengthened (.) our relationship with our European allies in NATO and in ↑↑fact (.) made the United States more respected and trusted by our allies and more ↑ffeeaared (.) by our enemies (.) I think thatt vice president Gore played a critical roole ↑passionate purposive roole (.) in leading the administration along with Republican supporters like Bob Dole and John McCain (.) to ↑DO the right thing (.) in the Balkans and hopefully tonight we’re seeing the final results of that bold and brave effort secretary Cheney well I noted Bernie thatt uh (.) like Joe I’m pleased to see what happenned in Yugoslavia today (.) I hope it (.) marks the end of Milosevic (.) uuh I think ↑probably more than anything else it’s a victory for the Serbian people (.) uh they’ve taken to the streets (.) uuh to support their democracy (.) to support their vote (.) in ↑some respects this is a continuation (.) of a process that began ten years ago all across eastern Europe and has only now arrived in Serbia (.) we saw it in Germany (.) we saw it in Rumania (.) we saw it in Czechoslovakia (.) aas the people of eastern Europe rose up and uh and made their claim for freedom (.) and uh I think we all (.) admire that (.) I think with res↑pect too uh (.) how this process has been managed most recently we want to do everything we ↑caan to support Mr. Milosevic’s departure (.) uh certainly though that would not involve committing U.S. troops I do think it’s noteworthy thatt uh (.) uh there appears to bee an effort underway to get the Russians invoolved (.) I noted the other night for example Tuesday night at the debate in Boston governor Bush suggested exactly that (.) that we ought to try to get the Russians involved to exercise some leverage over the Serbians (.) and Al Gore pooh-↑poohed it (.) but nooow uh it’s clear from the ↑press (.) that in factt uh that’s exactly what they were doing and that that it’s uh (.) governor Bush was correctt uh in his assessment (.) and his recommendation (.) and he has supported thee uh administration on ↑Kosovo (.) uuh he lobbied actively against passage of the Byrd-Warner provision which would have (.) set aaa specific deadline (.) uh one he felt was too soon for (.) forcing thee (.) U.S. troops ↑out (.) so he’s been supportive of the policy. (.) that we’ve seen with respect to Yugoslavia (.) and I think he deserves a lot of credit for that (.) ↑I would go beyoond that (.) ↑I think this is an opportunity for the United States to test president Putin of uh of Russia (.) that in factt uh noow is the time we ought to find out whether or not he’s indeedd committed to de↑mocracy (.) whether he’s willing to support the forces of freedom and democracy diplo↑matically (.) in the area there of eastern Europe (.) and it’s a test for him whether in effect whether he represents the old guard in the

BS(M): DIC:

657

Appendix Soviet Union (.) one of the most important challenges we face as a nation is how we manage that process of integrating those one hundred and fifty million eastern Europeans into thee security and economicc uh framework of Europe your question Mr. secretary (.) ↑you and governor Bush charge the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the (.) deterio↑ration and over extension (.) of America’s armed forces (.) should ↑↑you as U.S. military personnel be deployed as ↑warriors (.) or ↑peace-keepers my ↑preference uuh (.) is to deploy them as warriors (.) there may be oc↑casion (.) uh when it’s appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role but I think the role ought to be limited I think there ought to be a time limit on it (.) the ↑reason we have a military (.) iiis to be able to fight and win wars (.) and to maaintain it withh sufficient strength so thatt uh ↑would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching uh (.) a war in the first place (.) uuh I ↑think thatt uh (.) uuuh the administration has in fact in this area failed in a major responsi↑bility (.) we’ve seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War (.) at the same time we’ve seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world as troops have been (.) sent hither and yooon (.) there was testimony before the Joint chiefs of staaff before the ↑Armed Services Committee that pointed out a lot of these problems (.) thatt uh thee for example (.) general Mike Ryan of the Air Force with forty per cent fewer aircraft he’s now undertaking three times as many deployments on a regular ↑basis as he had to previously (.) we we’re overcommitted and under↑resourced (.) this has had somme otherrr unfortunate effectss uh (.) I saw a letter for example the other day from a young captain stationed in Fort Braagg (.) a graduate of West Point in ninety-fiiive getting ready to get out of the ↑service. (.) because he’ss uh only allooowed to train with his ↑troops when fuel is available for the ve↑hiiicles and only allowed to fire their weapons twice a ↑year. (.) he’s conceerned that if he had to ever go into combat there would be lives lost (.) that ↑is a legitimate concern (.) the fact the U.S. military is ↑worse off today than it was eight years ago (.) uh a major responsibility for us in the ↑future (.) and a high priority for myself and governor Bush (.) would be to rebuild the U.S. military and to give them the resources they neeed to do the job we ask them to ↑do for us and to give them (.) good leadership senator you’re shaking your head in disagreement well I AM Bernie and and most important I want to assure the American ↑people (.) that the American military is the best-trained best-equipped most powerful force in the ↑↑world. (.) and that ↑Al Gore and I will do wha↑tever it takes to keep them that way (.) uuh it’s not ↑right to a a a and it’s not good for our military to run them doown essentially in the midst of a (.) partisan political debate (.) the fact isss that you’ve got to judge the military (.) by what the military ↑leaders saay and secretary Bill Cohen (.) good Republican general Shelton and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staaff (.) both will tell you the American military is ready to meet ↑ANY ↑threat we may face in the world today the fact is (.) judging by its results from (.) uh Desert Stoorm to to thee Balkans Bosnia and Kosovo to the (.) operations that are still being conducted to keep Saddam Hussein in a box (.) uh in Iraq (.) the American military has performed brilliantly (.) IN ↑FAACT ↑this administration (.) hass turned around the ↑drop in ↑↑spending in the military that begaan in the ↑mid-eighties and went

BS(M):

DIC:

BS(M): JL:

658

Appendix ↑right through the Bush-Cheney administration and the ↑early years of the Clinton administration but nooow that’s stopped (.) in fact we passed the ↑largest pay increase in a generation for our military (.) and theee (.) the interesting ↑↑fact here (.) in spite of the the rhetoric that myy my opponent has just spoken is that (.) th the re↑↑aality is that if you look at our projected budgets for the next ten ↑years Al ↑Gore and I (.) actually commit more than twice as much a hundred billion dollars in additional ↑funding (.) for our ↑military than governor ↑Bush does (.) and their budget allows ↑nothing additional for acquisition of new weapons systems and that’s something (.) that the same general Mike Ryan of the Air Force and all the other chiefs of the services will not be happy about because they ↑neeeed the new equipment (.) the new systems that Al Gore and I are committed to giving them Bernie this uh is a special interest of mine I would like a chance to (.) elaborate further if I might (.) ↑thee uh (.) the facts are dramatically different ↑I’m not attacking the military Jooe I have enormous regard for the men and women oof the U.S. military I had the privilege of working with themm uh (.) uh for the four years while I was the secretary of defence (.) no one has a higher regard than I do for them (.) but it’s irres↑ponsible to suggest we should not have this debate in a presidential campaign that we should ignoore (.) what is a major major ↑↑concern and and if you (.) haave friends and relatives serving in the U.S. military you know there’s a ↑problem (.) ifff uh you look att uh the data that’s available forty per cent of our army helicopters are not combat ready (.) uh the combat readiness level in the ↑Air Force has dropped from eighty-five per cent to sixty-five per cent (.) uuh significant problems of retention (.) the the im↑PORtant thing for us to remember is that we’re a democracy (.) and we’re defended by volunteers (.) everybody out there tonight wearing the uniform standing on guaard to protect the United ↑States (.) is there because they volunteered to put on a uniform and when we don’t give them the spare parts they need to maintaain their e↑quipment (.) when we don’t give our pilots the flying hours they need to manitain their pro↑ficiency (.) when we don’t give them the kind of leadership that spells out what their mission is and let’s them knoow why they’re there and why they’re putting their lives at risk (.) then we undermine that moraale. (.) uhu that is an extraordinarily valuable ↑trust (.) there is no moore important responsibility for a president of the United States than his role as commander in ↑chief (.) the obligation that he (.) undertakes on behalf of ↑all of us to decide when to send our young men and women to ↑war (.) when we send them with↑out the right kind of training (.) when we send them (.) ↑poorly equipped or with equipment that’s oold and broken down (.) uh we put their ↑lives at risk we will suffer more casualties in the next coonflict if we don’t look to those basic problems (.) now (.) and with all due res↑pect Joe this administration has a bad track record in this regaard (.) and uh it’s available for anybody who wants to look at the record and wants to talk uh to our men and women in ↑unifoorm and wants to spend tiime with the members of the Joint ↑chiefs (.) wants to look att uh readiness levels and uh (.) other other indicators (.) final point (.) the issue of procurement ↑is very important (.) because we’re running now off the build-up of the investment we made during the Reagan years time sir= as that equipment gets ooold it (.) has to be replaaced we’ve taken money out of the

DIC:

BS(M): DIC:

659

Appendix pro↑curement budget to support other ventures we have not been investing in the future of the U.S. military Bernie I ↑think it’s very important to respoond to thiss uh (.) ↑yes of course it’s an important debate to have as part of this campaign but (.) I I I ↑don’t want either the military to feel uneasy or the American ↑people to feel insecuuure (.) and what ↑I’m saying now I’m basing on serving on the Senate Armed ↑Services Committee talking to (.) e↑xactly the people Dick Cheney (.) has ↑↑mentioned (.) the secretary of defence (.) the chiiefs of staff I’ve visited our (.) fighting forces aroound the woorld and I’m telling you that we are ready (.) uh to meet ↑any contingency thatt that might ariiise the ↑GOOD news here and the ↑interesting news is that we have ↑met our recruitment targets in ↑each of the services this ↑year (.) in ↑fact (.) in the ↑areas where our our opponents have said (.) we are overex↑tended such as the Balkans the soldiers ↑theere have a higher rate of re-en↑listment thann (.) anywhere else in the service because they feel a sense of purpose (.) a sense of mission (.) in ↑fact this administration has begun to traansform the American military (.) to take it away from being a Coold War force (.) to prepare it to meet the threats of the ↑new generation of to↑morrow of weapons of mass destruction of ballistic missiles of (.) of ↑terrorism cyber warfare (.) AAAND uh the fact is that governor Bush recom↑mended in his major (.) ↑POlicy statement on the military earlier this year that we ↑SKIP (.) uh the next generation of military e↑↑quipment. (.) uuh (.) he helicopters submariiines tactical air fighters a all the ↑rest (.) ↑that (.) would ↑really cripple (.) our readiness exactly the readiness that that Dick Cheney is talking about Al Gore and I are committed (.) to continuing this acquisition program transforming the military (.) ↑there’s there’s fewer people (.) in uniform today but ↑person (.) to person (.) ↑person-by-person ↑unit-by-unit ↑this (.) is the most powerful and effective military (.) not only in the ↑woorld today but in the ↑history of the world (.) [time and ag]ain ↑Al Gore and I will do whatever is necessary to keep it that way senator Lieberman this question to you (1.) ↑once again in the Middle East (.) peace talks on the one hand (.) deadly confrontations on the other and the flashpoint Jerusalem (.) and then there’s Syria (.) is U↑nited States policy what it should ↑be (0.5) uh YEs it iis (.) it it has truly pained me (.) uuh in the last week Bernie (.) to watch theee uh the unrest and the death occurring in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians so much work has been done by the people theeere (.) with the support of of this administration so much much ↑↑progress has been made uh in the original ↑Oslo agreements between the Israelis the Palestinians adopted in nineteen (.) ninety-threee and the peace between Israel and Jordan thereafter (.) I mean A↑merica has a (.) a national strategic interest and principal interest in peace (.) in the Middle East and Aal Goore has played a critical role in ad↑vaancing that process over (.) the last eight years what ↑paaains me is I watched the unrest (.) in recent days between the Israelis and the Palestinians is that ↑these two peoples (.) have come (.) in some senses generations forward ↑centuries forward in the laast seven years they are (.) ↑↑so ↑close to a final peace agreement I ↑hhope and ↑pray that thee death and unrest in the last week will not create the kkinds of scaars that make it hard for them (.) to go back to the peace table with American assistance and

JL:

BS(M): JL: BS(M):

JL:

660

Appendix a↑chiiieve what I’m convinced (.) the great majority of the Israeli and Palestinian people waaant and the people throughout the Middle East which is ↑peace (.) secretary Albright has been in Paris meeting with the prime minister Barak and chairman Arafat (.) I hope and pray her mission is successful that there is a cease fire (.) and the parties return to the peace table (.) now we we we’ve been on a very constructive course in the Middle East played aa an un↑usual unique uuh role and I I’m convinced thatt uh Al Gore and I will commit that Al Gore and I will continue to do that I hope I might (.) through my friendships (.) in Israel ↑and throughout the Arab world play a unique role in bringingg peace to this uh this sacred region of the ↑world Bernie it’s uh (.) it has been aaa very very difficult area to work in for a long tiime numerous administrations going backk uh (.) certainly to World War two have had to wrestle with the problem of of what should happen to the Middle East (.) we made uh (.) sig↑nificant breakthroouughs at the end of the Bush administration because of the Gulf War uh (.) in effect we hadd uh joined together with Arab alliies (.) and done enormous damage to the Iraqi armed forces in Iraq at the time it was the biggest military threat to Israel (.) uuh byyy virtue of the end of the Cold War the Sovietss uh were no longer a factor they used to fish in troubled waters whenever they had the (.) opportunity in the Middle East but (.) with the end of the Soviet Union the implosion of the ↑empire that created a (.) aaa vaacuum if you will and made it easier for us to operate there (.) uh we were able to (.) I think reassure both Arabs and Israelis that the United States would play a major role there that we had the (.) the a↑bility and the ↑will to deploy forces in the region if we had to (.) to engage in military operations to support our friends and opposed our ↑↑fooes (.) and of course we were able to convene them in a conference that in effect it was the first time Arab and Israelis sat down face-to-face and (.) began this process of of trying to move the peace process forward (.) I think ↑also a lot of credit goes to some great men like Yitzak Rabin his tragic paassing was aa major consequence a great tragedy forr everybody who cares about peace in the Middle ↑East. (.) he was a man who had the ↑military statured to be able to confidently persuade the Israelis to take risks for peace I thinkk uh (.) uh Prime Minister Barak has triedd the same thing (.) I ↑hope (.) that we can get this resoolved as soon as possible (.) my guess iis that the ↑next administration is going to be the one that is going to have to come to grips (.) with the current state of affaairs there (.) uuh I think it’s ↑very important that we have an administration where we have a president with (.) firm leadership (.) who has the kind of uuh track record (.) of uuh dealing straight with people of ↑keeping his word so friends and allies bothh uh respect us and our adversaries fear us this question is for you Mr. secretary (0.5) ↑if Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein were found to be developing weapons of maass destruction (.) ↑governor Bush has said he would quote ‘take him out’ (.) would ↑you agreee with such a deadly ↑policy uh we ↑might have no other ↑choice (.) we’ll have to see if that happens the thing about Iraq of course was at the end of the ↑war (.) we haadd uh (.) ↑pretty well decimated their military (.) we haadd uh (.) ↑put them back in the box so to speak (.) we had a stroong international coalition raid a↑gainst them (.) effective economic sanctions and a very robust ins↑pection regime that was in place (.) uuh so the inspection regime under the U.N. ↑hospices was able (.) to do a ↑good job ooff uh

DIC:

BS(M):

DIC:

661

Appendix stripping out th the ca↑pacity to build weapons of mass destruction (.) uh the work he had been doing (.) that had not been destroyed during the war in biologic (.) and chemical agents as well as aa nuclear program (.) uuhm (.) unfortunately ↑now we find ourselves in a situation where that started to ↑fray on us (.) where the the coalition nooow uh no longer uuh is tied ↑tightly together (.) recently the United Arab Emirates by (unintelligible) terrain to Gulf states have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad (.) the Russians and French now are flying commercial (.) ↑airliners back into Baghdaadd (.) and sort of thumbing their nose if you will at the international sanctions regime and of course the U.S. inspectors have been ↑kicked out (.) and there’s been absolutely no response (.) uuuuh so we’re in a situation today where our posture vis-à-vis Iraq is ↑weaker (.) than it was at the end of the ↑waar. (.) I think that’s un↑fortunate. (.) Iii ↑also (.) uh think it’s unfortunate we find ourselves in a position (.) wheerre uh (.) we don’t know for sure (.) what might be transpiring inside Iraq (.) uh I ↑certainly hope he’s not regenerating that kind of capability but if he ↑WERE (.) if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking ↑steps (.) to try to rebuild nuclear capability or oorr weapons of maass destruction you would have to give very serious (.) consideration to military ↑aaction to uh to stop that activity (.) I don’t think you can afford (.) to have a man like Saddam Hussein withh hu nuclear weapons in the Middle East senator ↑Bernie it (.) it would of ↑course be a very serious situation if we had evidence credible evidence that Saddam Husse↑in (.) was developing weapons of mass destruction but I must saaay uuh (.) I don’t think a political cam↑paign is the occasion to declare exactly what we would do in that case (.) I think that’s (.) a matter of such (.) critical national security importance thatt uh it ought to be ↑left to thoose uh commander in chief leaders of the military secretary of state to ↑make that kind of decision without the ↑heat of a political campaign (.) the ↑fact ↑is that we we we will ↑NOT enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gooone (.) uh the ↑Gulf War was a great victory and incidentally Al Gore and I were two of the ten Democrats in the Senate who crossed party lines to support president Bush and (.) secretary Cheney uh in that waar and we’re both very proud that we ↑did that (.) butt uh the war did not end with a total ↑↑victory and Saddam Hussein remaained there (.) and as a result we have hadd almost ↑ten years now of insta↑bility. (.) we have continued to ↑operate almost ↑↑aall of this time (.) military action to enforce a no-fly zone (.) we we havve uh been struggling with Saddam about the inspectors we ↑ought to do and we ↑are doing everything we can to get those (.) inspectors baack ↑in there (.) butt uh in the ↑↑end there’s not going to be peace until he gooes and that’s why I was proud to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation aact with senator Trent Loott (.) where I have kept in touch with the indigenous Iraqi opposition broad base (.) vice president Gore ↑met with them earlier this year we are sup↑porting (.) ↑them uh in their efforts and will con↑↑tinue to support them (.) until (.) the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of ↑Serbia have done in the last few days (.) get rid of a despot (.) we will welcome you baack into the family of [nations time] where you belong

BS(M): JL:

BS(M): JL:

662

Appendix BS(M): senator Lieberman this question is to you (2.5) MANY experts are forecasting continuing chaotic oil prices in the world market (.) wholesale natural gas prices here in our country are leaping (.) then there are coaal and electricity (.) have ↑previous Republican ↑aand Democratic congresses and administrations including this one doone their job to protect the American people not e↑noughh. butt uh this administration and vice president Gore and I have had both a ↑loong-term strategy. to develop energy independence (.) and a short-term strategy (.) uuh in factt uh (.) if thee this administration had been given the amount of funding that it had re↑quested (.) from the former Republican ↑Congress (.) we would be further along in the implemen↑tation of that long-term strategy which is aimed at (.) developing alternative ↑cleaner sources of energy aimed at giving ↑tax credits to individuals (.) and ↑businesses to conseerve and use energy more efficiently aimed at a p (.) ↑partnership for a new generation of vehicles with the American automobile industry which is making great progress and can produce (.) aaa a vehicle that can get ↑eighty miiles per gallon (.) uh we ↑also have a short-term strategy to deal with exactly the kind of (.) ups and downs of energy prices I know it was contro↑versial (.) butt uh Al Gore and I believed it was im↑portant in the shortterm to ↑reach into the strategic petroleum reserve ↑take some of that ooil we have ↑put it in the market (.) ↑show the big oil companies (.) ↑↑AANdd the OPEC oilproducing countries that ↑we’ve got some resources with which (.) ↑we can fight back (.) we’re not just going to lay back and let them rooll (.) over our economy (.) and we did it ↑also because gasoline prices were rising and home heating oil inventories were real loow. (.) aand uh (.) our (.) both of our tickets agree on and like thee ↑low income housing assistance program but our op↑ponents really offer no assistance (.) to ↑↑MIDdle-classs families are hit by rising gas prices and a shortage of home heating ooil (.) the fact is that ↑since the reserve was opened (.) the price of oil on world markets has dropped ↑six dollars a barrel (.) now that’s (.) that’s a good result and I’m proud of it Mr. secretary Bernie Ii (.) this is an area where I think again Joe and I have uh (.) fairly significant disagreements (.) my as↑sessment is that (.) there is no (.) comprehensive energy policy today (.) that as a nation we aare in ↑trouble (.) because the administration has not addressed these issues (.) uh we haave uh the prospects of brownouts in California we have uh a potential heating home (.) heating oil uuh ↑crisis in the north-east we have gasoline price rises in various other places (.) foor years now the administration has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign sources of ↑oil (.) but they haven’t ↑↑done ↑it (.) in fact we’ve gone exactly in the opposite direction (.) we have the lowest rate of domestic production of oil now in forty-six years you have to go back to nineteen fifty-four to (.) find a time when we produced as little oil as we do today. (.) our ↑imports are at an all-time record hiigh in the month of ↑Juune we imported almost twelve million barrels of oil a ↑day (.) that means we’re more subject to the wiide fluctuations and swings of ↑price (.) we have ↑other problems (.) we don’t haavve uh re↑finery capacity we haven’t built a new refinery in this country for over ↑ten years (.) and the refineries are now operating at ninety-six or ninety-seven per cent capacity (.) which means even with ↑more crude available (.) uh they’re probably not going to be able to do very much

JL:

BS(M): DIC:

663

Appendix by way of producing additional home ↑heating oil for this ↑winter (.) we have a loong-term problem serious long-term problem with our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy (.) uh that will always be the ↑case (.) but we ought to be able to to ↑shift the trend and begin to move it in the right direction (.) we need to do a lot more about generating the capacity for power here at ↑home. (.) we need to get on with the business and we think we can do it very ↑safely. in an environmentally sound ↑manner (.) we don’t think that that that we ought to buy into this false choice that somehow we cannot develop energy resources without beinng (.) cautious with the environment we ↑can (.) we’ve got the technology to do it and we ought to do it (.) we do supportt the low income energy assistance program we think it’s important so thatt uh ↑senior citizens for example don’t suffer this ↑winter (.) but we need to get on to the business of having a plan to develop our domestic energy resources in time producing more suppliiies and this administration hasn’t produced them [Bernie can I have a word to that (unintelligible)] senator I’m going tooo (.) continue I yield thank you sir (.) your congressional record (.) ↑you sponsored a bill that said no to ooil and gas exploration in the Wyoming wilderness areas (.) your home state (.) ho↑wever you ↑co-sponsored a bill that said ↑yes (.) to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge your explanation Bernie uuh it just shows I’ve got a balanced approach tooo uh [how we deal with environmental ↑issues (laughing almost inaudibly) ↑not a case oof (.) not in my ↑backyard] ↑↑noo I think we have to make choices (.) and the Wyoming Wilderness bill frankly was one proudest a↑chievements as a member of Congress I worked on that with a good friend Al Simpson for example fooor about four years (.) we set aside a part of Wyominnng nearly a million acres of wilderness thatt uh ought to be uuh separate and not be developed we think that was im↑portant (.) there are a lot of areas where governor Bush and I supportt uh restraints we support the moratorium on drilling off thee coast of Cali↑fornia (.) but there ↑are places where we think we ought to ↑go forward and develop those resources (.) the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is one of them (.) it’s uh oon the north slope right next to Prudhoe Baay the infrastructure is there too uh (.) to be able to deliver that product to ↑market (.) we think we can ↑do it given today’s technology (.) in a way thatt will not damage the environment will nott uh permanently marr the countryside at ↑all. (.) and so what we’re ↑looking for I think with respect to environmental policy and ↑energy ↑↑policy is balance (.) we do have to make choices we recognize we have to make choices but th the way you phrased the ↑question frankly I ↑welcome (.) because it shooows in fact we are trying to pursue a balanced approach and the suggestion that somehow (.) all we care about is energy development isn’t ↑true. (.) but we ↑do have to get on with developing those resources or we’re going to find ourselves (.) ever more de↑pendent. (.) on foreign ↑sources. (.) we’re going to find that the fact that we don’t have an energy policy out there uuh is one of the major storm clouds on the

BS(M): DIC: JL: BS(M): JL: BS(M):

DIC: A: BS(M): DIC:

664

Appendix horizon for our e↑conomy (.) I think if you look for (.) something that ↑could develop (.) some problem that could arise that might in fact jeopardiize our continuing prosperity it’ss the possibility that we might find ourselves without adequate supplies of energy in the ↑future and there would be no quicker way to shut down our economy than that senator uh Bernie we a↑gree o on the problem (.) but weee couldn’t disa↑gree more on the response to the problem (.) th the problem is accurately ↑stated (.) no matter how strong we are economically if we remain dependent on a ↑source of energy that is outside our control we’re not going to be as strong (.) as we should be and ↑others around the world can effectively yank our ↑chain and we cannot (.) allow that to continue to ↑haappen (.) I I I’m a↑fraid that our opponents’ response to this is onesided and it is essentially to to de↑velop (.) the resources within the United States almost regardless of ↑↑wheere (.) ↑↑I I I’m against drilling (.) in the Arctic Refuge this is one of the most beautiful (.) pristine (.) places that the good Lord has created on earth and it happens fortunately to be (.) within the United States of America (.) it’s just not ↑worth it to to do that uh foor what what ↑seems to be the ↑↑possibility of SIX months’ worth of oil (.) seven to twelve ↑↑years from now that’s not much of a response to the immediate problem that gasoline consumers and home heating oil (.) customers are are facing this winter (.) there ↑ARE more resources within the United States thatt we can develop in fact this isn’t mentioned much and appreciated much in the last eight years uuh dri drilling for gaaas on federal lands has gone up ↑sixty per cent (.) and it’s been done in an environmentally protected way (.) the administration has encouraged the drilling for deep gas and oil that’s going on in the western ↑Gulf today (.) but the ↑↑answer here is is new technology that will create millions of new joobs (.) uh ↑let me just say this if we can get ↑THREE miiles more per gaallon from our cars (.) we’ll get a mill we’ll save a million barrels of oil a ↑↑daay (.) which is exactly what the refuge at its ↑best in Alaska would produce now the choice to me is clear we’ve got to develop fuel ceells alternative energyy (.) we’ve got to encourage people to conseeerve time ↑and to be efficient this question is for you senator (1.) we all know Social Security is the back backbone of the re↑tirement system (.) in our nation (.) can ↑↑either of you pledge tonight (.) categorically (.) that ↑no one will lose benefits under your plans uh yes indeed (.) I can pledge to the American people categorically that NO ↑one will lose benefits (.) under our plan for Social Security (.) as faaar forward as ↑twenty (.) fifty-four (.) and let me come back and say Bernie that Al Gore and I view Social Security as ↑↑probably the best thing the government uh did in the second half of the last century (.) it has created a flooor (.) uuh under which seniors cannot fall and so many of them de↑pend on it for their basic ↑↑living for their ↑livelihood (.) uh it’s critically important to protect it (.) that’s why Al and I have committed to to putting that Social Security surplus in a ↑lockbox ↑not touching it that’s what allows us to keep Social Security soolvent to twenty fifty-four (.) our opponents have an idea for ↑privatizing Social Security that will jeopardize Social Security payments to to recipients (.) uh and I looked at this idea if I may use an oil

BS(M): JL:

BS(M): JL: BS(M):

JL:

665

Appendix industry analogy (.) uh uh which is to say that sometimes as you know Dick better than I you have to dig deep (.) to discover whether there’s oil in a well for for a whiile I was drilling into this idea of privatization of Social Security and the deeper I got (.) the drier the ↑↑well became (.) and it seemed to me that at the end what it was going to do is to dry up Social Security (.) it re↑QUIres taking as much as a trillion dollars out of the Social Security fund (.) the independent analysts have said that wouldd uh put the fund out of money (.) in in ↑twenty twenty-three or (.) if it’s not out of money benefits will have to be cut by over (.) fifty per cent that’s just not worth doing Al Gore and I are going to ↑guaarantee Social Security (.) and add to it (swallows) the retirement savings plan that I mentioned earlier which will help middle-class (.) families looking forward have ↑not only Social Security but a but a superb extra retirement account as well (.) ↑Social Security ↑plus from us (.) with all due respect Social Security minus from the Bush-Cheney ticket you won’t be surprised Bernie if I disagree with Joe’s description of our ↑program (.) the FACT of the matter is the Social Security system is in ↑trouble (.) it’s been a fantastic prograam it’s been there for sixty-five yeears it’s provided benefits for (.) foor senior citizens over that period of time for my parents (.) and it meeans a great deal to millions of Americans and and governor Bush and I want to make absolutely ↑certain that the first thing we do is guaranteee the continuation (.) of those payments those benefits and keep those promises that were ↑made (.) but if you look down the ↑roadd uh if you say (.) you’re thirty years old to↑day and I have two daughters about that age (.) they seriously question whether or not there will be any system left for them (.) and that’s because the demographics that work out there (.) and it’s almost an iron law we know how many people there aare (.) we know when they’re going to reach retirement aage (.) we know when the baby boom generation is coming aloong (.) we know how many people are likely to live after thaat (.) that’s going to driive the system into bankruptcy unless we (.) reform it and deal with it (.) uuuh the reform ↑we would like to offer iiis to allow our ↑young people (.) to begin to take a portion of the ↑payroll tax (.) two per cent of it (.) and in↑vest it in a personal retirement account (.) that does several things (.) uuuh ↑first of all it gives them a stake in the Social Security system (.) that becomes their ↑property (.) they ↑own it (.) they can ↑pass it on to their kids if they want they don’t have that kind of equity in in Social Security today (.) ↑secondly we can generate a higher return ↑off that investment than you get in the existing ↑system (.) today you get about a ↑two per cent return of what you pay into Social Security (.) uh we can generate at least six per cent all the evidence shows at least three tiimes what we’re able to get now (.) uuh and loong-term by generating a long bigger return we’ll ↑put additional funds into the system that will help to survive that crunch (.) that is otherwise going to hit in the ↑↑future uh ↑bottom line is (.) there’s a choice here with respect frankly to Aal Gore and Joe’s plan they don’t reform Social Security they add another huuge obligation on top of it that future generations will have to pay (.) they don’t touch the basic system itself (.) they don’t reform it (.) they don’t save it (.) we have a plan to do that and a plan to give our young people (.) a choice and more control over their own lives time (.) Mr. secretary this question is for you (1.) Washington is a caldron of political bickering and partisanship (.) the American people gentlemen have had

DIC:

BS(M):

666

Appendix enough (.) ↑how would you elevate political discourse and purpose (0.5) well thee uh (.) I think there there are a number of ways to do it now ↑first of all I agree with your assessment I’ve been out of Washington for the last eight years Bernie and spent the last five years running a company (.) uuh global concern and (.) I’ve been ↑out (.) in the private sector (.) uuh building a business hiiring people creating jooobs I’ve got a different perspective on Washington than I had when I was there in the past. I’m (.) ↑proud of my service in Washington for twenty-five years butt uh also proud that I had the opportunity to go out and get a different experience (.) and you’re absolutely ↑right (.) people are ↑fed up (.) they’ve they’ve had enough with the bickerinng and and the partisanship that (.) seems to characterize the debate hu that goes on in the nation’s ↑capital. (.) uh I I’ve ↑seen it done differently in Texas (.) I’ve watched George Bush aaand one of the reasons I was (.) ↑eager to sign oon when he asked me to become his ↑running mate is because I’ve been so tremendously impressed with what he’s done as the governor of ↑Texas (.) he came iin when he had a legislature completely controlled by the other party (.) uh he managed to reached across partisan liiines and unite Republicans Democrats and Inde↑pendents. (.) uh put them to work to achieve good things for the state of Texas partly because he (.) didn’t point the finger of ↑blame (.) uh looking for ↑scapegoats he was quick to share the ↑credit (.) we ended upp uh as a result of that activity at the end of his first term the top ↑Democrat in the state lieutenant Bob Bulloch endorse the Republican governor George Bush for ree↑lection (.) it ↑is possible to change the tone it is possible to to get people to work together (.) and to begin to focus on achieving results (.) I think it will take new leadership I don’t think you can do it (.) uuh with all due respect to Al Gore with somebody who spentt uh all the last twenty-four years in that Washington en↑vironment and who campaigns on the basis of of castigating others (.) uh pointing the finger of blame at others in terms off uh blaming business or various groups for failings I think you have to be able to ↑reach out (.) and and work together and build coalitions I think George W. Bush has done that in Texas and can do it at the national level senator uh Bernie you’re absolutely rightt uh there’s ↑too much partisanship in Washington (.) it puzzles me (.) you know you think thatt uh ↑people in public life and politics would want to do what would make them POpular and yet too often people in both partiiess act in a way that brings down the institutions of government and each of us individually and uh (.) it’s a shame (.) ↑I have triedd very hard in my career to caall them as I ↑see them and work with colleagues on ↑both sides of the aisle to get things done (.) and I’m proud of my record in that regard and I certainly think that would be an aaasset that I could bring to the vice presidency (.) should I be fortunate enough to be elected I mean in my ssenate career I’ve worked with BOB Bob Doole for instance in Bosnia and I worked with John McCain on (.) cultural values I worked with Connie Mack on foreign policy I worked with Don Nichols on the International Religious Freedom act (.) if I go on much longer I’m going to get in trouble with my ↑own party (.) [butt uh (laughing) theee uh ↑FACT (almost inaudible laughter)] is that ↑that’s the way things get done (.) and I’m proud of those partnerships and

DIC:

BS(M): JL:

A: JL:

667

Appendix ↑↑let me say a word about Al Gore in his yeeears in the Houuse and the Senate (.) he formed similar (.) bipartisan partnerships if you look back (.) over the last eight years (.) the most significant accomplishments of this administration (.) in which ↑Al Gore was ↑centrally invooolved were the result ↑↑most of them (.) of bipartisan a↑greements. (.) I mean after aall thee (.) Welfare Reform act whicchh Al Gore promised to lead the effort ooon to get people off of welfare to set TIme limits to get people (.) to enjoy the dignity of work that was a bipartisan act that was adopted (.) the Anti-Crime (.) act which has lowered crime or helped to lower crime (.) more than twenty per cent in our country (.) today was also bipartisan the ↑↑Balanced Budget ↑act of nineteen ninety-seven which was ↑critical (.) to getting our economy to the point and our government to the point of un precedented surplus we enjoy today ↑also (.) was bipartisan and Al Gore was invoolved so I ↑I would say that’s exactly the kind of bipartisan leadership that he ↑and I (.) can bring to Washington to get things done= =with ↑aall due respect Joe there there’s just an awful lot of evidence that there has not been any bipartisan leadership out of this administration or out of Al ↑Gore (.) and the fact is that medical problems have ↑not been addressed (.) we’ve had eight years of problems with prescription drugs and no aaction (.) the Social Security problems has ↑not been addressed (.) uh we’ve had eight years of talk and no aaction (.) the educational problem has ↑not been addressed we’ve had eight years of talk and no ↑aaction now they’ve been (.) in in a position of responsibility (.) in the White House (.) the powerful interests if you will in Washington D.Cc. (.) and they’ve been unable to work with others (.) ↑Medicare is a classic example yet the Broke Commission (.) a good effort at a bipartisann solution (.) for Medicare (.) whether you boought or didn’t buy the the the ↑answer that was generated the fact is the administration set it up and then pulled the ↑↑plug on it (.) because they would rather have the ↑issue than they have the so↑↑lution (.) this administration has not they from a bipartisan standpoint and I do really think Al Gore’s record in this regard isn’t very ↑good Bernie uh (.) Dick Cheney must be one of the few people uuh in America who does who ↑thinks that nothing has been accomplished in the last eight yeears (.) I mean the fact is that (.) promises were maade and promises were ↑keept (.) I mean has ↑Al Gore (.) ↑DID Al Gore make promises in nineteen ninety-two (.) absolutely (.) did he de↑liver (.) big time [(laughs) (laughs)] let me put it that way (with a creaky voice) (.) and that’s that’s the ↑record though (.) ↑LOOK at the twenty (laughing) ↑look at the twenty-two million new joobs (.) look at the four million new businesses (.) uh look at the lloower interest rates low rate of inflation high rate of growth (.) I think if you ↑aaasked most people in America today that famous question that Ronald Reagan asked ‘are you better ↑off today than you were eight years ago’ (.) most people would say yees (.) and I’m pleased to say (.) see Dick from the newspapers that you’re better off than you were eight years ago too= =[(laughs collectively) most of thatt uh] (laughs)

DIC:

JL:

DIC: JL:

A: DIC: JL:

668

Appendix DIC: JL: A: BS(M): JL: DIC: A: JL: DIC: A: BS(M): and I I] can tell you Joe that the government had absolutely nothing to do [with it (bursts into laughter) (10.5 laughter and applause)] This question is to you= =I can see my wife and I think she’s thinking ↑Joe ‘we should have gone out into the private sector’ (laughing) [I’m going to try to help you do that Joe (7. collective laughter and applause) no I I] I think you’ve done so well there I want to keep you there ok (4. some individual almost inaudible laughter) Dick Cheney Joe Lieberman you are black (.) for this question (1.) i↑magine yourself an African-American (.) you become the target of racial profiling (.) either while (.) walking or driving (0.5) African-American Joseph Lieberman what would ↑you do about it uuuh I would be outraged (.) it it it is such an assault on the basic promise that America makes (.) that the law will treat individuals as individuals regardless of their status that is to say their race their nationality their gender sexual orientation etcetera (.) etcetera (.) and the ↑SAAAD fact is that racial profiling occurs in this country (.) I I ↑I have a few African-American friends who have gone through this horror (.) aaand (.) you know it makes me want to kind of hit hit the waaall because it’s such an assault (.) on theeeir humanity and their ↑citizenship (.) we can’t ↑tolerate it anymore that’s why I supported legislation (.) in the first instance in Congress cause it’s the most we could get ↑done too uh do a ↑hard study to make the case of the extent to which racial profiling (.) is occurring uh in our country (.) butt uh it’s also why I’m so proud thatt uh Al Gore said ↑two things first we would issuue (.) if we’re fortunate enough to be elected (.) an executive order prohibiting racial profiling (.) and ↑↑secondly the first Civil Rights act legislation we would send to Congress would be a naaational ban on racial profiling (.) it is just wrooong it is it is unAmerican (.) and to ↑think that in the twenty-first Century this kind of nonsense is still going on (.) we’ve got to stop it (.) and the ↑only way to stop it (.) is through the law (.) the law after all is meant to express our vaalues and our aspirations (.) for our society (.) and our values are (.) violently contradicted by the kind of racial profiling that exists (.) ↑I just had a friend a while ago who works in the government works at the White House African-American stopped surrounded by police for for ↑no other cause that anyone can determine than than the color of his skin that that can’t be in America anymore Mr. secretary Bernie Ii (.) I’d like to answer your question to the best of my ability (.) but I don’t think I can understand fully what it would be likee (.) uuh I try hard to put myself in that position and imagine what it would be like uuh but of ↑course (.) uhu I’ve alwaaays been part of the majority I’ve never been part of (.) of a minority group (.) but it has to be a horrible experience (.) it’s th the sense of aaanger and frustration that goo with (.) knowing that the ↑only reason (.) you were stopped (.) the ↑only reason you were arrested was because of the color of your skin (.) uuh would make me extraordinarily angry (.) aaand uh (.) I’m not sure how (.) how I would respond

JL:

BS(M): DIC:

669

Appendix (.) I ↑think that (.) that we have to recognize that while we’ve made enormous progress in the U.S. in in (.) in racial relations and we’ve come a very long way we ↑still have a very long way to ↑↑go (.) that we still have not only (.) the problems we’re talking about here tonight in terms of the problems you mentioned in profiling (.) but be↑yond that we still have (.) an achievement gap in edu↑cation. (.) income differentials (.) differences in ↑life span (.) we still haave I think a (.) society thatt uh where we haven’t done enough yet (.) tooo ↑live up (.) to that standard that we’d all like to live up to I think in terms off uh (.) equality of oppor↑tunity. (.) that we judge people as indi↑viduals as Martin Luther King said we ought to judge people on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin (.) I would hope we can make progress on that in the years ahead (1.) senator (.) on sexual orientation (.) should a ↑male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have aall (.) aaall the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American ↑citizen uuh a very current and difficult question and uh (.) I’ve been ↑thinking about it I want to explain what my thoughts have been (.) uhm may maybe I should begin this answer by going back to the beginning of the country and the Declaration of Independence which (.) ↑says right there at the outset that all of us are created equal (.) and that we’re endooowed not by any bunch of politicians and philosophers but by our Cre↑a tor (.) with those ↑in alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of haappiness (.) at the be↑ginning of our our hhistory that promise and ideal (clears throat) was NOT (.) realized or experienced by all Americans but over time since then uuh we have we have extended the orbit of that promise (.) and in ↑oour time at the ↑frontier of that effort is extending those kinds of rights (.) tooo gay and lesbian Americans who are (.) citizens of this country and children of the same awesome God just as much as any of the rest of us are (.) that’s ↑that’s why (.) I have been an o↑riginal co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination act uuh (.) which ↑aims to prevent gay and lesbian Americans who are otherwise qualified from being discriminated against in the workplace (.) and I’ve sponsored other pieces of legislation and other ac taken other aactions that (.) that carry out that ideal (.) the ↑↑question you poose is a difficult one for ↑this reason (.) it confronts or challenges the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple (.) which I support (.) but I must say I’m ↑thinking about this because I have friends (.) who are in gay and lesbian partnerships who said to me (.) ‘↑isn’t it unfair we don’t have similar legal rights (.) to inheritance visitation when one partner is ill (.) to health care benefits’ (.) and ↑that’s why I’m thinking about it and my mind is open to ↑taking some action that will (.) address (.) those elements of unfairness while respecting (.) the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage Mr. secretary this is a tough one Bernie (.) uhm thee fact of the matter is we live in a free sociiety and freedom means freedom for everybody (.) we don’t get to chooose and ↑shouldn’t (.) be able to choose and say ‘you get to live free and you don’t’ (.) and and I think that meeeans (.) people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter ↑into. (.) it’s really (.) no one else’s ↑business (.) in terms of (.) trying to (.) regulate or prohibit (.) behavior in that regard (.) the ↑next step then of course is the question ↑youu aask of whether or not there ought to be

BS(M):

JL:

BS(M): DIC:

670

Appendix some kind of uh of↑ficial sanction if you will of the relationships or ↑if (.) these relationships should be ↑treated the same way as a conventional marriages (.) that’s a tougher ↑↑problem (.) that’s not aaa a slam dunk I think thee fact of the matter is that matter is regulated by the ↑states (.) I think different states are likely tooo come to different conclusions and that’s ap↑propriate (.) I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area (.) uuhm I try to be open minded a↑bout ↑↑it as much as I can and ↑tolerant (.) of those relationships (.) and like Jooe I’mm uh (.) also wrestle with the extent to which (.) there ought to bee (.) legal sanction of those relationships I think we ought to do (.) everything we CAN to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into it occurs to me thatt your moderator has committed a boo-boo (.) I asked thee racial profiling question of yoouu (.) you responded (.) and then I aasked the sexual orien↑tation question of yoou (.) you responded (.) I should not have done that in terms of rotation gentlemen I apologize we forgive you (laughing) (5. laughs collectively) thank you you’re human like we are] Mr. secretary (clears throat) as ↑vice president of the United States of America (0.5) ↑↑WHAT (.) would you bring to the joob that you’re opponent ↑↑wouldn’t (somewhat laughs and smiles) we clearly come fromm (.) different po↑litical perspectives Joe is a is a Democraaat from New England (.) I’m a Republican from the west from Wyoming (.) uhm and uh (.) I think that weighs into it to ↑some extent clearly we’re both in the positions we’re in because of our (.) personal relationshippss uh with uh (.) our ↑principals (.) I think the areas that ↑I would bring uuh are the things that governor Bush emphasiiized when he ↑picked me (.) that I have been White House chief of ↑staff. and ran the White House under president ↑Ford. then I spent ↑ten years in the Hoousee (.) eight of that in the ↑leadership (.) served as secretary of defence (.) and then had significant experience in the private ↑sector. (.) and I think (.) that where there are differences between Joe and myself in terms of background and ex↑perience (.) uuh I clearly have spent a lot of time in executive positions running large organizations (.) both in the (.) in private business as well as in ↑government (.) aand that is a set of qualifications thatt governor Bush found attractive when he selected me (.) uuhm I’ll leave it at that ↑senator Bernie I I have great respect for Dick Cheney (.) I don’t agree with a lot of things he said in this cam↑paign (.) I I have great respect he was he was a very distinguished secretary of defence (.) andd uh (.) I don’t have anything negative to say about him so I want to saay (.) withh uh the humility that is required to res↑pond to this statement thatt uh (.) I think what I would briinng to the office of the vice ↑presidency is a lifetime’s ex↑perience (.) growing up in a working class family having the opportunity to go to a great public school system (.) then to go on to (.) college and then to be draawn ↑really by president Kennedy as well as the values of service (.) my (.) ↑family gave me into public ↑↑life wanting to make a difference and I have had extraordinary opportunities thanks again (.) to those folks back home in Connecticut as a state senator as an attorney general fighting to enforce the laaaw

BS(M):

JL: A: BS(M): JL: BS(M): DIC:

BS(M): JL:

671

Appendix (.) to protect ↑them and the environment and as consumers and to litigate on behalf of humans rights and in for the last (.) twelve years as a member of the Senate of the United ↑States focusing on (.) national se↑curity questions environmental protection ↑economic growth and vaalues. (.) uh but per↑↑haaps (.) what I most bring is a friendship and shared values and shared priorities with Al Gore (.) I have tremendous respect for Al Gore I’ve known him for ↑fifteen yeeears he’s an outstanding (.) person as a public official and as a private person (.) his his life is ↑built on his ↑faith it’s devoted to his ↑family (.) uh he volunteered for service in Vietnaaam from the beginning in (.) Congress he’s been willing to take on the big interests and fight for average people as vice president he’s (.) been ↑I think he’s been the ↑most effective vice president in the ↑↑history of the United States (.) and he’s got the right program (.) to ↑↑uuuse the prosperity all the American people have eeearned to help particularly hard working middle-class families raise up their children to enjoy a better life (.) I think that’s (.) that’s what this is all about why I’m so proud to be his running mate and because of my boo-boo I’m going to direct this question again [to secretaryyy Cheney (unintelligible) no problem] have you ↑noticed aaa contradiction or hypocritical shift by your opponent (.) on positions and issues since he was nomi↑nated (laughs) [but we’ve been trying very hard (some individual laughter)] to keep this on a high plane Bernie= =(2.5 collective laughter) UUUH (.)] thanks Bernie [(laughs) (2.5 laughter)] Ii (.) I ↑do have a couple of concerns where (.) uhm I like the old Joe Lieberman better than ↑I do the new Joe Lieberman let’s see if I can put them in those terms (.) uhm Joe established I thought an ↑outstanding record. uuh I thought (.) uuuh in his work on this whole question of violence in the media. and the kinds of materials that were being peddled to our children (.) aand many of us on the Republican side admired him for that (.) there iiis I must say the view now that having joined with Al Gore on the ↑ticket on the other siiide. (.) that the depth of conviction that we had admired before isn’t quite as strong as it was perhaps in the ↑paast. (.) theee uh (.) temptation on the one hand too (.) uuh ↑critiicize the activities of the industry as was pointed out recently in the Federal Trade Commission where they’re (.) they’re taking ↑clearly (.) material meant for adults and they’re selling it to our children (.) uuh while at the same tiime they are participating in fundraising events with some of the people respoonsible for that activity (.) has been a source of concern (.) for ↑many of us (.) uuh we were especially disturbed Joe at a recent fundraiser you attended where there was a (.) committee you got up and criticized George Bush’s re↑ligion. (.) I know you’re not responsible for uttering any words of criticism of his religion but (.) to some extent (.) my concern would be ↑frankly that (.) you haven’t been as as consistent as you had been in the paaast (.) that a lot of your good friends like Bill Bennett and others of uss who had admired your (.) firmness of purpose

BS(M): JL: BS(M): DIC: A: DIC: A: DIC: JL: A: DIC:

672

Appendix over the years uh haave felt that you’re nott quite the crusader for that cause that you once were well Bernie you’ll not be (.) surprised to hear that I disagree (.) uuh ↑first let me let me talk about that joke about religion which I found very distasteful and believe me (.) if if ↑anybody has devoted his life to respecting the role of religion in American life and understaands that Americans from the beginning of our history have turned (.) to GOOD for strength and purpose it’s me (.) andd uh you know a any offence that was done I apologize for I thought that humor was unac↑ceptable (.) uh l ↑let me come to the question of Hollywood and then answer the general question (.) uh A ↑AL Gore and Ii have felt for a long time first as ↑parents (.) and then only second as public officials thatt uh we cannot let America’s parents stand alooone in in this compe↑tition that they feel they’re in with ↑Hollywood to raise their own kids and give their kids the faith and values they want to give them (.) and I’ve been a consistent crusader on that behaalf (.) uhm John McCain and I actually re↑QUESted the Federal Trade Commission report that came out three or four weeks ago (.) which proved con↑↑clusively that that the entertainment industry was marketing a↑dult-rated products to our children (.) and that is just not acceptable (.) and ↑one finding was that they were actually using ten to twelve year-olds to test screen adult-rated products (.) when ↑that report came out (.) Al Gore and I said to (.) the entertainment industry ‘stoop it’ (.)’ if you ↑don’t stop it in six months (.) we’re going to ask the Federal Trade Commission to take aaction against you’ (.) there was no somewhat strong response from our opponents (.) we re↑↑peated that message when we went to Los Angeles I repeat it today we WILL NOT STOP (.) until the entertainment industry stops marketing its products too to our children (.) unfortunately I’m running out of time but let me just say that Al [Gore and I you’re in] I’M OUT (.) maybe I can come back to it ↑no please continue you have about ten seconds pardon the interruption All right (.) A A Al Gore and I agree on almost everything (.) we ↑disagree on some things but he said to me from the beginning (.) ‘↑be yourself don’t change a single position you have’ and I have not changed a single position since Al Gore nominated me to be his vice president (2.) ↑gentlemen (.) now (.) closing statements (.) a prior coin toooss has determined that you begin senator Lieberman thanks Bernie that (.) went went very quickly thank you Bernie and thanks Dick Cheney for a very good debate (.) I’m ↑TOLD tens of millions of people have been watching this debate tonight (.) I ↑must say I wish one more person were here to watch and that’s my dad who died fifteen years ago. (.) if ↑my dad were here I would have the ↑opportunity to tell him that he was right (.) when he taught me that ↑in America if you ↑have faith (.) work hard and play by the rules there is nothing you cannot achieve (.) and here I am even the son of a man who started (.) uh working the night shift on a bakery truck can end up being a candidate for vice president of the United States (.) ↑THAT says a loot about the ↑character of this nation (.) and the goodness of you the American people (.) I will tell you that Hadassah and I have travelled around this country in the last couple of months and met thoousands and thousands of parents (.) ↑just like our moms and dads (.) hard

JL:

BS(M): JL: BS(M): JL:

BS(M): JL:

673

Appendix working middle-class people (.) uh paying their taxes doing the joobs that keep the country running (.) trying so hard to teach their kids right from wrong and be↑lieving in their hearts that their kids can make it (.) and ↑I agree with them (.) but ↑↑to make it they need a leader who will stand up and fight for them for good education (.) the best education in the world for a soound retirement system for prescription drug benefits for their parents and for a government that is ↑fiscally responsible balances the budget ↑keeps interest rates down so they can afford to buy a home (.) or too send their kids to college (.) to ↑meee Al Gore ↑IS that leader and will be that kind of president (.) you know for two hundred and twenty-four years Americans have dreamed bigger dreams (.) and tried bolder solutions than any other people on earth (.) noow is ↑noot the time to settle for leesss than we can be (.) as ↑good as things are today ↑Al Gore and I believe that with your help and God’s help ↑we can ↑make (.) the ↑future of this good and blessed country even better (.) thank you God bless you and good night Mr. secretary Bernie I want to thank you and Joe as well I’ve enjoyed the debate this evening and also thank the folks here at the Centre College in Danville Kentucky (.) they’ve really done a (.) tremendous job of making this (.) poossible (.) uh ↑this is a very important decision you’re going to make on November ↑seventh. (.) we really have a fundamental choice between whether or not we continue with our oold ways of ↑big government ↑high taxes (.) and ever more intrusive bureaucracy (.) or whether we take a new course for a new era (.) governor Bush and I want to pursue that new course (.) we want to re↑foorm the Social Security system to guarantee that benefits will be there for our retired ↑folks (.) as well as make it ↑possible for our young people to invest a portion of their payroll tax into a retirement account (.) that they’ll control (.) and give them greater control over their own liives (.) we want to reform the Medicare system again to make certain the benefits are there for our senior citizens (.) butt so ↑also to provide prescription drug coverage for them (.) and give them a raange of choices in terms of the kind of insurance they have (.) we want to reform the edu↑cation system we want to restore our public schoools to the greatness they once represented so thatt uh ↑every parent has the opportunity to choose what is best for their child (.) and so that every child has an opportunity to share in the American dream (.) we ↑also want to reform the tax code (.) we think it’s very important now that we have a sur↑plus that a portion of that surplus go baaack to the people who earned it it’s not the government’s money (.) it’s ↑your money (.) you’re entitled to ↑it. (.) and we would like to see to ↑it that we provide tax relief for everybody who pays taxes (.) ↑finally we think it’s very important to rebuild the U.S. military (.) the military ↑is in trouble the trends are in the wrong direction (.) the finest men and women in uniform that you’ll find any place in the world but they deserve our support they deserve the resources thaat we need to provide for them and they deserve good leadership (.) ↑George Bush is the man to do this I’ve seen him do it in ↑Texas what we need is to be able to reach across the aaisle (.) put together coalitions of Republicans and Democrats (.) aand build the kinds of coalitions that will get something done finally in Washington (.) George Bush is a ↑good maan an ↑honourable maan a man of great integrity (.) he’ll make a first rate president

BS(M): DIC:

674

Appendix BS(M): JL: BS(M): A: JL: A: BS(M): (1) secretary Cheney (.) senator Lieberman (.) your debate (.) now joins American political history we thank you thank you Bernie quite welcome [(2. applause) it was a great evening] [(61. collective applause with audience members standing up) (candidates and the moderator talk to each other harmoniously) well you hear the appreciation here (.) and our thanks also to Centre College the (.) community of Danville and of course the blue grass state Kentucky (.) ladies and gentlemen please join my colleague moderator Jim Lehrer for the ↑next presidential debate (.) ↑↑next Wednesday night at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem North Carolina (.) for the Commission of Presidential Debates (.) I’m Bernard Shaw good night from Danville Kentucky [(26. applause) gentlemen (extends his hand to both candidates) (to Bernard Shaw) (unintelligible) (to Bernard Shaw) Very well done thank you sir (family and close others appear on the stage to congratulate the candidates and talk to them)

A: BS(M): DIC: JL: BS(M):

675

Appendix Presidential Candidates’ Debate, Winston-Salem, NC. CNN Especial Event Aired October 11th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour and 30 min. Participants: Jim Lehrer (JL(M)) Audience (A) George W. Bush (GWB) Al Gore (AG) JL(M): Good EVEning from Wake Chapel at Wake Forest Uni↑versityy at Winston-Salem North Caro↑lina. (.) I’m Jim Lehrer. of ‘The News Hour’ on PBSs (.) WELcome to this second election two thousand de↑bate between the Republican candidate for ↑president George W. Bush of ↑Texas (.) and the ↑Democratic candidate vice president Al Gooore (.) these debates are sponsored by the Commission. on Presidential De↑bates. (.) the format and the ruuules are those negotiated by repre↑sentatives of the two cam↑paaigns. (.) only the ↑subjects tonight and the questions are miiine (.) the ↑format tonight is that of a conversation (.) the only prevailing ruuule is that noo single response can ever (.) EVER exceed two minutes (.) [the prevailing rule for the ↑audience here in the haaall (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs)] is as ↑always (.) aabsolute quiet pleease (.) good evening governor Bush vice president uh (.) vice president Goore (.) the end of our ninety minutess (.) last week in Booston (.) the ↑total time each of you took was virtually the same let’s see if we can do the same (.) tonight or come close (.) uhm governor Bush the first question goes to you (.) one of you (.) is about to be elected (.) the ↑leader of the single most powerful nation in the world (.) eco↑nomically fi↑nancially mili↑tarily (.) diplo↑matically. you name it (.) have ↑YOU fooormed any guiding principles for exercising this enormous ↑power. I ↑have (.) I ↑have first question is what’s (.) in the best interests of the United ↑States (.) what’s in the best interestss of our ↑people. (.) uuhm when it comes to foreign policy that will be my guiding ↑question. (.) is it in our nation’s ↑interests. (.) peace in the Middle East is in our nation’s ↑interests. (.) having a ↑hheemisphere that is uuh (.) free for traade (.) and peaceful is in our nation’s ↑interests (.) stroong relationns in uh Europe is in our nation’s ↑interest. I’ve thought a lot about what it means to be the president I also understand that (.) an administration is not one ↑person (.) but an administration iiis uuh (.) uh dedicated ↑citizens who are caaalled by the (.) PREsident to serve the ↑country (.) to serve a caause greater than ↑self and so I’ve thought about an adminis↑tration. of (.) of uh people who represent (.) aall America (.) but people who understand my compassionate and conservative phi↑losophy. (.) uuh I haven’t started naming ↑naames. except for one ↑person. (.) and that’s (.) Mr. Richard ↑Cheney. who I thought did a great job the other night he’s a (.) vice presidential nominee who represents uh (.) I ↑think people got to see why I ↑picked him he’s a man of solid ↑judgment. (.) and he’s going to bee a person to stand by my ↑side. one of the things I’ve done in Texas is I’ve been able to put together a good ↑teeam of people (.) I’ve been able to set ↑clear gooals the goals ought to bee an education system that leaves no chiild behiind (.) Medicare for our

A: JL(M):

GWB:

676

Appendix seniors a Social Security system that’s safe and se↑cuure. (.) foreign policy that’s in our nation’s ↑interest and a strong ↑military. (.) and ↑then bring people together to a↑chieve those goals that’s what a chief executive officer ↑does so I’ve thought long and hard about (.) the hoonour of (.) of being the president of the United States vice president ↑Goore. yes Jim I’ve thought a lot about that particular question and (.) I ↑SEE our greatest natural national (.) strenggth (.) coming froom what we ↑stand for in the world. (.) I ↑see it as a question of vaalues (.) uh (.) it is a ↑grreeat (.) tribute to our foounders that (.) two hundred and twenty-four years later this nation is now looked to (.) by the peoples on ↑every other continent and the peoples from ↑every part of this earth (.) as a kind of ↑moodel for (.) for what their future could be (.) and ↑I don’t think that’s just the the kind of exaaggeration that we (.) uh take pride iin as Americans it’s ↑really true even the ones that (.) sometimes uuh (.) shake their fists at us (.) as soon as (.) they have a (.) a chaaange that allows the people to speak freely (.) they’re wanting to develop (.) some kind oof (.) ↑blueprint that will help them (.) be like ↑us more (.) ↑freedom (.) ↑free maarkets (.) political freedom (.) so I think ↑first and foremost our power (.) ought to be ↑wiielded. (.) uh to in in ↑waays that form a more perfect union (.) the power of exaample (.) uh is America’s (.) greatest power in the world (.) and ↑that means for example standing up for human ↑rights (.) it ↑meeans addressing the problems of injustice and i↑nequity (.) along the liines of rrace and ethnicity here at ↑hoome. (.) because in all these other places around the woorld where (.) they’re (.) having these terrible ↑problems (.) when they ↑FEEL hope (.) it is ooften because they (.) see in ↑uus. a reflection of their po↑tential. (.) so so we’ve ↑got to enforce our (.) civil rights laaws we’ve got to deal with things like (.) racial profiling (.) uh and we ↑have to keep our military strong we have the strongest ↑military. (.) and I’ll do whatever is ↑necessary if I’m president (.) to make sure that (.) it sstaays that way (.) uh but our real power comes I think from our values should thee ↑people of the woorld look at the United States uuh (.) governoor and say should they ↑fear us (.) should they welcome our in↑↑volvement should they see us as a ↑friend everybody in the world how do you (.) how would you project us (.) around the world as PREsident ↑WELL I think they ought to look at us as aaa (.) as a country that understands freedom (.) where it doesn’t matter who you ↑aaare. or how you’re ↑raaaised. or (.) where you’re ↑froom. that you can suc↑ceed (.) uhm I don’t think they’ll look at us with ↑envy. (.) uuuh well it ↑really depends upon how our nation con↑ducts itself. in foreign ↑policy if we’re (.) an aarrogant nation (.) they’ll (.) they’ll re↑sent us (.) if we’re a humble nation but strooong (.) they’ll (.) ↑welcome us (.) and uuh (.) our nation iis stands uh (.) stands a↑lone right now in the world in terms of (.) ppower and that’s why we have to be ↑humble (.) aaand uh (.) and yet project strength in a (.) in a way that promotes ↑freedom so ↑I don’t (.) I don’t I don’t think that they ought to look at us in any way other than what we ↑aare we’re a (.) freedom-loving ↑nation. and if we’re an aarrogant nation they’ll they’ll (.) they’ll view us that way but if we’re a humble nation they’ll res↑pect us a humble nation I a↑gree with that (.) I agree with that. (.) uh I I think that (.) one of the prooblems

JL(M): AG:

JL(M):

GWB:

JL(M): AG:

677

Appendix that we (.) ↑have faced in the ↑world. is that we are ssooo much more powerful than any single nation has been in relationship to the rest of the world (.) than at any tiimme in in in ↑history (.) uuh (.) that I know about anyway (.) uh (.) that there is some re↑sentment (.) of of U.S. power. so I think that uh the (.) the ↑idea oof humility i iis uh (.) is an important one (.) but I ↑think that we also have to haavve a (.) a sense of mission in the woorld (.) and we have to protect our ca↑paacity (.) to (.) to ↑push forward. what America’s all a↑bout. (.) that means (.) not only military strength and our ↑vaalues. (.) it ↑also means keeping our economy strong (.) you knooow in the lastt uh (.) or ↑two decades ago (.) uh it was (.) rou↑tiine for leaders of foreign countries to come over ↑here. (.) and say ‘you guys have got to do something about these horr↑rendous ↑deficits (.) because it’s causing tremendous prooblems for the rest of the ↑world’. (.) and we were lectured to all the time (.) the ↑fact that we haaave the strongest economy in history today is not ↑good enough. we need to do more (.) but the fact that it is so stroong (.) e↑nnables us to project the ppower for good that America can repre↑sent.= =does ↑that give us (.) does ↑oour (.) wealth our good economy our power (.) bring with it especial obligations to the rest of the ↑world. ↑yes it does (.) uuh take for example Third World debt (.) I thinkk uuuh (.) I think we ought to be giv forgiving Third World debt under certain con↑ditions (.) I think for exaample if we’re convinced that uh (.) a Third World country that’s got a lot of debt would (.) would reform it↑SELF (.) that the money wouldn’t go into the haaands of a few but would go to help ↑people (.) then I think it makes ↑↑sense for us to use our wealth in that way (.) ↑oor. to trade debt for (.) for vaaluable ↑rainforest laands (.) makes that much ↑sense yes we ↑do have an obligation but we can’t be all things to all ↑people (.) we can (.) help build coa↑litions. (.) but we can’t put our ↑troops all around the world (.) we can lend ↑money but we’ve got to (.) do it ↑wiisely we shouldn’t be lending money to (.) to corrupt of↑ficials (.) so we’ve got to be guaarded in our generosity well (.) let’s go through some of the specifics now uuh (.) new ↑questionn uuh uh (.) vice president Goore the governor mentioned the Middle Eeast (.) here we’re talking (.) at ↑this stage in the game about diplomatic power (.) [that we haaave mhum mhum] ↑what do you think the United States should do n (.) should do right ↑noow to resolve that conflict over there= =th the uh first priority has to be oon ending the ↑violence. (.) dampening down the tensions that have uh arisen ↑theere. (.) uh (.) we need uh to (.) to call uponn (.) ↑Syria to release the three Israeli ↑soldiers. who have been ↑caaptured (.) uh we need to insistt uh that ↑Arafat (.) uh (.) send out instructions to ↑halt some of the (.) provoocative uh (.) aacts of violence that have (.) have been going ↑on (.) I think that uh we also have to keep uh (.) a weather eye toward Saddam Hus↑sein because he’s uh (.) taking advaantage of this situ↑ation. to (.) to once again make make ↑threats. and he needs to unders↑taand that (.) uh he he’s not only (.) uh dealing with Israel he (.) ↑HE is dealing he’s dealing with ↑UUS if he if he is making the kind of threats that he’s talking about ↑there. (.) the (.) the use of diplomacy in this situation (.) uh has al↑ready (.) well it goes hour by hour and day by day now it’s a very tense situation there but (.) in the laast ↑twenty-four hours there has been

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

AG: JL(M): AG:

678

Appendix soome (.) uuh subSIIding of the violence there it’s too much to hooppe that uh (.) this is uuh (.) going to (.) continue but I ↑do hope that it will continue (.) uh our countryy has been very ↑aactive uh with uh (.) regular conver↑sations. uh uh with the (.) the leaders ↑there. uh (.) AND we just have to take it day to ↑day right ↑now. but (.) one thing I would say where diplomacy is concerned (.) ↑Israel shouldd uh (.) uh should feeel absolutely secure about one thing (.) our booonds with Israel (.) are are are ↑laaarger thaan (.) agreements or disagreements on some (.) ↑detaails of diplomatic (.) initiatives (.) they are historic they are strong and they are en↑during. (.) and our ability to serve as an honest ↑broker (.) iis a va (.) is uh something that we need to shepherd governor well ↑I think during the campaign (.) particularly now during thiis uh (.) difficult period we ought to be speaking with one voice and I appreciate the way the administration has worked hard to (.) ↑caalm the tensions (.) like the vice president I call on (.) chairman Arafat to (.) have his people pull ↑BAACK (.) to make the peace (.) uh ↑I think credibility is going to be very important in the future in the Middle East (.) ↑I want everybody to know sshhould I be the president Israel’s going to be our friend (.) I’m going to staand by Israel (.) ↑SEcondly thaat (.) I think it’s important to reach out to moderate Arab nations (.) like Joordan (.) and ↑Egypt (.) uh Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (.) uh it’s im↑portant to be friends with people when you ↑don’t need each other so that when you ↑do there’s a (.) strong b (.) uh b bond of friendsshhip (.) and ↑that’s going to be particularly important (.) uh in dealing not only with (.) ↑situations such as now occurring in Israel but with (.) Saddam Hussein the coalition against Saddaam has fallen a↑part. (.) or it’s un↑raavelling let’s put it that way the sanctions are beinng (.) uh (.) uuh re being violated we don’t know whether he’s developing weapons of mass destruction he better ↑not be or there’s going to be a ↑coonsequence sshhould I be the ↑president. (.) but ↑it’s important to have ↑credibility and ↑credibility is foormed by being strooong with your friends and resoluting your de↑termination. (.) one of the reasons ↑why I think it’s important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic ↑missile system (.) uh that we can sshhare with our alliies in the Middle East if need ↑be to keep the ↑peace (.) is to be able to saay to the Saddam Husseins of the ↑world. or the I↑ranians. (.) ‘↑don’t ↑dare (.) threaten our friends’ (.) it’s ↑also important to keep stroongg uh (.) uh (.) tiies in the Middle Eeast eith (.) credible tiies because of the ↑↑energy crisis we’re now in (.) after all a lot of the energy is pro↑duced from (.) uh from the Middle East and so I I appreciate what the administration is ↑doing. uh (.) I hope to get a sense of (.) should I be ↑fortunate to be the president how my administration will react to the Middle East so (.) you don’t be↑liieve (.) vice presidentt Gore thatt uh we should take siides and resolve this right now a ↑LOT of people pushing ‘hey we (.) the United States shouldd uh declare itself aand uh (.) and not be so ↑neutral [in this particular situation’ well we ↑stand with] (.) we ↑stand with Israel (.) but we have maintaaained the ability to serve as an honest ↑broker (.) uh and one of the reasons that’s im↑portant iis that Israel cannot have direct uh ↑dialogue with some of the (.) people (.) on the other ↑siide of conflicts (.) especially during times of ↑tension (.) unless that

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

AG:

679

Appendix dialogue comes (.) through ↑uus (.) uh and and i i i if ↑wee throw away that ability to serve as an honest broker (.) then we have thrown we ↑will have thrown awaay a strategic aasset that’s important not only to ↑us but also to Israel you agree with ↑that governor I ↑do I ↑do think this thoough when it comes to timetables (.) it ↑can’t be the United States timetable as to how (.) as to how discussions take place it’s got to be a timetable that (.) all parties can a↑gree too. other than (.) you know (.) like the Palestinians and Israelis secondly (.) any ↑lasting peace (.) is going to have to be a peace that’s good for both ↑siides (.) and therefoore the term hoonest broker makes ↑sense (.) uh where thatt uh (.) th this this current administration’s worked ↑hard to keep the (.) paarties at the table (.) is (.) I will try to do the same ↑thiing. (.) but it WON’T be on ↑my timetable mhum it will be on the timetable that people are comfortable with in the Middle East people watching here to↑night. (.) are very interested in Middle East poolicy aand they’re ↑so interested that they want to make up (.) they want too (.) base their ↑vote (.) oon differences between the two of yoou as president [how you would mhum handle] Middle East policy is there any ↑difference [(laughs) I haven’t heard (.) a big difference throughout (.) uh in in the last feew ex↑cha][anges WELL ↑I THINK] (.) that’s hard to tell I think that uuh (.) you know I would (.) I would hope to be able to con↑vince people I could handle the (.) Iraqi situation ↑better. (.) I mean we don’t Saddam Hussein] you mean (.) d’y think you could get him out of ↑there I’d ↑LIKE to of ↑course. and I (.) presume this administration would as ↑WELL. (.) but we ↑we don’t know there’s no inspectors now in in Iraaq (.) the (.) coalition that was in plaace uh (.) isn’t as stroong as it used to be (.) uuh (.) he is a he is a ↑daanger. (.) we don’t want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle ↑East. (.) [and it’s going to be hard to (.) you feel] it’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the ppressure on him you feel that is a failuure of the Clinton adminis↑tration I ↑do. vice president well when Ii (.) wh when ↑I got to be a part of the current administration (.) it was ↑right aafter I was one of the feew members of my political party (.) to sup↑port uh former president Bush I in the Persian Gulf War resolution (.) uh (.) and at the ↑END of that waar (.) uh for whatever reasons (.) it was ↑not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from ↑power (.) I know there are all kinds of (.) circumstances and expla↑nations. (.) but the ↑faact is that that’s the situation (.) uh that that was left when when I (.) when I got there (.) uuh (.) and we have maintaained th the sanctions (.) now I want to go ↑further (.) I want to give robust support (.) to the groups that are are trying to over↑throw Saddam Hussein (.) and I ↑know there are allegations that they’re too weak to ↑do it. (.) but that’s what they

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

AG: JL(M): GWB: AG: GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG:

680

Appendix said about theee (.) forces that were opposing Mi↑losevic in in ↑Serbia (.) and and you ↑know (.) thee (.) the policyyy of enforcing sanctions against ↑Serbia (.) has just resulted in a spec↑taaacular victory for demoocracy just in the past ↑↑week (.) and and (.) it it ↑seems to mee that uh (.) having taken so ↑loong. to see the sanctions work ↑theere. (.) building upoon the policy of containment that was successful over a much ↑longer period of tiime. against the former Soviet ↑Union. (.) uh in the communist ↑bloock. (.) seems a little ↑early uh (.) too to (.) to declare that we should give ↑up. on the (.) on the sanctions (.) uh I know the governor’s not (.) necessarily ↑saying that. but (.) uhm (.) you know ↑all of these flights that have come in aall of them have been in (.) accordance ↑with the sanctions regime. I’m ↑toold. uh (.) except for thhree (.) where they ↑notified (.) uh and (.) they’re ↑trying to break out of the boox there’s no question about it (.) ↑I don’t think they should be alloowed to are you (.) did he correct you (.) did ↑he state your position correctly you’re not calling for eliminating the ↑SAAnctions are you no of course (.) [not no] absolutely ↑noot I I want them to be tougher alright (.) uh (.) let’s ↑go uh (.) on to Milosevic and and Yugoslavia and it falls under the area of our military power ↑governor new question uuh should the ↑fall of Milosevic (.) be seeen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention I I think it’s a triumph I I I thought the president made the right de↑cision. (.) iin uh in in joining ↑NATO. and boombing ↑Serbia. (.) I supported them when they did ↑so. I (.) called upon the Congress not to (.) HAAMstring the administration (.) uuhm (.) and uuh (.) in terms of forcing ↑troop withdraaawals on a timetable that wasn’t necessarily in our best interest or (.) fit our nation’s strategy (.) and so I think it’s good public ↑poolicy I think it ↑woorked. (.) and uuh (.) and I’m (.) I’m I’m pleeased I took the (.) made the decision I ↑made. I’m pleased the president made the decision ↑he made (.) becausee uuh (.) freedom to ↑GOO (.) in that part of the world (.) and uuh (.) where there’s a lot of work left to be ↑done however= =but but it’s (.) do ↑you think it would not have happened do you believe (.) do ↑you think that Milosevic would not have fallen if the United States and NATO had not intervened militarily is this a le↑gitimate use of our mi[litary power yes I think it ↑is] ↑aabsolutely I I don’t think he would have ↑faallen. had we not used the ↑force (.) and I know there are some in my party that disa↑gree with that sentiment. (.) but I I supported the ↑president I thought he made the right decision to ↑do so (.) I didn’t think he necessarily made the right decision to take (.) ↑laand troops off the table (.) right before we committed ourselves of↑fensively but nevertheless it (.) it ↑worked. (.) the administration deseerves credit for having (.) ↑made it ↑work. (.) uuh it is important for ↑NATOo. (.) to have it work it is important for NATO to be stroong and confident (.) and to help keep ↑keep the peace in Europe and one of the reasons I felt so strongly that the United States needed to par↑ticipate (.) was because of our relations with ↑↑NATO mhum and uuuh (.) NATO is going to be an important part of ↑keeping the peace in the future (.) now there’s more work to ↑do (.) rem remains to be seen however whether

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

GWB:

JL(M):

GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

681

Appendix or not there’s going to be a po↑litical settlement in Kosovo (.) uuh and uh I certainly hope there ↑is one (.) I’ve (.) al ↑also on record as saying at ↑SOme point in time I hope our (.) European friends become the ↑peace-keepers (.) in Boosnia and in the Baalkans I hope that ↑they put the troops on the ↑groound. (.) uuh so that we can (.) withdraaw ↑our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning ↑waar. vice president well I (.) I’ve been kind of a hard-liner on (.) this issue for (.) ↑more than eight years (.) when I was in the Senate before I became (.) vice president (.) uh I was ↑pushing for stronger aaction against Milosevic (.) he caaused the death of ↑so many people. (.) he he was the last communist party ↑boss theere (.) and then he (.) became a (.) a ↑dictator that (.) b by some other label he was stilll essentially a ↑communist dictator. (.) uh and un↑fortunately now hee is trying to reas↑sert himself. uh (.) in (.) Serbian ↑politics already just to↑daay. (.) the members of his political party said that they were going to ignoore (.) the orders of the new president. of of ↑Serbia. (.) uh and thatt uh (.) th they question his le↑gitimacy and he’s stilll (.) going to try to be actively in↑volved (.) he is an indicted ↑waar criminal. (.) uh he should be held ac↑countable. (.) now I I ↑did want to pick up on oone (.) of th the statements earlier and ↑maybe I have heard (.) ↑maybe I’ve heard the previouss uh statements wrong governor (.) in ↑some of the discussions we’ve haad aboutt uh (.) when it’s (.) appropriate for the U.S. to use force around the world (.) at ↑tiimes thee (.) th the ↑staandards that you’ve laid down (.) have ↑given me the impression. that (.) if it’s if it’s something like a (.) ↑genociide taking place or (.) what they called ethnic ↑cleansing (.) uh in in Boosnia (.) thatt uh that alooone would ↑not bee (.) uh (.) that ↑that wouldn’t be the kiind of situation that would cause you (.) uuh (.) to think that the U.S. ought to (.) to get invoolved with (.) with troops (.) now (.) there have to be other factors invoolved for ↑me. to want to be (.) involved but by it↑SELF that to mee (.) can bring into play a fundamental American (.) strategic ↑interest because I think it’s based on our values now (.) have ↑I got that ↑wrong. (1.5) [oh I see ↑governor] ok ye trying to figure out who the questioner was [alright well (laughs) UH (.) UHM (with hand spread out making a circling movement)]= =[(collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) (laughs) UUH] (.) if I ↑think it’s in our nation’s strategic interest I’ll commit TROOPS (.) I ↑thought it was in our strategic interests. (.) to keep Milosevic in ↑check. (.) because of our relations in ↑NAaTO. (.) and that’s why I took the position I ↑took (.) I think it’s important for NATO to be stroong and ↑confident I felt like unchecked Milosevic would (.) would ↑haarm NATO (.) and uuh (.) and so it depends on the situation Mr. vice ↑president. well ↑let’s keep let’s stay on the subject for a momentt uh uh (.) new question related to thiis (.) there’ve been (.) I’ve ↑figured this oout in the last twenty yeears there have been (.) ↑eight major actions that invoolved the introduction of U.S. (.) ↑ground aaair or naval forces. (.) let me name them (.) ↑LEbanoon (.) Gre↑NAda (.)

JL(M): AG:

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: AG: A: GWB:

JL(M):

682

Appendix ↑PAnamaa (.) the ↑Persian Guulf So↑malia ↑Bosnia ↑Haiti Kosovo (.) if ↑YOU had been president (.) for ↑any of thooose (.) interventions (.) would ↑any of those interventions not have happened mhm (.) can you run through the list a↑gain.= =sure (.) ↑Lebanooon uh (.) I I I (.) I ↑thought that was a mistake Gre↑nada uuh (.) I sup↑ported that ↑Panama (1.) uuh (.) I sup↑ported that Persian ↑Gulf. ↑yes. I voted for ↑it .sup↑ported it. So↑malia of of course and (.) that (.) thatt uh (.) again (.) no I I ↑think that that was illl (.) considered (.) uuhm (.) I ↑did support it at the tiime (.) it was in the previouuss administration (.) in the Bush-Quayle administration (.) uuh (.) and I think in ↑retrospect the lessons theere (.) uh are ones that we (.) thatt uh (.) we should take (.) take very very ↑seriously uuuuuuh (.) ↑Boosnia oh yes ↑Haiti yes and then Kosovo [yes we] talked about that (.) d’y want me to do it with ↑you [uh (laughs) go through each ↑one (.) (bursts into laughter)] (.) no [no I’m fine I’ll make a coup do you want it be ↑Lebanon] make [make a couple of comments sure (.) aabsolutely sure] uuh (.) Ssomalia (.) started off as a humanitarian misssion and it changed into a ↑nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went ↑wrooong. (.) the mission was ↑changed (.) and as a result our nation paid a ↑price. and so ↑I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called ↑nation-building. (.) I think our na our troops ought to be uused tooo (.) fight and win ↑waaar. (.) I think our troops ought to be uused too (.) to help overthrow the dic↑tator (.) that’s in our and it’s in when it’s in our best ↑interests. (.) but in ↑this caase it was a ↑nation-building exercise. and same with ↑Haaiti I wouldn’t have supported ↑either.= =what a↑booutt uh Lebanon yes Gre↑nada yes ↑Panama yes (.) [↑some of them obviously the (unintelligible)

AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

683

Appendix GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): A: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): I’ve got a conflict of ↑interest though (.) [(laughs) (.) if you know what I mean FINE (.) (unintelligible) (.) uuh]= =(laughs) I ↑do I ↑do= =[(3.5 collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) (laughs) uuh (.) you’re your (.) uh (.) the Persian ↑Gulf] obviously= =[yeah (laughing) And Bosnia] (.) and you’ve already talked about (.) about ↑Kosovo. (.) but the re↑verse side of the questionn uh (.) governor that (.) vice president Gore mentioned (.) around ↑six hundred thousand people diied (.) in Rwanda in nineteen ninetyfoour. (.) there was ↑no U.S. intervention and no intervention from the outside world was that a mis↑take not to inter↑vene. I think the administration did the right ↑thing in that case (.) I ↑do (.) it was a hoorrible situation (.) ↑NO one liked to see it on our (.) it on our ↑TV screens but it’s a case wheere (.) we need to make sure we’ve got aa (.) you know a kind of a (.) an early ↑WARning system in place in places where there could be uuh (.) ethnic cleansing and genociide the way we saw it there (.) there in Rwwanda (.) and ↑that’s a case wheere (.) we need to b (.) you know use our influence to (.) to have (.) countries in ↑Aaafrica come together and help deal with the situation the (.) ad↑MInistration seem like we’re having a great love for us to↑night. but the ad↑MInistration made the right decision (.) oon training Nigerian ↑↑troops (.) for situations ↑just such as this in Rwanda (.) aaand uh (.) and so ↑I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda do ↑you have any second thooughts on thaat based on what you said a moment ago about ↑genociiide and I I’d ↑like to come back to the (.) to the question of nation building but ↑let me [address the question directly we’ll do that later] first fine (.) uhm (1.) we ↑did actually send troops uh into Rw↑anda. to help with the humanitarian relief uh measures (.) uh my wife Tipper who (.) who’s here ↑actually went oon (.) a military plane with general Sholicatch↑vieli on on (.) on ↑one of thoose uh flights (.) but I I ↑think in retrospectt we were (.) too ↑late (.) getting (.) in theere we could have saved more ↑liives. if we had acted ↑earlier (.) but I ↑DO not think that it was an exaample of uh (.) a conflict where we should have put our ↑troops in (.) to try to separate the (.) the ↑parties (.) for this reason Jim ↑one of myy (.) one of the criiteria that I think is im↑portant. (.) in deciding uh (.) when and if (.) we should ever get in↑vooolved around the world (.) is whether or ↑nott uh (.) our national security interest is invoolved if (.) we can really make (.) the difference with military forces we tried everything else if ↑we have alliies (.) IINN the ↑BALkans we have allies NATO (.) ↑ready willing and able to (.) to go and (.) and carry a big paart of the burden (.) in ↑Aafrica we did noot now we have tried (.) our ↑country’s tried to create an Africa crisis respoonse (.) uh team there and we’ve met some re↑sistance. (.) uh we have had some luck with Ni↑geria. (.) uuh (.) but in uh (.) Sierra Le↑on (.) and and that now (.) Nigeria has becomme a (.) a de↑mocracy. and we hope it stays that ↑way. (.) then then maybe we can ↑build on thaat (.) but b

GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG:

684

Appendix (.) be↑caause we haad uh no ↑AAllies and because it was very unclear that (.) we could actually (.) accomplish what we would (.) want to accomplish about ↑putting military forces there (.) I ↑thinkk uh it was the right thing noot to jump in as heartbreaking as it ↑waas. (.) but I think we should havve (.) come in much ↑quicker with the humanitarian mission so ↑what would you say governor to somebody would say ‘hey ↑wait a minute (.) uuh (.) ↑why not Aafrica I mean (.) why why the Middle ↑Eeast (.) uuh (.) ↑why theee uuh (.) the ↑Balkans (.) but not ↑Aafrica when six hundred thousand people’s (.) lives are at risk’ well I understaand (.) and and and uuh (.) Aafrica is im↑portant. (.) and we’ve got to do a lot of ↑work in Africa to promote democracy and trade (.) and there are some (.) the vice president mentioned Ni↑geria. is a (.) fledgling de↑moocracy. we’ve got to work with Ni↑geria. (.) that’s an important ↑coontinent (.) but uuh (.) there’s got to be ppri↑orities and uuh (.) Middle East is a ppri↑ority for a lot of reasons (.) as is ↑Europe (.) and the Far ↑East and our own ↑hemisphere and those are my four top pri↑orities should I be the ↑president not to say we won’t be en↑gaaaged. (.) nor trying to ignor (.) nor should we (.) w work hard to get other (.) nations to come to↑gether. to preventt uh (.) a↑troocity I thought the best example of a (.) of way to handle the situation was East ↑Timor when we (.) provided lo↑gistical support to the Aus↑tralians. (.) support that uuh (.) that uuh (.) only we can pro↑viide (.) I thought that was a ↑good model. (.) but we ↑caan’t be all things to all people in the ↑world Jim. (.) and I think that’s where maybe the vice president and I s (.) begin to have some ↑differences I’m I’m ↑worried about overcommitting our military around the ↑woorld. I want to be judicious in its use (.) you mentioned ↑Haiti. I didn’t wouldn’t have ↑sent troops to Haiti (.) I didn’t think it was a mission worth↑while it was a nation building ↑mission. (.) aand uh (.) it (.) was not very suc↑cessful it cost us (.) billions (.) a couple billions of ↑doollars. and I’m not so sure democracy is any better ↑ooff in Haiti than it ↑was before. vice president Gore do ↑you agreee with th (.) with the governoor’s uuh (.) viiiews on nation building the use of military our military (.) for nation building as he described and de↑fined it. ↑I don’t think we agree on that (.) I I would certainly also be ju↑dicious. (.) in uh (.) e↑valuating any potential use of American troops over↑seeas. (.) I think we have to be very ↑reticent. about thaat. (.) but (.) ↑look Jimm the woorld is changinng so raapidly the way ↑I see itt the world is getting (.) much closer to↑gether. (.) ↑llike it or not wee aare noow (.) the U↑nited States is now the natural leader of the world (.) aall these other countries are looking to ↑us. (.) now (.) just be↑caaause (.) we ccannot be invoolved everywhere and shouldn’t be (.) ↑doesn’t mean that we should shy away (.) uh from going in in ↑↑anywhere now (.) uhm (.) both of us are kind of I guess uh (.) stating the other’s position in a (laughs) (.) in a (.) maximalist extreme way but (.) BUT uh (.) I think there ↑is a difference here (.) this idea of nation building (.) is kind of a pejorative phrase (.) but ↑THINK about the great coonflict uh of of th the past century World War two (.) ↑during th (.) the years betweeen World War one and World War two (.) a great lesson was leearned by our military ↑leaders and (.) uh the people of the United States (.) the ↑LEsson waas that in the aaftermath of World War one we kind of ↑turned our baacks and uh (.) uh left them

JL(M):

GWB:

JL(M):

AG:

685

Appendix to their ↑own devices and uh (.) they brewed up a lot of ↑trouble. that quickly became World War two (.) and ↑AActing upon that lesson (.) in the aftermath of our great ↑victory in World War two (.) w ↑we laid doown the Marshall Plan president Truman ↑did. (.) uh (.) we got (.) intimately in↑vooolvedd in building NATO and (.) other structuress ↑theere. uh (.) we (.) we ↑still have lots of troops (.) uh in in Europe (.) and ↑what did (.) ↑what did we do in the in the late forties and fifties and sixties (.) we were ↑naation building (.) uh and it was eco↑nomic. (.) uh (.) but it was also ↑military and the coonfidence that those countries (.) recovering from the wounds of war haad (.) by havinng troops there we ↑had we ↑had civil administrators come inn to set up (.) set up theeeir (.) their their ways of uh building their ↑towns back. ↑you said in the Boston debate governor on this (.) issue of of nation building that the United States military is overextended noow. (.) ↑where is it overextended ↑whe[re are now] there U.S. military that you would bring hooome if you become president well ↑first let me just say one coomment about what the vice president said ↑I think one of the lessons in between World War one and World War ↑two is we let our ↑military aatrophy (.) and we can’t ↑do that (.) we’ve got to rebuild our ↑military. (.) but ONE of the problems we ↑have in the military is wee’re (.) in a lot of places around the world and I mentioned ↑one and that’s the ↑Balkans. I’d very much ↑like. to get our troops ↑out of there I recognize we can’t do it ↑noow. (.) nor do I advocate an immediate with↑draawal. (.) I think that (.) that would bee a (.) an abrogation of oour (.) agreement with ↑NATO. no one is suggesting ↑that. but I think it ought to be one of our pri↑oorities (.) to work with oour uh (.) European friends to convince ↑them to put (.) troops on the ground and (.) there is an exaaample ↑Haiti is another exaample (.) and now there ↑are some places where I think you know I’ve supported the administration in Co↑lumbia I think it’s important for us to be (.) training Columbians in that part of the world the hhemisphere is in our ↑interest (.) to have to have a p a p (.) a peaceful uuh (.) Columbia (.) BUT UUH (.) [sorry (.) I’ve (with hand spread out indicating the moderator to go ahead) if you’re just going to] (.) you know (.) the use of the military there there ↑some people are now suggesting that if you ↑don’t want to use the military (.) to maintain the peeace to do the civil thing (.) is it ↑ttime to consider (.) a ccivil (.) force of some kind that comes in ↑aaafter the military that builds nations there or all of that is ↑that is that on yoour (.) [uuh radar ↑screen. I don’t ↑think so I think] (.) I think what we need to do is convince (.) people who live in the laands they ↑live in to build the nations (.) maybe I’m ↑mmissing something here (.) I mean we’re going to have kind of a (.) nation building ↑coorps. from A↑merica. absolutely ↑↑nooot our military is meant to fight and win ↑waar. (.) that’s what it’s meant to ↑doo. (.) and when it gets overex↑tended (.) moraale drops (.) and I’m not (.) you see I stroongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korea pe↑ninsula not only to keep the peace (.) peace in the pe↑ninsula. but (.) to keep ↑REgional stability (.) and I ↑stroongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO (.) but I’m going to be ju↑dicious as to how to use the military (.) it needs

JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

GWB:

686

Appendix to be in our viital ↑interest. the mission needs to be ↑clear. and the extra strategy ↑ooobvious well I d (.) I don’t disa↑gree with thaat I certainly don’t disagree that we ought to get our troops (.) ↑hoome. from places like the Balkans as (.) as soon aas uh (.) we ↑can as soon as the mission is complete that’s what we ↑did (.) in Haiti (.) there there (.) there are no more than a ↑haaandful (.) of Americann military personnel in ↑Haiti. ↑now. (.) and Haitians have their ↑prooblems. but we gave them a chaance to (.) restore de↑mocracy. and that’s (.) really about all we ↑can do but if you have a situation ↑like that right in our back↑yaaard. (.) uh (.) with chaos about to break ↑out. and (.) flotillas ↑formingg. (.) uh to to comme a across the ↑water. and (.) all kiiinds off violence ↑there. (.) rright in (.) one of our neighbouriing ↑countries there (.) then (.) then ↑I think (.) that we did the ↑right thing there (.) uh (.) and a ↑aas fooor (.) this idea of nation building (.) the ↑phraaase sooounds grandiose (.) and you know we ↑can’t be (.) we ↑caan’t allow ourselves to get overextended I certainly agree with that (.) and ↑that’s why I’ve supported (.) building (.) uh (.) building ↑up our capacityyy I’ve devoted in the budget I’ve pro↑pooosed. (.) as I said last weekk (.) more than twice as much as as the governor has pro↑posed. (.) uh I think that (.) it’s in better shape now than ↑he generally dooes (.) uh we’ve had some disagreements about ↑thaat. he said that two divisions would have to report not ready for (.) for ↑duty. and (.) uh uh (.) that’s not (.) what the (.) the joint chiefs (.) say but ↑there’s no doubt that we have to continue building up readiness (.) and military ↑strength. (.) uh and we ↑have to also be very cautious. in the way we ↑uuse (.) our military in the (.) non-military area of uuh (.) uh ↑influencing events around the world the the financial and economic are the ↑World Bank president Wolfensohn said recently (.) governor that (.) ↑U.S. contributions to overseas development (.) assistance is lower nooow (.) almost than it (.) has ever been (.) is ↑that a problem for you do you think (.) what is your (.) ↑what is your idea about what the United States’ obligations aaarre (.) I’m talking about financial assistance (.) uuh and that sort of thing to other countries the poor countries WELL (.) I mentioned Third World [debt sure] that’s a that’s a [↑place right] wheere we can use ooour gene↑rosity to influence uuh uuh (.) in a poositive way influence ↑nations (.) I be↑lieve we ought to have foreign ↑aid. but I don’t think we ought to just have foreign aid for the sake of foreign ↑↑aaid (.) I think foreign aid needs to bee uuh uuhm (.) used to (.) encourage ↑markets (.) and refoorm (.) I think a lot of tiimes we just spend aaid and say we feel better about it and it ends up being (.) spent the wrong ↑waay. (.) and there’s some (.) pretty egregious e↑xaamples recently one being ↑Russia. where we had IMF loans that ended up in the pockets of a lot of (.) powerful ↑people and didn’t help (.) help the ↑nation. (.) I I I think the IMF has got a role in the ↑world. (.) but I don’t want to see the IM↑F out there as a way to say to b (.) world ↑baankers. (.) if you make a bad loan we’ll bail you ↑↑out (.) it needs to be available for emergency situations (.) I thought the president did the right thing with ↑Mexico. and was very strongly supportive of the administration in

AG:

JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

687

Appendix ↑Mexico. (.) uh (.) but I I I ↑I don’t think the IMF (.) and ou (.) ought to bee a (.) ought to be a ↑stop loss for (.) people who ought to be able to evaluate risks them↑seelves mhum and so ↑I’ll look at every place where wee’re investing ↑money. (.) I just want to make sure the re↑turn is good do you think we’re meeting our obligations ↑properly. no I would make some changes (.) I I think there need to be refoorms in the IM↑F (.) uh (.) I’ve ↑generally supported it but I’ve seen them (.) make some caalls that I thought were hiighly ↑questionable. (.) and I think that there’s a general agreement (.) in in ↑many (.) p parts of the world now that there ought to be changes in the IMF (.) the World Bank I think is generally doiiing a better ↑joob (.) uh but ↑I THINK one of the big issues here thatt doesn’t get nearly enough attention is the issue of cor↑ruption (.) the governor mentioned it (.) ↑earlier (.) uhm (.) I’ve ↑worked on this issue (.) it’s an (.) an enoormous problem (.) uh and corruption in official ↑agencies like militaries (.) and police departments around the world customs officials that’s one of the worst (.) ↑forms of it (.) uh and we have got to a↑gain (.) ↑lead by exaample uh and help (.) these other countries that are trying to (.) straighten ↑out their situations. find the tools in in order to ↑do it (.) ↑I just think Jim that (.) this is an absolutely unique period in world history (.) wor the world has come together as I ↑said. (.) they’re looking to ↑uus. (.) and and ↑we have a fundamental chooice to make (.) are ↑we going to step up to the plate as a nation the way ↑we did after World War ↑two (.) the way thatt uh generation of heroes said ‘ok the United States is going to (.) is going to be (.) the leader’ (.) AND (.) the world benefited tre↑mendously from the courage that that they showed in in those post-war ↑years. (.) ↑I think that in the (.) the aaftermath of the ↑Coold Waar. (.) it’s tiiime for us to do something (.) very ↑similar to step up to the ↑plate. (.) to provide the leadership leadership on the en↑vironment. leadership to make sure the world e↑conomy. (.) uh keeps moving in the right di↑rection. again that means not running big deficits ↑↑here. and nott (.) squandering our surplus it means having (.) uh intelligent decisions that keep our prosperity ↑going and k shepherds that economic strength so that we can pro↑viide that leadership role let let (.) ↑let me comment on [that sure] uuhm (1.) Ye (.) I I’m ↑not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say ‘this is the way it’s got to ↑be’ (.) we can help (.) and ↑maybe it’s just our difference in government (.) the way we view government (.) I I want to empower the ↑people I don’t (.) y know want to help people help them↑seelves not have government (.) tell people what to ↑do. (.) I I ↑just don’t think it’s the roole of the United ↑States. to walk into a ↑country. and say (.) ‘WE ↑DO IT THIS WAAY (.) so should you’ (.) Ii think we can ↑heelp. (.) and I know we’ve got to encourage de↑moocracy. in the ↑marketplaces (.) but take ↑Russia for exaample (.) we went into Russia we said here is some IMF ↑money. and it ended up in Viktor Chemomyrdin’s ↑pocket (.) and ↑oothers. (.) and and yet we played like there was re↑form. the only people that are going to r reform Russia are ↑Russia they’re ↑going to have to make the decision themselves (.) Mr. ↑Puutin is going to have to

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG:

GWB: JL(M): GWB:

688

Appendix make the decision as to whether or not he wants to adhere to rule of laaaw. (.) and normal accounting practices so that if countries ↑and or entitiies. invest ↑capital. (.) there’s a reasonable rate of re↑tuurn. (.) a way to get the money out of the out of the e↑coonomy (.) but ↑RUssia has to make the decision we can work we can work with them on se↑curity matters for example but (.) it’s ↑their call to make (.) so ↑I’m not exaactly sure where the vice president is ↑coming from but I think ↑ONE way for us to (.) end up beeeing viewed as the ugly A↑merican. is for us to go around the world saying ‘we do it this way so should you’. (.) [now (.) (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) we trust] we trust ↑freedom. we know freedom is a ppowerful ppowerfuull uuh uh uh uh uh (.) a powerful force much bigger than the United States of A↑merica. (.) as we saaw recently in the ↑Balkans. (.) but uuh (.) maybe I misunderstand where you’re ↑coming from Mr. vice president but I I I ↑I think the United States must be humble (.) and must beee uh (.) proud and confident of our ↑vaalues. (.) but ↑humble in how we treat nations that are (.) figuring out how to chart their own ↑course let’s uuh (.) let’s move on (.) uuh (.) [alright y uh (making a gesture signalling he wants to speak)] no let’s move on (.) [uuh (laughs)] far be it from me to suggest ↑otherwise.= =[oh yeah (laughing) (laughs) (8. collectively laughs) ↑first first a couple of follow-ups frooom uuh (.) the vi]ce presidential debate last weekk uh vice president Goore (.) would ↑you support or siign as president a federal laaw banning (.) racial (.) profiling by police and other authorities at aaall levels of ↑government. yes I would (.) uh the (.) the only thing an e↑xecutive order (.) can accomplish is to ban it in in federal (.) uh law enforcement ↑agencies. (.) uh but I would also support a laaw in th in the Congress that would have the effect of (.) of doing the same ↑thing. (.) I I I I just (.) I I ↑think that racial profiling is a s is a serious problem (.) I re↑memberrr (.) wwhen the stories first came out about the stops in New Jersey by the highway patrol there (.) and ↑I know it’s been going on a long time in some ways this is just aaa (.) a new ↑label for something that’s (.) been going oon for years (.) uh but but I ↑have to confess that it was the first time that ↑Ii really focused on it (.) uh (.) in a ↑new way (.) and ↑I was I was surprised at the extent of it (.) and I ↑think we’ve now got so many exaamples around the ↑country. (.) thaatt w we really have to ↑fiind waays (.) to to ↑end this. (.) because i↑magine what it (.) what itt uh (.) is ↑↑like for someone to beee (.) singled out un↑fairly un↑justly. (.) a and feel (.) the (.) the ↑unfaair force (.) of of laaw (.) simply becaause of (.) of ↑race (.) or or ethnicity (.) now ↑that runs counter to what the United States of America is (.) is ↑all about. at our ↑coore (.) aand it’s not an easy problem to ↑solve. (.) but Ii (.) if ↑I am entrusted with the presidency it will be the first Civil Rights (.) aact of the twenty first century yeah ↑I can’t imagine what it would be like to beee uh (.) singled out because of

A: GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB: AG: GWB: JL(M): A: JL(M):

AG:

GWB:

689

Appendix race and stoopped and haraassed (.) uuhm (.) that’s just flat wrong (.) and that’s not what America is all a↑bout. (.) and so we ought to do everything we can to end racial pro↑filing. (.) uuh one of ↑MY concerns though. is I don’t want to federaliize the local police forces (.) I want to (.) ↑obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights ↑laaw. (.) but we need to make suure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their ↑↑jooob (.) and be ↑given a chance to do their ↑joob. I I believe in local control of governments (.) and obviously if they don’t there needs to be a ↑coonsequence at the federal level (.) but (.) it’s very important that we not overstep our ↑boounds. (.) and uuuh (.) I think ↑most people (.) most po↑lice officers are (.) good dedicated ↑honourable citizens who are (.) doing their ↑jooob. putting their liives at risk (.) who aren’t bigoted or ↑aren’t prejudiced (.) I don’t think they ought to be held ↑guilty. (.) uuuh (.) uh but I do think we need to find out where racial profiling oc↑cuurs. and do something a↑bout it and say to the local folks ‘get it ↑doone. and if ↑you can’t there will be a federal ↑consequence’. and that could be a federal laaw ↑yeah and and you would a↑gree I I I ↑would agree and Ii (.) ↑also agree that most police officers of course aare (.) doing a good joob and and hate this practice ↑also (.) I ↑talked to an AfricanAmerican police officeer in Springfield Massachusetts not (.) not long ago (.) uh who who ↑raised this question and said that in ↑his opinion one of the biggest solutions is in the training (.) and not ↑onlyy the (.) training in police procedures but human ↑human relations (.) and and I ↑think that (.) racial profiling is part of a larger ↑iissue of how we deal with race in America (.) and (.) AS for singling people ↑OUT (.) uh because of race (.) you know James ↑Byrd was singled out because of his race (.) in Texas (.) and other Americans have been singled out because of their raace or (.) or eth↑nicity. (.) a and (.) ↑that’s why I think that (.) we can emboody our ↑vaalues. by passinng a ↑hate crimes law (.) uuh I think these crimes ↑are different I think they’re different be↑caaause. (.) they’re based o on (.) uh (.) prejudice and ↑hatred which is (.) uh which gives rise to crimes that have not just a ↑single victim (.) but they’re in↑tended too (.) to stigmatiise and dehumaniise a whole group of people= =you have a different view of that= =↑NO I DON’T really= =on hate crimes laaaws= =↑no. we’ve got one in ↑Texas. and guess ↑what. (.) the three men whooo uh (.) whoo uh murdered James Byrd guess what’s going to ↑happen to them. (.) they’re going to be put to death (.) a jury (.) found them ↑guilty. (.) aand I I (.) it’s going to be ↑HARD to (.) punish them any worse after they get put to death (.) and it’s the right caause (.) it’s the it’s the right decision (.) and ↑secondly there is other forms oof uh (.) racial profiling that goes on in America (.) Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what is called secret ↑evidence. (.) people are stopped (.) uuh and uh ↑we have to do something about that my friend senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan is pushing a ↑laaw. to make sure that (.) uh Arab-Americans are treated with respect (.) so racial ↑profiling isn’t just an issuue at local po↑lice forces. (.) it’s an issuue throughout our so↑ciety. and as we become a diverse so↑ciety. we’re going to have

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

690

Appendix to deal with it more and ↑more (.) uh I just (.) ↑I believe though ↑I believe (.) as ssure as I’m sitting here that ↑most Americans (.) really care they’re tolerant people (.) they’re good (.) tolerant people (.) it’s the very few (.) that create most of the crisees and we just have to ↑find them and ↑deal with them. ↑whatt uh (.) if you become president governor uuh are there ↑other areas uh (.) racial problem areas that you would deal with as president (.) uh uh involving discrimination like [you said sure] Arab-Americans but also His↑PAanics Asians as well as Blaacks in this country= =↑let me tell you where the biggest discrimination comes (.) in public education (.) when we just move ↑children through the schoools. my friend Phyllis Hunter is here (.) she had one of the greatest liiines of all liiines she said (.) ‘reading is the new (.) civil right’ (.) and ↑she’s right (.) and and and (.) to ↑make sure our society is as hopeful as it poossibly can ↑be. (.) every single ↑chiild in America must be educated I mean every chiild (.) it ↑STARTS with making sure every chiild learns to read (.) K through two diagnostic testing so we ↑knoow. (.) whether or not there’s a deficiency (.) uh cur↑riculum that woorks and phonics needs to be an integral part of our reading cur↑riculum. (.) in↑tensive reading laboratories (.) ↑teacher retraining (.) I mean ↑there needs to be (.) a ↑WHOLEsaaale (.) uuhm (.) ↑effort against racial profiling (.) which is illiterate children (.) we can do better in our public schools (.) we can (.) we we we (.) we can ↑cloose an achievement gap (.) and it ↑staarts with making sure we have strooong accountability Jim one of the ↑cornerstones of reform and good reform (.) is to ↑MEAsure (.) because when you ↑measure you can ↑aaask the question (.) do they ↑↑know (.) is anybody being ↑profiiled. is anybody being dis↑criminated against. it becomes a ttool a corrective tool (.) and uh (.) I ↑I believe the federal government must ↑say that if you receive any money (.) any money from the federal ↑government. (.) for disadvantaged ↑children for example ↑YOU must show us (.) whether or not the children are ↑learning. (.) and if they ↑aaare. ↑fine and if they’re noot there haas to be a consequence (.) and so to ↑make sure we end up we’re getting rid of basic structural (.) prejudice is education (.) there is nothing ↑more prejudiced. (.) than not educating a chiild vice president Gore what would be oon ↑your racial discrimination elimination list as president well ↑I think we need tough enforcement of the civil rights ↑laws. (.) uh I think we still need affirmative ↑aaction. (.) I would paass aa ↑hate crimes law as I ↑said. (.) uh and I I guess I had misunderstood the governoor’s ↑previous position the Byrd familyy uh (.) may have a misunderstanding of it in Texas ↑also. (.) but (.) uh (.) I I’d ↑like to shift if I could to the (.) [quest big issue of education well (.) no (.) hold on one second ↑what is the misunderstanding] (.) let’s clear this [up WELL] ↑I HAD THOUGHT that there was a controversy at the end of the legislative session where the hate crimes laaw in Texas waas uh (.) uh ↑faailed. and thaatt (.) the Byrd family among others aasked you to sup↑port it. ↑governor. (.) and (.) aand uuh (.) it it it died in committee for ↑LACK of support am I wrong about ↑that w (.) well. (.) do you (.) you don’t realize we have a hate ↑crimes (.) [statute. we do

JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG:

GWB:

691

Appendix AG: GWB: I I’M ↑TAL]king about the one that was propooosed [to deal no (.) well (.) w] what the vice president ↑must not understand is we’ve got a hate criimes bill in Texas (.) and ↑secondly (.) the people that murdered Mr. ↑Byyyrd. (.) got the ultimate ↑punishment (.) [the death penalty they were] (.) they were prosecuted under the murder laaws were they ↑not (.) [in Texas well (.)] all all (.) in ↑this caase (.) when you murder ↑somebody. (.) it’s hate ↑Jim.= =mhum (.) [no but the crime is hate] (.) and they got they got the ultimate ↑punishment I’m not exactly sure how you enhaance the penalty any ↑moore. (.) than the death penalty (.) but ↑we happen to have a statute on the books (.) that’s aa (.) hate crimes statute in Texas may I res↑pond. sure= =I don’t want to (.) jump in (.) uuh (.) [I ↑MAY HAVE BEENN uh (collectively laughs) misled by all the (.) the news reports about this matter (.) because the law that was pro↑poosed in Texas that had the support of the (.) the Byrd familyy and (.) a whole lot of people (.) in Texas (.) ↑did in fact diie in committee there (.) there may be some other statute that was already (.) on the ↑boooks. but certainly the aadvocates of the hate crimes law felt (.) that (.) uh a tough new law was ↑needed (.) and it’s im↑poortant Jim not onlyy uh (.) not j not just because of Texas but because this mirrors the ↑naational (.) controversy (.) there is pending ↑noow (.) in the ↑Congress. a naational hate crimes law (.) be↑cause of James Byrd. because of (.) Matthew ↑Shepard who was crucifiied on a split rail fence by by bigots and because of ↑others. (.) and and that ↑laaw has has died (.) [in com and y] mittee ↑also (.) because of the same kind of opposition and you would support that bill ↑aabsolutely= =would you support a national hate crimes ↑law. I I would support the Orrin ↑Haatch version of it not the senator ↑Kennedy version but ↑let me say to you (.) Mr. vice president we’re ↑haappy with our laaws on our ↑books. that bill did (somewhat laughing) there was another bill that did die in ↑committee. (.) but I want to re↑peeeat (.) if you HAVE a state that fully (.) uuh supports the ↑laaaw. (.) like we do in ↑Texas (.) we’re going to go after ↑all crime (.) and we’re going to make sure people get ↑↑punished for the crime (.) and in this case (.) we can’t e we can’t enhaaance the penalty any ↑mooore. (.) than putting those three thugs to ↑deeaths. (.) and that’s what’s gonna happen in the state of ↑Texas new subject new question another vice presidential debate follow-up governor (.) both senator Lieberman ↑aand secretary Cheney said they were ↑sympathetically rethinking their viiiews on same sex relationships (.) ↑what’s your position (.) on that. Uh ↑I’m not for gay marriage. (.) I I think marriage is a sacred institution between a

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

AG: JL(M): AG: A: AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

GWB:

692

Appendix man and a ↑woman. (.) and uuh (.) I appreciated the way the administratioonn uh signed the Defence of ↑Marriage act. I presume the vice president supported it when the president signed that ↑bill. and supports it ↑now. (.) but ↑I think marriage is a sacred institution (.) and that’s (.) I’m going to be respectful (.) for people who may disagree with ↑me. (.) I’ve had a record of doing so in the state of ↑Texas. I’ve been aa (.) I’ve been a person that had been called a uniter not a di↑vider. because I accepted some (.) I accept other people’s points of ↑view but I (.) I feel ↑strongly thatt uh (.) thaat marriage should be between a man and a woman vice president Gore I agree with ↑thaat (.) and uuh (.) I did support that ↑laaw. (.) but I think that we should ↑find a way (.) uh too (.) alloow (.) some kiind oof uh civic unions (.) and ↑I baasically agree with Dick Cheney (.) and Joe Lieberman (.) and I think the three of us have one ↑view. and the governor has a↑nother view= =is that ↑right. I’m not sure what (.) kind of view he’s des↑criibing to me I can just ↑tell you. (.) I’m a I’m a person who respects other ↑people. (.) I respect theeeir (.) I respect on the one hand he says he agrees with me and then he says he ↑doesn’t. I’m (.) not sure where he’s coming from but I I (.) I will be a tolerant ↑person. I’ve been a tolerant person all my ↑life (.) I just happen to believe stroongly (.) that marriage is between a man and a ↑woman do ↑you believe in general teerms that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as other A↑mericans yes (.) I don’t think they ought to have ↑special rights. but I think they ought to have the ↑same rights. well there’s a (.) there’s a law ↑pending called the Employment Non-Discrimination act (.) I stroongly support it (.) what it saaays is that gays and lesbians can’t be fired from their job (.) becaaause uh (.) they’re gay or lesbian (.) and (.) and it would be a ↑federal laaw pre↑venting that. (.) now I wonder if the (.) it’s been ↑bloocked (.) byy thee opponents in the majority in the ↑Congress I wonder if the (.) governor who lend his support to ↑that law ↑governor the q q q questioner coming around again [(laughing) WELL (.) but it it’s a logicaall] [rebuttal YE (.) WELL] (.) ↑I have no idea I mean he can throw out all kinds I don’t know the particulars of this laaw I will ↑tell you I’m the kind of person I don’t (.) hhire or fire somebody based upon their sexual orien↑tation. (.) as a matter of fact I would like to take the issue a little ↑further. I don’t really think it’s any of my (.) you know any of my con↑↑ceerns what (.) how you conduct your sex life (.) and I think that’s a ↑private matter (.) and I think that’s the way it ought to ↑bee (.) but I’m going to be respectful for ↑people. (.) I’ll toolerate ↑people. (.) and I support equal rights but not ↑special rights for people and so especial rights (.) ↑how does that (.) a a affect gays and lesbians well it’d be if they’re given if they’re given especial protective ↑↑staatus (.) and uuh (.) ↑that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fully enforce ↑laaaws. and (.) fully pro↑tect people. and fully ↑hoonour people which I will ↑↑doo as the president of the United States

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: AG:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

693

Appendix JL(M): new subject new questionn vice president Goore ↑how do you see the connection between controlling gun sales (.) in this country (.) ↑and the incidence of death by aaccidental ↑oor intentional use of guns JIM I hope that we can (.) uh come ↑back to the (.) subject of education because the governor made an extensive statement on it and (.) I have a (.) very different view than the one hee uh (.) th than the one he expres↑sed (.) butt uh (.) that having been said (.) uh ↑I beliiieve that well ↑FIRST of all let me say (.) thaatt (.) the governor and I agree (.) on some things where ↑this subject (.) is concerned (.) I will ↑NOT do anything (.) too affect the rights of ↑huunters. or ↑sportsmen. (.) uh I think that ↑homeowners have to be respected and their ↑right. to have a gun if they ↑wish too. (.) the problem I see is that there are (.) ↑too many guuns getting into the haands of (.) of children (.) and criminals (.) and people whoo for for what↑ever reasoon (.) uh (.) uh some kind of ↑history of uh (.) of ↑staalking or domestic abuse (.) ↑really should noot bee (.) uh uh a able to ↑↑get guns (.) I think these as↑sault weapons (.) uh uh (.) are are (.) are a problem (.) uh so I ↑favoour. closing the gun show ↑loophole (.) in fact I cast the tiie-breaking vote (.) to to ↑close it but then the (.) majority in the House of Repre↑sentatives went the (.) other way. (.) that’s still (.) ↑pending if we could get agreement on thaat maybe they could pass ↑that in the (.) final days of this Congress (.) I think we ought to restoore the three-day ↑waiting period under the (.) under the Braady law (.) uh I think we should tooughen the en↑foorcement of gun laaaws (.) so thatt uh that the ones that are already on the ↑boooks. (.) uh can be enforced (.) ouh much moore ef↑fectively. (.) uh some of the restrictions that have been placed (.) uh by the ↑Coongress uh in the last couple of years I think (.) in in the last ↑few years I think have been (.) uh uh (.) un↑foortunate (.) uh I I I ↑think that we oought to (.) make ↑aaall schools. (.) gun free have a gunfree zone around (.) uh every schoool in this country (.) uh I ↑I think that measuures like ↑theese. are important (.) uh child safety trigger loocks on a mandatory (.) basis (.) and ↑others ↑governor well it ↑starts with enforcing ↑LAAW. (.) when you say ↑looud and clear to somebody ‘if you’re going to carry a gun illegally we’re going to ar↑rest you’. ‘if you’re going to sell a gun illegally you need to be ar↑rested’. if you commit a ↑criime with a gun there needs to be absolute (.) certainty in the ↑laaw. (.) and uuh (.) and ↑that means that that that that the lo lo local law en↑forcement officials. need help at the federal level (.) with Programs like Project Exile where the federal government in↑tensifiies (.) uh arresting people who illegally use ↑↑guns (.) and we haven’t done a very good ↑joob of that. at the federal level recently. (.) and I’m going to make it a a p (.) priiority secondly I don’t think we ought to bee (.) s selling guns to people who shouldn’t ↑haave them (.) that’s why I support uh (.) uhm (.) instant background checks att uh (.) at ↑gun shows. (.) uhm (.) one of the reasons we have an instant ↑baackground check (.) is so that we instantly ↑knoow. (.) whether or not somebody should have a ↑gun or not (.) uhm in TEXas I tried to do something innovative which is aa (.) you know there’s a lot of talk about (.) ttrigger locks being uh (.) on guns sold in the future I sup↑port that. (.) but ↑I said let’s ‘if yoou (.) if you ↑want a trigger lock to make your (.) your gun ↑safe. (.) come to (.) come and (.) get one for ↑freee’ and so we’re distributing in our state of Texas for

AG:

JL(M): GWB:

694

Appendix free (.) I think we ought to raise the age at which a juvenile can carry a handgun from eighteen to twenty one (.) I disagree with the vice president on ↑this issue I don’t hee ↑iis for registraation of guuns I think the only people that are going to show up to ↑registeer or get a license I guess licensing like a driver’s license for a gun the only people that are going to ↑show up are the. (.) law-abiding ↑↑citizens (.) uh the criminal is not going to show ↑up and say ‘hey (.) y y y give me my I.↑D. card’. (.) it’s the laaw-abiding ↑citizens who will do that. and Iii uh (.) I just don’t think that is going to be an effective toool to make thee uh (.) keep our society ↑safe. all right ↑so (.) on guuns (.) somebody wants to (.) wants to cast a ↑vote (.) based on your ↑differences. (.) where are the ↑differences well I’m ↑not for registration (.) I am for licensing by ↑states. (.) of new handgun(.) purchases [so that =what is that do] (.) what’s that mean a photo license I.↑D. (.) like a like a driver’s license for new (.) haandguns (.) and and you knoow uh (.) there (.) thee Los Angeles excuse me (.) you would have to get the license (.) a a ↑photo I.D. to go in (.) and before you could buy the gun correct= =all right [and ↑who would issue at the time] [↑who would issue thee THE STATE (.)] the state I I think states should (.) should ↑do that for new ↑handguns. because too many criminals (.) ↑aare getting (.) guns (.) there was a recent investigation of the (.) uh uh of the number in Texas uh who who got (.) who were given con↑cealed weapons (.) permits in spite of the fact thatt uh they they had (.) ↑recoords and (.) ‘The Los Angeles ↑Tiimes’ spent (.) a lot of inkk going ↑into that. (.) but ↑I am not for doing anything (.) that would affect ↑hunters. (.) or ↑sportsmen. ↑rifles. ↑shotguns. existing (.) uh ↑handguns. (.) uh I do think that that sensible gun safety (.) measures (.) are ↑↑warranted now (.) look this is the year (.) this is uh in the aftermath of ↑Columbiine (.) and Pa↑ducah (.) a and aall the places around our country where the nation has been shocked (.) byy (.) these these weapons in the hands of the wrong ↑people. (.) the ↑woman who bought the guuns (.) for the two boys whoo uh (.) did that killing at Columbine said that if ↑shee had had to (.) to too to ↑give her naame and fill outt (.) a form there she would not have bought those ↑guns (.) that conceivably could have prevented that ↑traagedy back to the question about the differences on gun control what ↑are they governor from your point of view be↑tween you aand the vice president well I’m not for I’m not for photo licensing but ↑let me say something about Columbiine aand (.) uh (.) listen we’ve got ↑gun laaaws (.) he says we ought to have (.) gun-free schools ↑everybody believes that (.) I’m sure every state in the union has GOOT them (.) you can’t carry a gun into a ↑school. (.) and there ought to be a consequence when you ↑↑do carry a gun into a school (.) uuhm (.) but ↑Columbine spoke to a larger issue it’s it’s really a matter of culture (.) it’s a culture that (.) somewhere along the liiine (.) we’ve begun to disrespect ↑life (.) whr where a child can walk in (.) nd and have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else’s ↑life. (.) so gun laaws are

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB:

695

Appendix im↑portant. no question a↑bout it. but so is (.) loving ↑children. and (.) y know ↑character education claasses. and faith-↑based programs. being a part of uh aafter↑school programs (.) somebody some desperate ↑chiild that needs to have somebody put their arms around them and say ‘we love you’ (.) and so there’s a (.) this is this is a so↑ciiety thatt uh (.) of ours that’s got to do a ↑better joob of teaching children right from ↑wroong (.) and we can en↑force laaw. (.) but there ↑seems to be a lot of preoccupation ooon (.) not certainly only in ↑this debate but just in GEneral on ↑LAAW. (.) but there’s a ↑laarger law ‘love your neighbour like you would like to be loved your↑self’and that’s where our society must ↑heead if we’re going to be a peaceful and have and and prosperous society I I also believe in the golden rule (.) and Ii agree with a lot of the other ↑things. that the governor has ↑said. (.) we ↑do have aa (.) a serious problem in our culture (.) uh Tipper and I have worked on the problem of ↑viiolence. in (.) entertainment aimed aimed at children she’s worked on it longer than ↑I have. (.) but I feel very strongly a↑bout that. (.) and if (.) if I’m elected president I will ↑do something about that. (.) but I think that we (.) I think we have to staart with better pa↑renting. (.) but I ↑ think that we can ignooore the role played by ↑guns (.) I mean the fact is that there (.) even though no state ↑wants them (.) there are guns in some schools and the reason it’s so difficult for schools to con↑trol that (.) is because in recent years there has been a ↑ffllood of cheap (.) ↑handguns that are so wiidely a↑vailable (.) that kids are finding ways to get a ↑hold of them. (.) a and I think that (.) if if if you look at (.) the situation as it exists here in the United States (.) compared to any other country in the ↑woorld (.) it seems to me pretty oobvious that (.) while we respect the rights of hunters and ↑sportsmen. (.) we do need some common sense gun safety steps to stem this flood of guns that are getting into the wrong ↑haands= =yeah no question about that but there ↑aalso (.) needs to bee (.) strooong enforcement of the ↑↑law (.) some kid who feels like ↑doesn’t matter where the gun comes from. it could be a cheeap ↑gun. ex↑pensive gun. (.) what MAAtters is something in this person’s head says there is not going to be a ↑coonsequence (.) so in ↑my state we toughen up the juvenile ↑justice laaws we aadded beeds we (.) we’re ↑tough (.) we believe in tough ↑laaws. (.) we say ‘if ↑you get caught carrying a gun (.) you’re automatically de↑taained’. (.) and ↑that’s what needs to haappen (.) we’ve got laaws if laaws need to be (.) strengthened like instant background checks (.) that that (.) that’s im↑portant new question [governor ye (laughs)] (.) [as I was saying new question new subject] (.) (laughs) (.) both of ↑you uh governoor both of you have talked (.) much about Medicare and health care for seniors (.) what a↑bout the more than forty million younger Americans who do not have health insurance right noow. ↑what would you do about that ↑well. (.) I’ve got a plan (.) to do something about ↑that. (.) it’s to make uuh health care affoordable and avaailable (.) this way (.) uuhm (.) FIRST there’s ↑SOOME who should be buying health caare (.) who choose not to (.) there’s some [of the healthy some of the for]ty million some of the ↑healthy foolks

AG:

GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

696

Appendix JL(M): GWB: [right healthy] young kids say ‘I’ll never get sick therefore I’m not going to have (.) I don’t need health care right now’ (.) for ↑THOOSE what I think we need to do is to (.) develop a (.) an investment-type vehhicle (.) that would be an incentive for (.) for them to invest like medical ↑savings accounts. (.) with roollover (.) capacity (.) uh in other words you say to a ↑youngster. (.) uh ‘it ↑will be in your financial interest to start saving for ↑future illness’ (.) but for the working (.) ↑folks that doo want to have health care that can’t afford it (.) a couple of things we need to do ↑one we need more community health centres I’ve developed (.) put out money in my budget to (.) to ex↑paaand community health centres all around the country these are (.) places where people can get primary ↑caare. (.) uh ↑secondly and ↑they’re and (.) they’re good they’re very important parts of the (.) of the of the safety net of health care (.) ↑secondlyyy (.) thaat (.) you get a (.) two thousand dollars rebate from the ↑government. if you’re a faaamily of (.) thirty thousand or less it scales down as you get ↑higher that you can uuse to (.) purchase health care (.) in the private markets (.) it’s it will be a ↑huuge down payment for (.) a pretty darn good system (.) if you al↑loow (.) also al↑loow (.) uh convince states to al (.) al↑low states to allow the mother to maatch some of the children’s health insurance money with it the ↑pool purchasing power (.) and to MAKE health care more uh uh af↑foordable (.) al↑LOW (.) business associations like the Naational Federation of Independent Business or the (.) Chamber of Commerce or the National Restaurant Association to write (.) as↑sociation plaans. (.) acrooss jurisdictional ↑liiines. (.) so that small businesses have got the capacity to have naational ↑pooling (.) to driive the cost of insurance down I ↑think that’s the very best way to go it emppowers people it trusts people (.) it makes uh (.) itt (.) and it’s a praactical way to encourage people to ↑purchase. (.) health care insurance vice president ↑Gore. it’s one of my top ↑priorities Jim. to give every single child in the United States af↑fordable health care within the next four years (.) I would ↑like to seee eventually in this country some form off (.) universal health care but I’m not for a government-run (.) uh ↑system (.) uh in FACT I’m foor (.) ↑shrinking the size of government (.) I want a smaaaller and ↑smarter (.) government (.) uh I have been (.) in charge of this reinventing government ↑streamlining project that’s (.) reduced the siize of government by more than three hundred thousand ↑people (.) in the last several ↑yeears. and (.) uh the budget plaan that I’ve ↑put out (.) uh (.) a (.) ccording to ‘The Los Angeles uh Times’ again (.) the way these things are typically ↑measured. as a percentage of the GD↑P (.) will bring government spending ↑dooown. to the lowest level in fifty (.) years (.) so I ↑want to proceed carefully to cover more people (.) but I ↑think that w (.) we should staart by (.) greatly expanding the so-called child health insurance or CHIP prograamme (.) too uh (.) to give health insurance to ↑every single chiild (.) in this country I think it’s in↑toolerable (.) that we have so many ↑millions of children (.) without any (.) health insurance (.) so i it’s ↑one of my top priorities now (.) I know that we have some disa↑greementss uh on this (.) aand (.) I’m sorry to tell you that (.) you know there is a ↑record here (.) and Texas ranks forty-↑niinth. out of the fifty states (.) inn health care (.) in children with health care (.) forty-↑ninth. for women (.) uh with

JL(M): AG:

697

Appendix health care (.) and ↑fiftieth. (.) for ↑faamilies (.) with health care (.) sooo uh (.) it is a ↑priority for me (.) I guarantee you (.) I’m not aware of any program (.) uh well I’ll just I’ll just leave it at that I think it ought to be a top priority governor diid the vice president (.) are the vice president’s figures cor↑rect (.) about ↑Texas w w ↑first of all let me (.) say he’s not for (.) aa government-run (.) ↑health care system (.) uuh I thought that’s exactly what heee (.) and Mrs. Clinton and them ↑fought for. in nineteen ninety-↑three was a government-run (.) health care system (.) it was fortunately stopped in its ↑traacks (.) uuh (.) ↑secondly we spend four point seven (.) billion dollars a ↑year. (.) on the uninsured in the state of Texas (.) uh (.) our our rate of unin↑suured. the (.) percentage of uninsuured in Texas has gone ↑down. (.) while the percentage of uninsured in America (.) has gone ↑up (.) uh (.) our ↑CHIPS prograamme (.) got a late ↑start (.) because our ↑government (.) meets only four months out of every ↑two years. (.) Mr. vice president it may come as a shooock for somebody who has (.) been in Washington for so long but actually limited government can ↑woork. (.) in the second largest state in the union and therefore Congress passes the bill (.) ↑AAfter our session in nineteen ninety (.) ninety-↑seven ended (.) we passed an enabling legislation in nineteen ninety-↑niine. (.) we’ve signed up over a hundred and ten thoousand children to the CHIPS pro↑gramme. (.) for comparable states our ↑siize. (.) we’re we’re we’re signing them up as fast as any other ↑state (.) aand uh (.) Ii you can quote all the ↑numbers you want but I’m telling you we care about our ↑people in Texas (.) uuh we spent a lot of money to make sure people get ↑health care in the state of Texas (.) and we’re doing a better joob than they aare (.) at the ↑NAtional level (.) for reducing unin↑sured is he ↑right uuh (.) weell ↑I don’t know about the (.) uh th all these percentages that he (.) throws out (.) but I ↑do know thatt (.) the r (.) I I ↑speculate (.) that the reason whyy he didn’t aanswer your question directly (.) as to whether my (.) numbers were ↑riight. the ↑facts were right (.) a about Texas raanking (.) dead ↑laast in (.) families with ↑health insurance. and forty-ninth ↑out of fifty. for both children and ↑women (.) is because those facts ↑are correct (.) and and as for whyy it ↑happened. (.) I’m no expert on (.) uh th the Texas pro↑cedures but (.) what my friends there (.) ↑tell me (.) is that the governor op↑pooosed a measure (.) put forward by ↑Democrats in the legislature. (.) to expaaand the number of children that would be ↑covered. (.) and ins↑teeead directed the money towaard uh (.) a ↑tax cut (.) a significant part of which went to wealthy ↑interests. (.) he declaared the neeed for a new tax cut for the ↑oil companies in Texas (.) an emmergency (.) need (.) and so the money was taken a↑waay. froom (.) the CHIP program (.) uh ↑there’s a (.) you don’t have to take my ↑woord for this. (.) there is ↑now. a federal (.) judge’s (.) o↑pinion about the current (.) management of this prograamme (.) uh ↑ordering (.) the state of Texas to do someth and you should read that ↑judge’s laanguage about this (.) there are one I be↑liiiieve there are (.) one point four million (.) children (.) in Texas who do ↑not have health insurance six hundred thoousand of whom (.) and maybe some of those have since ↑gootten it (.) butt uh aas of a year ago six hundred thoousand of them (.) were actually ↑eligible for it (.) but they they couldn’t ↑siign up for it because of the

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG:

698

Appendix ↑baarriers that they had set [up let’s] ↑let the governor respond to thaat oh I I I are ↑those numbers correect (.) are if this is (.) are his charges cor↑rect if if he if he’s ↑trying to allege that I’m a hard-hearted person and I don’t care about children (.) he’s aabsolutely wrooong (.) we’ve spent four point seven (.) billion (.) dollars (.) a year in the state of Texas for uninsured ↑people (.) and they get ↑health care (.) now it’s not the most ef↑ficient way. to get people health ↑care. (.) but I want to re↑miiind you the number of uninsured in A↑merica during their watch (.) has in↑↑creeeased (.) and and and [so (unintelligible) he] can make any excuse he ↑waants. (.) but the ↑FAACTS aare that we’re reducing the number of uninsured percentage of our popu↑lation. (.) and as the percentage of the population is increasing ↑naaationally. (.) but ↑somehow the allegation that we don’t caaare and we’re going to give ↑money. for this interest or ↑that interest. and (.) not for children in the state of ↑Texas. is is totally absurd and and I (.) ↑let me just tell you who the juury is (.) the people of ↑Texas (.) there’s only been ↑one governor ever elected to back-to-back four-year teerms (.) and that was ↑ME (.) and I was able to do ↑soo with. (.) a lot of ↑Democrat votes. (.) uuh nearly fifty per cent of the His↑paanic vote. about twenty-seven per cent of the Aafrican-A↑merican vote. (.) because people know I’m a conseervative person and a com↑paaassionate person (.) so ↑he can throw all the kinds of ↑numbers around. I’m just ↑telling you. (.) our state comes together (.) to do what is ↑↑riiight we come together both Republicans and ↑Democrats. ↑let me put that directly too to you vice president Goore (.) the reason you brought this up is it (.) ↑are you suggesting (.) that those numbers and that record (.) will reflect the waay go (.) governor Bush will operate in this ↑area of health insurance as ↑president ↑Yes ↑yes but but it’s ↑not a statement about his heart. (.) I ↑don’t claim to know his heart (.) I ↑think I I ↑think he’s a good person (.) I make nooo allegations a a about (.) that I I I be↑lieve him when he says that (.) that he has a good heart (.) uh I I know enough aboutt uh your stooory to to admire (.) a a lot of the thiings that you have ↑done as a person (.) but I ↑think it’s about his prioorities (.) and let me tell you e↑xaactly why I think that the choice he made to give (.) a tax cut for the oil companies and oothers (.) be↑fooore addressing this I mean if (.) if ↑YOU were the governor of a state that was dead laaast in (.) uh in health care for ↑faamilies. and all of a sudden you found yourself with the biggest surplus your state had ever had in its ↑history (.) wouldn’t you want to (.) maybe use some ↑of it. too (.) cllimb from fiftieth to say forty-↑fiiive or ↑forty. or ↑something. or maybe ↑better. (.) ↑Ii would. (.) now but ↑HERE is why it’s (.) directly relevant ↑Jim. because (.) by his ooown budget nuumbers (.) his propoosals (.) for (.) spending (.) on tax cuts (.) for the wealthiest of the ↑wealthy. (.) are ↑moore. than the new spending proposals that he has made for ↑health care (.) ↑and education. ↑and national defence. all com↑biiined according to his own numbers so it’s not a question of his hheart it’s (.) as far as ↑I know. it’s a q it’s a question of prioorities and vaaalues see you know [i it (.) ok

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

AG:

699

Appendix JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: let me let me just say] (.) let me (.) [let me ask you well first of all] that’s simply not ↑true. (.) what he just said of ↑course. (.) and ↑SEcondly I repeat [to you what is what is ↑not true governor. that we spent the ↑top one per cent receive two twenty-three as opposed to four hundred and forty-five billion in new spending (.) the TOP (.) l l let’s ↑talk about my tax plan the TOP one per cent paay (.) will pay one-thiiird of aall the federal income taxes (.) and in re↑tuurn. (.) get one-fifth of the ↑benefs because (.) ↑benefits because most of the tax reductions go to the people at the bottom end of the eco↑noomic ladder (.) that staands in stark coontrast by the way to a maan who is going to leave fifty million (.) fifty million (.) Americans out of ↑tax relief. we just have a different point of ↑viiew (.) it’s a totally different point of view (.) he believes only the ↑riight people ought to get tax relief. (.) ↑I believe everybody who pays taxes ought to get ↑tax relief. ↑let me go back to Texas for example (.) for (.) for a minute (.) we pay four point seven ↑billion I caan’t emphasize how (.) to you how much I siigned a ↑bill. (.) that puts ↑CHIPS in place (.) the bill finally came ↑out. at the end of the nineteen ninety-nine session. (.) we’re working hard to sign up ↑children. we’re doing it faaaster than any other (.) than any other state our ↑siiize (.) comparable ↑state (.) we’re making really good ↑proogress (.) and our state cares a ↑lot about our children. (.) my pri↑ority (.) is going to be the health of our ↑citizens. (.) these folks have had eight ↑years to get something done in Washington D.C. on the uninsured they have not ↑done it. they’ve had eight years to get something done on ↑Medicare (.) and they have not got it ↑DONE and (.) ↑my case to the American people iis (.) if you’re happy with inac↑tivity (.) s stay with the ↑horse (.) the [horse new] is up there now but if you want ↑cchhange. you need to get somebody that knows how to bring Republicans and Democrats together to get poositive things done for ↑America new question new subject (.) vice president Gore on the environment in your nineteen ninety-two book you said quote ‘we must make the rescue (.) of our environment the ↑central organizing principle for civilization (.) and there must be a wwrenching transformation to save the planet’ (.) ↑do you still feel that way I do (.) I I ↑think that in this twenty-first century (.) we will soonn uh uh (.) ↑see the consequences of what’s called ‘global ↑warming’. (.) uh there was a study justt uh a a few ↑weeks ago. (.) suggesting that in summertime the north polar (.) ice cap will be completely ↑gone (.) in fifty years (.) alREady people see the (.) straange weather conditions thatt uh (.) the old timers say they’ve never seen before in ↑their lifetimes (.) uh and what’s HAAPpening is that the level of pollution is i in↑creasing. (.) sig↑nificantly. now ↑here is the good news Jim (.) if ↑we take the leadership roole (.) uh and ↑buuild the new technologies like the new kinds of caaars and truuucks that Detroit is itching to (.) to build (.) then ↑we can create millions of good new joobs (.) by being ffirst into the market (.) uh with these new kinds of caars and trucks and ↑other kinds of technologies (.) you know the Japaneese are breathing down our ↑necks on this. (.) they’re moving very raapidly because they ↑knoow (.) that it is a faast-growing world market (.) some of these ↑other countries. (.)

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

AG:

700

Appendix particularly in the developing. (.) ↑woorld. (.) their pollution is much worse than (.) thaan uh uh (.) anywhere else and their ↑people want higher standards of living and so they’re ↑looking for ways to satisfyy their desire for for (.) a better ↑liife. and still reduce (.) reduce pollution (.) at the same ↑time (.) ↑I think that hholding oonto the ooold ways (.) and the oold argument that the environment and the economy (.) are in coonflict (.) is is really ↑outdated we have to be booold we have to provide leadership (.) now it’s true that we disa↑gree on (.) this. (.) the governor said (.) (.) that he doesn’t think (.) this problem is necessarily caused by ↑people (.) uuh he’s foor letting the oil companies into the Arctic National ↑Wiildlife (.) Refuge (.) Houston has just become the the (.) smoggiest city in the ↑country. and Texas is number one in industrial pol↑lution (.) uh ↑we have a very different outlook (.) and I’ll tell you this I will fight for a ↑clean environment in waays that strengthen our economy. ↑governor uuuh (.) well let me start with Texas (.) uuhm we are a big industrial ↑state we (.) we r (.) reduced our industrial (.) waste by eleven per cent we cleaned up more ↑brown fields. (.) than any other administration in my state’s history four hundred and fifty ↑of them. (.) uuh our water is cleaner ↑now uuh= =explain what a broown field iis [to those who don’t follow this a ↑broown field is an abaandoned indu]strial site that just sits ↑iidle in uh (.) some of our urban centres and (.) people who are willing to invest ↑caapital in the ↑brown fields don’t want to ↑do so for fear of laawsuit I think we ought to have federal (.) uhm liability pro↑tection (.) uhm depending upon whether or not standards have been ↑met (.) uhm (.) the ↑book you mentionedd uuh thatt vice president Gore wrote uh he also called foor uh (.) TAXing uuh (.) big big ↑energy taxes (.) in order to (.) clean up the environment and uh now that the ↑energy prices are high I guess he’s not aadvocating those big energy taxes right ↑now. (.) ↑I believe we ought too uh (.) fully fund the Land and Water Conservation ↑Fund (.) uh to (.) with haalf the money going to ↑states so states can make the right decisions for (.) environmental ↑quality. I I think we need to have clean (.) ccoal technologies I propose two billion dollars worth (.) uuhm (.) ↑by the way I just foound out the other day an interesting fact that there is a (.) there is a naational petroleum reseerve (.) ↑RIGHT next too (.) Prudhoe (.) in Prudhoe Bay that that your administration opened up for explo↑ration in that pristiine area (.) uuhm (.) and that was a smart ↑moove because there’s gaas reserves up there we need gas pipeliines to bring the gas down gas is (.) is a cleean fuuel that we can burn to (.) uh we need to make sure that if we decon↑trol our plaants that there’s mandatory uh (.) uh (.) that the plants uh (.) must (.) conform to ↑clean air standards the ↑grandfathered plants that’s what we did in Texas (.) no excuses I mean you must conform in other words there are pracctical things we can ↑do (.) but ↑IT starts with working in a collaaborative effort with states and local folks (.) you know if you ↑oown the land every day is ↑EARTH Day (.) aand uh (.) ↑people care a lot about their laand and care about their environment not all (.) all wisdom is in Washington D.C. on this issue ↑where do you see the basic difference in very simple teeerms in two or three sentences between you (.) and the governor on (.) on the environment (.) if a voter wants to make a choice (.) ↑what is it

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

701

Appendix AG: I’m really strongly committed to too (.) ↑clean water (.) and clean air (.) ↑aand (.) cleaning up the the new kinds of challenges like global warming (.) uh he is ↑right that I’m not in favour of ↑energy taxes. (.) I ↑am in favour of tax ↑cuts (.) to en↑courage and give in↑centives for the quicker development of these new (.) new kiinds of technologies and and let me say a↑gaain. Detroit (.) is rearing to ↑go (.) on on that (.) uh we differ oon the Arctic National ↑Wildlife Refuge. as ↑I have said. (.) we differ on whether or nott (.) pol↑lutioon (.) controols ought to be ↑voluntary. I don’t think you can (.) I I don’t think you can get resuults that way we ↑differ on the kinds of ap↑pointments that (.) thatt we would ↑maake.= =would you ↑say it’s a fundamental difference I ↑think it’s a fundamental difference and let me give you an exaaample he (.) but (.) hold on one second [ok sure we’ve talked about supply] I just want to know (.) could somebody cause we’re running (.) we’re getting close to the end of (.) end our tiiime here I was wondering does somebody want to make (.) wanted to vote on the envvironment (.) how would ↑you ddraw the differences governor ↑weell. I I I ↑I don’t believe in command and control out of Washington D. ↑C. I believe Washington ought to set ↑staandards but I don’t again I think we ought to be collaborative at the local levels aand (.) I think we ought to ↑work with people at the local levels and uuh (.) ↑by the way I just want to make sure we (.) I can’t let him just ↑say something alright and ↑not correct it uhm (.) the deconnect electric decontrol bill that I fought for and signed in Texas has (.) ↑mandatory (.) emission standards (.) Mr. vice president ↑that’s what we ought to do at the federal level when it comes to graandfathered ↑plaants.= =mhum= =for utilities (.) [but there’s a do you] I ↑think there’s a difference (.) ↑I think I ↑I think for exaample take (.) when they took forty million acres of ↑laaand. (.) uuhm (.) out of circu↑lation. (.) without consulting local of↑↑ficials I thought that waaas uuh that was out (.) out in the west ↑out in the west [yeah right] and so you know on the log on the log on the logging ↑issue I think that’s not the way ↑I would have done it. perhaps some of that laand needs to be set a↑siide. but I ↑certainly would have consulted with governors and elected of↑ficials. (.) before I would have acted uni↑laaterally. (1.) would (.) would ↑you believe the federal government still has some new ruules and new regulations and new laaws to paass in the environmental ↑area or do you think= =sure AABso↑lutely so long as they’re based upon ↑sciience and they’re ↑reasonable (.) so long as people have ↑input what about global warming

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M):

GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

GWB: JL(M):

702

Appendix GWB: I think it’s an issue that we need to take very ↑seriously. but I don’t think wee (.) know the solution to global warming ↑yet. (.) and I don’t think we’ve got all the ↑faacts before we make de↑cisions I tell you ↑one thing I’m not going to ↑do. is I’m not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world’s ↑aair (.) uh like Kyoto Treaty would have done Chiina (.) and India were e↑↑xempted from that treaty (.) I think we need to be more even-↑haanded as (.) uh evidently ninety-nine ↑senators I think it was ninety-nine senators (.) su (.) supported that position globaal (.) global warming (.) uh the ↑Senate (.) did turn it doown (.) [(unintelligible) ninety-nine to ↑nothing yeah I think that (.) I think that] (.) well ↑that vote wasn’t exaaactly [a lot of the supporters it’s a resolution (unintelligible) oof uh the] Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because the way it was worded (.) but there’s ↑no doubt there’s a lot of opposition to it in the Senate (.) uh I’m ↑NOT for commaand and controol techniques either (.) I’m for working (.) withh uh the groups not ↑just with industry (.) but ↑also withh uh (.) the citizen ↑groups. and local com↑munities. (.) uh to control spraaawll. in ways that the local communities themseellves (.) come up ↑with (.) uh (.) but I ↑disagree that we don’t knoow the (.) the ↑caaause (.) of global warming I I (.) I think that we ↑do (.) w w it’s (.) pol↑lution (.) uh carbon dioxide and otheeer (.) chemicals that are even more ↑potent (.) uuh (.) but in smaller ↑quantities. (.) that that ↑cause this (.) ↑look the (laughs) (.) world’s temperature is going ↑up. weather patterns are ↑changing. (.) storms are getting more ↑viiolent. and unpre↑dictable. and (.) uuh (.) ↑what are we going to tell our children uh (.) I I (.) I’m a ↑graandfather now (.) uh (.) I ↑I want to be able to tell my graandson (.) uh when I’m in (.) in my (.) later years that (.) ↑I didn’t turn away from (.) from the evidence that shoowed that (.) we were (.) we were doing some (.) serious ↑hhaarm (.) in in MYY in my faith tradition (.) uh i it is it’s written in the book of Matthew ‘↑where where your heart is there is your treasure (.) also’ and I ↑I beliieve that (.) thatt uh we ought to (.) to ↑recogniiize the vaalue to our children and graandchildren of taking steps that pre↑seeerve (.) the environment in a way that’s ↑good for them YEAH ↑I agree I just I I I think there has been some (.) ↑some of the scientists (.) I believe Mr. vice president haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming a (.) profoound scientist recently made an (.) made a different [(unintelligible) (.) BUT THE ↑POINT both (.) ↑both of you have noow have vii] (.) excuse me (.) ↑both of you have now viiolated your own ruules (.) you are await (.) hold that thought= =(laughing) yeah= =I’ve been trying so hard ↑not to I know I know [but about (.) you’re not (.) under ↑your own ruules (collectively and almost inaudibly laughs)] you are not alloowed to AAsk each other a question I let you do it a moment agoo= =[twice now you] just (.) twice sorry Ok=

JL(M): GWB: AG: JL(M): AG:

GWB:

JL(M): GWB: AG: JL(M): A: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

703

Appendix A: AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): A: JL(M): AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): A: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: =[(4.5 bursts into collective laughter) that’s an interrup (.) that’s an interruption by the way ↑one I thought I (.) that’s an interruption Ok (.) but (.) and] anyhow ↑you just did it so now [we’re I’m] soorry= =that’s ↑alright (.) it’s O↑k I aPOlogize Mr. vice president but uuh you are ↑NOT allowed to do that either see= =[(4.5 bursts into collective laughter) not allowed to do that either (laughs) (.) it doesn’t matter (laughs) (laughs)] I’m sorry go ahead (.) finish your thought (.) [↑peo Iii ple put pay care about these things I’ve found out= =of ↑course they care about them= =yeah oh you mean the ruules right ex[actly right (5. bursts into collective laughter) (laughs)] go ahead what the heck [YEAH uuh] (.) Iii uh (.) of ↑COURSE there’s a lot I mean look (.) global warming needs to be taken very seriously (.) and I take it seriously (.) but ↑SCIIIence there’s a lot of (.) p the there’s differing o↑pinions (.) and before we (.) reaaact I think it’s best to haave (.) the full ac↑CCOUnting (.) ↑FULL understanding of what’s taking place (.) AAND I I think to aanswer your question I think (.) ↑both of us care a lot about the environment (.) we may have different ap↑prooaches (.) ↑we may have different ap↑proaches in terms of hoow we deal with local folks (.) I mean I just cited an e↑xaample of the fed (.) of the administration just unilaaterally ↑aacting (.) without any ↑iinput (.) and I remember you gave a very good aanswer to New ↑Haampshire about the White ↑Mountains about how it was important to keep that collaaborative ↑effort in place (.) [I feel mhum] very strongly the same ↑place it certainly wasn’t the attitude that took place out ↑west however. new question yes (laughs) ↑laast question for yoou uuh governor uhm (.) and this flows somewhat out of theee (.) Boston debate (.) you (.) your running mate (.) your campaign officials have chaarged that vice president Goore e↑xaggerates (.) embellishes (.) and stretches the faacts etc. (.) are ↑you ar (.) do ↑you believe these are serious issues this is a serious issuue that the voters should uuse in deciding (.) which one of you two men to vote for on November ↑seventh.

AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

704

Appendix GWB: A: GWB: well we all make mis↑taakes. I’ve (.) been known to maangle a syllaable or two my↑self you [know. (.) butt uh (laughs) (8. collectively laughs) if you know what I ↑meean. (laughs) (.) UUH] (.) I think credibility is im↑portant (.) it’s going to be important to be (.) b b for the president to be credible with ↑Congress important for the president to be credible with foreign ↑nations. (.) AND UUH (.) yes I think it’s something that people need to ↑consider (.) this is this isn’t something ↑neeew. (.) uuuh (.) I read a (.) report or a memo from somebody in his nineteen eighty-↑eight campaign I forgot the fellow’s name (.) WAARning then senator Gore to be careful about exaaggerating ↑claims and (.) and I thought well during his debaate with (.) senator Braadley saying he authored the EIT↑C. when it didn’t happen (.) I mention the laast debate [EITC the earned in]come tax credit= =uhu= =soorry. that’s all right a lot of initials from a guuy who’s not from Washington ↑isn’t it. anyWAYY uh (.) Iii (.) he me (.) he co-sponsored McCain-↑Feeingoold. (.) and yet he didn’t (.) and so I think this is an ↑issue I found it to be an issue in trying to defend my (.) ↑tax relief package I thought there was some exaaggerations about the ↑numbers (.) uh (.) but the ↑people are going to have to make up their mind on this ↑issue. (.) aand uuh (.) Iii uh (.) I’m going to continue to defend my ↑record. and defend my pr (.) propo↑sitions. against what I think ↑are exaggerations (.) exaaggerations like for example only fiive per cent of seniors receive benefits under my ↑Medicare reform package that’s what he said the other ↑day. and that’s simply not the ↑caase (.) and I have every right (.) in the ↑WORLD to defend my record. (.) and positions (.) that’s what debates are a↑bout and that’s what campaigns are about vice president Gore ↑I got some of the details wroong last week in some of the exaamples that I used Jim (.) aaand Ii’m ↑sorry about that (.) and I I’m going to try to do better (.) uh (.) ↑one of the reasons I regret it is that (.) getting a (.) ↑detail wroongg (.) uh uh (.) inter↑feered. several ↑times. with the (.) point that I was trying to ↑make (.) uh however many daays thatt (.) young ↑giirl. in Florida ↑stoood in her (.) classroom however loong even if it was only ↑one day. (.) doesn’t ↑change the fact that there are a lloot of overcrowded classrooms in America and we need to ↑doo something (.) about that. (.) uuh (.) there ↑aaare seniors who (.) pay moore for their prescriptions than (.) a lot of other people more than their ↑peets (.) sometimes (.) moore sometimes than people in in foreign countries (.) and ↑we need to do something about that (.) uh (.) n ↑not with the measure that leaves the majority of them uh (.) without any ↑reeal (.) uh basic help (.) until the next president’s teerm of four years is is is ↑over. (.) but right a↑waay (.) uh (.) a and that means doing it under the ↑Medicare (.) program (.) uh (.) I I ↑I can’t promise that I will (.) never get another detail wrong I can I can promise you that I will ↑try not to. (.) and haard but (.) I will promise you ↑thiis. with all the confidence in in in my heart and in the ↑world (.) that ↑I will do myy (.) best if I’m elected president (.) I’ll work my heart

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG:

705

Appendix out (.) to get the ↑big things riight. (.) for the American people does that resolve the issue ↑governor. that’s going to be up to the ↑people. isn’t it [(almost inaudibly and collectively laughs) (unintelligible)] does it resolve it for [↑youu it depends on] (.) it depends on what he saays in the future in the cam↑paaign. but I mean your folks are (.) are are uuh (.) saying some awful ↑things (.) [aand and you you I hope they’re not] ↑awful things. (.) [I think they may be using the man’s own ↑words. well what what I mean (.) EXCUSE ME] (.) no no I mean (.) what I mean is (.) you calling him a serial e↑xaggerator.= =I don’t believe I’ve ↑used those words.= =no but your campaign has= =maybe they have= =and your campaign officials have (.) and ↑your campaign officials (.) Mr. vice president are now calliing (.) now calliing the governor a ↑bungleeer. WAIT A MINUTE. [(laughing) (4. bursts into collective laughter) I mean is that] (.) now my point is should ↑this is this I I don’t (.) ↑I don’t use (.) language like thaat and I (.) I don’t think that (.) that we ↑shoould. (.) [I think it’s in your] it’s in yooour commercial Ii unders↑taand. the the (.) [I haven’t seen that in my commercials (laughs) yeah [(laughing)] (6. bursts into collective laughter with some individual applause) yeah yeah (to Gore) [you haven’t well the] seen the com↑mercial in your your] I I think I think (.) I think thatt what uh (.) I think the point of ↑that iis. that ↑anybody (.) would have a hard tiiime trying to (.) make a tax cut plaan that is so ↑laarge. (.) that would put us into such big ↑deficits (.) that gives (.) uh almost haalf the benefits to the wealthiest of the ↑wealthy. (.) I think ↑anybody would have a hard time (.) explaining that clearly in a waay thatt uh (.) makes sense too the to the average ↑person that’s the kind of exaggeration I was just ↑talking about [(laughs) (4. bursts into collective laughter) well.] (.) uuh ↑I wasn’t the one having trouble explaining it. gentlemen (.) it’s time to go to the closing ↑statements. aaand vice president Gore you have two minutes uh JIM (.) ↑one of the issues that I would like too close with in uh (.) my statementt is education because it’s an exaample of the ↑overall approach that I think is (.) is important (.) ↑this race is about vaalues it’s about chaaange i it’s it’s about giving

JL(M): GWB: A: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: A: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: GWB: A: JL(M): GWB: AG: GWB: JL(M): AG:

GWB: A: AG: JL(M): AG:

706

Appendix choices to the American people (.) uh (.) and ↑education is my number oone priority (.) because I think that it’s uh (.) the most important ↑big major chaaange that we can bring in our country (.) ↑I agree with governor Bush that we should have new accountability (.) testing of ↑students. (.) uuh I think that we should uh require states to test all ↑students. (.) test ↑schoools. and school ↑districts. and (.) I think that (.) we should go further and (.) require teacher ↑testing for new teachers ↑also. (.) the ↑difference iiis that (.) while my plan ↑starts with new accountability and maintains ↑local control. (.) it doesn’t sttop there because ↑I want to give new choices to parents (.) to send their kids to ↑coollege with a TEN thoousand dollar uh tax deduction for college tu↑ition. (.) per child (.) per year (.) ↑I want to reduce the siiize of the claassrooms in this country (.) uh for ↑one basic reason so that students can get more one-on-one time with ↑teachers (.) and the way to ↑doo that is ↑first. to recruit more teachers (.) I’ve a plan in my budget to recruit a ↑hundred thoousand. (.) new highly qualified teachers (.) ↑aand. to help local school districts (.) build new ↑schoools (.) I I ↑think that we have to (.) uh (.) put more emphasis on ↑early learning. and (.) pre-school (.) NOW (.) ↑here is how that connects with all the rest of what we’ve been ↑taalking about. (.) ↑if you haaave if you ↑SQUAANder the surplus (.) oon a huuge tax cut that goes mostly to those ↑at the top. (.) then (.) you can’t make education the top pri↑ority. (.) if the tax cut is your number one two three and ↑four priority. (.) you can’t do education (.) you can’t do both (.) you have to choose (.) uh (.) ↑I choose education and health caare. (.) the environment and retirement security. (.) and I ask for your support governor Bush two minutes Jim thank you very much Mr. vice president thank you very much and I would like to thank the folks here at Wake ↑Forest. and (.) I want to thank you all for ↑listening. (.) I’m running to get some things done for A↑merica. (.) uuh there’s too many (.) issues left unre↑sooolved there’s been (.) ↑too much finger pointing. and ↑too much naame calling. in Washington D. C. (.) I would like to unite this country (.) to get an agenda done thatt uh (.) will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the future I want to have an edu↑cation system. (.) that sets ↑hiigh standards ↑local control of schoools and stroong accountability no chiild should be left behind in America (.) I want to make SUre we rebuild our ↑military to keep the peace I (.) I worry about moraale in today’s military (.) the warning siigns are ↑clear it is time to have a new commander in ↑chief who will (.) re↑build the military (.) pay our men and women more (.) make sure they’re housed better and have a ffocused mission for our military (.) ↑ONce and for aaall I want to do something about Medicare this issue has been (.) been too long on the table because it’s been a po↑litical issue it’s time to (.) bring folks together to say that all seniors will get prescription drug coverage (.) I want to do ↑something about Social Security it’s an (.) important priiority because now is the time to ↑aaact. and (.) we’re going to say to our seniors our (.) our promises we’ve made to you will be promises ↑kept (.) but younger workers in order to make sure the system exists tomorrow ↑younger workers ought to be able to take some of your own ↑money. (.) and invest it in (.) in safe securities to get a better rate of re↑tuurn on that money. (.) and FInally I ↑do believe in tax relief. I believe we can set our pri↑oorities I don’t believe like the vice president does (.) in in ↑huge government I believe in limited government (.) and by having a

JL(M): GWB:

707

Appendix limited government and a ↑ffocused government. (.) we can send ↑some of the money back to the people who pay the bills (.) I want to have a (.) tax relief for ↑aall people who pay the bills in America because I think ↑you can spend your money more wiisely than the federal government can (.) thank you for ↑listening. (.) I’m ↑aasking for your vote (.) and God bless (0.5) and we will return next Tuesday ↑night. October seven↑teenth. from Washington University in St. Louis for the thiird and final de↑bate. (.) thank you vice president Goore governor ↑Bush (.) see you next ↑week for NOOW from Winston-Salem I’m Jim Lehrer thank you and good night= good night [(collectively applauds) (approaches Gore to shake hands and also shake hands with the moderator) (approaches Bush to shake hands and also shakes hands with the moderator)]

JL(M):

GWB: A: GWB: AG:

708

Appendix Presidential Candidates’ Debate, St. Louis, MO. CNN Especial Event Aired October 17th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour and 30 min. Participants: Jim Lehrer (JL(M)) Audience (A) Al Gore (AG) James Hankins (JH) George W. Bush (GWB) Marie Payne Clappey (MPC) Vickie French (VF) Angie Pettick (AP) Andrew Cotsburg (AC) David Norwood (DN) Kenneth Allen (KA) Robert Lutz (RL) Steve Luecker (SLU) Joyce Cleamer (JC) Steven Koosmann (SK) Norma Curby (NC) Lisa Kee (LK) Leo Anderson (LA) Thomas Fischer (TF) JL(M): Good ↑EVEniing from the Field HOOUse at Washington University in St. ↑Loouis (.) I’m Jim Lehrer of ‘The News Hour’ on PBS. (.) and I ↑WELcome you to this thiird and final campaign two thousand de↑bate (.) between the Democratic candidate for ↑president (.) vice president Al Gooore (.) and the Re↑publican candidate governor George W. Bush of ↑Texas. (.) let’s welcome the candidates now. (stands up from chair located at a little square table) [(36. collectively applauds) (comes out from wing of debate setting) (to Jim Lehrer and shaking hands) ↑hi Jim (.) [how are you doing vice president] (.) nice to see you (.) [good (unintelligible) (to Jim Lehrer) (unintelligible)] (comes out from wing of debate setting and shakes hands with Gore) (to Bush shaking hands) How are you doing (inaudible) ↑governor (.)↑welcome (.) welcome to you both] (both candidates go to their respective seats standing up while the audience applauds) (close shot of Tipper Gore in her seat applauding and Laura Bush standing up and applauding) before proceeding to↑night (.) we would like to obseerve a moment of silence (.) in memory of governor Mel ↑Carnahan of Missouri (.) who along with his son and his former chief of ↑staaff. (.) died in a ↑private plane crash last night (.) near St. Louis

A: AG: JL(M): AG: GWB: AG: GWB: JL(M):

JL(M):

709

Appendix (MOMENT OF SILENCE) a reMINder (.) as we continue noow (.) that ↑these debates are sponsored by the Commission of Presidential De↑bates. (.) the formaats and the ruuules were worked out ↑by the commission and the two campaigns (.) to↑night’s questions will be aasked (.) by St. Louis area voters (.) who were i↑dentifiiied as being uncommitted by the Gallup organization (.) earlier today ↑each of them (.) wrote (.) a qquestion on a small caard like this (shows card to the camera) (.) those caards were collected (.) and then given to ↑mee. this afternoon (.) ↑my joob under the ruules of the evening (.) was to (.) decide (.) the order the questions will be ↑aasked (.) and to call on the questioners ac↑cordingly (.) I also have the ooption of asking (.) ↑follow-ups (.) which in order to get to moore of the panel’s ↑questions (.) for the ↑record (.) I plan to do sparingly and mostly for clarifications (.) the ↑audience participants are boound by the following ruule (.) they ↑shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwiise participate in the extended discussion. (.) and the questioner’s ↑microphoone will be turned ooff (.) after hee or shee completes asking the question (.) those are the ruules (.) as in Winston-Salem last (.) last ↑week. no single answer or response from a ↑candidate (.) can exceed two minutes (.) there is an AAUdience here in the haall and they have promised to remain aabsolutely quiet (.) as did their ↑predecessors this year in Boston Danville and Winston-Salem (.) be↑fore we begiin a correction from last week’s debate I was wroong= =(laughs)= =when I said vice president Gore’s campaign commercials had (.) called governor Bush a ↑bumbler (.) that specific chaarge (.) was made in a ↑press statement by [Gore campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani (bursts into laughter)] not (.) in a TV guide [I’m glad you clarified that (laughing) in a TV in a TV in a TV aad] (.) noow let’s go too (.) the first question (.) of over the ↑one hundred and thirty questions (.) we receiiived (.) from (.) this panel (.) we will begin with one of the ↑nineteeen on health issues (.) and it goes to yoou Mr. vice president and it will be aasked by ↑James Hankins (.) Mr. ↑Hankins uhm (.) how do ↑yoou uh feel. about HMOos and insurance companies making the critical (.) decisions that affect people’s lives instead of the medical pro↑fessionals (.) and ↑why are the HMOos and insurance companies not (.) held accountable foor (.) for their decisions Mr. Hankins I don’t feel ↑good about it and I think we ought to have a patient’s bill of riiights to take the (.) medical decisions away from the ↑HMOos. (.) and give them back to the dooctors and ↑nurses (.) I want to come BAACK and and tell you ↑whyy (.) but if you will (.) forgive me (.) I would like to (.) ↑say something right now at the beginning of this debate foollowing on the moment of siilence for (.) Mel ↑Carnahaan and Randy Carnahan and Chris ↑Sifford (.) uh ↑Tipper and Ii (.) uh (0.5) were (.) good friends with Mel and ↑Randy and (.) I know thatt all of us here want to extend (.) our ↑sympathy and condolences to (.) Jean and the family (.) and to the ↑Sifford family. (.) and ↑I would just like to saay that this debate in a ↑waay. is a living ↑tribute to (.) Mel Carnahan because he loooved (.) the vigorous discussion of ↑ideas in our democracy. (.) ↑he waas a fantaastic governor (.) of

JL(M):

GWB: JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

JH:

AG:

710

Appendix Missouri. (.) this state became one of the top ↑fiive in the nation. (.) for ↑health caare coverage for children under his leadership (.) one of the best in advancing (.) all ↑kiinds of benefits for children to to grow up healthy and stroong (.) and of coourse uh (.) this debate also takes place at a ↑time when the (.) tragedy of the USS Coole (.) uh is on our minds and hearts and (.) insofar as the memorial ↑services tomorrow I would like to (.) also extend uh sympathy to the families (.) of those who have died and those who are (.) still missing and ↑and the injured. (.) now Mr. HANkins I ↑think that the (.) uh (.) the situation that you describe has gotten com↑pletely out of hand (.) DOOCtors aare (.) are giviinng pres↑criptions they’re (.) recommending ↑treatments and then (.) their their recommendations are being overruled by HMOs and in↑surance companies (.) that is unacceptable ↑I support a strooong (.) national patient’s (.) bill of rights (.) it is ↑actually a disagreement. (.) be↑tween us. a naational laaaw (.) that is pending ↑on this the Dingle-Norwood (.) bill a ↑bipartisan bill (.) [is ↑one that I support time is up] and that the governor does not two minutes for a respoonse governor Bush I I ↑too want to extend my prayers to the (.) a and a and blessings ↑God’s blessings on the families (.) uuhm (.) whose lives were ov (.) overturned yesterday tod tod (.) last night it’s a tragic moment (.) uhm (.) ↑actually Mr. vice president it’s not true I I ↑do support a national patient’s bill of rights (.) uuh (.) as a matter of faact (.) uuh (.) I brought Re↑publicans and Democrats together (.) to do just that in the state of Texas to get a patient’s bill of rights through (.) it requires a different kind of leadership styyle to ↑do it though. (.) you ↑seee. in order to get something done (.) on behalf of the ↑people (.) you have to put partisanship aside. (.) and ↑that’s what we did in my state we have one of the most advaanced patient’s bill of rights it saays for example that (.) a woman can (.) doesn’t have to go through a ↑gate keeper (.) to go to her gynaecologist (.) it ↑SAAYS thatt uh (.) you can’t gaag a dooctor (.) a doctor can adviise you the HMO the insurance company can’t ↑gaag that doctor from giving you full advice. (.) and this particular bill it allows (.) patients to choose a ↑dooctor (.) their own doctor if they want to (.) but we did something else that was interesting (.) we’re one of the first states that said you can ↑sue (.) uh an HMO (.) for de↑nyying you proper coverage now there’s what’s called an Independent Review Organization that you have to go through first (.) it says you have a com↑plaint with your (.) insurance company you can ↑take your complaint (.) to an objective boody (.) if the objective body ↑ruules on your behalf (.) the insurance company must follow those ↑rules. (.) hhowever if (.) if if the insurance company ↑doesn’t follow (.) the findings of the IRO (.) then that becomes a caause of action in a court of law (.) uh it’s TIIME (.) for our nation (.) too (.) ↑come together and do what’s right for the ↑↑people (.) and I think this is right for the ↑people (.) uh you know I I ↑I support a naational patient’s bill of rights Mr. vice president (.) aaand uuh (.) I I I want all people ↑covered. (.) I don’t want the law to supersede good laaw like we’ve got in ↑Texas. (.) uuh= =governor= =I think= =time is up sir

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

711

Appendix AG: GWB: JL(M): Jim uh (.) [we have a direct disagreement on this (to the moderator) Yes sir wait (.) uh just a] just a minute uuh Mr. vice president I want too (.) you know the way the rules ↑go here now (.) ↑two minutes ↑two minutes (.) and then I’ll de↑cide whether we go oon [right ok] (.) soo (.) what ↑I want to make sure is we understaaand here is be↑fore we go on to another question in the health area (.) would you agree that y you two agree on a national patient’s bill of ↑rights. (.) [↑quickly absolutely] (.) absolutely not I refer↑red to the Dingle-Norwood bill (.) it is ↑theee bipartisan biill that is now ↑pending in the Congress. (.) the (.) the ↑HMOos and the insurance companies (.) support (.) the other bill that’s pending (.) the one that the Republican majority has put ↑forward. (.) ↑they like it becaause it doesn’t accomplish what I think really ↑needs to be. (.) accomplished to give the decisions ↑back to the doctors. and ↑nurses. and give you a right (.) of appeeal to somebody other than the HMO or insurance company ↑let you go. to the nearest emergency ↑rooom. without having to call (.) an HMO before you call nine one ↑one. uuh (.) to let you see a specialif (.) a specialist if you ↑need to. (.) and it has strooong bipartisan sup↑port. (.) it’s being bloocked by the Republican leadership sir in the ↑Congress. (.) and I spe↑cifically (.) would like to know whether (.) governor Bush will support (.) THEE (.) Dingle-↑Norwood bill. which is the main one ↑pending governor Bush you may answer that if you’d like but also I’d like to [know how (laughs)] you ↑see the differences between the two of you and we need to move on well the ↑difference iis is that I can get it ↑doone. (0.5) [that I can get something poo (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] sitive done on behaalf of the ↑people. (.) that’s what the question in this cam↑paign is about (.) it’s not only what’s your philoosophy and what’s your position on ↑issues (.) but can you get things ↑↑done (1.5) (moves head as if greeting Gore who has stood up and moves towards him)= =[(5.5 almost inaudibly and collectively laughs) and I believe I ↑can. all right (to Gore) (unintelligible) (to the moderator raising arm indicating he is about to speak) what about the Dingle-↑Nor]wood bill. all right we’re going to ↑go [noow to another I’m not quite through let me finish (unintelligible)] alright yes go ahead] I taalked about the principles (.) and the issues that I think are important in a (.) patient’s bill of ↑rights. (.) you know this is (.) it’s kind of Washington D. ↑C. focus well it’s in this committeee (.) or it’s got this spoonsor (.) if ↑I’M the president (.) we’re going to have emergency room ↑caaare. (.) we’re going have ↑gaag orders. (.)

AG: JL(M):

AG:

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB: A: GWB:

A: GWB: JL(M): GWB: AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

712

Appendix we’re going to have direct access to OB/GY↑N. (.) people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to ↑court. (.) that’s what I’ve done in ↑Texas (.) and that’s the kind of leadership styyle I’ll bring to Washington all right another (.) the next question ↑alsoo on on (.) health issue is from (.) it will be asked by Marie Payne ↑Clappey (0.5) and it goes too governor Bush (off mike) governor Bush (2.) (taking mike and reading from a paper) are ↑either of you concerned with (.) (off mike and moving the paper far from her) I can’t find my glasses (looking for her glasses in pockets)= =here you go (offering his glasses)= =(finds her glasses)= =ok= =(collectively laughs) ok (.) are ↑either of you concerned with finding some feasible way to lower the price of pharma↑ceutical druugs (.) such as education (.) on minimizing intake (.) uh revamp of the FDA ↑process oor (.) streamlining the drug companies’ procedures (.) instead of just finding more money to ↑pay for them. well that’s a great question Iii (.) I ↑think one of the problems we haaave (.) particularly for ↑seniors. (.) is there’s no prescription drug coverage in ↑Medicaare. (.) and therefore when they have to (.) try to ↑purchase drugs they do so on their oown (.) there’s no kind of col↑lective bargaining. (.) there’s no power of purchasing among ↑seniors. (.) so I think step one to make sure prescription druugs is more affordable for ↑seniors and those are (.) the folks who really re↑LYY upon (.) prescription drugs a ↑lot these days (.) is to reform the Medicare system (.) is to have (.) prescription druugs as an integral part of (.) ↑Medicare. once and for aall (.) uuhm (.) the PROblem we have today is thaat (.) like the patient’s bill of rights particularly with health care there’s a lot of ↑bickering in Washington D.C. (.) it’s kind of like a po↑litical issue as opposed to a people issue (.) so what ↑I want to do is I want to call upon Republicans and Democrats to for↑↑get all the (.) the arguing and finger pointing (.) and come to↑gether. and take care of our seniors’ (.) pr pr prescription drug (.) prograamme (.) that says wee’ll (.) pay for the poor seniors (.) we’ll help ↑aall seniors with prescription druugs. (.) in the ↑meantime I think it’s important to have what’s called Immediate Helping ↑Haand. (.) which iis uh (.) direct money to ↑states. (.) so that seniors poor seniors don’t have to choose between food and ↑medicine. (.) that’s uh that’s part of an overaall overhaaul (.) the purchasing powers and ↑I’m against price controls (.) I think price controols would hurt our ability to (.) continue important ↑research and development. (.) drug ↑therapiies are replacing a lot of medicines as (.) we used to know it (.) one of the most important things is to continue the ↑research and development component. (.) and uh (.) and so ↑I’m against price controls expediting drugs through the FDAa makes sense of course (.) uuh alLOOwing the new bill that (.) was paassed in the Congress made ↑sense. (.) uh to alloow foor you know drugs that were sold overseas to ↑come back. (.) and other countries to come back into the United States (.) that makes sense (.) but the ↑best thing to do is to reform Medicare vice president Gore (.) two minutes all right here we go again (.) now look (.) if if you ↑want someone (.) who wiill (.) ↑spend a lot of words describing a whole convoluted process (.) and then ↑end up

JL(M): MPC:

GWB: MPC: GWB: A: MPC:

GWB:

JL(M): AG:

713

Appendix supporting legislation that is supported byy the big drug companies (.) this is your man (.) if ↑you want someone who will fight for you (.) and who will fight for the ↑middle-class faamilies and working men and women. (.) who are ↑sick and tired (.) of having their ↑parents and grandparents pay ↑hhigher prices for prescription druugs than anybody else (.) then ↑I want to fight them (.) and YOU asked the the (.) a great ↑question because it’s not ↑oonly seniors (.) listen for twenty (.) -four years (.) I have (.) never been afraid to take oon the big drug companies (.) they do some great ↑thiings they discover (.) great new cuures and (.) that’s great we want uh we want them to continue that (.) but they are now spending more money on advertising and pro↑mootion you see all these ↑aads. (.) than they are on research (.) and development (.) ↑AAND they are trying aartificially extend the monopoly patentt protection (.) so they can keep charging these very high prices (.) ↑I want to streamline the approval of the compeeting generic (.) drugs and the new kiiinds of uh (.) uh treatments that can com↑pete with them so that we br bring the price down (.) for everybody (.) now (.) briefly (.) let me tell you how ↑my prescription (.) uh drug plan works. (.) the governor talked about Medicare (.) ↑I get I propose a real. prescription drug benefit under Medicare for aall seniors (.) aall seniors (.) and here’s how it works (.) ↑you pick your own doctor (.) and nobody can (.) take that away from you (.) the ↑dooctor chooses the prescription that you neeed and nobody can overrule your doctor you go to your own ↑pharmacy. (.) and then Medicare pays (.) half the price (.) if you’re ↑poor (.) they pay all of it (.) if you have extraordinarily ↑high cost (.) then they pay aall over four thousand dollars (.) out of pocket (.) and I’ll bring ↑new competition to bring the price down. (.) and if you ↑pass the big drug companies’ bill (.) nothing will happen all right anotheeer uh (.) health ↑question it comes from Vickie ↑French and it’s for you (.) vice president Goore (.) Vickie French where are ↑you. (1.) oh there she is vice president (unintelligible) we spend billions of dollars every year on taxes or pay billions of dollars in taxes (.) would ↑you be open to the idea of a naational health care plaan for ↑everybodyy. (.) and if not (.) ↑whyy. (.) if so is ↑this something you would try to implement if you are elected into ooffice and what would you do to (.) implement this plaan I think that we ↑should move (.) step-by-step toward universe (.) universal health coverage but I am ↑not in favour of government doing it all (.) we’ve spent sixtyfive years now o on (.) the development of a hhyybrid system partly ↑private. partly public (.) and (.) eighty-five per cent of our people have ↑health insurance fifteen per cent don’t (.) that aadds up to forty-four million ↑people that is a naational ↑outrage (.) we have got to get health coverage (.) for those who do not have it (.) and we’ve got to improve the ↑quality for those who ↑do. (.) with a patient’s bill of rights that’s real and that works the Dingle-Norwood bill (.) and we have got to fill in the gaaps in coverage by (.) finally bringing ↑parity. (.) for the treatment of mental illness (.) because that’s been left out we have got to deal with loong-term care (.) now ↑HERE are the steps that I would take first of all (.) I will make a commitment (.) to bring ↑hhealth care coverage (.) of ↑high quality (.) that is affordable (.) to every single chiild in America within four years (.) and then we’ll fill other gaps (.) by covering thee (.) uh the the (.) ↑parents of those children when

JL(M):

VF:

AG:

714

Appendix the family is ↑pooor. or up to two and a half ↑times the poverty rate (.) I want to give a tax credit for the purchase of indi↑vidual health insurance plaans. (.) I want to give small business employers a ↑tax credit twenty-fiive per ↑cent. to (.) encourage the (.) uh the pro↑viding of health insurance for (.) uh (.) the employees in in small businesses (.) I want to give ↑seniors who are (.) well (.) (laughs) the near elderly I don’t like that term because I am just about in ↑that category. (.) but those ↑fiftyfiive to ↑sixty-fiive ought to be able to buuy ↑iinto Medicare for premiums (.) that are reasonable and fair and significantly below what they have to (.) to get ↑now. (.) now we have a big (.) we have a big ↑difference on this (.) and ↑you need to know the record here (.) under governor Bush Texas has (.) ssunk (.) to be ↑fiftieth (.) out of fifty (.) in health care in health insurance (.) foor their citizens LAAST week he said (.) that they were spendinng (.) ↑three point seven (.) billion doOllars or ↑↑four point seven billion dollars on this Mr. vice ↑president. ok (.) [fine time] is up (.) governor ↑Bush two minutes. (1.) uh ↑I’m absolutely oppoosed (.) to a national health care plan (.) ↑I don’t want the federal government (.) making (.) decisions for consumers or for providers (.) Ii uh I remember what (.) whatt uuh the administration tried to do in nineteen ninety↑three. (.) they ↑TRIED to have a national health care plan (.) and fortunately it failed I trust people I don’t trust the federal government it’s going to be one of the ↑theeemes you hear tonight (.) I don’t ↑want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody. (.) uh there is an issue with THEE (.) the unin↑sured. (.) there sure is (.) and we have uninsured people in ↑my state. (.) ours is a big state (.) a faast-growing state (.) we share a coommon border (.) with another nation (.) but ↑we’re providing health care for our people (.) one thing about insurance (.) that’s a Washington term (.) the question is are ↑people getting health care. and we’ve got a stroong safety net and there ↑needs to be a safety net in America (.) there needs to be more communityy (.) ↑health clinics (.) where where the poor can go get health care (.) we need a ↑prograamme for the uninssured they’ve been ↑talking about it in Washington D.C. the number of uninsured has now gone ↑up (.) for the paast seven ↑years. (.) we need we need a two thoousand dollar CREdit (.) rebate (.) for people (.) ↑working people that don’t have insurance they can get in the ↑marketplace. and start purchasing insurance (.) we need to haave uh (.) allow ↑small businesses. (.) to write acrooss (.) insurance across jurisdictional liines so small business can afford ↑health care (.) smaall ↑restaurants can afford health care. (.) and so tht health care needs to be af↑fordable. and a↑vailable. (.) but ↑we have to trust people to make decisions with their liives in the ↑Medicare (.) reform I talk about. it says if you are a ↑senior (.) you can stay in Medicare if you ↑like it (.) and that’s ↑fiine. but we’re going to give you ↑other choices to chooose if you want to do so JUST like (.) they ↑doo the federal employees (.) the people who work in Washington D.C. for the U.S. Congress or the United States Senate (.) get a variety of ↑choices to make in their liives (.) and ↑that’s what we ought to do for= =[governor aa]ll people in America (.) yes sir sorry

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): GWB:

715

Appendix JL(M): AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): governor= =could ↑I follow-up Jim= =not paying attention [to the lights no ↑no. (.) not right now] (.) not right noow uh (laughs) (.) education [wee I’m] trying to find my light these folks submitted uuh eighteen (.) eighteen questions on on education (.) and the first onee is that we would that we will (.) will be aasked on education will go to you governor and will be asked by Angie ↑Pettick (.) Angie ↑Pettick where are you (.) there there she is (.) governor right there thanks Aangie I’ve ↑heard a loot about education and the need to hold teachers and schools accountable and I certainly a↑gree with that. (.) uhm but ↑as an individual with an educational background. and also a ↑parent. (.) uhm I haave seen a loot of instances where the parents are unres↑ponsive to the teachers. (.) oor (.) ↑flat out uninvolved in their child’s education. (.) ↑how do you inteend to (.) not only hold the ↑teachers and schools accountable (.) but also hold parents accountable. well. (1.5) y you know it’s ↑hard to make people love one another (almost inaudibly laughs) (.) I wish I knew the ↑laaaw because I’d darn sure sign it (.) I ↑wish I knew the laaw that said ↑aall of us would be good parents (.) one of the things the next president must do is to re↑mind people. (.) that if we are going to have a responsible period in A↑merica. (.) that each of us must love our children with all our heart. (.) and all our soul. (.) I ↑HAPpened to believe strong accountability encourages parental invoolvement though (.) I I I think when you (.) ↑measure (.) and post results on the ↑Internet. (.) or in the town newspapers (.) ↑MOST parents say ‘wait a minute my child’s (.) school isn’t doing (.) what I want it to do’ (.) and therefore become invoolved in education (.) I recognize there are some who just don’t seem to ↑care (.) uuuh. (.) but there are a lot of parents who (.) ↑feel like everything is going well in their child’s ↑school. (.) and all of a sudden they wake up and rea↑liiize that ‘wait a minute. (.) staandards aren’t being ↑met’. that’s why I’m so strooong for accountability (.) I ↑I believe we ought to measure a loot (.) uh (.) three four five six seven eighth grade (.) uh ↑we do so in my state of Texas one of the good things we’ve gone in Texas is we have stroong accountability because you can’t ↑cure (.) unless you know (.) you CAN’T you ↑CAN’T solve a problem unless you diagnose it (.) I strongly be↑liieve that (.) uh one of the best things to encourage parental involvement ↑also is to know that the classrooms will be safe and secure (.) that’s why I support a teacher liability ↑act. at the ↑federal level. (.) that says if a teacher or principal (.) uphoolds reasonable standards of claassroom discipline (.) they ↑can’t be sued (.) they can’t be sued (.) I think parents will be (.) more invooolved with education when they know their (.) children’s claassrooms are safe and secure as well (.) I also be↑liiieve that we need to say to people that ‘if you ↑cannot meet standards there has to be a ↑↑consequence’ (.) instead of just the kind of soft bigotry of low expec↑taations (.) that there ↑↑has to be a consequence we can’t continue to shuffle children through school (.) and one of the coonsequences is [to allow governor] parents to have different choices vice president ↑Gore

GWB: AP:

GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

716

Appendix AG: yeah we have huuuge (.) difference be (.) ↑tween us. on this question (.) I’d like to start by telling you what my vision is (.) I see a ↑daay in the United States of America where ↑aaall of our public schoools are considered excellent (.) woorld class (.) where there ↑are no failing schools where the claassrooms are ↑small enough in siize (.) number of students so that the ↑teacher (.) can spend enough oneon-one tiime with each with each student (.) now ↑that means recruiting new teachers (.) for the public schools (.) it means in ↑my plan hhiring bonuses to get a hundred thousand new teachers in the public schools within the next (.) four years (.) it MEANS also helping local ↑school districts that sometiimes uh (.) find the parents of (.) school age children outvoted on ↑bond issues (.) to give them (.) some help (.) with ↑interest-free bonding authority so that we can build new schools and modernize the classrooms (.) we need to give teachers the ↑training and professional development that they need to (.) i including a ↑paid time off to go visit the classroom of a maaster teacher to pick up some (.) new skills (.) uh I I ↑I want to give (.) every middle-class family a ↑ten thousand dollars a year tax (.) deduction for college tu↑ition. (.) so that so that middle-class families will ↑aalways be able to send their kids oon to college (.) I want to (.) work for universal (.) free school because we ↑know from all the studies that that (.) the the the youngsters learn (.) ↑kids learn more in the first few years of life than any where else now I said there was a coontrast (.) ↑governor Bush is for voouchers (.) and in ↑his plaan he proposes to drain ↑more money (.) more ↑taxpayer money out of the public schools for private school vouchers than ↑aaall of the money that he proposes in his entire budget (.) for public schools themselves (.) and only one in twenty students would be ↑eligible. (.) for these voouchers (.) and they ↑wouldn’t even paay (.) the full tuition to private school (.) ↑I think that’s a mistake (.) I I don’t think we should give ↑up on the ↑private schools. and leave kids traapped in failing schools (.) I think we (.) I think we should make it the ↑NUMber one priority (.) to make our schools the best in the world (.) aall of them governor what is your position on that= =↑YEAH I appreciate that I think any time (.) we end with one of these attaacks (.) it’s it’s appropriate to respoond (.) uuh (.) here’s what I think (.) first of all ↑voouchers are up to states (.) if you want to ↑do a voucher program in Missouri ↑fine see I strongly believe in local control of schools I’m a ↑governor of state. (.) and ↑I don’t like it when the federal government tells us what to do (.) I believe in local control of ↑schools but here’s what I’ve said (.) I’ve said to the extent we send federal ↑money. (.) on disadvantaged ↑children. (.) we want the schools to show us whether or not the children are ↑learning (.) what’s unreasonable about ↑↑that (.) we expect there to be ↑↑STAANdards met and we expect there to be ↑↑measurement (.) and if we find success we’ll ↑↑praise it (.) but when ↑we fiind children trapped in schools that will not ↑chaange. (.) and will not teach (.) instead of saying ‘oh ↑this is okay in America just to shuffle poor kids through ↑schools’. (.) there has to be a ↑coonsequence (.) and the ↑coonsequence is that federal portion or federal money (.) will go to the parent (.) so the parent can go to a tutoring program (.) or another public schoool (.) or another PRIvate a ↑PRIvate school you see there has to be a ↑coonsequence we’ve got a society that says ‘hey the status quo is fine ↑just move them through’ (.) and ↑guess who suffers=

JL(M): GWB:

717

Appendix JL(M): AG: =↑what’s the harm on on that what’s the other side on that ↑well (.) uh (.) the the program that he’s (.) pro↑posing. is not the one that he just des↑cribed (.) under your plan governor Bush states would be re↑quiiredd (.) to pay ↑vouchers. (.) to ↑students. (.) to to match the vouchers uh that the ↑federal government would put up (.) now here’s (.) ↑AAND (.) it (.) the way it would ↑haappen. is that (.) under his plan (.) if a school was designated as failing (.) the kids would be traapped there for another three years (.) and ↑then some of them would get ↑federal vouchers and the state would be ↑foorced. to match those (.) that money (.) under ↑my plan (.) if a school is ↑failing. (.) we work with the states to give them the authority and the resources to close (.) ↑doown. that school and reopen it ↑right away. (.) with a ↑new principal (.) a ↑new faculty (.) a turn-around ↑team of specialists (.) who know what they’re doing (.) it’s ↑based on the plan of governor Jim Hunt in North Carolina and it works great. so no vouchers (.) undeer (.) n in a Gore administration= =if ↑I thooought (.) that (.) there was ↑no alternative (.) then I might feel differently (.) but I (.) ↑I have an obligation to fight (.) to to make sure there are ↑no failing schools (.) [we’ve got sir] to turn around ↑↑most schools are excellent (.) but we have to make sure that all of them are Andrew Cotsburg (.) has aa related question on education that’s ↑right on this subject. Mr. ↑Cotsburg where are you (.) there you are and it’s for vice president Gore Mr. ↑vice president (looks at mike surprised about the way his voice sounds though it) [(laughs) (almost inaudibly and individually laughs) (laughs)] in the ↑school district in which I work and in countless others across the nation (.) we face ↑crumbling school buildings (.) in↑creased school violence. (.) student ↑apathy. (.) ↑overcrowding. (.) ↑lack of funding. (.) lawsuits. (.) the list goes oon. (.) I could mention low teacher pay but I won’t. (.) [WHAT can you ↑tell me (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs) YOU SHOULD (looking at rest of audience and nodding head signalling agreement with Cotsburg statement)] and my fellow American ↑teachers today. (.) about your plans for our immediate future what grade do you teach (0.7) HEE (.) oh oh up up (0.5) that’s a violation of your ↑ruuule. (.) [vice president Gore (bursts into laughter)] high school (10. bursts into collective laughter) (laughs and smiles implicitly corroborating Gore’s statement)] I mentioned be[fore that sir (.) Mr. that thee uh (.) ↑local communities (.) are having a harder tiiime (.) passing bond

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M):

AC: AG: A: GWB: AC:

A: AG: AC: AG: JL(M): AG: A: AC: AG: JL(M): AG:

718

Appendix issues (.) tra↑ditionally if you’ve been invoolved inn a campaign like that you know that the parents with kids in ↑school are the ones that turn out and vote (.) it’s i↑ROOnic that there are ↑noow. (.) uh there is now a ↑smaller percentage of the vooters made up of parents with children than ever in American ↑history. (.) because of the aging of our poopulation (.) but at the same ↑time we’ve got the largest generation of students in public schools ↑ever more than ↑niinety per cent of America’s children go to public schools. (.) and the (.) it’s the laargest number ever (.) ↑this year. and they’ll break the record ↑next year. (.) and every year for ten years running (.) ↑we’ve got to do something about this (.) and ↑local (.) it’s not E↑NOUGH to leave it up to the local school districts (.) they’re not able to do it and our future de↑peeends upon it ↑look we’re in an infor↑↑mation age (.) our eco↑nomic future de↑peends. upon whether or not (.) our children (.) are going to get the ↑kiind of education that lets them go ↑on to college. and again I want to (.) make it possible for ↑aall middle-class families to send their (.) kids to ↑college. and more ↑Pell grants for those who are in the lower income groups ↑also. (.) uh and and ↑theen. (.) ↑I want to make sure that we have joob ↑training on top of ↑thaat. and lifelong ↑learning. (.) but it aall starts (.) with the public school teachers (.) uh my proposal gives (.) ↑ten thousand dollars hhiring bonuses (.) for those teachers (.) who a are (.) who who get certi↑fied to teach in the areas where they’re (.) most needed (.) now (.) accounta↑bility. (.) we (.) we basically a↑↑gree on accountability my plan requires testing (.) of aaall students (.) it ↑ALso requires something that governor Bush’s plan doesn’t (.) it requires testing (.) of aaall new teachers (.) including in the subjects that they teach (.) ↑wee have to start treating teachers like the proffessionals (.) that they aare and give them the respect (.) a and and the kind of quality of ↑life. (.) that will draw more ↑↑people into teaching because we need a lot more teachers governor ↑Bush. (.) two minutes (1.) when you total up ↑aaall the federal spending he wants to ↑do. (.) it’s the largest increase in federal spending (.) in years. (.) and there’s just not going to be enough money (.) uuh (.) I I (.) ↑Ii have been a governor of a big state I have made education my number one priority (.) that’s the fo that’s what governors ought to do (.) they ↑ought to say ↑THIS is the most important thing we do as a state (.) the ↑federal government puts about six per cent of the money up (.) they ↑put about (.) you know (.) ↑sixty per cent of the striings where you have to fill out the paperwork (.) I don’t know if you have to be a ↑paperwork filler-outer. (.) but most of it’s because of the federal government (.) what ↑I want to do is to send flexibility and authority to the local folks so you can choose (.) what to do with the money (.) one ↑SIIIze does not fit all (.) I ↑worry about federalizing education (.) if I were you. (.) uh I I I (.) ↑I believe stroongly thatt uh (.) the federal government can ↑help. (.) we need to ↑fund. (.) ↑head start. (.) we need to ↑have (.) accountability. (.) uuh the ↑vice president’s plan does not have annual accountability (.) third grade fourth grade fifth grade we need we need to de↑mand on results (.) uh ↑I believe strongly in a patie (.) uuh in a teacher protection act like I ↑mentioned. (.) I hear from (.) teachers all the ↑time about the laawsuits and the threats (.) respect in the claassroom (.) PART of it’s because you can’t (.) y y you can’t (.) control the ↑classroom you can’t have a ↑consequence. (.) for somebody (.) without fear of

JL(M): GWB:

719

Appendix getting ↑sued. under federal law (.) so (.) I’m going to ask the Congress to pass a (.) teacher protection ↑aact. (.) so ↑I believe in flexibility (.) ↑I believe in a naational reading initiative for local districts to ↑acceess with K through two diagnostic testing (.) curriculum that works ↑phoonics works by the way it needs to be a part of our cur↑riculum. (.) there needs to be flexibility for ↑teacher training. and ↑teacher hiring. with ↑federal money. (.) the ↑federal government can be aa (.) be a PART (.) but (.) but (.) ↑DON’T FALL prey to aaall this stuff about money here and money there (.) because (.) ↑education is really funded at the local level (.) ninety-four per cent comes from the local level vice president Goore is the ↑governor right when he saays that you’re proposing the largest federal spending in ↑years. AABsolutely not (.) AABsolutely not I’m ↑so glad that I have the chance to knock that down (.) [LOOK THE ↑PROO (bursts into laughter) (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] blem iiis (.) that undeer (.) governor ↑Bush’s plan. (.) one point six trillion dollar tax cut mostly to the ↑wealthy (.) under his ooown budget numbers (.) he proposes spending ↑moore money. (.) for a tax cut just for the wealthiest one per ↑ceent (.) than ↑aaall the new money he budgets for edu↑cation. (.) health ↑care. (.) and national de↑fence. (.) combiiined (.) now under ↑my plan. (.) we will balance the budget every year. I’m ↑not just saying this I’m ↑not just taalking. (.) ↑I have helped to balance the budget for the first time in thirty ↑years. (.) paid dooown the debt (.) ↑aand under my plan (.) in four years (.) as the percentage of our (.) uh gross domestic ↑product. federal spending will be the ↑SMAAllest that it has been in fifty years (.) one ↑reason iis (.) you know the thiird biggest spending item in our budget (.) is ↑interest on the national ↑deebt. (.) we get nothing ↑for it. (.) we keep the good faith and credit of the U↑nited States. (.) ↑I will pay ↑doown. the debt every single year until it is e↑lliminated (.) ↑early in the next decade. (.) ↑that gets rid of the the the third biggest in↑trusion of the federal ↑government. (.) [in sir] in our e↑conomy. (.) now because the ↑goovernor. (.) has has aall this money for a tax cut mostly to the ↑wealthy (.) there is no money left ↑over. so (.) so schools get ↑testing (.) and and uh lawsuit reform= =all right= =and and not much else governor the vice president says you’re ↑wroong well (0.5) ↑he’s wrong (laughs)= =(collectively and almost inaudibly laughs) just add up all the ↑numbers it’s three tiimes bigger than what president ↑Clinton proposed. (.) the Senate Budget Committee= =↑three tiimes excuse me (.) three tiimes bigger than what president Clinton [proposed ↑THAT’S IN] AN AAD JIM that was knocked [doown by the journalists who analyyzed the ↑ad and said it was misleading wait (.) may (.) may I ask] go ahead

JL(M): AG: GWB: A: AG:

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB: A: GWB: JL(M): GWB: AG: GWB: JL(M):

720

Appendix GWB: JL(M): A: GWB: (1.) my ↑turn. yes [sir (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] uh (.) forget the journalists (.) he proposed more than Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis combiined ↑this is a big spender (.) yes (.) and you ought to be ↑prooud of it it’s part of his ↑record we just have a different phi↑loosophy (.) ↑let me talk about tax relief (.) if you PAY taxes you ought to get ↑tax relief. (.) the vice president beliieves only the ↑right people ought to get tax relief (.) ↑I don’t think that’s the role of the ↑president to pick (.) ‘you’re ↑riight. (.) and ↑you’re not right’. (.) I think if you’re going to have tax re↑lief (.) everybody ought to get it (.) and therefoore (.) ↑wealthy people are going to get it (.) but the top one per cent will ↑end up payiing one-thiird of the taxes in America (.) and they get one-fifth of the benefits (.) and that’s because we structured the ↑plaan. (.) so that ↑six million (.) additional American families pay no taxes (.) if you’re a family of four making fifty thoousand dollars in Mis↑souri you get a (.) fifty per cent cut. (.) in your federal ↑income taxes what I’ve done is ↑set priorities and funded them (.) and there’s extra money (.) and I believe the people who pay the bills ought to (.) ought to get some ↑↑money back it’s a difference of opinion he wants to ↑grow the government. (.) and I trust you with your own ↑money [(.) I well let’s wish we could spend an hour ↑talking about (.) ttrusting people.(.) it’s just the right position to ↑↑take= =[can we governor] extend the ↑time.= yeah hold on one sec. here thought the (.) the governor just reversed the thing (.) what ↑do you say specifically to what the viice president said tonight he said it many many tiimes that your tax cut benefits the top one per cent (.) of the wealthiest Americans and you’ve heard [what he said of ↑cour]se it does if you pay taaxes you are going to get a ↑benefit (.) people who pay taaxes (.) [will get ↑tax aAll right then why relief uh why ↑shouldn’t they. [alright let me] ↑finish [please . but but (.) but under ↑my] plaan if you make the top the wealthy people pay sixty-two per cent of the ↑taaxes today aafterwards they pay sixty-↑four per cent. (.) this is a faair plan you know ↑why. (.) because the tax code is unfair for people at the boottom end of the economic laadder (.) if you’re a single mother making twenty-two thoousand dollars a year to↑day. (.) and you’re trying to raise two children (.) for every additional dollar you ↑earn. you pay a hhigher marginal ↑rate. on that dollar than someone making two hundred thoousand ↑dollars and that’s not right. (.) so [I want to do something about that vice president Gore

JL(M): GWB: AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M):

GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M):

721

Appendix AG: JL(M): AG: yeah look all right] vice president Gore look ↑this isn’t abooout (.) governor Buush (.) it’s not about me (.) it is about you (.) and ↑I want to come back to something I said before (.) if ↑YOU want somebody who believes (.) that we were better ↑ooff eight years agoo (.) than we are now (.) and that we ought to go ↑back to the kind of poolicies that we had back then (.) emphasizing ↑tax cuts. mainly for the wealthy (.) here is your man (.) if ↑YOU want somebody who will fight for you (.) and who will fight to have ↑mmiddle-class tax cuts (.) then ↑I am your man I ↑want to be (.) now (.) it (.) I doubt anybody here makes moore than three hundred and thirty thoousand dollars (.) a year I won’t ↑aask you but if you do you’re in the top one per cent it would be a viio[lation of the ruules they couldn’t (unintelligible) if you ↑don’t. I I’m not going to ask them]= =[collectively laughs) I’m not going to aask I’m not going to ask (laughs) BUT] (.) if ↑everyone here in this audience (.) (.) was was dead on in the mmiddle (.) of the middle-class (.) then the ↑tax cuts. (.) for ↑every single one of you aaall added up (.) would be less (.) than the tax cut his plan would give to just ↑ONE (.) member of that top (.) wealthiest one per cent (.) now ↑you judge for yourselves (.) whether or not that’s fair= =a quick and then we’re moving on= good (.) ↑fifty million Americans get no tax relief under his plan= =that’s not [right you may] ↑not be one of them you’re just not one of the right people (.) and ↑secondly we’ve had enough fighting (.) it’s time to unite (.) you talk about eight ↑years. (.) in eight years they haven’t gotten anything done on ↑Medicare (.) on Social Se↑curity (.) a patient’s bill of rights all right (.) [we’re it’s time] to get something done hey (.) [we’re going to move on I I’ve got to ↑aanswer that Jim] [what (.) what Medicare (.) we] (.) ↑I ↑I cast the tiie-breaking vote (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] to aadd ↑twenty (.) -six (.) years (.) [to the life vice president] of Medicare it was due to go ↑bankrupt (.) in nineteen (.) ninety-niine and thaat’s uh fifty million figure a↑gain (.) [the newspapers I said vice president Goore] you you said forget the ↑journalists (.) but they aaare (.) the the keepers of the score ↑caard and whether or not you’re (.) [uh spea] using facts that aren’t ↑right. and that ↑that faact is just not right speaking of keepers of the score card that’s what I’m trying to ↑do here Mr. Mr. vice [pre

JL(M): AG: A: AG: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB: AG: GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: A: AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M):

722

Appendix AG: JL(M): ok] sident and governor Bush we’re gonna (.) we’re gonna move ↑OON we’re gonna have to move oon all right there were ↑twelve questions (.) on foreign and military matters (.) and the first onne uh that we’re going to aask will be (.) uh uh d directed to to you governor Bush and David Norwood is going to ↑ask it. Mr. Norwood (.) where ↑are you (.) ↑there you are ↑what would you make (.) uh (.) what would ↑make you the best candidate in ooffice during the Middle East crisis I’ve been a leader (0.5) I’ve been a person who has to set a clear vision (.) and convince people to follow (.) Ii uh (1.) I’ve got a (.) ↑strategy for the Middle East and ↑first let me say that our nation now neeeds to speak with one voice (.) during this time (.) and I ap↑plaud the president (.) for working haard to diffuse tensions (.) our ↑NAtion needs to be credible and strooong (.) when we say we’re somebody’s ↑friend. (.) everybody has got to believe it (.) Israel is our friend and we’ll stand by Israel (.) uh we need to reach out to modern Arab ↑nations as well (.) to build coalitions to keep the peace (.) uuh I I ↑also need the (.) the next leader needs to be patient (.) we can’t put the Middle East (.) ↑peace process on our timetable (.) it’s got to be on the tiimetable of the (.) of the ↑people that we’re trying (.) that we’re trying to bring to the peace table. (.) we can’t ↑DICtate the terms of peace (.) which means that you have to be steady (.) you can’t worry about pooolls (.) or focus groups (.) you’ve got to have a clear vision (.) that’s what a leader does (.) a leader also under↑staaands (.) that the United States must be ↑stroong to keep the peace (.) Saddam Hussein still (.) uuh is a threat in the Middle East (.) our coalition against Saddaam is (.) un↑ravelling (.) sanctions are loosened (.) uuh (.) uh I (.) the man who (.) may be developing weapons of maass des↑truction we don’t know because inspectors aren’t in (.) so to aanswer your ↑question it requiires (.) a clear vision (.) a willingness to stand by our friends (.) and the credi↑bility (.) for people both friend and foe (.) to understand when America says something we mean it vice president Gore (5.5) (walking towards Norwood is located) I ↑see a future (.) when the world is at ↑peace (.) with the United States of America (.) promoting the values of de↑mocracyy and ↑human rights and freedom (.) all around the world (.) even in I↑raan (.) they have had (.) an election (.) that begaaan to bring about some ↑change. (.) we ↑staand (.) for those values and we have to be willing (.) to assert them (.) RIGHT NOW our military is the stroongest in the entire ↑history of the world. (.) I will (.) I pledge to you I will do (.) ↑whatever is necessary. (.) to make sure that it stays that way (.) noow ↑whatt can I bring to that challenge (.) when I was a ↑young maan (.) my ↑father was a senatoor (.) opposed to the Vietnam War (.) when I graduated from ↑coollege (.) there were there were plenty of fancy ways to get out of (.) going and being a part of that I ↑went and I volunteered (.) and I went to Vietnam (.) I didn’t do the moost or run the (.) greatest ↑risk by a loong shot. (.) but I ↑learned what it was like to be an enlisted man in the United States Army (.) in the ↑Coongress (.) in the House of Representatives I seerved on the House In↑telligence Committee (.) and I worked haard to (.) to learn the subject of nuclear ↑arms control. and how we can (.) dif↑fuuse these tensions and deal with ↑nonproliferation and (.) ↑deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of

DN: GWB:

JL(M): AG:

723

Appendix maass destruction look ↑we’re gonna face some (.) sserious new challenges in the next four years (.) ↑I’ve worked on that loong and hard when I went to the United States Senate (.) I asked for an assiignment to the Armed ↑Services Committee (.) and while I was there I worked on a bipartisan (.) basis as ↑I did in the House I (.) worked with former president Reagan too (.) on the modernization of our strategic weaponry (.) in the in the ↑Senate (.) I was one of only ↑ten Democrats aloong with senator Joe Lieberman to (.) support governor Bush’s ↑daad in the (.) Persian Gulf War Resolution. (.) and for the laast ↑eight years I’ve served on the [National Se↑cu vice president rity Council could I say just one other ↑thing here. no sir (.) we’ll get back with it I’m gonna your (.) the ↑next question is to yoou fine I’ll wait it’s a related it’s a re↑lated question that is going to be asked by Kenneth Allen [Mr. ok] ↑Allen I I ↑think he (.) he gets a (.) aaa oh I’m sorry you’re right (.) go ahead Mr. Allen right there vice presidentt uuh today oour military forces aaare (.) stretched thinner and doing more than they have ever done before during ↑peacetime Mhum ↑I’d like to knooow uh (.) what you are I think we would ↑AAALL like to knoow what you as president would do to ensure proper resourcing for the ↑current mission and oor more selectively choosing the time and place that our forces will be used around the world thank you siir (.) uh just to finish brieflyyy I I started to say that for the last eight years I’ve been on the Naational Se↑curity Council uh (.) and last week I broke up (.) I sus↑pended campaigning fooor (.) for ↑two days or paarts of two days to go back and (.) participate in the ↑meetings that charted the (.) president’s uh (.) summit meeting that he just re↑tuurned from uuh (.) earlier to↑daay. and our ↑team of our country’s ↑team over there did a (.) did a great joob it’s a difficult situation (.) the United States has to be ↑STROONG in order to (.) to make sure that we can (.) help pro↑mote peace and security and stability (.) and ↑THAAT means (.) keeping our military stroong (.) now I ↑said earlier that we are the strongest military but we neeed to to con↑tinue improving readiness (.) and making suuure that our our military personnel are aadequately ↑paaaid. (.) and that the combination of their ↑paay. and their ↑benefiits. and their retirement as veterans uh (.) is is ↑comparable to the stiff competition that’s coming in this stroong economy from the from the private ↑SECtor. (.) and we I have supported the largest pay raaise in many a ↑year. (.) and I support another one ↑noow. (.) I ↑also support moodernization of our strategic uh (.) a and tactical weaponry (.) the governor has proposed skipping a generation of technology (.) I think thaat’s uh (.) I think that would be a mis↑take because I think ONE of the ways we’ve been able to be (.) so successful in Kosovoo and (.) Boosnia and Haiti uh (.) and in other places is by haaving the technological ↑eedge (.) you know we won that conflict in ↑Kosovo. without losing a ↑single human life (.) uh in in coombat (.) a single American life i in coombat (.) now (.) uh

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): KA: AG: KA:

AG:

724

Appendix (.) readiness (.) the ↑treeends before wee uh before I uh (.) got my current job were on the decline (.) the number of divisions were re↑duuced. (.) ↑I arguued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up and (.) I’m happy to tell you that we ↑have now in my ↑budget. (.) for the next (.) for the next ten years (.) I propose a hundred billion ↑dollars for this purpose. the governor proposes forty-↑fiive billion (.) ↑I propose more than twice as much because I think it’s needed governor Bush two minutes if this were a spending ↑coontest. I’d come in second (laughs) [(.) I I rea (almost inaudibly and individually laughs)] dily admit I (.) I’m not going to grow the siize of the federal government like he is (.) here’s your ↑question was deployment (.) it ↑must be in the naational interests must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops (.) uh the mission must be ↑clear. (.) soldiers must understaand. (.) why we’re going (.) the ↑foorce must be stroong enough (.) so that the (.) mission can be ac↑coomplished. (.) and the ↑exit strategy needs to be well-defined. (.) I’m concerned that we’re over deplooyed around the ↑woorld. (.) see I think the ↑MIssion haas uh (.) ssomewhat (.) become (.) fuzzy (.) should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence (.) the mission of the United States military will be (.) to be pre↑pared. (.) and ready to ↑fight. and win waar (.) and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place (.) uh ↑there may be some moments when we use our troops as peace-keepers. (.) but not ↑often. (.) uuh the ↑vice president mentioned my view oof (.) long-term for the military. (.) I want to make sure the e↑quipment for our military is the best it can POOssibly be of course (.) but WE have an oppor↑tunity. (.) we have an opportunity to use our research and development ca↑paacities. (.) the great technology of the United ↑States. (.) to make our military ↑lighter. (.) ↑harder to fiind. (.) more lethal (.) we have an oppor↑tunity really if you think about it (.) if we’re smaart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understaands strategic ↑planning. (.) to MAKE SUURE that uuh (.) we change the (.) we change the terms of the baattlefield of the future so we can make (.) keep the peace ↑this is a peaceful nation. (.) and I intend to keep the peace (.) ↑spending money is one thing (.) but ↑spending money without a strategic plaan can oftentiimes be ↑wasted. (.) first thing I’m going to do is ask thee secretary of de↑fence. (.) to develop a ↑plaan (.) so we are making sure we’re not spending our money on po↑litical projects. (.) but on projects to make sure our soldiers are (.) well-paaid (.) well-hooused and have the best equipment in the world governor Bush uuh another kind of gunn (.) ↑question (.) it will be asked by Robert Lutz. (.) Mr. ↑Lutz (4. setting mike) Governor ↑Bush yes sir we’d just like to know what is (.) your opposition to the Brady ↑Handgun bill. uh can you re (.) I’m sorry I didn’t hear that we’d like to know why you object to the Brady Handgun bill if if you ↑do object to it because in a recent TV aad it showed that the National ↑Rifle Association. (.) says that if you are e↑lected. (.) that they will be working out of your ↑office (.) I can just see (.) (unintelligible) (laughs) I don’t think the National Rifle Association ↑raan that aaad. but uh (.) let me just tell you my position on guns in general sir if you don’t mind=

JL(M): GWB: A: GWB:

JL(M): RL: GWB: RL: GWB: RL:

GWB:

725

Appendix JL(M): GWB: RL: GWB: A: GWB: =I’M NOT (.) excuse me I’m not sure he’s finished with his question= =oh ↑I’m sorry= =that kind of ↑boothers me you know when I see an aad like that I want you to explain that ad to me well I don’t think I ↑RAAN the AAD I think somebody who doesn’t want me to be ↑president might have run ↑that aad (laughs) (.) [it’s uh (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] that wasn’t ↑my ad. and uuh (.) I think it might have been one of my op↑ponent’s aads uh (.) uuh (.) ↑HERE is what I believe sir (.) ↑I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their ↑faamilies. (.) I be↑liieve thaat (.) we ought to keep guns ↑out of the hands. of people that shouldn’t ↑have them that’s why I’m for instant baackground checks at ↑gun shows. (.) uuhm (.) I’m for trigger ↑loocks (.) I think that makes ↑sense. (.) matter of fact we distributed free trigger locks in the state of ↑Texas (.) so that people can ↑get them. and put them on their guns to make their guns more ↑safe. I think we ought to raaise the aage at which juveniiles can have a ↑gun. (.) but I ↑ALSO believe stroongly (.) that we need to enforce ↑laaws on the books. (.) that the ↑best way to make suuure thaat we keep our society ↑safe. (.) and se↑cuure. (.) is to hold people ac↑↑countable for (.) for breaking the ↑laaaw if we catch somebody illegally selling a ↑gun. there needs to be a ↑coonsequence (.) if we keep SOMEbody you know illegally using a ↑gun. there needs to be a ↑coonsequence (.) enforcement of ↑laaaw and the federal government can ↑help (.) there is a great program called Project Exiile in Richmond Vir↑ginia. where we focused federal taxpayers’ ↑money. and federal ↑prosecutors. (.) and went ↑AAFter people who were illegally (.) i illegally using ↑↑guuns. (.) to ME that’s how you make society the safest it can ↑bee. (.) and so yeah sometimes I agree wiith some of these groups in ↑Washington. and sometimes I ↑don’t I’m a pretty independent ↑thinker. (.) but ↑one thing I’m foor (.) is a safe so↑ciety. (.) and I’m for enforcing laaws on the ↑books. and that’s what is going to ↑haappen. should I earn your confidence vice president ↑Goore. well one of my (.) it was ↑not one of myy aads uh either (.) ↑governor. (.) uh (.) but I ↑I am familiar with the statement and it ↑was made by one of the top-ranking of↑ficials. of that organi↑zation. (.) ↑let me (.) tell you my position (.) ↑I think that some common sense gun safety measures are certainly needed with the ↑FLOOOD (.) of CHEAP ↑handguns that have ↑sometimes been working their way into the hands of the wrong people (.) but ↑aall of my proposals are ↑focused. (.) on that ↑problem. gun ↑safety. (.) ↑noone of my proposals (.) would have ↑any effect on ↑hunters. (.) or ↑sportsmen. (.) or people who uuse (.) uh (.) ↑rifles. (.) uh (.) they are they are ↑aimed at the real problem ↑let’s make our schools safe (.) ↑let’s make our neighbourhoods safe (.) ↑let’s uuh (.) ↑let’s have a three-day (.) waiting periodd uh (.) ↑cooling off ↑so we can have a background check to make sure that ↑criminaals. (.) and people who really ↑shouldn’t have guns don’t get them (.) but ↑I’d like to use my remaining time o on thiis uh exchange Jim (.) uh to res↑pond to (.) to an exchange that took place just a moment ago because a couple of ↑tiimes (.) the governor has saaid thatt uh I am for a ↑bigger government (.) governor I’m ↑noot. (.) and let me tell you what the record shows (.) for the ↑LAST EIGHT

JL(M): AG:

726

Appendix YEEARS I have (.) had the the ↑challenge of running the streamlining prograamme called Reinventing Government (.) and if theere are any federal em↑ployees in this group you know what that means (.) the ↑federal government has been reduced in ↑siiize. by ↑moore than three hundred thoousand people (.) and it’s now the ↑smallest (.) number that we have haad since the ↑smallest in size since John Kennedy’s administration (.) during the (.) the laast five years (.) ↑Texas’s government (.) has goone ↑up (.) in siize (.) the ↑federal government has gone ↑doown. (.) Texas’s government has gone up (.) now my plan for the future ↑I see a time when we have smaller (.) smarter government where you don’t have to wait in ↑liine. because you can get services (.) onliine ↑cheaper. (.) ↑better. (.) ↑faster. (.) we can do that Steve Luecker has a ↑questionn (.) and it is foor (.) vice president ↑Goore. (.) Mr. ↑Luecker (looks for him among studio audience) (0.5) ↑there you are. vice president Gore (clears throat) (.) the ↑family faarms are disappearing and having a hard time (.) ↑even in the current= =mhum= =positive economic environment (.) ↑what steps would yoou (.) or your administration take on agri↑cultural. (.) policy de↑velopments. too pro↑tect the family farms for this (.) ↑multi-functional service they perform (2.5) we’ve got a bumper ↑CROP this year. (.) but that’s the ↑good news. you know what the baad news is that follows ↑on that. the prices are low (.) in the ↑laaast several years (.) the so-called Freedom to ↑Farm laaw has in my view been mostly a failure (.) I want to ↑chaange many of its provisions. (.) now many here who who (.) who are not in↑vooolved in farming don’t won’t follow (.) this so just (.) uh for↑give me. (.) becaause (.) the ↑two per cent of the country that is invoolved in farming is important because the ↑rest of us wouldn’t eeat except for them (.) and and (.) ↑YOU guys have been having a hard time and I want to fight for you (.) I want to change those pro↑visions. (.) I want to restore a meaning↑ful safety net (.) and ↑I think that (.) ↑you pointed the way in your comments (.) because when you say there are there are multiple things ac↑complished by farmers you’re specifically including (.) conser↑vation. (.) and protection of the en↑vironment. and yyyes (.) farmers are the first environmentalists (.) and when they decide ↑not to PLOOUGH (.) a (.) uh uh a field that is vulnerable to soil erosion (.) ↑that may cost them a little money but it helps the (.) environment (.) ↑I think that we ought to have an expaanded conservation re↑seerve program. (.) and I think that the environmental benefits that ↑come from soound ↑management of the laand. (.) ought to represent a new (.) way for ↑farmers to get some in↑coome. (.) that will enable them enable ↑you (.) to make sensible choices (.) uh in crop rotation and when you (.) leave the (.) the land ↑fallow and the rest now (.) I’ll go beyoond that (.) and say I think we need much more focused (.) rural economic development programs (.) ↑I see a tiime (.) when (.) uh (.) when the ↑Internet-based activities are more available in the rural areas and where the (.) extra source of incoome that farm families used to haave fromm uh (.) shoe ↑FActories is replaced by an extra source of income fromm uh (.) from uh working in the infor↑mation economy (.) so ↑we need to do a lot of things but we ought to sstart with a better safety net governor Bush two minutes

JL(M): SLU: AG: SLU:

AG:

JL(M):

727

Appendix GWB: uhm (2.) ↑I’d like our farmers feeding the world (.) we’re the best p (.) we’re the best best (.) best producers in the world (.) and I want uuh (.) I want the farmers feeding the world we need to ↑open up markets. (.) ↑exports are down. (.) and every time an export (.) number goes ↑doown. (.) it hurtss (.) the farmer (.) I want the (.) next president to have faast track negotiating authority to open up markets around the world (.) with the ↑best (.) we’re the most ef↑ficient (.) efficient farmers (.) I don’t want to use ↑foood as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward (.) we shouldn’t be using food (.) it hurts the farmers (.) it’s not the right thing to do (.) uh I ↑wan ↑I’m for vaalue-added processing (.) we need to mov (.) more work on valueadded processing you take the ↑raaw product you produce. (.) I presume you’re a farmer off your ↑faarm. (.) and uh and you con↑vert it (.) I think value-added processing is important (.) I’m for ↑research and development (.) spending research and development money so that we can (.) uuh use our (.) technological ↑bbase to figure out (.) ↑new uses for farm products (.) ↑I’m for getting rid of the death tax (.) com↑pletely getting rid of the death tax (.) one reason family ↑farmers are forced to sell early (.) is because of the death tax. (.) this is a baad tax the president shouldn’t have ↑vetoed that bill. (.) uuh it’s aa (.) it’s a tax that taaxes people twice (.) it penalizes the family farmer (.) uuh (.) so (.) should I be fortunate enough to earn your ↑vote. (.) I ↑also unders I’m going to open up markets (.) but I ↑also understand that (.) ↑farming is a part of our naational security (.) I’m from a big farm state we’re the second biggest state (.) farming state in the country and uuh (.) I ↑hear from my farmers (.) and friends aall the time. (.) the vvice president is right by the way every day is earth day if you own the laand (.) and uuh I I ↑I like the (.) I I I like (.) the the ↑policies that will encourage farmers to (.) put (.) set asiide land as well for conservation purposes (.) thank you a ↑quick thing on the inheritance taaxes cause there is a bit there is ↑difference between the two of you on this (.) vice president Gore (.) [uh (.) but ↑yeah (.) I’m for a maa]ssive refoorm of the state tax or the death tax =ok= uh (.) and under the plan that I’ve proposed eighty per cent of ↑aall (.) family farms will be com↑pletely exempt (.) uh from the state tax (.) uh AND AND the vvaast majority of aalll family businesses would be com↑pletely exempt and all of the ↑others. (.) would have sharply (.) reduced so (.) eighty per ceent [So now] the PROblem with com↑pletely (.) eliminating it (.) goes baaack to the to the wealthiest one per cent the a↑moount. of ↑money (.) that has to be raised in taxes for middle-class families to ↑make up (.) for completely eliminating (.) uh that on on thee (.) the very wealthiest the billionaaires (.) ↑that would (.) ↑that would bee an extra heavy buurden (.) on middle-class families and so ↑let’s do it for most aaall but not completely eliminate it for the very top= =what’s the case foor doing that governor eliminating the ↑death tax. completely (.) [for everybody because ↑peo]ple shouldn’t be taxed twice on their aassets (.) see it’s either unfair for ↑some. or unfair for ↑all. (.) again ↑this is just a difference of o↑pinion. if you’re from ↑Waashington. (.) you want to pick and choose ↑winners (.) I don’t

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG:

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

728

Appendix think that’s the role of the ↑president I think if you’re going to have tax relief everybody ↑benefits secondly (.) I I think your plaan (.) a lot of ↑fine print in your plan Mr. vice president with all due respect it is uh (.) I’m ↑not so sure eighty per cent of the people get (.) get the death tax I know this one ↑huundred per cent will get it (.) if I i if I’m the president I just don’t think it’s ↑fair to tax people’s aassets twice (.) re↑gaardless of your staatus (.) it’s a ↑fairness issue (.) it’s an issue of ↑principle not POlitics new issue new issuue (.) and the question will be asked by Joyce ↑Cleamer oof (.) governor Bush (.) Joyce ↑Cleamer there you are= =hi Joyce= =yes hi governor uuuh (.) I’mm (.) very conceeerned about the moraality of our country ↑now. (.) uuhm (.) T↑Vv. (.) ↑moviies. (.) the music that our children (.) are are (.) ↑you know. (.) bar↑raaaged with everyday (.) and ↑I want to know if there’s anything (.) that can be ↑worked out with the uhm (.) HOllywood or whoever [(laughs) sure] too uh ↑HELP (.) get rid of some of this baad language and the (.) whatever you know (.) it’s just bringinng (.) the country doown (.) and our children (.) are very important to us and (.) we’re concerned about their education (.) at ↑schoool. we should be concerned about their education at home ↑also. yeah thank you I appreciate that question (.) Laura and I are (.) prooud parents of ↑teenage girls twin daughters and uh (.) I know what you’re saying uuh (.) government ought to stand on the ↑siide of parents (.) uuh (.) parents are teaching their children right from wrooong and (.) the ↑message als oftentiiimes gets undermined by the pop popular culture (.) uuhm (.) ↑YOU bet there’s things that government can ↑do. (.) we can (.) work with thee entertainment ↑industry. to provide family ↑hour. (.) we cann haave ↑filters. on Internetss where public money is ↑spent. (.) there ought to be filters in (.) public libraries and filters in public ↑schools. so if kids get on the Internet (.) there is not going to be (.) por↑NOOgraphy or viiolence coming in. (.) I ↑think we ought to have character education in our ↑schoools (.) I know that doesn’t directly (.) talk about ↑Hollywood. but it does reinfoorce the values you’re teaching (.) greatly expaand character education ↑funding. (.) so that public schoools will teach children ↑vaalues. (.) vaalues which have stood the test of ↑time. (.) there’s after ↑school money. (.) a a↑vailable. (.) I think that after school money ought to be available for faith-based pro↑graammes (.) and ↑charitable programs that exist because somebody (.) has heard the caall to love a neighbour like you would like to be loved your↑self. (.) that will help ↑reinforce the values that parents teach at home as ↑well. (.) I just (.) ↑OURS is a great laand (.) and one of the reasons why is because we’re free and so (.) I don’t support censorship (.) but I ↑do believe that we ought to talk (.) ↑plainly to the (.) Hhollywood ↑mooguls. (.) and people who pro↑duce this stuff. (.) and explaain the ↑consequences I think we need to have rating systems that are ↑clear. (.) and I happen to like the idea of haviing uh technologyy for the T↑V easy for parents to ↑uuse. so you can ttune oout these programs you don’t want in your house (.) but ↑I’m going to remiind mothers and

JL(M): GWB: JC:

GWB: JC:

GWB: JC: GWB:

729

Appendix dads the best weapon is the off-on button (laughs) (.) and paying attention to your children (.) and eating dinner with them (.) and uh (.) and and and and and and being (.) I’m sorry it’s alright showing my peer relation yee it’s my turn vice president Gore [(almost inaudible and collective laughter) I care a lot about this] (3.5) it’s not just ↑movies. (.) television (.) video gaames (.) music (.) the Interneet (.) parents now feeel (.) like you have to com↑peete with the maaass ↑culture in order to raise your ↑kiids. with the values that you want them to ↑haave. (.) Tipper and I have four children. (.) aand God bless them every one of them (.) decided on their own to come here (.) this evening (.) I don’t want to em↑barrass. our oldest daughter she and her husband made us grandparents almost a year-and-a-half ago (.) uh and and (.) AND yet if she’ll forgive me (.) when she was little (.) she brought a record home that had some ↑aaawful lyrics in it. (shot of Gore’s eldest daughter laughing in the audience and saying something to her husbad sitting next to her) and Tipper hit the ceiling (.) and that laaunched a (.) a cam↑paign to try to get the record companies to put ↑ratings that. (.) ↑warning labels for for ↑parents. (.) and I’m ↑so proud of what she accomplished in getting them oon there (.) I’ve been invoolved my↑self. in negotiating and and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet (.) service pro↑viiders. to get a parents’ protection page every (.) time ninety-fiive per cent of the pages come ↑up (.) aand uh a ↑feature that allows parents to automatically check with one click what siites your kiids have ↑visited lately (.) you know some parents are worried about those ↑filters (.) that you will have to ask your ↑kids (laughs) (.) how to put them oon there but if you can CHEECK [↑UP on them (almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] then you you (laughs) (.) that’s real power (.) a and ↑recently the Federal Trade Commission pointed out that some of ↑these entertainment companies (.) have waarned parents that the material is inappropriate for ↑children and then they’ve tuurned around behiind the ↑baacks of the parents and advertiised that ↑same aadult material directly to children (.) that is an outrage (.) Joe Lieberman and Ii gave them ↑six months to clean up their aact (.) and if they ↑don’t do it. we’re gonna aask for tougher authority on the (.) in the ↑hands of the FTC (.) o on the ↑false and deceptive advertising I’ll tell you this (.) I want to ↑do. something about this respect the First A↑mendment (.) [but I ↑will vice president] do something (.) to help you raise your kids without [that garbage vice president] all right vice president Goore the next question is for you and it will be asked by Steven ↑Koosmann. (.) Mr. ↑Koosmann where are you sir (.) you’re right behind me as well ↑there we go. right next to the last yee (.) ↑got it (.) good plan[ning (clears throat)

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG: JL(M): A: AG:

AG:

A: AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M):

AG: JL(M):

730

Appendix SK: (unintelligible)] (.) (clears throat) it ↑seems that when we hear about issues of this campaaign (.) it’s usuallyy ↑Medicaare Social Se↑curityy (.) or prescription drugs (.) as a coollege professor I hear a LOT of aapathy (.) amongst young people (.) who feel that there are ↑no issuues directed to ↑them. yeah and they don’t plan to ↑vote. yeah how do you address that we’ve got to change it (.) I spend a good deal of TIme ↑talking to young people and in my staandardd ↑speech out there on the stump I (.) I ↑usuallyy uh (.) ↑end my my speech by saying I want to ↑ask you. (.) for something (.) a and I ↑want to direct it especially to the young people in the audience (.) and I want to tell you what I tell ↑them. (.) some↑tiiimes (.) people who (.) are very i↑dealistic. and have ↑great dreams. (.) as young people do (.) are AAPT to stay at arm’s length from the political process because they think their good hearts might be brittle (.) and if they in↑vest their hopes and allow themselves to beliiieve. (.) then they’re gonna be let doown. and disappointed. (1.) but THANK ↑goodness we’ve AAlways had enough people who have been WIlling in every generation to push ↑paaast the fear of a broken heart and become deeply invooolved (.) in forming a more perfect union we’re A↑merica.. and and we (.) we be↑liiieve. in our future and we know we’ve got the ability (.) to shape our future (.) now we’ve ↑got to address one of the (.) one of the biggest ↑thhreats to our democracy (.) and that is the current campaign ↑financing system. (.) and ↑I know they say it doesn’t rrank anywhere on the ↑pooolls. I don’t be↑↑lieve (.) I don’t be↑lieve that’s a fair ↑meeasure. (.) I’m ↑telling you. (.) ↑I will make it the I will make the McCain-Feingoold Campaign Finance Reform bill the very ↑first measure that I send to the Congress as president (.) governor Bush op↑pooses it. (.) I hop I wish that he would (.) consider changing his miind on thaat (.) because ↑I think that the special interests have ↑too much power (.) and we need to give our democracy baack to the American ↑people. (.) ↑let me tell you why (.) those issues you ↑mentioned. (.) Social Se↑curity. (.) prescription ↑drugs. (.) the ↑big drug companies are against (.) the prescription drug (.) proposal that I’ve made (.) uh the the ↑HMOs are against the patient’s (.) rights bill the Dingle-↑Norwood bill. that ↑I suppoort (.) and uh (.) governor Bush does ↑not support. (.) the ↑big oil companies are against the (.) the measuures to get a (.) more energy independence and renewable fuel (.) ↑they ought to have their voices heeard (.) but they ↑shouldn’t have a big megaphone that drooowns ↑out the American people (.) we need campaign finance reform (.) and we need to shoot straight (.) with young and old alike and tell them what the real choices are (.) and we can re↑new. and rekindle the American spirit. (.) and make our future what our founders ↑dreamed it could be (.) we [↑can time] (.) governor Bush two minutes uuhm (.) I tell you what I hear (.) (breathes out) a lot of peoplee (.) are sick and tired of the bitterness in Washington D. ↑C. and therefore they don’t want any part of politics (.) they look at ↑Washington. and see people pointing fingers (.) and caasting blaame (.) and saying one thing and doing another (.) there’s a lot of young folks saying you know ‘why do ↑I want to be invoolved with this mess’ (laughs) (.)

AG: SK: AG: SK: AG:

JL(M): GWB:

731

Appendix aand uuh (.) what ↑I think needs to happen in order to (.) encourage the young to become in↑vooolved. (.) is to shoot ↑straight. (.) is to (.) set a↑siiide the partisan differences and ↑set an agenda (.) that will make sense (.) ↑Medicaare I know you talked about it. but ↑Medicare is is (.) is relevant for aall of us (.) young and old a↑like. we better get it right ↑now. (.) tax reform is relevant for old and young a↑like. (.) ↑I don’t think it’s the issues. (.) that turn (.) kids off (.) I think it’s the ↑toone (.) ↑I think it’s the aattitude (.) ↑I think it’s a CYnicism in Washington and it doesn’t have to be that way (.) before I s uh (.) I decided to run I (.) I had to (.) resolve two issues in my ↑mind. one (.) could our ↑family endure all this business (.) and I came to the conclusion that our love was ↑stroong enough. (.) to be able to do it (.) the other was ↑could an administration change the tone in Washington D.C. (.) and I believe the answer is ↑yes. oth otherwise I wouldn’t be asking for your vote (.) that’s what hhappened in Texas (.) uuh we worked to↑gether. (.) there is a man here in this audience named Hugo Ber↑langa he is the chairman of the health com↑mittee. (.) he ↑came here for a reason to ↑tout our record on health in ↑Texas (.) he’s a ↑Democrat (.) I didn’t care whether he was a Republican or ↑Democrat. what I cared about is could we work to↑↑gether that’s what Washington D.C. ↑neeeds. and fiinally sir to answer your question (.) it needs somebody in office who will tell the truth (.) that’s the best way to get people back in the system. governor Buush uh Norma Curby has the next ↑question. and it’s for you Norma ↑Cur[by ok] where ↑are you= =(unintelligible)= =↑hi Norma= =hi (.) ↑how WILL your administration address uh di↑versity. (.) uh in↑clusiveness. (.) and what ↑rooole (.) will affirmative aaction play in your overall plan (0.5) (nodding) uuhm (.) ↑I’ve hhad a record off (.) b bringing people from aall walks of life into my administration and my administration is better ↑off for it in Texas. (.) uuhm (.) I’m going to (.) ↑FIND people thatt uh (.) want to serve their ↑country. (.) bbut ↑I want a diverse administration I think it’s important (.) uuh I’ve worked ↑haaard. in the state of Texas to (.) make sure our institutions uuh (.) reflect the state (.) with good smart policy (.) ↑POlicy that rejects quotas ↑I don’t like quotas. (.) quotas tend to pit one group of people against another (.) quotas are ↑bad. for America it’s not the way America is all about. (.) but ↑POOLICIIES UUUH THAT (.) give people a helping hand (.) so they can help themselves for exaample (.) in our state of Texas I (.) worked with the legislature both Republicans and Democrats to pass a ↑laaaw. that said if you come in the top ten per cent of your ↑hhiiigh school class. (.) you’re automatically admitted to one of our (.) one of our hhigher institutions (.) of higher institutions of ↑learning (.) college (.) and as a reSUULT (.) our universities are c are now more di↑verse (.) it was a ↑smart thing to do what I called it I labelled it ‘affirmative aac cess’ (.) I think the ↑CONtracting business in government can help (.) not with ↑quootas (.) but help meet a goooal of ↑oownership (.) of small businesses for example (.) the contracts need to be ↑smaaller. (.) the agencies need to bee (.) you know need to re↑CRUIT (.) and to work haard (.) to fiind (.) people to ↑bid on the state coontracts (.) I think we can

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): NC: GWB: NC: GWB:

732

Appendix ↑do that in a way thaatt uh (.) that represents what America is all about which is (.) equal oppor↑tunity. (.) aand uuh (.) and an oppor↑tunity for people to realize their potential so (.) to answer your question I I I sup↑poort. (.) I guess the way to put it is ‘affirmative aaac ceess’ (.) and I’ll ↑have an administration that will make you proud (.) thank you vice president ↑Goore.= =I believe in thiis uh ↑gooal. and this effort with all my heart (.) I believe that our future as a naation (.) de↑peends upon whether or not we can break down these ↑baarriers. that have been ↑uused. to pit (.) group against ↑grooup. and (.) and ↑bring our people together (.) ↑how do you do it (.) ↑well. (.) you (.) you (.) establishh respect for differences (.) you don’t ig↑noore. (.) differences it’s all too ↑easy for (.) somebody in the majoority in the population to say ‘↑oh we’re just all (.) all the same’ without an under↑staanding. of the different life ex↑perience (.) that you’ve had. (.) that ↑others have had. (.) ↑once you have that understanding and mutual respeect then we can trans ↑cend the differences and embrace the (.) ↑hhighest common denominator (.) of the American spirit. (.) ↑I don’t know what ‘affirmative aaccess’ means I ↑do know what affirmative aaction (.) ↑meeans. (.) I know the governor is a↑gainst it. and I know that I’m ↑for it. (.) I know what a ↑haate crime staatute pendinng (.) at the national level is ↑all about. in the ↑aftermath of James Byrd’s death. (.) I’m ↑for that proposed laaw. (.) the governor (.) is a↑gainst it. (.) I know what it ↑meeeans. (.) to haaave a commitment to diversity (.) I am paart of an administration that has the ↑finest record (.) on diversity and (.) and inci↑dentally an excellent. (.) uh uh I mean I think our suc↑ceess. over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity. but be↑caause of it. (.) because we’re able to draw on the wisdom and ex↑perience from (.) from different paarts of the society that hadn’t been ↑taaapped in the same way before (.) and incidentally (.) Mel ↑Carnahaan (.) in Missouri (.) had the ↑ffinest record on diversity of ↑any governor in the entire history (.) of the state of Missouri. and I want to ↑honour (.) THAAT among his other achievements (.) here (.) now I I just be↑liiieve. that what we have to do is enforce the civil rights ↑laaws. I’m against ↑quotas (.) this is uuh (.) with all due respectt uh (.) governor that’s a red ↑herring (.) affirmative aaction isn’t (.) ↑quotas. (.) I’m a↑gainst quotas. (.) they’re il↑leegal. (.) they’re against the American way (.) affirmative aaction (.) means that you take extra steps to ac↑knowledge the history of discrimination and injustice and prejudice (.) and bring aaall people ↑into the American dream (.) because it helps (.) ↑everybody (.) not jjust ↑thooose who are directly benefiting governor what is your are you op↑poosed to affirmative action no if if affirmative action means quotas I’m a↑gainst it. if affirmative action means what I just des↑criibed. what I’m ↑foor. (.) then I’m ↑↑for it (.) you ↑heard what I was foor. (.) the vice president keeps saying I’m against ↑things (.) you heard what I was ↑↑foor (.) and that’s what I support what a↑bout (.) Mr. vice president you heard what he ↑said. he said if affirmative aaction means quotas he’s a↑gainst it. (.) affirmative aaction (.) doesn’t mean= =[↑good quotas] (.) are you ↑for it without quotas

JL(M): AG:

JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG: GWB: AG:

733

Appendix GWB: AG: GWB: JL(M): A: JL(M): AG: GWB: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): LK: AG: I may not be for ↑your version Mr. vice president but I’m for what I just des↑criibed to the lady (.) [she heard my answer =are you for what the Su]↑preme Court saays is (.) a a constitutional way of having affirmative aaction Jim is ↑this let’s go on to another (.) anotheeer [uuuh (collectively laughs) and it’s a it’s a question I think that speaks for itself no (.) [it doesn’t ↑speak and it’s a question for itself Mr. vice president it speaks for the faact that there are certain ruules in this that we all a↑gree to. but evidently rules don’t ↑mean anything (laughs)= =the question is for yooou vice president Gore and Lisa ↑Kee will ask it (0.5) Lisa Kee where are you (.) ↑there we go sorry how will your ↑taax proposals (.) affect ↑mee. (.) as a middle-class (.) thirty-fouryear-old single person (.) with no dependents (1.) if ↑you make less than sixty thousand dollars a year (.) and you deciide to invest a thousand dollars in a ↑savings account. (.) you’ll get a ↑taax credit which means in essence that the federal government will ↑match your thousand dollars with another thousand dollars (.) if you make less than ↑thirty thousand dollars a year and you put fiive ↑hhundred dollars in a savings account (.) the federal government will match it with fif↑teeen hundred dollars. (.) if you make more than sixty thousand up to one hundred you’ll ↑still get a match but not (.) as generous (.) you will get a (.) uh (.) a ↑aaccess to life-long ↑learning. (.) and edu↑cation. (.) help with uh (.) ↑tuition. (.) if you want to get a new ↑skill. (.) uh (.) o or ↑training. (.) if you if you want to purchase health in↑surance. (.) you will get (.) ↑help with that. (.) i if you want to par↑ticipate in some of the dynamic changes that are going on in (.) uh (.) in our country (.) you will get specific (.) help (.) in doing that (.) ↑if you are part of the (.) uh o o of the boottom (.) twenty per cent or so of wage earners (.) then you will get an ex↑paanded earned income tax credit (.) now (.) the ↑tax (.) relief that I propose (.) is directed spe↑cifically (.) AT middle (.) -income (.) individuals (.) and families (.) uh (.) a and if you have aa (.) if you have an elderlyyy ↑parent. (.) or ↑grandparent. (.) whoo (.) needs long-term ↑care. (.) then you will get ↑help (.) with that. (.) three thousand (.) dollar tax credit to help (.) ↑your expenses in taking caare of a loved one (.) who needs long-term care governor ↑Bush right (.) let me just say the first (.) th this this (.) ↑business about (.) about the entitlement he tried to describe about ↑savings. (.) you know ↑matching savings here. and ↑matching savings there. fully-funded it’s gonna coost (.) a whole lot of money (.) a lot more than we haave (.) uh (.) you’re going to get a ↑tax relief under my plan (.) you’re not going to be ↑targeted in. or ↑targeted out. everybody that pays taxes is going to get tax relief (.) if you take care of an elderly in your ↑home. you’re going to get the personal exemption (.) in increased (.) I think (.) ↑ALso what you need to think about is not the immediate but (.) what about Medicare (.) you get a ↑plaan that will include prescription drugs. (.) a plan that will give you ↑ooptions

JL(M): GWB:

734

Appendix (.) now I hope I ↑hope people understaand that (.) Medicaare (.) to↑daay. (.) is (.) is is is im↑portant (.) but (.) it doesn’t keep up with the new ↑medicines. (.) if you’re a Medicare person o on ↑Medicare you don’t get the (.) the new (.) new pro↑cedures. (.) you’re stuck in a ↑time warp (.) in many ways (.) so it will be a ↑moodern Medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of ooptions for you (.) you’re going to live in a ↑peaceful world. (.) it’ll be a worldd uh (.) of ↑peace (.) because we’re going to have a clear (.) clear sight of foreign policy based upon a ↑stroong military. (.) and a ↑mission. (.) that staands by our friends (.) a mission that doesn’t try to be ↑aaall things to aall people (.) a judicious use of the military which will (.) help keep the peace (.) you’ll be in a world hopefully that is more ↑educated. so it’s (.) less likely you’ll be ↑haarmed in your neighbourhood see an educated ↑chiiild. is one much more likely to (.) be hopeful and optimistic (.) uh you’ll be in a world in which (.) uuh (.) ↑fits into my philoosophy (.) you know the hharder work (.) the harder you work the more you can ↑keep (.) it’s the A↑merican way. (.) government shouldn’t be a (.) ↑heavy haand. (.) it’s what the federal government does to ↑you it should be a ↑helping hand. (.) and tax relief and (.) the proposals I just des↑cribed (.) should be a good helping hand governoor next question is for ↑you and Leo Anderson will ↑ask it (.) Mr. Aanderson hi Leo (.) [you want a (.) d’you want a mike (speaking unintelligibly off mike)] (.) (unintelligible) (.) uuh (.) in ↑one of the laaast debates heeld (.) uh the subject of capital punishment came up (.) and in youe res↑poonse to the question. you seemed overly ↑joooyed. (.) and as a matter of fact proud that Texas lead led the nation (.) in the execution of prisoners (.) uh sir did ↑I misread your respooonse and are you really really proud of the fact that Texas (.) is number one in executions no I’m ↑not proud of that. (.) the death penalty is a very serious business Leo (.) uuh (.) it’s aa (.) it’s an ISsue that good people obviously disa↑gree on. (.) I take my joob seriously (.) and uh (.) if uh (.) if you ↑think I was prooud of it I (.) I think you misread me I do (.) III uh I was ↑sworn to uphoold the laaws of my state (.) during the course of the campaign in nineteen ninety-↑four. I was aaasked do you support the death penalty I said I ↑did. (.) if a (.) if administered fairly and ↑justly. (.) because ↑I believe it saves liives Leo I do (.) if it’s administeredd ↑swiftly. ↑justly. and ↑fairly. (.) it saves lives. (.) one of the ↑things that happens when you’re a governor (.) at least (.) oftentimes you have to make tough de↑cisions. (.) you can’t let public persuasion (.) ↑sway you becaause (.) the job is to enforce the laaw (.) and that’s what I ↑did sir (.) there have been some tough cases come across my desk (.) s some of the hardest moments since I’ve been the governor of the state of ↑Texas (.) is to deal with those cases (.) but my ↑joob is to aask two questions sir (.) is the person guilty of the criime (.) and did the person have ↑full aaccess to the courts of law. (.) and I can tell you looking at you right ↑noow. (.) in all cases (.) those answers (.) were af↑firmative (.) I’m not ↑prooud of any record (.) I’m proud of the fact that violent ↑criime is down in the state of Texas (.) I’m proud of the fact that uh (.) that uh (.) uh (.) that we hold people ac↑countable. (.) but ↑I’m not proud of any record sir (.) I’m not. [(off mike) ok

JL(M): GWB: LA:

GWB:

LA:

735

Appendix JL(M): AG: vice president ↑Goore.] I sup↑port the death penalty. (.) I think that it has to ↑beee (.) administered (.) not ↑only (.) ↑fairly (.) withh attention to (.) things like ↑DNA evidence which I thinkk should be uused in aall capital cases (.) uh (.) but ↑alsoo withh uh very careful attention if uh (.) if for example ↑somebodyy (.) uh (.) confesses to the ↑criime. and somebody is waiting on death ↑roow (.) there has to be alertness to (.) to say ‘wait a minute have we got the wrong ↑guy’. if the wrong ↑guuy is put to death then (.) that’s a double ↑tragedy. (.) uh (.) not onlyy has an innocent personn (.) been ↑executed but the rreal (.) perpetrator of the ↑criiime has not beenn (.) held ac↑↑countable for it and in some cases may uh be still at ↑laarge. (.) uh (.) but I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases do ↑both of you beliieve that the death penalty actually deters crime (.) [↑governor I do] it’s the only reason to be for it (.) I don’t let let me finish [sir I sure] I ↑I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek re↑venge. (.) I don’t think that’s ↑right. (.) I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s ↑liiives. vice president ↑Goore.= =I ↑think it is a deterrence I know that’s a controversial viiiew but I do believe it’s a de↑terrence. next question is for yoou vice president Gore and Thomas ↑Fischer will ↑aask it. (.) Mr. ↑Fischer

JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M):

TF:

A: AG: A: TF: AG:

uh yees (.) myy uh ↑sixth grade claass at St. Claire’s School. (.) wanted to aask of ↑all these promises you guys are making and all the pledges (.) will you keep them when you’re in ooffice (4. collectively laughs) yes (in an assertive tone and with fingers moving downwards at the same time) [(5. collectively laughs) (lifts thumb signalling Ok)] ↑I am a person who keeps promises (.) and you know we’ve heard a LOOTT uh about (.) from the governor about (.) not much being ↑doone. in the last (.) eight years as iff uh (.) uh the promises thatt uh I ↑I made eight years ago have not been kept (.) I ↑THINK the record shows otherwise (.) we have goone from the biggest ↑deficits eight years ago. to the biggest ↑surpluses in history today (.) instead of HIIGH unem↑ployment. (.) we now have the llo (.) the ↑lowest African-American unemployment. the ↑lowest Latino unemployment ever ↑measured. (.) twenty-two million new ↑joobs. (.) very low unemployment (.) ↑naationally. (.) ins↑tead ooff uh (.) ballooning the ↑deebt. and multiplying it four times ↑over. (.) we have seeen (.) the debt aactually begun to be paid down (.) ↑here are some promises that I’ll make to you noow (.) I will ↑balance the budget every yea.r (.) I will pay ↑doown the debt. (.) every year (.) I will give ↑mmiddle-class Americans tax cuts (.) ↑meaningful ones (.) and I will in↑veest. (.) in (.) education (.) health caare (.) pro↑tecting the environment (.) and retirement security (.) we ↑both made promises in this campaign (.) I promise you I will keep miine (.) let me tell you about one of the governor’s

736

Appendix GWB: AG: (laughs) he has ↑promised (.) a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund (.) for ↑young working adults to invest and save on their own but he’s ↑promised seniors (.) that their Social Security benefits will not be ↑cut. (.) and he’s promised the same trillion dollars to ↑them. (.) sooo (.) this is a show me ↑state. (.) reminds me of the liine from the movie ‘Show Me The ↑Money’ (.) ↑which one of those promises (.) will be ↑keep. and which will you ↑break governor.= =governor Bush (to Thomas Fischer) thank you for your question (.) [Iii uh (individually laughs) Iii] (.) there’s an old ↑high school debating trick (.) which is to aanswer something (.) and then attack your opponent at the end (.) now you ↑aasked about promises (.) uuhm (.) ↑you were promised (.) that Medicare would be refoormed (.) and that Social Security would be refoormed. (.) you were ↑ppromised a middle-class tax cut (.) in nineteen ninety-two (.) it didn’t ↑haappen (.) there’s too much bitterness in Washington (.) there’s too much wraangling (.) it’s ↑tiime to have a fresh start (.) one of the reasons I was successful as the governor of Texas is because I didn’t try to be ↑all things to all people (.) when I campaigned in a race (.) a lot of folks didn’t think I could ↑win. (.) including by the way my ↑mother. [(collectively laughs) (laughs) I said I’d do] four th[ings (laughs) ↑tort] reform (.) uuh (.) education reform welfare reform and juvenile justice reform (.) and I woon (.) and I ↑had the will of the people in my state behind me (.) and then I brought folks together to get it ↑done (.) and that’s what we need (.) I think in this election to me that’s what it’s aall about I know listen I’m sure you sixth grade kids are listening and saying these guys will say [↑anything to get elected (smiles at him)] but there’s a ↑REcord (.) and that’s what I hope people look aat (.) and one of my promises is going to be Social Security reform and you ↑beet. (.) we need to take (.) a trillion dollar (.) a trillion dollars out of that (.) two point four trillion dollar sur↑plus. (.) now remember Social Security revenue ex↑ceeeds expenses up until twenty fifteeen (.) people are going to get ↑paaid. (.) but if you’re a younger ↑worker. (.) if you’re ↑younger. (.) you better hope this country thinks ↑differently otherwiise you’re gonna be faced with huge payroll taxes (.) or reduced benefits (.) and you ↑bet we’re gonna take a trillion dollars (.) of (.) your own money and let ↑YOU invest it under safe guidelines. so you get a better rate of re↑tuurn. on the ↑money (.) than the paltry two per cent that the federal ↑government gets for you to↑day that’s one of my promises (.) but ↑it’s gonna require people to bring both Republicans and Democrats together to get it ↑doone (.) that’s what it re↑quiires (.) there was a ↑chaance to get this done. it was a bi[partisan ap governor] (looks at moderator indicating he wants to finish his talk) bipartisan ap↑proach. (.) but ↑it’s been rejected (.) I’m going to bring them together ↑both of yoou uh (.) to both of you o on this subject there are other questions that

JL(M): GWB: A: GWB:

A: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): GWB:

TF: GWB:

JL(M): GWB: JL(M):

737

Appendix also go to this (.) scepticism (.) not necessarily about you but ↑aall people in politics mhm ↑why is that (1) well fi (.) ↑first of all Jim I’d like to (.) I I’d like to respoond to what the governor just ↑said. (laughs) becaause thee (.) the trillion ↑doollars that has been promised to ↑young people. (.) has also been promiised to ↑older people. (.) and you ↑cannot keep both promises (.) if ↑you’re in your mid-forty’s (.) under the ↑governor’s plaan (.) Social Security will be bankrupt by the time you retire if he takes it out of the So Social Security trust fund (.) under ↑my plaaan it will be (.) its ts ↑soolvency will be extended until you’re a ↑hundred. (.) now ↑THAAT is the difference a (.) aand the governor may not want to ↑aanswer that question he may want to call it a high school debating trick (.) but let me tell you this (.) ↑this election is not about (.) debating tricks it is about ↑your future. (.) the ↑reason Social Security he says it gets two per cent (.) you know it’s not a (.) a bank ac↑count. it ↑aals that that just paays. back ↑money. that’s in↑vested. (.) it is ↑also. ↑uused. to give your ↑mothers and ↑fathers the Social Security CHECKS (.) that they ↑live on (.) if you take a trillion dollars [out of that (unintelligible)] Social Security ↑trust fund (.) hhow are the ↑checks going to be how are you going to keep faith with the seniors= =right= =now let me come let me come [directly to your question No uh I think we’re weee’re] (.) we have to go to the closing ↑statements aaand [uh w well could I answer ↑thaat. [sure one rea] ↑one resson people are sceptical is because people don’t aanswer the ↑questions they’ve been aaasked (laughs) (3. almost inaudibly and collectively laughs) the trillion ↑DOOllars comes out of the surplus (.) so that you can invest some of your own money ↑there’s just a difference of opinion ↑I want workers to have their own aaassets (.) it’s ↑who you trust government or peeople. (.) all right now we’re going to go to closing statements great vice president ↑Goore. [you’re first you have ↑two minutes. thank y (.) ↑thank you very much Jiim] and I’ll begin by answering your questions (.) I I (.) your laast question (.) ↑I beLIEEve that a lot of people are ssceptical about people in politics today because we (.) have seeen a ↑tiiime of (.) of great challenge for our country (.) since the assassination of our ↑best leaders in the sixtiies. (.) since the ↑Vietnam Waar. since ↑Watergaate. (.) and because we need ↑campaign finance refoorm. (.) ↑I’d like to tell you something (.) about me (.) ↑Ii keep my wooord (.) I have ↑kept the faith. (.) I I’ve kept the ↑faith with my country (.) I ↑volunteered for the Army I seerved in Vietnam (.) I ↑kept the faith with my faamily (.) Tipper and I have been ↑married for thirty years (.) we have de↑voted ourselves to our children. and now our nearly (.) one and a half year-old grandson (.) I have ↑kept the faith

AG: JL(M): AG: GWB: AG:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG: JL(M): GWB: JL(M): AG: A: GWB:

JL(M): AG: JL(M): AG:

738

Appendix with our country (.) ↑niine tiimes I have raised my hand to take an oath to the Constitution (.) and I have never (.) violated (.) that oath (.) I have ↑not spent the laast quarter century (.) in pursuuit of personal wealth (.) I have ↑spent the laast quarter century (.) fighting (.) for middle-claaass (.) working men and women in the United States of America (.) I be↑lieve very deeply that you have to be willing to stand up and ffight (.) no matter ↑WHAT powerful forces (.) might be on the other sIide (.) if you ↑want somebody who is willing to fight for you. (.) I am ↑asking. for your sup↑port. and your ↑vote. (.) and yes your ↑ccoonfidence. (.) and your ↑willingness to beliieve that we can do the right thing in America (.) and ↑be the better for it (.) we’ve made some PROOgress during the last eight ↑years. (.) we have seen the strongest economy in the history of the United States lower ↑crime rates. for th for ↑eight yeears. (.) in a row (.) highest private home ownership (.) ever (.) but ↑I’ll make you one promise here (.) ↑you ain’t seeen (.) nothing yet. (.) and I will keep that promise governor Bush two minutes= =well ↑Jim I want to thank you and thank the folks here at Waashington University aaand (.) the vice president (.) I appreciate the chance to have a good honest dialogue about our ↑differences of opinion. (.) and (.) uh I think after ↑three debates. (.) the good people of this country understand there is a difference of opinion there is a difference between (.) big federal government (.) and ↑somebody who is coming from outside of Washington who will trust individuals (.) ↑I’ve got an agenda that I want to get done for the country (.) it’s an agenda that says we’re going to re↑form Medicaare. (.) to make sure seniors have got prescription ↑druugs. (.) and to give seniors different ↑ooptions from which they can choose. (.) it’s an a↑GENda that SAYS we’re going to (.) listen to the young voices in Social Security and say we’re going to think ↑differently about making sure we have a system but also fulfil the promise to the ↑seniors. (.) in A↑merica. a promise made will be a promise kept should I be fortunate enough to become your president (.) I want to ↑rebuild the military keeping the peeace (.) I want to make suure the ↑public school system in America fulfils its promise so that (.) no chiild not one chiild (.) is left behiind (.) and after ↑setting PRIoritiies (.) I want to give some of th (.) some of your money baack (.) see ↑I don’t think the surplus is the ↑government’s money. (.) I think it’s the people’s money (.) I don’t think the surplus exists because of the ↑ingenuityy. and ↑haard work of the federal government. (.) I think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American ↑people. (.) and you ought to have some of this ↑surplus so you can saave and dreeam and buuild (.) I look forward to the final weeks of this cam ↑paign. (.) I’m aasking for your vote (.) for those of you ↑for me thanks for your ↑help (.) for those of you who are for my op↑ponent. (.) please only vote once [(3.5 collectively laughs) but for those who have not made up their ↑mind.] I’d like to conclude by this promise should I be fortunate enough to become ↑your president. (.) when I put my hand on the Bible I will swear to not only uphoold the laaws of the ↑land (.) but I will also swear to uphold the ↑hoonour. (.) and the ↑dignity. of the office to which I have been elected (.) so help me God (.) thank you very much a closing piece of business before we ↑goo. (.) the Debate Commission (.) uh wants

JL(M): GWB:

A: GWB:

JL(M):

739

Appendix (.) re↑ACtion too the three kinds of formats uused in the debates this year (.) and you may ↑register (.) an opinion at their web↑site (.) www debates dot org (.) thank you vice president ↑Gooore. (.) governor Bush from St. Louis I’m Jim Lehrer [thank you and good night (shaking hands with Gore) good luck good luck (unintelligible) (shaking hands with Bush ) and to you (collectively applauds) (both candidates approach the moderator to shake hands with him)

GWB: AG: A:

740

Appendix Senatorial Debate, Buffalo, NY. MSNBC Especial Event Aired September 13th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Tim Russert (TR(M)) Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) Rick Lazio (RIL) Bob McCarthy (BMC) Scott Levin (SL) Interviewer (IR) Announcer (AN) Audience (A) TR(M): Good evening and welcome to W↑NED TV public (.) public station studios in Buffalo New York (.) the ↑sceene of our first Senate debate (.) the candidates are here (.) the Republican nomineee (.) congressman Rick Lazio (.) the Democratic nominee (.) first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (.) I’ll be joined tonight with the questioning by Bob McCarthy of the Buffalo ↑neews. (.) and Scott Levin of the GRZ-TV two (.) each candidate will be alloowed ninety seconds to respond to a question (.) the other candidate will have then forty-five seconds though for respoonse (.) by a flip of the coin the first question goes too (.) Mrs. Clinton (.) Mrs. Clinton (.) you’d have no voting record as such (.) people too (.) in order to determine how you will behave as a legislator looked at your principle policy initiative (.) health care (.) I want to ask youu a couple of questions about that (clears throat) in ↑nineteen (.) ninety-three ninety-four (.) you proposed the health care bill that was very controversial in ↑this state (.) the man that you want to replace senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had this to say (.) and I’ll show you on your monitor and I’ll show the audience (.) ‘the administration solution was raationing (.) cut the number of doctors by a quarter (.) specialist by haalf (.) and he went on to say ‘↑teaching hospitals would be at risk (.) the Finance Committee passed a bill in ninety-four to provide financing (.) for the medical schools and the teaching hospitals (.) the Clinton administration rejected the committee bill’ (.) ↑WHY did you propose cutting the number of doctors by twenty-five per cent (.) the number of specialists byy fifty per cent. well ↑Tim let me start by saying that I’m delighted to be here this evening with youu and with Bob and Scott and the audience (.) and I really a↑ppreciate this opportunity (.) to talk about the important issues in this race facing New York and our country (.) you ↑know in ↑NIneteen ninety-three and nineteen ninety-fouur (.) uuh we DID attempt tooo (.) reform our health care system to proviiide universal ↑health care coverage. (.) now as everyone knows that was not successful (.) but we ↑learned a lot and I in particular ↑learned a lot about what we can doo step by step to try to reach the gooal of providing quality affordable ↑health care. (.) and ↑HERE in New York there isn’t any more important part of the health care system than the teaching hoospitals which are (.) really the crown jewels ooff uh the health care system (.) we ↑did propoose a funding stream that would have provided additional ↑fuunds to the hospitals. (.) but we still

HRC: TR(M):

HRC:

741

Appendix haven’t done enough (.) six seven years later (.) uh (.) senator Moynihan was absolutely right to pro↑pooose a piece of legislation (.) that would guarantee that our ↑teaching hospitals will be funded to per↑form the functions that they do (.) which can↑not be perfoorrmed within the market at a profit (.) namely (.) training our doctors and nurses (.) and providing health care for the sickest of the sick (.) and doing the ↑research we all benefit from (.) you know ↑when we made a proposal Tim it was to be sstarting point a basis for argument and compromise within the legislative process (.) but I’ve ↑aalways been committed too (.) ensuring that we haave the specialty care that’s needed and par↑ticularly (.) that wee support our teaching hospitals whenn (.) the ↑fifty-seven teaching hospitals and its twelve medical schools in the state (.) with the Democratic governor and Democratic senator saay (.) the bill would have been devastating to (.) New York health care (.) when you were not a New Yorker (.) would you now ↑chaaange your view. (.) that you are a New Yorker I want to do (.) emphasize that I be↑leeived in teaching hospitals ↑then. (.) I (.) did have a piiece in the legislation as I recall (.) that would have (.) provided funding for the teaching hospitals (.) and I had supported senator ↑Moynihan’s plan which is (.) a PLAAAN that would proviide what’s called aall payers payments for our teaching hospitals that (.) would guaranteee that the places that (.) do the work that all of us rely on for the ↑↑quality of our health care system. (.) would be given the ↑funding that they needed. and Ii supported that in a different form but I am fully committed now Mr. Lazio your response you know a ↑New Yorker would never have made that proposal (.) in ↑New York we say you’ve got to tell it like it is (.) and (.) the way it is is that (.) Mrs. Clinton has haad two opportunities (.) TWO opportunities too (.) make policy one on health care and one on education (0.5) and on ↑health care (.) it was an (.) unmitigated disaaster (.) ↑even the people in her oown party (.) run away from it (.) and ↑↑WOULD still (.) would have been a disaster for New York (.) it would have led to health care raationing (.) would have destroyed teaching hospitals (.) would have led to ↑aall types of unintended consequences perhaps (.) but the ↑bottom line iis (.) it would have been terrible for New York. (.) but it ↑↑didn’t stoop just there. (.) Mrs. Clinton ↑aalso stood silently by when the president exercised his ↑only line-on veto. (.) to hurt Medicare going to New York (.) and that’s the true picture (.) in this case my next question is for Mr. Laazio (.) you too cast a critical vote in your career as a congressman (.) there is a physician anti-congressman named Mr. Norwood (.) who joined together with Democrat John Dingle (.) and presented legislation (.) which would al↑looow (.) people (.) patients (.) to sue their HMOs (.) if they (.) were not treated (.) properly (.) there are ↑thirty-one congressmen in the state of New York (.) only ↑three (.) opposed that legislation (.) one of the three was Rick Lazio (.) why. ↑first of all (.) there is two different versions oof the patients’ bill of rights that I supported (.) and let me tell you as ↑somebody who haas (.) had a health care crisis in ↑his family. my dad was a stroke victim (.) aand for many monthhs uuh (.) he was in the hoospital (.) ↑I think I’m pretty sensitive to the neeed to have access to specialists and quality care. (.) and that’s whyy the ↑two versions that I supported (.) hhad all those things (.) the ↑difference iiis (.) WE don’t want to drive more people into onto the roles of the uninsured (.) ↑YES ↑SURE a ↑vote for that bill might have (.) pleased some editors and some editorial boards (.) but it wasn’t the right thing to do (.) ↑aask

TR(M):

HRC:

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M):

RIL:

742

Appendix the ↑↑real health care experts right now. (.) and ↑they’ll tell you (.) that was baad legislation (.) we need to help ↑DEAL with the issue of the uninsured (.) because every (.) single (.) day (.) ↑three thousand moore Americans fall onto the roles of the uninsured (.) under this administration (.) I support a strong (.) patients’ bill of rights (.) I support a right (.) to suue (.) but I don’t support (.) unlimited damages and unlimited lawsuits. (.) ↑I want to make sure that patients get the care that they need (.) in a tiimely fashion (.) I don’t want to ↑force people. to have to languish in court when twenty-eight New York congressmen vote one way (.) and you vote (.) another way (.) it sugggested you did that because of you’re moore loyal to the (.) leadership of the Republican party in the House (.) than you are to the c constituents of New York ↑I don’t think anybody can rationally say that Tim (.) in fact if you look at my record is a record of inde↑pendence in the House. (.) uh whether it’s standing up oon the environmentt oor funding for the arts (.) uh on a ↑whole range of of other issues (.) uuh (.) ↑I’ve (.) been able to stake my claim and have a record that’s re↑flective of New York (.) you ↑KNOow. (.) I was ↑also the person who (.) sponsored legislation to help caancer patients (.) uh ↑also the person that helped rule out (.) Medicare forward with legislation (.) I’ve been a doer I haven’t been paassive (.) I gotten things done (.) and ↑yet sometimes that means you have to stand on principle (.) ↑EEVen when it’s not politically poopular (.) but (.) in ↑this case we did protect patients (.) ↑TWO different ways (.) the end (.) result iis (.) it’s that you’ve got to get the job done you’ve got to make proogress (.) and I’m proud of my record Mrs. Clinton your response ↑well (.) you know (.) Timm (.) listening to the congressman’s responsee uuh uuh reminds me of a word I’ve heard a lot of this past year ‘chutzpah’. (.) he stands here and tells us that he’s a moderate mainstream independent member of ↑Congress. (.) well in ↑fact he was aa (.) deputy whip to Newt Gingrich he voted to shut the ↑government dooown. he voted to cut two hundred and seventy ↑bbillion dollars from Medicare he ↑voted for the biggest education cuts in our history (.) TIme and TIme again when he’s had a choice to make par↑ticularly at the ↑critical turning point when our country was really (.) on the liiine with Newt Gingrich’s (.) Coontract With America (.) ↑HE stoood with the Republican leadership and Newt Gingrich (.) once a↑gain. he’s staanding on the Republican leadership ↑↑not just against the rest of the con↑gressional delegation. but ↑twoo hundred health groups including doctors and nurses the next questions is from Bob McCarthy of Buffalo News good evening Mrs. Clinton and welcome to Buffalo for tonight’s debate (.) I’d like to (.) start out tonight talking aboutt uh something we’vve heard you talk about a lot over the past few months and that’s the upstate e↑coonomy. (.) and in your dis↑cussions about stimulating the upstate economy you often cite the neeeed to reduce the state’s high local tax burden (.) at the same time some of your prominent Democratic allies and executive state positions such as Buffalo mayor Massiallo (.) point to a number of group ↑caaauses of those high taxes (.) binding our bread ration stemming from the Taylor law (.) multiple bitty (.) requirements from the ↑Whitch law. (.) or failure to enact public employee residency requirements (.) granted these are Albany issues (.) but Massiallo on top (.) licence leader cited them as chief ↑causes behind your concern over high local taxes (.) do you agree with the mayor on these ↑points and you uuse

TR(M):

RIL:

TR(M): HRC:

TR(M): BMC:

743

Appendix will you ↑use your labour age as a senator and a party leader to chaange all these matters (.) DESPITE your white backing from the states’ public employee unions well ↑Bob I’m a (.) very (.) strong (.) supporter of theeese chaanges that are needed too stimulate the upstate economy par↑ticularly here in western New York and in Buffalo. (.) and ↑many of those changes can only take place at the state and local ↑level. (.) that has to be left to local officials and I would certainly work with them to remove ↑any barriers that exist. (.) in addition to sttate and local taxes being too hiiigh (.) our u↑tility costs (.) are too high. our transpor↑tation system is in aaadequate (.) so we ↑do have to confront these obstacles (.) but at the same time ↑we neeed targeted economic help as well (.) you know the Buffalo ↑neews. said the other ↑day anyone who thinks thatt upstate doesn’t need targeted economicc help is orbiting another ↑planet (.) I agree with that (.) because what ↑I’ve laid forth in myy economic plan for upstate is a way to uuse tax credits to stimulate business to expaaand the high-tech industry that is coming to the (.) Buffalo by-belt and other places in upstate (.) and to be sure that ↑↑WE haven’t placed the work force training and joob development capacity to ↑fill the jobs that are going to be there in the future (.) so ↑↑I don’t think you can pull out anyone particular issue and say thaat is the prooblem (.) there’s a whoole raange of issues that we have to address and that’s what I’ve tried to do ↑in (.) the plan that I’ve put forth that I have talked about foor (.) ↑many many months as I’ve travelled around and is based oon what ↑Ii’m toold by people in business and labour in the public sector academia (.) folks that I meet and talk with everywhere could you ↑urge scrutiny of some of these things that I mentioned despite thee backing of public employeees well ↑↑I think everybody (.) inn upstate ↑wants to do what will work (.) to turn the economy around (.) and (.) I’ve said forth my ideas I’m open to any other from the mayor or anyone else and (.) what ↑I want everyone to know is that ↑Ii will use my thirty years of experience my last (.) eight years in the White House (.) to brring to bear (.) ↑↑not just the (.) votes that I cast (.) or the (.) speeches I make on the floor of the ↑Senate. (.) I’ll be using ↑every (.) uh thing at my dispoosal to try to be an effective paartner to help create joobs and turn the economy around upstate Mr. Lazio your response well (.) I ↑have to go back too Mrs. Clinton’s laast remark (.) because uh (.) it has to redefine the word ‘chutzpah’ (.) Mrs. Clinton (.) you (.) of aaall people (0.5) shouldn’t try to make guilt by association. (1.) ↑Newt Gingrich isn’t running in this race (.) I’m running in this race let’s talk about my record (.) IN ↑THIS CAse (.) let me tell you one of the most important issues that New York right now (.) is addressing (.) what (.) Daniel Patrick Moynihan caalls a ‘short fall’ a ‘deficit’ (.) ↑every year we sent ↑FIFteeen billion dollars a year more to Washington than we get back and is as ↑worst point ↑ever under this adminis↑tration. (.) ↑let’s lower taaxes (.) let’s deregulate energy (.) let’s make sure we we address the (.) ↑critical issues of transportation like expaanding uuh route seventeen to I eighty six (.) and ↑let’s build on ↑my work in Congress already to get the job done Boob a question for congressman Lazio= yes welcome to you also Mr. Lazioo (clears throat) you ↑recently unveiled here in Buffalo your plan for economic development in upstate New York based mostly on tax cuts (.) but in ↑some of your recent statements to the Buffalo news oon the upstate

HRC:

BMC: HRC:

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M): BMC:

744

Appendix economy uh you seem to downplay the magnitude of the problem ↑emphasizing instead thee (.) improving overall job creation numbers (.) and upstate economy just turning around in renewed optimism (.) are ↑you that satisfied with the condition of the upstate economy that you have no specific proposals targeted toward here (.) are you ssatisfied with statistics showing upstate to be now (.) thirty ↑eighth (.) in the nation in job creation (.) is the problem ↑sooolved. as you’re concerned (.) in ad↑dition. (.) are you simply towing the line of your alliies in the Pataki administration who make (.) similar claims let me say first of all (.) ↑I do believe that the upstate economy has turned the corner (.) ↑I think that my opponent would like people to believe that upstate economy is a vaast economic wasteland (.) it is not (.) as a matter of fact it’s been great progress (.) and one of the reasons whyy ↑this region and ↑area I think elected should yearn by the new kind of executives it’s because ↑hee ran on a platform of creating a better climate for joobs and for lower taxes (.) ↑THAT’s what this upstate economy neeeds (.) it ↑also needs new partnerships alliances something I’ve been doing down in Long Island cre↑ating technology incubators (.) ↑building on (.) our uh our aassets in the upstate uh economy which is (.) our national laabs (.) like in Rome (.) or our colleges and universities (.) ↑making sure that we build good partnerships and a first-cas class educational system (.) but it ↑doesn’t happen because of a lot of talk it happpens because you’ve got the ability to get the job done (.) ↑do I think there’s more work to be done (.) absolutely (.) do I ↑think we’re on the right path (.) aabsolutely (.) ↑do I think I’d be a good partner for George Pataki and for people that have actually made a difference in turning some of these reasons around (.) you bet ya (.) and ↑I reject the idea that I think it’s a ↑↑terrible image for the rest of the country and the rest of the state that somehow (.) the upstate economy is on its need and it’s not (.) it does need more help (.) we need to address the family farms and you know (.) ↑one way we can do that is to get New York into the Dairy Comp. Paact (.) something that (.) my opponent’s husband’s administration bitterly opposes (.) [Mr. how] do you address theee the fact that forty-five thousand people have ↑left here in the county in the past ten years ↑one of the things you can do is to begin to address the issue of taxation (.) and I think we’ve started to do that (.) uh George Pataki started to do ↑that. we need to do that more at the ffederal level (.) we ↑need to make sure that people don’t pay taxes on top of income (.) that they’ve already paid ↑taxes on (.) we need to make sure that businesses understaand (.) that they’re in↑centivized to invest in themselves (.) and we need to focus and as I do in my ↑economic plan my tax plan Boob and I reference you to to that (.) that we ↑do focus on creating (.) ↑more jooobs (.) through internet access and also (.) by building partnerships with the state of New York (.) a thousand dollar tax credit for ↑every joob. created out of twenty jobs for new businesses (.) and those are targeted to the upstate economy Mrs. Clinton your response well a↑gain. I just have too point out that the Buffalo neews which has done a (.) very good series of articles a↑bout the problems of the upstate economy (.) referreed too ↑my opponent aass uh orbiting another planet. because ↑I have now spent countless hours (.) talking to parents who tell me with tears in their eeyes that their children had

RIL:

TR(M): BMC: RIL:

TR(M): HRC:

745

Appendix to ↑leave upstate ↑leave their hometowns because there weren’t jobs for them (.) ↑I want to help address that (.) not ignore it not put happy talk on it (.) and I have a plan to ↑do that (.) but I ↑ALso am committed to making sure we continue the naational prosperity which (.) my op↑ponent’s plan. like George ↑Bush’s. I think would blow apart (.) because they’re laarge risky tax scheemes (.) combined with their ideas about privatising Social Security would ↑uuse up all the surplus aand pre↑vent us from making the investments we should next question is from Scott Levin of WGRZ-TV two in Buffalo= =thank you Tim (.) good evening Mrs. Clinton (.) ↑HERE in Buffalo as I’m sure you are aware (.) union teachers are illegally oon strike at this moment (.) the ↑school booard is strapped for funds (.) and both parents and students are caught right in the middle (.) Mrs. Clinton (.) the teachers unions have endorsed you. (.) does ↑that mean that you support their current job ↑aaction. (.) even though it’s ↑illegal. under New York’s Taylor laaw well I (.) am ↑hoping that they’re (.) as we SPEEAK (.) negotiating and will be (.) back in the classroom full-time without any other problems (.) the children de↑seerve that and we need to get education ↑started this year (.) uuh I’mm very much (.) committed to doing everything I can to ↑MOove the education agenda forward uuh (.) aand I ↑do support the idea that the teachers should be (.) working and their action (.) against the Taylor law is illegal and I do nott uh believe that that’s appropriate (.) but the ↑↑laarger issues is what are going to do about education. (.) and ↑I have put forward an education plan that is basedd oon my years of working to reform and improve education (.) and I have very specific proposals about lowering classroom siize (.) getting more qualified teachers into the claassroom starting a national teacher corps to recruit young people if they’re (.) willing to teach they (.) would get a scholarship as well as some mid-career people that I would like to see (.) perhaps goo into teaching with some incentives (.) ↑I support the hundred thousand ↑teachers from the (.) ffederal government which myy (.) opponent has oppoosed (.) which ↑I don’t understaand. because we ↑need those teachers. in New York. (.) I also support modernizing our schools with the cons↑truction boonds (.) that are a bipartisan piece of legislation that would be ↑such a help to us because (.) ↑WE could deal with our repair and construction (.) challenges without having to raise property taxes (.) so from staandards that I support to accountability measures that I have looong supported I have a ↑record in education that ↑I believe I could take to the Senate and put to good use Mr. Lazio ↑I agree that Mrs. Clinton has got a record on education and is a disaaster (.) ↑she was the responsible for educational changes in Arkansaas and you know what happened (0.5) ↑spending went ↑up. (0.5) ↑taxes went ↑up. (.) student performance (.) went dooown. (.) as a matter of fact it was soo bad that was at the bottom of aaall states (.) now (.) ↑I don’t think that we need that (.) little rock record in the big aaple (.) we ↑need (.) teacher testing we need to help teachers to pass that test (.) we need to set high standards for our children (.) because we want the best for them (.) we ↑can’t defend the status quo as my op↑ponent does (.) but we’ve got to embrace new ideas (.) ↑HIGH standards (.) and expect the most (.) from our families our students our teachers and our teachers Scott’s specific question is should the teachers be alloowed even though it’s against the

TR(M): SC:

HRC:

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M):

746

Appendix law no uh uh (.) ↑I am oppoosed to teachers striking wheere it’s against the law in this case it has been deeemed il↑legal. (.) theey need to get back into the classroom and we should put as our first priority (.) teaching our children Mr. Lazio welcome to Buffalo as well= =thanks Scott (.) good to be back ↑every single day of the week thousands of Americans are crossing the border into Niagara Falls Canada to spend millions of their dollars (.) at the local casino (.) this resulted in an ↑economic boom for the Canadian economy (.) and an economic bust for Niagara Falls in New York (.) ↑furthermore (.) just TWO days agoo (.) a↑nother (.) billion dollar casino project (.) that’s ‘b’ with billion (.) it was approoved on the Canadian siide and this will bring over twelve thousand jobs to the Canadian economy (.) Mr. Lazio (.) why not have a casino built on ↑this side of the border to help (.) our economy well frankly (.) ↑I don’t belieeve that it’s a good idea for us too be building casinoos (.) I think there are ↑some already here. (.) uuh I would allow the state of New York to make these decisions (.) but in the ↑end ↑↑I’m not a big faan of of gambling (.) I belieeve (.) and I guess that’s the way I grew up and the values I grew up with that (.) people work hard and live by the rules (.) uuh there is no quick and easy gaame (.) I understand it’s important important issue economic development in the area but ↑I would not focus oon (.) the quick hit the cheap hit in gambling I’d focus on the kind of joobs where our children can afford to stay here (.) raise a family buy their own home and ↑those are my ca↑SIno jobs. (.) I’m talking about the kind of joobs in in advanced technology (.) the kind of joobs that ↑I have focus on as a member of Congress down in Long Island (.) aas the people that ↑I represent (.) and the partnerships that ↑I have built (.) to help track students so when they go out of out of state (.) they a ↑summer job and then a ↑full-time job when they come back (.) to develop partnerships with our leading universities like Stony Brook or Saint Joohnes with our leading businesses (.) ↑those are the kind of alliences that aactually work ↑this isn’t just about taalk which is (.) what my op↑ponent dooes (.) this is about actually getting the job doone (.) expecting high levels of excellence (.) and being able to (.) work well with others (1.) well Scott (.) ↑I knoow hoow hard the people in Niagara are working to try to turn their economy around and (.) uh if they believe that a casino would help attract more tourists back to what ↑really was the tourism capital of America [for Mhm] so many decades I I would support that (.) I ↑leave that too their judgment but (.) there ↑HAAS to bee more of a strategy about the upstate economy (.) that’s what I’ve been talking about (.) you know I believe that (.) we caaan’t bring the jobs of the new economy to upstate (.) and if we ↑doo what is necessary (.) tax credits to help jobs be created (.) the kind of broad band deployment so that we get more infrastructure for our computer industry (.) uh creating the ↑regional skiills. alliances commitment to work force development (.) as ↑↑well as paying attention to agriculture and tourism ↑I think we can turn it around two both the candidates Mrs. Clinton first (.) the issue of trust and character has been raised repeatedly in this campaign (.) Mrs. Clinton I want to star with you (.) in ↑January of ninety-eight you were in the Today Show (.) and talked about what had

RIL:

SL: RIL: SL:

RIL:

HRC:

SL: HRC:

TR(M):

747

Appendix occurred to the White House (.) I want to play that for you and our viewers and our voters (.) and give you a chance to respond (clears throat) VIDEO CLIP STARTS IR: so theese charges came as big bigger shock to you as ↑anyone HRC: and to my ↑husband (.) I mean you know he woke me up one morning and he said you’re not going to beliieve this IR: so when people say there is a lot of ssmooke here (.) [your message HRC: there is] IR: were there ↑smoke HRC: there (.) isn’t (.) any fire IR: if ↑aaan American president (.) have an adulterous lid as on in the White House in liiight to cover it up (.) ↑should the American people ask for his resignation HRC: Well they should certainly be concerned about it IR: should they ask for his resig↑nation. HRC: well I think the (.) ↑if all that were proven truuee I think that that would be a serious of↑fence (.) that is not going to be proven true regrettably it was proven true (.) do ↑you regret misleading the American people and secondly (.) at that in that same interview you said that those who were criticising the president were part of a vaast (.) right-wing conspiracy (.) amongst those eventually criticising the president were (.) John Lieberman (.) would you now apoologize for braanding the people as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy well you knoww uuh (.) Tim that was aa (.) a very painful time (.) forr ↑mee. for my family and for our ↑country. (.) uh it (.) it’s something that (.) I regret deeply that anyone had to go through (.) aand (.) I wish thatt uh we all could uuh (.) look at it from the perspective of history but can’t yet (.) we’re going to have to wait untill thoose uh books are written (.) but from (.) ↑my perspective you know I’m very hopeful that uhm (.) we can go forward in a (.) united way (.) that certainly is what I’ve tried to do (.) and (.) I try too (.) ↑be as (.) forthcoming as I ↑could (.) given the circumstances that I faced (.) uuhm obviously I didn’t mislead anyone I didn’t know the truth uh aand there’s (.) a great deal of pain associated with that (.) uh my husband has certainly acknowledged that andd made it clear that he did mislead (.) the country as well as his family (.) but ↑you mentioned trust (.) and (.) you know (.) I’m standing here running for the Senate (.) I didn’t cast the votes that Newt Gingrich aasked me to cast (.) I’ve been a steady consistent voice on behaalf of children and families and what I’ve worked for for thirty ↑years. and I’m going to try to put that (.) experience to work for the people of New York and trying to unite people however isn’t appropriate to braand (.) anyone who criticised the president as part of a vaast right-wing conspiracy well I ↑certainly didn’t mean to (.) extend (.) that to anyone who might criticiise the president es↑pecially after (.) the truth came outt (.) uh you know I have the greatest respect for senator Lieberman I’ve known him for thirty years ↑he and Ii (.) share a lot of the same concerns about media violence for example (.) ↑there have been a lot of books written aboutt uh this whoole matter and people are free to (.) believe whatever they choose (.) uh but I think there is strong oppo↑sition (.) ↑in the country (.) uh too

HRC:

TR(M):

HRC:

TR(M): HRC:

748

Appendix the vision that (.) I share with (.) many (.) about what we’d like to ↑do foor our nation (.) you know ↑WE just have a very (.) different set of i↑deas about (.) everything from the economy and education too (.) you know strengthening families and providing health care uuh (.) and that’s what I thinkk we should be focusing on on thoose kind of issue differences in your response Mr. Lazio would you also address your fund raising letter of July of two thousand where you said (.) the first ↑lady (.) embarrased our country I ↑staand by this fund raising letter I stand by the ↑statements. (.) and I think thatt uh frankly (.) what’s ↑so troubling heere uuh (.) with respect to what my op↑ponent just said. is ↑SOmehow (.) it only matters what you saay when you get caught (.) and ↑CHAracter and TRUST is about well more than ↑thaat. (.) and blaming others (.) everytiime (.) you have responsi↑bility (.) unfor unfortunately has become a pattern I think from my opponent (.) aand uh (.) it’s something that I I reject (.) aand I believe that New Yorkers reject (.) we can do well better. Mr. Lazio your credibility was broought into question earlier in this race when this television commercial raaan throughout the state TV COMMERCIAL STARTS AN: Lazio and Moynihan (.) made a difference (.) they’re from New York they’re fighting for New York (.) TELL Lazio and Moyniham keep fighting for us senator Moyniham wrote to you a letter and said (.) you’d been never photographed together (.) that this was misleading and was quote (.) ‘soft money fakery’ (.) he asked you to coontact the Republican Leadership Committe who ↑paaid for that aad (.) the two members of the advising board George Pataki and Al D’Amato (.) and your campaign said we don’t know how to reach them (0.5) well let me say first of all (.) ↑that AAAD did not come out of my campaign (.) I’m taking full responsibility for everything that my campaign does whether it’s the ↑letter that you referenced or any commercial (.) the ↑↑truth of the matter iis though (.) that I ↑was the aauthor and (.) was the prime mover in the House behind the Work and Citizens’ bill that this commercial was aall about (.) the fact ↑IIIS is it did help disabled Americans go back to work and keep their health care benefits (.) that it ↑was an accomplishment that I ↑am a doer that I ↑did get the job done that ↑it was (.) sun into law (.) and that’s the truth of the matter= =but why give the impression you’re walking down the hall with senator Moynihan when that was in fact (.) ‘dummy it’ footage listen I I (.) I I ↑I don’t stand for that I reject that but that’s not my commercial we would never have cre↑ated that commercial or ↑aired that commercial why not caaall (.) George Pataki and Al D’Amato and say (.) take it off n it it was (.) taken off at your request it was not (.) it it was taken off and they could run their horses as a matter of fact well. (.) I’ve been trying to run a campaign based on the issues not insults and I I think that we’ve just seen a clear example of how ↑difficult that is you know (.) there are such big ↑differences between me and my opponent (.) we differ on a patients’ bill of rights (.) hee is on the siiide of the Republican Leadership and the HMOos I’m on the side of the American Medical Association and the Nurses’ Association we DIFfer on (.) the prescription drug benefit from Medicare he siides with the drug companies (.) ↑I

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M):

TR(M):

RIL:

TR(M): RIL: TR(M): RIL: TR(M): RIL: HRC:

749

Appendix want to make sure we have a drug benefit that covers everybody (.) at an affordable coost (.) ↑HEE has been on (.) different siides of (.) issues that are critical to the future of New York like a hundred thousand po↑lice officers a hundred thousand teachers and the (.) school modernisation bill (.) but I guess that (.) ↑talking about the issues is something that (.) he’s not very comfortable about because he has these votes and this record ↑↑not just (.) back when you were (.) deputy whip of Newt Gingrich but in the laast year or two (.) but ↑I think the people in New York want to knoow ↑not who can write nasty fund-raising letters or clever commercials that (.) you know (.) senator Moynihan says they’re fakery but (.) where we staand on the ↑issues. next question for Mrs. Clinton from Bob McCarthy Mrs. Clinton you will recall your recent appearance at the labourers’ hall in Roochester uuh (.) where you propose at least six new programs or investments on existing programs that would require new spending (.) ↑how are you going to paay for these new prograaams and investments (.) yes (.) there projections and surpluses (.) but are you ↑ssure enough of those projections to cover all of your proposals and ↑didn’t many of these kinds of prograams caused a deficit situation to begin with well ↑BOB (.) if you ↑look on where we are on the surplus now I’m very prooud that we have a surplus instead of a deficit after (.) you know seven and a half years of good economic leadership in our country (.) and ↑I would like to make sure that we (.) pay down the national debt. that we secure Social Security we add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare (.) we pro↑viiide (.) affordable tax cuts like (.) ↑making it poossible for people to deduct the cost college tuition (.) uh ↑giving families that are caring for relatives with disabilities or all timers a long term care tax credit (.) ↑AAND make investments in education (.) environment and health care (.) I have been (.) very careful to cost out myy plan because (.) I believe in a balanced budget (.) I’m a new Democrat who supports a balanced budget (.) and I ↑also know that you’re ↑right (.) those surpluses are projected they’re not in hand they’re not in the bank (.) ↑that’s why I reject the laarge tax cut that independent experts have said is more than a trillion dollars that my opponent has pro↑posed (.) a↑loong with the (.) privatisation idea of Social Security (.) in fact the Fiscal Policy Institutte uh said to↑day that (.) if you add up everything that my opponent has proposed he’s (.) ↑spent the entire surplus (.) ↑I don’t think that’s a very prudent course for our ↑country. (.) I re↑ject that. (.) so I would want to be sure that we would carefully pay down the debt and taking care of our primary responsibilities be↑foore I funded anything else Mr. Lazio let me say (.) it’s beyoond shameless I guess (.) you know I guess the tactic off uh naming a bunch of things and knowing I don’t have enough to answer them it’s it’s positively Clintonesque (.) but ↑first of all (.) let me try to address a few things (.) ↑↑Newt Gingrich is not running (.) if you have a record I suppose you wouldn’t need to use Newt Gingrich ↑I’m running (.) I have a stroong New York record (.) number one (.) number two (.) I have a ↑tax plan that is focused on New York you may be op↑posed to it because you believe that people should be taaxed on income (.) that they’ve already been ↑taaaxed on. (.) maybe you be↑lieve that Social Security recipients making as little as thirty-four thousand dollars are rich (.) maybe you believe thaat (.) in ↑Arkansaas (.) but in New York (.) let me tell you (.) people making thirtyfour thousand dollars a year are working because they haaave to work not becaause (.)

TR(M): BMC:

HRC:

TR(M): RIL:

750

Appendix they want to work (.) and ↑laaast well you should be the ↑laast one talking about spending all the surplus because the National Tax Buriers’ Union has said you have com↑↑pletely wiped out all the surplus with all the things that Bob just mentioned question for Mr. Lazio from Scott Levin Mr. Lazio just a ↑few miiles from the studio it’s is Love Canal an area of course made ↑infamous for toxic dumping (.) ↑last week there was a brand new USA Today investigation and it revealed (.) ↑twenty five more sites (.) in the state of New York (.) and ↑thirteen right here in western New York that may have exposed government workers (.) ↑UNknowingly to dangerous levels of radiation and toxic materials (.) Mr. Lazio (.) what do you propose t (.) should be done for these workers ↑aand (.) for the communities around here (.) where toxic sites (.) are still (.) a danger ↑first of all I (.) as a strong environmentalist and somebody who has receiived the paast endorsement I’ve (.) as a matter of fact I got their ↑highest ranking of the League of Conservation Workers the umbrella group or environmental groups (.) as somebody who has written legislation to address (.) acid rain in the in the Adirondacks and the clean-up of Long Island Sound not just ↑↑talked about it (.) but actually got the bill paassed (.) uh as somebody who cares about the watershed and as somebody who cares about this issue ↑I believe it’s incredibly important for us to re-authoriize Superfund legislation (.) to make sure that we have the ↑resources that are necessary to clean up some of these sites (.) now the administration (.) they’ve been dragging your feet (.) they don’t believe or want to agree to a ↑Superfund bill they don’t want to agree to a ↑Brownfield bill (.) and my op↑ponent. (.) well. (.) she’s been missing an action (.) on the environment record is just (.) thin air Mrs. Clinton (0.5) well I’m very proud to have the endorsement of the Sierra Club both here in New York and ↑naationally. (.) as well as the endorsement of Bobby Kennedy Junior (.) and I be↑lieve that (.) I’ve re↑CEIved those endorsements both becaause I have worked on behalf of children’s health and the environment (.) I’ve stood for clean aair and worked in (.) the administration to deal with problems from (.) asthma to trying to figure out the (.) possible environmental causes and correlations with breast cancer (.) but my op↑ponent on the other haand (.) stood against (.) funding the EPAaa uh to the extent that was needed to do the job that’s required (.) was ↑in the forefront of so-called regulatory refooorm which would have (.) gutted our environmental bills (.) AAND (.) you know he talks about how (.) ↑hee shouldn’t be associated with Newt Gingrich the faact is there was a critical moment when ↑HEe was with Newt Gingrich and ↑I believe that was against the interest of New York (0.5) we have asked (.) members of the audience and voters all across the state to (.) eemail us questions (.) the first question is from Frank Masaya (.) who is the president of the NAAZP Buffalo chaplet here (.) ‘do you sup↑port or op↑pose strengthening existing public school systems rather than going to publicly funded school ↑vouchers (.) for private ↑schoools’. (.) and keep from (.) ↑aaads. to that uh (.) for Mrs. Clinton (.) ‘you had the opportunity to send your daughter to a very good school (.) should other ↑faamilies (.) have the same opportunity (.) who don’t have the same means’ (.) Mrs. Clin[ton well a] a (.) are ↑they here in the audience ↑Tim= =yes they are=

TR(M): SL:

RIL:

TR(M): HRC:

TR(M):

HRC: TR(M):

751

Appendix HRC: FM: HRC: I’d love to just (.) have them (.) raise their ↑hand (.) so I can see who’s asking the question (.) [↑thank you (raises his hand)] uuh (0.5) I have a plan for education that ↑buuilds oon (.) what needs to be done in the public school system (.) you know (.) ↑I’ve now visited schools throughout the state and some of them are uh (.) among the finestt (.) in the ↑world that you could find anywhere. (.) but others are ↑overcrowded. under-↑resourced. (.) don’t ↑have (.) uh the ↑certified. ↑qualified. teaching staff that they ↑need. (.) and we’re ↑not doing the joob that’s required. (.) to give our children the kind of education that the twenty-first century demaands (.) that’s why I’ve put ↑forth a plan (.) that (.) I in the Senate would do to try to ↑get the teachers that we neeed (.) to recruit them train them and to (.) pro↑vide the funds that are required for ↑moodernizing our schools (.) as well as setting ↑high. standards making them safe from ↑violence. (.) ↑DOing what is NEEded to (.) ↑give our children the kind of (.) uh moormon sup↑port of atmosphere that every young child ↑neeeds. (.) now I ↑do not support ↑vouchers (.) and the ↑reason I don’t is because (.) ↑I don’t think we can afford to siphon dollars away from our ↑under funded. public schools (.) you know ↑when we ↑goo into a public school that ↑I do all the time that’s built for a thoousand (.) as it wasn’t (.) in ↑Queens not so long ago where there were (.) ↑twice as many children (.) that’s work for the ↑public school system to be done (.) I was at the (.) Black Rock Academy here at ↑Buffalo a few months ago (.) a WONderful old school but it’s soo oold they ↑can’t figure out how to wire for com↑puters so (.) ↑those children don’t have access to what’s needed (.) ↑I’d like us to ↑DO what we know where ssmaller ↑class siize. (.) discipline (.) qualified teachers (.) high standards (.) ↑↑let’s do what we know works and ↑not give up on public education Mr. Lazio sure ↑I have (.) ↑I have built a strong education plan to address the needs of New York (.) ↑I said that we should begin (.) to test teachers (.) we should also (.) try to attract and maintain the very best (.) that we should ↑OFfer scholarships to ↑teachers and to to ↑students who finished in the top per cent of their class (.) with the ↑neeed to go into science and maath (.) I I’ve said we should help provide more scholarships uuuh aaa foor our young people (.) because I know how difficult it is (.) to afford (.) to (.) pay to go to to college (.) but I ↑↑also believe it’s it’s immoral to ask a child to go to a school where they caan’t learn or where they’re not safe (.) you ↑know (.) vice president Al Gore recently said ‘if ↑↑I was in one of those violent school districts and ↑I was a poor parent (.) ↑I want to haave (.) some help ↑too. (.) I want a voucher too’ (.) so (.) ↑↑AL GORE believes it (.) and (.) according to the Hunter College poll that just came out (.) ↑EIGHty per cent (.) of African (.) American and Hispanic ↑paarents feel that they need it. (.) ↑WHY should we trap poor kids in failing schools (.) simply becaauuse (.) the teachers’ unions won’t agree with it. would ↑you take (.) money fromm public schools in order to do that [(unintelligible) ↑ab]solutely not (.) as a matter of fact in ↑my education plan (.) I create a ↑new funding stream for (.) what I call ‘oppor↑tunity scholarships’ (.) I reserve the ↑vaast amount of money for the public school (.) ↑I’m a public school ↑graduate (.) ↑my children girls are going to (.) second and third grade in New York public schools (.) our ↑first responsibility is the public school system (.) but we need to address the one over

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M): RIL:

752

Appendix ↑one hundred failing schools in New York the next question is from Patricia Crawley (shot of a woman in the audience) who’s ↑here tonight. (.) as a western New Yorker she’s concerned that (.) ↑TAX dollars (.) are currently being (.) dis↑tributed to ↑New York city (.) disproportionately (.) and was (.) western New York (.) to receive an ↑equitable and fair amount of money (0.5) how do you respond.= well the ↑↑real problem is really not that New York city gets (.) more than it deseerves (.) it’s that New York doesn’t get enough as a ↑state (.) when wee send ↑fifteeen BIllion dollars a year more to Waashington in ↑↑our tax dollars than we (.) than we get ↑back. something is desperately wrong (.) and I’ll ↑tell you what’s desperately wrong. it is uh (.) under this administration it’s as worst point EVer (.) and ↑what has my opponent done about ↑it. (.) absolutely nothing. (.) when it came to (.) funding veterans’ ↑health. (.) the formula ↑changed so that money shifted from New York to ↑down south (.) ↑I had a step in to stop it. (.) when the president ↑exercised. (.) the ↑loone time he exercised his ↑veto. (.) to hurt New York Medicare and Medicare ↑program (.) ↑what did my opponent ↑do. (.) she did absolutely nothing. (.) ↑I’VE been here for New York (.) I believe we should be here to make sure that New Yorkers’ spirit’s here (.) but we should be↑GIN by making sure that we send ↑↑FFEWER dollars to Washington (.) and keep ↑↑MOre of our tax dollars ↑↑here (.) in our own back↑yard. (.) to build ↑stronger families ↑more modern business and better jobs= people from western New York believe congressman that if you’re froomm Long Island or you’re from New York city you’re going to for↑get about Buffalo and western New York after you’re elected see I ↑have been up here about six or seven tiimes (.) they are going to see me so much over the next six years (.) they’ll probably get sick of me (.) uh ↑let me tell you (.) ↑I am a New Yorker (.) I’m fiercely loyal to my state (.) my FRIends and my family are aaall here (.) they’ve been here aall their lives (.) and ↑↑THIS state iis (.) one that I consider my home (.) ↑that’s why I fight so ↑hard for New York (.) that’s why I fight for health care for New ↑York. (.) our fair share on ↑tax dollars (.) our fair share on ↑transportation dollars. (.) I’ve been on the ↑forefront. (.) and ↑↑I’m not afraid to say I’ve been a partner of George Pataki the ↑governor. (.) I ↑think it’s a GOOD thing to have a partnership with the state government (.) to make sure that together we can deliver (.) and protect our state= Mrs. Clinton (.) Pat probably says (.) western New York seems to be for↑gootten sot sometimes and New York ↑city (.) gets more than its fair share (.) to ↑her wisdom ↑well. (.) I wish (.) whatt uh (.) the congressman just said about his record were the ↑case. (.) because (0.5) New York ↑doesn’t get the fair share (.) that fifteen billion dollars that goes uh (.) to Washingtonn creates a balance of ↑paaymentt uh problem (.) and ↑yet (.) it ↑haas improved it has worked under president Bush it’s made ↑sooome improvement but it has a looong way to go (.) and it’s one of the (.) ↑KEY issues that senator Moynihan has worked on (.) ↑I’ve come forward some specific proposals (.) ↑↑now that we have a surplus (.) ↑I believe (.) that we could offer a win win solution in the Coongress (.) to change the Medicaid formula (.) I talked about this first in ↑Albany and I (.) see the mayor is ↑here and (.) ↑THEY knoow we don’t get ↑nearly enough to reimburse us for what we spend in Medicare (.) we only get fifty (.) per cent off uh the costt that we should get (.) well (.) what (.) ↑we should be doing (.) instead

TR(M):

RIL:

TR(M):

RIL:

TR(M): HRC:

753

Appendix of getting these fifteen cents on a dollar is getting moore (.) and the ↑way to do that (.) is to provide a ↑chooice (.) ↑given the surplus. (.) so that a state like New York could haaave (.) a bbetter deal with↑out trying to (.) run the political God letting taking money away from s state like (.) Texas just to name one that gets sixty ↑two cents (.) ↑↑I think there’s a ↑loot we could do cre↑atively. (.) that will begin to chaange these funding formulas (.) but ↑when it comes to western New York I haave an aabsolute commitment (.) to turning the economy aroound using aall my contacts any (.) way that I caaan (.) and I will be there (.) day and in day out to get it done I have an e-mail question regardingg (.) Jonathan Pollard (.) the American (.) naval officer who (.) betraayed the country (.) was sentenced to life (.) for ↑espionaage and treason (.) the secretary of defence (.) the secretary of state (.) the director of the FBI and the head of the CIA have aall said (.) ↑do not pardon him (.) ↑do not grant him clemency (.) do ↑you support clemency for Mr. Pollard (.) and ↑if soo why would you even consider it. well ↑Tim (.) what Mr. Pollard diid was a terrible crime against the United States uh uh (.) it waas uh a great breach of trust and naational security and uh ↑hee (.) uh plead guilty waas convicted and is serving a very looong prison term (.) uh when I looked ↑into this (.) I think thatt uh everyone who (.) has an opinion about it a↑greees that what he did was absolutely wrong (.) the ↑↑QUEStion for me is aroound (.) the due process issues concerning uh the waay that he was sentenced (.) uh it it is something thatt I have questions about and I believe that fair-minded ↑people should ask ↑similar questions (.) uuh there was secret evidence put ↑iin before the court that has never been revealed only people with uh hiigh security clearance can ↑SEE it (.) and ↑TWOO men who in my respect (.) uh very much have reached. (.) different o↑pinions based on reviewing that ma↑terial. (.) on the one hand senator Lieberman believes stroongly that (.) noo ↑action uh with respect to clemency uuh (.) sshould be graanted (.) and senator Schumer who’s also reviewed the material believes that it ↑should (.) uuh NEIther my opponent nor I are in a position too (.) have ↑↑seen that material so far as I ↑know. (.) so we like any other American are (.) in a position of (.) NOT ↑↑knowing (.) how to form an o↑pinion about this (.) but ↑Ii have trouble by the due process issues that uh (.) I thinkk uh that uh (.) I think that (.) we should ask (.) uh questions about and get further infor↑↑mation about (.) so that we can make our own judgements. their right to aask (.) is there ↑any other spyy you would (.) consider pardoning (.) or is it just a play for (.) Jewish boats in the New [York I don’t] ↑I don’t know (.) any other spyy who was sentenced (.) in the way that (.) Mr. Pollard ↑was. (.) if there ↑is such a person I would ↑bee fully concerned about (.) the proocess (.) I’m ↑not (.) ↑PREjudging what any outcome should be (.) because I feel very ↑stroongly. he committed a serious crime against our country (.) uh and I’m very conscious of the (.) important national security issues that are raaisedd ↑by what he did. (.) but again. I will just ↑say that (.) it does bother me as an American and as a ↑lawyer that (.) there was ↑evidence pre↑sented that (.) ↑no one has ↑seeen. and (.) ↑I think we should ask questions about that Mr. Lazio ↑I just want to go back if I can to the last question because (.) agaain. it goes back to this issue oof credibility (.) Mrs. Clinton talks about changing the formula of Medicare (.) they had (.) ↑↑eight years to change the formula of Medicare. (.) and the ↑ONE

TR(M):

HRC:

TR(M): HRC:

TR(M): RIL:

754

Appendix opportunity to help the Medicare formula in New York (.) the president vetoed it (.) and my opponent stood byy (.) you ↑know (.) whether it’s (.) the FLA↑N. Puerto Rican terrorists or Jonathan Pollard. (.) American national security should neever be jeopardiized or undermiined or ↑even ↑↑questioned (.) because of politics (.) the LAaast (.) uh in fact (.) De↑cember of nineteen eighty-eight president Clinton made a statement (.) he saaid that he was going to (.) com↑pletely revieew on Jonathan Pollard by January eleventh of nineteen ninety-niiine (.) he’d issued an explanation of whether or not clemency would be granted (.) and of course the president is the ↑only one who could issue clemency (.) well ↑↑six HUndred daaays have gone by (.) and still no answer (.) ↑I think the president ↑oows it to us to (.) ↑make a decision (.) ↑make it public (.) and let’s get ↑oon with things do ↑you believe Mr. Pollard (.) should be pardoned well (.) I believe a↑gaaain that. (.) I have not had access (.) to the kind of claassified of information that’s necessary (.) the ↑only person who’s in a position to make that decision and the ↑only person who’s got the au↑↑THOority to actually issue a pardon (.) is the president him↑self. (1.) a question from Mark Hamister who’s here in the audience (.) much of America’s watching this race (.) can ↑both of you (.) set an example to the country (.) and renoounce the use of soft money aads (.) for the rest of this campaign (.) Mr. Lazio aabsolutely. (.) as ↑somebody who has (.) twice voted for McCain-Feingold (.) who’s a stroong believer in campaign finance (.) who’s got the support on the ↑leader of the campaign finance (.) uh movement John McCain (.) uh ↑I think it’s it’s ↑my responsibility to try and and leead on this effort as America looks to New ↑York (.) THIS is an opportunity for uus to (.) be able to say (.) ↑WE don’t have to rely on soft money (.) and ↑my campaaign has not aired ↑one commercial nor raised ↑one dollar of soft money (.) my op↑↑ponent. has raaised soft money by the bucketloads (.) and I guess they they’ve learnt how to (.) raise soft moneey uuh out of many years (.) ↑let me say this now (.) ↑we have an opportunity to do something important ↑here to↑night. (.) I have right heere a pledge (.) that I sent over to my opponent (.) it’s a baan on soft money pledge (.) ↑I’m willing to say we’ll neither ↑raaise nor spend a diime of soft money and ask ↑AAAll OUTside groups to stay away (.) if my op↑ponent. is willing to do the same (.) and you know ↑what. (.) Mrs. Clinton. (.) if you agree to do this (.) we’ll be making a huuge statement about character and trust to the rest of the country (.) and ↑↑let’s get it done nooow an today (.) let’s make sure we’ve been ↑aall the press tuned and actually (.) ↑nail it kneel down (.) that we could be proud of no soft money (.) and no outside groups advertising in the on New York television.= =yeah (.) if (.) my ↑my opponent is uh willing to agree to the same (.) I’m willing to (.) not raise a ↑dime of soft money. (.) not (.) spend a ↑dime of soft money. (.) and calling ↑aall outside groups to to stay away from this race and not spend any money in furtherance in my campaign [(unintelligible [and you’ll make phone calls to governor Pataki if any bitty or make any phone calls] or make any phone calls= =Mrs. Clinton well Tim you know (.) back in May I maadde uh (.) exactly that offer (.) I said let’s forego soft money but let’s ↑↑aalso be sure we don’t have these independent expenditures like (.) the one we justt talked about concerning senator Moynihan and the

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M):

RIL:

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M): RIL: TR(M): HRC:

755

Appendix fake aad (.) and ↑I said you know (.) if you would ↑do this (.) I would certainly a↑bide by it (.) if you ↑WIIILL. (.) get siigned a↑greements from all your ↑friends who say they’re raising (.) ↑thirty-two million ↑dollars. (.) and will ↑not be running (.) so-called independent aads. (.) will ↑not be doing push polling (.) will ↑not be doing mass ↑mailings. that are filled with these outrageouss. (.) uh personal at↑tacks. (.) I think we can have an a↑↑greement (.) I’d like to see those ↑siigned letters from ↑aaall those different groups that uh (.) you have counted on to flood the state you know I was in Tonawanda not so long ago and (.) I was at a senior center at lunch and an (.) elderly woman (.) you know ↑reached out to shake my hand and she said ‘I’m so glad to see you in person because I’ve been getting the ↑MEAnest ↑↑maail about you’. =(laughs)= = WELL. (.) I ↑KNOW that everybody (somewhat laughing) in New York is getting flooded with mean mail (.) ↑I think if we can get signed agreements from aall of your allies uh when you wouldn’t ask uh (.) the one group to stop but if (.) you’ll get those signed agreements then you know we can make a ↑deal (.) but I ↑↑also can we have a ↑deal Mr. Lazio= we I said (.) I I I (.) I would want to get it done to↑day.= would you get those signed agreements= =ye I’d be ↑happy to (.) but I want you to bee the (.) I want to get it done right now (.) I don’t want any ↑more wiggle room. (.) don’t want any ↑more evasion. (.) the ↑↑truth is Tim (.) is that Mrs. Clinton has been airing ↑MIllions of ↑DOllas of soft money ↑↑AAADS (looking at him with eyes wide open and laughing) it’s the ↑HEIGHT of hy↑↑pooocrisy (.) to talk about soft ↑money. (.) when ↑shee’s been raising sooft money by the bucketloads out of ↑Hollywood. (.) and spending aall that money on negative advertising (.) ↑HEIGHT of hy↑poocrisy [now. (.) ↑let’s just] get this deal done right ↑noow. (gets paper out of jacket) (unintelligible) Mrs. Clinton [and then respond right ↑here] here it is (.) let’s ↑sign it. (.) it’s a it’s a New York Freedom from Soft Money Pact (.) ↑I signed it. (.) we can (.) we can both sit down to↑gether. (.) we can ↑aall get all the media in here. (.) we will (.) make sure it’s an ↑arrant clad deal. (.) and (.) and I am (.) I’m happy to to abide by ↑ANYthing that we all agree on (.) but ↑let’s get it done now let’s lock it ↑any more wiggle room (looking at her daringly) Mrs. Clinton do you want to respond well (.) yes I certainly ↑doo uuh you know (laughing) (almost inaudible laughter) I I (.) I ad↑mire that. that was a woonderful (.) performance and [I I and you why don’t you ↑↑sign ↑it] [and you did it very well I’m not asking you to ad]mire it. I’m asking you to ↑sign it. well (.) I would be ↑haappy to when you give ↑me [the siigned letters (moving hands up and down) well (.) right here right here] [when ↑you give me right here (.) sign it right now (approaches Clinton’s lectern and offers her the paper)]=

A: HRC:

TR(M): RIL: TR(M): RIL:

HRC: RIL:

HRC: RIL: TR(M): RIL:

TR(M): HRC: A: HRC: RIL: HRC: RIL: HRC: RIL: HRC: RIL:

756

Appendix HRC: RIL: A: RIL: =we well ↑we’ll shake on (.) we’ll [shake on this now (she offers her hand they shake but receives the paper again with Lazio pointing to it with his finger) no (.) no] I want your signature cause I think everybody wants to see= =(almost inaudible and individual laughter)= =↑YOUU’re siigning something you said you were for (.) ↑I’m forrr. (.) ↑I haven’t done it. (.) ↑you’ve been violating it. (.) ↑why don’t you stand up and do something do something important for America (.) while America is looking at New York (.) ↑why don’t you show some leadership because it goes to trust and character= and and this new radio ↑ad from the Republican party using soft money is not part of your campaaign. (with hand spread out) wh ↑what are you talking about here. (looking at her with hands and arms up ) now let’s let’s put things [in perspective we we] are we’re ↑out of tiiime. (.) [we have to goo WELL (.) SIX SIX] ↑SIX seven ↑eight mi[llion I’d (.)] [dol we] lards that you’ve been ↑spending. [I’ll we [our (.)] we have to allow (.) we have you ss (.) I (.) uh (.)] to allow tiime for closing statements one of the most interesting questions was from Larry Necklor who said (.) if youu’re on (.) who wants to be a millionaire who’d beat at the lifeline (shot of a man in the audience) [(collective laughter) (laughs) (laughs) (laughs) if you can answer in ten seconds] Mrs. Clinton I give it to you ↑YOU Tim= =[(bursts into laughter) (bursts into laughter)] Mr. ↑Lazioo.= =↑my wife oh (laughs) now we have our closing statements from our candidates (.) by a flip of the coin Mrs. Clinton goes first well I want to thankk uuh (.) everyone who (.) put oon thiss uh hour (.) and I look ↑FORward too (.) de↑bating these issues and talking about them because that’s what I’ve tried to run as a campaign based on the issues and the ↑rreal factss of (.) what’s at stake in this election (.) y you ↑know I’ve travelled all over the state and (.) ↑I just hope that (.) New ↑Yorkers will decide that’s more important what I’m foor than where I’m from (.) ↑I will fight very haard with specific ideas about (.) how to provide (.) quality affordable health care (.) ↑moderniize our schools (.) ↑create good jobs in every corner of the state in↑CLUding and especially upstate (.) and get our fair share from

HRC: RIL: TR(M): HRC: RIL: HRC: RIL: TR(M): RIL: HRC: TR(M): HRC: TR(M): HRC: TR(M):

A: HRC: TR(M): RIL: TR(M): HRC: A: TR(M): RIL: TR(M): HRC:

757

Appendix Washington (.) I’ll also fight to maintain our national prosperity by (.) ↑paying down the national debt (.) and ↑cutting the taxes that (.) middle class people neeed to be cut (.) I’ll ↑also work too (.) secure Social Security and aaad a prescription drug benefit to Medicare (.) I be↑leeive that (.) we need to get the (.) guuns out of the hands of children and criminals (.) protect our environment (.) ↑aand preserve a woman’s right to ↑chooose. (.) ↑I will use the thirty yeears of ↑my experience uh (.) to go to work for the people of New York (.) but look. (.) I ↑knoow thaat (.) there may be ↑some who think that (.) the most important issue is who’s lived here for longest (.) that’s the test (.) and if ↑that’s the test (.) I can’t pass that test (.) but ↑if you ↑want someone (.) who will ↑get up everydaay (.) and be on ↑youur siide (.) and fight for better schools health care and joobs (.) I CAAN pass that test (.) and I would be (.) hoonoured (.) to seerve as a senator (.) on behalf of the people of New York thank you Mrs. Clinton (.) now closing statement from Mr. Lazio thank you Tim (.) at the ↑HEaart of this campaign are ↑twoo critical issues (.) character and trust (.) the’ve come up aall night (.) ↑now (.) the ↑↑MEAsure of someone’s character and trust is ↑not what you ↑saaay. (.) is ↑what you actually do. (.) ↑let me point at three things that I’ve actually gotten done in Congress (0.5) first (.) I wrote and paaassed sweeping housing legislation (.) that’s helped the ↑eelderly. (.) native Americans (.) the ↑hoomeless the dis↑abled (.) furled elderly (.) and ↑new parents get access to quality housing (.) ↑SEcond I’ve been an aadvocate for caancer patients in the house (.) I wrote and paassed the (.) Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment act (.) that proviides (.) low income ↑women with ↑quality care to caare for the first time (.) and THIRD I’ve been the ↑chaaampion for the disabled (.) I wrote and paassed the (.) Work and Citizen Im↑provement act (.) that’s his↑toric legislation that allows the disabled Americans to go back to work (.) and ↑keep their health care (.) and they got ↑siigned into laaw. (.) noow (.) ↑↑YOU’ve got to decide in this campaign how to define character and trust (.) my op↑ponent haas. (0.5) talked and talked (.) but ↑she’s done nothing for New York (.) I’vve delivered for New York (.) and as an oold Yankee manager Casey Stengel used to used to say (.) ‘you can check it out’ (0.5) soo (.) I ↑look forward to your vote in November (.) and I thank you for being with me here tonight Mr. Lazio we thank you very much (.) we thank ↑both our candidates for a very (.) spirited and substant discussion (.) we have about (.) thirty seconds left and (.) ↑I have a question which I think might be interesting ↑THIS Sunday (.) the Buffalo [Bills versus the New York Cubs (bursts into laughter) (bursts into laughter) (collective laughter) the BUF]Falo Bills versus the New York judge Mrs. Clinton (.) ↑who are you for well (.) I’m foorr (.) the (.) the three New York teams all of whom had undefeated ↑seeasons. not baad (.) not bad (.) but ↑whooo is the only team that plaays in New York state (laughs) well that’s true (.) it ↑is the Bills as you’re never tired of reminding (burst into laughter) Mr. Lazio judge your [Bills all aa] all aa Buffalo native would say that (.) I’m with my friends=

TR(M): RIL:

TR(M):

HRC: RIL: A: TR(M): HRC: TR(M): RIL: HRC: TR(M): RIL:

758

Appendix TR(M): RIL: TR(M): A: TR(M): A: =who are your friends= (laughs) I love all three [teams you’re stru]ggling Mr. Lazio (laughs) thank you very much (collective laughter)] from God’s country Buffalo New York (.) we thank our candidates (.) [thank our panelists (.) thank our audience (.) thank you (collective applause)]

759

Appendix Senatorial Debate, Richmond, VA. WTVR-TV Especial Event Aired September 24th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Douglas Wilder (DW(M)) Charles Robb (CR) George Allen (GA) Robert Holsworth (RH) Larry Sabato (LS) Audience (A) Ray Collins (RC) Anonymous Audience Member 1 (AAM1) Anonymous Audience Member 2 (AAM2) Anonymous Audience Member 3 (AAM3) Anonymous Audience Member 4 (AAM4) Anonymous Audience Member 5 (AAM5) DW(M): Good ↑evening (.) we are very pleased tooo welcome you tooo this de↑bate betweeen former governors Chuck Robb aand George Aallen (.) gentlemen good evening to youu= [good evening good evening] we’re very ↑fortunate (.) agaain too host a debate here at Virginia Commonwealth University as doctor Turney (.) has already (.) welcome you (.) and we have as our paanelists (.) award-winning panelists (.) political ↑analyst doctor Holsworth (.) as well as doctor (.) Larry Sabatoo (.) in addition we’re joined by Ray Collins who is the (.) CBS-WTVR ↑aanchor (.) who will also be asking qu questions of the candidates (.) I ↑want to give you some bit of the (.) ground ruules (.) di↑VIded into four parts (.) there’s been a cooin flip (.) which has decided that the order of appearance will be governor Roobb starting first (.) that will be met with the questions being proposed by the panelists (.) whoo would then have a rebuttal fromm (.) the other candidate whom never gets a second question (.) that’s round one (.) round ↑twoo the questions will be coming from the public (.) and they will be propounded by Ray Collins as I’ve indicated (.) ANd ↑thoose questions will be aasked with a rebuttal likewise following (.) round ↑threee (.) is the time when the candidates get to each other (.) and they will haave three questions to ask of each other and oobviously the rebuttals (.) round ↑four if we can get to it (.) will allow additional questions that’ll be asked by the panelist if we CAN’T get to that because of ti time constraints (.) we will move im↑mediately (.) to the closing statements of both of the candidates (.) it has been determined as I said as a result of the coin flip (.) that (.) governor governor Roobb will give the first opening statement (.) gentlemen good luck to you both (.) governor Roobb the floor is yours thank you very much Doug and I thankk (.) everyone heere ↑and at home uh (.) for giving up on hours of the O↑limpics (.) to focus on an important context right here in Virginia (.) for ↑THOose who are’nt familiar with ↑my record (.) I’d like you to knoow (.) where I staand on several ↑key issues (.) I sort uh I support America’s

CR: GA: DW(M):

CR:

760

Appendix world ↑leadership. (.) and stroong mili↑tary. (.) and what to say of Social Se↑curity. and aadd a perscription drug benefit to (.) ↑Medicare (.) I favour ↑tougher sentences for violent criimes. and I support the death ↑penalty (.) I support responsible gun safety ↑measures. (.) I’ve stood up repeatedly for ↑civil rights. ↑equal rights. and ↑human rights (.) I’ve fought for a cleaner en↑vironment. (.) I am unequivocally pro-↑choice. (.) I support (.) targeted affordable tax ↑credits. (.) and I have one of the most fiscally responsible ↑voting records. in the entire Congress (.) even ↑more (.) important however (.) ↑I don’t beliieve anything that government dooes at any level (.) is more important than the education of our children (.) that’s why as governor I worked so haard to in↑crease funding for kindergarten through college even during recession (.) and that’s why as a U.S. senator education is still so important to me (.) I’m working aactively for (.) safer gun free ↑schoools smaller class ↑sizes ↑better classroom technology higher standards greater accountability (.) and more financial help for college (.) my opponent has a very different (.) vieew of the federal role in education (.) he’s caalled the federal government is ‘skunking our schools’ (.) he said the federal government (.) roole in education is absolutely null (.) I disagree and I look forward to debating these issues with my (.) opponent this evening governor Allen= governor Wiilder thank you (.) and thank you all for tuning in tonight (.) a ↑few years ago ladies and gentlemen you gave me the high honour of serving you as governor of Virginia (.) tonight I ask you for the opportunity to let me go to work again (.) for you (.) ↑this time though in the United States Senate (.) as ↑governor (.) I kept my promises to you (.) and with YOUR sup↑poort (.) working across party liines (.) we increased spending on public schools by two ↑billion dollars a record amount (.) we re↑duced class sizes and we set ↑hiigh standards (.) raising for teachers and for students (.) we abolished pa↑role and took gun-toting criminals off our streets (.) we created ↑new joobs and opportunity reformed welfare and reduced the tax burden on working faamilies (.) as ↑your senator I’ll work for a thousand dollar per chiild (.) education opportunity tax ↑credit (.) and a ↑hhundred and sixtythousand (.) new teachers in our schools (.) also annul (.) all-at attack (.) on the violent (.) illegal ↑drug trade that threatens our children (.) a ↑lock box to protect Social Security (.) rebuilding our ↑arm forces and providing tax relief (.) so that you (.) and your families can keep more of what you earn (.) tonight you’ll hear a different view from my op↑ponent. he’s been in Washington for a loong time (.) raising taxes (.) and supporting Bill Clinton (.) as ↑your senator I’ll be an energetic new voice (.) for you the people and working for you (.) and representing our shared Virginia values in Washington thank you (.) gentlemen (.) the ↑first question will be propounded by doctor Holsworth senator Roobb (.) ↑let’s talk about the tax cut proposal that governor Allen just mentioned (.) HE wants to proviide an education tax credit (.) with the maximum of ↑two thousand dollars per family (.) for any education-related goods and services that they purchase (.) you opposed this proposal (.) ↑what is wrong with giving families in Virginia (.) many of them are watching this evening (.) a substaantial tax credit for ↑education-related expenses

DW(M): GA:

DW(M): RH:

761

Appendix CR: Mr. Holsworth the ↑difficultyy iis (.) what else you could do with that money (.) and whether it makes sense to target (.) what (.) in effect is (.) three hundred ↑billion (.) dollars (.) out of three hundred and forty-fiive billion dollars (.) of a propoosed plan for education solely to a tax cut (.) uh my ↑owwn view is that we could (.) uuse that particular (.) amount faar more ef↑fectively (.) uh if we were to proviide (.) uh (.) some two point twoo uh (.) ↑million (.) neeww (.) ↑teachers (.) uuh (.) I’m sorry that I’m (.) uh i i if we could fiind a a a way to (.) proviide a additional support for edu↑cational system (.) and NOT be in a position where we’re asking (.) the ↑taxpayers to fund (.) a (.) disproportionate system (.) that simply (.) is not responsive to their ↑↑neeeds governor Allen you have a rebuttal well (.) thank you for the questionn (.) it’s th the usual answer I’ve heard from my opponent since we firstt uh (.) pro↑posed this back in the ↑spring. (.) and that’s what it comes ↑doown to. (.) this beauty of trust (.) I trust ↑parents (.) parents ought to be empowered and that’s what this idea is a↑bout (.) the thousand dollar per child education opportunity ↑taax credit (.) a ↑parent (.) can make a de↑cision. (.) to purchase his child a com↑puter. (.) or educational sooftware (.) or encyclopaaedias (.) or reference materials (.) or maybe one of their children (.) haass uh the need for (.) additional tutoring (.) say for higher levels of science or Mathematics (.) now my op↑ponent I don’t know what his kind of looted answer was to that (.) but it’s (.) a question as to whether (.) ↑who do you trust (.) and ↑I have a (.) our our our proposal (.) on champion schools does provide ↑four billion doollars (.) for new teachers (.) a hundred and sixty new teach (.) uh sixty (.) a hundred and sixty thousand new teachers (.) in early reading initiative to help youngsters (.) in kindergarten and first grade who are having difficulty reading helping them. (.) ↑early oon (.) don’t wait until they’re in fourth or fifth grade it’s something that builds upon what we’ve done in Virginia (.) as well as new schools (.) but this is what this issue comes ↑down to. (.) I trust ↑↑parents. (.) they know their children’s ↑names. (.) I see my daughter ↑Tyler out here. (.) Susan and Ii (.) and parents aall across Virginia (.) we’ll make the right decisions for their children yes we need to invest more in schools (.) but why not alloow (.) parents (.) to make those decisions to improve their children’s opportunities to learn doctor ↑Sabato you have thee (.) next question sir= I ↑doo (.) aaand this question is for Mr. Allen (.) good evening Mr. Allen (.) I’m ↑asking this question in honour of uh (.) one of governor Wilder’s great a↑chievements as governor the one gun a month (.) laaaw in Virginia (.) and of course you’ve been veery anti-gun controol in your entire political car↑reer (.) ↑your television aaads deriiide Mr. Robb (.) for his alleged ↑flip-flaaps (.) ↑which you call ‘Roobb speak’ (.)= =mhum= but ↑you recently executed a maassive flip-flap on the aassult weapon’s baan (.) which you strooongly opposed for ↑years. (.) and noow (.) suddenly (.) embrace (.) is ↑that an example of (.) ‘Allen speak’ (3.5 almost inaudible individual laughter) well Larry I’m glad you asked the question in such a beniign way.= =[(2. bursts into loud collective laughter)

DW(M): GA:

DW(M): LS:

CR: LS:

A: GA: A:

762

Appendix LS: A: GA: (laughs) (.) but you know me]= =[(9.5 collective applause) but in] ↑FAAct. (.) I’m glad you asked the question the way you ↑diid. (.) talking about the one gun a month laaw (.) governor Wilder got that law ↑throough (.) I was not (.) I wasn’t in the legislator at the ↑time. but ↑I wasn’t a big fan of it and governor Wilder ↑knoows it. (.) it has had some benefit though because there was one part of that laaaw (.) which required people to getting drivers’ licenses to prove they were aactually residents of Virginia (.) and ↑I understand when governor Wilder came into ooffice there was gun running and there were a lot of ↑criminals (.) on the streets (.) many of whom were really starlit when governor ↑Roobb (.) was (.) ↑governor (.) when he doubled the parole ↑gun rate and governor Wilder had a commission about the (.) the big increase in ↑criime. (.) I’ve ↑aalways said that what we ought to do is enforced the laaws that are in the books (.) and as ↑governor. I made no effort to repeal the one gun a law (.) the one gun (.) a month ruule (.) what I wanted to do (.) is crackdown on ↑criminals. (.) I don’t want to control the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves what we need to doo (.) is crackdown on ↑criminals (.) and that’s what we did with abolishing parole (.) the sold weapons (.) uh (.) ↑baan. is the law out there (.) and it ought to be (.) en↑foorced. (.) it is it is hharmless (.) but what we ↑need to do is focus on ↑↑criminals (.) and that’s why I’ve proposed project ‘Drug ↑Exiile.’ (.) and get these gun wielding criminals off the streets (.) and ↑when they are convicted (.) they ought to serve longer sentences (.) unlike the way my op↑↑ponent has handled (.) criminals who have been convicted (.) which is to release them after serving a FRAaction of their tiime (.) to ↑go back into our communities and ↑baack into our neighbourhoods and parking garages (.) to murder rape or maim our fellow (.) uh (.) law abiding citizens governor Robb= wow. (.) [uuh (.) (2.5 bursts into laughter accompanied by some individual applause)] I didn’t know we hadd uh (.) that kind of aaa (.) consistent track record (.) let me ↑say first of all (.) that I think you did the right thinng. (.) uh you oppoosed thee (.) one gun a month (.) laaw which (.) had the ef↑FECT (.) of stopping the straw sales and the major gun purchases (.) that were s (.) uh (.) in fact (.) uuh creating a ↑POool of guuns for (.) ↑gangs and other criminal activity up and down the east ↑coast. (.) it was a good i↑dea. (.) we had attempted to take it nat uh nationwide (.) I am a proponent (.) of doing (.) so nationwide so it will have the same ef↑fect (.) uh but with reffect uh (.) with r respect to some of the ↑other (.) uh matters (.) maybe you’d like to take thee uh (.) opportunity this evening (.) the the ↑Breddy (.) uuh (.) bill for instance you’ve called it ‘gimmick’ (.) but that’s kept (.) five hundred and six thoousand felons fugitives (.) and ↑STAAlkers (.) from being able to purchase a haand-gun (.) uh (.) you have resisted other purchases (.) uh (.) o o o other provisions (.) that aare (.) ↑simply common sense gun safety (.) it seems to me that at ↑some point (.) you neeed (.) to make a decision on whether or not you are going to support uh (.) doown the liiine (.) a particular organisation (.) or whether you are going to (.) work with law enforcement agencies (.) and ↑others (.) to tryy (.) to re↑DUce the level of crime in our communities (.) make our hoomes and our our

DW(M): CR: A: CR:

763

Appendix streets (.) and our communities ↑safer doctor Sabato uh now I have a benign question [foor Mr. Robb (laughs)]= =(laughs) (.) good evening Mr. Robb= =good evening= ↑weee uh would both agree I think that (.) Virginia is a conservative state (.) and of course you’re one of the states’ (.) representatives in the United States ↑Senate. (.) yet you ↑baacked president Clinton (.) eighty-↑fiive per cent of the tiime (.) you support gay marriage (.) and at ↑one tiime you supported a bill to raise the gas tax by fifty cents a gallon (.) as a Vir↑↑ginia (.) U.S. senator (.) ↑how can you justify these positions well (.) first let me sug↑gest to you that uuh (.) I have baacked the president when I thought he was ↑right (.) and I’ve opposed the president when I thought he was wrooong. (.) I’ve ↑done the same thing for president Bushh (.) uuh (.) I like to (.) support presidents when I think that they’re making uh deCIsions (.) or proposing programs that are in the best interests of our country (.) and with respect to thee (.) what you referred to as gay ↑marriage. (.) uh I have not been a pro↑ponent of gay ↑marriage. (.) what I ↑haave been is an ↑↑opponent of discrimi↑nation. (.) uuh discrimination (.) no matter how it happens to (.) rear its ugly ↑heead. (.) it’s something that I have (.) uh tried to oppose throughout my entire career (.) in this case (.) ↑IF (.) a particular state wants to approove ↑some sort of domestic partnerships (.) ↑I don’t think the federal government (.) should step in and tell them (.) what they can or cannot ↑doo. (.) if the state makes a decision (.) that someone may wants to make the same type of com↑mitment. and be subject to the ↑saame legal obligations. (.) my point iis (.) it’s a state issue (.) and the state (.) and federal government should not be intruding (.) ↑with respect to the fifty cent yes (.) taaxes you well know that was uh (.) pro↑poosed at a tiime (.) uh after the ↑Gulf war (.) we put young men and women in hharm’s ↑waay (.) uuh to fight (.) because of energy uh (.) security uh (.) as well as a (.) terrible (.) fiscal deficit the United States was ↑running (.) I did ↑not reintroduce the (.) legislation in any subsequentt uh period (.) any any subsequentt uh ↑Congress. (.) and I made it very clear (.) both to governor Allen and others that I wasn’t ↑↑planning to (.) to introduce that (.) that continues to remain an issue (.) only in the mind I’m afraid of governor ↑Allen. governor Allen= =imagine that you introduced (.) you introduced a bill and somebody might think you actually want it to paass (.) [but I think thatt uh theese uh ↑issues uh that you ever uh (laughs) (almost inaudible and individual laughter)] brought up here Larry (.) uh do ↑indicate my opponent has been in Washington for a long time and he’s out of touch (.) with the vaalues and the sentiments (.) of the people here (.) in the Commonwealth of Vir↑ginia (.) and in↑deed uh (.) even though he’s talking about the ↑gun issue (.) what we did in Vir↑ginia (.) when I was in the legislator governor Wilder ↑signed it. (.) cause ↑we wanted to make sure that every (.) gun (.) that anybody wanted to buy there being instant criminal records checked (.) there’s no reason for these waiting periods (.) we can do it in a very fast

DW(M): LS: CR: LS: CR: LS:

CR:

DW(M): GA:

A: GA:

764

Appendix fair and effective way and Virginia is a moodel for the rest of the ↑nation. (.) a↑gain (.) my op↑ponent of course (.) refuses to bring up (.) why he doubled the pa↑role-gun rate (.) while he was governor (.) and we saw that there were problems we had in correction while he was ↑governor (.) now as far as his record is concerned on a variiety of issues on guns he’s standing with president Clinton (.) not allowing local superin↑tendents (.) or local ↑school officials to remove guntoting children (.) and expel them from the ↑schoools (.) on the (.) the same-sex marriages (.) he wants to impose same-sex marriages on Vir↑ginia. (.) and it is nice that he votes like he’s from ↑Vermoont. (.) but we want a senator who shares the values of the people of Vir↑ginia. (.) and I did think that he’d come up (.) ↑still with this argument in favour of same-sex marriages that there’d be a ↑whoole new crop of people (.) upon which whom (.) to burden the marriage ↑penalty tax. [(2.5 collective laughter followed by 11. collective applause) governor Holsworth (.) doctor Hoslworth= =governor Allen] (.) you claaimed that governor Robb has abandoned Virginia values= =right= =when you were in Congress (.) you voted against the Family and Medical ↑Leave aact (.) you ↑also voted against the bill that would have enabled American Service Women (.) to obtain abortions that U.S. medical facilities overseeas (.) even if they paid for the procedures themselves (.) senator Robb voted for these bills (.) could ↑you explain your opposition (.) and why your position was more compatible with (.) ↑Virginia values (.) than that of senator Robb= =sure Virginians like freedom and ↑free enterpriise (.) and I don’t think that the government ought to be unnecessarily burdening (.) uh the private sector uuh (.) with some of those provisions that you were ↑taalking about (.) for someone to actually cares my opponent faints in the midst of the election (.) care about (.) uh (.) married ↑people. (.) uh it seems to me that he wouldn’t want to then impose the marriage ↑penalty tax on married people. (.) that the best that we can do for ↑faamilies is to let them keep more of what they eearn (.) for their own families for their own savings for their children (.) and so it’s ↑my view that the government should ↑not be meddling in those matters (.) now in so far as the taxpayers paying for abortion (.) I’m strongly op↑posed to the taxpayers paying for elective a↑boortions. (.) that’s a stand I took while running for ↑Congress. it’s a stand I took (.) running for ↑governor. (.) and it’s a stand I take running for senator now (.) there are a variety of other uh (.) abortion uh (.) ↑matters. where I think he’s out of touch (.) with the people of Virginia such as opposing the marriage (.) uuh (.) penalty ↑taax (.) ↑also uh (.) opposing (.) parents being in↑voolved when their unwed minor daughter is going through the trauma of a↑bortion. (.) and he is ↑not only for (.) uh (.) funding of abortions at (.) at (.) ↑military bases (.) paid for by the taxpayers (.) he is for funding of abortions for ↑aall nine months of a pregnancy [(.) for any (laughs)] ↑reason or no reason whatsoever (.) and indeeed (.) he’s even in favour (.) and continuues (.) voting with president Clinton to keep (.) a very gruesome procedure called ‘partial-birth abortion’ (.) available in this country (.) that is a pr (.) procedure

A: DW(M): RH: GA: RH:

GA:

CR: GA:

765

Appendix which I think it’s a very gruesome procedure I agree with the American Medical Association (.) that it’s infanticide so ↑I think my position (.) is one of reasonable moderation (.) ↑in touch (.) and consistent with the vieews (.) of the people of Vir↑ginia. governor Roobb= =my goodness there’s no way I could possibly respond to ↑aaaall of the (.) areas (.) in the statement just made by my op↑ponent.= =[(14.5 loud collective signs of approval accompanied by applause) let (.) LET LET ↑LET ME JUST TALK (.) [LET LET ME JUST touch you on the question let mee (.) let mee (.) Chuck (.)] [may I just for (.) ma (.) just for a minute Chuck (.) first of all and I’ll come back to all of these issues (5.)] [may I say (.) may I say with respect to ↑family] to the audience that we are on a ↑rreeal tight schedule in terms of te (.) television (.) and that would take from our tiiime so (.) if if you could ↑only applaause Ii would appreciate it= =may I (.) may I begin [my answer =↑pleease] ↑now.= =yes thank you governor Wilder (.) first of all with respect to family and medical leeave (.) ↑this proviides a real opportunity for families who haave (.) the birth of a new chiiild (.) or a sick parent to be with them (.) uh some twenty mmillion people I think at this point nationally have taken advantage of this (.) the second part has to do with (.) taxpayers paying for abortion overseaas (.) they ↑do not pay a cent (.) the ↑only thing that this would doo (.) would permit (.) ↑thoose who hhappen to be ↑serving (.) our country. (.) whoo would like to use facilities (.) for which theey would paay ↑any medical expenses (.) but they are being pr pro↑↑hibited from doing so (.) because of ↑that kind of narrow thinking (.) that says ↑not only (.) will wee not (.) pay for (.) ab abortion (.) and we’re not even talking about that (.) ↑we won’t even alloow them to come ↑inn (.) to have the same procedure (.) ↑they’re paying for (.) [who pays for the fa↑cilities back in the United States] who pays for the fa↑cility no (.) wait a minute you’re not you’re not debating at this particular you’re [nott uh (.) arguing at this point (laughs)] (almost inaudible collective laughter) but let let let (.) ↑let me just talk about] a couple of other things (.) with with respect (.) to to a marriage penalty as YOU WILL ↑know. (.) I have repeatedly voted to re↑peeal the death penalty but I’ve done so in a way (.) that will actually repeal the ↑marriage penalty (.) and not give a huge tax cut (.) only ↑FORty per cent of which (.) would go to those who are actually affected (.) by the marriage penalty (.) as you knoow. with respect to what you’ve described as ‘partial birth’ (.) I have looong

DW(M): CR: A: CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M):

CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M): CR:

GA: CR: GA: CR: DW(M): A: CR:

766

Appendix been a proponent (.) of banning ↑aaall late-term abortionns (.) but ↑don’t tell doctors hoow to (.) c conduct medical pro↑cedures (.) and with respect to the nine months (.) that’s just plain ↑wrooong. George. [(5.5 collective applause) (unintelligible) Uuh (.) mhm (.) and ↑NOOW (.) we will go to the (.) ↑public’s invoolvement by having questions propounded by Ray Collins (.) and ↑these questions will be questions that have been taken from the debate website continuing with the same theme on abortion senator Robb (.) your own record is pro-↑choice. (.) but ↑why must you still support (.) the partial-birth (.) or late (.) term a↑bortion. ok (.) the (.) that’s (.) I was (.) ↑starting to respond to that I’m delighted to have a little more of an opportunity to respond to the question (.) ↑this is a particular procedure (.) that ↑if (.) we were to legislate against it (.) would noot (.) stoop a ↑single abortion (.) ↑not one (.) if you ↑want to stop late-term abortions (.) and that is permitted under Roe versus Waade (.) and I am a co-↑author of an amendment that would have ↑done that (.) you can baan ↑aaall late-term abortions exCEPT (.) to save the life of the mother or to prevent grievous badly ↑haarm. (.) that’s ↑it (.) the Supreme Court and ↑aall of the other federal courts have thrown out (.) ↑aall of theese (.) so-caalled partial-birth abortion laaws (.) for the same reason (.) they are vaague (.) and they don’t have a health exception for the ↑↑mother (.) the reason why we keep coming back to that issue (.) is ↑not becaause (.) anyone thinks and and and (.) and it’s a relatively small number th that are actually taking place (.) but if you ↑WANT to baaan (.) late-term abortions (.) BAAN late-term a↑bortions (.) don’t try to tell doctors how to conduct a medical pro↑cedure (.) that’s the point that that thatt uh we have tried to make (.) but many who have op↑pooosed the amendment that we have (.) sup↑ported (.) which would have actually banned (.) ↑aaall late-term abortions with the exception that I’ve just mentioned (.) voted a↑↑gainst that procedure (.) because they wanted to keep ↑this aliive (.) and tried to create an ↑issue (.) that would diviide those who want to try to make suure that we preseeerve and protect a woman’s right to chooose governor Allen senator Robb has talked all a↑round that one he says he wants to stop late-term abortions all late-term abortions (.) but how about late-term partial-↑birth abortions (.) if he cared about doctors ladies and gentlemen the American Medical Association has said that this (.) very gruesome procedure (.) is akin to infanticide or the killing of an infant (.) it ↑is a late-term procedure (.) the bill ↑passes (.) passes ↑year after year (.) up in ↑Waashington (.) but then president Clinton (.) vetoes it year after year after ↑year (.) aand ↑his (.) his ↑vetoo (.) is narrowly sus↑taained. (.) it’s almost overriden (.) but narrowly it is sustained (.) because he has congressional chair leaders like senator ↑↑Roob. (.) who will say ↑↑all these things in the midst of an e↑lection (.) but if you ↑really (.) if you really want to be ↑hoonest with folks (.) and you really want to (.) uh stop late-term a↑bortion. (.) maybe you want to stop ↑aall of them (.) however here’s a chance (.) here’s a chance to do what’s right (.) in America (.) listening to doctors (.) and also (.) for unborn children as well. (.) and ↑I’m going to stand with the people of Virginia (.) and I’m not going to go through all the details of this of this issue and how

A: DW(M):

RC:

CR:

DW(M): GA:

767

Appendix gruesome it is but the people of Virginia (.) and the people across America (.) think that this late-term partial-birth abortion is a very e↑gregious (.) gruesome procedure (.) and it ought to be stopped (.) and the ↑big difference ↑ladies and gentlemen between my opponent and me (.) is not ↑only in this I’m saying ↑just now. (.) if I’m in the U.S. Senate (.) I’m going to vote (.) to end partial-birth abortion (.) in America. [Ray go]vernor Allen (.) ↑you regret the by-outs the lay-offs (.) you may while governor (.) especially when ↑some workers were hired back as consultants (.) often with ↑higher salaries no (.) uuh what we did aass ↑governor (.) when I was governor we wanted to make sure our state government was running more ef↑ficiently (.) and more productively for the people of Vir↑ginia. (.) ↑aand (.) by ↑DOing soo (.) we had more money (.) p (.) in par↑ticular. say for roads for actual road construction (.) and we ↑had (.) creative ideas such as a public private transportation act which is building (.) a rooad under that facility right here at the Pocahontas parkway (.) you’ll see sections on road twenty eight (.) and northen Virginia using that (.) facility (.) and so the ↑point was as to save the taxpayers’ money in overheaded administrative cost (.) and get ↑more of the money into building more ↑rooads. (.) and when I left ↑ooffice (.) the road construction (.) ↑budget (.) for Vir↑ginia (.) was the best that had been in all of Virginia’s ↑history (.) we stopped the rates on the transportation trust ↑fund. (.) ↑aand (.) you’re seeing many projects going forward in Virginia (.) and by not having that overheaded administrative ↑coost (.) there ↑still are nine thousand five hundred (.) uh (.) emplo↑yees uh (.) in Vet act to↑day. (.) but there’s more roads being ↑built. (.) now this is contrary to the (.) way Virginia was when my op↑ponent (.) left office (.) as ↑governor. (.) and there was a ↑crisis (.) his opponent who promised no to left ↑taaxes (.) came into office (.) declare there was a crisis (.) and had to raise taxes in Virginia because of the mismanagement (.) uh (.) by my opponent while he was governor (.) as a ↑U.S. senator I’m going to work to provide leadership (.) for rail to ↑Dallas (.) for full funding for the Woodrow Wilson bridge (.) and ↑also make sure we get our fair share back in federal gas taaxes that we pay to Waashington (.) which will add billions of dollars to our transportation trust fund governor uh once ↑more Ii (.) I (.) don’t know where to begin I’d say ‘target rich environment’ [first let me say with (.) with res↑pect to your (some individual laughter)] comment about ↑not saying these things on the Senate ↑floor. I’ve made speeches repeatedly on the laast question (.) ↑on the Senate floor (.) they’re available for your reading in the Congressional ↑record (.) second with respect to the question oon the ↑laay-off or the encouraged early retirement of so many Vet-on employees (.) as you have read re↑peatedly in a variety of (.) of THIS (.) uh (.) passionate re↑leases (.) for people who are conceerned (.) in↑cluding (.) the joint legislative audit and review commission and ↑others (.) they are very much concerned because it’s very ↑clear. (.) that at this point (.) a nnumber of major transportation projects (.) were ↑↑hhaulted (.) and I’m quoting (.) from thoose (.) who are closest to the

DW(M): RC:

GA:

DW(M): CR: A: CR:

768

Appendix operations (.) that have been delaaayed and a number of costs under overruns were incurred in ↑such a waay (.) that they had to hhire ↑back the people who had been sent or or given early retirement (.) continued to pay their retirement (.) pay them a ↑greater amount to come back as consultants (.) and it’s the most (.) uuuh (.) ↑least (.) cost (.) efficient (.) uh uh (.) manner that I can ↑think of (.) let me just ↑also say with respect (.) to the crisis (.) because (.) aafter you made the statement the other day I caalled the former governor. and hee agreed that (.) ↑each of the administrations had tried to catch up with respect to the funding (.) as faaar as transportation was conceerned (.) ↑he made a decision (.) I (.) ↑FFUlly supported that decision (.) ↑YOU supported the decision (.) we ↑AAll supported the decision (.) to go ↑forward (.) governor Wilder we happened to be at that point his (.) chief eyes and ears and eyes on the commission (.) but the bottom line was (.) we kneew that we had unmet needs in transportation (.) he wanted to get (.) a↑head of the cuurve (.) I agreeed (.) supported him to the hill (1.5) doctor (.) ↑Holsworth we’re going into the questions (.) [the candidates’ questions well (.) we’re ↑going into the tiime now where (.) we’ll (.) let the candidates get to each other= =[(laughs) and the] first question will be (.) fromm uh (.) Chuck Robb I ↑think it iiis (.) uuh (look at papers on his podium) (.) yes uuh (.) th thank you governor Wilder (.) uuh (.) ↑I’m going to start off if if I may with a question we never resoolved last time (.) uh (.) when wee (.) debated at the homestead before the Virginia Barn association I asked you about (.) uh your position on (.) a↑bortion (.) and youur (.) answer managed to confuuuse (.) ↑everyone that was theere (.) uh (.) my question to you is (.) do ↑you beliieve in the ↑unqualified right of a woman (.) to ↑seek an abortion within the ↑first trimester (.) when her health is ↑not in danger (.) and pregnancy is not the result (.) of rape or incest Chuck you love dragging out these these issues in the midst of the campaign this is the third time we’re discussing abortion. (.) just in this one hour debate (.) and you ↑try t to use this uh (.) nd ↑and your Democrats and the Clinton folks against Bob Doole. and John Warner. and Jim Gilmore. and all the ↑↑rest. (.) the re↑ality is as I’ve said in many occasions any any (.) uh (.) restrictions on abortion all of those ought to have (.) uh exceptions for rape (.) incest and al also (unintelligible) lap normality as well as the physical health of the mother (.) now (.) here’s the issues ladies and gentlemen that are AActually going to ariise in the United States Senate (.) not these these uh far-off speculations that my opponent loves to come ↑up with (.) the issues that will a↑riise. (.) number one (.) should parents be invoolved (.) when their unwed minor daughter is going through the trauma of abortion (.) as ↑governor (.) ↑we (.) put throuugh a true parental notification bill (.) my opponent (.) has voted a↑gainst that. (.) ↑he thinks that you’ve got to be able to notify aunts and uncles up in Las Vegas orr (.) older brothers in frat houses that’s not parental notification (.) another ↑issue. (.) which I op↑pose (.) is (.) taxpayer funding of a↑bortion. that has been discussed at length already (.) the ↑other issue that will come up is partial-birth a↑bortion. (.) and that is an ↑issue. that will come up year

DW(M): RH: DW(M): LS: DW(M): CR:

GA:

769

Appendix after ↑year. (.) I will vote. (.) to end (.) partial-birth abortion in this country (.) no matter ↑what statements you might have in the Cog Congressional ↑record. (.) ↑Chuck (.) the reality is that when the voters caalled (.) you vote wroong. (.) and you keep partial-birth abortion (.) aliive. (.) unfortunately. in this country.= =with reference to the question uh (.) propounded byy (.) uh governor Robb as to what ↑your position iis (.) and I think that was the question (.) ↑what is it= =ok= =(collective burst of laughter immediately followed by 9. applause and loud signs of approval)= =well GOvernor and SEnator I’m trying to keep it on the aactual issues that a[riise in the (.) in the U.S. ↑Senate. (loud booing) but ↑let me tell you (.)] ans↑wer that booy= =answer the question I’LL ANSwer happily (.) ↑in the event of the Supreme Court (.) gives the people greater laatitude (.) on this issue (.) of abortion as to at the earlier stages of protect (.) protecting (.) a ↑foetus (.) or an unborn life (.) whatever term you would want to uuse (.) I think that you’d go to medical science and at the stage of development (.) that you have a beating heart (.) measurable brain waaves (.) sensitivity to touch (.) an uterus foam sucking at ↑that stage or ↑that point of development (.) I think that the people in the States ↑listening and talking with doctors and physicians and experts (.) could (.) and it would be appropriate to protect (.) that unborn child or that ↑foetus (.) at what stage that ↑is (.) that would probably ↑be some time between in the first (.) first trimester but I would go to sciience (.) and to doctors to make that decision (.) in in writing in kraafting such legislation the next quest governor Wilder] (.) I might (.) point out if I may thatt uh (.) governor Allen got the question (.) and then you (.) very (.) uh (.) as↑tutely obseeerved that he had not answered it and he got a second chaance not to aanswer it (.) and I haven’t had an opportunity too come in on (.) [↑either side of this one if (.) [i if I mightt uh please (.) please] let me just say (.) I’m going to keep ↑trying George (.) and I as assume you’re going to keep DOOdging uuh (.) but the question has to do (.) with (.) do you sup↑port (.) or would you oppoose Roe versus ↑Wade (.) it’s a very simple question (.) [it ↑does come up that wasn’t your question] and yet while I had while I had have asked you before uuh (.) the the ↑elements of Roe versus Wade are exactly the ones that I have described to you (.) and it does come up re↑peatedly (.) I regret that it comes up as often as it ↑dooes. but we have a continued threat (.) to the ↑riight of a woman to make the most personal ↑choice (.) I personally believe (.) uh f first of all let me say that I have never been (.) proabortion (.) I’ve always been pro-↑choice (.) I think abortions ought to be safe (.) legal (.) and ↑raare (.) I beliiieve that a woman ↑haas a right (.) to make that most personal decision (.) con↑sistent with the opinion rendered in Roe versus Wade (.) and as a ↑public official (.) I am going to continue to fight (.) to protect a woman’s

DW(M): GA: A: GA: A: GA: AAM1: AAM2: GA:

DW(M): CR:

DW(M): CR:

GA: CR:

770

Appendix right (.) to make that de↑cision=

DW(M): A: CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M): GA:

DW(M): GA: A: DW(M): GA:

CR:

A: CR:

=is that a question (.) [will (some almost inaudible individual laughter)] that that was (.)] your comment my my my comm (.) my my my my respoonse (.) I guess I (.) I haven’t really posed the question yet (.) Ok ok (.) all right (.) NO ↑PROBLEM (.)] no problem (.) [go ok] vernor Allen you ↑now have the question sure (.) well Chuck in the debate last tiime when you were running for re-election and I want to quote this aaccurate↑ly. (.) you said that you would (.) quote ‘take food of the moouths of what is in our ph orphans’ (.) governor Wilder [was there that night and I’m sure he remembeerss uh (laughs)] [↑THAT when he said that that was (.) you cast the deciding vote for (almost inaudible collective laughter) (laughs)] largest tax increase in ↑HIStory (.) when you said it at the time it was a pr (.) provocative sta↑tement (.) ↑well we did some checking and Chuck I can’t believe you actually ↑did vote to take foood (.) from what it is in ↑oorphans. (.) you voted to tax Social Se↑↑curity benefits. for senior ↑citizens making (.) as little as twenty thousand dollars a year. (.) ↑AAND (.) you ↑voted against the five thousand dollar tax credit to help people (.) with the expense (.) of adooption (.) now Chuck (.) is that what you meant by your comment during your last (.) election.= =let me ↑frame theeee uh (.) uuh the entire (.) arena for you a little bit (.) ↑up until laast year we were continuing to run a deficit (.) and I have been very much committed to trying to put this ↑country back on aa ↑fiscal uuh (.) ↑setting that is consistent with Virginia principles if you ↑will. (.) uh I ↑did made the statement that I maade (.) uh it’s uh it’s about as memorable as the oone that Ii (.) heere iiis (.) quoted maybe not ↑you directly but (.) uh in terms of of of where you’re coming from (.) uuh I I understaand that (.) your sister said you were hoping to go intoo (.) thee field of ↑dentistry so you can inflict paaain and be ↑↑paid for it [(.) uuh (almost inaudible and collective laughter) I I’M NOT SURE whether ↑either one of those] aacurately depict uh our our position but (.) ↑wee have been running huuuge deficits (.) up in nineteen ninety↑twooo. (.) we had the largest deficit (.) in this nation’s history (.) in the year two thousand (.) we had the largest ↑surplus in this nation’s history (.) it didn’t come about by ↑accident. (.) we had to make a very (.) difficult choice in nineteen ninetythree (.) we didn’t have any help from your side of the aaisle in that particular case

771

Appendix (.) we have (.) received ↑constant criticism (.) with respect to Social Se↑curity again the vote you’re re↑↑ferring to (.) was the vote that was desiiigned (.) ↑that part of the bill (.) was desiigned to preseerve ↑↑Medicare (.) so you would otherwise create a hundred billion dollar uh (.) hoole in the current support for Medicare th the ↑Medicare program. (.) ↑IF we were to follow the action that you had sug↑gested I’ll tell you Chuck the Virginia waay. (.) you’ve been up in Washington a long tiime and (.) some of these answers really do show how out of touch you are with (.) us here in the real woorld (.) the ↑real world in Virginia we were taking the state (.) ↑tax off of Social Security (.) you’re imposing ↑taaxes (.) on people receiving Social Security (.) and in ↑fact even this summer (.) with the record surpluses we have in Washington there was an effort to re↑↑duce (.) the tax that you imposed on (.) people receiving Social Security (.) senior citizens on fixed ↑income. (.) and ↑how did you vote. (.) you voted no. (.) you voted to continue to impose that tax (.) on Social Security (.) and ↑please don’t let (.) the people here (.) beliieve (.) that you might be a friend of the tax↑payers. (.) ↑all of your bills all of the bills that you’ve introduced if they’re all put together versus any spending cuts (.) would have added thirty-three billion dollars to the deficit (.) the National ↑Taxpayers Union (.) calls you an ene (.) enemy of the ↑taxpayers voting (.) on the ↑taxpayers siide only thirteen per cent of the tiime (.) but ↑that’s logical. since you voted with president Clinton (.) eighty-↑seven (.) per cent of the tiime. (.) so (.) ↑Chuck. (.) ↑please. (.) try to be honest with the people of Vir↑ginia. (.) you haven’t seen a ↑taax. (.) that you don’t ↑like. (.) you have (.) proposed. (.) ↑gas tax increases in fact you’re one of the last people (.) left in Vir↑ginia who still thinks that repealing the tax cut. (.) the ↑car tax (.) is a bad idea (.) of course president Clinton said we were selfish. (.) in Virginia for wanting to get rid of the car tax (.) and of course you continue to stand with him. governor Robb the question is yours uh (.) thank you uh (.) governor Wilder (.) ↑let mee uh (.) ask this question of governor Allen (.) uh George your education proposal (.) I think you call it the ‘champion schools’ agenda’ (.) would ↑cost three hundred and forty-fiive billion dollars (.) but three hundred billion dollars never makes it to schoools because it’s a ↑tax cut (.) ↑hoow does that three hundred billion dollar tax cut (.) improve our public ↑schools (1.) my ‘champion ↑school’s agenda’ Chuck (.) I expect you (.) had a chance to read but maybe ↑not. (.) has several components ↑to it (.) oone (.) is to provide four billion doollars (.) and additional funding that would go to localities that have to use it for ↑teeachers (.) so that they could (.) hire more teachers as many (.) as a hundred and sixty thousand new teachers (.) and ↑that would help reduce claass sizes so that our children can get more individualised at↑tention. (.) a↑nother component (.) is early reading i↑nitiative. to (.) give aaudit assistance to kindergarteners (.) whoo (.) and first graders who need additional help in ↑reading (.) that’s what we’re doing in Virginia and as I go to (.) to elementary schools acrooss Virginia they call it the PAALS program ‘phonetically assisted ↑learning system.’ (.) it’s working very well to make sure our youngsters (.) early on are getting (.) a good (.) a goodd basics in th reading (.) which of aall the academic

GA:

DW(M): CR:

GA:

772

Appendix basics it’s the most im↑portant. (.) then there’s also (.) the private-public partnership for building new ↑schools. is using private activity bonds (.) which are currently used for roads (.) ports airports but now extend a current bond facility foor (.) ↑schoools (.) now the thousand dollar per child education opportunity ↑tax credit which we already dis↑cussed (.) would empower ↑↑parents (.) they’d be the ones making the decision and I know this is frightful to you Chuck (.) but the re↑ality is that the parents know their children’s names (.) ↑this would help bridge the digital diviide (.) wealthy families already have children (.) on the internet oon computers (.) ↑this will help lower (.) middle ↑income (.) and middle income families ↑get on the internet. (.) ↑haave a computer (.) and have access to that information soo (.) ↑aall of these are very sound ‘champion schools’ proposal’ because the best jobs in the future will go to those (.) who are the best prepaared (.) and we want to make sure that every child (.) every child that is learning is given that opportunity to compete and succeed and get a good quality education George once again you didn’t ↑quite answer the question with respect to the three hundred billion dollar (.) ↑tax cut (.) you spent a lot of time on thee forty-fiive billion [dollar quota you asked me about the] champion schoools’ agenda= =I I I (.) I did (.) but I asked you spe↑cifically about the three billion dollar ↑tax cut (.) I I I ↑might aad that I I read in the newspaper todaay that the average (.) uh expenditure by a family is fifty-one dollars and twenty cents (.) uh so that this (.) ↑type of a tax cut would go disproportionately to those (.) at the ↑upper end of the (.) spectrum and since it’s not refundable it wouldn’t hit ↑any of the people at the ↑lower uh end of the of thee spectrum but ↑let me suggest an alternative for you (.) uuh in addition too (.) the two point two uh million uh teachers that we could (.) uh hire over ten years and pay their first (.) year salary if on an average of forty thousand dollars ↑each. (.) we could put a (.) we could buy a laaptop computer for every public high-school (.) student in America for the next ten years (.) we could ↑renovate sixty thouusand schools that need renovation (.) uh we could hhire seventy-↑six thousand school safety officers (.) for every school in America that doesn’t currently haave a school safety officer (.) and pay their salary for the next ten years (.) and we would ↑still haave fifteen billion dollars left to paay doown the debt (.) now if you’re going to proviide a huuge tax cut (.) it ↑seems to me that we ought to tryy to provide it in a way that actually helps edu↑cation (.) and not simply goes as yrs aas uh your plan would do (.) to provide three hundred billion dollars (.) to thoose that are fortunate enough to be at the top of the economic ↑ladder your question governor Allen [sure uuh (.) governor Wilder (2. collective applause)] I guess my opponent knows about champion schoools (.) thee (.) aactually (.) the ↑tax cut [as far aas (.) ↑parents parents are concerned it’s it’s your question now]= =I know I’m going to use some of it (.) for parents is is anywhere between fifteen and and thirty million dollars. (.) uuh billion dollars a year (.) I guess you consider marriage penalty tax as others (.) but ↑nevertheless you’re running a TVv aad and you’re bragging about your support of president Bush supposedly (.) if HE was such

CR:

GA: CR:

DW(M): GA: A: GA: DW(M): GA:

773

Appendix a good president how come youu (.) you were so hard to get president Clinton in (.) you vote with Bill Clinton about ninety per cent of the tiiime. (.) now when are you going to ↑put him (.) [ON YOUR TV AD GET LOST] so everyone can see how proud you are of that fact now you are not trying to (.) hide that fact from us are you ↑Chuck. now you you ↑KNOW George I’m not trying to hide from anybody (.) I stand with thoose (.) who have worked ↑with me on things (.) that I thought advaance the agenda for (.) uh ↑all Americans and and all of Virginians uuh (.) and I have I’ve con↑sistently done that (.) uh your your your question uh (.) was (0.5) m am I ↑ans[wering his question Doug his question was when (.) did yoou uh (.) claim Bill ↑Clinton= =am I (.) may (.) [it did start (.) oh ↑I’m sorry that’s right (.) OK (laughs) (almost inaudible collective laughter) THE the the ans]wer with respect too [to what are] you going to show your buddy on your ↑aaads uh (.) I’m not going to show (.) my buddy on my ads so to speak ↑George. [but ↑noo I am] going to tell you that I’m not running away from anybody (.) and I think that some of those eighty-fiive (.) or ninety per cent or whatever votes you want to you suggest uuh (.) were very ↑good uh (.) the ones that uh (.) for instance proviided (.) family ↑medical leave you disagree with that (.) the ones that provided a minimum ↑waage you disagree with that. (.) uh thoose that uh (.) provided support in a number of areas (.) from providing additional ↑teacher support etcetera (.) to providing more schoools uh uh (.) more more (.) community-oriented police officers ↑↑aall of these things are part of the eighty-five per cent (.) talk to me about the ones you disagree with. (.) and we can debate about ↑thoose (.) but don’t try to simply say becaause (.) there’s a high per↑centage that you somehow find that unacceptable (.) I based my decision on whether or not to vote ↑foor or a↑↑gainst a particular (.) uh item (.) on whether or not I think that it merits my sup↑port (.) not whether or not I think you would approoove of my particular (.) vote on that particular issue [(almost inaudible and collective laughter followed by some individual applause) will the people (.) will the people of Virginia] uh (.) be ↑seeing. uh president Clinton (.) campaigning for you (.) in Virginia= =I’m sorry will the people of Virginia (.) be seeing (.) president Clinton (.) campaigning [for you in Virginia WELL THEY ↑HAVE] (.) he has campaigned for me (.) a number of times I’m talking in Virginia (.) not j (.) not just= =no ↑no (.) in Virginia= =[I’m not just talking about Noorthern Virginia I mean he has been (.) he has been in Virginia for ↑YOU] [(bursts into laughter) HE’S BEEN IN VIRGINIA FOR ↑ME

AAM3: GA: CR:

DW(M): CR: DW(M): A: CR: GA: CR: GA: CR:

A: DW(M): CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M): CR: DW(M): CR:

774

Appendix A: CR: (11.5 burst of laughter accompanied by enthusiastic applause and other reactions of approval)] in fact (.) IN ↑FACT (.) IN ↑FACT with all due (.) with all due respect to thy] distinguished friend (.) the laast (.) ↑picture that I have framed in my office is (.) is a of yoou and mee and the president at aa (.) debt retirementt uh party for [none (unintelligible) the former governor (unintelligible) (unintelligible) our distinguished friend] [(bursts into laughter) (immediate and almost inaudible collective laughter)] U[UH well I]= your your question [sir no] I’m actually get to (.) rebut his (.) [his his aanswer yes (.) yes] =YES uh you did you did have president ↑Clinton with you it was a it was fairly exclusive gaathering that you were there att uh (.) a certain person’s ↑mansion neear uh Larry’s home in Almoral ↑county (.) it was a ten thousand dollar ahead (.) function theere uh (.) it wasn’t open to the general ↑public (.) I kn I ↑know about this because I was up in Madison county we had uh (.) a town[hall meet ooh (in a disapproving tone)] ing five dollars all you can eat (.) [uh a townhall it raised man love while you were there (.) you simply want a nibbling cheese (immediate collective laughter accompanied by applause)] now (.) you want (laughing) to know what I did (.) [i i i i i it was great it it ↑wasn’t for my benefit] incidentally George= well. but you were there. (.) [you ooh.] were there. (.) and introducing and so forth= =yeeah.= so I’m sure you’ve got none of those funds that were raised there for your campaign and all those good negative ↑ADS we’ve [seen (.) in Virginia for the last several months (bursts into laughter) (bursts into laughter)] here you want you wanted to (.) ↑build the particulars on where I disagree with your votes and those of of of (.) of president Clinton (.) and ↑whyy I think he really (.) he’s the one you agree with the most. (.) here you are (.) you vote with him eighty-seven per cent of the time (.) more than any other member of our delegation (.) Republican Democrat or Independent (.) in Virginia (.) ↑heck I don’t think that ↑Hillary (.) agrees with Bill [eighty-seven per cent of the time (immediate collective applause) but Virginia’s junior senator ↑does] (.) you vote ↑with him you ↑talk about school ↑safety (.) the ↑Clinton administration did not (.) all↑ow was to expel students who brought [↑guns mhm.] to schools you voted ↑wroong. time after time (.) and senator Warner stood with us (.) where I disagree with you a↑gain. is on the (.) and and president Clinton is on

DW(M): A: DW(M): GA: DW(M): GA: DW(M): GA:

AAM4: GA: A: GA: CR: GA: CR: GA: CR: GA:

CR: AAM4: GA:

A: GA:

CR: GA:

775

Appendix the marriage ↑penalty tax (.) a↑gain there were Democrat Cong (.) members of Congress (.) who voted for that marriage penalty tax relief that you and president Clinton (.) have prevented uuh (.) from being eliminated this year (.) you had voted five ↑tiimes. (.) against (.) requiring able-bodied people on (.) food stamps no welfare to ↑work (.) [and you stood time (.) time [has gone by oh excu]se me (.) so that’s another (.) exaample alright the next question iis uh (off mike) I think there’s one for Rooobb obviously= =ok another one Robb= =let let ↑let me just say (.) before I ask the question (.) uh the particular votes you are referring to (.) were sooo unfaair to thooose who happened to have disabilities (.) that even the majority leader Trent ↑Loott voted against it. and it did not paass with the Republican majority (.) secondly with respect to the marriage penalty I tell you again (.) I had voted every ↑tiime foor (.) ↑real marriage penalty re relief which tracks precisely the Virginia approach (.) it doesn’t (.) put ↑all that money into into other areas (.) now with respect to your question (.) oon on the (.) the e e environmentt uh George (.) you were recently rated one of the (.) dirty-dousing by the Non-Partisan League Conservation ↑voters. (.) you’ve also receeived some very pointing criticism from the (.) Si↑erra Club and other groups interested in (.) ↑in our environment (.) [I know your campaign (as an aside to someone) Sorry (unintelligible) has characterised these environmental groups as (.) ex↑tremist and ↑radical (.) but putting asiide your colourful uh (.) characterisations of these groups (.) isn’t their criticism of your record ↑accurate. aabsolutely not I’m very proud of my record (.) on the environment. (.) and you know those groups are not im↑partial. (.) and they’ve been running these negative distortions and falsehoods (.) up inn uh (.) the D.C. market for a long ↑tiime. (.) in ↑FAACT (.) what I’d cite for you Mr. Robb (.) is (.) some scientist here (.) at Virginia Commonwealth University (.) where as governor (.) we founded (.) the (.) school of engineering but there’s also ↑scientists (.) here at VCU (.) and ↑they did an analysis of Virginia’s air and ↑water quality. (.) and for twelve years until nineteen ninety-foour (.) air and water quality in Virginia (.) by theeir ssummations and and report (.) was ↑declining (.) in nineteen ninety-↑four (.) it’s the first year I was in office and over the past four years and continuing ↑noow. (.) uuh under the ↑Gilmore administration the air and water quality in Vir↑ginia. has actually im↑proved (.) those are the scientists’ report (.) more↑over EPA (.) when I came into ↑ooffice (.) we had several areas in Virginia that were non-at↑tainment. (.) one of which was Richmond (.) another was White Top mountain and Hampton Rooads (.) when we left ooffice using sound science (.) and using technology rather than political science (.) their quality in the Richmond ↑area (.) ↑White Top aand Hampton Roads (.) all were upgraded by EPA so ↑I’m proud of what we’ve done in Virginia (.) and you know ↑what. we have better jobs in Virginia we use sound science (.) we use practicality and use (.) people-friendly approaches (.) to making sure that our air and water quality are ↑better. (.) and we all live by a river and my little daughter there Tyler I want to make sure she’s swimming in clean water (.)

DW(M): GA: DW(M): RH: DW(M): CR:

GA: CR:

GA:

776

Appendix and I want to make sure aall children are breathing clean air (.) and also playing in clean water as well. (.) so my friend. (.) we’re proud of our record and no matt (.) no mmatter how many distortions you all run (.) those are the facts well ↑let me say first of all I want that your daughter to be able to (.) ↑swimm in clean water and drink clean water (.) but ↑whyy in the world then did you uh (.) ↑not enforce the Clean Water aact= =sure I ↑did. =why did you not enforce the (.) uh Clean ↑Drinking Water act= =sure I [↑did= if you did] uuh enforcement was (.) dowwn ↑ninety-eight per cent (.) ↑↑ninetyeight per cent was enforcement down (.) the oral environmental enforcement (.) uh or a a actions that were taken were somewhere in in theee (.) in the the seventy (.) per cent of where they had been (.) previously (.) you went to ↑↑court (.) to try to overtuuurn the ↑Clean Air act (.) and with respect to thee (.) uuh citation you just made about improvements (.) ↑that’s a little bit like saying uh when the ↑sun came up (.) you get ↑↑credit each morning (.) [the (.) the the person who actually authored the (almost inaudible collective laughter)] re↑↑port (.) said that the environment did improove (.) ↑not because of ↑your actions but because of requirements impoosed of the federal government to clean ↑up the act (.) it improoved (.) in ↑spite of you (.) and in in this particular re↑gaard (.) you ended up uh (.) receiving very substantial (.) contributions you mentioned just a minute ago from a major (.) polluter of a a attributer into the Chesapeake baay (.) you wouldn’t enfoorce (.) the aact so the federal government had to come in and enforce the act (.) ↑theey extracted from Virginia a twelve point fiive million dollar fine because you wouldn’t enforce th the ↑↑laww (.) so (.) in teerms of the environment it seems to mee (.) that these organisations ↑notwithstanding your characterisation have a pretty solid ↑case= the question is yoours governor Allen (1.) Chuck (.) you ought to look at ↑look at the records (.) and (.) in faact (.) if you would (.) [that’s what I’ve been just quoting from actually George ↑look at the records on the thee (.) on the records] of Smithfield as well (.) we did have several enforcements (.) and you know what the re↑sults were. (.) we have Smithfield hooked up to the (.) south-east Hampton Roads Sanitation district (.) and thaat (.) is a very important improvement (.) foor (.) for that that region of Virginia (.) now (.) ↑now (.) ↑these groups like you a lot because you were foor a fifty cent a gallon gas tax (.) you actually (.) pro↑poosed a fifty-seven (.) fifty cent a gallon ↑gas tax (.) you had this on your weebsite for many many ↑years as one of your ac↑complishments and just last week (.) it was taken ooff (.) now I know you’ll say you were not for it anymoore but ↑earlier this year (.) you actually said that it was good public ↑poolicy. (.) now as a good public policy your politics (.) that you’re taken that ac↑complishment of you introducing that fifty cent dollar gas tax. (.) is that ↑politics or ↑policy George at the ↑time that was introduuced it waas good public policy (.) the Congressional Research Service and the Congress a↑greeed that it was (.) good

CR:

GA: CR: GA: CR:

A: CR:

DW(M): GA: CR: GA:

CR:

777

Appendix public policy it was simply (.) not pol (.) not politically ↑possible (.) uh the circumstances have chaanged since (.) the dire deficit situation which this country ↑found itself (.) has now been reversed again (.) due in very large part (.) to a very ↑difficult vote for many (.) well actually an a fairly easy vote for me cause it was the largest (.) DEficit reduction uh (.) aact (.) in our nation’s ↑history in nineteen ninety-three (.) and subsequent actions (.) led to to a point where we’re now enjoying a surplus and pro↑jecting a surplus (.) for the next ten years (.) so the circumstances have chaanged (.) but ↑at the time (.) thoose whoo (.) you want to look at the record you want to have science (.) e↑xamine some of these things (.) they said (.) ↑if you want to try to make (.) do everything you can to make suure (.) that young American men and women are not put in harm’s way (.) for another war that would be fought over (.) th the failure to haave (.) sufficient energy supplies (.) ↑AAND if you want to find a way (.) to begin to reduce the deficit which at ↑that point as I say (.) was a about to pick or had ↑already picked (.) as the hhighest in our nation’s history (.) this is the way you want to ↑↑do it (.) so yes it’s good p public policy (.) it’s ↑not good politics and I suspect that the fact that it’s not good ↑politics (.) is the reason you continue to bring it up (.) I haven’t uuused (.) the present tense. (.) in any of these times I made made it (.) ↑absolutely clear to you George and every time (.) I am not (.) I’ll say it again (.) I didn’t re-introduce it (.) I do not support it (.) I don’t ↑plann to support it I hope you’ll con you’ll drop this issue (.) and talk about ↑something that might come up (.) of you’re fortunate enough to come to the United States ↑Senate [(almost inaudible collective laughter) well the ques (.) the the ↑question was] and you still haven’t ex↑plained it (.) you went through an argument of why it’s good policy and you obviously ↑thought it was good policy but then you deleted it (.) as one of (.) uh uh from your website (.) where you had it for years as as an ac↑complishment. (.) [now you cannot the ↑website was a matter] (.) of public record (.) apparently someone decided to ↑take awaay (.) what you seem to regaard as a as a current priority (.) it’s that simple George sure. (.) well you can’t delete history. (.) uuh [uh and that and that’s the reality (4.5 almost inaudible collective laughter immediately accompanied by applause) (unintelligible) (to the audience) well ↑Chuck (.) this is why some of these these] (.) extremist groups like you so much though [(.) that is the (laughs)] ap↑proach (.) and indeed you said ‘oh gosh the air quality and water quality got better while I was governor (.) and had nothing to ↑do with me’ (.) I guarantee you if ↑that report had it the other way around and that Virginia’s air quality and water quality were getting better for twelve years (.) and they got reversed I guarantee you’d be up here saying (.) ‘↑ooh it’s all your fault’ (.) soo [so let’s let’s (laughs)] make sure play both siides uh (.) properly here now ↑this fifty cent dollar gas tax ↑Chuck. (.) I don’t care what your excuses aare [(.) it’s ↑bad policy (.) (laughs)] it is it is baad for anybody who com↑mutes (.) you al (.) you obviously think that it

A: GA:

CR:

GA: A: DW(M): GA: CR: GA:

AAM5: GA: CR: GA:

778

Appendix was a bad idea to get rid of the car tax (.) you are one of only ↑eight. (.) eight senators (.) who voted against modest (.) ↑tax relief (.) in nineteen ninety-seven that even president Clinton signed (.) you have taxed and voted to tax elec↑tricity (.) ↑fuel ↑telephones (.) you’ve taxed Social Se↑curity benefits (.) aand indeed taxed (.) what is (.) in orphans (.) and I’m sorry Chuck that’s out of touch (.) with the folks in Virginia (laughs) doctor Hoslworth maybe we can quickly move from uh (.) taxes to trashh (.) uhm Virginians are concerned about becoming (.) that we’re becoming aa capital a ↑trash capital for the importation of out-of-state waste (.) state efforts to remedy this have really failed in the courts (.) is there anything ↑you plan to do as (.) uh senator in the next teerm (.) to try to insure that Virginia ↑won’t be the trash capital of the United States well let me say that I am (.) ↑very much conceerned about the increases and I know that (.) governor Allen will explain uh (.) how so many (.) so much of the increase occurred on his watch (.) but I have at↑tempted (.) to do what I can (.) to ↑giive states the power to regulate out-of-state traash (.) I have a ↑bill that uh we drafted and it’s co-sponsored by governor Warner (.) that would (.) th th ↑senator Warner (.) I’ve uh (.) called him governor (.) throughout several times (.) th that is cosponsored b byy (.) ↑senator Warner (.) that would ↑give states and localities an opportunity to control their own density (.) under the inter-state commerce claause at this tiime (.) there’s very ↑little states (.) and a a again I (.) I I’ve I (.) absooolve then governor Allen from a certain amount (.) there’s only so much you could do I don’t remember any [a↑pproaches (.) but there’s really only so much you can doo (.) under the circumstances to (off-mike but to a small mike that connects him to the broadcast supervisor of the debate) to yes we are going to (.) yes I have time (.) (unintelligible)] (.) control that particular factor= =we will have to now (.) concluude thee de↑bate aspects (.) and now (.) start with the closing statements of the candidates [(.) we we (.) we just have we have ↑may I quickly say (.) I think we] actually agree [(laughs) (laughs) (almost inaudible and collective laughter)] ↑CLOSING statements and I think thee (.) I’d have liked to have ↑that one elaborated Doug (.) [if we could (collective burst of laughter) (laughs) (.) so do ↑Robb] you have the occasion to do it ↑now= =(laughs) ok (.) well first of aall (.) thank you governor Wilder and I thank all of you (.) ↑I’d like to end this debate as I began it (.) on education (.) when you strip (.) everything awaay (.) the ↑major difference between us boils down to this (.) in myy (.) ↑first year and a half as governor (.) the country was in the worst recession since the great depression (.) unemplooyment naationally hit ten point two per cent (.) and state revenues plumbed it (.) but des↑pite the tough tiimes (.) we still managed (.) a ↑major increase in funding for education (.) because I made it my top priority (.) in the first year of George’s ↑Allen administration we were in the midst of the greatest economic booom in American history (.) yet George tried to ↑cut

DW(M): RH:

CR:

DW(M): CR: DW(M): GA: DW(M): GA: A: DW(M): CR: A: DW(M): CR:

779

Appendix education by a hundred (.) million dollars (.) so we could paay for a huuge ↑tax cut (.) in the toughest of the times I fought to increase funding education (.) in the most ↑prosperous of the times George Allen tried to cut ↑funding for education (.) and now is a candidate for the United States Senate he’s at it a↑gain. (.) the centrepiiece of his education plan as we have discussed (.) is a huge ↑tax cut (.) my priorities are dramatically different (.) I don’t seee (.) the federal government’s (.) rooole as being a skunk in the school house (.) the federal government ↑does have a roole in education and it can have even ↑more of a role. (.) there are schoools in Virginia that are desperate for more help (.) and there isn’t a school system in the ↑state (.) that couldn’t uuse some help from the federal ↑government. (.) that’s why I’m supporting legislation we’ll make a real difference for our children (.) ladies and gentlemen if education is important to yoou (.) shouldn’t it be important to your next ↑senator (.) with your help (.) I’ll continue to fight (.) for our children and our schools thank you= =[(8.5 collective applause) governor Allen] thank you governor Wilder and thank you all for joining us tonight (.) you know closing statements can be used too (.) mischaracterise and distort the (.) positions of your op↑ponent as senator Robb has proven here (.) in my first year Chuck we had it over hundred and twenty-three million dollars in funding to reduce class sizes and also free as tuition and higher add (.) but ↑I’m not (.) going to go throuugh a bunch of negativism with my opponent (.) ↑you all care about Virginia and deserve better than this (.) instead I’m going to spend my final minute with you all together here talking about (.) our ↑poositive agenda. (.) and i↑deeas (.) that matter to us here in the real world (.) as your governor (.) I was always honest with you (.) I kept my promises and together we shared and improved Virginia (.) if ↑you give me the honour and responsibility (.) of working as your U.S. senator (.) I’ll take our shared Virginia values and our experiences (.) to Waashington (.) and ↑here’s what I’ll do (.) in working to improve our future (.) a one thousand dollar per chiiild education tax credit for every family (.) a ↑hundred and sixty thousand new teachers (.) protecting Social Security in a lock box (.) re↑building our nation defence fighting in all that waar on the scourge of drugs that threatens our children and ↑yes letting yoou and your family keep more of what you earn (.) so that you can build a better life for yourself (.) and for your children (.) now if ↑you share this poositive vision no matter your race or region (.) or gender or political party (.) and your I ask you to join with (.) join with ↑us in our campaign (.) to make and build a stronger better and America and Virginia (.) that is better places for us to liive and work (.) and and live and work and and raise our families (.) I ask for your support and your vote (.) thank you (.) and good evening= =gentlemen [thank you (applauds) (.) (to the panel) just a moment (14.5 collective applause) (to the candidates who are approaching each other to shake hands) let me ↑thank you (.) I WANT TO ↑THANKK UH (.) I want to thank thee] (.) candidates (.) I want to thank thee panelists (.) I want to thank thee broadcasters WRVAa CBS the channel six (.) WVKk and Roanoke and all of the affiliates (.) and more

DW(M): A: DW(M): GA:

DW(M): A: DW(M):

780

Appendix par↑ticularly I want to thank the people of Virginia (.) for showing thee interest (.) that they haaad (.) and I hope it’s been a good one (.) God bless you= (9. collective applause) (the candidates approach the panelists to shake hands and then the moderator)

A:

781

Appendix Senatorial Debate, Minneapolis, MN. Kare-TV Especial Event Aired October 18th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Paul Majors (PM(M)) Tim Russert (TR(M)) Mark Dayton (MD) Rod Grams (RG) Jim Gibson (JIG) Audience (A) Anonymous Audience Member 1 (AAM1) Anonymous Audience Member 2 (AAM2) Anonymous Audience Member 3 (AAM3) PM(M): Welcome to to↑night’s debate for the U.S. Senate we’re at the ↑Marriott Hotel (.) in downtown Minneapolis (.) good evening everyone (.) I’m Paul Majors of Kare eleven and I’m Tim Russert of NBC ne↑ews. (.) tonight’s (.) debate is co-sponsored by Kare eleven and the Minnesota (.) Meeting (.) in addition to television ↑web viewers can see this debate a↑liiive tonight (.) on the Internet m m ↑meeting dot coom (.) and offer questions (.) to the candidates aaand those candidates tonight aare (.) Mark Dayton of the Democratic party (.) Rod Grams of the Republican party and Jim Gibson (.) of the Inde↑pendence party (.) the ↑ruules are pretty straightforward tonight (.) each candidate gets one (.) minute to answer a question (.) and the other two get thirty seconds eeach (.) to respond The Minnesota Meeting has invited a hundred people here to watch this debate ↑liive. (.) they have aall been requested to remain silent (.) for the entire debate (.) we will allow to ↑↑question (.) the ↑candidates to question each other for the last thiird of the debate (.) but for noow (.) let us (.) begin (.) and my first question is foor Mr. Dayton (.) Mr. Dayton as you knoow the Democrats and Republicans in Washington aare (.) arguing about surpluses (.) everyone a↑greees that the (.) Social Security surplus the two trillion dollars should be put (.) and set a↑siide for Social Security (.) the ↑other projected surplus of some two trillion dollars (.) the ↑Democrats suggest more ↑spend in prograammes the Republicans suggest in tax cuts (.) in ↑light however of what is going on in the woorld (.) some of the (.) pro↑ominent (.) economists are saying that we have (.) an energy shock (.) that perhaps we have a (.) cont tight ↑tightening of money supply throughout the world (.) AAnd we aall have been watching high-tech stocks bumble on the market (.) it is im↑poossible (.) to truly project surpluses (.) in ↑light of that (.) ↑how would you pay for (.) your programs for education (.) national health care (.) and so forth (.) simply based on projected surpluses that may not be there well Mr. Russert (.) myy (.) solutions are primarilyy uuh (.) national e↑conomy solutions my health care proposal for example is not (.) national health caare as iis uh (.) government single-payer type of ↑system so it’s uh through employers in the private sector in the ↑workplace so that my pr proposals are not de↑pendent upoon

TR(M):

PM(M):

TR(M):

MD:

782

Appendix (.) government spending more money in fact my tax cuts outweight myy ↑spending increases buy more than two and a half to ↑one. (.) uhm if the surpluses don’tt uh ma↑terialize then (.) we’ll have too (.) probably reduce thee debt productionn ↑timetable. (.) uh (.) if that would still be poossible (.) Ii (.) set aside a trillion of the one point eight trillion for that ↑purpose (.) thee spending uuh my proposals are (.) for special education curricular (.) ↑housing ↑health care I think are sus↑tainable (.) aand the tax cuts which I would target to our middle income ↑families (.) are ones that I would (.) certainly I’d like to keep in ↑place uh (.) but as Yogi Beard has said iis hard to make predictions especially about the ↑future you have said that you (.) are not ↑ssuure the surpluses may materialise= =[↑well why I said] (.) I said in the response to a yes or no question (.) that I’d (.) when one point eight trillion uuh e↑merged (.) knoowing in the sense that (.) it’s probably not going to be precisely that ↑number (.) in nineteen ninety-threee (.) thee CBO projected a (.) almost four hundred trillion (correcting himself) four hundred billion dollar ↑deficit for this year (.) we had a almost a three hundred billion ↑surplus that they roughed by about seven hundred billion dollars that was the best case (.) assumption that could have been ↑made soo (.) you know that underscores the difficulty with long-term pro↑jections.= =Mr. Grahams as you know (.) governor Bush has propoosed the one point eight three trillion taax cut (.) ↑if ↑in ↑fact (.) it is based on projected surpluses (.) and those surpluses do ↑not materialiise because of the (.) world-wide energy crisis (.) or a bumbling market here in America (.) would you be willing to fore↑goo that tax cut (.) or at least put a ↑TRIgger on it (.) so it wouldn’t take place (.) if in fact the surpluses (.) were not there= =well ↑bottom line if there’s no surpluses Tim there would be no money to be able to give baack (.) uh but the reality is when Mark talks about his ↑budget if you look at how he ads it up he is ↑spending the surplus (.) and the worst thing we can do according to even chairman of the federal reserve Alan Greenspan is to spend the money because you create (.) ↑new government (.) new ↑programs (.) new obligations that you ↑↑can’t set aside or ↑trigger (.) if those surpluses don’t ma↑terialise (.) so ↑I have a plaan of taking those surpluses and project them or put them aside for tax re↑lief (.) for debt reduction (.) and ↑also to helpp uh make the transition to save for Social Se↑curity (.) and Medicare (.) so ↑we can do that as long as the surpluses are theere (.) and use them for those purposes (.) but if you do like Mr. Dayton has said and create ↑new government (.) you have new obligations and if the surpluses ↑don’t materialiise (.) we’re going to be faced with tax increases on top of the aalready high taxes that Americans ↑payy.= =would you be willing to resend the ↑tax cut (.) if surpluses do not materialise down the road= =as far as the surplus goes yes I ↑stiill think that we need to do a good job to find ways of (.) making this government more ef↑ficient (.) where we can ooperate and require less the ↑taxpayers but (.) if you’re talking strictly about the surplus (.) if it’s not ↑there. (.) it’s hard to give it back so yes I would agree to a trigger on it= =Mr. Gibson how confident are ↑youu (.) that there will be ↑two trillion dollars in

TR(M): MD: TR(M): MD:

TR(M):

RG:

TR(M): RG:

TR(M):

783

Appendix surpluses to be (.) either given back in tax cuts or spend on (.) prograammes (.) or used to retire the debt I’m coonfident the revenue numbers (.) the TDP growth-rate etc. are realistic (.) Ii I’m ↑not confident about (.) the present Congress’ (.) ability to constraint spending and that’s why we’re running intoo uh (.) a r a real ↑question about whether theeese uuh surpluses will materialize (.) ↑I’m the one candidate in this race taking the position that I neither want to see ↑tax cuts nor spending increases (.) so ↑I’m not taking a big risk about what I’m proposing I’m proposing we do nothing in the way about spending or or ↑tax cut (.) whatever ↑surplus materialises (.) that will be used to repay the national debt Mr. Gibson in ess in ↑essence it becomes a follow-up to Tim’s question and you’ve aanswered just now (.) UUH is there ↑any area (.) of federal spending (.) that would merit ↑increase funding (.) and if so to what extent well I don’t take the position that (.) you know we shouldn’t con↑sider additional spending (.) I only take the position that if we’re going to do (.) aadvocate something (.) we should advocate ↑also for not setting cuts (.) something we’re going to cut or some source of ↑revenue (.) certainly there are areas we need to look at uuuh providing aa Medicare uuh prescription drug benefit (.) but I take the position that (.) such a benefit should be mostly payed for by ↑↑preemiums not simply by adding another (.) uuh burden on on on the working claasses (.) so uhm (.) ↑basically I’m just taking the position that we should be budget ↑neutral with what we (.) what we’re doing ↑start with the baseline the currennt (.) budget projections go forward from ↑there that will give us some degree of fiscal discipline (almost inaudibly) alright (.) Mr. Gra↑ams (.) you voted for the Freedom to Farm act= =muhm= ↑why did you support that because it was going to take agriculture in a new direction and that is giving farmers ↑freedom and flexibility (.) to be able to plant what was good for their ↑family what was good for their operation (.) and ↑not have a bureaucrat from Washington basically riding in the cab of their truck telling them ↑what to do (.) what to plant when to plant where to ↑plant (.) how much to plant (.) ↑when to harvest when how to store how to market (.) so ↑THIS was going to give farmers the oopportunities the freedoms and the flexibilities to plant for the markets (.) now with the Freedom to Faarm I think we are moving in the right direction (.) have there been some ↑problems and concerns yes (.) have they been to ↑fault the Freedom to Faarm (.) ↑even agricultural secretary Glickman saaid in testimony to the Congress a year ago (.) that Freedom to Farm was ↑not the caause. (.) of the problems facing ↑farmers but mainly (.) woorld (.) economic situations (.) and ↑also some that Congress itself had impooosed by putting embargooes or trade sanctions on other countries around the woorld (.) so what we need to doo is look for ways of expaanding our exports ↑increasing our trade opportunities (.) LOOK for ways to pro↑vide the safetyness like the Crop Insurance Plaan (.) that I intro↑duuuced and we helped buuild oon as the template for crop insurance refoorm but to move in that direction (.) and by the way the majority of farmers across Minnesota I’ve talked to (.) do not want to go back to having the ↑ooold federal faarm programs of the eighties=

JIG:

PM(M):

JIG:

PM(M): RG: PM(M): RG:

784

Appendix PM(M): RG: =and you ↑diid susbsequently vote for emergency ↑aaaid (.) to farmers [cor↑rect that’s] right but ↑that emergency aid I think would have been required whether it was the old programs or Freedom to Farm (.) but that was one good ↑tiiime when we needed to step in and help the farmers with the safety net when the markets collapsed underneath them mhum Mr. Dayton your response= =well uh (.) I think the failure of Freedom to ↑Faarm it’s evident that uh (.) farm crisis in the north raised the record hooles and (.) cost the taxpayers the record ↑highest (.) the federal government (.) spend twenty-eight (.) billion ↑dollars of taxpayers’ money last year and direct payments to ↑farmers. and that was most of the entire national farm ↑income. (.) if it hadn’t been for that we would have had bankruptcies a↑cross Minnesota. (.) and farmers are ↑noow. (.) aas I learned yesterday in wording to what one farmer said too senator Harkin who was ↑with me. ‘what is the emergency assistance payment going to be next year because I need to know that to talk to my banker into renewing my ↑loans’ (.) you (looking at Rod Grams) haven’t taken the government out of aagriculture you made the government the central ↑player because the market places are insufficient Mr. Gibson well we need to be realistic about (.) the caause of this problem Mark uhm (.) there’s not ↑question we had world wide ↑bumper crops and that’s going to have a significant (.) ↑impact on any kind of program we (.) have here whether it be (.) the old program or the new program= =well (.) Jim I don’t think you understaand what’s occurred in the last three years under Freedom to ↑Farm (.) without any productionn (.) con↑trools. and I agree with you senator that the flexi↑bility is good but the over↑production the excess (.) cess production is simple (.) eco↑noomics it’s all supply and de↑maand and (.) you’re not going to carry that if you’re just throwing ↑money aafter the season has begun as the Congress has been ↑doing. (.) if if ↑Democrats take that center you’d be taking less to ask up and down the ↑line. (.) the twenty m (.) billion dollars in the last three years and ↑aafter the fact emergency assistance paaid to farmers based on pre-nineteen ninety-six levels of pro↑duction (.) it’s just throwing money at them to try to buuy their political ↑silence you talk about (.) uh (.) political ↑briibes and that’s the biggest one that’s uh underway in this country [just three weeks before I’m not good at political bribes]= =no I’m just saying ↑not you senator I’m saying the Congress (.) three weeks before the e↑lection. (.) it’s (.) ↑eight billion dollars being distributed to farmers across th the nation= you would advocate we would not help farmers [at this ↑time I would advocate] we wouldn’t ↑need to because we have a program that would put market ↑prices at levels that where they make that profit in the ↑market place (.) and take it off of the subsidies of ↑taxpayers which is what farmers ↑want.= =well I’ve ↑looked for this magic waand when it comes to prices in the market place and it hasn’t been found (.) not by Republicans not by Democrats this administration are past (.) these are very tough questions to aanswer (.) these are (.) ↑world wiide trade problems (.) ↑not only in the United States but our trading partners around the world (.) so to say that (.) ↑somehow we can come to a simple conclusion (.) iis uh

PM(M): MD:

PM(M): JIG:

MD:

RG: MD:

RG: MD:

RG:

785

Appendix (.) not re↑ality [Mark well] (.) and when you talk about twenty eight billion about nineteen to twenty-one of that is already in normal farm uh aaid and farm programs so uh (.) we ↑DID help farmers when they needed it (.) and we’ve got to try to fiind ways but our ↑biggest (.) opportunity is expanding our trade opportunities (.) ↑otherwise (.) programs like yours will tell our ↑farmers (.) that they’re going to have to cut back in at least a ↑↑third (.) of their production (.) because that’s what Minnesota farmers ↑export (.) and if ↑wee can’t allow them to do that that’s where their profit lies [(unintelligible) their profit out of agriculture right (unintelligible) (stops talking looking at Paul Majors) (unintelligible) I think] I think Mr. Gibson would like to hold the baseball the fact iis farm programs have been in existence (.) in this country since the mid nineteen ↑thirties (.) aand (.) the entire farming commu (.) community is dependent u↑pon this on-going flow of revenue (.) aand ↑I believe we need a policy of a deliberate ‘face-up our ↑farm subsidies’ (.) I don’t argue that this needs to occur over↑night (.) but we need a definite face-up period and we need to be com↑mitted to it (.) ↑part of the problem of over (.) of overproduction (.) is the fact that these subsidies exist (.) ↑we haave (.) marginal land to day engine production (.) be↑↑caause of these subsidies let me turn to a new subject (.) and (.) start with Mr. Grams (.) as you knoow the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (.) ruuled that there was a constitutional right to an abortion (.) ↑IN the Constitution (.) a right of privacy (.) do ↑you believe (.) that decision (.) was correctly rendered well I’m a (.) ↑pro-life candidate and have been and belieeve in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death (.) now when we look at uh (.) our justices on the Supreme Court (.) we ↑want to make sure that there are justices there that are interpreting the laaw (.) interpreting the Constitution and that’s what I would support (.) but I ↑also think uh you know whille uh (.) abortion ↑can be a (.) a common argument and uh (.) has (.) people on both sides of this argument (.) I think there ↑are places where we have uh (.) uncommon interests or a↑greements (.) and that’s when it comes to the area of partial-birth abortion (.) and I have voted re↑PEAtedly (.) to ↑end this barbaric practice (.) and uuh (.) I would ↑hope (.) that we have a president in the White House (.) in the year two thousand and one that would sign that into law do you a↑cutely believe that there is a ffundamental right to an abortion in the Constitution (2.) I haven’t supported that and uh (.) according to the ↑laaw now that is what Roe v. Wade has put oon the ↑books (.) and II as you know happen to disagree with that Mr. Dayton and then Mr. Gibson I support Roe v. ↑Wade and I support the right to choice of a ↑woman (.) before via↑bility (.) and I think that’s inherent in a free so↑ciety uuh (.) in (.) a woman’s right too (.) make her own decisions about her own (.) body her oown (.) m medical well-being about her own ↑life (.) Ii (.) would oppose partial-↑birth abortions except whenn a m (.) a doctor determines they’re medically necessary to save the life or the physical health of the ↑mother (.) aand in the laamb’s story ↑mistery that’s thee

MD: RG:

MD: PM(M): JIG:

TR(M):

RG:

TR(M): RG: TR(M): MD:

786

Appendix spirit of Roe v. Wade that the too (.) see (.) if the federal government may place uh (.) ↑reasonable precautions on those praactices but I support (.) a right to choice= would you allooow a minor to get a the RU four eighty-six a↑bortion pill (.) without (.) consent (.) of their parents I I’m the father of a (.) twenty year-old and (.) tomorrow seven↑teen year-old and ↑I don’t believe that minors should be able to get any medical ↑treatment (.) of any seriouss (.) nature like that without uh parental uh (.) in↑voolvement and con↑sent oor (.) as an alternative a judge in a case where a parent is d there’s no parent determined to bee uh (.) responsible Mr. Gibson (.) a fundamental constitutional right (.) exist in the Consti↑tution (1.) I beliieve we ↑haave a Supreme Court for a reason and that is to interpret the Constitution (.) ↑they’ve taken the position (.) that this is a fundamental right (.) and I therefore a↑↑gree with that (.) I (.) I’m not d n the background that they’ve looked the the the (.) ↑logic that they went through but I trust the decision they made and I sup↑port (.) a woman’s right to choose (.) and from a ↑praagmatic standpoint I support it as well (.) you know to ↑mee the burden of proof (.) is on thoose wanting laws not on those that don’t want laaws (.) I think we have (.) the ↑negative consequences (.) oof uhm (.) p ttrying to prevent abortions are ↑so great (.) that I see nothing good coming from it all right (0.5) you know (clears throat) (.) ↑you three gentlemen are on track to make this the third most expensive Senate seat (.) in America in this election cycle that’s not my fault Paul= [(bursts into laughter) (4. bursts into collective laughter) (laughs too) I’d say it’s partially if (.)] it’s definitely not ↑my fault] [(laughs louder) (5. laughs collectively louder) The right of (.)] [oh well (laughing) (6. collectively applauds) WELL (.) MR. (.) MR. DAYton this well as (.)= =go ahead go ahead sir] (.) as usual the facts blind the assertion that in the last support (.) that was just followed just uh postt uh (.) Novem uh September ↑thirtieth (.) senator (.) youu threw these election cycles (.) uh six year ↑cycle and raised six point (.) six seven (.) and I have raised six point ↑seven million (.) aand you were (.) having yet (.) finance by the Republican Financial Committee by the state Republican party I’ve (.) refuused to have the Democratic Senate Committee (.) put any ↑aads or soft money into my cam↑paign (.) you have the advantages of in↑cumbency and the number one franker of (.) in the ↑Senate for the fifteen months in nineteen ninetynine and the first part of two ↑thousand you have (.) all the advantages of the incumbency and to say that you’re being out spending in this race it’s just ↑fictional was that your ↑question by the way Paul.= =well we’ll ↑use it [(individual laughter)

TR(M): MD:

TR(M): JIG:

PM(M): RG: PM(M): A: RG: JIG: PM(M): A: MD: A: PM(M): MD: PM(M): MD:

RG: PM(M): A:

787

Appendix RG: all right we’ll go ahead with that] (.) well ↑first of all when Mark says that I’ve raise six point seven I have. and that is from forty-seven ↑thoousand individual contributions from Minnesotans (.) in fact more than ↑seventy-seven per cent of aall the money that I’ve used in this campaign has come (.) from the aaverage donation of under fifty dollars from Minnesotans (.) ↑Mark hasn’t raaaised money (.) he’s written out ↑cheques (.) totalling six point ↑seven (.) and hee is now ↑up on the air with campaign aads that are just uh (.) uh (.) when it comes to money ↑staaggery (.) and while he can seat here and say that he’s only kept pace with me (.) the ↑final taale will tell exactly how much he has put into this campaign ↑SINce the last reporting period (.) AAnd uh (.) ↑our projections or what ↑I feel is that he is going to more than ↑double (.) and in maybe some cases ↑↑tripple (.) the amount that I ↑spend so (.) when ↑you can ↑sit and write out and finance your own campaign (.) well that’s ↑one thing (.) but when ↑I can match Mark Dayton with in ↑dollars I’m going to match him with in people in contributions in volunteers (.) so I feel very good about where I am in my campaign Mr. Gibson you know if there was (.) ↑ever a ne[ed (.) for campaign finance refoorm (.) (individual applause) Mr. Gibson one moment] (.) we’d like to remind the audience to please hold your applauuse until the end (.) thank you ↑this election (.) says everything we need to know about the need for campaign finance reform (.) I ↑SIT with (.) two two uh (.) op↑ponents (.) and they were both out spending me b by probably thirty to one (.) and yet I ↑sit here and (0.5) can any↑one of you tell me (1.) is this the way elections should be de↑cided (.) or should (.) should elections be de↑cided (.) based upon the strength of the candidate the strength of their issues (.) or ↑should it be a function of money (.) Mark yes you used the term ‘↑raaise’ (.) you ↑raaise money you simply wrote a ↑cheque. (.) if you had two hundred thousand dollars to spend would you ↑be here (.) and the answer is probably ↑↑not (.) you have forty-nine per cent in the ↑pooll. (.) I have three to four per cent in the last ↑pooll. (.) you spent (.) ↑five million in the primary I spent two hundred ↑thousand in the primary (.) if those numbers were re↑versed (.) I would waage your up ↑pooll numbers would be reversed (2.) (with his hand raised toward the moderators) [Mr. Dayton had you spent (.) (clears throat) had you spent twenty-five yeears in public service in the st (.) state of Minnesota (.) served three teerms in three different state cities as thiis in all over the state uh (.) several hundred thousand ↑miiles. (.) you’d be higher in the ↑polls. as senator (.) Grams has ↑too for that (.) extended com↑mitment so I don’t think you can equate those (.) I would just say again that the facts aare (.) there aare (.) re↑ceipts I have written the ↑cheque I (.) certainly ad↑mit that (.) are the ↑same. I don’t know where you get the two to three times (.) again. (.) I think if youu (.) look at the Republican National ↑Committee (.) what the independent ex↑penditures the pharmaceutical ↑industry the U.S. Chamber of ↑Commerce the state Republican ↑↑party and the ↑like you’ll fiind (.) this is a (.) essentially (.) a levelled playing field financially (.) between the senator and myself (.) and I think the Minnesotans will decide this based on the on the ↑↑issues as they should

PM(M): JIG: A: PM(M): JIG:

MD: PM(M): MD:

788

Appendix RG: ↑I don’t think Mark would want to guarantee at the end that he has spent less than I have in this campaign cause that would be ridiculous. but when he talks about (.) ↑independent expendituures and what the Republican Senatorial Committee and others will ↑speend (.) ↑I did not donate money (.) to sooft money cauuses like a hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars in the nineteen ninety-six (.) uh ↑cycle that Mr. Dayton did to the Democratic National ↑Committee (.) now while he said himself that these contributions of soft money are not for ↑charity. (.) that you expect something in re↑turn (.) so when hee ↑talks about (.) myy support coming from (.) independent expenditures (.) I’d like to know where ↑hee expected or what hee was going to get in re↑turn. (.) for the moneys ↑he contributed (.) that ↑led to this softt uh money contributions Mark you reaffirm my point (.) you not only spent the five million in the primary ↑you’re set with the highest name recognition of any candidate and you ↑still spend the five million dollars well. let me turn to the issue of health care (.) Mr. Dayton in youur (clears throat) (.) platform on the Internet you say ‘I’m the ↑only (.) major (.) U.S. Senate candidate who supports im↑MEdiate (.) health care coverage for all Americans (.) as you know vice president Goore has said quote (.) ‘we cannot overhaul (.) our system in one fell swoop’ (.) and HIS (.) his plaan is to bring children on first (.) but by the year two thousand five five years from now (.) ↑HIS plan the vice president’s plan still has twenty-five (.) million people uninsured (.) if you are the ↑only (.) candidate (.) and your ↑oown Democratic par party nominee doesn’t support your plan (.) hoow realistic ↑is it. well it’s realistic to the extent that I’m (.) further herding the (.) bulls here in Minnesota than he is aand [I think that if he had (.) if he had a health care (.) if he had a HEALTH CARE (3. individual laughter)] pro↑posal that was uuh (.) like ↑mine I think he’d be leading the reins for president because I think the American people (.) and the people in Minnesota understaand (.) that being the only industrialised nation in the ↑woorld. (.) that doesn’t provide (.) health care to all of its ↑citizens. (.) it’s unac↑ceptable (.) especially in this tiime (.) of economic ex↑paansion. (.) and if we’re not going to as a nation (.) resolve this ↑noow. (.) and if we’re just going to leave forty-three million Americans almost half a million Minnesotans without health coverage (.) eighty per cent of whom (.) ↑work. (.) are members of families where somebody works full ↑time. (.) where we have a situation where we have welfare and ↑prison (.) you have their health care ↑paid for (.) but if you’re ↑working in A↑merica you are (.) without insurance your kids don’t have insurance don’t have a primary doctor and the ↑like. (.) ↑I think we can solve this the American way (.) the American way ex↑panding (.) on the base of a hundred and fifty million Americans right now who get their health coverage ↑through (.) their employer (.) in a ↑private partnership (.) ↑with the employer (.) a ↑menu of ooptions (.) that’s what I ↑favour (.) expanding that over tiime senator Grams since you’ve been in the Senate the number of people in the country who are uninsured has (.) ↑increased= =mhum

JIG:

MD: TR(M):

MD:

A: MD:

TR(M): RG:

789

Appendix TR(M): RG: what do ↑you plan to do about it (.) and what do you think of Mr. Dayton’s ↑plaan. well first of all I’ve worked very hard to (.) get includedd ↑paackages (.) teerms like making sure that all insurances (.) or premiums are deductible (.) are tax deductible right now the largest employers can deduct their health care (.) for their ↑workers but if you’re a farmer or self-employed you ↑can’t (.) deduct the same kind and we need to do that (.) medical ↑savings accounts. in fact the ones that we did ↑aauthorize about eight hundred and fifty ↑thouusand (.) medical savings accounts a ↑↑third of those who had ↑bought those who were previously (.) unin↑sured so is that the whole answer no (.) but it’s a good step in the right direction (.) now ↑↑Mark’s plaan I had said this but it’s a government-run ↑program (.) ↑he waants government mandates to recall a universal mandated health care and even his Democratic coolleagues. (.) told him (.) that it would destrooy joobs and it would destrooy small businesses (.) and I ↑think he just admitted (.) that it ↑would be (.) government-run health care when he said (.) ‘we are the ↑only (.) industrialised nation that doesn’t proviide (.) universal health care (.) aall the other countries have government-run health care programs (.) and ↑that’s basically what Mark Dayton would like the United States to a↑dopt a Canadian styyle (.) ↑government-run government-↑maandate. (.) no matter ↑↑what the coost (.) either in premiums or joobs that it would do to the taxpayers and the workers of this country Mr. Dayton now you respond= =well= =then Mr. Gibson [you go ahead Mr. Dayton alright then (.) as] president Reagan would say ‘there you go againn’ making up my proposals as you go a↑loong.= =↑somebody’s got to define them (almost inaudible and collective laughter) senator let me finish please= =ok I’m sorry if ↑youu (.) if youu] would (.) take ↑myy proposals as I pre↑sent them. (.) aand de↑bate them. based on yourr objections and yoour differences of ↑vieww. (.) this would be an enlightening cam↑paign. but youu want to reestate my proposals twist my words ↑make them into things that are absolutely ↑noot. (.) I’m ↑not proposing a government-run system that should be very apparent to ↑you. (.) you understand these uh systems well enough from your experience to ↑know. (.) that an employerbased system is very very different from a government-run ↑prograam. (.) and when I say universal ↑coverage I say through an American system deviised by (.) this country through its public and private ↑sectors. (.) that would provide health care in the ↑workplace ↑through the workplace (.) employers employeees and government subsidies (.) and a private menu of ↑ooptions and that is just not a nationalised system as you keep trying to pre↑sent it= =[I think= =(some individual applause) Mr. Gibson go ahead (some individual applause) I think thaat (.) the point] the senator was ↑making Mark is that there’s a difference betweeen (.) a voluntary system of providing health care through employers and a

TR(M): MD: TR(M): MD: RG: A: MD: RG: MD:

JIG: A: TR(M): A: JIG:

790

Appendix ↑mandatory one (.) because you’re going to happen to fiind the kind of health care that we’re requiring (.) I ↑I just make the point that I think ↑aall of us are interested in (.) ↑dealing with the uh uninsured in this country (.) it’s just a question of how (.) I’m encouraged by one statistic and this was just made available within the ↑last week or soo by the Census Bureau (.) and that’s that the number of the uninsured ↑↑droopped this last year (.) the first time since nineteen eighty-↑seven (.) dropped from forty-four point million too forty-two point five (.) that’s an en↑couraging number and it ought to give us ↑paaause (.) before we do anything (0.5) radical (.) and just to respoond to that (.) but ↑any time (.) like you say (.) universal (.) mandated care (.) we ↑do have a voluntary system now (.) that provides the things that Mark ↑↑says ↑he’s for (.) but then he throws in the ‘mandates’ in the ‘universal’ (.) which means ↑somebody has got to ↑oversee the mandates somebody has got to de↑fine the mandates and make sure everybody is ↑living by them (.) and that’s going to be a bureaucracy (.) and ↑that’s the government (.) and that’s where Mark would want us (.) to go ok= =let’s change the subject here (.) Mr. Gibson this is for you (.) ↑which current U.S. senator (.) do you perceeeive (.) your opponents most to be like (.) and why (2.) (4. collectively laughs) well Jesse (patting Rod Grams shoulder) [(laughs) (8. collective laughter) uuuh (0.5)] I think you and Paul well soon get along well (.) and I like Paul but I thinkk uh (.) Paul will sooon and you’re probably ideologically very close (.) do you a↑gree (to Mark Dayton) (2.) on some issues we a↑greee on some issues we disagreee (.) I thinkk uh (.) senator Grams is his own person I think I’m my own person you aasked the question I understand the set up but Ii (.) would not associate the senator with uh Jesse ↑Helms and I would not associate myself with Paul ↑Wellston (.) he’s Rod Grams I’m Mark Dayton (2.) Mr. Grams (0.5) well. (.) thanks Mark for that but I (.) you know I would have to say that Mark iiis uh (.) a little bit like Paul ↑Wellston. in fact he called him [the greatest senator in the U.S. Senate to↑day (laughs almost inaudibly)] and I figured that was praaaise that you [were giving to senator Wellston mhum (.) Ok] if those aacts escalate I think uh you would kind of like to (.) see yourself in those same positions (.) uuh (.) for Mr. Gibson uuuh (.) that’d be kind of hard to say right now (.) maybe uuh (.) somebody like Pat Leahy or maybe uuh (.) Ross Feingold of Wisconsin (.) uuh kind of uuh (.) oon th (.) edge there of aa (.) moderate too (.) liberal ↑Democrat I would say= =the one Minnesotan that is knoown (.) in Washington throughout your country is your ↑governor (.)= =mhum=

RG:

MD: PM(M):

A: JIG: RG: A: JIG:

MD:

PM(M): RG:

AAM1: RG: MD: RG:

TR(M): MD:

791

Appendix TR(M): MD: =Jesse Ventura (.) Mr. Dayton what kind of joob is governor Ventura ↑doing. I’ve been very impressedd uh (.) in the laast several months with governoor proposing uh (.) a ↑different system for financing public education ↑here (.) uuh hiis uh I think very courageous proposal for d (.) domestic partners’ ↑laaws for the (.) state of Minne↑sota. (.) uh as you say uh he’s gott uh (.) a very wonderful ↑claim and he’s using that to open doors for Minnesota uh (.) job oppor↑tunities (.) so Ii uh (.) you know if I’m elected both work for the same people the people of Minne↑sota and I would look (.) forward to working ↑with him and accomplishing all we could together on [behaalf of Minnesota would you sup]port senator Wellston if he challenged ↑him I’m not going to get in (.) I support ↑Democrats. (.) uuuh and so Ii would support th the Democratic uh nomi↑neee through the in the primary (.) but I would work with (.) governor Ven↑tura (.) right up untiill after that (.) ↑primaryy in nineteen or two thousand two because the governor and I both got jobs due for Minnesota= =Mr. Grams what kind of job is governor Ventura ↑doing. =I think he’s donne uh (.) an ↑aadequate joob but uh my best biggest disagreement or biggest disappointment could be in the area of tax relief and giving back the surplus (.) uh here the governor when he campaigned said he would give it baack every diime (.) and Minnesotans have ↑not received every dime of the surplus back and in fact they’ve gotten about twenty-five per cent or less of the ↑dollar. (.) soo uh my biggest disappointment would have been making sure that would have been the tax relief that the government that the governor ↑promised (.) aand uuh (.) it seems like once he got into the governor’s ↑office hee uh (.) kind oof uh (.) thought of ↑spending the money was more im↑portant than giving it back and I believe Minnesotans (.) uh would and neeed (.) uh that surplus money baack in their pockets= =Mr. Gibson Mr. the governor endorsed your candidacy I’d give you a chance to defend him well he did a fundraiser for me last night so I think he’s doing a re↑markable joob= =(bursts into laughter) (laughs) (laughs) (5.5 collectively laughs) and uh] [well he is a good fundraiser right= =(bursts into laughter) (laughter dying out and 3. some individual laughter) well his (4.)] his ↑great strength I think is that (.) hee is very ↑honest with people and he’s not (.) will (.) he’s ↑willing to tell people what they don’t necessarily want to hear (.) and I respect him a great deal for that alright (.) Mr. ↑Dayton (.) ↑you advocate a biipartisan commission (.) to recommend campaign finance reforms (.) followed by an up and down vote in ↑Congress (.) would ↑you support a similar approach to Social Security (.) or Medicare why or why not well. (.) Mr. Majors this is exactly the the approach that ↑was used in thee early

TR(M): MD:

TR(M): RG:

TR(M): JIG: TR(M): RG: MD: A: JIG: RG: MD: A: JIG:

PM(M):

MD:

792

Appendix nineteen eighties too uh (.) put thee (.) adjustments oon on Social Se↑curity which corrected thee (.) short-term projectedd shortfalls in which uh put Social Security in position to↑day where (.) the Congressional Budget Office projects that over the next ten yeears it will (.) be generating a two point four trillion dollar ↑surplus (.) so I I think that at ↑this point (.) uh and if you look at the projections of thee Social Security trus↑teees. (.) uh (.) out of (.) thee foreseeable ↑future based on a (.) reasonable assumption if you take (.) the midrange forecast which is the one wiidely used to talk about the year two thousand thirty-seven as being the ↑turning point (.) that assumes a one point seven (.) real GTP rate of growth (.) uh that’s (.) almost haalf of what it was over the last thirty years of three point ↑ou (.) if you take their (.) called it opti↑mistic assumption but it’s really within the bounds of reasonableness as the two point four (.) present GTPp assumption (.) then we would have according to the projection in the year two thousand forty a sixteen trillion dollar ↑surplus (.) so I think there’s been a wiidely misperceiived situation (.) and one that at ↑this point (.) doesn’t warrant (.) a fix (.) because it’s solvent and people retire today and people (.) working in the workforce young ↑and (.) mid old should know that it’s (.) under foreseeable conditions going to be there for them Mr. Gibson uh Mark (.) I’ve ↑heard you call this number sixteen trillion dollars in two thousand forty a number of times (.) aand ↑what you’re dooing is taking now the Social Security system provides three sets of estimates a low cost ↑estimate (.) which is the best case scenario (.) thee intermediate estimate (.) and the (.) uh ↑high cost scenario (.) and the figure you’re quoting a sixteen trillion comes from the best case scenario in two thousand ↑forty (.) but you’re e↑↑quating that as the sole reason for that better estimate is the GTP growth rate of the two point ↑four (.) well there are a ↑number of variables that go with that estimate the GTP growth rate is is just ↑one (.) uuh (.) number of variables inflation ↑rate (.) life ex↑pectancy (.) ↑this is the best case scenario (.) we’re not about to plaan (.) re↑tirements based up upon a best case scenario (looks at the moderator) (3.5) RG: oh (.) to go back to your question uh (.) would I want to put it in the hands of the com↑mission. (.) I ↑I don’t think I would because I think this is got to be something the American people are invoolved with this is a very important debate this is about their future (.) I’ve held ↑eighty-one town meetings across the state of Minnesota on Social Security I’ve been working on it for seven years introduced the bill three years agoo (.) in fact this is a bill that even Tim ↑Penney supports (.) it was coming out of the Kato Institute I worked ↑closely with (.) and ↑he suppoorts Kato Institute as (.) I supported it (.) aand uh (.) but it has in↑↑vestment (.) as a part (.) or the important ↑part of this (.) even Mr. Russert’s old ↑boss uh Mr. uh uhm Moynihan ↑Moynihan of New ↑York= =[(3.5 collective burst of laughter) has a plaan (.) I’m sorry Tim uuh (.) but has a (.) plan] ↑also calling for investment so ↑I think investment has to be a part and the American people need to be a part of the debate (.) to find exactly ↑what shaare should be invested and who is going to do

PM(M): JIG:

MD:

TR(M): RG: A: RG:

793

Appendix the investing TR(M): ↑I just want to follow up on this because it’s really important (.) and (.) probably the most important joob (.) that a senator will haave (.) from this state or any other state (.) is managiing (.) Social Security (.) Medicare (.) into the next gen for the next generation (.) the trustees’ report Mr. Dayton you talked to I have a copy of (.) and ↑they SAAY very clearly (.) that (.) they belieeve (.) that (.) they will ↑not be able to (.) in the year two thousand thirty-seven (.) meet anymore than seventy-two per cent (.) of the benefits (.) that either benefits would be ↑CUT by a quarter (.) or taxes raise dramatically (.) and in faact (.) every recipient of Social Security (.) has just gootten (.) a ↑↑letter (.) addressed personally to them which says (.) very ↑clearly that (.) our ↑trust fund (.) even after using all the surpluses in the year two thousand thirty-seven (.) will ↑not be enough to pay (.) full benefits (0.5) if in faact when Social Security (.) began (.) we had forty-five workers (.) for every retiree (.) we’re soon approaching two workers per retiree (.) there are now ↑forty million people on the program there soon will be (.) ↑eighty million people (.) life expectancy used to be sixty-fiive it’s heading towards eighty (.) ↑how can we have eighty million people (.) on Social Security for ↑fifteeen years of their life (.) and trus↑teees and the Commissioner of Social Security both are saying ↑warning siign ‘the system is in trouble’ (.) and not have a plan to deal with it well Mr. Russert (.) you’ve said your (.) first question would (.) asking how can we (.) assuume (.) that ten year budget projections are going to be ↑aaccurate (.) we’re talking again abouut (.) uh an outrange here of thirty-seven ↑yeears. and again I I haven’t seen that ↑language. (.) but for them to say to seniors and people working to↑daay. that the system WILL (.) run out of (.) short of money starting in the year twenty thirty-seven and thereaafter will be able to meet only seventy-two per cent of projected ↑benefits to mee iis (.) uh a misstatement because any prediction of that far range is going to be speculated the ↑best (.) that ↑statement is based on an assumption of a one point seven (.) real GTP rate of growth (.) on an average over that ↑time. (.) now if that (.) ↑sslow rate of growth (.) fairly more than half of the three point over the last thirty years is is the best this country ↑does. (.) then Social Security (.) Medicare (.) and every other (.) function of the federal government (.) will be ↑squeeeeze (.) ho↑wever (.) under ↑that. scenario (.) the stock market (.) will not be at its present ↑level it’ll bee well below that and the market’s ↑far more volatile (.) thaan the economy and the federal ↑revenue so (.) if you ↑look at that [sole (.) I’m sorry sir (.) if you look at that sole I mean (.) make sure (.) I’m sorry (.) what you said (.)] if you say that Social Security and Medicare will be squeezed you mean benefits will be cut I’m saying if the eco (.) I mean (.) Social Security and Medicare is as sound as the U.S. economy (.) and federal government (.) if the U.S. economy (.) co↑llaapses or goes into a long-term de↑cline. (.) ↑YES we’re going to be (.) uh (.) not able to meet our commitments and yes ↑then. (.) the market (.) I would say a ↑woorst place to bee (.) ↑far greater volatility (.) ↑in those downturns. (.) people will have uh (.) a net ↑LOse (.) of assets and income rather than even (.) seventy two per ↑cent so (.) it it needs to be (.) a fair comparison (.) the same scenario the same economic as↑sumptions (.) applied to senator Grams’ plan which is essentially privatisation (.) versus the present ↑system.=

MD:

TR(M): MD:

794

Appendix TR(M): RG: Grams and then Gibson let’s have a reality check here (.) he ↑haas no plan for Social Security (.) ↑all he counts on (.) is raising taxes to fill the vooid or the gap (.) and when he says well if the economy is going down (.) well the Social Security system whether the economy is healthy or ↑not (.) if we keep the same ↑system it can’t pay the benefits as you’ve said Mr. Russert (.) the moneys won’t be there unless we raaise taaxes (.) or cut benefits or raise retirement age or something (.) ↑that’s not the system we want to pass on to our ↑children (.) ↑we want to make sure they have a better plaan and that they can have better benefits (.) Mr. Dayton all hee has done is (.) ass (.) as uh ↑also I think (.) it’s been uh (.) Mr. Penney mentioned that a lot of his Democratic colleagues prefer ‘to stick their heads in the SAAND’ (.) I think was the ↑quote (.) ig↑nore the problem (.) maybe get buying election by promising people everything is Ok (.) but re↑ality says that there’s a (.) one large bill (.) at the end (.) not a Dayton’s bill necessarily= [(some individual and almost inaudible laughter) but a large bill (.) that’s going to mean huuuge taxes] to our children and grandchildren (.) it’s ↑not a nameless or faceless group out there (.) these are our kids (.) and I don’t want [to pass this huge tax (.) life bill on to them but with the cost of your plan to privatize (.) at least a trillion dollars to make the transfer= =right= ↑AAnd (.) we’ll not longer make it a universal program (.) sup↑ported byy (.) a country at laarge (.) but ↑raather (.) trade one group off another not really Tim (.) I mean we’re (.) we’re here in an investment (.) and when we look at the transition feees (.) I’m not creating one diime of new debt (.) ↑not one dime (.) I’m ↑REealizing the debt which Mr. Dayton (.) chooses to ig↑nore that it’s ↑there (.) but we know it’s there (.) I hate to start it (.) I don’t I don’t like to start out in the red or in the wholeness but we are (.) we as a country have made this commitment (.) to provide benefit to our retirees (.) and we’re noow in a position where we don’t have the money (.) so we ↑haave to do that (.) but ↑I’m not creating new debt (.) I’m rrecognising that that’s theere (.) and how do we make that traansfer (.) ↑ONE way or the other we’re going to spend ↑that money and moore (.) so we ↑might as well do it in making a traansfer (.) to a better system (.) ↑not one that’s dying= =Mr. Gibson uh ↑Mark I shouldn’t have to constantly be correcting you on issues you referred this one point seven (.) per cent growth rate that’s assumed by intermediate as↑sumptions (.) it doesn’t become one point seven until the year two thousand ↑twenty. (.) it’ss (.) three point fiive this ↑year. two point seven ↑next year. two point three the year ↑aafter. and it drops to two (.) and then to (.) two point one for (.) about ten ↑years. (.) ↑↑secondly (.) you make the same out of thaat (.) uuhm (.) you compaare this growth rate with what we’ve experienced over the last thirty ↑years (.) but GTP ↑growth rate is composed of two items number one productivity ↑growth rate. (.) number (.) ↑two (.) labour force (.) you know the extra hours work (.) th one of the ↑reasons the Social Security ssytem is as↑suuming (.) a lower GP growth rate it’s because of the smaller labour force growth rate (.) not the produc↑tivity growth rate in fact the productivity growth rate of one point five

A: RG:

TR(M): RG: TR(M): RG:

TR(M): JIG:

795

Appendix you’re assuming ↑iiis roughly the rate we’ve haad for the laast (.) thirty years PM(M): ↑we have reserved paart of the hour tonight (.) so that each of you could ask questions of the other (.) aand we’ve reached that point in time (.) so we’ll begin with Mr. Gibson any ↑candidate take your pick (1.5) well ↑Mark uuuh I’m going too uh (.) put your fire too (.) fit on the numbers here (.) and what I’m curious is (1.) will you have enough money to run again in two thousand ↑two. (7. collective burst of laughter followed by a 7. applause) that’s why I picked an office that’s has a six year ↑term [you know (4. collective laughter) very good (unintelligible)] Mr. Grams I want to read part of this cause I’m going to be quotinng uuh (.) Mr. Dayton here and I want to be sure I get it correctly but uh ↑Mark (.) ↑you admitted that you avoided the Vietnam draft by teaching school in New York City (.) I understand that’s very in pop of the war (.) but ↑what troubles me is the fact thatt uh (.) you braag about ↑earning (.) the distinction of being ‘the ↑only Minnesotan name to president Nixon’s ↑enemies’ list’ that’s why I want to quote you (.) can you ↑tell me exactly what you did to make that list and ↑why consider that to be an ↑hoonour (.) would ↑you like (.) to have noted it even on your tomb’s stone well senator you and I have exactly the same military service (.) and I row in your department age which iis ↑none. (.) so you had your de[formance and I had mine (.) and Ii (.) (collective laughter followed by 6. applause) may I (.) may I respond (to Rod Grams) yes= =ok] (1.) I ↑stated. (.) based on my personal convictions when I graduated from college that Ii (.) opposed the ↑war. (.) it was a controversial ↑war. (.) I was twentytwo years old but I had the courage of my convictions and Ii (.) sent a letter to the president of the United States saying (.) that I ↑would not serve because Ii (.) op↑posed the war and I could not in good conscience to ↑do so (.) I became targeted by the most undemocratic and I mean that with the small ‘↑dd’. (.) administration in the last ↑century. (.) Ii uh had (.) an IRS ↑audit. that my family often said was unlike ↑anything that had ever occurred or has occurred ↑since (.) Ii (.) when I got my freedom of information uh (.) uh (.) results I found that I had been (.) pursuued uh (.) by the FB↑Ii (.) I’ve (.) believed that the (.) inviolation of civil ↑liberties and the right of (.) dissent during that time was (.) compromised (.) by that administration in rates that are ↑dangerous. to our de↑mocracy. and Ii (.) as I said (.) put myself on the line and I stood (.) ↑strong and (.) uh (.) that’s why I (.) involved in the anti-war ↑movement (.) contributing funds ↑legally to the anti-war movement [to make that political statement ↑and that counter-defence fund] that counter-de↑fence fund yes (.) because they were being held (.) in jail for

JIG: PM(M): JIG:

A: MD: A: JIG: PM(M): RG:

MD:

A: MD: RG: MD:

RG: MD:

796

Appendix unnlimited periods of ↑tiime. (.) and I provided funds so that they could (.) although other funds may fail (.) with↑in the legal system (.) always within the ↑legal system (.) that’s the ↑first amendment right (.) and I ↑exercised it and as I said I put myself on the liine (.) aand (.) ↑did I (.) am I ↑proud that those are ↑on on that Nixon’s ↑enemies’ list. (.) you bet I am (.) because ↑that (.) president compromised the civil liberties of this country (.) to a ↑far greater extent than anybody else ever haas [could I ↑answer just this one question so you want to talk about [what ↑you did] during the war (7. collective applause) could I ANswer this ONe question yes= =Well Mr. Dayton said I had my defor]mance that’s not true. (.) I had a heart problem that I was not allowed to play sports in my junior and senior in high-school (.) but I ↑still enlisted in the air force (.) ↑they rejected me they turned me down (.) I en↑listed in the army for three years (.) ↑they turned me down because of my heart problem (.) I was then draafted and re↑↑ported for the draaft and was turned down (.) I had my ↑heart operation done just two years ago to correct that (.) I would have LOOved to have had that done when I was eighteen years old so that I could have probably seerved my country [(7. applause) (to the audience) we need you up (.) once again in the audience please HOLD your applause until the even (.)] the evening has finished (.) Mr. Dayton it’s your turn ↑senator uuh (.) you’ve aadvocated the elimination of the state taax aand (.) you talked about thee (.) uuh unfairness to (.) small businesses family ↑faarms that (.) need to be paassed ↑on to future generations and I (.) I agree with you that that is (.) an inequity that needs to be addressed but last (.) Ju↑lyy that thee Congress (1.) passed the elimination of that tax which was vetoed by the ↑president uh (.) senator ↑Feingold of Wisconsin proposed an amendment that would (.) exempt ↑all the states up to one hundred million dollars in aassets (.) so only (.) states a↑bove a hundred million dollars would be taaxed at the previous rates (.) you ↑ordered against that amendment. (.) w w ↑how many small businesses and family farms in Minnesota have aassets (.) up (.) greater than a hundred million dollars that would be unfairly taxed (.) under that and ↑how do you explain that vote= =well that was aa (.) in Congress wee (.) refer to that as just a ‘political set-up’ (.) and that’s what that vote waas (.) because it was re↑jected by the president on the terms that we had paassed it (.) and to start putting limits on anything (.) you start creating warfaare (.) rich against the ↑pooor (.) now when you ↑talk about that state tax I’m out there fighting ↑for that small farmer. (.) who has maybe a two million dollar operation or a small businessman (.) and when ↑hee or his wife passes away their family faces (.) ↑PRObably four hundred thousand dollars in the state tax (.) thoose are the people that I am fighting for (.) four hundred thousand dollars now (.) ↑MAny farmers can’t afford to pay that (.) so they have to break their farms up maybe into forty acre parcels so rich people from the ↑city (.) can mould and buy them as ↑hobby farms (.) as ↑you have done (.) and dest[trooy the family farms that we have across this country (.) but ↑ALso (almost inaudible and collective disapproving reaction)]

RG: MD: A: RG: PM(M): RG:

A: PM(M): MD:

RG:

A:

797

Appendix RG: OUR farmers do ↑not haave. (.) the eight thousand or sixteen thousand or twentyfour thousand dollars a year (.) to hire expert (0.5) at↑torneys accountants and state lawyers (.) and I know when you were born and put in the ↑crib. (.) you had ↑aall of those (.) but yoour ↑trust funds are set up in a South Dakota bank that go on forever and ever (.) so ↑yoou are not at (.) ttached to (.) or will not be affected (.) by the state tax and you’re out there de↑nyying (.) the ssmall business men and ↑women out there (.) ↑their opportunity (.) to protect what they’ve worked for and pay their taaxes on (.) while yet you ↑haave (.) ↑this shield (.) and you have this protection (.) for ↑your state and I think that’s unfair and I don’t put any (.) kind of waage limit or anything on it if it is (.) ↑IMmoral (.) at two million dollars (.) if it’s ↑UNfair (.) at ten million dollars. it’s unfair altogether and it’s a tax we should get rid of today [(3. collective applause) well (.) (to the moderators) May I] ask to have my question ↑answered= =(laughs) (1.5) RG: why did I ↑vote for I told you it was a political ↑set up (.) and I voted not for be↑cause of that (.) if it was a serious proposal but these are one of those that they ↑love to have you take a vote on (.) so that Democratic candidates that run for Senate against me in Minnesota can bring up a question like [this in a debate (almost inaudible laughter) well exactly (.) well (clears throat) (.) of course that that’s never (unintelligible) Let me turn (.) let me turn] to some questions from the audience the first is aa Maatt (.) a voter in Minneapolis (.) all three candidates (.) ‘↑what is your position on allowing gay and lesbians to foorm (.) ↑civil unions (.) marriage in essence (.) without using the word’ (1.) I’m sorry again Tim what ↑was it ↑what is your position on allowing gay and lesbians to foorm (.) ↑civil unions (.) marriage in essence (.) but without using the word well I don’t support you knoow (.) marriage voowels between (.) uh gays and lesbians or homo↑sexuals (.) I think marriage is sanctity between a man and a woman (.) but what individuals doo on their oown (.) and in the privacy of their home (.) ↑Ii (.) don’t object it. Mr. Gibson well ↑if you beliieve (.) that marriage is a commitment between two people then you have to believe that uh (.) gay marriage occurs all the ↑time because those commitments are being made (.) so only a question whether we as a society (.) sanction anywhere or accord benefits with a uuh (.) with a union (.) I be↑lieve I’ve taken the position that this is a civil rights issue and it ought to ↑treat it as such so (.) I would support (.) uuh civil union legislation= Mr. Dayton a founding principle in this country is that all men and women are created ↑equal and they’re endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights so among these it’s life liberty and the pursuit of haappiness and in that context I believe that (.) civil unions should be per↑mitted uh (.) and that (.) domestic partners as (.) by governor Ventura has gracely proposed be (.) pro↑vided aaand I still believe that that (.) thee

A: MD: AAM2:

A: MD: TR(M):

RG: TR(M): RG:

TR(M): JIG:

TR(M): MD:

798

Appendix (.) this society is not ready to accept (.) the sanctity of marriage be (.) uuh con↑ferred (.) but that is (.) a private and r re↑ligious (.) view (.) but again I think that civil unions should be (.) developed playing out that right (.) Mr. Gibson Mr. Grams Mr. Dayton (.) should the ↑Boy Scouts be forced (.) to admit (.) gay leaders (.) or gay scouts that’ss (.) a very tough call (.) as I under↑stand it. (.) uuh (.) the Supreme Court haas (.) allowed the Boy Scouts to function as they choose (.) aand I think that’ss (.) where the decision iis (.) uh my ↑personal opinion would bee that that’ss (.) probably not (.) a good decision on their ↑part (.) that that uh (.) will create a (.) quite a ↑backlash and (.) uhm (.) it will be perceived as not being (.) a fair position Mr. Dayton (0.5) the Supreme Court made (.) the ↑decision I think the Boy Scouts did themselves serious haarm uh (.) and will pay that price financially and in terms of public sup↑port (.) uh again (.) you know (.) we’re all s h (.) are cre↑ated equal should be ↑treated equal either certainly the laaws that protect c (.) children of any age from (.) heterosexual ↑oor (.) inappropriate heterosexual ↑or homosexual coontact (.) but to single out one group and say they’re a greater risk and and uh (.) the rest of our so society I think it’s a (.) a Neanderthaaal and unwarranted and unsubstantiated ap↑proach and I think the Boy Scouts uh (.) are going to loose a lot of the support as they should foor uh (.) em↑bracing that Mr. Grams I don’t think they should be forced to admit (.) uuh (.) homosexuals if they’re scout ↑leaders if that’s their decision (.) I respect their decision to say ↑no this is from Lauren ↑Nixon age eleven (.) for all three of you (.) ‘↑what would you do to help prevent guuns (.) from coming into schools’ (.) Mr. Gibson (0.5) well (clears throat) (0.5) behiind uh (.) obviously we need to do everything we caan (.) to help prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals or ↑children. (.) aand uh (.) I just think it’s a matter oof (.) I hate to use the word ‘enforce law’ so I’m going to u (.) I think it’s a bit glib (.) I think the real answer is com↑mitting (.) appropriate resources to the appropriate agencies so that they can do their ↑joob (.) aaand I be↑lieve for the most part the laws are in the book to prevent (.) exactly this (.) aand uh (.) we need to hold those ac↑countable. that would al↑low. (.) guns to get into the hands of children (.) hold them ac↑countable. senator Grams= we ↑want to make sure we have safety in our schoools and nnumbers of times in the last couple of years I have voted to support a resolution that means that our schoools should be ‘gun free zoones’ (.) now we’ve ↑HAAd had laws on the floor of the Senate (.) where I’ve voted a law a↑gainst the laaw (.) a ↑federal law that said that (.) you should not allow guns in ↑school. (.) and I’m talking about then I did not want the federal government to pre-↑empt. (.) state rights (.) or state decisions (.) now even in the state of Minnesota [we already have laaws in the books (almost inaudible and collective reactions of disapproval)] (.) Rick ↑Staneck (.) a police officer him↑self. (.) he chairs the committee on crime prevention in the state legislator (.) and hee ↑stroongly says that state laaws are adequate (.) to provide the protection on school zoones (.) so ↑Ii would say ↑whyy have the federal government institute this laaaw (.) when Minnesota has already the

TR(M): JIG:

TR(M): MD:

TR(M): RG: PM(M): JIG:

PM(M): RG:

A: RG:

799

Appendix law that will do that (.) and if ↑we’re going to have the federal government dictating to the states in every area such as ↑this. (.) then we don’t ↑need a state legislator (.) maybe we don’t need the ↑governor. (.) maybe we can just have these appointees come right out of ↑Waashington (.) but I really strongly support states’ rights (.) but I ↑doo strongly support that we have safety in our ↑schoools and that guns should not be (.) allowed on school property (1.) (unintelligible) I [(.) (starts applauding) (to the audience) please hold your applause (.)] Mr. Dayton= =I fundamentally disagree with senator Grams I would have voted in favour of that (.) amendment which became federal laaw that would have provided (.) for a federal BAAn (.) on the possession or use of fire arms in schools on school property or in the immediate vi↑cinity. (.) the f↑federal laaaw or the consequences of that baan weere actually greater than the consequences under Minne↑sota laaw (.) but just as im↑↑portantly (.) aas (.) one of a hundred Minnesotan senators (.) you’re making a federal law that’d apply to aall states (.) then I would want every school child in America (.) Minnesota oor other state and (.) to have that federal protection (.) that they could go into their school knowing (.) the federal government saying (.) no weapons in that ↑schoool. (.) and there’s ↑serious federal consequence for violating that (.) that’s the first [step [I would take (2.5 almost inaudible collective applause) (clears throat) and next question from the audience (.)] ↑why in the world should we as a nation be spending billions of dollars endly to proosecute (.) incarcerate tens of thousand of U.S. citizens for process (.) for po↑ssessing growing or smoking (.) marihuana= =(almost inaudible individual laughter)= =it’s aNOonymous =[(almost inaudible individual laughter) it’s (unintelligible) (immediately laughs at senator Rod Grams’ comment)] who wants to go first= =(raises his hand)= go ahead Mr. Gib[son ok] (1.) I’ve taken the most controversial position on this issue (.) I I took the position that we ought to decriminalize (.) this (.) aand (.) you know I’ve ↑never (.) used marihuana I’ve had no intention of ever using it (.) uuhm (.) I never went to college so I never got in habit of it (.) [aand uh= =(11. almost inaudible collective laughter mixed with some individual applause) (laughs loudly) (laughs) BUT (1.5) but you know when you ↑look at (.) you ↑look at the laaw] you have to look at the ef↑fect of the law. and weight (.) negative consequences of the laaw with the negative consequences of the drug (.) and I have simply come to the conclusion that the negative consequences of the laaw are greater than the negative consequences of the of the (.) the ↑drug (.) and I ↑do not belieeve (.) that by decriminilizing it (.) usage would increase to any measurable extent (.) if it did I

MD: A: PM(M): MD:

A: TR(M):

A: TR(M): A: RG: MD: TR(M): JIG: TR(M): JIG:

A: RG: MD: JIG:

800

Appendix would be the first (.) to change position on this issue TR(M): MD: (giving Mark Dayton permission to talk by looking at him and raising his eyebrows) I’m (.) I’m a recovering alcoholic I I know from personal experience the tragedy of ad↑diction. (.) I ↑also know that uuh (.) use misuse and abuse of (.) a chemicall (.) such as ↑that iis (.) serious consequence and it is aa (.) needs a treatment approach (.) and it’s (.) I think it’s a real ↑TRAgedy in this country and one of the failings of our (.) uh medical ↑system now and insurance system that it is almost (.) im↑POOssible for anybody to get private insurance for the (.) twenty-eighth A program which is (.) saved ↑my life and I think it’s essential for (.) any young adult or people as ↑well (.) however (.) going be↑yoond that to the sale of illegal drugs is a serious criminal ↑matter. and should be treated as ↑such. (.) I think we should give discretion to judges to make the decision appropriate to the (.) amount of the drug being ↑soold. and the (.) background of that indi↑vidual. (.) but I’m (.) very very alaarmed about th (.) what I consider one of the great ↑threat to restore national security which is the flood of illegal drugs into this country and I think we’ve got to (.) take strong action a↑gainst that like Jim I’ve neveer tried marihuana I’ve drunk a beer or two but uh (.) not that (.) uh but ↑I don’t think we should give upp uh the war on criime (.) uh but at the same time that uh the ↑use of drugs is not a (.) a victimless ↑criime (.) and there are violences associated with it with the sale (.) and other uses (.) of drugs (.) so (.) ↑maybe we should be looking at thoose who (.) SELL (.) and ↑prey (.) on our young people (.) that they should have much harsher treatment (.) uuh but find out maybe different ways of trying to help thoose (.) uuh that are addicted or ↑uuse (.) uh drugs in a different way without uh (.) basically ↑flooding our prisons and driving up the costs in in finding ways to help those (.) uh but for THOse who uuh (.) are out there selling it on the street and and creating (.) a lot of these problems I think we should have harsher treatment in sentencing. this↑next question isn’t from the audience but it is just something I’d like to aask and Mr. Gibson I don’t mean to ex↑clude you it’s just that your campaign has not been as advertising in↑tensive (.) on radio or television. (.) but the ↑question is ↑this (.) yoou (.) the two major party candidates both have negative ads out there (.) Mr. Dayton’s to somebody’s ears this is (.) are described as SOOFT negative (.) [but nonetheless are negative in tone (.) (laughs)] Mr. Grams obviously disa[grees yes] (.) but when ↑EEIther of you were sitting at hoome or when you’re driving in the car on the campaign trail (.) and you ↑hear one of these ads (.) your own ↑aads (.) are you personally proud of ↑these ads [(1.) Mr. ↑Grams (almost inaudible individual laughter)] I’ll go first (.) well (.) Paul for about three ↑months (.) I have been the victim of a llot of theese (.) negative ads run against me [saying that I I’d like you talking about ↑your ads my ↑ads (.) my aads I’m looking at those that’re trying to put some definition to what Mark Dayton has pro↑posed. (.) because the worst thing that Mark Dayton has done ↑not in so much what he has said about mee but what he hasn’t said about

RG:

PM(M):

RG: PM(M): RG: PM(M):

A: RG: PM(M): RG:

801

Appendix Mark Dayton and his plaans (.) so I felt I needed to put some ↑definition (.) behind those plaans and to tell people what it ↑meeans (.) under his health care plaan (.) what it meeans (.) under his prescription drug plaan (.) what it would meean under his lack of Social Se↑curity plan. (.) and I’m sorry about the video but that’s really about the best video we could ↑find of Mark. (.) [I’m sorry that’s all we ↑haad (somewhat laughing) (.) I mean we didn’t have ac (collective sign of disapproval) [COME OON cess to his pictures] [so we Mr. Dayton]] (0.5) I’ve reviewed every one of my ads before it’s ↑run. (.) I’ve reviewed the script (.) I’ve looked at thee (.) ↑pictures. and thee ↑contrast. and Ii (.) stand behind every one of them in terms of factual ↑accuracy. (.) in terms of fair represen↑tation. (.) I think (.) uuh (.) the contrast (.) between two candidates if (.) fairly and accurately repre↑sented is exactly the kind of information that voters (.) neeed (.) to ↑haave (.) to make their de↑cisions (.) this is a far (.) preferrable form I commend that Minnesota Meeting (.) Kare eleven (.) and the ↑like for (.) providing this oppor↑↑tunity (.) but in the construct of a thirty-second aad (.) uuh (.) is ↑limited. (.) but I (.) stand behind every one of them= =Mr. Gibson= =uh could I just make a comment (.) you know as you know with the low poll ratings at large (.) that’s (.) ↑part of the problem that I had this low name recognition (.) as I said before the other day I’d reeally appreciated it if the two of you would run some attack ads against me= [(bursts into collective 4.5 laughter followed by 6. applause) ↑DO I (.) ↑do I have to give you the ma↑terial and I said I can’t afford that but maybe Mr. Dayton [can help you out BE BE (.) be↑fore we goo] before we goo (.) a fun question] (.) if ↑you could have had a lifeline (.) to help you tonight (.) Mr. Dayton who would have been= =(individual laughter)= I’m just uh (.) grateful foor my higher power Mr Grams= =I would have called my mother she usually has a very little adv= =Mr. Gibson= a fellow by the name of Donna Grahams she lives down in Washington right now= =all right (.) time now for our closing statements each candidate will be given (.) one ↑minute (.) these are not random selections we (.) drew ↑naames (.) Mr. Gibson you’ll begin I’d like to leave you with the sense (.) of my concern for the fu↑tuure and (.) where that comes from within me (0.5) ↑takes a long time to understand why you’re running for the (.) the United States Se (.) uuh (.) the Senate and it’s the first question you’ve got to ↑ask of course (.) but for ↑mee after doing a lot of soul searching I ↑realiized it coomes from a ↑deep sense of gratitude (.) for what we inherit as a society (.) and for what ↑I inherited personally (.) uh in terms of being born (.) into a supportive family a nursing environment (.) and the opportunities that were afforded me (.) but (.) what we inhere as a society are our institutions our

A: AAM3: RG: PM(M): MD:

PM(M): JIG:

A: JIG: RG: TR(M): A: MD: TR(M): RG: TR(M): JIG: PM(M):

JIG:

802

Appendix ↑vaalues. (.) our ↑well certainly. (.) and I ↑only arguue (.) that (.) in my theme of intergenerational (.) justice that (.) ↑wee (.) simply (.) ↑take thoose (.) things we’ve inherited (.) and build u↑pon them (.) re↑fine them (.) aand at the very least leave the world (.) aas (.) good of position as we found it but ↑hopefully (.) a whole lot better (clears throat) Mr. Dayton this election is about ↑youu aand your future (.) it’s about ↑your priorities for yourself for your faamily your state your nation (.) ↑I’ve done my best (.) throughout this campaign to reflect the priorities that ↑I’ve heard from Minnesotans this yeear and throughout my (.) previous years of public ↑service (.) I believe that this is a (.) time of (.) great opportunity in this ↑countryy. with the period of economic expansion (.) I don’t call it pros↑perity. cause I don’t hear this prosperity from most (.) Minnesotans (.) however it is the ↑tiime when we have the resources a↑vailable. (.) to (.) address these ↑problems. to improve our ↑public schoools to (.) provide (.) a ↑system (.) of health care for all of our citizens (.) to protect Social Se↑curityy. (.) bring down the cost of prescription ↑mediciines. (.) ↑those are the (.) things I will fight for (.) on ↑your behalf out of Washington that’s why I ↑seek this office that’s why I ask for your support senator Grams well I’d like to thank the media in Minnesota and uh Kare eleven and especially Paul and Tim uh (.) for this opportunity to be here tonight (.) ↑MInnesotans elected me in nineteen ninety-two and again in nineteen ninety-four on a plaatform of rewarding hard-working accountability (.) and my ↑voowws and pledges to work to reduce the (.) ↑huuge tax burden on Americans and ↑also to make this government to run more efficiently in order to pro↑viide (.) better services for less cost (.) but I know there’s some voter apathy out because there’s a ↑lot of candidates (.) promising you everything (.) and knowing they ↑can’t or won’t (.) live up to those promises either because of coosts or something else (.) but ↑I promised you when I ran that I would lower taxes and I did the five-hundred dollar per child tax credit I’m working to make that a thoousand (.) I ↑promised I would work to save Social Se↑↑curity (.) I have done ↑thaat (.) and I’ve passed the Grams’ ↑lock box that means that those Social Security surpluses will stay a↑↑waay from the big spenders in Washington (.) and be focused on saving Social Security (.) and I’ve talked about reforming and saving Medicare and especially prescription druugs (.) ↑I’ve been working on prescription druugs and introduced the med’s plan (.) a year and a ↑half ago (.) began working on it (.) ↑three years ago (.) ↑not for this political (.) season or to make it a political issue (.) but because I was conceerned about it I ↑neeed (.) and I want to go back to continue working for Minnesotans (.) and I ask for your vote on November seventh (.) thank you= =[(5. collective applause) well that does it foor (.) tonight’s ↑televised portion of this debate (.)] ↑post-debate discussion will continue in about five minutes and will laast till around eight o’clock tonight= you can ↑watch that at hoome by logging into ‘m m meeting ↑dot com’ (.) we want to thank our candidates Rod Grams Mark Dayton and Jim ↑Gibson. (.) it’s been an honor for me to see Minnesota democracy close ↑up (.) November seventh is ↑your

PM(M): MD:

PM(M): RG:

A: PM(M):

TR(M):

803

Appendix turn pleease vote= PM(M): TR(M): A: =and Tim thank you very much for joining us we appreciate it very ↑much (shakes hands with him) (.) thank you at home as ↑well. (.) thank you very much= (turns around to the audience with arms raised) YOU CAN APPLAUD (laughing) [(14.5 bursts into collective applause and reactions of approval) (candidates shake hands with each other and then moderators approach them to do likewise)]

804

Appendix Gubernatorial Debate, Indianapolis, IN. WISH Especial Event Aired September 22nd, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Announcer (AN) Jim Shella (JS(M)) Frank O’Bannon (FO) Andrew Horning (AH) Audience (A) David McIntosh (DMC) Mike Ahern (MA) John Schwantes (JSC) Carolene Mays (CM) AN: Indiana is considered a Republican state (.) but ↑Democrats have controlled the governor’s office for twelve yeears (.) noow Republican David McIntosh is giving up a seat in Congress in a bet to be elected governor (.) it’s ↑his hope to defeat Democrat (.) Frank O’Baanon (.) tonight they are jooined by Libertarian (.) Andrew Horning (.) live from downtown Indianapolis (.) the ↑first debate in the ↑two thousand race for ↑governor of Indiana […]* in a live auditorium in a debate sponsored by the Indianapolis Press Club (.) I’m WISH-TV political reporter Jim Shella the ↑moderator (.) of tonight’s debate (.) associate sponsors of this debate include WISH-TV the Sycamore Institute (.) WFYIi (.) and the ↑Hudson Institute (.) the candidates aare from left to right (.) Republican David McIntosh (.) Libertarian Andrew Horning (.) and ↑Democrat Frank O’Bannon (.) they will ↑follow rules that have been agreed to by each campaign (.) at one stage in the debate (.) they will be questioned by a panel of journalists (.) they aare Mike Ahern of WISH-TV (.) John Schwantes of ‘The Indianapolis Staar’ (.) and Carolene Mays of ‘The Indianapolis Recorder’ (.) according to the debate ruules we will begin with a ↑ten minute opening statement (.) from each ↑candidate (.) and we begin with the Democrat Frank O’Bannon (.) Mr. O’Bannon ↑thank you Jiim (.) and thank you panelists and (.) certainly thank you spoonsors (.) and good eveening to all of you who’re watching at hoome (.) and certainly my greetings too (.) Mr. Horning and congressman McIntosh (1.) ↑let me begin by thanking the people of Indiana for giving meee the opportunityy to serve as governor (.) ↑Judyy and I have met ma many of you as we’ve travelled in the state (.) and I’ve heard (.) your hopes for the future (.) we think it’s ↑great to be a ewe shearer (.) ↑I grew up in Cardin in southern Indiana (.) and I learned a great deeal growing up in that (.) small town (.) our ↑parents (.) taught us that being a good citizen (.) mean you have to bee (.) look at every aaspect of the community (.) and have meant that our (.) we would ↑doo those thiings that would help (.) push the community forward (.) our ↑family business is right across the street (.) from the first state capitol (.) and our family church (.) as a ↑booy (.) I milked coows became an Eagle Scoout (.) and worked two (.) part-time joobs (.) as inn as I was in schoool (.) I went away to ↑college (.) and after graduation (.) I joined the Air Force and served my country (.) I

JS(M):

FO:

*

Talk missing because of a network failure.

805

Appendix re↑tuuurned to Indiana (.) met my wife Judy (.) and we settled in Cardin (.) to begin our lives together (.) it was ↑theere that I learned how too (.) manage a business (.) run a weekly newspaper (.) ↑meet the payroll (.) and teach Sunday school (.) I ↑learned that my parents were right (.) and about the importance of community invoolvement (.) and I knew that ↑Judy and I would always bee (.) invoolved in public life (.) I have been married for forty-three ↑yeears to a remarkable woman (.) through↑oout our liife Judy has always amazed me in her abilityy to take on new challenges (.) people have been ↑in and out (.) out of our house (.) from the ↑Scouts to the church to the PTAa (.) to our work with ↑seniors. (.) and people (.) with disabilities (0.5) I’m ↑also fortunate to have aa great partner at work (.) lieutenant governor Joe Kernan (.) ↑Jooe is al always ready to meet (.) the challenges of government (.) because he has met even greater challenges (.) after ↑graduating from northern Daame in nineteen sixty-eight Joe enlisted in the navy as a flight officer (.) in nineteen seventy-two he was shot down over northern Vietnam (.) and held as a prisoner of waar for almost a year (.) he receiived two purple hearts (.) upon returning from Vietnaam (.) Joe became a successful business executive (.) and mayor of South Beend (.) he ↑is noow (.) the best lieutenant governnor in the United States (1.) when ↑I raan for governor in nineteen ninety-six Ii pleedged to put ewes shearers’ families first (.) and I haave (.) and ↑I also told you I’d bring common sense ewe shearers’ values to the office (.) of governor (.) and I haave (.) starting with telling ↑it to you straight lieutenant no ↑gaames. (.) no double taalk (.) no empty slogans (.) or clever sound bites (.) just plain common sense (.) I ↑said (.) if we took politics out of education (.) we could ↑get meaningful (.) education reform (.) so I ↑aasked state superintendent Sue Allan-Reed to join me (.) in creating the Education Round Table (.) consisting of business leaders and teachers (.) coming together for a common goal (.) as a reSULT of ↑our work (.) Indiana is now one of five states (.) that requires ↑every schoool (.) to be held accountable (.) for their improvement (.) as ↑governor (.) I will con↑tinue to work in a biipartisan manner (.) with both the legislator and the Roound Table (.) but let’s not forget (.) that Indiana iis a↑bove the national average in Maath and reading scores (.) a↑bove the national average (.) in in school technology (.) a↑bove the national average (.) in test scores of college-bound students (.) and we’re in the top ten (.) in Math improvement (.) incidentally these rankings come from the Indiana Department of Education ↑headed byy superintendent ↑Reed. (.) a Republican (.) to anyone running for office that says our schools are at the bottom (.) ↑I suggest they give her a caall (.) so she can straighten them out (.) our schools ↑↑are improving (.) and we need to doo much much more (.) more school imp provement plan (.) will raise reading and Math achievement (.) provide (.) ↑tutors for children (.) fuund five hundred ↑master teachers (.) im↑proove teacher quality (.) and enhaance character education (.) with your help (.) we’ll prepare our kids with the ↑knowledge and the ↑skiills. (.) and the (.) character to compete in the twenty-first century economy (0.5) ↑four years ago I said I’d keep our economy stroong and we’re doing just that (.) more ewe shearers are working than ever before over three million (.) Indiana is noow (.) number oone in middle-class joobs (.) number oone in moving people (.) from welfare to work (.) number ↑two in the riise of household incomes (.) ↑thiird in the fewest families (.) in poverty (.) ↑eighth in the growth of hiigh-wage joobs (.) and eleventh in the country in high-tech joobs (.) I’m ↑pleaased. to stand

806

Appendix here you tonight (.) and tell it to you straight (.) Indiana’s economy is stronger than ever (.) and we’ll ↑keep it stroong by pursuing the saame conseervative fiscal policies (.) that got us here (.) in faact Fuji just an↑nounced (.) and La Fiat that (.) they’re big building a new engine plant there (.) and they cited as their key reason (.) low taxes (.) so while we were out last year talking about taxes (.) Indiana’s had no tax increaase in twelve years (.) when ↑I took office (.) I said I didn’t want to only ↑not to increase taxes but to cut taxes (.) by a billion and a half dollars (.) it’s a faact that ↑ewe shearers have had their property and income taxes cut under my administration (.) and by the waay. (.) David McIntoshh has seen his property taxes cut (.) by over two hundred dollars (.) in fact property taxes (.) his property taxes have gone down twenty-three per ↑cent. (.) in the last six years (.) and I believe that we can con↑tinue to cut property taxes and we must do it responsibly (.) ↑that’s whyy I introduced my taxpayer protection plan (0.5) ↑my plaan cuts taxes by a billion dollars byy taking welfare off the property tax rooles permanently (.) and it’s paid for it (.) a tax pl plaan that makes seense and adds up (.) and it ↑also makes ch sense to meet our ↑health care needs head oon (.) and that’s what we’ve done (.) for children (.) we lodged ewe shearer health wiise (.) now over a hundred and thirty thousand children are covered by health insurance (.) Indiana is now number ↑one state in providing health care coverage to our children. (.) for ↑sseniors we’ve doubled th (.) the number served under choice because seniors should determine their oown health care neeeds (.) and we’ve ranked number one in the country (.) in loong term caare (.) we’ll con↑tinue to put ewe shearers’ families first in health care (.) my fellow ewe shearers (.) the campaign comes to trust (.) as governor (.) I have ↑put the people of Indiana first (.) instead of politics (.) and I have ↑always worked to build Indiana ↑up. (.) not tear it down (.) together we’ve made great progress in the last four yeears (.) our ↑schools are better (.) our e↑conomy is strong (.) we’ve ↑cut taxes over one and a half billion dollars (.) ↑more children have health care (.) our seniors have chooice and our streets are safe (.) to↑gether (.) we have accomplished much the last four years (.) ↑I’m excited about the future here in Indiana (.) and I ask for your trust and sup↑port. in this election thank you= =thank you (1.) thank you Mr. O’Bannon (.) our next opening statement will come from the Liber↑tarian candidate Andrew Horning (.) Mr. Horning you have ten minutes thank you (.) (clears throat) well I guess uuh since ↑I am not really part of the biipartisan world you might expect that I have a somewhat different ↑take. (.) and in fact I ↑do (.) myy ↑father was also a prisoner of war I (.) I was listening to that ↑story and thinking that (.) there is ↑so many peeople of that generation that foought and ↑diied. they gave an ↑aawful loot (.) so that we can have the liberties that are (.) actually ↑coontracted in our constitutions aand (.) I was thinking of the number of (.) ↑offences to Black men who never really ↑haad the liberties (.) they were ↑promised to them as with these constitutions ↑yet they fought for just the ↑promise (.) of liberty and justice for aall (.) and (.) my ↑faather when he was (.) a guest of the Germans (.) you know he was shot down in the B seventeen (.) and (.) ↑had an awful time and he thought he was putting a (.) the fate of a whole generation (.) and thought they were putting behind them (.) the the notion that they’d ever have to fight for those liberties a↑gain. (.) and then we were de↑feeating the Naazis de↑feeating authoritarianism (.)

JS(M):

AH:

807

Appendix and putting all of the thhrreat (.) of loost liberties be↑hind us. (.) but (.) you ↑know (.) I’ve got to say since the ink was wet on our constitutions (.) people who have ↑sought power over others (.) have aalways been trying (.) trample on our ↑liberties. (.) and ↑liberty laast only as loong as you’re willing to protect it (.) now the reason I’m kind of going into this (.) uh I suppose philosophical ramble right at the be↑ginning (.) it’s because (.) an ↑awful loot of what this country was supposed to be about (.) you know (.) what made us great (.) was ↑self-reliance (.) it was the idea that you could actually ↑keeep the products of your income (.) you know the foods of your labour (.) you could actually work for your↑self (.) and ↑noot (.) for the government you know we have lots of terms for what we have now I’m ↑not going to call it authoritarianism cause ↑we’re not quite there yet (.) yeah we’ve seen images of Janet Reno you know kicking down doors in a child custody case (.) and I’m not real haappy about the kinds of things I’ve ↑seen in my own neighbourhood here in Indianapolis and downtown (.) uh ↑I’ve seen things thatt uh (.) I ↑↑never wanted to see (.) I ↑didn’t want to have to ↑seee. (.) the kind off uhm (chuckles) (.) op↑↑ppression (.) that ↑people taalk aboout and some people have to happen to haave my skin colour and my kind of economic class with dismiss (.) but it’s very ↑real (.) you know we have some serious ↑problems and it’s ↑↑mostly from the bottom-end of our culture (.) an awful ↑lot of us are fat and happy and we’re not seeing it ↑coming (.) but I’ve got to ↑tell you. (.) that’s just history as old as Aadam but when it sneaks ↑up on you you know the (.) authoritarianism is something that (.) I suppose is likke uh dental hygiene if you don’t keep brushing your ↑teeth is going to come and ↑get you. (.) and what we have to DOO is under↑staand (.) that the ↑constitutions were ↑↑coontracts (.) desiiigned (.) and the ↑contracts (.) it’s not a statement of principle is going to get (.) let that run out upfront (.) that they’re the ↑coontraacts designed to limit the scope and power of government (.) and ↑we have broken those ↑contracts time and time a↑gain. (.) now you’re going to hear a lot of success stories for the rest of this campaign I’m sure of it I’ve I have heard them when I ran for ↑mayor last year I always hear these stories of (.) very ↑↑touching stories I ↑like the stories about (.) you know children and in haallways you know and violence and doing things on their own (.) it’s wonderful ↑stuff. (.) but those are indi↑viduals. (.) when ↑we tryy (.) when ↑politicians stand up on stage (.) and try to take credit for individuals you know my ↑haackles go up a little bit you know (.) I think this is ↑wrong. (.) this is not what this country was supposed to be (.) and I think that when we ↑SEEE. (.) you know the difference (.) between (.) what Democrats used to be and what they are now what Republicans used to be and what they are now (.) and (.) and how it ↑iis. (.) that we’ve come such a bipartisan ↑world. (.) when the vvigorous (.) the ↑very vigorous democracy of early A↑merica. (.) had a bunch of parties in it (.) noow (.) and of course that is something a little selfserving when we’re talking about (.) how many parties we used to haave (.) and how ↑interesting democracy used to bee (.) and how people used to get up off their (0.5) whatever and aactually ↑research debates research cam↑paigns. (.) now (.) we ↑haad when a ran for mayor of Indianapolis last year we had (.) uuh forty or some I-public forms now that was just for the city of Indianapolis (.) now we’re going to have ↑THREE this time around (.) and it was was (.) kind of difficult to get here (.) I’m very ↑grateful that we’re going to have three public foorms and I thank ↑both of you (.) for putting this (.) to↑gether when you know Ii had (.) initially challengedd thaat (.)

808

Appendix we had at least ten one in every congressional district (.) I think that would serve (.) voters ↑best. (.) but you know we ↑haave to understand that this is up to voters (.) to ↑research their options ↑take a look at what (.) you know we’re really all about (.) uhm (.) you know before I forget to ↑do this I’ve got a website (.) you know double u double u double u dot horning two thousand dot ↑org (.) uhm (.) phone numbers before I forget that ↑too. (.) uhm ↑eight seven seven five one eight two two three eight (.) the ↑reason I’m giving you this upfront is because ↑ten minutes (.) it’s not a whole lot for a Libertarian I can rattle on for hours [(almost inaudible and individual laughter) now if you give me a call (.)] I’d be happy to ↑do that and in fact if you look at our web site (.) I’ve got pages and pages of stuff you know that amount too (.) maybe a minor book (.) on what I’m really all a↑bout. when it comes to actually scaling down ↑government. (.) so ↑let me just tell you upfront (.) what I’m planning to ↑doo (.) (chuckles) all the success stories you hear about individuals ↑I want to see more of that (.) you know all the success stories you hear about small businessmen starting up I want to see ↑more of that (.) I do not want to hear any↑moore. (.) about how politicians think they can be the MBAas and come up with the next new hot ↑business. (.) I just don’t think it’s wiise (.) when we haave uh (.) these guys to get (.) a four-year office (.) I am at (.) I’m half ↑done already (.) uhm (.) WHEN ↑WE have these guys and they’re elected for office for four ↑years. (.) thinking that they’d be beating and competing (.) with the MBAs who do this for a living we have some rreal sharks out there figuring industries (.) and we have to understand that if ↑we just get out of their face and let it haappen (.) ↑they’re going to do better than any politician will (.) and I think that that’s part of our plaan (.) we’re going to do what we caan (.) to stimulate businesses with (.) awesome innovating and not tax funded initiatives (.) but ↑mostly what I want to do is I want to cut the cost of government (.) uh the daay I an↑nounced praactically (.) maybe it was a few days after that (.) I said that I would veeto any bill that is not going to cut by seven per cent a ↑year. (.) I want to make ↑sure. (.) that we under↑staand. (.) that (.) economic cycles are cycles (.) ↑wee’ve haad a time of plenty for quite a while (.) does anybody here know what’s coming next (.) I think we ↑know (.) you know the story of Jooseph (.) talked about seven yeears of plenty (.) followed byy (.) seven years of ↑faamine. (.) and what he ↑did is he got ready (.) you know he plaaned (.) he stocked the granaries (.) and we have not done that (.) you know I I have to say that we have been counting oon (.) continued growth (.) when ↑that is not a wise course (.) so I think the wilder economy is still relatively booming (.) ↑we need to down scale the government ↑similar to the way businesses (.) down scaled several years ago it didn’t hurt them it won’t hurt us (.) if you guys have to (.) tighten your ↑belts. (.) ↑I think politicians ought to also (.) uhm (.) I ↑haven’t had (.) got to talk a lot about education yet but ↑let me just say that my wife and I on home school (.) we’re aall in favour all of all of the options out there (.) in fact I have to say as a general statement (.) ↑POliticians can think of all the stuff that you guys just in this ↑auudience can think of (.) there is an ↑awwful lot of innovation out there (.) that ↑we’ve been squelching because we’ve decided to ramp or stump everything from the state level (.) we have a Tax Book Commission that doesn’t pay a dime for ↑BOOKS (.) yet it does ↑dictate which books you can use that’s just wroong. (.) I think that we need to open this ↑up (.) to the inge↑nuity (.) of

A: AH:

809

Appendix individual ↑citizens. (.) cause ↑we’ve prooven when we’ve made this nation the greatest in the ↑world. (.) that the (.) private initiatives (.) the ingenuity that resides in aall of us (.) is faar smarter (somewhat laughing) than this four-yeear (.) well you know we’ve got a lot of lawyers I have nothing against lawyers (.) but let’s stop making them out to be MBAs (.) let’s ↑stop making them out to be teachers (.) let’s ↑sstop making these guys out to bee (.) what they’re noot (.) in fact let’s get right down to it (.) ↑wee’ve been working for these guys for too darn looong (.) if hhalf your ↑income (.) is going to the major parties (.) we have a big ↑problem (.) ↑I’m not haappy (.) with working for ↑them. (.) I would rather see you guys work for yourselves (.) and that’s basically what Libertarians are all about (.) you know the idea that your fruits and your labour (.) are going to serve best of their com↑munity. (.) by if we just let you a↑loone (.) if we let you do the best for your family and the best for yourselves (.) ↑that’s going to make a much stronger and more vibrant community (.) and we have been competing with the (.) voluntary associations boys and girls Scouts you know Rotary Clubs (.) ↑our government programs have replaced those (.) and I think to our detriment (.) and ↑I would like to see churches reinvigorated to their (.) their cultural roole (.) ↑I would like to see boys and girl Scouts (.) reinvigorated and no longer the paroodies they’ve become (.) and ↑I would like to see government get out of the face of ↑aall of us (.) so that we could become more productive citizens (.) becaause when it comes right down to it if ↑you’re working for ↑theem (.) you know we’ve goot the same ooold thing we’ve had before and we’ve called it servitude we’ve called it kingdoms we’ve call it (.) aaall kinds of stuff related to authoritarianism but it’s not what our country was supposed to bee (.) the Constitution (.) the Bill of Rights (.) ↑those were Libertarian doocuments aand you know (.) we didn’t invent this word ‘Libertarian’ it’s been around for a couple of a hundred years (.) uhm (.) but I’ve got to ↑tell you. wisdom in ↑politics (.) I think I think you all know this (.) wisdom in ↑politics is very ↑raare. (.) we haaad it in this country and we should’nt have turned it a↑siide. (.) our founders made some terrible mis↑takes but they got some things right (.) and when ↑we threw the baby in the bath water out all at the same time (.) we ↑didn’t replaced it with anything good (.) and what we have now it’s ↑not new (.) we’ve ↑done it before and it’s never ↑worked. (.) so what I’d like to doo (.) talked about it whether it’s education business policy (.) it’s ↑looked at what’s worked in the paast (.) ↑look at what ↑really made us great and let’s just do it again (.) thanks. thank you Mr. ↑Horning (.) our final opening statement noow (.) will come from the Republican candidate David McIntosh (.) Mr. McIntosh= thank you Jim (.) and thank you to the Indianapolis Press Club and all of the Co-host and the Junior League foor supplying refreshments (.) aand ↑I want to say I (.) thank you to my colleagues who are here Andrew Horning and governor O’Bannon (.) for agreeing to ↑this debate and two others (.) I like Aandrew’s idea that we have ten of them (.) but we’ve all been able to agree to these ↑threee (.) and that will be an opportunity for us to talk about the issues (.) I ↑also want to say I love you to my wife Ruthy who’s here with us (.) and she’s sitting there with several (.) young students who are here (.) aas young ↑journalists for their school newspapers (.) which ↑I think is appropriate because this election (.) more than any other (.) is about our future (.) ↑growing up in the town of Kenderville Indiana (.) when I was a little boy I was

JS(M): DMC:

810

Appendix raised to (.) be proud of Indiana (.) to be proud of our potential (.) to know that we were a great state (.) to (.) hhave that ewe shearer’s spirit (.) where we (.) believe that we could ↑do it (.) we could win a national championship in basketball we could ↑be our best (.) we have a lot to ooffer (.) as a state in the Midwest and we’re a leeader (.) but now as Ruthy and I are ↑thinking about what type of community we’ll be raising our daughter Elian here in Indiana (.) we ↑realiised that (.) we’re falling behiind (.) by standing still (.) and that we’re ↑noot living up to our potential (.) now ↑I’m not critical of our people (.) we have great people here in Indiana (.) but I ↑am critical of the leadership (.) that they have had in the last twelve years (.) it has not ↑brought about the best in us (.) in edu↑cation. (.) as Ruthy and I talked to parents around the state (.) they’re wondering ↑whyy their children are passing that ice step (.) when they seem to be doing well in schools (.) when in a claass of two thousand that just graduated this year (.) one out of three students either ↑didn’t pass the ice step after several triaals (.) or dropped out along the way (.) I don’t think that’s ↑good enough (.) I think we need a vision that says to each of those students you can have a good education in Indiana (.) and I wonder (.) you know the ↑ruules in this debate don’t let us to ask each other questions (.) which (.) some of us wish we had been able to doo (.) but ↑if we were able to asked each other questions I would ask governor O’Bannon (.) ↑what do you saay to that one out of three students whoo (.) didn’t get a highschool education here in Indiana (.) they started out when you were first elected lieutenant governor (.) ↑tried to graduate with a class of two thousand (.) and didn’t make it (.) ↑WEE need to do better than that (.) we need ↑leadership that says (.) no child should be left behind (.) we should have the best schools here in Indiana (.) and on ↑joob creation. (.) on governor O’Bannon’s watch (.) we’ve loost ↑three (.) of our fortune five hundred companies (.) and I can tell you living in Muncie when Bow corporation moved out (.) aloong with it with the high-paying joobs with the leadership in the community with support for the arts and other community activities (.) and ↑I’m not prooud when I look at ‘The Wall Street Journal’ (.) and I see a little blurb that says ‘if you don’t like tackies move to Indiana’ (.) because we are the only state in the union (.) to looose technology jobs in the nineteen nineties (.) ↑weeee need to do better than that (.) we need to set our sites on making Indiana a great place (.) to run businesses to create joobs to groow (.) and again I ↑I wonder what governor O’Bannon says to our ↑college students. (.) where (.) every other ↑one of them (.) when they graduate from our great universities IU Purduue Northern Dame Rose Home every other one of them decides to leave Indiana because they think they can get a better ↑career somewhere ↑else (.) ↑what do you say when they ask (.) why didn’t we ↑keep the high-paying jobs here why didn’t we build the ↑new technology jobs (.) so that ↑we could stay here and live here and raise our families as well (.) and the ↑MOOral issues (.) you know growing up in our state was a ↑beacon (.) for moral vaalues (.) well on moral values governor O’Bannon has stood with Bill Clinton and Al Gore (.) on the question of partial-birth abortion (.) he a↑greeed with Bill Clinton when he vetoed our bill ↑twice. (.) well ↑I’m going to stand with George Bush a hundred per cent (.) when he signs that bill into laaw (.) and we eliminate partial-birth abortions to protect the sanctity of life (.) and staand for that freedom (.) and on ↑freedoms generally (.) we should stand on Indiana and have leadership that says ‘everyone of our freedoms is im↑portant’ (.) you can’t pick and chooose among the

811

Appendix Bill of Rights (.) take the Second Amend (.) governor O’Bannon uurged me and other member s of Congress to support Bill Clinton’s (.) ↑gun control bill (.) that would take away the Second Amendment rights from innocent ewe shearers (.) ↑I don’t think that’s the leadership ewe shearers want (.) ↑I won’t do it (.) ↑I’ll stand up for those freedoms as governor of this state (.) the same way I haave (.) as a member of Congress from Indiana (0.5) and if you look at what we’re doing in running ↑government (.) in the management of day to day operation of our services over the laast four years (.) ↑we’ve ↑seeen (.) scandal after scandal (.) mistake after mistake (.) ↑really a legacy of mismanagement (.) take the two hundred million dollars that was loost in the budget (.) that meant governor O’Bannon had to veto that bill to keep the high-tech ↑companies here. (.) and another bill to keep insurance our ↑life insurance companies here (.) or the fifty-nine million dollars that disappeared from the teachers’ pension funds (.) or the ↑FISH (.) we see them dyiing in our rivers (.) and we see water polluted in our weells. (.) or the complaints (.) about nursing home abuse (.) where citizens write in and say (.) ‘we don’t think our families are being well taken ↑care of’. (.) ↑those are our paarents and granparents and we ↑trusted the government to i↑nspect those nursing homes to make ↑suure they’re being well taken care of. (.) again I wonder what governor O’Bannon would saay (.) to (.) Frank Camp whose wife Martha was one of those patients (.) she wondered off into the snow one day (.) would have ↑diied in the freezing cold (.) but a kind neighbour brought her back (.) I ↑wonder what he would saay to Frank Camp (.) when he asked him ‘where ↑were you to protect (.) my wife and our senior citizens’ (.) ↑we deserve better than that (.) we deseerve leadership in our state government that says we can be the ↑best (.) you know as governor (.) ↑I’ll be there every day (.) working and leeading (.) I’ll ↑say to the men and women in our agencies (.) ‘↑I’ll leead I’ll help you so you can do your ↑joob (.) and provide the very best in services to our citizens’ (.) I’ll answer the mail I’ll show up every day I’ll make suure (.) that ↑we can have the very best in services for our citizens (.) now the ↑question of property taxes (.) we need leadership there too (.) as Ii travel around the state (.) citizens tell me their taxes are going up and up and ↑up. (.) farmers do senior citizens doo home owners doo (.) you knoow governor O’Bannon recognized that that ↑was a problem four years ago too and promised us a twelve per cent cut in property taxes (.) and it’s ↑not about my taxes (.) by the way I saw Ruthy reaact too (.) and I knoow she pays that bill there’s no way governor that our bill is (.) twenty per cent lower than it was four years ago or even ↑six years ago. (.) but it’s not about ↑my taxes (.) in faact (.) when you factor out something thatt uh mayor Canan the Republican mayor at ↑Muncie did (.) they’ve actually gone up as well (.) but it’s a↑bout (.) everybody else’s property taxes (.) and the plain fact is (.) the ↑straight talk and there’s no way a↑round this (.) the property tax lobby here in Indiana has gone up twenty per cent over the last four years (.) and what has governor O’Bannon done a↑bout it. (.) nothing (.) he appointed a blue ribbon com↑mission (.) they gave him several ooptions of how to ↑deal with this plaan (.) but he didn’t do anything about it (.) and we need ↑leadership more than ↑ever (.) about property taxes in our state right noow (.) because the ↑COURTS have ordered that we have reassessment (.) and Purduue economists tell us ↑that meeans in the next two or three ↑yeears (.) we’ll have a thirty per cent increease for the average home owner in their property taxes (.) that’s not acceptable (.) I have my (.) property tax cut plan twenty-

812

Appendix five per cent guaran↑teeed across the ↑booard. (.) that takes ↑caare of reasessment (.) it gives a ↑fifty per cent home state ↑credit. (.) that covers that thirty per cent ↑increase. and then lowers their bill in other twenty-five per ↑cent. (.) but ↑I think each of us (.) ↑each of the candidates here tonight should tell people what they are going to do about this reassessments (.) I’ve come up withh (.) what I call the ‘↑minimum property tax pledge’ (.) it’ss (takes out a paper) (.) I wrote it ↑out. so that everybody could see it (.) I guarantee that ↑my tax plan does not increase property taxes (.) not even ↑one dollar (.) for the aaverage home owner over the next four years even with reassessment (.) and ↑I’ll reduce the cost of government (.) ↑I’m willing to sign that (.) before everybody today (signing the paper) (.) and I would hope (.) that Mr. Horning and Mr. O’Bannon would ↑also sign that pledge (.) so that we know at ↑LEAST they won’t be going ↑up (.) as a result of reassessment (.) now we ↑can (.) solve these problems in our state (.) if we have leadership (.) if we have leadership that says ‘we can be our best’ (.) we can haave great schools we can create the good high-paying jobs of the future we can (.) ↑deeal with the problems of government protect our environment protect our senior citizens (.) but it ↑takes leadership to do that (.) and ↑Ii as you next governor will leead to make sure (.) that Indiana meets its potential and that we are a great state to raise a family (.) ↑thank you God bless you thank you Mr. ↑McIntoshh (.) we are now at the stage of tonight’s event where (.) our panel of journalists will pose questions to the candidates our first question will come from Mike Ahern and it will be directed ↑first (.) to Andrew Horning Mr. Horning we’ve just listened here too uuh theree (.) truncated campaign speeches they were ↑good speeches (.) but as you know there is noo (.) give and take (.) between the candidates here (.) I under↑staand. (.) that it was the governor’s staff that came up with this format (.) but why did you a↑gree to it (.) when you kneew there would be no chaance for a head-to-head debate or very little chance doesn’t that shortchange the voters= =well you ↑might not know this but I’m actually something like an underdog in this campaaign [uuhm (.) AND w w when it comes too uhm (3. collective laughter accompanied by some applause) (bursts into laughter)] you know the kind of format that I’m going to begin (.) ↑every time I get in front of people ↑every time they hear me ↑taalk. (.) the ↑↑oonly problem I ever hear from everybody is ‘gosh I wish I could vote for youu’ but (.) you know you haven’t raised enough money for y (.) for me to get your vote you know so (.) ↑I have no problem for being in any kind of format whatsoever (.) I’ve been calling for more public foorms I say’ bring them ↑oon’. (.) you know I can’t get enough of this stuff (.) but when it comes to how they want to run their (.) uuh their political ↑woorld. (.) uhm (.) ↑we all know what politics works and I’m not going to try to you know (.) be disingenuous and (.) AAndd uh (.) you know in fact I don’t need to even (.) make any remarks on (.) on what haappened in this political proocess (.) that t t took place just to get to this de↑bate. (.) butt uh (.) we can ↑fix that if we want to as ↑voters you know we can demand moore and I guess right now I’d like to use the rest of my (.) oh I guess my red (.) light is (.) up (.) [uhm (.) sorry y y your time is up] Mr. Horning you’ll get another ↑shot at (.) this question just as the other candidates will Mr. McIntosh

JS(M):

MA:

AH: A: JSC: AH:

JS(M):

813

Appendix DMC: thank you Jim (.) uh you know the straight talk Mike and answer to that question is that governor O’Bannon’s staaff said ‘take it or ↑leave it (.) this is the format (.) he won’t show up any other way (.) I think Andrew and I ↑both wanted to haave a debate with a lot more interaction a lot more questions (.) and a lot more participation from the media and the public (.) ↑but (.) we had to make a ↑choice. (.) and I think wee (.) both decided that it was better for the public to see us the three of us at least ↑three times (.) and to hear this interaction so that they could know the issues (.) now to↑night ↑I would propoose that we could solve this (.) I would propoose that we have at ↑LEAST two moore if we can reach all ten (.) one in South Bend (.) we could go to the Hall of Faame that (.) Joe Kernan helped build there they need some audiences there (.) and we could debate in South Bend (.) we could go to Lake ↑County (.) and debate at one of the campuses there (.) so that ↑every region in our vast state could haave the benefit of one of this debates (.) I’m willing to clear ↑my schedule to make sure it happens (.) I hope Andrew ↑would and I hope governor O’Bannon would a↑gree to that (1.) Mr. O’Bannon well I think ↑three debates it’s it’s (.) certainly the proper amount I knooow (.) uh ↑eight years ago there weren’t any debates I thinkk uh governor Orren haad one debate and (.) and I ↑think the debates in in in the elections this ↑YEAR when (.) senator Lugar said ‘let’s have a debate with ↑no-one asking questions and we just ↑talk’ (.) and so I think we’ve tried to come up with a format that really let people knoow (.) ↑there’s going to be three questions there’ll be aanswers there’ll be rebuttals we can continue (.) to to make that discussion (.) I think the im↑portant thing iis is that ten minutes to get your message oout (.) to the people of the state of Indiana (.) what direction you’ll take the state for the next four years (.) and ↑Ii’m very excited about the direction the state can go the next four years (.) the proogress we’ve made ↑thiis foor and (.) th eight years befoore (.) and what we can do (.) in moving into the future (.) and it’s ↑really (.) focused on education (.) that’s going to be the great advance the next four years our format calls for each candidate to have an opportunity too uh re↑but the others o on each question and so Mr. Horning it’s your turn again ↑I don’t really need to rebuut anybody who’re just to say that elections are really not about the candidates and we ↑really should stop making it out that way (.) uh we have an aawful lot of people with an aawful lot of ↑money who can controool (.) an aawful lot of forces of the media (.) noow the ↑media is on the other hand controlled by the ↑public. (.) noow (.) ↑I’ve not been included in an awful lot of the free media that these guys ↑get (.) you know we raise millions and millions of dollars well (.) ↑they raise (.) MIllions and millions of dollars for this essentially uh ↑joob interview (.) now I don’t know how many of you have ever had to apply for a job (.) or you had to get posteers and yard siigns (.) and bill booards and a handout of colourful stickers and stuff (.) but ↑this is un↑↑reasonable (.) and the ↑voters can just do their ↑hoomework. which (.) you know I’m (.) this is maybe a negative campaign against ↑voters (.) to a certain degree (.) and that might not get me very faar (.) but (.) you know we ↑really do have to do our homework we can get campaigns for ↑freee. (.) and in fact if you just go out tonight and talk about (.) talk about ↑politics with your ↑neighbours break a ↑taboo just ↑doo it (.) I think we could get ↑oover this business

JS(M): FO:

JS(M): AH:

814

Appendix of (.) oh running out on red light (.) sorry =that’s fiine (.) Mr. McIntosh uuhm (.) I think we just (.) pretty much stated our piece I I (.) ↑dooo (.) sincerely hope we could get those two other debates in South Bend and Lake ↑County aand aas said the governor may need to check but if he ↑wants to anytime I’d be uh (.) very happy to do that Mr. O’Bannon yes ↑I think we all be getting a message out in many different waays (.) in (.) in a sense I a↑gree (.) agree with Andrew when he said that the pr (.) campaigns are too expensive (.) I’ve been through my second one as throough the first two with governor Barnes I saw a change (.) and I ↑did p propose campaign finance refoorm (.) in my first session (.) kind of got shot down by a lot of ↑people but at leeast it was the first time that the governor of the state of Indiana has aasked to put limits on (.) contributions so we could haave (.) a better opportunity too (.) uh too uh have an election (.) without money con↑trolling it that much but once you’re ↑in it. (.) you have to doo (.) what you do in order to be able to get the message oout (.) and that’s what we doo uh Andrew when we get in these big battles for money (.) and generally Democrats loose on that= =yeah (laughing) alright our next question will come from John Schwantes and will be directed ↑first (.) to Mr. McIntosh uh representative McIntosh your most recent campaign commercial ↑saays. (.) and I quote (.) ‘with ↑Frank O’Bannon (.) the mistakes just keep piling up’ (.) you have blamed the incumbent governor (.) for problems in a variety of state agencies (.) agencies ranging from the ↑excise police and the teachers’ retirement fund (.) to the department of environmental ↑management (.) and the family and social services administration (.) representative McIntosh (.) if you are elected governor (.) will you hold ↑↑yourself personally ac↑countable (.) for the potential missteps misdeeeds and miscalculations (.) of more than forty thousand state employees (0.5) absolutely I will. you know Harry ↑Truman said ‘the buck stops here’ (.) and that’s my model for leadership as a chief executive in this state (.) I ↑wiill (.) hold myself accountable I’ll work everyday to make sure we get good people into those positions and if they have the ↑leadership from the governor’s office (.) ↑they need to do a good job for our citizens (.) NOW (.) as for those ↑aads (.) what ↑we’re really doing is (.) repeating what the newspapers have reported to people aBOUT these issues (.) and ↑I think it’s important that ewe shearers knoow what’s ↑haappening (.) at our governor (.) government here in Indianapolis (.) ↑why do we have our fish killed (.) why aare complaints about nursing homes un↑aanswered (.) why do we looose two hundred million dollars in the budget (.) ↑that’s not good government (.) ewe shearers’ deserve better leadership than that (.) I will ↑HOLD myself accountable if someone makes a mistake on ↑my watch and we’ll fix it (.) we will (.) ↑WORK (.) be↑↑fore that to correct it to make sure we get the best people out theere (.) so we don’t have those mistakes Mr. O’Bannon yess uh (.) I think you (.) ↑need to get your faacts straight before you kind of to start them because there wasn’t (.) any hundred million dollars looss (.) uh the Teachers’

JS(M): DMC:

JS(M): FO:

AH: JS(M): JSC:

DMC:

JS(M): FO:

815

Appendix Retirement Fund was a normal ↑process it was two years uh (.) behind time (.) and that was taken care of (.) we ↑looked at those prooblems (.) and if there’s some (.) some (.) misstep by them (.) we correct them and move on you’re ↑right ‘the buck does stop here’ (.) and every once in a while we get an (.) employer that (.) steps off the wrong way and we get rid of them (.) I think we’ve taken no steps to ↑do that and then (.) to ↑turn around and saay that the state of Indiana is not here too (.) pro↑tect our rivers to ↑catch the polluters to bring ↑suit against them to collect the money for the laaws to the state (.) uh (.) if if ↑that’s the way you look at it you don’t know how the state governments work (.) because ↑that’s what we’re doing and we’re moving forward to catch the polluter collect the money and restore the river ↑like (.) wee have swoorn in office to do (.) and it’s working that way Mr. Horning well it’s pretty ↑coomplicated isn’t ↑it. (.) you know I I ↑think that the basic ↑problem here is that ↑↑these guys can’t get it straight (.) because ↑↑noobody can get the bureaucracy ↑straight is too big for ↑anybody. (.) it maybe real easy to attack a sitting governor or (.) or sitting ↑congressman butt uh (.) I don’t think there’s any reason to ↑doo that because the core problem isn’t the maan that we have entrusted with all this ↑power. (.) it’s just that ↑↑noobody should be entrusted with all this power (.) we have delegated ↑tooo much to ↑government. (.) and government can’t ↑handle it. (.) now with all the Republicans say about cutting the government cutting all of this ↑↑they’ve never repealed a Democrat prograamme (.) they’ve never actually kept their ↑proomise of cutting the size of ↑government. the Republican revolution made our federal government three hundred billion dollars bigger (.) now the big problem we ↑haave here (.) is that we have a coontract that’s been broken (.) and very few peeople are willing to set things ↑right. (.) my whole ↑point in this would not be to be a better administrator ↑I’m heere to defend the Constitution that is my chaarter and (.) if you read the Consti↑tution (.) and I encourage everybody to do it it’s thirty pages pretty quick reading (0.5) I ran out of time a↑ggain. again= =(1.5 collectively and almost inaudibly laughing) rebuttal on the same question Mr. McIntosh thank you Jim (0.5) you knoow th (.) if yoou (.) ↑think that it’s just one or two mistakes and that’s aall (.) then (.) ↑that would be understandable (.) but when you’ve got (.) almost two thousand of them and more happening every week (.) I was just out in Aavon and and I wish governor ↑you’d go out there and tell the folks theere that (.) your department of environmental management is helping ↑theem (.) because for ↑two months they’ve been drinking polluted ↑water. (.) that I then told them was o↑k. (.) and then just a couple of weeks ago they send out a little blue piece of ↑paper (.) to every one of those twenty-four hundred residents (.) and said if you’ve got a child under ↑fiiive. or open ↑souurce or an immuuuned deficiency (.) don’t even ↑touch that water (.) well that’s wrooong (.) an ITem needs to be (.) refoormed needs to have a ↑top to bottom review needs to do a llot better (.) for the citizens of this state (.) and wasn’t just one episode it’s happening again and again (.) we need new ↑leadership who’ll do what’s right (.) for every ewe shearer to protect the environment Mr. O’Bannon well (.) I think that leadership is here in the state of Indiana we have ↑cleaner water

JS(M): AH:

JS(M): A: JS(M): DMC:

JS(M): FO:

816

Appendix than we’ve ever haad we have ↑cleaner aiir than we’ve (.) ever haad (.) over these past four years even the eight years before that (.) it takes a coonstant ↑proocess to make sure you catch the polluters ↑fiind th (.) the difficulties (.) you know in in in a ↑fish kill find in Otawa World caught what we ↑found we found a polluter that had caught it in Aanderson (.) O↑hiio had a program (.) and had the same problem for over a half year (.) and couldn’t find the answer (.) ↑we found the answer from brought a law suit (.) suing the polluter and we’re going to take the steps (.) ↑throughout them that are necessary to (.) to make the state hold (.) we will re↑store that river and make it ↑cleean again and make it cleaner than it ever has (.) that’s our our d dam’s joob (.) that’s our future (.) that’s what we’ll continue to do in the next four years the final take on this question Mr. Horning weell (.) ↑nobody’s greener than I am (.) (clears throat) I ride my bicycle to woork you know (.) I (.) I am very ↑↑green I I confess that (.) uhm (.) but I’m ↑not going to say that anybody intends to kill a ↑fiish it’s kind of silly to assuume (.) that there’s any intent here to (.) you know cause damage to the environment here in Indiana you know the real damage (.) was done long ago and we decided that the way to to ad↑dress (.) environmental ↑problems was through regulation (.) in↑stead of through our legal means (.) and I think that is far more powerful (.) if we’re (.) looking at what actually happens in most of these big cases like a ↑fish kill (.) is thaatt uh (.) someone did something wroong (.) if they know ↑it (.) you know they ↑should be proosecuted in a court of ↑laaww. (.) and I think that’s (.) you know (0.5) we have far more regulations that pro↑tect businesses and actually make it proofitable for them to pollute the en↑vironment. (.) then we do have a new safe guards for those (.) private citizens who would rather bring these people (.) to justice (.) aand uh Libertarians are very ↑fiiirm (.) on what the courts are foor and laws are foor (.) and we’ve really got in a big problem screwing up the difference between justice and laaw thank ↑youu (.) our next question now comes from Caroline Maays and it will be directed first to Mr. O’Bannon thank you (.) governor O’Bannon I took the opportunity to goo into the community (.) to find out what issue or topic (.) ↑people would like to hear discussed here tonight that (.) may not be covered aand my question is the result of those discussions (.) the ↑Indiana prison system has seen a disproportionate increase in the number of people of colour (.) serving lengthier ↑mandatory sentences (.) as a result of the war on druugs (.) do you ↑think it is tiime we revisit how the state should deal with nonviolent criminals and if so hoow well I think that’s always a problem as we look forward too (.) how we ↑treatt uh all the people (.) in the state of Indiana (.) and I think that as we see our prison population growing and growing we’re adding two (.) two more prisons during this time right ↑noow. (.) and a big part of it are the drug users or the people that had got into trouble due to drugs (.) I think we need to↑really (.) lift up our rehabilitation program (.) goo to the c (.) to the neighbourhoods and the communities and say ‘let’s ↑stop this’ (.) there’s wayys thatt uh (.) our faith-based organizations with the state support can get right to the (.) a lot of those problems but we’ve got to ↑keep reviewing (.) what our prison population iis (.) why it happens that way and then correct that situation and I think we’re (.) ↑doing that.

JS(M): AH:

JS(M): CM:

FO:

817

Appendix JS(M): AH: Mr. Horning uuhm the U↑nited States the laand of the free has the world’s highest percentage of citizens in prison ↑laargely be↑↑caaause. (.) ↑wee have forgotten the lessons of ↑history (.) I don’t know how many people here have ever cracked a history book and read about (.) the opium moors in China the prohibition (.) the sin tax across the Canadian boorder (.) that actually even just the cigarette ↑tax in Germany and Norway right now (.) we have ↑↑done this before (.) aand Liber↑tarians and I we used to be called whackooes for our stand on on (.) on the war of drugs (.) and now we used to (.) you know be llabeled (.) ↑aall kinds of things that were un↑reasonable th the down (.) the bottom ↑liine is (.) we have been empowering the wrong people in our culture (.) when you can make two thousand bucks in a haalf hour selling ↑crack. (.) ↑are you going to tell a kid to go get a job in McDonalds I don’t ↑think so (.) you know a Black market is a baaad idea (.) and when we decided to declare war on citizens (.) I’m sorry (.) declare war on ↑drugs (.) uhm we started to throwing people in ↑jail for ↑↑aaall kinds of things (.) now we can search your truck you can stop you in the ↑street (.) you know we have suspended our Constitution and upended our system of justice (.) for this silly war on drugs (.) and I ran out of time again Mr. McIntoosh= =thank you (.) thank you Caroline (.) and ↑Ii hear that question myself (.) and so I appreciate you going out and talking to regular folks and seeing what they want us to address (.) I I (.) I have a (.) very stroong law enforcement on crime package it’s on our ↑web site. David McIntosh dot org (.) that goes into a loot of these issues (.) spe↑cifically (.) ↑I think we have to (.) differentiate between (.) criminals who are violent and drug dealers (.) and ↑theey should get (.) stiff sentences stiffer than we are right now (.) but with people (.) who are ↑non-violent offenders (.) we should use a alternative stiff sentencing (.) restitution things that don’t put them in prison (.) and then for our yooung people (.) who ↑get into trouble but are not violent (.) in↑stead of sending them into prison (.) help them out with a mentorship ↑program (.) and I’ve propoosed (.) that we fund thaat (.) to take people to churches who will be adults and good role models in their liives (.) ↑that way we can get them turned aroound (.) and they can have a chaance to be good citizens (.) so in (.) in EVery area that’s what I think we should do alright. second take on this question Mr. O’Bannon= =YEES uuh (0.5) it’s ↑done in the communities it’s done in the neighbourhoods (.) and we should do everything we can to help (.) reduce thaat (.) that’s why four years agoo (.) I promised to put five hundred more police in the street all over the (.) s state of Indiana and uh oon the rooads (.) and that’s been done (.) and what we’ve ↑seeen thatt uh (.) Indiana’s uh violent crime has gone down almost twenty-five per cent below the national average (.) so there’s SOME re↑sults to that and it’s getting into (.) into the neighbourhoods where it happens ↑on the street corners and ↑then it gets the support of the community (.) there’s there’s uh (.) and I just ↑met with a groupp in my ooffice that are working (.) on ↑BEing in the neighbourhoods talking to the young people and making sure they don’t get on drugs (.) our safety even in school aafterschool program it was the ↑first time we put money in it (.) it’s to keep kids ↑off the street (.) uh uh when the school is over (.) for so they can do ↑homework (.) the can (.) p p par↑ticipate (.) in in ↑activities rather than going out in the street or going

JS(M): DMC:

JS(M): FO:

818

Appendix home alone (.) we’re taking those steps we will continue to work on those issues Mr. Horning ok how can I say this fast (.) uhm (.) the the ↑basic problem in fact let’s just do this straight talk thing (.) as ↑loong as we are kicking (.) uh ↑pot smokers out of prison (.) uh I mean actually we’re ↑kicking murderers and rapists out of prison (.) it’s right that reversed it (.) ↑JUST so we have more room for pot smokers that’s aabsolutely ridiculous (.) look at the time you ↑speend. (.) in ↑jail for for ↑murder (.) and look at the time you spend for dealing with drugs (.) there is a (.) a dramaaatic disparity there (.) and as loong as we don’t realise that there is a medical ↑prooblem assoc associated with drug addic addiction (.) that we even hadn’t been addressing (.) and as long as we realised thatt uh murders and rapists are ↑serious criminals (.) are ooften getting off light (.) because we have been attacking the wrong ↑peeople. (.) we are going to have a ↑terrible problem (.) we have ↑done this before. (.) and we need to just ↑stoop it (.) I think the war on drugs (.) it’s (.) it’s federal issue so we’re basically talking about things that are (.) out of the realmm of the governor’s ooffice (.) but if ↑I had any say on this (.) I would be holding the feds to their contract and say this is outside their business and they ought to ↑quit it Mr. McIntosh nd ↑let me say I I co commend governor O’Bannon for the five hundred new police officers I think that’s good (.) ↑I think though there are some other problems that still face us (.) our state poliice are terribly dis demoraliised they’ve got terrible equipment a thirty year-old radio system (.) and that’s why thee alliance the troopers themselves voted to endorse ↑mee for governor so that we can get ↑leadership. (.) to bring our state police up (.) to the highest quality and standards (.) we ↑ALso need to chaange the basic premise we have on violent ↑criminals. (.) where we let them out in as little as at a thiird of their sentence (.) you know Joseph Gruud who was an (.) a child abuser up in Marshall county (.) who had a threee (.) ↑five year sentence he got out in just (.) he was about to get out in a year and a haalf (.) ↑↑that’s wrooong. (.) and in my administration the message that’ll go ouut (.) ‘if you’re a child abuser you’re a violent criminal you’re a drug dealer (.) ↑↑you’re going to go to jail for a loong long time in Indiana’ (.) we need to change that (0.5) alright we have time for just one more question and we must limit the candidates to one answer of forty seconds each (.) ↑pleease the question will come from Mike Ahern and then we’ll be directed first to Andrew Horning= =ok Jim and I know we’re running out of time now but I ↑want to get back to this property tax release business (.) congressman McIntosh siigns that before aall of us here tonight saying there will be ↑noo (.) property tax increase after reassessment (.) he’s guaranteed a twenty-five per cent tax ↑cut (.) would ↑you bee (.) willing to make such a guarantee tonight knowing that the delivery of that guaranteee (.) is depending on other ↑people for example the legislator= =abso↑lutely. (.) I bet they’re again aasking a Libertarian to ↑sign something like that it’s kind of like aasking Tiger Woods if he can swing a gulf club (.) you know ↑YEAH (.) I’ve (.) I have no problem in limiting (.) not only the size and scope of ↑government (.) which is what (.) you know we really need to do to cut ↑taaaxes but (.) I also need to ↑say something about how we’ve done this be↑fore (.) whenn (.) uh doctor ↑Bowen gave us our temporary tax cut in nineteen seventy-three (.) he gave us

JS(M): AH:

JS(M): DMC:

JS(M):

MA:

AH:

819

Appendix a bad ↑deeal (.) and that in order to get hiss package ↑through uh we had to get (.) uh collect the bargaining with the ISTA (.) uhm ↑wee haven’t asked (.) what these guys are willing to give up for taxes (.) you know if we cut taxes ↑somewhere (.) uhm like gaaso↑line (.) and we don’t cut ↑coost (.) it’s going to be made up somewhere else Mr. McIntosh= =thank you (.) ↑thank you Andrew and I’m glaad you’re (.) willing to sign this I’ll (.) let you DO that (.) I think that’s great (.) because I think we should guarantee usurers’ that they won’t see property tax increases in the next four years (.) but (.) ↑Ii can do that because I’ve put out our (.) the twenty-five per cent guarantee property tax cut that will protect reassessment (.) but the ↑REAL choice in this election is going to be between ↑my plan for a twenty-five per cent cut ↑Andrew’s plan for a property tax cut (.) or governor O’↑Bannon’s plan that doesn’t protect against that (.) ↑increase for home owners (.) which can be as much as twenty-five or thirty per cent of that increase for the aaaverage home owner (.) that’s the choice in this election Mr. O’Bannon weell congressman I’ve had a plan out since last December (.) taxpayer protection plaan (.) that takes the c (.) average home owner down to ↑CEroo. (.) from the thirtythree per cent you’re talking about (.) and also takes welfare off the property tax (.) let me ↑tell you (.) but ↑when you sign an agreement (.) that you guarantee twenty-five per cent tax cut (.) that can’t happen to everyone (.) you’re ↑fooling in public you can get an ↑aaverage (.) and that’s what we’re working on (.) but to (.) ↑gooo with the ↑plaaan you’re talking about it’s not being fair to the people (.) ↑I’ll stand by my record (.) I’ve cut taxes to a billion and a half dollars (.) and I’ll continue to do that ↑time now for our closing statements each candidate is awarded two minutes we begin with the Republican David McIntosh thank you Jim. (.) I I have to tell you ↑nobody has told me they’ve seen that billion and a half tax cut (.) I mean (.) MAYbe if (.) governor O’Bannon cut taxes a billion and a half then maybe Al Gore actually did invent the Internet [but ↑Ii doubt it uhm (.) (some individual laughter)] ↑↑I would like to see the deetails of what governor O’Bannon is actually going to do on reasessment because his plaan doesn’t ↑have it. (.) he ↑pulled back the details from his own tax board (.) he needs to ↑show us those detaails before he keeps a promise that he can keep it on average (.) at cero (.) because ↑I don’t see how he can do it he hasn’t shown us the details (.) but ↑ULtimately this debate is about the future about new leadership about our potential in Indiana (.) and if you ↑think about it iis ↑WHO would you like to hire to run your house (.) do you want the guy whoo has (.) ↑been there for four years but not delivered on the promises (.) ↑come up with excuses why it couldn’t be doone (.) or you want leadership that will ↑make a guarantee (.) that ↑will get it done (.) that will ↑cut taxes that will ↑make our schools great (.) that will cre↑ate the jobs for the future in the private sector (.) that will pro↑tect our senior citizens and protect our environment (.) ↑that’s the choice in this election is ↑what leadership will bring out the best in our state (.) and I’m ↑aasking you if you share that vision (.) if you share that vision that ↑wee can have great potential in this state (.) then join us in this election (.) ↑join me we’ve got a website David McIntosh dot org (.) ↑come sign up as a volunteer (.) con↑tribute help us out

JS(M): DMC:

JS(M): FO:

JS(M): DMC:

A: DMC:

820

Appendix (.) but by all means make sure that your vote counts (.) because on e↑lection day we’ll be choosing the future (.) ↑not only for each of our houses but for the whole state (.) and for our children (.) and ↑I would appreciate your vote for governor on November seventh (.) thank you God bless you thank you Mr. McIntosh and noow our closing statement from the Libertarian ↑candidate Andrew Horning. I think the ↑real choice is whether you want a public servant or a public leader (.) we’ve ↑heard an awful lot about leadership we’ve just heard about somebody leading you in your ↑hoome. (.) you know ↑I would rather you just take care of your house and make me look ↑goood. (.) you know I think the (.) what we ↑have to understand from government is that (.) ↑it doesn’t doo very many things very well (.) it’s a ↑big (.) six hundred pound gorilla (.) it is ↑foorce (.) it is really nothing more or nothing less (.) and if ↑we want to entrust that six hundred pound go↑rilla. (.) to educate our children and care for the needy (.) you know that’s not the country I want to live in (.) you know let me ↑knoow. what’s going to turn out the next fifty years because ↑I’ll be gooone if I see the same thing con↑tinuing. (.) with (.) the de↑↑pendence on growth in our economy you know (.) the ↑↑most common thing I hear when I’m out in the campaign trails is ‘↑I don’t have time’ ‘↑I don’t have time’ (.) we’ve never had so much personal debt (.) we have an ↑increasingly service-based economy (.) we ↑↑know what’s coming next (.) and ↑aall of this is because we’re working for ↑them. (.) now if ↑you want (.) to work for yourself in↑stead. (.) vote for ↑mee. (.) if you want to cont ↑see (.) the cont continue strengthening of ↑leadership. (.) if ↑you want you know a stroong whip over your ↑baack (.) if ↑you want be stopped in your truck and ↑searched (.) by all means don’t vote for ↑mee. (somewhat laughing) because that’s not what I’m about. (.) what ↑I’m about (.) is liberty and justice for aall (.) and what I’m about is enforcing the Consti↑tution (.) which is something that has not been done for a very long tiime (.) and ↑I have not really had a chance yet to talk about (.) well (.) really very much about my plaan (.) I’ve got a whole bunch of things I’d like to r (.) to ↑REead about I have got the Horning two thousand newspaper (.) ↑PLEase request a copy of thaat (.) it’s got an aawful lot of information we’ve not have time to discuss here (.) and I think when you get down to ↑whyy people are going to be voting to one of ↑theese guys (.) is ↑generally be↑caause (.) they’ve got an awful lot of money (.) and ↑that (.) ↑money buys an awful lot of free ↑press. it buys an awful lot of ↑bill boards and ↑yard siigns. (.) but you know the real ultimate (.) in campaign finance reform would ↑bee. (.) is if you ↑↑quit voting for the guys who raise the most ↑money. (.) you know if I had their cam↑paign funds you know I could end property tax to↑daay. (.) now (.) this is serious ↑stuff here guys you know elections are not horse races (.) we’re ↑not here to justifyy aads we’re here to select the next public servant [and and] you’re out of time again= =again= =the ↑final closing statement tonight comes from the Democrat candidate Frank O’Bannon= =thank you Jiim (0.5) ↑first again I want to thank all the (.) panelists and the sponsor’s for this night (.) and ↑thank you at hoome for watching this debate (.) we ↑heard a lot toniight about what’s wroong with Indiana (.) ↑I’ve (.) as governor (.) ↑I

JS(M): AH:

JS(M): AH: JS(M): FO:

821

Appendix think you need a leader who is willing to stand up and say what’s good about Indiana (.) ↑not candidates who always talk about (.) what’s wrong about Indiana (.) I ↑think tonight you see a clear difference between the candidates (.) the choice really iis about (.) ↑who has the experience and who can (.) you trust with Indiana’s future (.) as governor (.) I’ve always triied to put the ↑people first instead instead of politics (.) I’ve worked to keep our e↑conomy stroong our ↑schools improving (.) to ↑cut taaxes (.) and to proviide better ↑health care for (.) our home owners (.) our our our (.) people (0.5) let me ↑saay (.) there’s promises I made ↑four years ago (.) I’ve (.) I’ve delivered (.) schools are imp (.) schools are ↑improving (.) ↑new highway program ↑five hundred more poliiice a billion and a haalf dollars ↑tax cut (.) and the ↑management of this state is ↑at the point (.) where Wallstreet sayys (.) we have the highest credit rating for you’ve (.) you’ve ever haad (.) and that’s why we ↑are planning for that down turn (.) because we have a reserve on haand that’s responsibly higher than it ever haas (.) been before (.) I look ↑forward to the future with hope (.) and I look ↑forward to working together to make Indiana an even better place (.) to liive and to woork (.) and to raise a family (.) thank you very much (.) good night thank you Mr. O’Baannon that con↑cluudes this Indianapolis (.) Press Club debate (.) we want to thank our associate sponsors WISH-TV the Sicamore Institute (.) WFYIi (.) and the Hudson Institute (.) thanks also to our ↑panel Mike Ahern of WISH-TVv (.) John Schwantes of ‘The Indianapolis Staar’ (.) and Carolene Mays of ‘The Indianapolis Recorder’ these candidates will take part in ↑two more debates (.) be↑foore election daay (.) be sure to vote on November seventh (.) I’m Jim Shella of WISH-TVv (.) good night (3.) [(10. collectively applauds) (candidates approach one another and shake hands)]

JS(M):

A:

822

Appendix Gubernatorial Debate, Cape Girardeau, MO. KFVS12-TV Especial Event Aired September 25th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Kenneth Dobbins (KD(AN)) Audience (A) Tom Harte (TH(M)) Jim Talent (JT) Bob Holden (BH) Dave Courvoisier (DC) Anonymous Audience Member 1 (AAM1) Travis Partney (TP) Anonymous Audience Member 2 (AAM2) KD(AN): Good evening (.) what a ↑wonderful looking audience today of over a thousand people (.) we’re glad to see you here today (.) I’m Ken Doobbins (.) president of South East Missouri State University (.) and it’s ↑my privilege to welcome you to academic haaall (.) for the ↑first liive debate of campaign two thousand (.) between the two major party candidates for governor of Missouri (.) ↑we believe that sponsoring ↑this debate (.) is a prime example of the ways our university (.) carries out its role of public ↑service (.) and education (.) to the people of Missouri (.) we’re grateful to our co-sponsor KFVS twelve TV (.) and its general manager Howard Meageau (.) for agreeing to televise this debate live (.) during priime TV time (.) un↑FORtunately (.) Howard is ill tonight (.) and he can’t be with us (.) so we hope that he has a speedy recovery (.) on behalf of the university and the other co-sponsor Missouri government of south-east (.) we welcome those of you who are in the academic haall (.) those watching the debate on KFVS twelve TV (.) and those listening on KRCU-FM or other radio stations throughout Missouri (.) and on our website (.) we also welcome thoose who will ↑see this debate on C-Span over the next several weeks (.) and ↑finally (.) we’d like to thank (.) Bob Holden (.) Jim Talent (.) and their campaign staffs for agreeing to come (.) to south-east campus (.) in Cape Girardeau (.) to debate the issues facing Missouri (.) at this time I’ll turn the program over to doctor Tom ↑Harte (.) professor emeritus of speech communication and theatre (.) who will seerve as the time keeper (.) for this evening’s event (.) thank you (.) ↑Tom= =(13. applauds) THANK you (.) thank you president Do]bbins let me begin byy explaining the ↑format for tonight’s debate (.) each candidate will have four minutess to make an opening statement the order of which was determined in advaance byy a flip of the coin (.) each c candidate will likewise have four minutes for a ↑closing statement aand (.) in be↑tween (.) the candidates will respond to questions posed byy our panel (.) each question will be addressed too both ↑candidates. (.) each candidate will have two minutes to reply to each ↑question. (.) taking turns going first (.) the candidate who answers ↑first (.) will also have one additional minute for a rejoinder after his opponent has given a response in the event of any follow-up ↑questions (.) each candidate will have one minute for replyy (.) ↑let me introduce you too thee

A: TH(M):

823

Appendix panelists (.) first (.) a student here at South East Missouri Sate Uni↑versity (.) and the current (.) National Educational Debate Association (.) Lincoln-Douglas Debate champion (.) Mr. Travis ↑Partney= =(12.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) aand seated] next to him froom KFVS twelve television network in Cape Girardeau heartland news anchor Mr. Dave Courvoisier (.) the candidates of course need no in↑troduction but let me present them to ↑you first the (.) Democratic ↑candidate for the state of Missouri Mr. Bob Holden (.) (13. collectively applauds and shows approval in the form of bravo shouting among other affiliative reactions) Aand] (.) ↑second thee Republican candidate for governor of the state of Missouri Mr. Jim Talent= =(18. collectively applauds and shows approval in the form of bravo shouting among other affiliative reactions) gentlemen I] think we’re ready to begin the debate before we doo let me just remind the audience that because this debate is being broadcast ↑live we ask you to refrain from using ↑cell phones or flash photography (.) Mr. Talent you won the coin ↑toss we’ll ask you uuh (.) t to be↑gin with your informative opening statement= =thank you Tom (.) and I want to thankk uh doctor Doobbins and the university and KFVS for sponsoring this and I have to do something else (.) before I get into my opening ↑statement and I know it’s taking my four minutes butt uh (.) the finest lady I know is here this evening my wife Brenda came to the debate and my (.) my ↑two older kids Michael who’s ten and Kate whoo’s (.) who’s ↑eight and I’ll just ask (.) ask them to stand up please I want to introduce them to the [crowd (9.5 collectively applauds) THANK YOU ↑HONEY. (2.) ok this is coming up] (.) we we have a younger child Christy it’s her name and I asked her if she wanted to go to the debate and she said (.) ‘I ↑think I’ll stay home and read Winnie the Pooh with grandma [(.) tonight’ which is (.) (laughs almost inaudibly)= =about much perspective as you can expect from somebody in a political family (.) ss↑peaking of family (.) I thought of my mum as I wass uh driving down here today (.) she was an extraordinary woman loved politics (.) passed away a number of years ago (.) ↑muum uh (.) ↑mum was raised in a dairy farm (.) in Jefferson county (.) aafter the war shee taught us stenoography and started to corroborate her business (.) she was very successful and she taught me a lot of things (.) about life (.) one of the things she taught me is that (.) ↑most of what is important in our liives we do on our own (.) we do on our faamilies (.) on our small businesses on our JOOBS our faarms our (.) public schoools our (.) churches our synagogues (.) there are only a ↑few things that we need the government or expect the government to ↑↑do for us thank heavens (.) but it should do those things well (.) that hasn’t been the case in the state of Missouri (.) when the government’s (.) raised our budgets and our taaxes spent more and more of our ↑money is ↑gootten bigger and bigger (.) but the bigger it’s ↑gootten (.) per↑versely the less effective (.) it’s been into things that make a difference (.) for the people of the state (.) of Missouri (.) nooow uh it’s a ↑JOOB of the state government for example (.) too pro↑tect us and our faamilies and our

A: TH(M):

A: TH(M): A: TH(M):

JT:

A: JT:

A: JT:

824

Appendix hoomes from ↑drugs yet we’re second in the ↑country in production of methamphetamines. (.) it’s a ↑JOOB of the state government to build our ↑↑rooads so that our kids have a safe way ↑home (.) yet we have the six worst highways (.) in the ↑country. (.) it’s a ↑JOOB of the state government to forge a partnership (.) with our local schools so that our kids learn how to ↑read in an atmosphere of ↑safety (.) where the ↑teachers feel empowered (.) and yet one out of three kids in Missouri’s (.) third grade classrooms are reading proficiently at grade level (.) now ↑I’m not negative about Missouri I’m POOsitive I’m excited about we can do (.) but we have to have a leadership that’s willing to confront these problems (.) and willing to take responsibility for making a difference (.) in the areas where government is supposed to count for people (.) and that’s what this election is ↑about. (.) my opponent is part of a failed establishment (.) in Jefferson City (.) that created the status quo can’t defend won’t change it (.) and ridicules people who believe that the state of Missouri can do for its citizens what other states have been doing for ↑their citizens for ↑↑yeears (.) I’m going to give you some exaamples we’re going to hear more about this (.) tonight I want to build ↑rooads in Missouri (.) I want to keep the ↑proomises we made to keep the fifteen-year plan (.) I want to build it the way ↑other states build roads (.) with a series of state-wide bond issues and with the secretary of transportation (.) who’s re↑mooved if he doesn’t do the job (.) my opponent said it’s risky (.) well not everybody thinks it’s ↑risky. (.) I’ve been endorsed by the (.) Missouri Farm Bureau by the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association by the Dairy Association the Port Producers the Soybean Association in part because of that road (unintelligible) (.) I want our schoools to get the ↑funding that we promised them (.) I want them to get the ↑freedom that they expect and they need (.) I want our kids to learn to ↑reead (.) I want ↑fix the schools that have been (.) ↑faailing their kids in St. Louis and Kansas City (.) my opponent says those things are risky (.) well not everybody ↑thinks so. (.) I’ve been endorsed in this race by the Missouri ↑School Board Association (.) the Missouri Association of Elementary School Principles the Association of ↑School Administrators (.) the Council of Administrators of Especial Education (.) the Association of ↑School Business Officials and (.) they’re all part of the Missouri School Alliance. (.) look (.) if you talk with the people who know the state government and who work with the state government you know we can’t go on the way we’ve been going and we don’t have to (.) we don’t have to (.) ac accept excuses anymore from a government that doesn’t live up (.) to the things that ↑we need government to do for us and (.) chaarges higher taxes at the same time (.) we can ↑bee (.) better than we are (.) we can ↑doo (.) more than we’ve done (.) we can fulfil the promise of Missouri (1.) [thank you Mr. Talent (19. collectively applauds and shows approval) time now foor (3.) time now for the opening state]ment from Mr. Holden you have four minutes sir= =thank you Toom (.) and I aalso want to thank (.) SEMOoo for (.) hosting the first debate of this year (.) I’m ↑also deliighted that this first debate (.) is held in the congressional district (.) where I was raaised (.) and where (.) my f (.) parents still farm (.) ↑I’ve focused my campaign on threee critical issues (.) public education (.)

TH(M): A: TH(M): BH:

825

Appendix health care (.) and ↑keeping our fiscal hoouse in oorder (.) I started out (.) in a wondrous school house (.) graduated from one of your sister universities (0.5) public education (.) has made aall the difference in the world in my life (.) and ↑I will never turn my back (.) on the public schools (.) in Missouri (.) ↑I haave a comprehensive plaan (.) to help all of our schools (.) ↑smaller class sizes (.) es↑↑pecially (.) in the early grades (.) re↑ward and re↑tain high quality ↑teachers in the classrooms (.) ↑increase academic staandards (.) and ↑hoold everybody (.) accountable (.) my op↑ponent (.) on the other haand (.) has tiiime and a↑gain. (.) supported one voucher program aafter another (.) ↑education is not survival of the defeatists (.) we do not im↑proove our public schools by starving them to death. (.) we im↑prove our public schools by investing in ↑them. (.) ↑raising standards. (.) and holding them accountable (.) that’s how we improve our public schools (.) I ↑also have a real plaaan for health care (.) it incluudes (.) helping our seniors with their prescription drug cost (.) I want to use some of the debacle and resettle money to help them (.) cause I know (.) I knoow (.) how much they need it (.) growing up (0.5) with my mum and dad (.) the doctor I went to then (.) they still go todaay (.) that is whyy (.) I’ve been soo committed to the Patient Bill of Rights (.) I’m totally committed to making sure (.) that weee support the strongest Patient Bill of Rights in the state of Missouri (.) Missouri paassed in nineteen ninety-seven (.) the stroongest the Patient Bill of Rights in the ↑country (.) my op↑ponent. (.) while in Congress (.) tried to find out waays to undermine (.) that stroong protection (.) I will fight it any day and veto ↑any bill that undermines the strong Patient Bill of Rights (.) in the state of Missouri (.) my q my question to congressman Talent iis (.) ↑WHAT is it about (.) the pat patient protection laaaws in Missouri (.) that he’s op↑↑poosed to (.) we can aall agree (.) that our roads need to be fixed (.) ↑I agree with that. (.) but we have to have a plan that’s ↑fiscally sound (.) based on the neeeds and priorities of the state of Missouri (.) and look to our loong-term transportation interest (.) in the state of Missouri (.) as state ↑treasurer (.) I’ve had to focus and focus every day (.) on making sure that we keep our fiscal house in order (.) that’s the reason (.) I’m so pleased that Missouri is one of only ↑niine states in the ↑nation (.) that has tripled a boond rating (.) ‘Governing’ magazine says it’s one of the four best financially managed states in the nation (.) just last April (.) I announced for the first time in the ↑HIStory of the state of Missouri (.) we had eearned a billion dollar’s interest (.) of the investment in state fuunds (.) that’d never happened before (.) in the ↑HIStory of the state of Missouri (.) under one administration (.) as state treasurer (.) we’ve worked for the Missouri first ↑link deposit program (.) to help farmers and small business people here (.) we passed the MOST program (.) to help (.) faamilies save for their kids’ post-high school education (.) on the ↑SURface (.) this may just appear to be a race between one Democrat versus another (.) but underneeath (.) underneath that surface there’s very clear differences between my Republican opponent and myself (.) the question iis (.) that we have to ask ourseelves (.) do we cont (.) do we ↑fundamentally continue to move forward making proogress making refoorm mak keeping the state moving forward (.) or do we ↑raadically change courses (.) ↑I beliiieve we want to continue to move forward (.) and (.) ↑doing THAT (.) Missouri’s best Aas (.) would be in the future (.) thank you very very much=

826

Appendix A: TH(M): JT: TH(M): =[(19. collectively applauds bravo screaming and showing other signs of approval ) well I thank you gentlemen= =(unintelligible) when responding] to a question do ↑those flickers signal thirty seconds left or that one is (.) over it I believe in your case you haave ↑twoo uh signs one is the one minute and the thirty seconds (.) and I think this one holding it’s just gett (.) getting the thirty sig (.) signal is that alright ↑gentlemen= =alright= =thank you for your opening (unintelligible) oh (laughs)] (.) [thank you for your opening remarks it’s a siiign (unintelligible)] NOW that you’ve heard the opening remarks of the ↑candidates it’s time for the ↑questions (.) and who’ll ask the first question is Mr. Courvoisier (.) Mr. Talent you’ll have the first cracket (.) Mr. Courvoisi↑er= =thank you (.) the ↑fact that you’ve both chosen to spend so much on TV aads (.) helps guarantee my pay check every week and I’m [(.) appreciative of that (.) (laughs almost inaudibly)] HOwever (.) ↑thirty seconds aadss (.) trivialiise and oversimplifyy important issues (.) perhaps the most you can expect is that you’ll have a chance to rejoinder (.) your opponent’s accusations (.) ↑we’ve heard aboutt uh (.) your (.) stands oon (.) public schoools (.) and on health care of the ↑elderly in your aads (.) but (.) you’ve ↑never really touched on (.) some important hot-point issues (.) so tonight I’d like to start with partial-birth a↑bortions. (.) Mr. Talent ↑where do you staand on partial-birth abortions and when and if (.) it comes up again in the Missouri legislator and it probably ↑will. (.) how would you ↑deal with it from the governor seat well I’ll (.) I’ll SIGN a a bill banning partial-birth abortions willingly and eagerly (.) I believe that (.) unborn children are ↑people. (.) I look forward to the daay we can protect then and have room for them (.) and for their muums no matter how troubletherised lady they feel they aare (.) in our hhomes and in our hearts and in our communities now I know we’re not ↑there yet (.) we’re we’re divided over this issue and we have to move forward as a country and we all have to ↑live together we have a duty of trying to per↑suade each other you can’t force people (.) to agree with you on issues like this (.) but we can move forward on areas where at ↑LEAST where we have some con↑sensus (.) we can move forward on things like limiting funding for abortions (.) restrictions on late-term abortions and es↑pecially restrictions on partial-birth abortions (.) it’s a procedure that’s akin to in↑fanticide (.) that’s what senator (.) Moynihan said (.) and there is a big difference between me and my opponent on this issue (.) because he would have ↑VEtoo the partial-birth abortion ban (.) and I feel very strongly that it should have become law and if I’m governor I’ll be pleased to sign it [(17.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) alright (4.) Mr. ↑Holden (.) Mr. Holden your response to the question] pleease I oppose partial-birth abortions also (.) but I ↑aalso beliiieve (.) it’s a right of a woman and her DOctor to make that decision for themselves (.)= =YEAH=

BH: TH(M): BH: TH(M): JT: TH(M):

DC: A: DC:

JT:

A: TH(M): BH: AAM1:

827

Appendix A: BH: =(7.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) I’VE (.) ↑I’VE] watched (.) so many circumstances (.) where faamilies had to deal with this issue (.) they don’t need the government invoolved (.) they need to work it oout with their ↑clergy (.) with their doctor (.) and with the woman invoolved (.) it should be (.) their decision (.) (11. collectively applauds and shows approval) Mr. Talent since you answered ↑first you have a (.) one minute rejoinder yeah I (.) we have three children (.) I had the privilege of holding ↑all three of them (.) thirty seconds after they were born I was the first one to hold them (.) except for the dooctor (.) and the ↑idea that haalf a minute beforehand (.) the doctor could have aborted them it’s just uh unbearable to me (.) and if the government isn’t going to b be invoolved in protecting kids at that stage I don’t know when it’s ↑going to be involved (.) this is not a good ↑thing (.) I mean if you do something that is ↑BAAD is not right for anybody it’s not right foor (.) ↑women it’s not right for our so↑ciety (.) we should have rooom for these kids in our hearts (.) rooom for them in our (.) communities rooom for them in our homes and room for them in (.) with their mums too and it begins by doing (.) what we know it’s right thank you (1.) [(15. collectively applauds and shows approval) thee (.) the ↑next question (.) the next question] comes from Mr. and Mr. Holden will address it first I be↑lieve. (.) that everyone in this room (.) can ↑agree. (.) that our future depends upon the education of our children (.) this university priides itself (.) in promoting the ideals and values of education (.) it is imperative that we prooperly ↑compensate our educators to reflect the importance of their joobs in our society (.) however (.) in nineteen ninety-↑nine (.) the average salary for public teachers in Missouri ranked thirty seventh out of fifty (.) ↑how exactly do you plan out raising ↑teachers’ salaries (.) and thereby improving the status of public teaching (.) oor as governor (.) would you be↑satisfied (.) with Missouri ranking near the boottom in terms (.) of teacher compensation= =thank you ↑first of aall (.) I’m not satisfied th that we rank near the BOOttom (.) in that case (.) in faact (.) I was one of the co-sponsors of the Excellence and Education aact that was paassed in nineteen ninety-fiiive that put a ↑flooor (.) for the funding oof teachers’ salaries in the state of Missouri (.) my op↑ponent member of the General Assembly at the time voted a↑gainst that legislation (.) I also voted to accrue the ↑laatter (.) I’ve had as part of my plaan (.) that I want to haave seventy million dollars set asside in my school reform package (.) to hire more ↑teachers to reduce class siizes so we can get more teachers in the claassroom working (.) I’ve ↑aalso said (.) that I will commit (.) the state of Missouri (.) to every teacher that’ll go through national board certification and paassed the (.) the process (.) in less than one hour with two ↑teachers who make it the first time through (.) I will ↑aadd five thousand dollars to their salary (.) as long as they’re certified (.) IF (.) they would have met to another teacher through the program I’ll add ten per cent of their salary on top of ↑that (.) I want to r reward the ↑best teachers (.) the ↑best teachers to stay in the claassroom to teach our children (.) Laura and I have a ten-year old ↑son (.) fifth grade (.) west school (.) public school in (.) Jefferson ↑City. (.) I know how

A: TH(M): JT:

TH(M): A: TH(M): TP:

BH:

828

Appendix im↑portant (.) public school teachers ↑aaare (.) to the future (.) in fact (.) our second son is named Dave to one of my former teachers (.) my sister (.) was a teacher (.) she’s now on principle (.) my daad served for a number of years on the school board (.) ↑Ii’m committed to the public school in the state of Missouri and the ↑KEEY (.) is to work into make sure we have the best and the brightest teachers in the ↑classroom. (.) and they stay there (.) thank you [(14. collectively applauds) Mr. ↑Talent (2.5) Mr. Talent your response] please= the minimum salary is the ↑keey (.) we have to we have to attract attract the best people in the profession (.) how can we come up with the funds to pay the ↑teachers. (.) well (.) keep our ↑promises (.) to the people in Missouri and the schools of Missouri (.) we PROmised (.) the ↑state promised when the gambling referendums paassed in the nineties that that money would goo to increase spending in education and it hasn’t (.) they put the money ↑in. (.) the education-aid formula with one hand (.) they take it out with the ↑other they use it to replace general revenue that would otherwise have been spent for education that’s one of the reasons we can’t pay teachers the way we should (.) I want to ↑fix that (.) I want our schoools to get the funding that we promised (.) we’ll put it in a (.) classroom trust fund send it di↑rectly to the schools to be ↑spent the way the ↑schoools want to spend it (.) and the ↑parents and the ↑school boards and the ↑teachers (.) ↑not the way Jefferson City ↑tells them (.) to spend it. (.) we can free up dollars by lifting up lifting off some of the regulations in the oppressive ↑paperwork that we put on the schools (.) my wife served in a school board (.) for a teerm we have a lot of friends in (.) public education I called up a superintendent friend of mine and I said ‘↑how many regulations (.) how many ↑inches of regulations do you have to fill out’ (.) ‘for the state’ he said ‘↑↑inches’ (.) so we have to maintain four↑teen crates of ↑doocuments (.) just to ↑prooove to the state (.) that we have complied with their ↑↑proocess requirements (.) this doesn’t have anything to ↑do with performance (.) things like siigning sheets (.) that to prove that teachers actually went to the anti↑drug seminars (.) maybe if we started ↑trusting our educators in our schools (.) they’d ↑HAAve more money for minimum salaries (.) we need safe ↑schoools. that’s part of my ↑plaan. the kids got to have some place to ↑goo. (.) when they act out and they’re ↑disruptive. (.) or they’re ↑violent. (.) and we need to focus on the basics and make accountability turn on thaat on teaching kids to reead (.) instead of complying (.) with all this paperwork (.) now ↑my opponent knows I have a stroong record of fighting for public education ↑sixteen years in public life (.) the last six years on the Education Committee in the ↑Congress. (.) I’ve fought for local controol for safe schoools (.) I’ve fought for (.) an emphasis on basics in education and I’ve fought for funding (.) that’s why ↑I’ve been endorsed by the Missouri School Board Association (.) you know when somebody attacks you a lot on education it usually means there’s something in their own record they don’t want you to know about (.) you ↑need to ↑KNOW (.) my opponent is for (.) the ruules of education being fixed by collective bargaining (.) by labour union contracts (.) I’m NOT for that (.) I don’t think the people of Missouri want that (.) I’m for ↑local controool I’m for funding for the public schools I’m for ↑safe schools I’m for ↑lifting the (.) oppressive (.) paperwork and regulations in our schools so that

A: TH(M): JT:

829

Appendix teachers can teach again A: TH(M): BH: [(20.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) Mr. ↑Holden (4.) Mr. Holden you have an opportunity for a re↑joinder the sup]port of ↑voouchers do not help (.) our public school funding mechanism to make sure we keep the funding ↑there. (.) the (.) ↑gaming proposal he talks a↑bout. (.) those funds haave goone to the school foundation formula (.) in faact (.) the ↑two previous (.) auditors one Re↑publican (.) and one ↑Democrat (.) have both saaid (.) that the fuunds (.) aare going where they (.) deseerve and should be ↑going. (.) I’ve said I would ↑clarifyyy to make sure and put an item in the budget a liiine in the budget to make sure that ever since in the state in Missouri make sure (.) that they gooo (.) the funds from gaming go there (.) in ad↑DItion I would appreciate it if my opponent (.) would get (.) the figures he want to uuuse and the whole gaambling scenario to↑gether (.) because ↑sometimes he talks about eight hundred million dollars for ↑gambling. (.) ↑sometimes he talks about a hundred and fifty million dollars going into (.) the ↑schoools from gambling. (.) all coming from his press releases and an↑↑nouncements. (.) we ↑neeed to knoow what his ↑real plan iis (.) so that we can (.) make some decisions (.) in Jefferson City we have to balance budgets (.) we don’t haave (.) words in Math in Missouri [(12.5 collectively applauds) thee next question (.) the next question co]mes from Mr. Cour↑voisieer and Mr. Talent will handle it first my next question is for both of you gentlemen (.) ↑south-east Missouri may beee only second to California (.) iin (.) laying claim to the dubious honour of being thee methamphetamine capital of the nation (.) police and sheriffs say they’re not (.) given enough money (.) man power (.) or co-operation (.) to effectively battle the problem (.) ↑how would you help them (.) in this effort to wipe out the spread of methamphetamine (1.5) [Mr. Talent well (.)] well ↑I’ll declare waar on methamphetamine (.) if I’m governor of the state of Missouri (.) and we need to do it (.) we are ↑second in the c country in production of meth in Missouri (.) our sheriffs and our police are fighting hard but they’re being overwhelmed and there are ↑baby things (.) ↑basic things (.) the state government hasn’t done (.) that needs to do (.) this is a terrible drug (.) I mean it’s it’s it’s it’s ↑cheaap (.) it produces a long lasting hiiiigh. (.) it’s home-grown you don’t have to ↑import it (.) they make it in (.) caabins in the back of vaaans (.) and it’s ↑aaall through our communities (.) and the state government has been ↑aa wall on the fighting against methamphetamines (.) we need tougher ↑sentencing laaws (.) I’ve had ↑sheriff after sheriff telling me (.) we put these guys in jail and they’re ↑↑out again and a hundred of twenty days of shock time if they get ↑that much time (.) in ↑Missouri (.) our sentencing laws for methamphetamine are much weaker than our laws for crack cocaine for example (.) I will ↑strengthen those laaws so that when we con↑vict these guys they go to jail for a hard time (.) we need to send that message to our kids and the governor’s got be ↑right at the front of that and the message needs to be (.) ‘don’t you use this drug’ (.) I’m not talking about (.) giving them faaacts about methamphetamines and let them make their own choice (.) I’m saying you say ‘noo this drug is bad for you and don’t you use it’ (.) and if people deciide that they’ve been on methamphetamines and they want to get ooff we need

A: TH(M): DC:

JT:

830

Appendix to give them that ↑chaance (.) we need a drug treatment program (.) you know we don’t ↑↑know of a treatment program that ↑works for methamphetamines (.) ↑here’s where I’ll stop methamphetamines a two prong approach (.) you say to the people who are uusing this stuff (.) who are who are traafficking this stuff (.) we are going to ↑back up our sheriffs and our police officers so that when you ↑do this we’re going to catch you we’re going to convict you (.) and we’re going to send you to jail for a hard time for once (.) and then you say to other people (.) to the kids ‘↑don’t use this drug (.) because if you doo (.) you’re throwing your life away’ (.) I can lead that fight as governor (.) it hasn’t been led in the state of Missouri so far [(16.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) Mr. Holden (.) Mr. Holden your answer to the question please] the ↑last yeeear that (.) congressman Talent was part of the leadership of this state (.) we closed two meth laabs (.) laast year (.) the state of Missouri closed over a thooousand (.) meth labs (.) while ↑he’s been in Waashington the last eight years we’ve been fighting the criime (.) we’ve been addressing the issue (.) we’re not there yet (.) we’ve still got a lot of work yet to doo (.) but we’re oon the right track (.) ↑we’ve got to continue (.) to invest (.) in training in technology and improving (.) the law enforcement agency we have in the state of Mis↑souri. (.) we’ve got to give them the ↑back-up and the support that they neeed (.) to continue this ↑fight (.) and we’ve got to fight it everyday (.) because it is a very (.) tough drug (.) so aall drugs (.) but we ↑aalso (.) have to be willing to step OUT there and say (.) not just one drug (.) it’s what we’ve got to address we’ve got to address (.) ↑other drugs (.) ↑ecstasy (.) that’s going around campuses today (.) and GHB (.) the day (.) the day to day drug (.) that we haave in our society (.) ↑WE’ve GOOT (.) to fight druugs at every level (.) we’ve got to be tough (.) we can’t back ooff (.) in what we’re doing to the criminal (.) but we’ve got to aalso make sure that we’re doing the things we’ve got to do (.) and that’s (.) ↑help our police (.) give them the technology (.) ↑give them (.) the support (.) and the backing of the government of the state of Missouri (.) and we can continue to win this fight (.) it won’t be LIIke (.) when he left (.) the state of Missouri and we only closed ↑two meth labs. (.) it’d be like it is now that we’re closing thooousands and thoousands and thousands of meth labs (.) and ↑other (.) other drug situations (.) I want to help support (.) our laaw enforcement people would ↑give them the technology and support that they need (.) to get this job done for all of us [(16. collectively applauds and shows some approval) Mr. ↑Talentt uh (1.) Mr. ↑Talent has a minute to re↑ply we can’]t defeat this if we bury our head in the sand we’re ↑second in production of methamphetamines in the country there are basic things we haven’t done (.) in Mis↑souri you can be prosecuted for cocaiiine traafficking (.) and distribution if you’re caught with ↑two grams of cocaine (.) the toughest law in the country (.) means you have to be caught with ↑thirty grams of methamphetamine before you can be tre (.) uh uh prosecuted for the class-A felony (.) they don’t ↑↑make thirty grams of methamphetamines these are home ↑cooks (.) in other states (.) they can ef↑fectively arrest you and convict you if the sheriff ↑catches you (.) with the ↑precursor drugs (.) you know pulls you over in your vaaan (.) you’ve got a (.) ten thousand zinnia tubs a gallon of aale and the high and driest ammoniac and liighter

A: TH(M): BH:

A: TH(M): JT:

831

Appendix fluid (.) ↑what else you’re going to do with the pre-make of methamphetamines (.)= A: JT: =[(laughs almost inaudibly) in Missouri we’ve got to] say ↑bye bye (.) we can’t ↑prosecute you effectively cause you’ve got to show intent (.) to make methamphetamines (.) until this spring of ↑this year we hadn’t even passed the uniform crime reporting statute (.) that just means we collect the data from the ↑counties (.) and send them to the federal government (.) so we get our ↑shaare (.) of federal ↑drug money. we missed out now ↑millions and millions of dollars of this money there were two states (.) as of this spring that hadn’t (.) passed that law (.) Mis↑souri. (.) and Mississippi (.) wee need a war against methamphetamines and we haven’t had it [(18. collectively applauds and shows approval) Mr. (2.) Mr. ↑Partneey (.) Mr. Partney has the next] question Mr. Holden will be the first to respoond it has been re↑ported that the state of Missourii (.) has some of the most decrepit hiighway conditions in our nation (.) the south-east region of the state (.) is particularly in neeed of re↑pair (.) and there are ↑many places (.) that can plead renovation (.) Mr. ↑Talent has propoosed a highway plan that will leverage federal (.) and state fuunds averaging one billion dollars a year for ten years (.) this plan caalls for construction and re↑paair and bridges acrooss Missouri (.) Mr. Holden (.) you claim that this plan is ↑faulty (.) and even go soo far as to cite state senator Bill ↑Kenney as stating that Mr. Talent’s plan will not ↑work (.) and that we are (.) quote in quote (.) ‘mortgaging our future’ (.) what are your prooblems with this ↑plan (.) and how do you respond Mr. Talent first of aall. (.) Ii (.) worked the effort as laast session (.) to get the two billion dollars passed (.) in boonding (.) for the state of Missouri to address (.) some of its highway needs (.) ↑I’ve said from the very beginning (.) that our transportation program has to be ↑fiscally soound (.) and based on the needs and priorities of the state of Missouri (.) the PLAAN that (.) congressman Talent (.) supports (.) when was paassed in nineteen ninety-twoo (.) was ↑one point foour billion dollar short of funding (.) the day it was paassed (.) it ↑didn’t allow for inflation (.) for fifteen years (.) it ↑didn’t allow flexibility (.) if th (.) f projects need to be changed (.) during the course of tiime (.) it was a plaan that was flaawed (.) from the very beginning (.) ↑I believe that we need a transportation plaan that meets aaall of our needs. (.) congressman Talent has propoosed a ↑ten billion dollar bond proposal (.) that’s ↑ten times the amount of bonding we have in the state of Missouri right now (.) George Kit Boond (.) Mooddies and other have said (.) once we go passed about three billion dollars in new ↑boonding. (.) we risk our triple-A bond rateness a state Ii don’t think we want to ↑do that (.) I know of two main school districts out here (.) that ↑need to uuse the bonding capacity of the state (.) to build ↑school buildings. (.) to build claassrooms (.) we ↑neeed to protect the state’s ↑fiscal integrity (.) and we cannot go down the ↑path. (.) of being fiscally responsible of being fiscally responsible (.) with a ten billion dollar plan proposal (.) that ↑↑doesn’t meet the tenyear fiscal plan (.) doesn’t achieve (.) ↑aaall of the projects in that plan at any time in the future (.) ↑doesn’t address. (.) rail air waater and maass transit (.) and ↑doesn’t focus on preserving and maintaining the rooads and bridges we’ve already ↑↑built (.) I want a plaan that makes ↑fiscal sense (.) it’s based on the needs and

A: TH(M): TP:

BH:

832

Appendix priorities (.) and its number one priority (.) is baased on preserving and maintaining of what we’ve already built and build ↑neew. (.) as we can afford to do it [(15.5 collectively applauds) Mr. Talent your response ↑please (3.5) what I] want to doo is something that is new in Jefferson City (somewhat laughing) (.) keeping the ↑promises that we made to people (.) the promise to build a fifteenyear highway plan (.) it’s ↑not outmoded Boob it’s a basic ↑↑road net for Missouri (.) it’s onne (.) east-west road in north Missouri (.) it’s onne (.) east-west road in south Missouri (.) it’s three roads (.) north-south throughout Missouri (.) sixty-three sixty-fiive (.) thirteen we need THIS we need this ↑↑rooad (.) we promised it to people (.) I want to finance it the way other states finance their roads a series of state-wide bond issues and I want to ↑build it (.) with a professional in charge (.) somebody who ↑build roads and not get involved in politics (.) and I’m going to kick him in the rear end and if he doesn’t get the roads built for the people of Missouri I’m going to fire him (.) [now look (3.) my (2.5) my opponent says he’s working on a plan (8.5 collectively bursts into applause accompanied by other reactions showing approval)] he ↑had a plan (.) he signed oon at the total transportation commission plan three years ago a five hundred and fifty million dollar ↑tax increase (.) a one cent salestax increase you ↑talk about fiscally responsible (.) and then they didn’t even build uh (.) want to build the roads that they ↑promised with that (.) then he talks about (.) talks about debt now (.) you know (.) the don’t ↑↑get it in Jefferson City we’ve got a debt (.) if your infrastructure is crumbling (.) you’ve got a ↑↑debt (.) if half of your bridges are structurally unsafe and unsound (.) you’ve got a ↑↑debt (.) and we’re paying for that debt Missoourians real people are paying for it (.) they’re paying for it in looost joobs in higher cost again on the productt in the mark market (.) higher maintenance cost and they’re paying for it in loost ↑liives. (.) and I’ve ↑talked to people whose kids have lost their lives on the road (.) what ↑I want to do is pay for it the right way the way other states for it (.) we can ↑do that in Missouri (.) but we can only do it if we have a leadership that STOps giving excuses (.) for why ↑WE can’t have in Missouri the ↑same thing that they have in all other states (.) let me tell you something (.) we’ve got about another eight years to fix this (.) if ↑WE have another decade ahead of us (.) like the decade we last haad (.) we’re going to be ↑soo far behind in road building and infrastructure we’re never going to climb out (.) we’re going to continue loosing liiives (.) our towns are going to continue struggling with this (.) we don’t have to have that (.) we can do it better (.) we have to keep our promises (.) we have to fulfil the promise of Missouri [(26. collectively applauds and shows approval) Mr. Holden haas (4.) Mr. Holden (.) you have a minute to respoond thank you (4.)] the Co↑lumbia Tribune newspaper (.) said its figures didn’t aad up (.) John aall of our (.) our prominent Republicans I believe in this area of the state (.) said that its plaan of re-organisation in the department of transportation (.) would aad ↑politics (.) and bureaucracy to the process (.) but ↑not builld anymore rooads (.) becaau when we talk about the ↑faulty roads (.) and talk talks about the deaths on those roads (.) ↑those aren’t ↑caaaused just byy (.) the hiighways (.) they’re taau

A: TH(M): JT:

A: JT:

A: TH(M): BH:

833

Appendix they’re caaused by the people driiving on those roads (.) and the condition that they’re under when they driive (.) so if we ↑really want to get serious about the deaths on the highways and ↑Ii doo (.) then we’ve got to tackle it from aaall aspects (.) but in ↑terms of the transportation plaan it has to be a total transportation plaan (.) ↑I want to help the airport here I want to help (unintelligible) build (.) uuh a water port (.) the raails mass transit ↑aall of that people have to have a transportation plan so the state of Missouri can ↑bee (.) a transportation ↑huub for the middle part of this country in the twenty-first ↑century (.) that means that we have to focus on a plan that makes ↑↑sense (.) and it’s fiscally res↑ponsible and alloows us to make the decisions that’ll help aall of us in the state of Missouri [(17.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) MR. COURVOISI↑EER (.) MR. COURVOISI↑ER (.) Mr. Courvoisier has the next question] and Mr. Talent will deal with it first= =gentlemen ↑next to educationn both of you have lended the most ink (.) air time and attention to the topic of health care (.) both of you have offered detailed plans for cutting prescription drug cost for the ↑elderly and how you would better managge (.) health care in general (.) you ↑hear much about the so-called Patients’ Bill of Rights these days (.) ↑giive ↑↑mee your top (.) three proposals (.) for improving the health care for Missourians (.) ↑AND (.) how you propose to pay for it well we’re in trouble in Missouri in health care (.) six hundred and sixty thousand people (.) uninsured (.) seventy out of a hundred and four↑teen counties underseerved in health care. (.) our seniors and our nursing home according to the state’s own auudits (.) are getting ↑fouurteen dollars per day less per day than they should for minimum care in other words the nursing homes are getting four↑teen dollars per day less than they should be getting (.) to take care of those seniors in a minimally qualified manner (.) aall of these things affect aall of Missouri (.) in a terrible way my i↑DEas (.) I’ve been fighting foor (.) association ↑health plaans in the Congress (.) this is a plan that will allow (.) business people small business people farmers to ↑puull together and buy insurance from a big group and (.) reduce the cost of health insurance (.) covers as many as a hundred thoousand more Missourians without a single dollar to the taxpayer (.) most people are uninsured and either ↑work for a small business. or ↑own a small business. or are dependents on somebody who dooes (.) I’m going to be ↑fighting for that (.) to expaand it to the high risk (.) pool I want to do ↑that in Missouri so that the people who have dia↑betes or cancer or a history of illness (.) can get ↑↑health insurance (.) right now they have to go in the individual market (.) and it ↑↑coosts too much for them to be able to (.) to buy it my barber is in that position (.) we need to have a high risk ↑pool so people can have health insurance (.) and I’ve been fighting for a prescription drug plaan (.) in the Congress (.) a good plaan a good ↑solid plan that will cover people from two hundred and fifty dollars on up (.) in terms of health care now ↑let me just ask Bob (.) he’s going to have a chance to (.) answer this and he’s got a (.) he’s been talking a lot about prescription drugs ↑I’m kind of disenchanted with the state government’s aattitude in that you know the state’s been rolling in dough (.) for the last eight years rolling in our dough (.) and ↑NOW they talk about prescription drugs for seniors ↑I think this is better to do it on a federal level if we

A: TH(M): DC:

JT:

834

Appendix can do it cause there’s a bigger pool and it fits well in Med in Medicare and we can do a better job for our seniors (.) but if they ↑rreally think that prescription drugs is something we needed to do on a state level (.) and ↑I’ll do it as governor if they don’t do it on a federal level (.) ↑where have they ↑↑been (.) it is an↑NOther area where they let the people of Missouri ↑doown. (.) they’ve had ↑eight years budgets increasing ↑three times the rate (.) of of the average families’ income (.) and ↑noow in the election year they deciide (.) we need a prescription drug plan let me tell you (.) helping our seniors get prescription drugs is the right thing to do (.) we should do it because it’s the right thing (.) not because it’s an election year (15. collectively applauds and shows approval) Mr. ↑Holden (.) your response ↑pleaase ok (.) ↑con]gressman if it’s the right thing to do why haven’t you got it done in Washington D. C.= =[(16. bursts into applause and enthusiastically shows approval mixed with some individual reactions of disapproval) (looks at opponent and indicates that he can respond with his arm and hand extended) (almost inaudibly) have your time (also with arm and hand extended)] I started talking about pres prescription druugs (.) because ↑Congress wasn’t aacting (.) the only initiative that the ↑congressman was talking about is also been baacked by the industry (.) ↑not to help the consumer (.) that senior citizen out there that is desperately needing the prescription druugs (.) that they deseerve (.) ↑I said it’s tiime that we take some of the debacle resettlement money that Missouri is going to get (.) part of the six point seven billion dollars (.) and ALL THOSE ↑seeniors who (.) have income of fifty thousand dollars or less (.) and have (.) ↑bills of a thousand dollars or moore (.) the state of Missouri will uuse the debacle settlement money to step in and pay the rest (.) we ↑OWE it to the seniors= =(8. almost inaudibly and collectively applauds and shows approval) we owe] it to the ↑seniors who have given us the great economy we aaall talk about (.) and take credit foor because ↑they’re the ones that delivered it to us (.) and I would deliver this to the seniors of the state of Missouri (12. collectively applauds) second se] ↑secondly (.) for too loong (.) women’s health ↑issuues and children’s issuues have ↑NOT r received the priority they deseerve (.) ↑I want to require the HMOos to give women direct access their OB-GYNs [(.) I want to (2.5 collectively and almost inaudibly applauds) (.) they ought to ↑notifyyy] (.) women when the (.) mammograms and PAP tests smeares are due so they get those tests ↑early (.) so they can (.) take care of their health (.) ↑LAAStly I want to make market refoorms (.) which will enable small businesses (.) and family faarms to ↑purchase affordable health plaans (.) that they can ↑uuse (.) in their ↑liife (.) to be better (.) ↑↑theese are waays that we can do things (.) we’ve encouraged ↑Congress to aact. (.) the congressman and his colleagues have ↑not acted. (.) as governor (.) I will act for the people of the state of Missouri [(17.5 collectively applauds) Mr. Talent you have a minute for a response ↑please=

A: TH(M): BH: A: BH: JT: BH:

A: BH:

A: BH:

A: BH:

A: TH(M):

835

Appendix JT: A: JT: A: JT: =thank you (.) well while we were (.)] fighting to save Medicare from bankruptcy got that done (.) [in nineteen ninety-SEven (.) ↑FIGHting (2.) fighting to stop (6. collectively applauds and shows approval)] the rate on Social Se↑curity so that every dollar paid into Social Security was uused for Social Security (.) got that done [in nineteen ninety-eight (.) ↑I WAS FIGHting (3. bursts into collective applause) and I was a ↑chiief co-sponsor of] the ↑first ever Patients’ Bill of Rights that passed either the House or Congress in nineteen ninety-eight be↑fore it was a big political ↑issue. (.) the ↑first time people had an opportunity to suue (.) HMOos (.) (looking at Bob Holden) we passed out that at the House in nineteen ninety-eight (.) and the prescription drug plan we’re passing now is a ↑lot better than your plan. (.) you need to check out my opponent’s website his plan covers ↑ten per cent (.) of ↑seniors (.) the plan we’ve passed in the House (.) is open it’s universal to aall (.) it’s voluntary it helps people (.) from (.) ↑two hundred and fifty dollars of (.) prescription drugs oon ↑up (.) it’s a better plan and I re↑peat (.) if ↑this is the right thing for the state government to doo (.) (looking at opponent) why wasn’t it doing it throughout the ↑nineties when we were ↑saving Medicare (.) and ↑fighting to save Social Security and you were roolling in the taxpayers dough= =(19.5 bursts into collective applause and enthusiastically shows approval) Mr. ↑Partrney (.) Mr. Partney has the next ↑question and Mr. Holden] will be the first to respoond gentlemen (.) governor George Ryan has issued a moratorium of the death penalty in the state of Illinois (.) because he c (.) he (.) because of the con↑ceern that. in the some cases innocent citizens are being executed (.) do you ↑feel that a suspension such as a moratorium of the death penalty would be in order for the state of Missouri (.) and do ↑you believe that you could lead the state in the direction of a moratorium (.) should the opportunity present itself (2.) first of all (.) I support the death penalty (.) I have not seen any ↑evidence (.) come to my desk (.) that would indicate to me that in Missouri (.) we’ve got a problem (.) if in faact (.) I see that i (.) information (.) I would take a look at it (1.) as ↑governor (.) condemning somebody to death (.) is a very serious matter (.) and I will not take it lightly (.) I will study (.) ↑every (.) tiiime be it comes to me (.) the facts to make the right decision (.) but so faar (.) in Missouri (.) I think our system has worked (.) and I haven’t seen any neeed (.) that we ought to (.) ↑alter it (.) or (.) steep back and take a look and reviewing the process but as I said (.) if in faact (.) something does come forward (.) then ↑Ii would (.) take a look at it [(10. collectively applauds) Mr. Talent your response ↑please] yeah ↑I’m a believer thatt uh (.) the consistent application of the death penalty in cases of capital murder saaves innocent liives and so I’ve always supported ↑it (.) uuh the the ↑person I have on ↑my miind is the seventeen year-oold (.) girl who was working in the convenience stoore and I want that crooker goes ↑in there. (.) and maybe (.) holds up at the place to think ‘you know ↑what. (.) if I take this person’s life something might haappen to me beyond just going to [jail’ (6. collectively but almost inaudibly applauds and shows approval) now (4.) it’s aabsolutely the responsibility] of the ↑governor (.) to inspect every

A: TH(M): TP:

BH:

A: TH(M): JT:

A: JT:

836

Appendix record (.) that ↑goes up before him to make sure there’s ↑noo substantial evidence of ↑innocence I would ↑do that. (.) and if there ↑was substantial evidence of innocence (.) I would commute to the sentence without hesitation (.) ↑I don’t think that’s the case we give (.) people in capital murder cases moore process than ↑any other (.) criminal guts and there’s no reason to believe that people that are on dea on death road aren’t there because they’re guilty (.) aand uh (.) if we continue too uh (.) carry out the death sentence we’ll save innocent lives ↑I want to take a minute and I’ve noticed our ↑tiime is almost running out to ↑aanswer an issue that (.) ↑came up before and I haven’t had a chaance to answer it (.) you’ve heard a loot in this (.) debate about (.) ↑school choice (.) ↑I wanted to address that for just a minute (.) I’ve fought for my entire career (.) for funding for local control of ↑schoools. (.) for ↑saafe schoools for our public schools and ↑that’s aall most of the public schools need in Cape in Springfield in Columbia (.) but the ↑KIDS (.) in in (.) persistently failing systems in ↑St. Louis and Kansas City (.) deserve an education ↑too. and you know something else (.) the taxpayers deserve a return on the investment (.) that they’ve sending into these schools (.) all these years (.) and as ↑far as I’m concerned (.) ↑aaall options are on the table for fixing those schools (.) including school ↑choice including (.) uh (.) includingg (.) ↑charter schools including taking over the school districts like they’ve done in Chicago (.) because ↑we owe it to those kids and we owe it to the taxpayers of Missouri to make sure that these persistently failing systems ↑turn around and I will if I’m governor (.) [my op↑ponent (9. collectively and almost inaudibly applauds) my opponent’s] talked about re↑port caards to the schools and that looks to me like another burden on them and ↑I’ll tell you I don’t think we ↑owwe (.) the parents oof uh (.) a and ↑kids in in these districts re↑port cards I think we owe them an education I think we owe the taxpayers of the state an apology= =[(13.5 collectively applauds and shows approval) Mr. ↑Holden (.) you haave uh a minute for a re↑plyy well (.)] my op↑ponent. (.) from his daays in the Missouri Houuse where he voted against the Excellence and Education ↑aact (.) to his time in Cong in Congress where he’s voted against (.) many of the reforms in fact he voted for the elimination of the department of Edu↑cation. (.) among other things (.) ↑TIime and ↑TIime again (.) hee’s voted against the education of the school children of the state of Missouri an for vouchers (.) ↑VOUchers may help a ↑few. (.) but theey hurt the many (.) and ↑wee as a governor (.) and ↑Ii as a governor (.) have to protect aaall the children (.) the ↑reason I have a school report card is ↑I want every parent in this state (.) to ↑knoow what’s going on in their chiild’s classroom (.) the (.) number of students in that claassroom versus the teacher (.) the amount of disruptive ↑behaaviour in that classroom (.) the ↑siize of the school all these factors (.) if we ↑really want to get refoorm stick in the state of ↑Missouri. (.) ↑↑we’ve got to get the parents back invoolved in every ↑one of our schools in schools like Laura and I aare in Jefferson ↑City (.) ↑myy ↑plaan is smaller class sizes (.) enhancing (.) academic standards (.) and holding (.) everybody ac↑countable (.) ALLOOws to continue to see ↑progress being made (.) we’re not there ↑yet (.) we’ve got ↑long ways to goo (.) but we’re ↑oon the right track (.) to improve aall of our public schools (.) if we go ↑HIS direction (.) we destroy our public school system in the

A: JT:

A: TH(M): BH:

837

Appendix state of Missouri [(18. bursts into collective applause and shows approval) ok (.) we’re (.) we’re raapidly running out of ↑tiime (.) we’re raapidly running out of time we have time] for only one question and because we have so little time left we’ll have to limit the response to one minute uuh (.) a piece if ↑that’s alright. Mr. Courvoisier has the question= =Mr. Talent what’s the best advice your wife ever ↑gave you.= =[(laughs) (4. almost inaudibly and collectively laughs)] the best advice my wiffe (.) ever ↑gave me. let me seee uh (.) I guess you’re expecting me to say my wife’s giving me a lot of advice and so I have to choose from among it [uh we’d] like to know [if it would bee (unintelligible) you know ↑I] think the best advice my wife ever gave me (.) we were talking about this one time (.) and ↑it was about uh (.) uh let me read two pieces (.) ↑one of them iiis (.) parenthood makes you humble (.) and I’ll tell you I’ve got three kids [aand (applauds) they’re] ten eight and foour and I’ll tell you ↑what I’ve got a lot bigger stricter and humble on me than I did ten years ago [(.) the other piece of advice she ↑gave me. (laughs almost inaudibly and individually)] and it was aBOUt it was about being in public life she said you know. (.) cause we were taalking I was asked by schools kids one time ‘what’s the first pre-requisite of leadership’ and she said ‘Jim (.) ↑I think the first pre-requisite of leadership (.) is to have a servant’s heart’ (.) you know the ↑rest of it you can learn (.) you can ↑learn the issues and the rest of it (.) but if ↑you’re the kind of person who thinks you ↑know everything (.) thatt uh you don’t want to serve people you’re going ↑flyy into a mountain and you’re going to take a lot of other people with you so my wife has given me a lot of good advice it was a ↑hard question to answer.= =[(11. bursts into collective applause and enthusiastically shows approval) Mr. ↑Holden your answer to the question pleease (5.) thank] you (.) my wife uh (.) and I have walked the same path together since nineteen eight two (.) and she gives me ad↑VIIce (.) all the time and I listen to (.) quite a ↑bit of it= =(5.5 laughs almost inaudibly and collectively) (smiling and somewhat laughing) I’ve got to stay ↑home (.) noo. (.) but ↑Ii (0.5) but above all my wiife has (.) taught me (.) I ha I know of no-one (.) that has a bigger heart for ↑people. (.) cares moore about people from ↑all backgrounds and persuasions (.) than my wife (.) I know of ↑no-one that’s more committed. (.) to her hoome (.) our house (.) and our community (.) and what she ↑tries to doo (.) and I hope successfully (.) is al↑loow mee and and instruct ↑mee and help me (.) to be a governor of the state of Missouri (.) that’ll be (.) careful and caring (.) of ↑aaall citizens from which they come (.) what backgrounds they haave (.) so that we can truly make this state (.) the best state for all of our citizens in the twenty-first century [(14. collectively applauds) Mr. Talent I don’t know if you want to respoondd uh (.) to ↑that or not] but you have thirty seconds if you’d like to use it

A: TH(M):

DC: TH(M): A: JT:

DC: JT:

AAM2: JT: A: JT:

A: TH(M): BH:

A: BH:

A: TH(M):

838

Appendix JT: TH(M): JT: TH(M): JT: A: JT: TH(M): JT: A: TH(M): (.) pardon [me do] you want to res↑pond to that or not or we’ve got what what I’ve got a ↑minute= =thirty seconds [↑actually but if you’d if you’d like to respond ↑Bob is married to a lovely] woman and I’m (.) jealous she gives you a lot of great advice Bob uhm [(collectively laughs and applauds a little) were would we ↑BE (.) were would we be without our better HAAlves] (.) in [our cases they were alright a bad note ↑then better halves better advisedly chosen [and= (almost inaudibly laughs) =alright (.) a bad note ↑then] we need to move quickly to oour closing s↑tatements. and soo (.) again each candidate has four ↑minutes and we’ll begin again first with Mr. Talent well ↑I want to thankk uh (.) againn SEMO and doctor Doobbins I want to thank ↑you and (.) Dave and Travis for your great questions and your moderation of thee uh (.) of the debate this evening we’ve ↑talked about a lot of the differences between my opponent and mee (.) we’ve known each other for fifteen years (.) one thing he and I agree on is there a lot of ↑differences between the two of us we agree on that [don’t we Bob (.) (collectively laughs) ↑let] me go over and just make certain that you (.) you are all a↑ware of them tonight. because they’re they’re ↑big (.) I mean they’re im↑portant you need to make decisions in the election (.) Mis↑souri has a proud tradition as a state of common sense (.) conservative values and I think I share those values and I don’t (.) think my opponent ↑does he says he’s (.) from a small toown and has small town values but you know (.) and I res↑pect that (.) my mum my mum is from a small town (.) but ↑where are you from (.) it’s not as important as where your heart is (.) and ↑LOOK at these issues (.) and the whole issue of keeping ↑promises I think we ought to keep our ↑↑promises to build the fifteen-year plan the basic ↑road net (.) for Missouri what roads don’t we ↑need. (.) ↑which roads on the fifteen-year plan shouldn’t we build highway ↑sixty. (.) ↑which roads shouldn’t we maintain (.) and we made the ↑promise you make this promise uh a promise in your life and people rely on it (.) then you ↑break it you’re going to get in ↑trouble (.) we raised taxes six ↑cents in Missouri in that promise (.) not keeping promises isn’t (.) a common sense value of Missouri. (.) I think we should keep the promise of the gambling money out to go to the ↑schools and folks that doesn’t no matter what they ↑tell you in Jefferson City (.) since that ↑gambling revenue came on line the percentage of the state’s general revenue that’s been spent on education has goone doown (.) they put the ↑gambling money ↑in with one hand and they ↑took the general revenue ↑out and people know what’s happening and they’re right (.) breaking promises that’s not a value of Missouri (.) ↑I think education should be a personal informal (.) flexible (.) transaction (.) process between teachers and students and principles and kids and (.) ↑I don’t think you can ↑↑do thaat (.) with work rules that are collectively bargained (.) like you do in a labour union or in a private ↑↑factory it makes sense

JT:

A: JT:

839

Appendix there. (.) it doesn’t make sense in schools that’s my (.) that’s my opponent’s pri↑ority (.) in the schools he’ll try and push that on everybody as they did two years ago I don’t think that reflects (.) a common sense value of Missouri (.) in ↑Teexas (.) now he’s voted for two sales-taax increases when he was in the legislator an income tax absurd charge he wants a five hundred and fifty million dollar tax increase (.) ↑↑not even to build the roads that were promised (.) ↑I’m not going to ↑raise taaxes (.) when I’m governor of Missouri (.) and I’ve fought to lower them (.) I’ve fought to (.) get rid of the ↑marriage tax and the ↑state tax. (.) look there’s just a lot of differences ↑let me close with a story that I think (.) capsulaates uh (.) what this election is all about (.) I was up in north-west Missouri (.) at the ↑end of the last year I’ve been in a lot of counties a lot of times all hundred and fourteen counties and had a chance to meet thoousands of people it’s the most exciting thing about this campaign I was ↑talking to a lady (.) she had a hiigh school boy (.) uh she ↑raaised that boy. (.) she loved him (.) she said you know ‘he ↑LIIkes to go to the high school basketball game’ nothing unusual about ↑thaat (.) she has been waiting ↑up for him (.) to get home at night nothing unusual about ↑that. (.) but she said to me said ‘I’m ↑↑not afraid that he’s going to get into trouble I know that ain’t gonna happen’ (.) said ‘↑I’m afraid he’s not going to make it home on the ↑↑rooad’ (.) and I thought now you know ↑↑here’s a lady who diid (.) everything that was important for this boy (.) she ↑raaised him (.) she proviided for him she ↑fed him (.) I know what ↑that’s like. I’ve got a ten-year old boy (.) she ↑TAUght him right from wroong (.) well THIS was something she was ↑↑worrying about and she ↑couldn’t do anything about she was helpless (.) she couldn’t build him a ↑roooad. (.) for that she had to rely on the state government to build the roads and ↑stop methamphetamines and ↑teach the kids to reead (.) we’ve had a state government that’s failed muums and (.) daads and grandmas and grandpas like that at a very high cost (.) for the laast eight years and I ↑made up my mind when I drove away from that meeting (.) that if the ↑people of Missouri were good enough to elect me their governor they’d have a state government they could rely on again (.) we can ↑BEE better than we are (.) we can ↑DOO more than we’ve done (.) we can fulfil the promise of Missouri (.) that’s why I’m running for governor and that’s why I ask for your support this evening [(23. collectively applauds and shows approval) thank you (2.) ok ladies and gentlemen if I could ask you to (.) to ↑HOLD YOUR AP↑PLAAUSE (.) it’s Mr. Holden’s (.) opportunity for a closing statement you have four minutes sir (2.5) thank you ↑Toom] (.) Travis (.) Dave (.) and I ↑quickly thank aall the people in the audience (.) for being here toniight and being paart of it (.) ↑I appreciate it very very much (.) I’ve been all (.) in ↑all hundred and fourteen counties for close to twenty years (.) not just one or two times in an election cycle (.) I was ↑raaised on a farm (.) but lived in the urban ↑areas. (.) and represented the most republican part of the state (.) I want to be a governor (.) for aaall the people of the state of Missouri (.) for aall of our futures (.) ↑this come (.) ↑this campaign comes doown to a ↑simple question (.) do we con↑tinue to move forward make proogress in the state of Mis↑souri (.) or do we ↑radically change course (.) my op↑ponent. (.) takes money from our ↑public schoools (.) and gives it to ↑private schools (.) through

A: JT: TH(M)

BH:

840

Appendix VOOUchers (.) my opponent takes money out of the school foundation ↑formula. (.) the school’s funding away from the smaall the rural schools the schools (.) and helps (.) the wealthy (.) ↑we don’t improve our public schoools by starving them (.) we improve our public schools by investing in ↑them. (.) ↑helping them and ↑holding them (.) accountable (.) I have a compre↑hensive plaan (.) to help ↑aall of our schools with smaller class sizes (.) ↑increased academic performance (.) re↑WARding and re↑taining high quality teachers in the claassroom (.) and making sure that we aall stay focused on getting the joob doone (.) my op↑ponent has no prescription (.) drug ↑plaan. (.) it’s an ↑industry baacked pro↑posal. they’ll help a few people (.) my plaan helps aall the seniors in the state of Missouri that have a fixed income under ↑fifty thousand dollars or less. (.) my plaan helps the people. (.) I have a real plan to help our seniors (.) and I’ll ↑work (.) to strengthen Missouri’s stroong Patient Bill of ↑Rights (.) what does the congressman not ↑like (.) about Missouri’s Patient Bill of ↑Rights. (.) doesn’t he like the (.) the importance of the doctor-↑patient relationship (.) he wants an HM↑Oos (.) to make those de↑cisions (.) does he ↑not liike a patient’s right to ↑suue if they feel like they’ve been ↑wroong (.) ↑I beliieve it ought to stay in the ↑haaands of the indi↑↑vidual (.) because that’s their right (.) that’s how that we can (.) we can help that individual protect themselves (.) against the health care industry (.) that sometiiimes is making bad decisions by bureaucrats (.) and those people (.) that (.) push a pencil (.) on the bottom liine (.) I’ve been state ↑treasurer for eight yeears I’m very prooud to be state treasurer for the state of Missouri (.) we’ve done a lot of wonderful ↑thiings (.) in the state treasurer’s ooffice (.) we were ↑one of only NINE states for the triple-Aa ↑BOOnd rating (.) and ↑Ii don’t want to loose it (.) by any (.) irresponsible (.) transportation plaan (.) th that will ↑not fix our rooads (.) in the be↑lief of the fifteen-year plan (.) and go (.) take us into debt (.) and caause us not even to have money for education and other things in the yeears aafter either one of us (.) would leave ooffice (.) that’s not a (.) ↑fiscally soound thing to do for the state of Missouri (.) ↑Ii knoow what having a triple-A boond rating is all about and why it’s important (.) for ↑aall of us (.) not just to build in our roads but build in our schools (.) and build in our seewers out there across the state of Missouri (.) congressman Talent’s ↑plaans (.) just don’t add ↑up. (.) you ↑can’t cut up four hundred and fifty million doollars (.) in tax cuts (.) have ↑ten billion dollars in new bonding for the state of Missouri (.) have ↑increased funding for education (.) through his (.) ↑mechanism that nobody really can (.) get the right figures ↑oon. (.) and ↑increase (5.) our help (.) and support in health care (.) it just doesn’t aaall add up (.) ↑this isn’t Washington D.Cc in Missouri the governor has to balance the budget everydaaay or every year (.) not just on a paper (.) but in th in reality (.) I have a ↑real plan for public schools (.) I have a plaan to help our seniors with the prescription drug ↑cost. (.) and to keep our fiscal house in order (.) ↑working together (.) we can build ↑this state (.) to truly be one of the great states in the twenty-first century (.) and as your governor (.) I look forward to that oopportunity to seeing us continue to make the ↑progress we need to make (.) the re↑forms that we will must haave (.) so that aall of our children’s future (.) not just miine (.) ↑aall of our children’s future will be brighter (.) thank you very very much [(19. collectively applauds and enthusiastically shows approval)

A:

841

Appendix TH(M): THAT CONCLUDES OUR DEBATE (.) we thank the ↑candidates and we thank you for being here (the candidates approach each other and shake hands) (to Bob Holden) well done (unintelligible) (collectively applauds and enthusiastically shows approval)]

JT: BH: A:

842

Appendix Gubernatorial Debate, Manchester, NH. WMUR-TV Especial Event Aired October 26th, 2000. Duration: 1 hour. Participants: Jennifer Crompton (JC(M)) Jeanne Shaheen (JS) Gordon Humphrey (GH) Scott Spradling (SS) Kevin Landrigan (KL) Woody Woodland (WW) JC(M): Good ↑evening and welcome to our WMUR studios where for the ↑NEXT hour (.) we’ll heear from the two major candidates for governor (.) of New Hampshire (.) we HAAD ↑plan to bring you back to our half hour debate between the two candidates running for our two con↑gressional seats this past hour (.) but the two incumbents have been detaained in Washington (.) I’d like to introduce you to the candidates who ↑WILL be debating in this ↑hour. (.) they are former state ↑senator and two-term (.) New Hampshire governor Democrat Jeanne Shaheen from Mad[bury good] evening= =AAND hailing from Chichester (.) former U.S. and state senator [Republican good evening Gordon Humphrey (.) welcome to you both= =thank you= =I’d ↑also like to introduce our panel of ↑journalists (.) who’ll be asking the ↑bbuulk of the questions tonight they ↑aare. (.) WMUR political director Scott ↑Spradling. (.) Kevin Landrigan of the Telegraph (.) in ↑Nashua. (.) ↑AAND Woody Woodlaand of the ‘Action News Network’ a political (.) talkshow host for WGIRr (.) thank you gentlemen (.) well the ↑↑questioning will go like thhis (.) ↑each panelist will ask a question of a candidate they’ll have ↑one minute to respoond (.) there will be thirty seconds for re↑buttal aand then another ↑thirty seconds (.) to ↑cross that rebuttal (.) after each panellist has asked a question the candidates will ask a question of each OOther with one minute to respoond (.) then I’ll read a question for ↑each of them. sent to ↑uus (.) by New Hampshire viewers and voters (.) there’ll be (.) one minute to respond with no rebuttal for thoose (.) we BEGIIN tonight’s debate with (.) ↑one minute opening statements (.) governor Shaheen won the draaw and she will (.) be↑gin. (.) governor Shaheen= =thank you (.) good evening (.) there’s a clear choice in this election and a ↑lot at stake (.) ↑it’s a choice between moving forward or slipping baack between ↑leadership that gets results. and extremism that’s ↑out of touch with New Hampshire families (.) ↑I want to keep New Hampshire moving forward (.) ↑I worked with you to build our strong economy (.) ↑fifty thousand new joobs (.) the ↑highest wages ever (.) lower electric rates (.) ↑I’ll keep our economy stroong (.) and that means making sure all our kids get the best education poossible (.) I’ve expaanded public kindergarten (.) helped our families save for college (.) and I’m ↑working for higher standards and more accountability in our schoools (.) school funding is our greatest challenge (.) ↑I’ll solve that problem in a way that it’s good for our kids and our e↑conomy. (.) and that ↑keeps

JS: JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M):

JS:

843

Appendix our taxes the lowest in New England (.) and ↑I’ll help expaand health insurance for our children and ↑lower prescription drug prices for our seniors (.) ↑I offer a record of real resuults and ↑leadership to keep that progress going (.) ↑I hope I’ll have your support thank you (clears throat) senator Humphrey one minute thank you very much good evening everyoone i in the most ↑fundamental sense I’m running because I want to guaranteee my teenage kids and ↑yoours. (.) these two things ↑FIRST the very best schools that we as loving (.) parents (.) can afford and ↑SEcondly the freedom (.) that comes from living in a state with noo income tax (.) ↑our governor has promised ↑hhundreds of millions of doollars in new spending (.) when ↑aasked (.) where she’ll get this ↑money. (.) she hides behind the blue ribbon (.) committee (.) well ↑you and ↑Ii know where that money will come from it’ll be an ↑income tax. I say noo to an income tax on seniors (.) no to an income tax on the (.) uh ↑salary of f working men and women and es↑↑pecially no to an income tax (.) on the future earnings (.) of our children (.) enough of this blue ribbon balooney it’s ↑time for real leadership (.) in our state (.) I’ll fund our schools as generously as we ↑caaan. (.) as loving ↑parents. (.) I’ll ↑lead the way on reform to make our schools even ↑better. (.) more exciting ↑↑aand (.) more efficient (0.5) in short I promise ↑generous school funding I promise ↑real school reform and I promise (.) noo income tax ↑noow or in the future= =thank you senator Humphrey [thank you we’re going to be] (.) ↑gin our round of ↑↑questions with Scott ↑Spradling (.) his first question will be posed to governor Shaheen ↑Scott= =governor thanks for joining us tonight (.) you’ve ↑ooffered an education plaan which consists of fiiive (.) major criteria but there is ↑noo waay (.) in that plaan to pay for the cost of schools (.) my question to you is are you un↑willing to talk about specific revenues or taxes (.) ↑why should voters (.) trust ↑you to solve this problem (.) when they have senator Humphrey talking specifically about a state-wide property tax or even Independent Mary Broown who’s talking spe↑cifically about an income tax well (.) we have to sooolve our school funding challenge (.) and (.) we have to do it in a way that’s going to be consti↑tutional (.) I have a fiive part test for a plan that I will sup↑port. (.) it will (.) give us a re↑liiable source of funding (.) it will make sure that we don’t do anything that harms our economy (.) it will lower our state-wide property tax by at ↑least ten per cent (.) ↑keep our taxes the lowest in New England (.) and ↑make sure that we hold our schools accountable for improved performance (.) we ↑can’t (.) arbitrarily (.) make up (.) the cost for school funding as my opponent Gordon Humphrey is trying to doo (.) ↑HE (.) starts out by cutting (.) ↑over a hundred million dollars inn the cost of (.) local aid to education (.) ↑that not only hurts our schoools but it ↑↑forces higher property taxes at the local level (.) ↑I don’t think that’s the way to soolve education funding (.) ↑we’ve got to do it (.) in a way that’s going to ↑keep us out of coourt (.) that’s going to (.) AANswer (.) our commitment to our kids and to our economy in the future senator [Humphrey uh SCOTT] your question is right on target because ↑not only has governor Shaheen OBviously FAAiled to solve school funding after four years (.) here we are ↑thirteen

GH: JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): SS:

JS:

JC(M): GH:

844

Appendix days from an election and she has no ↑plan. (.) she has fiiive (.) she has a five point test well I have a ↑two point test. (.) does it fund schools as generously as we can af↑foord. (.) and ↑does it preserve the freedom of no income tax (.) for seniors and working people and especially (.) on the future earnings of our children when they enter the workforce (.) but a↑BOOve those principles I’ve got a ↑plaan. (.) it re↑quires a little discipline frankly in order to fund (.) education at a higher level (.) we have to reduce the rate of growth (.) of spending on the n (.) non education siide (.) [and ↑governor senator your time] Shaheen let me point out [that reducing the future rate your time is up senator] of growth (.) is not a cut in spending= =thanks senator (.) you’ve thirty seconds for a cross rebuttal= =yees (.) WELL (.) ↑what my opponent is offering is what ↑got us into the Claremont lawsuit into the ↑first place. (.) it’s saaaying that (.) we can arbitrarily set the cost of an adequate education (.) that ↑doesn’t meet the constitutional test (.) what ↑he’s offering is going to put us ↑right back in court (.) it’s going to hurt ↑every schoool (.) ↑every (.) community (.) ↑every chiiild in the staate (.) it’s ↑not going to keep our commitment to our children it’ going to force ↑hhigher property taxes at the local level (.) ↑I’m not going to do thaat (.) I’m going to keep our commitment to our kids and solve this problem= =alright thank you (.) ↑Kevin Landrigan has the next questionn posed tooo senator ↑Humphrey.= =↑senator as you know that you’re oppoosed to the state-wide ↑property tax. is even more unpopular than the income tax [right now (.) yes] if ↑YOU’re elected (.) would you pledge the right to veto (.) any increase in the statewide property tax [over the next two years th th (.)] thank you (.) here is my pledge Kevin and I invite governor Shaheen to ↑join me in this pledge (.) I pledge not only to ↑veto an income tax. but to work (.) pro↑AACtively to prevent it from (.) emerging from committee (.) likewiise the saales tax (.) likewise the capital gains tax (.) ↑AND. (.) my school funding plan works quite well ↑with or without a constitutional amendment (.) but ↑in addition to that pledge. (.) ↑I pledge (.) to ↑get on the ballot. (.) in ↑front of the voters. (.) in November of two thousand and two for ↑their choice (.) a constitutional amendment that makes ↑one ↑↑tiny (.) change in the status quo (.) that is to (.) e↑liminate the donor town concept (.) to say that each dollar raaised in state property tax remaains in in in ↑any property tax remains in that town (.) to answer your question ↑my budget plaan. (.) I have a plaan unlike the governor (.) my pl budget plan actually re↑duces the state property tax in the second ↑year Kevin. (.) from six ↑sixty (.) to six dollars and ten cents per thousand (1.5) ↑governor yes (1.) ↑senator Humphrey doesn’t (.) like (.) my plan (.) for education funding ↑I wouldn’t expect him to like it (.) becaause ↑he and I have a fundamentally different approach on this issue (.) ↑I believe we’ve got to ↑keeep our commitment to our kids (.) I’ve spent my whole public career sup↑porting public education (.) he’s spent his entire career (1.) op↑POsing (.) increases in (.) federal aid to education when he was a U.S. ↑senator. (.) when he was a ↑STATE senator. (.) wo (.) working for voouchers for

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

JC(M): KL: GH: KL: GH:

JC(M): JS:

845

Appendix edu↑cation. (.) and now he’s going to hurt our schools by reducing (.) the money that the court says we need to proviiide senator well ↑YES it’s true I went to Washington pledging to be the toughest skene point in the U.S. ↑Senate governor I take my promises ↑seriously. that was a tiime when we were (.) experiencing every ↑year (.) ↑↑hundreds of millions of dollars excuse me (.) hundreds of billions (.) of dollars in deficits (.) yees. (.) I voted (.) to to conTROOL the rate of growth of government (.) uh I ↑kept that promise I voted too try to (.) reduce federal deficits I kept that promise today we have balanced budgets (.) I’m ↑proud of that record and I’m proud of it in many other respects governor and I ↑really resent (.) the fact that with a pair of tweezers you’re going into a (.) [↑twenty-two year record senator (.) your time is up] and plugged out a word here and a phrase theere (.) (looking at his opponent) and reeally distorted my record (.) [you should be as↑↑haamed really senator (.) your time is up] (.) the next question will be from Woody ↑Woodland (.) and thaat is poosed to governor Shaheen ↑governor in the past two years as the state searched for the way to pay for this uh (.) education responsibility the courts have given us (.) you have uuh sup↑ported and uh (.) pro↑posed video gaambling as a possible solution uh to capital gains taax (.) and say that you would look at a con↑sumption taax (.) it would ↑seeem that the onlyy uh new idea on the table perhaps is an ↑income tax (.) ssh why ssh shouldn’t uh (.) ↑voters assuume (.) that that’s where you will goo if you are elected y you ↑know (.) I believe we’ve got to (.) ↑keep our commitment to our kids to solve (.) this (.) challenge (.) I’ve said that the video loottery at the state’s four race↑tracks would be my first choice (.) if we ↑don’t want to soolve this by raising taxes (.) but (.) the fact is (.) ↑what we put in place to solve education funding should ↑not be the gooal (.) it’s ↑soolving education funding that should be the gooal (.) ↑that’s what I intend to doo and ↑do it in a waay that (.) keeps our commitment our ↑kiids (.) that protects our strong economy (.) and that ↑keeps our taxes the lowest in New England (.) what my op↑poonent (.) is ooffering (.) is something entirely different (.) he ↑talks about uhm (.) hiss (.) record and says (.) that (.) he supported education but if you ↑look at what he did in the U.S. Senate (.) he wanted to eliminate college ↑looans. (.) he wanted to eliminate ↑aall federal aid to education. (.) even especial education (.) he caalled school lounges ‘the socialist bank’ (.) ↑I can commit it to public education and I’ll work to solve this problem (5.) ↑senator= =ladies and gentlemen ↑NOTE WELL that you’re not hearing a plan (.) you’re ↑not even hearing any discussion (.) about the year two thousand or the year two thousand and ↑one. ↑oor the next decade (.) you’re hearing stuff about nineteen seventies nineteen eightiies (.) uh Kevin Landrigan is right (.) the governor has been for a capital ↑gains taax. (.) a number of times she’s been ↑foor gambling she’s been ↑for a constitutional amendment (.) a↑gainst the constitutional amendment and here we are (.) two weeks from an election (.) ↑no plaan and complete reliance on a blue ribbon com↑mission. (.) studying (.) ↑not how to get more value out of each dollar (.) but which of thirteen new taxes (.) she should implement [and guess ↑what ↑senator.]

JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): WW:

JS:

JC(M): GH:

JC(M):

846

Appendix GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS: [the blue ribbon commission reports your time is up] AAfter the election governor ↑my opponent has spent a lot of time talking about ↑taaxes. (.) but ↑he is not willing to talk about the taxes that he’s going to raaise (.) and what ↑he is going to doo is (.) force property taxes higher at the local level (.) because ↑what he’s doing is arbitrarily cutting (.) a hundred million dollars ↑off the coost of what (.) the ↑legislator has paassed as part of our school funding laaw (.) he would (.) ↑not only put as back in coourt (.) but he’ll foorce property taxes higher (.) and ↑then if you look at the other numbers in his budget proposals (.) they don’t add ↑↑up (.) so he’s going to be forced to raise the state-wide property tax even higher= ↑wee are going to move noow to another segment of questioning and answering here where the candidates actually pose (.) ↑questions to each other and where we’re going to begiin with governor Shaheen who will pose the question to senator Humphrey ↑governor thank you (.) ↑RIGHT now all across New Hampshire (.) local school boards are developing their budgets (.) ↑based on the commitment to the state (.) that’s ↑in the laaw (.) that they will get a certain amount of education funding (.) senator Humphrey you arbitrarily cut (.) over a ↑hundred million dollars from state education aiid (.) ↑my question is this. (.) ↑when a local school board member comes to you and aasks (.) where cuts should be made (.) ↑what’s your aanswer (.) ↑where specifically should they cut (.) ↑teachers (.) ↑textbooks I’m glad you asked (laughs) (.) governor a ↑cut in the future grrowth of something I should say a reduction (.) in the future growth of spending (.) is not a cut (.) my plan funds education at not less than (.) eight hundred and twenty-five million dollars (.) ↑mooore as the economy groows (.) but it is not a cut (.) let me say this about uhm (.) your your suggestion that it would force us back to court (.) the ↑↑court said explicitly (.) that it reseerves to the legislator (.) uh (.) the definition of the word aadequate and to ↑my way of thinking adequate not only takes (.) or should take into account our ↑wishes (.) but our ↑meeans (.) the hundred and eight million governor is not a hundred it’s a hundred and eight million dollars that you propoose (.) to spend (.) ad↑ditionally (.) over and above this eight hundred and twenty-five million dollars is ↑MOney (.) ↑wee doon’t have (.) so the question to you (.) uh governor Shaheen is ↑wheere are going to get that (.) hundred and eight million dollars is it an ↑income tax (.) if it isn’t (.) say no (.) is it a ↑sales tax is it a ↑capital gains tax (.) where are you going to get the ↑money (.) ↑I’m honest enough ladies and gentlemen to say (.) the money is not ↑theere (.) that’s why I can’t promise (.) what isn’t ↑theere.= is that your ↑question (.) senator ↑Humphrey. (.) [↑governor. yes] (.) will you will you ↑tell us where that money is coming from [governor (.) ↑TELL governor you have one minute us (.) ex↑plicitly] (.) forget the blue ribbon commission tell us where you are going to get the money= that that’s your question senator (.) ↑governor I mean (.) You know as I’ve said (.) my first choice would be a video lottery at the

JC(M):

JS:

GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

847

Appendix state’s four racetracks. (.) but ↑we have to solve this problem you ↑CAN’T make I go awaay (.) just by pretending (.) ↑thaat (.) the court said something ↑else. (.) what the court said is that we have to fund the cost of (.) an adequate education (.) this (.) legislator has said (.) ↑that coost (.) we need to keep that com↑↑mitment next year the (.) approach that you’re offering will put us right back in ↑↑court. we can’t afford that (.) our ↑kids can’t afford it I’m going to solve this in a way that’s good for our ↑kids (.) and good for our economy (.) and that ↑keeps our taxes the lowest in New England alright thank you (.) we’re ↑↑now going to move to the ee-mail section of our question and answer where we solicited questions from viewers and voters (.) the first question is for Gordon ↑Humphrey (.) and this is from Kaarl from Nashua ‘senator (.) under yoour school funding plan Nashua will loose nearly (.) ↑foour million in state education aid next year (.) ↑how should Naashua make up for that lost AAId (.) cut our school budget or raaise property taxes’= =well let me say Kaarl and ladies and gentlemen that I can’t promise you ↑money. (.) unlike governor Shaheen (.) somehow who has this (.) magical mystery so↑lution that she will reveal in January (.) ↑I can’t promise to spend money we don’t have (.) ↑get ↑that (.) I can’t promise to spend money we don’t have (.) I ↑can promise you that upon careful examination I have concluded I have calculated that we can fund education next year at no less (.) than this year’s ↑level (.) do you see what I’m saying (.) we will fund it at no less than this year’s level if the e↑conomy groows (.) even ↑moodestly above my conservative four per cent revenue growth estimate (.) if state revenues grow at ↑fiive per ceent we’ll have an extra ten million dollars and we’ll devote more of that ↑most of that to education but look I’m being hoonest with you (.) the money is not there (.) I’m not going to ↑offer you a magical mystery solution. (.) the money is not ↑↑there (.) we’ll ↑speend what we have but we’re not going to have an income tax not a ↑sales tax. not a ↑capital gains tax. (.) we’re not going to have the governor’s uh (.) silly gaambling scheme because uh (.) even her own blue ribbon com↑mission says that won’t raise enough money= =senator (.) thank you (.) ↑this is an e-mail question for governor Shaheen from Charlie Enguin of Ffreemont (.) his question (.) ‘↑IF a bill come to you that would allooow gaay sex marriages (.) ↑would you support it’ (0.5) no (.) New Hampshire has a loong history of tolerance that (.) I think that aall of us who live here are very proud of (.) as governor I’ve signed into laww (.) uh a (.) bill that would ↑aad a social orientation to our anti-discrimination laaw (.) I (.) ↑don’t support gay marriages (.) but (.) I ↑don’t take the approach (.) that (.) my op↑ponent does who has (.) said that (.) people who leead moral liiives don’t get AAIDS (.) he’s taken the position that (.) uhm (.) we should discriminate against people (.) who (.) have (.) a different sexual orientation in ↑hoousing. (.) in in (.) in the ↑workplace. (.) I ↑I don’t think that’s the right approach for us in New Hampshire (.) I ↑I think we need to continue to make sure New Hampshire is a tolerant (.) place to ↑live. ↑that’s what I intend to doo (.) uhm I intend to do it (.) in waays like (.) supporting the domestic ↑partners’ uh (.) ↑benefits that were passed at the university of New Hampshire (.) uhm I think it’s important for us to recognise the differences in aall people in the state= =ok (.) ↑we’ll now move to a second round of questions from our journalists (.) we’ll begin with Scott ↑Spradling his first question will be poosed too senator Humphrey ↑Scott=

JC(M):

GH:

JC(M):

JS:

JC(M):

848

Appendix SS: =senator I’d like too (.) take a step further from thee (.) ↑comments the governor just made uuh (.) a large portion of governor Shaheen’s radio and TV adds have ↑highlighted some comments that ↑yoou have made in the paast as aa in former U.S. senator in Waashington ↑such as the one that she just quoted which is uh ‘people who lead (.) moral liives uh (.) do not get AIDS’ she attributes that quote directly to you does ↑that reflect who you are= =NO it doesn’t I wish she never ↑said that. you know (.) ↑someone who’s been in public LIfe for twenty-two years (.) inev i↑NEvitably and variably will have said a few things (.) that he regrets (.) and I regret having ↑said that. (.) uh uhm I wish I haven’t said that but ↑let me say this (.) uhm ↑nonetheless (.) I do oppose uhm (.) the (.) if but my style (.) civil unions bill I will veto ↑signing it. (.) ↑here’s the reason uh you know I ↑never bring up this issue of (.) sexual orientation gratuitously uh (.) but (.) it ↑seems to me that the institution of marriage enjoys a especial place in our culture and uh (.) in our laws for a ↑very (.) uh (.) especial ↑↑reason and that is (.) it is it is it is the it is the ↑shelter in which children aare (.) conceeived and and and raised (.) and ↑I won’t do anything that diminishes the stature of marriages for ↑that very reason for the sake of our children (.) governor Shaheeen. (.) you know wants to have it both ways (.) she says she’s opposed to gay ↑MArriage but she’s opposed to (.) uh same sex or some s sort of benefits at the university of New Hampshire soo (.) it’s the same thing on the ins↑tallment plan if you ask me ↑governor there is a chance to rebut uh you know my opponent talks about the few things that he did in his career that (.) I’ve taken out of context (.) the fact is (.) ↑my opponent has a loong history of extremism on everything from (.) uhm (.) issues ↑like AAIDS where. (.) he said that people who (.) lead moral liives don’t ↑get AIDS where he oppoosed legislation (.) that would have helped ↑people with AIDS. (.) he called ↑school lounges ‘socialist bank’ he ↑caalled domestic violence centers ‘anti-family’ uh (.) and ‘doctor-nation centers’ (.) that’s (.) ↑that’s not a few thiings that’s a history of extremism= thank you governor (.) thirty ↑seconds (.) senator Humphrey note ↑well ladies and gentlemen governor Shaheeen (.) has nothing really very much to say about the ↑future. (.) about how we’ll proviide the very best education we possibly caan (.) as loving parents to their children (.) ↑how we will preseerve New Hampshire’s (.) low tax (.) advantages (.) ↑no income tax no sales tax no capital gains tax. (.) ↑I want to talk about the future ↑I’ve actually put a plaan on the table I invite you to ↑view it visit my website if you will Gordon Humphrey dot com (.) governor Shaheen seems to be stuck in the seventies and eighties (.) she’s spent ↑months and months going through my record with a microscope [and a pair of tweezers thank you senator] dis↑torting (.) [the essence of my record your time is up] and ↑I regret that. Kevin Landrigan has the next ↑question fooor governor Shaheen governor is (.) is ↑education funding an acceptable excuuse (.) to explain why New Hampshire (.) and Louisiana are the only states in the country looking at a budget deficit issue (.) and why New Hampshire really stands ↑out (.) as (.) a state that hasn’t cut a single (.) state tax in the last four years

GH:

JC(M): JS:

JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): KL:

849

Appendix JS: uhm (.) actually Kevin (.) that’s ↑not correect (.) New Hampshire (.) does ↑not have a budget deficit (.) I’ve taken a stroong action to make sure that that’s the case because ↑I believe that we have to be f fiscally respoonsible (.) we just ended fiscal year two thoousand with a four million dollar ↑surplus. (.) we’re on traack with revenueses that are coming iin to end (.) ↑this fiscal year in balance and (.) I’ve taken action to make sure that ↑haappens. (.) I have put in a hiring freeze and uh (.) ordered cuts when the legislator wouldn’t come up with the money that we neeed uhm (.) to finish funding edu↑cation. uhm (.) we ↑need to be fiscally respoonsible and (.) if you ↑look at the growth in my budgets (.) theey’re (.) less than that of the laast three Republican governors (.) I intend to con↑tinue to be fiscally responsible to make sure that we have a budget that’s in balance (.) but to ↑↑meet the neeeds of the citizn citizens of New Hampshire uhm (.) because we have to provide ↑services to the people of the staate. uhm (.) we need to (.) make sure that we do that in a way that’s (.) efficient and effective senator ↑Humphrey (5.) ↑I’LL TAKE governor Shaheen’s at her woord (.) that (.) this year’s budget will be ↑balanced by its conclusion a number of experts think that it’s ↑presently out of balance but I’ll take the governor at her word (.) what it’s ↑↑cleear however is that hr her next budget is ↑out of balance by a couple of hundred (.) million dollars on account of all of these ↑spending promises. (.) it is pre↑ciisely because the governor’s budget is several hundred (.) million dollars out of ↑balance. (.) that she has appointed this blue ribbon commission (.) to study thirteen new ↑taxes (.) it’ clear she’s going to baalance the budget ↑not by moderating the spending (.) but by ↑raising taxes. (.) and I can as↑sure you. (.) having studied the books carefully. (.) [that to balance the budget of senator your time is up] several hundred million dollars out of (.) in deficit requires an income tax= =GOvernor thank you (.) uhm (.) the ↑FACT is that what my opponent is not willing to tell the people of the state is that what he’s proposing on education funding (.) just doesn’t meet the ↑↑test (.) it’s going to put us ↑right back in coourt (.) it’s going to hurt our schoools in a way that’s going to be bad for our economy (.) and (.) ↑even (.) the Nashua ↑↑telegraph as Kevin (.) will (.) aTTEST (.) reported that (.) in an objective analysis that the numbers in his budget proposal don’t add ↑up (.) he’s a million ↑short. (.) and that means he’s going to have to ↑raaise (.) the state-wide poetry tax or cut services the next questionn is from Woody Woodland posed too senator Humphrey ↑Woody senator in your plan you aare uh advocating (.) ↑holding thee (.) noon-education growthh of the state budget or the growth of the state budget non-education areas to [↑two and a half per cent (.) mhum (.) yes] UUH (.) can you ↑give us any specifics of where you think you’d be able to make some cuts uuuh (.) in the state ↑budget ooor (.) oor some (.) things that you might be able to do to make government more efficient where a ↑chief executive officer brinngs some vision (.) mine is to provide the best education we caan as loving parents without an (.) income tax sales tax or capital gains tax (.) ↑THUS I’ve constructed a budget to meet both of those goals (.) and I’ve

JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

JC(M): WW:

GH: WW:

GH:

850

Appendix ↑BAsed that on an assumption that state revenues (.) a modest (.) con↑servative assumption. that state revenues next year (.) will grow by four per cent (.) so if you ↑increase this year’s uuh (.) revenues by (.) four per cent (.) you sub↑TRACT the eight hundred and twenty-five million (.) ↑that leeaves enough money left over to fund (.) everything else (.) the rest of government (.) uh to ↑increase that spending by two and a half per cent in the aggregate (.) now it’s ↑cleear that some things would have to grow more than others (.) neces↑sarily (.) some things will have to grow ↑less than two and a half per cent (.) because (.) wee’re going to have a balanced budget (.) without new ↑taxes. (.) now (.) a ↑chief executive sets the broad outlines and ↑then he goes to work (.) or she goes to work (.) with the department heads and the legislative leaders and you ↑make those (.) line by line uh (.) adjustments that fine-tuning (.) but the ↑BROAD outliines aare that we’ll fund education at not ↑less (.) than ↑this year’s level. eight twenty-five (.) that means neces[sarily senator] we have to ↑moderaate (.) the rate of ↑growth (.) ↑not cut [but moderate (.) the rate of growth your time is up ↑senator] of noon-education ↑spending (.) to two and a half per cent= ok (laughing) (.) we’re going to move this aloong (.) governor Sha↑heen uhm (.) ↑my opponent’s (.) promises oon the budget are worth about as much as his promises on education funding (.) the FACT is I’ve ↑held this reactionary spending to less than two and a half per cent (.) that’s ↑easy to do (.) but (.) ↑much of the budget (.) is not this reactionary spending (.) so he hasn’t ↑told us what he’s going to cut (.) the BIggest item in (.) last year’s budget increase (.) was the Burling ↑prison (.) is he going to cloose the Burling ↑prison (.) uuhm (.) I don’t think ↑that’s responsible uh (.) is he going to ↑NOT (.) provide (.) benefits to our (.) retirees (.) ↑I don’t think that’s responsible ↑↑either senator NOR is it responsible governor to raise false charges (.) ladies and gentlemen thee (.) the ↑non-education part of the state budget is ONE (.) point (.) billion (.) dollars (.) per year (.) ↑I’m going to ↑let that grow by two and a half per cent per year for the each of the next (.) two years that’s ↑fiiive per cent (.) that’s enough to accommodate (.) to accommodate all of the essential uh (.) ↑functions of government (.) like any chief executive I’ll rank our priorities (.) I’ll put edu↑cation first (.) and in (.) on the noneducation side I’ll put social ↑services second (.) and protection of the en↑vironment thiird and public safety fourth and so on and so forth (.) ↑I’ve got a budget that aads up (.) and meets the state’s es↑sential responsibilities= =[thank you senator and it pre↑see]erves (.) our low tax= =[ok advantages]= =now your question for governor Shaheen ↑senator governor Shaheen (.) ↑WILL YOU (.) say yes (.) will you ↑join me tonight (.) in pledging (.) to preseeerve New Hampshire as a state without an income tax (.) ↑I pledged (.) to veto ↑not only to veto (.) but to work pro-AACtively (.) against the enaactment of an income tax ↑will you join me in that ↑pledge.

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH:

851

Appendix JS: Uh (.) you know senator Humphrey (.) the ↑people of New Hampshiiire expect more than gimmicks and pledges to soolve our education funding challenge (.) ↑they NEED (.) real answers (.) they (.) need to understaand that we’ve got to solve this problem (.) ↑you’re not (.) going to ↑do that. (.) what you’re ooffering (.) are ↑higher property taxes at the local level (.) ↑more gridlock. (.) as you’re going to put us back into court (.) aand (.) the other numbers in your budget proposal don’t add up (.) you’re ↑not going to have any money (.) for (.) edu↑cation. you’re ↑not going to have any money for any ↑other neeeds (.) within (.) the state budget (.) uhm (.) WHAT you’re ↑offering is going to hurt our schoools (.) it’s going to meean that we’re ↑NOT going to be able to provide the skilled work force that we neeed for the future (.) ↑OUR economy depends on a skilled work force (.) uhm it means that we’re going to have the best education poossible (.) I ↑I’m going to solve this problem in a way that’s going to be ↑good for our kiiids and ↑good for our ecoonomy that’s going to keep our taxes the lowest in New England (.) ↑that’s what we’ve got to do (.) and ↑stop (.) with the gimmicks and the phoney promises alright (.) governor Shaheeen it’s noow (.) uh your chance to ask a question of senator ↑Humphrey thank you (.) ↑just two years agoo (.) you travelled to New York to compete (.) campaaign for congressional candidate (.) Randall Terry= =mhum= =a convicted ↑criminal (.) the head of Operation Rescue ↑well knooown for leading blockaaades of health ↑clinics (.) Terry has said that doctors who perform abortions should be ↑executed (.) ↑you endorsed ↑Terry. (.) you said ‘I believe in this guy whole↑heartedly’ (.) considering Terry’s well known record (.) ↑↑how could you go to New York and ↑campaign for him well I’m glad you ↑raise that governor (.) because your (.) that’s part of your smear campaign that’s running hourly on television (.) you may recaall I’m sure you recall that ↑last May when I first learned of these statements that Mr. Terry had made YEARS before (.) I im↑MEdiately sought an interview with the associated press (.) im↑MEdiately (.) ad↑MItted my mistake that I hadn’t carefully researched his statements (.) and apologiiised to people of New Hampshire and governor THAT (.) associated press story was carried all around the state (.) ad↑mitting a mistake won’t made me a shrewd politician but I think it’ll make me a good governor (.) now can ↑wee begin to talk about the future instead of the past (.) ↑I have two teenage children I’m really con↑↑cerned about them (.) I know you’re concerned about your children too (.) ↑how are we going to fund schools governor (.) you’ve got a (.) sseveral hundred million dollar (.) deficit based on (.) your promises (0.5) ↑where is the money going to come from aalright next we go to our ↑e-mail round again (.) this question from ↑Scott (.) Woodbury (.) it will be posed (.) to both candidates but first I’ll read the question Scott describes himself as ‘married father of two both parents working home-owners (.) early making it’ and this is his question (.) ‘I’m ↑being told that we’re in the midst of an economic boom that wages are up unemployment is doown but what ↑I see in ↑my daily life (.) is ↑ooil and gas prices skyrocketing health care cost (.) increasing (.) prescription cope aaids for my family going up (.) and utility cost still hiigh (.) but I have ↑yet to see a big waage increase I’m working harder for less (.) ↑how do you plan

JC(M): JS: GH: JS:

GH:

JC(M):

852

Appendix to address the issues faced by us (.) so-called ‘↑middle claass (.) working people’’ (.) both have a minute to respoond (.) I’ll begin with (.) governor Shaheen thank you (.) uh I ap↑preciate thaat (.) often we have two parents working in a family to (.) make ends meet (.) that’s why we need to (.) lower ↑property taxes that’s what we’ve done with our (.) interim school ↑funding plaan eighty per cent of the people in the state have seen lower property taxes (.) ↑that’s why we’ve got to continue to invest in this ecoonomy (.) and we’ve increased tourism (.) expanded traade (.) and in↑vested in our infrastructure that’s the foundation of this economy (.) ↑that’s why we’ve got to help parents with the (.) ↑families with the cost of health care (.) we’ve enrolled ↑ten thousand children (.) in my children’s health insurance plaan (.) so that families can (.) affoord ↑health insurance and not worry about whether they can take their kids to the dooctor (.) ↑we’ve got (.) five per cent lower electric rates as of October the fifth with ↑ten to twelve per cent more (.) on the waaay (.) aand (.) the ↑high cost of ooil (.) is something that I’m working very hard on (.) we’ve just haad uh (.) Washington release additional ↑fuel assistance dollars and we’re making those available to people in the state senator it’s your ↑question a minute to respond= WELL (.) you know (.) I grew up in aa (.) decidedly middle class ↑family say say that (.) tht (.) the best (.) with the best pace on (.) and I grew up in a town much like Manchester you know a mill town my dad worked in a factory (.) uh ↑we didn’t have a lot except a lot of ↑loove. (.) so I understand the burden that (.) middle incoome (.) people face and ↑low income people. (.) ↑FIRST let’s do no ↑harm (.) the ↑biggest burden most people (.) carry (.) week in and week out is taxes (.) ↑federal taxes (.) ↑county taxes (.) local taxes (.) and now thanks to governor Shaheen (.) who siigned the state-wide ↑property tax after promising (.) two years ago to ↑veto (.) such a tax the state-wide property tax is ↑well (.) and ↑thanks to her ↑spending promises. it’s clear on the basis of her appointment of this new blue ribbon com↑mission. (.) that we’re going to have yet annother (.) taax to pay nex ↑↑year (.) I’m betting it’s an income tax (.) because ↑her deficit is so big (.) at ↑least (.) three hundred million dollars (.) that only an income tax can carry that (.) so ↑BET on it (.) if you re-↑elect governor Shaheen next April fifteenth when you write your cheque to Washington (.) you’ll write one to Concord as well ok we’re going to move now to oour (.) ↑next round of (.) panel (.) questions and we’re going to begin with Scott Spradling who has a question for governor Shaheen ↑Scott= =governor in the laast four years the number of HMOs in New Hampshire has decliined foor a couple of reasons some have (.) shut doown (.) others have con↑solidated (.) basically this has limited the options for faamilies and for businesses looking for quality and low cost health care (.) as governor (.) what can you ↑doo (.) to ensuure in the long run (.) that HMOs (.) remain ↑solvent in New Hampshire and that there is (.) quality and choice uhm (.) un↑fortunately one of the things that we’ve seen in the health industry is what haappened in the banking industry a lot of consolidation and (.) some health care (.) ↑HMOs getting into trouble because they were offering products (.) under-priced (.) ↑we’ve (.) worked very hard to try to provide aaccess to health care for the people of this state (.) uhm ↑one way to address this is to proviide health care for the people who are currently uninsuuured (.) the ↑children’s health insurance plaan has enrolled (.)

JS:

JC(M): GH:

JC(M): SS:

JS:

853

Appendix over ↑ten thousand children (.) I’m committed to enrolling another ↑niine thousand children in the next three years (.) we ↑have (.) passed legislation too (.) allow businesses (.) to ↑come together too (.) help purchase health insurance in a way that will lower their prices aand (.) make it easier for them to negotiate (.) we ↑also need to deal with the high cost of prescription drugs which is ↑really forcing up (.) uhm premiums right noow. (.) uhm (.) I just (.) band it together with the (.) governors of Maine and Vermoont to start the first ever-tried state drug purchasing ↑poool. (.) to ↑pass on savings inn the cost of prescription drugs to aall our citizens ↑senator (1.5) l l ↑let mee (.) point out aa (.) good case of mismanagement by our governor (.) a moment ago she cited this ↑cheap program the children’s health in↑surance program which by the waay it’s almost ↑totally by the (.) funded by the ↑federal government and private foundations uuhm (.) th the federal government (.) earmarked for New Hampshire some eleven million dollars too insuure (.) New Hampshire children of low income families (.) governor Shaheen’s administration so mis↑managed (.) that pograaamme that (.) our state had to forfeit (.) ↑FORFEIT (.) seven of eleven million dollars (.) governor it’s a pretty pooor [executive senator] who can’t manage to spend money (somewhat laughing)= =your time is up ↑governor y you knoow (.) my opponent knows that that’s not just ↑truue. and he ↑knows because members of his staaff called our department of health and human services (.) the reason we didn’t spend the federal allocation was be↑caause (.) ↑theey (.) ↑mis (.) represented how many children we had who were (.) qualified for that. (.) uhm the ↑fact is that (.) New Hampshire’s ↑children’s health insurance plaan has been touted as one of (.) the ↑best in the country with one of the ↑highest percentages of enrolment (.) and we ↑did it (.) when the (.) Republican legislator wouldn’t sup↑port it. I got it done with↑out them. (.) ↑I took a staand and (.) ↑we got it done and (.) it’s hhelping families all over this state Kevin ↑Landrigan with his question ↑next foor senator Humphrey senator when aasked about the (.) access to health insurance you ↑often pointed to a law in nineteen ninety-fouur that (.) then stat senator Jeanne Shaheen (.) sponsored and wrote (.) uhm (.) ↑and (.) you ↑said in your words that if you were elected you would in your words (.) ‘scaled it back’ (.) or ‘reduce it’ spe↑cifically to[night (.) [then I said we should have mended it ↑tell us ↑tell us] tonight (.) what you would do specifically to that [law yeah] (.) ↑please get m (.) (laughs) get my words correctly I said we should have mended it (.) yes governor Shaheen as a state senator (.) uh ↑push throough or was the pri (.) one of the prime ↑movers (.) of senate bill seven e↑leven (.) at the time that was ↑passed we had eight or ten major carriers offering (.) offering ↑health insurance in the state (.) ↑now we’re down to two (.) mostly on account of that ↑bill (.) some of them were driven into bankruptcy (.) others were simply driven out of the ↑state (.) well governor you ↑can’t have it both ways (.) if you ↑want competition in health care in↑surance. (.) you need more than two com↑petitors (.) ↑we’re down to almost a monoopoly situation (.) what I said Kevin is that we need to (.) ammend that bill we need to strike a hhappier ↑meedium (.) we can’t have it both ways we ↑can’t be so

JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

JC(M): KL:

GH: KL: GH:

854

Appendix unfriendly (.) toward business firms (.) that they leeave the ↑state (.) o on the ↑one hand (.) on the other hand expect them to offer health insurance ↑we neeed competition (.) and I’ll bring back more carriers so we have competition in ↑price (.) in in de↑signer product (.) and in service governor uhm (.) the ↑FACT is (.) my opponent just doesn’t know what he’s taalking aboout (.) senate bill seven eleven actually in↑creased the number of people who had health insurance (.) because it pre↑vented discrimination against people when they got sick (.) it a↑LLOwed them to take their health insurance with them when they changed jooobs (.) uh (.) and in ↑fact (.) uh (.) ↑I’d like to knoow (.) what my opponent (.) thinks (.) ↑should be cut out of (.) that bill (.) does he want to (.) alLOw (.) insuurers to discriminate against people when they ↑get sick (.) the fact is that (.) ↑he’s been on the side of big insurance companies his entire career (bursts into laughter) ↑senator (1.) COULD YOU ↑DOocumet that last charge that’s just a little bit ridiculous (.) uuh ladies and gentlemen what I’m saying is that we need to strike a happier ↑balance. (.) to↑DAY if you (.) go out as an individual to purchase health insurance is all but im↑poossible. to find something that’s in (.) af↑fordable (.) LIKEwise if you’re a small business person as as I have been (.) these last nine years it’s ↑↑reeally difficult (.) to fiind affordable health insurance for your employees (.) ↑I waant health insurance carriers ↑multiple insurance carriers in this state offering competition (.) in price (.) in in designer product (.) and inn in customer service (.) we’re ↑down to twoo (.) we’re down to twoo carriers [now senator it’s] almost a monopoly that’s not good I want to fix it= =ok we’re going to try to get as many as we can in here (.) Woody Woodland next with a question for governor Shaheen ↑governor New Hampshiire is one of the ↑only if not the only state with (.) at least as far as I know very feew and uh funny (.) state restrictions on aboortion are ↑we making (.) or sending a message that (.) it’s an easy place to get an a↑bortion compared to other ↑states no we’re noot (.) the fact is that I beliieve in a woman’s right to chooose (.) I believe that’s a very ↑private and personal decision (.) that should be made by a woman in consultation with her ↑health care provider (.) and with her family (.) ↑that’s a very different position than my opponent haas (.) Gordon Humphrey says that he goot ↑into public liife. to try and outlaaw a woman’s right to choose (.) and (.) you heard him ac↑knoowledge. (.) that two ↑years agoo. he went to New York and he campaigned for Randall Terry (.) NOOW (.) ↑he sshould have known (.) what Randall Terry’s position was (.) he ↑should have known that he was a convicted criminal (.) because at ↑that tiiime (.) the moderate Republican in New Yoork (.) governor Pataky and (.) governor (.) ↑Whitman in New Jersey (.) were running ↑aads to try and prevent Randall Terry from becoming the congressional candidate (.) ↑HE said he was going theere (.) because the Republicans were running a smear campaign against Randall Terry (.) and he ↑DIDN’T apologiised until ↑two years later (.) when the ‘Concord Monitor’ run a story and he was running for governor

JC(M): JS:

GH: JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): WW:

JS:

855

Appendix JC(M): GH: senator thirty seconds= =well ↑governor I’ll say it a↑gain. (.) I apologise (.) the ↑↑day (.) I leearned of those statements that had been ↑maade years earlier but anyway to answer the question I’m going to talk about the future (0.5) we ↑HAVE (.) no restrictions on abortion in this state (.) an abortion provider can perform the procedure no a mminor without so much as ↑nootifying one parent (.) and ↑let me say that the (.) office of governor does not lend itself much at all to this ↑issue. (.) but ↑THERE are one or two things consistent with the Supreme Court rulings in recent years (.) that a state may do (.) ↑ONE of those is to require a provider to ↑nootify (.) [at least ↑one parent senator we need to move along] before a [procedure to get] is performed [everything in ↑I think] such a law is a good idea= =please governor Shaheen well (.) HE says that he wouldn’t do much as governor but the FACT is (.) when Gordon Humphrey and I served in the state Senate together (.) ↑one out of four (.) pieces of legislation that he sponsored would have limited a woman’s right to chooose (.) ↑that’s been his historyy ↑that’s what he intends to doo that’s what he’ll do as governor (.) ↑I don’t think (.) that’s the right direction (.) ↑I beliieve that (.) we neeed to make sure that (.) ↑women not government make that very personal and private decision= alright ↑governor now yoour question to senator Humphrey yes (.) senator Humphrey (.) ↑you have a history of doing and saying things and then a↑pologising. (.) you said we should ↑face out Social Security (.) [and ↑when can you tell me when you were asked] about it you apologiised= =no I DIDN’T= =you ↑voted against the Americans with Disa↑bilities aact (.) and noow ten years later when you’re questioned about ↑that you a↑pologise. (.) then you went and campaign for extremist Randall Terry= =[(laughs) two years] ↑later after the ‘Concord Monitor’ reported your trip (.) you apologised (.) so I ↑have to ask you something that uhm (.) I sometimes ask my daaughters (.) are you ↑really sorry that you did those thinggs (.) or ↑are you just sorry that (.) you got ↑↑caught governor (.) in fact it is YOUU (.) who owe (.) ↑not so much ↑mee. an apology but the people of this state and especially elders (.) you’ve taken (.) a two-word phrase from nineteen seventy-eight (.) ‘faace out’ (.) and if you ↑look at the fuller context (.) which I provided to the press (.) what I said in that entire sentence was ‘face out Social Security over fifty ↑↑years’ (.) honouring all of our commitments to all participants (.) and faace in a ↑new program that would let younger people invest in the private sector (.) so you took those ↑two words ‘face out’ (.) put them in a thirty second TV ↑spot. (.) with a nice old lady (.) who is suggesting that Gordon Humphrey wants to cut off her Social Se↑curity pay cheque (.) ↑YOU owe the people of this state an apology (.) for

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

JC(M): JS: GH: JS: GH: JS:

GH: JS:

GH:

856

Appendix mis↑leading them (.) and for the very base tactic of frightening older people by turning woords on their ↑end (.) I said we should face it out for fifty years honouring every par↑ticipant. (.) facing in a new program (.) even Al ↑Goore. agrees with that position ↑senator your questionn for governor Shaheen= well I didn’t get very faaar [(laughs) (laughs)] sorry to say on the (.) on the ↑income question. (.) governor your ↑oown (.) blue ribbon commission panel has proved to bee uh (.) your blue ribbon commission on taxes has proved to be a bit (.) more independent than perhaps you had an↑ticipated. (.) they had should have reported about ↑ten days ago which said that (.) if if (.) if the choice were to be a ↑↑saales tax (.) to cover your plan (.) that ↑sales tax would have to be as hiiigh (.) as seven point seven per cent (.) I think you’ll agree that a sales tax of nearly eight per cent would destroy our ↑retail (.) uh (.) businesses around the border and more than ↑that (.) uh uh and just as ↑well. (.) would (.) deal a (.) se↑vere blow to our tourist trade as well (.) so I will ask you this question (.) will you join me ↑tonight (.) in pledging to ↑veto and work against (.) a sales tax in New Hampshire n (.) again (.) the ↑people of New Hampshire deserve more than your pledges and gimmicks to soolve education funding. (.) uh the ↑fact is I’ve worked hard (.) to make sure that we have a strong economy in New Hampshire (.) ↑I’ve worked hard to improve education here (.) ↑I’m going to continue to do that and I’m not going to do anything (.) to solve education funding that’s going to harm our economy (.) or ↑any of our industry sectors (.) but (.) ↑you’ve (.) talked about (.) uhm (.) my taking something out of coontext (.) the ↑fact is (.) it ↑wasn’t just (.) facing out Social Security (.) you talked about (.) BACK when you were in the U.S. Senate (.) ↑you voted against cost of ↑living increases. for Social Se↑curity. (.) every time they came ↑uup. (.) you voted against increases in ↑Medicare. (.) every time they came ↑up. (.) ↑↑that wasn’t (.) a one line taken out context () that was a re↑peeated pattern of voting against the interests of our seniors when ↑you and I were in the state Senate together (.) you voted against Mills on wheels (.) ↑not once (.)↑not twice (.) but four ↑↑tiiimes alright now we’re going to move ooon (.) another question mailed to us from Joseph Peturno of Gilford this is for ↑both candidates who’ll each have (.) ↑thirty seconds to answer thiis (.) hee is an alumnus concerned of UNH who’s deeply concerned about the university and the lack of sup↑port it receives from the state he says New Hampshire ranks ↑fiftieth in state sup↑port (.) for its uni↑versity (.) most of the core buildings are outdated and they reed (.) need renovation tuition keeps ↑increasing (.) as goovernor will you ad↑dress (.) this issue and hoow we will begin (.) with senator Humphrey well again (.) we ↑can’t spend money we don’t haave (.) and I’m not going to stand by for an income tax (.) uh stand for an income tax ↑or sales tax. ↑or capital gains tax. (.) and I have no compunction about saying so (.) ↑I’m going to preserve the low tax advantages of the state (.) which is to say the generous after tax rewaards (.) ↑oor (.) the virtue of work and savings and (.) taking risks in the business world (.) ↑↑all of which produce the joobs that we want for our children (.) yes (.) UNH has some backlog maintenance (.) that’s a serious problem (.) I ↑know that because when I was in the U.S. Senate I chaaired (.) the subcommittee on military pre↑paredness (.) that had to dooo with uh uh uh (.) maintenance ↑backlogs both in equipment and [↑buildings

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH:

JS:

JC(M):

GH:

857

Appendix JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS: senator we need to move soo] ↑I’ll move that UNH line ↑up but other things are going to move down= =ok governor thirty seconds thank you (.) I ↑I think it’s very important to support (.) our public system of higher education that’s what I’ve done it’s ↑critical to a strooong economic future (.) each year I’ve been in office I’ve in↑creased support four our (.) com↑munity technical colleges and our university system (.) my op↑ponent is not going to be able to do that because his budget numbers don’t add up (.) as (.) has ↑been reported in the Nashua Telegraaph he (.) comes up ↑millions of dollars shoort (.) he’s ↑not going to have the money (.) not just to provide that’s (.) but (.) other state services he’s going to increase the state-wide property tax ↑Scott ↑Spradling with a question for senator Humphrey ↑Scott senator an environmental question for you senator you haave (.) at one point during this campaign proposed taxing ↑sludge= =[yes being] brought from (.) ↑out of New Hampshire and down here in New Hampshire= =mhum= =explain why well (.) uh (.) I ↑I’m very strong on the environment one of the (.) reasons I moved ↑here to New Hampshire were the ↑two reasons were the low taxes and a beautiful environment (.) uh (.) one of the things that we need to do right a↑way is to stop this (.) ↑importing of sludge (.) sewage sludge into our state (.) we’re becoming the ↑dumping ground (.) for sludge (.) one way to (.) there are ↑TWO ways probably to to to uh (.) e↑liminate that importing of sludge (.) one is to tax it or the ↑other ↑and oor. (.) by regulation just make it so difficult to business that (.) these commercial interests will give ↑up (.) frankly people are making money by holing sludge (.) sewage sludge into our ↑state. (.) governor Shaheen has done NOthing a↑BOut it. (.) she’s jiggered around with sub↑staandards but nonetheless the quantities of sludge are coming ↑in. (.) ↑AAND (.) she’s for ↑spreading this stuff as fertiliser (.) on our ↑↑soil indeed she proclaimed (.) bio-solids appli↑cation daay. (.) this spring bio-solids being the commercial interests’ (.) favourite name for sludge (.) well ↑I want to proclaim clean water (.) drinking day when I’m governor (.) the con↑cern here is [that this stuff senator] when ↑spread (.) percolates contaminants into our drinking water governor uhm (.) Gordon Humphrey is making another promise he can’t keep (.) he ↑can’t keep sludge out of New Hampshire under interstate commerce ruules (.) unless he’s going to ↑tax sludge in this state at the same amount (.) and to ↑DOO that (.) is going to seriously (.) coost communities in New Hampshire who have to dispose of sludge (.) now what ↑I’ve done is to increase (.) the ↑standards (.) foor ↑testing (.) of sludge (.) and ↑monitoring it (.) we have the strictest standards (.) in the ↑country. (.) we’re the only state in New England that does on-site testing we’ll make sure that it’s safe senator (1.) the FACT iis that our state is becoming a dumping ground for sludge (.) governor Shaheen ↑somehow seems to beee (.) in favour of this (.) she went even to the extreeme or that the extent of proclaiming ↑bio-solids application day (.) much to thee (.) uh uh

JC(M): SS: GH: SS: GH: SS: GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

JC(M): GH:

858

Appendix (.) disbe↑↑lief of the environmental com↑munity (.) in this state (.) there are safe ways to START (.) and we oought to be re↑searching whether it is ↑safe to spread this stuff as a fertiliser governor Shaheen veto ↑↑two very modest bills (.) a hundred and ten thousand dollars= =alright= =that would have enabled UNH to investigate whether this is a threat= =ok= =to our drinking water= =↑next question we just need to keep the (.) following our time cues here we want to get to aall of these and to make sure that both get a chance to answer questions so ↑Kevin next with a question for governor Sha↑heeen. sure (.) governor ↑president Clinton (.) recently signed a law that require aaall states (.) to lower the legal limit for driving drunk (.) to (.) point ou eight for alcohol (.) as a state senator you had voted a↑gainst the laaw (.) that set New Hampshire’s limit at point ou eight was ↑that a mistake well ↑Kevin when I voted (.) against the point ou eight legislation we haad (.) information from Maaine that showed that t hadn’t made a difference in (.) reducing accidents uhm (.) the ↑fact is (.) ↑later when that law paassed I voted for it (.) uhm (.) it (.) we have good evidence now that shows that it does work (.) and ↑I’ve worked very hard as governor to address uhm (.) drunk driving (.) we’ve got (.) ↑new graduated licensing to help make sure (.) our (.) ↑teenagers aren’t out on the road uhm (.) when they shouldn’t beee (.) I’ve signed into legislation a number of tough drunk driving laaws (.) because (.) ↑this is a (.) an issue we have to address uhm (.) we have (.) ↑too many people and too much coost (.) uhm (.) being loost each year because of (.) drunk drivers on the rooad (.) uhm (.) ↑I’m very pleeased that (.) because of (.) my strong stands on this issue among other things that I’ve gotten (.) the endorsement of the State ↑Trooper’s Association in New Hampshire (.) I’m the first governor that they’ve ever en↑doorsed senator ↑Humphrey well ↑governor I’m glaad that (.) you’re willing to (.) admit your ↑mistake and change your miind (.) upon the basis of further ↑evidence. (.) when we were together theere in nineteen ↑ninety or nineteen ninety-one I forget which it was (.) but there was a vote there before the Senate to ↑LOwer the blood alcohol level from point one to point ou eight in other words (.) ↑↑make it easier to convict persons (.) who’re driving drunk and you were on the ↑wrong side of that. (.) subsequently you changed your mind and I’m I’m glad that you have the courage to ad↑mit that. (.) but ↑LIKEwise I think the governor set about example when a ↑very senior person of her staff was con↑VICted of DWIi and was [allowed to senator remain in her employment your time is up] (.) ↑governor so am I going to get a whole new question [(laughing) (laughs) to make up for all this lost tiiime] (.) uhm (.) the fact is (.) my op↑ponent when he was in the U.S. Senate refused too raaise the drinking age to twenty-oone (.) which would have ↑aalso helped deal with this issue I ↑I think what’s important for us is to (.) focus

JC(M): GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M):

KL:

JS:

JC(M): GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS: JC(M): JS:

859

Appendix oon the issues that matter in New Hampshire uhm (.) making sure that we do ↑everything possible to keep (.) drunk drivers off our roads it’s something that (.) I’m com↑mitted too (.) and I’m going to continue to do that as governor= Woody ↑Woodlaand your question foor senator Humphrey ↑senatoor uuh (.) when you go pick up a newspaper ↑turn on channel niiine or turn on the radio there are tragic stories of domestic violence (.) committed at the spite (.) or ill intention of the court restraining orders (.) ↑do you have any idea (.) or any ideas of (.) what we might be able to d to improoove the safety of those who are the victims of these ↑tragedies.= =yes indeed there was a murder in Derriage just two ↑weeks ago uhm perpetrated (.) committed by a maan who had several ↑tiimes violated the restraining order (.) I’ve proposed publicly uh using some high-tech uh (.) equipment to to make restraining order (.) a ↑lot more effective (.) I mean a restraining order is only a piece of paper (.) to someone who wants to ↑violate it (.) there AARE nowadaays uh electronic trans↑mitting devi devices called uh (.) uuh ‘electronic ↑hand coughs’ that transmit a signal to a monitoring fa↑cility they’re used routinely for parole leaves to make sure they are uh (.) compliant with their parole terms (.) ↑we could require persons (.) under res↑training orders t to wear one of these devices as ↑well. (.) programmed to trigger an alarm when that res↑traained person (.) approaches within a certain radius of the protected person (.) now it happens that most of these protected persons are ↑women. (.) usually it’s involving aa (.) an strange husband but there are many many cases of violence (.) and even where there ↑aren’t (.) women live in ↑↑ffear (.) that these restraining orders are not going to be obeyed there is a technical (.) a techno↑loogical way to fix this problem (.) and I’ve put it on the table= =governor uh (.) I ↑think this is a very serious issue and I’ve worked hard to address it (.) uh I’m ↑pleeased to hear my opponent (.) uuh talking about (.) how con↑ceerned he is about this issue because when he was in the U.S. Senate (.) he caaalled domestic sh (.) violence shelters ‘↑anti-family and doctor-nation centers’ (.) we’ve ↑made great striides in New Hampshire in the laast (.) four years working on this issue uhm (.) it’s a pri↑ority for the state government to (.) address with our state employeees (.) we now provide unem↑ployment benefits to people who are victims of domestic violence ↑I’m going to cont (.) [tinue senator] working on this it’s a it’s a ↑very serious problem (.) I think the the the the i↑dea I put oon (.) on the ↑table is is uhm (.) characteristic of Gordon ↑Humphrey if you will (.) I’m a technologically oriented guy (.) o o ↑one of the things of which we should not be terribly ↑proud in our state is that TWO recent surveys have showed New Hampshire ranks at the very boottom (.) the state government I mean (.) in in teerms of applyying information age technology (.) making government more efficient and more user ↑friendly. (.) uh ↑I’m going to move forward raapidly in that area I’m going to equip our employees with with information age technology to make them more ef↑ficient (.) senator we’re going to [and make our government we’re going to ↑give you ti]

JC(M): WW:

GH:

JC(M): JS:

JC(M): JS: GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M):

860

Appendix GH: JC(M): GH: JC(M): (laughing) more user ↑frien[dly= =(laughs)] (.) we ↑want to make sure you have time [for your closing state[ments thank you] which aare next (.) we want to give you that full time for suure (.) ↑each candidate will have a minute thirty for closing statements (.) ↑that was dec deciided by a draaw so senator Humphrey (.) you’ll begin (0.5) thank you (.) uh as a ↑U.S. senator I promised to reduce maassive deficits (.) today we have a budget ↑surplus (.) I ↑promised to save Social Se↑curity. and I voted for the refooorms that ensured Social Security today is stroong for my eighty-eight widowed ↑mother and for all of the elderly people in our state (.) I promised to protect the en↑vironment. (.) today we have the cleanest air and water in ge↑nerations (.) I ↑promised to make our country strong to win the peace (.) today thank God the Cold War is over (.) I promised to refuse pay raises and gave them to ↑scholarships (.) for New Hampshire children (.) I promised to serve only ↑two terms and I kept that promise I came home (.) and I eearned my living supported my family in the ↑woorld of small business (.) as ↑YOUR governor I promise to fund education as generously as we can (.) not less than eight hundred and twenty-five million dollars (.) next year (.) ↑moore as the economy expaands (.) I’ll thin out the bureaucracy so that ↑more of these dollars get down to our classrooms (.) and into the pay cheques (.) of our teachers (.) I’ll make our schools better and more ef↑ficient (.) through innovation (.) for example I’ll introduce teaching (.) and learning sooftware that will make easier the jobs of our teachers (.) ↑↑free up tiime so that they can spend more time (.) with the kids who need help in a particular subject (.) and I’ll ↑doo all of this without an ↑income tax. (.) with↑out a sales tax. (.) and without a capital gains tax (.) ↑I believe it’s woong to tax working people (.) it’s wrong to tx tax pensions (.) and it’s es↑pecially wroong to tax (.) the future earnings of our children (.) ↑I’m going to preserve the low tax advantages of this state ↑SIimultaneously we’ll fol (.) we’ll be fund[ing education ↑senator] as generously as we can= =ok thank you governor Shaheen thank you (.) ↑I want to thank channel niine for sponsoring this debate and thank you all for watching (.) as you could hear tonight (.) the choice in this election couldn’t be more clear (.) ↑my opponent offers a loong record of (.) extremism that is ↑out of touch with the needs of New Hampshire families (.) he talk (.) when ↑he was in the U.S. Senate the naational debt quadrupled (.) ↑I have a record of results (.) making a difference for New Hampshire families (.) you ↑know (.) and it’s im↑portant (.) for people to know what our records have beeen (.) because ↑hoow would they knoow what we’ve doone (.) ↑what’s at stake in this election iis (.) the future of New Hampshire (.) our strong e↑conomy. (.) our ↑children’ education. (.) the health care for ↑our people. (.) our environment (.) I offer a record that’s made a difference (.) we’ve goot (.) ↑ten thousand more kids with health insurance (.) ↑more children in public kindergarten (.) ↑lower costs for our seniors on prescription drugs (.) our HMOs are more accountable (.) ↑fifty thousand new joobs and a high-tech economy that’s the envy of the nation (.) ↑I want to keep that progress going (.) ↑what we need noow iis (.) common sense effective leadership (.) leadership that can deliver results (.) nowwhhere are the differences clearer than on the issue of education funding (.) ↑I’m going to

GH:

JC(M): GH: JC(M): JS:

861

Appendix soolve education funding in a way that’s good for our kiids it’s good for our economy that ↑keeps our taxes the lowest in New England (.) my op↑ponent (.) is going too (.) reduuce the cost (.) reduce the money and local aid to education over a hundred million dollars ↑that’s going to hurt our schoools and hurt our economy thank you very much that con↑cluudes our debate we’d like to thank our (.) media ↑panel for their questions the viewers that sent in theirs of ↑course (.) the candidates themselves for ↑joining us and we’d like to thank you for joining us as well (.) remember (.) November sseventh is election daay just ↑right around the coorner have a great one

JC(M):

862