Pat Buchanan Speaking in Plymouth (New Hampshire)
37 percent of the vote lowest by any incumbent president since 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran a third party.
Having said that having been a part in putting together two of the greatest coalitions I think since the New Deal.
Let me tell you how I intend to go about conducting this campaign. It is not simply about winning the Republican nomination it is about rebuilding that kind of coalition. Now what are the three components of a coalition like that in American politics. The first the core part of it is the Republican Party. In 1992 I guess some of you might still have been in high school or freshman.
I came up here in New Hampshire and I said our Republican Party is going the wrong way. We've raised taxes. Republicans don't believe in that. We passed a quota Bill.
Phil Gramm and Bob Dole supported that we created unfunded mandates we've raised federal spending from 23 to 25 percent of the gross national product. For all intents and purposes this is a Democratic administration. It is a liberal administration.
This is not conservatism. And that's why I'm fighting it. And we came up here on a talk show got away from Michael Kinsley for 10 weeks and came up here in New Hampshire and got 37 percent of the vote against a sitting president United States.
We did that I think because the people of New Hampshire and the people the Republican Party even though they're tremendously naturally loyal to a sitting president agreed with me. We had walked away from our beliefs. What happened in 1992 because we walked away from those economic issues. Ross Perot got into the race in the general election and destroyed the Republican coalition took away our economic conservatives.
Now my 1993 Republican Party got the message it had become was on the way to becoming not a bush party but a Buchanan party 1993. Every single Republican in both houses voted against Bill Clinton's tax hike. Graham Dole who had been architects of the 1990 tax hike voted against this when every Republican voted against. Nineteen ninety five.
Graham and Dole are now fighting affirmative action. They had voted for quotas in 91. They're against affirmative action in 1995.
What's happened is that the whole Republican Party has come back to its basic philosophy. We are the party of less government. We're the party of lower taxes. We're the party of returning power to the states and to the people. By doing that by moving toward that philosophy we won in 92.
Many for the greatest comeback victory and captured both houses the Congress the United States and in 1996.
If we stay true. To that philosophy our candidate will have a united Republican Party going into the election. But as I said the Republican Party is itself only the central element of the coalition. What else do we need.
We need a group of fellows their men and women most of whom don't go to college who were known as Reagan Democrats. They're working people. They worked down in the sub shops at work in the bars as waitresses. They work in factories they work in places like at shoe factory. I went to all of them who would be on welfare if they didn't have these jobs making these beautiful little shoes for weddings and things like that. These are working people Reagan Democrats what's on their mind. Well what's on their mind is the idea that their country which was a great and good country there's now a million and a half abortions done every year. I don't know why you think that's wrong and they don't know why the kids are coming home from school and not being instructed in the patriotism in which they believe. They don't understand why they can't pray in public schools. What's happening with the drugs and everything. In other words their concerns are social and cultural and moral issues. These are Reagan Democrats and many rich Republicans don't give a hoot about those issues. What they care about is capital gains tax. What's in that 28 percent tax cut that will solve our problems. These people care about those things and I care about those things. And I'm one of them. Urban Catholic ethnics in the north and the east and the South small town evangelical Protestants Christians find people they don't have any money and much money they don't care that much about economics.
This is the second part of the coalition and it is why I'm addressing those issues is for two reasons. One I believe in and second if you don't talk to their issues and concerns they're going to walk away from you. Now Ronald Reagan talked to he spoke their language and to Ronald Reagan got to books. So if you put the Reagan Democrats together with the Republican Party to offer the third component is the element of the pro-people United We Stand.
They're working class some blue collar white collar. But their concerns are different. Many of them don't care too much about social issues. They're concerned about their country's sovereignty get un taken over control and this world trade organization they're concerned about unequal trade agreements that will shut down eventually that's you plant. We went to that you know one time. Manchester New Hampshire was the third city with the third largest number of employees making shoes. Nation I think was 60000. I think they only got one plant in left Manchester. This is it little tiny plant sewing machines older than the ones my mom used to use. And yet this fellow put together a family business he's got 60 employees.
They're old ladies some of old ladies in their 70s some years older having the time of their lives and get good jobs a bicycle to work. They walk to work. They take the bus that goes down because one of these trade agreements from the other words the Chinese find out how to make the shoes what 25 cent an hour labor dumping in the United States.
They'll kill that factory. And those people will be out on the street. But some guy in New York said the profit margins are going up. Stock dividends are going up for us. We can make them a lot cheaper in China. Now these are the Perot people they're concerned about NAFTA and Gath and the New World Order and the loss of American sovereignty to global institutions.
And I think these are the people we have to get back. And of all the candidates running I'm strongest with those folks. We had a survey in California among Perot folks United we stand folks 80 percent said Buchanans one guy we want 18 percent said we should wait for Perot again. So I believe that the campaign I'm conducting is designed to bring the Republican Party basically economic conservatives together again. It's to hold the social conservatives and Reagan Democrats who care about moral and cultural and social issues as I do. And we can go into any of those issues you like and then to bring back the Perot people who care about US sovereignty and who care about good manufacturing jobs for Americans. Let me give you a couple of numbers. Boss Ronald Reagan used to love to write the numbers and do speeches we try to get them out. You're better off with the anecdotes and stories. It's you know it's get to numbers in there and let me give you a couple of. We have a merchandise trade surplus excuse me deficit merchandise now it's trade and wage products. It is running January and February together about a hundred and eighty billion dollars a year.
One hundred billion a year it was with China and Japan in the last 25 years we've sold 400000 cars to Japan. Japan has sold 40 million cars in the United States Vittal Mickey Kantor went over and talked to the Japanese and said we're going to sanction you unless you stop this. They said don't sanction us we'll take you to the World Trade Organization which you just joined now I think this country better get off its backside and wake up and realize the Chinese and the Japanese are building for the future.
No country can consume its way to prosperity and greatness. This country built its way. It produced its way to prosperity and greatness.
Some of you study in history and I'll stop in a minute. But some of you study in history probably are familiar with what was known as the American economic system. It was put together by Hamilton first voted by Washington. It was pursued by Jefferson and Jackson and perfected by Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.
The idea behind it was the United States behind the tariff wall would protect its markets for its own manufactures and businesses. And the purpose of this economic system its top goal was a rising standard of living for the American family every year. It was the American workers would be the best paid in the world and threw out you can see statements by Jefferson and others. We don't want American workers to have to compete with Europeans who make nothing. We want the standard of working our standard of living of our workers. The highest in the world now. The standard of living of American families and workers is falling. Why. Because we're forcing them to compete with Mexicans hardworking Mexican folks who make a buck an hour and Chinese who work for 25 cents an hour. That is un-American. And that's what these trade treaties have done. So this is how I propose to win the Republican nomination if I can win it.
But beyond that to build a governing coalition the likes of which we haven't seen since Reagan's 1884 in the Nixon coalition we built in 72 and Franklin Roosevelt's great coalition in 1933.
So that's what we got in mind. And we appreciate very much the invitation to speak here and I'd be elated delighted to take any questions. I'd like to thank you very much.
Rove was a graduating senior with us as well. I'm really concerned about the chance to vote because nobody else is loans interest exemption on Stafford loans. That all works program with all these programs like this. And I would like to know your business.
Well I haven't seen the proposed cuts coming up in the OF BILL. My view about the Department of Education primary and secondary is pretty clear. I think the money should be taken back and block grants are secondary primary secondary taken away from Washington the bureaucrats should be removed and the money given back to the states and then at the local level you should battle the state government with the kinds of funds you believe you need at the state level. I have not looked at the student loan program and I don't know exactly what K-6 going to do and have to take a look at it. But I think if you're going to have cuts in the budget do you do away with the proper education I do believe that the loan program is a federal program that does belong at the federal level. As for specific cuts I haven't recommended any and I haven't seen the proposals.
Answer your questions about that.
Yeah I believe that the Supreme Court rulings on voluntary prayer in the public schools are basically unconstitutional. I think the Supreme Court has not only misread the First Amendment it has distorted the First Amendment. I do believe in this. I believe that coercion under any conditions with regard to religion is clearly a violation of the Constitution but the idea of using school rooms as you can now after hours for religious instruction even if it's after you've got a French class for example you can have a Bible reading class and I think the idea of a liberty Amendment which is being talked about whereby the Federal Government's position of hostility toward all religions is altered dramatically and becomes one of neutrality as between religions and non government interference in the public expression of religious views.
It's what the framers and founding fathers had in mind sir.
But if you see this more closely with the billions of dollars we spend over here for as much money as it stands. Nice to see that in this way it's financially. Collins is using the federal deficit as other things that Americans.
Well I supported foreign aid during the Cold War when I was in the Nixon White House and during the Reagan administration Afghanistan and Nicaragua Angola and other countries that were supporting us in the cold war effort. But I agree with you. I think the Cold War is over. The Mighty Red Army sent in the center of Europe has gone home. Soviet empire doesn't exist anymore.
The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Russia. Is even breaking apart. So I think what we have to do is tell the countries that are beneficiaries of American foreign direct foreign aid.
About 15 billion a year indirect through World Bank loans. International Monetary Fund loans North American Development Bank the Inter American Development Bank African Development Bank Asian Development Bank all those loans we guarantee somewhere between 25 percent and directs about 15 billion.
But then you add on top of that this outrage this 50 billion dollar bailout for the benefit of Mexico City.
So they can pay off Wall Street and the big folks who contribute to my opponent's campaigns. That's not something I favor. I think they ought to cut out bailing out third world socialist regimes. Look if we can't balance our own budget what are we doing in balancing the budget to other countries around the world. We're five trillion in debt and you send in your money overseas to balance the budget in other countries. That is absurd. And what we have is foreign policy I think by inertia.
No one has sat down and thought that we were in the end of an era it is behind us. We did a phenomenal job in the Cold War. We want it for the West but we're in a new era where we are challenged by great rivals and nations that want to be the great powers of the 21st century as we were the 20th.
And we got to stitch up our socks and I think phasing out foreign aid is just a first step. I agree with you 100 percent.
Yes ma'am. I like your voice.
Well I've used the women in the workforce or that my chairman in Arizona is a woman my chairman in Colorado is a woman. We hope my chairman and I will be and the chairman of my national campaign as well.
So there's no doubt that women have extraordinary talent and ability and big for a variety of reasons one of which is the freedom that they've been provided by virtue of all these devices and things where they can and where children can be provided for.
They've been able to move into the labor force freely and they ought to be and they ought to be able to go to the limits of their capacities and there should be no arbitrary no official discrimination of any kind and that's why I'm against discrimination and affirmative action.
We shouldn't discriminate against anybody because of race gender. We shouldn't be discriminated in favor because of race or gender.
So I am in favor of women going as far as they want to wish in the workforce and I think there should still be tremendous respect and reverence for one of the central roles women that his wife and mother. You know my mother worked raised nine kids never went into cold labor force. And I think did a phenomenal job and she had a respect for that role. But you're right they have the freedom to do what they wish in the marketplace. I'm very much in support of that.
What you mean on equal pay is against the law. If you're talking about comparable worth you're talking about something else.
Now they have the idea that is against an equal pay for the same work.
It's against the law but there's no doubt that women's per capita income is I think about. 70 percent maybe 60 to 70 percent that of a male.
But one of the reasons for that is that many women let's take the Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor was a talented say. She started in with Bill Rehnquist into law but she took 13 years and 14 years of her career to raise young children and then she comes back and she's got 14 years out and Rehnquist has got a man. You can't demand the same pay his rent was if you don't have the same time and even though you're the same age.
So I think the reason that you're not getting equal pay is equal pay is the law the reason you're not getting in some cases because women have been out of force but equal pay for equal work is the law of the land.
That's what No sir. Right. And my answer is as of now. So you would be nice. So what does make us look pretty good. Right.
But how would you like to support a proposal that does cost your country 50 billion.
But on the with the U.S. and Canada is is 50 percent. And was this drastic reform which really hurt this increase in trading in relations that were enjoying it.
Well I'm for the free trade with Canada. And I always was it was I was in the Reagan administration when it was negotiated. The reason I am is with Canada you have COBRA comparable pay scales the words the autoworkers in Canada make basically what the auto workers in the United States do. You also have comparable social welfare benefits comparable environmental health rules and regulations.
So you've got very competitive economies.
And but we've got to work it was taken way in Michigan makes $40 an hour in pay and benefits and a hardworking auto worker in Mexico makes six dollars in paying benefits and the pharmacy a plate it is as or more efficient who's going to like your cars. You can't force that worker. I think in Michigan to compete against that individual in Hermance you want a drivers pay down to the point where it was say in real terms 40 years ago.
So I'm in favor of basically free trade agreements with free capitalist economies where you have comparable wage scales comparable social welfare systems and comparable environmental rules and regulations because then it is that is fair competition but it is not fair. I think when you take China for example.
Which pays people $25 or five cents an hour and does all its work on textiles and then dumps in the United States you destroy American jobs the American textile industry. This is what the Japanese did with radios and TVs and VCR hours and all the consumer electronics and part of our steel industry and all the rest of it they kept their wages down dump their products till the American jobs wiped out the American business took over 100 percent set the rules for the market. There are predatory traders. I understand their viewpoint. They're looking out for Japan. First I just want to know why we don't have guys that look out for America first.
It's named after Tiger. This is crazy. Oh yes.
Actually you're going to be paying a 15 percent because you're 7 1/2 is matched by the employer seven and a half percent. That's Social Security and Medicare. And so that basically is what. That's the cost of the wage to your employer which is means your cost to your employer. And that's to pay for the benefits which are very generous now and which some of us in earlier years voted to make generous without thinking down the road of what it's going to cost. Social Security is going to have to be reformed. But you cannot get it done this year for the reason that the Democrats demagogue the issue in the last two weeks the election.
And said elect these Republicans and well that's it for the old folks it's thrown out on the streets though perhaps those security Republicans said no we won't because Social Security is off the table. You have our word we won't touch it for two years. So they cut a deal. So now it will be touch for two years. This is the third rail of American politics. But anyone that touches it is dead. Ever since Barry Goldwater said I want to make it voluntary and he was never heard from again.
Now I think what you're going to have to do is going to have to reform Social Security but to do it you have to have a bipartisan. Presidential congressional effort if you have a Republican Congress and a Republican president I think it will be done swiftly surely and cleanly in the next administration. If you are divided between Clinton say and a Republican Congress I think you have a battle and nothing will be done. But I agree with you it is going down the road to the point where it's going to be bankrupt if current trends continue for 20 years. But most people will say well that's 20 years from now right now is running a surplus. So why touch it when we're dead. And so you won't get it until you get yourself a bipartisan support group or a coalition working together on it. Let's try one more one or two more questions. Yes sir.
I'm trying to the ON YOUR found by if you come back in the war and I don't I can deal with the past two years you know since I survived I've been betrayed by the government and try and get benefits and whatnot. And you have been encouraging words to you know are the best in the Gulf War in the future.
Well I mean this is a surprise to me. I think the veterans on First I don't know anybody who doesn't believe that veterans should get to do. I don't know anybody that doesn't believe we should pay for it either. Especially vets that have been wounded in combat or something like that. So I'm not sure exact I've heard there's arguments over the hospitals now that World War II generation is passing on. Some people say the hospitals are empty and we don't need them and the vets can use their Medicare for the same purposes.
I've heard these arguments but I have not heard anyone say that anyone is deliberately mis treating American veterans and I would think the Congress the United States which contains many veterans outraged by that. I you take a look at any specific complaints and I say in that area the surge in question two questions.
First off is that you are opposed to it or will you really be sure you know. How. To do it and how you get it out and your primitive action is basically discrimination.
It's a form of discrimination. And it says that the individual can be held back from a scholarship he can be kept back from a job if he can get back from the promotion because his great grandparents or his ancestors came from Europe. It's OK to discriminate against those folks. That's not what this country is all about. That is not what I thought the whole civil rights revolution was about. It was about judging people on the content of their character not the color of their skin. And if something is being done wrong and affirmative action is wrong because it's a form of discrimination which some people say well it's benign.
Since these color folks are the ones taking the beating if it's wrong the thing to do is not to fool with it it is to stop it cold to take the consequences of having done so. But to do the right thing. I was in high school when they desegregated the public schools in Washington D.C. I was in the Catholic high school and we are already desegregated the Catholic schools were to the degree that you could be in a city that was a de facto segregated. And when they desegregated high schools in D.C. They simply desegregated more at once and it was done. And of course some of the white folks moved out of the area went up to Maryland up to Virginia. But every single high school decision came in May of 54 September 55 or September 54 I believe it was every single one of them with desegregation at once and it was done. OK you had some trouble but it was done. And I think that's the way to deal with affirmative action. When I was in Ronald Reagan's White House in 19 85 we tried to rewrite the executive order number of Executive Order eleven to 4 6 Bill Bennett and I and Ed Meese Linda Chavez tried to rewrite Executive Order eleven to four six to say. Actually we're going to retain the words affirmative action but say this does not mean quotas goals or timetables or discriminate basis of race would affirmative action show me his outreach to make sure that any company hiring workers reaches out into the entire community not just one area. Things like that. And we were blocked by Bob Dole. Bob Dole was our opponent there. He wrote a letter to Reagan saying don't touch it don't change it. Now he's with us. But this indicates to me that the country has moved with us on this issue. Do you have another question.
On that spending. I guess a lot of people less now than at this stage. And a lot of it out on that with based on the practice.
Well I think the criticism is now we get from the Clinton administration folks that they may have used that sort of as a basket of goodies to be spent on other programs. But this gets back to my view about the about the end of the Cold War.
Look we have now an army of 100000 American troops sitting in a place called Bavaria defending a border that does not exist anymore with East Germany or against the army. Went home five years ago. What are they doing in Bulgaria. Who are they going to fight in Bavaria.
This is what has been left as a consequence the Cold War. Just like all your forts out there you wonder always fortune Kansas all those areas those are forced to fight Indians. That's why they were put there. And you can't keep an army of a hundred thousand men and sustain it there. For a while. For a cold war that doesn't exist what I think needs to be done with regard to the military. Is you've got to devise a military force structure to deal with the crises and problems of your generation and what you're going to confront.
And the big danger. One of the big danger you're going to confront is nuclear weapons spreading around the world and the North Koreans or someone sending folks a missile probably initially to reach an American base in Italy or some American base maybe to be snuck aboard some ship and turn up in American Harbor. And I think Hyuga and the second thing is the possibility of a takeover in the Soviet Union by some kind of red brown coalition Nazi or not nationalist communist national Stalinist.
And with all the weapons they've got. And so I think these are the problems that the country ought to confront we don't face the same problems we had in the cold war. And we ought to read of and readers on our military to deal with the crises of the present.
This is not the United States world. World have a weapon.
No I don't think we've proposed a world dictatorship not even a world policeman.
I think we would have you know well we've got it right now we've got a nonproliferation treaty which says that five nations shall have them. The United States Russia England France and China and three other countries possess them. Probably certainly the Israelis probably India and Pakistan almost certainly the South Africans have them packs maybe working on them when they're out. But the point is it's not a world dictatorship. The United States is trying to get folks to sign this nuclear nonproliferation treaty. But you've got a very good question what exactly would the United States do if Japan decided because North Korea believes it's gotten the bomb decides to build nuclear weapons. What could we do. I don't think we should impose some kind of dictatorship and say I can't have that. Maybe you maybe the present government would say we're going impose restrictions on you.
We're going to cut our mutual defense treaty fine. We're not invading anybody. So I know there's no dictatorship. I think we're going to try to do it by persuasion to the degree we can.
Listen I want to thank you folks for coming out. We appreciate it. Enjoyed it very much. My wife and I. And thanks for coming out. Appreciate. It. OK.
You. Got. It.
You know. That's OK. Is there anything wrong with your right to wrong. Take it easy for them to come out of reasons like.
This to be honest. Ask you a question about the president's comments yesterday about a hate speech over the airwaves that Americans should stand up and speak against it. What was your reaction to that comment. Well who was he referring to. I can't tell you that he's talked about the quote unquote airwaves I mean without specifying that he said that Americans should remember that they have the right of free speech to stand up against hate speech that tears up and upsets on mainstream Americans that Americans do have the right to free speech to say what they wish.
What's your reaction to the comments that. Well see I would like to see the president be a little more specific. He was referring to.
As far as the hate speech. I mean some conservative talk show host as you know has been upset by that by those comments. Do you think that that they're upsetting this is justified.
Well I don't know who the president was referring to but certainly talk show host conservative liberal or moderate have the right to express their views in this country still in a couple.
But if you compare it to them I think what he was saying you know what would you suggest a futile. War.
Well I think one thing that might prevent more terrorism.
Is to put these individuals on trial expeditiously to prosecute convict them. Let them make their appeals as rapidly as possible and then impose on anyone who plotted planned or participated in this the maximum sentence the law applies.
Some analysts have suggested that the anti-government rhetoric that we have heard so much since the November election will be softened because of this the pressures on some soft pedal that a little bit.
Well you know that might be an argument between the use of the news analyst and the commentators. I'm not in the presidential campaign. OK. Good. Evening. Guys.
Sorry I'm from New Hampshire Public Radio I just want to know what your general reaction to what you heard. I just felt like you kind of avoided a few questions here and then. What specifically Melissa's question I asked about that very question on women in employment didn't really answer completely What were you looking for what didn't you hear his reasoning behind why women are paid equally to men.
Why don't you the reasons why he didn't think they were as qualified as men to be paid equally.
He said that women would have had less experience workforce because they were home taking time off raising.
That's experience in itself. And if they're just as qualified to be up for the job then they are just as qualified to be paid the same.
So what's your impression from the answer that you got. I'm not impressed at all.
He also said during the answer that he was for for money for affirmative action and then later said he was against it.
So I'm a little unclear with that to anyone else. Thanks. Well.
There's a question about student loans right. I'm from New Hampshire Public Radio. Can I get your name and your seniors.
Yeah. Robert Lawrence from Manchester New Hampshire. The state's senior. Graduating this year in May. This has been said a lot of proposed cuts and that the president and myself being someone who who who needed need as much as it is possible to go from being independent and working as a waiter and trying to come up with rent money. I wanted to go to school and that was the only way possible.
And so any type of cuts or a sour taste in my mouth and I know that there's other people that are out there that could use as much possible aid. Have to question.
My pressure My how you answer my question. He made some some points. It sounds like he's. Not sure exactly what the proposed cuts were except that he did mention something about the state level. Getting more involved in it which Yeah it's that could. That could you know provide a stabilizer from the cuts then then all well and good but when that happens the question of will.
Will one state be able to.
Give as much money as the other state. Into. The federal the federal grants and stuff like that or other things that actually helped me.
What was the overall impression.
I I'm not exactly sure. I have to think ponder it for a while. I'm positive I'm glad you came and.
Glad to answer some questions some questions I felt. Pretty directly.
Some of them less directly but I suppose that's what the candidates do. I'm telling you signing up. I am not going to sign up until it's time.
All. That's what you heard.
He's very articulate and seemed to cover all the questions pretty well versed manner. Did you like the positions of her. I wouldn't say I agree with everything that he supports. In fact I. Sure I have a lot of differing views with him. To me this is more of just a form so that we hear a question and answer period. You know so we can understand his beliefs and maybe not agree with them but here a little backing on why he took the positions he did.
But other than that I mean I don't think it was any sort of a campaign rally on our part by any means. You know we were just more or less presenting a forum for students who are concerned about the issues to be heard. So thank you Scott. And Scott Hodgson. Yeah. And I'm a certified something or other. OK. I hear you. I'm a senior actually been here since almost the beginning.
There's some concern about you know you go into the world so to speak like as far as well obviously the job market.
You know it's always hard I think coming out of recession especially in New England New Hampshire especially unemployment obviously isn't at the level of what you'd like it to be. And doing that always takes long years to recover from a recession. That's the main concern. My mind is probably other jobs going to be out there. It seems like you can go to school for now you get a four year bachelor's degree and it doesn't mean what it used to by any means. Obviously a higher education is the way to go in seeking job opportunities. But even that doesn't pay off the way it used to. So I mean I guess I'm just hoping for. Maybe a more stabilized economy and just some sort of.
Increase in American workforce. How is that being your main concern is looking at your political involvement or the way you make decisions.
Well I think obviously what a candidate stands for. They have different views on how they want to handle the economy how they believe that different classes of workers should be catered to. Also on how to handle unemployment as well as. Welfare different welfare programs they are a lot of different views. So I think you have to take those sort of things into consideration when you're going to cast your vote because every vote does count. And if you're going to be concerned with the issues you really have to get involved and take a stand on what you believe in. And obviously whoever is you know most supports those views you believe in that are going to make the difference so you vote for. I mean to me it's pretty black and white. Have you made up your mind. No I haven't. No I'm I'm not an impulsive person so I'd really like to take some time. I listen to more of the candidates and you know go from there. It's best for me and what I think would be best for the nation. Sound like a very typical voter. Yes. I definitely am. I've lived here for 21 years. I'm definitely going to Hampshire voter had a typical New Hampshire concerns just because you get to see the affects of it all around you in New Hampshire has always had a really strong voice in what's going to go on in the political process.
Thanks a lot. Much fun out of the tourney thanks. Oh sure I have. I've seen. So I'm in a rush. Oh that's OK.
I have a sporting event are just coming to me. How many.
He's got 48 members for the members. There's a lot of mist going around like if you join a fraternity you know like your grades are going to slip or something. That's that's not the case here. I mean like we have a you didn't need to tell me that the average graduating rate on this campus is 50 percent and our chads are alone. We have 90 percent graduation rate. Also I feel that when the media talks among screen organizations there is only negative publicity but they don't like find out anything relevant to this story at all.
And I'm really sweating that this just happened to be real. Now I'm not going to tell them what kind of interest in what you guys think you know what did you think of them.
Well I what I thought I I haven't really don't follow up much on them. I just found out a lot today I liked. I read a lot of those issues he talked about and stuff myself personally like I speak for each other. And you I just I agree I like the way he.
Talks about like with other countries you know giving our money.
When we don't when we have our own problems. So. Just. Hopefully. I really get worked out some time. Thank. You.
Matt can I get your review.
Certainly. I think that was very positive in the sense that many college students like I said were were made and maybe that made them more aware of some of these issues that are important to our future. Personally I'm disappointed myself actually if you're talk about possible next president the United States I asked a question about NAFTA when I was feeling a coward.
He said something in his speech about something like I'm talking about American families are complaining about their children are coming home they can't prayer in school and he said and drugs and stuff. And I you know I wanted to say you know are you suggesting that there's a correlation between you know not having Person school and the increasing drug use and what not. So you know I have my personal views. But good to see you know the beauty of our system is that to see both sides and I mean that's important in any now and any time you make a decision. So I think it was a very good move and in that sense and then I think we're all intelligent enough here that you can take in what we've learned about these issues and compare them to what we learn when we hear the other candidates make the right decision.
I just want to ask you about because you said you know it's good to have the exposure is protected free discussion which is made very clear. On a personal note given that you've told me about your pro-choice you are against the death penalty. You seem concerned about social welfare for other people.
Would you vote for the guy. Why.
Why not. I would they would.
I. Certainly wouldn't vote for Mr. Buchanan.
On many of them because many of the views on many issues not just the ones I mentioned to you. And you know in the future you know I look I'll look at other Republicans and conservatives and liberals and then see what they feel or how they feel on the issues and what not but from summing up his views on the issues that I care about I would probably be the last.
Person I would vote for that I've researched thus far.
That's great. Thanks man.
First of all I'll get my. For. Things to do. I.
I just walk this way with you.
I just wanted to get your impressions after you've heard you know I know where you come from politically and you're a supporter. Just tell me your impression since you've heard I'm definitely going to vote for him.
That's all I can say honestly the path again has my vote because I do believe in everything he stands for except for the abortion issue which is really not a point. I mean it's not a point for an American voter really just to have a basic disagreement like that because it's not something that's ever going to change when it happened. I don't know how many years since since since Congress over over any sort of decision like that so that's not really a factor in. What goes into it like my credit. My criteria for how I vote for somebody but my reactions to how things went today I think they went great. I think he woke up a lot of people that perhaps hopefully won't be apathetic after this but perhaps we're apathetic beforehand and maybe now they have more of a grasp and an idea of what the issues are and they definitely know where Mr. Buchanan is coming from now specifically why is everything he said today I agree with him on and in the past.
He has a record of keeping his word and I have faith. I have faith in what he could do for for this country. It's great. From where I'm from originally I'm from Hanover New Hampshire.
This transcript is machine-generated and has not been corrected. It is likely there will be errors.
- Producing Organization
- New Hampshire Public Radio
- Contributing Organization
- New Hampshire Public Radio (Concord, New Hampshire)
- AAPB ID
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/503-9z90863t04).
- Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan speaks to students at Plymouth State College, briefly outlining his plan to unify differing factions of the Republican Party before taking audience questions. Buchanan addresses questions relating to cuts to federal student aid, his support for prayer in school and phasing out foreign aid; unequal pay for working women, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), funding Social Security, veteran's issues, his opposition to abortion, military funding and nuclear proliferation. Following the event, Buchanan briefly answers media questions about hate speech, domestic terrorism, and anti-government rhetoric; and attendees of the event offer mixed reviews of Buchanan in reaction interviews.
- Asset type
- Raw Footage
- 2012 New Hampshire Public Radio
- No copyright statement in the content.
- Media type
- Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: New Hampshire Public Radio
Release Agent: NHPR
Speaker: Buchanan, Patrick J. (Patrick Joseph), 1938-
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
New Hampshire Public Radio
Identifier: NHPR95102 (NHPR Code)
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Pat Buchanan Speaking in Plymouth (New Hampshire),” 1995-11-22, New Hampshire Public Radio, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed February 21, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_503-9z90863t04.
- MLA: “Pat Buchanan Speaking in Plymouth (New Hampshire).” 1995-11-22. New Hampshire Public Radio, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. February 21, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_503-9z90863t04>.
- APA: Pat Buchanan Speaking in Plymouth (New Hampshire). Boston, MA: New Hampshire Public Radio, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_503-9z90863t04