Steve Forbes Hosts Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire; Interview with Doctor about memory; Speech by Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire

Thank you very much for coming by in case you don't know I am Steve Forbes and this is my first trip to New Hampshire since I announced my candidacy. I will be here today and tomorrow to bring my message that we can get America moving again. Message of Hope growth and opportunity that while we have very serious obstacles in the country today I believe that we can overcome them and enter an era where we will experience our greatest economic growth and also experience something we haven't had for 30 years an improvement in the quality of life. With that why don't we open it up for questions. Let me say again how much I've enjoyed being here. And I think I'll be here many times in the future. I think that is a broad reflection of the fact that the current crop of candidates the other candidates don't have a message that I think reflects the concerns of the American people and that is why is it that we aren't doing

better. Why is it that two incomes can't seem to do the job that one income and a family could do in previous generations. They weren't addressing those pro-growth pro opportunity issues. And I think his candidacies his withdrawal today is a reflection of that. So Gary how are. You hearing on this. Well I think that his basic problem was his message not the timing of his entry into the race. And in California there was some dissatisfaction that he was running and not being governor. While I come in after some other candidates there are several months between now and February 20th I will certainly be in the state a number of times to get my message of opportunity and growth across and I think that's going to count at the end of the day more than the

timing of an announcement. Well I think if the end of the day the voters are less concerned with the size of your bank account for the shape of your balance sheet and they are with whether you understand the frustrations the voters experienced today if you understand where the country is at. Our country is out and it's history. What the opportunities are and what the obstacles are and they also want to know about a candidate is whether that candidate has the internal strength the internal sense of direction and compass to see the necessary changes through or as too often happens in public life will a candidate get blown off course by the latest poll or focus group. I have a message and I think that as an outsider that is what I'm offering. The

only way if the current crop of candidates had the answers that the insiders in Washington had the answers they would have implemented them by now. It is going to take an experienced outsider to help make the changes to get America moving again. But I think it can be done. Yes and. No. I've not held elective office before. I've had a couple of appoint of positions in Washington but I've not held elective office before so I've seen Washington up close but unlike the other candidates I have not spent my adult life in Washington. I've not spent my adult life in politics. I've been a reporter for 25 years. I've run a business for a number of years and so I've had real world experience. And I think that's the perspective we need to get this country moving again in a way that will create more opportunity more jobs and better paying jobs and improve the quality of life in America. Yes.

What if my candidacy brings bring springs to the race is a different perspective a different message. I believe like John Kennedy did in the early 60s and Ronald Reagan did when he ran in the early 1980s. And we can get our country moving again. I think the other candidates as a whole give kind of a an attitude of a sour puss outlook on what America has in the future. I think that if we remove obstacles starting with the tax code scrapping the tax code putting in a simple flat tax and other change and reform measures America will move ahead. And I think that we will astonish ourselves and the world both with our achievements and our opportunities under the flat tax for example a family of four would pay no tax on the first thirty six thousand dollars of income. Only 17 percent above that there would be no tax on Social Security no tax on pensions and no tax and personal savings. And those are the kind of measures we need to remove the roadblocks so that we can move ahead. It's impossible to say right now because I'm an outsider. I won't know whether this

campaign is really going to connect and click until late January in early February when the voters really make up their minds about how they're going to vote in the February 20th primary. What's your reaction to the withdrawal of California governor I think that's a reflection of the fact that the other candidates don't have a pro growth pro opportunity message. I don't think it was a reflection of his timing or the other mechanical problems as it was that he didn't have the message that the voters want for 1996. Is money. In contrast your own personal race or more. No I think the real race reflects the fact that people are looking for a serious discussion of issues not soundbites. They want a candidate who has a serious message that isn't changing each week depending on what somebody tells that candidate what the consultant says. As for

my own resources I will devote resources to get my message across. But I will be taking and am taking contributions because this has to be a national effort. And also I'm not taking any taxpayer money. All the other candidates will be taking taxpayer money to subsidize their campaigns. I don't believe that's right. I'm not I'm not going to do it in the ass it will rush toward issues like immigration. You know he had some serious issues. But I think the overriding issue right now is the theme of how we get America moving again. And he wasn't addressing that. Yes ma'am. Now he is here today. Well in New Hampshire I'll be doing what I'll be doing in other parts of the country. And that is going

directly to the voters with my message. Being an outsider I'm not going to get support from the obvious quarters. They will go with the established candidates in New Hampshire. I will get my message out directly what you call retail through other medium like radio talk shows and messages on radio and television. I'll be doing all of the above. It's the only way I can do it today. I will be seeing for example the chairman John stabile. I'll also be having private meetings to help put an effort together going to nontraditional sources to put a grassroots movement together in the state. Tomorrow I will be going at 12:30 to visit the Deerfield fair and I have as I said earlier I will be back many times in New Hampshire and I look forward to it. You know because that's the purpose of the visit is to start to put an organization together now and I should have the courtesy to meet with them before I start revealing names

but they won't be names that will be traditional names because I am an outsider. OK one point before I hit some of those issues and that is in my mind the distinction between values and economics is a false one. There are one in the same in this country by values I mean thrift hard work faith trust teamwork belief in individual opportunity and responsibility on some of those issues. Start with abortion. I would hope that we could create an environment where abortion could disappear and be banished. But in order to have that kind of environment you need to change and have a change of attitude a change of heart a change of conscience among the people. This is a democracy and people have to be persuaded.

Right now we've had a 20 year deadlock because there hasn't been enough attempt at persuasion. And to that and I would oppose abortions in late pregnancies barring an emergency I suppose abortions for purposes of sex selection. I would oppose mandatory government funding and I would support parental notification in the case of minors. But I wanted to move the issue forward. Affirmative action firm action now today means quotas. I believe you should be judged as an individual rather than as a member of a group prayer in schools. I believe in a moment of silence as long as it's not compulsory. And then immigration I think you have to make the distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration. On the illegal side there are many sensible managerial steps that could be taken starting with reforming the INS. There's no reason why for example if somebody overstays his or her visa in this country takes 10 years before anyone notices it

we can certainly streamline the procedures if you're caught here illegally. Those kind of beefing up border patrols those kind of sensible steps I think could make a real dent on illegal illegal immigration. I would save money. And if you take that postcard it take that postcard everyone would say every individual would save money and you know I can't right now because I haven't done the arithmetic and what I'm going to earn this year because I've just left the Forbes payroll. But seriously. So seriously on that. My proposal is going to be attacked I'll be attacked personally it will be attacked and a demagogue it in a personal way because there are many vested interests that want to see this thing sink because they have a vested interest in seeing this corrupt system continue. All of the country will be able to benefit if that flat tax goes in. It would remove the

biggest source of political corruption in this country. Most of those are majority those lawyers and lobbyists in Washington are there for one simple reason to manipulate the tax code. Moreover the history of this country shows that when you have lower rates you not only collect more from people in the upper income brackets but also they pay a greater share of the income taxes collected. It happened in the 1960s when John Kennedy's tax cuts went through. It happened in the 1980s when the Reagan tax cuts went through at the beginning of the Reagan era. The top 1 percent for example paid only 18 percent of the federal income taxes collected by the end of the decade it was at 26 percent. So the simplified tax code. People get to keep more of what they earn you will lower the barriers to job creating investment and people can concentrate on doing productive things rather than trying to manipulate or get around the tax code. That's. The

only way you're going to get a serious deficit reduction is if you have a vibrant growing economy. And so I think we must start with tax reform and with the tax cuts. Otherwise the economy is going to remain very very sluggish. One thing that I would criticize my party for both certainly the Democrats but the Republicans share the same guilt is that they both assume very low growth rates for the next seven years for this country two and a half roughly two and a half percent. That I think is absurd. I know the Federal Reserve economists think it's gospel but I think we can do twice as well as that in the 1950s and 1960s we did better in the 1980s we did better. I think in the latter part of this decade we can certainly do better. And that's the way you get real deficit reduction that lower interest rates. Reforming health care like Medicare not reducing benefits but putting in things like medical savings accounts. And with that kind of those kind of changes those kind of changes then we will be able to make

very serious reorganizations and restructuring of the government. So I end up doing more with my approach than the approach that some of my colleagues want to take today. First explore the exemptions are just for children and for adults. If you make exceptions you're going to open it up to get the kind of horror that we have today. Just remember on things like property tax deductions mortgage interest deduction. Each dollar the Washington politicians give you a deduction. They end up taking a dollar and a half and higher tax rates. So you don't come out ahead. Moreover my flat tax openly proposes not only a revenue neutral flat tax but a tax cut. I don't believe Washington is entitled to a fixed amount of revenue from the American people. Moreover in my plan every reduction in government spending

from reducing or cutting out a program every one of those dollars goes directly to increasing exemptions for children and reducing the tax rate from 17 percent down to a lower rate directly back to the people. The payroll tax is an entirely separate issue which will start to deal with when I come out with my proposal on how to save Social Security and reform Social Security. As you know right now younger workers say below the age of 45 won't get much of anything from the system. Younger workers in their 20s and 30s will get absolutely zip because the system as it's structured now is going to go bust. You can argue actuarially about the exact date but it is going to go bust. So I'm going to make a proposal where those who are currently beneficiaries and those who will be beneficiaries in the next 15 years will get the benefits promised to them no finagling with Cola's and junk like that. But younger workers say from their

mid-40s downward we'll have a new system where there will be something there for them when they retire. More over this new system. Those savings accounts will belong to them. They won't be part of a general pool in Washington where the politicians can manipulate it and mess it up as they've done in the of the current system so you own your retirement plan you will be able to determine when you want to retire whether it's 59 or 79 or 93 whatever date you want to choose. It's returning to the people in essence the whole thread through my campaign is really returning power responsibility and opportunity to the people whether it's lower interest rates whether it's junking the tax code and replacing with a tax cut whether it's education where I want to return the schools to the parents through choice and vouchers and charter schools whether it's Medicare where I want to have medical savings accounts where you own it. Not the government or your employer. Social Security where if you own that pension not the politicians

it's returning it to the people and that's going to be the theme of this campaign. Because I think that's the way we get America realizing her full potential and moving the country ahead. Well you really don't know finally until the vote is taken the voters do the hiring and the firing in politics. And so I would hope that by late January early February you get begin to get a feel that this thing might be clicking. But ultimately as you well know from some of the surprise results you've had here in the past it's not until the voters vote that you get the real result. You remember 1980 a lot of the pundits thought George Bush was going to win New Hampshire and Ronald Reagan in the last 72 hours surged on to win two to one. You remember in 84 how Gary Hart came on to beat Mondale you remember in 88 how Dole was ahead but Bush beat him over that last weekend. So you don't know

you don't know until the end. And so then being an outsider coming in as an outsider none of the traditional measures are going to work. I just have to plug away each day getting my message out and then we'll see how it works in February. All. Right. Well the Clinton Clinton crime bill had some good rhetoric but when you read the fine print it didn't live up to it as a matter of fact sometimes it got in the way on crime you who really have a two pronged approach. One is a direct attack with things like truth in sentencing. I don't believe in three strikes you're out for a violent crime. I believe it should be one strike and you're out. If you're sentenced for 10 years for a violent crime you should serve most of that sentence instead of the two to three years you serve now. There should not be easy probation or parole for violent criminals. There should not be easy bail for violent criminals as you have

now. And if you violate your parole you should go right back in the slammer which is not the case in too many cases today. So I believe you need more direct approach in New York City for example you have more of a proactive policing which has helped reduce despite the continuing murder their murder rate is now down by more than a third and 18 months because of a better policing more sophisticated policing so that's a direct approach. The indirect approach or just one other example you know what happened in Los Angeles a few days ago that 3 year old parents take a wrong turn. She gets killed because they went into a neighborhood infested and controlled by gangs which leads to the obvious question why weren't the police swarming over that neighborhood if they knew it was gang infested to fight and break up those gangs. That's what I mean by a proactive approach. Don't wait for the 911 call. If you see something you see neighborhood going down the drain do something active to try and reverse it and it actually works. Community policing foot patrols not just in the cars but good foot patrols so they know the

neighborhood works and preserving the quality of life in preventing what happened in Los Angeles. That's the direct approach the more indirect approach is to try to change the environment in which these crimes breed and can flourish. And that means in the inner cities returning control of the schools to the parents. Kids don't get an education. It's going to be very hard to get ahead return public housing to the control of tenants. They can't do a worse job and some of those housing bureaucracies have done. It means putting in genuine enterprise zones clearing out the red tape and the taxes that stand in the way of people who want to create business in the inner cities. So you try to create an environment where things are starting to flourish in a good way. That's the indirect approach. So it's a two pronged approach here. Well obviously good policing is a local action but certainly on the presidential level you could point to a city like New York and say gee they seem to have made real progress. What can the rest of the country learn from it. Or

when a horror like Los Angeles happens you can ask the question why wasn't there proactive policing there. They knew that was a bad neighborhood to break up those gangs. That's what you can do on the federal level in terms of gangs laboratories or. Well just take America in this century after World War One we had very high tax rates. They were reduced in the 1920s and we had the boom in the 1920s. And at the end of that decade the politicians put in a huge tariff which led to trade war which helped bring on the Great Depression. So and tariffs remember are a tax so when taxes were cut the economy flourished because again people could keep more of what they earn. They were willing to take more risks to create jobs when they raise the taxes especially in the midst of the depression which Hoover did in 1932. A disaster resulted in the 1960s. John Kennedy

came in. The economy wasn't performing the way he thought it should. So he put in and proposed substantial income tax rate cuts. And again the economy flourished. We had the boom of the 1960s in the 1980s by the night in 1970. By contrast especially with the great inflation taxes increased enormously on Americans and the economy suffered for it in the 1980s. By contrast Reagan put in tax cuts and the economy boomed. Now unlike the 1980s I think in the latter part of this decade if I get elected we will have a Congress that won't be inclined to go on spending binge just like the Congress of the 1980s did. But just remember in the 1980s on the federal level receipts from income taxes went up year over year. Two hundred billion dollars almost two hundred billion dollars by the end of that period the government is collecting more which is greater than the budget deficit today. And then we went backwards again in the 1990s. In 1990 we had a tax increase which helped bring on the recession

1993 we had another tax increase which has helped make this recovery the slowest of the post-war period. So I think just from America that America's experience we know when we raise the price on work and innovation and investment and risk taking the we all suffer when we lower the barriers to those good things work and savings and investment we flourish. Yes we we are starting from scratch. But I think that there is a potential reservoir of support from non-traditional sources of people who recognize that the current crop of candidates don't recognize where America is today don't recognize the obstacles that stand in the way of moving ahead and don't really believe in the enormous opportunities that are there to be realized. If we remove those obstacles and take the

shackles off the legs of the American people there now will be no third party. I believe that with the primary system the Republican Party can be redeemed in a very positive way in 1996. And so I don't think there is a need. I think the people in the primaries and the caucuses can get the party in a pro-growth pro opportunity direction. Yes I think already since I announced there have been a number of entrepreneurs more Main Street than Wall Street who were interested because they realize that only with a vibrant growing economy can people come in from the outside and make it. And just remember many of the big companies today didn't exist 15 or 20 years ago or hardly existed like your apples and your Microsoft and companies that are household names today. I want to create an environment. We'll get the Microsoft some apples and job creating companies of the

future. And you have to remove the barriers to do it. And I think if we start now we're going to see some very quick and exciting results. Well under my plan everyone's taxes come down. And one advantage I have of being an outsider and being blessed with independent means is that I'm beholden to no one except the voters. No special group only a special group I have are the American voters. In essence I want a better deal for all special deals from now. And what was your first question. Supply. Pro growth pro opportunity proposals

are never outdated. The essence of America we're always confounding and showing wrong the skeptics because we always dream and move ahead. And I think we're going to do it again. Thank you very much. That.

Far. As. Some of the questions we talked about here as far as. The wealth candidate if not the staff can say you know that that sort of phenomenon. If you like that. Let's. Check. Tech tech just perhaps given your sensitivity and awareness to the role that money plays in this whole process what do you make of a candidate like Steve Forbes Do you think this is going to be detrimental to the process because he can finance his own thing or as he said he's not paid for by anybody.

Well he may not be taking money from economically interested donors. The question is who does a man of such enormous wealth really represent him. Can he really speak for the people of Main Street that he claims to speak or does he not represent other multimillionaire billionaires like himself. I think that's the question. Do we have a politics that only allows people who can put millions of dollars of their own money into campaigns or worry. The other option is to raise millions of dollars from interested folks. He represents the former category of people who can finance their own campaigns. This is not democracy if you have to enter into it by putting millions of dollars of money into it. So either way your group wouldn't particularly be happy with whatever brand of candidates we get whether it's people who are quote unquote bought off by the special interest in the Pats or somebody who is like a Forbes or a Perot either way. Either way money is the name of the game. You know either way money determines who has access and influence within the system. And so the

least two options the candidates who self-financed candidates who beg money from special interests are not good options for the American people and that's why most of them stay home don't vote. That's great. Any word about you heard his message that even though he can finance his own campaign he really has the interests of ordinary folks at heart and he wants to expand opportunity for everybody. Are you skeptical. I'm very skeptical of that. I think clearly his issue here is to teach about the flat tax. The flat tax would save many millions of dollars for Steve Forbes and if he even takes the American public or politicians or the other presidential candidates along with that he will stand to benefit in the end. He doesn't expect to win. He's using this as a teaching on the flat tax. And the folks that he represents would stand to benefit too. Now the question is Who does he represent. He represents no one but himself. Thanks that's very very helpful process. Great. So Clinton's got to articulate something solid people can

believe is realistic and believe will be carried out like how he's done so far. I think I think he needs to articulate a message in part because he wants to get his base excited about who he is. You always start by playing to your base. You have to do that. And while the base may get excited because of the fear of what Newt Gingrich is doing and what the Republicans are doing they're also going to be more motivated if they recognize that what they're being offered on the other side will really inspire them to get moving and to realize that he's the choice that they want. I mean it's it takes it's fear. Fear reacts. Fear brings people to the table as well as following a leader. The two together is a real synergistic effect and it makes it possible for Democrats to do some really remarkable things in 96. The potential is there but we can also lose it. All right thanks very much. Great. Great thoughts. Both of you guys. All the news is new.

I mean I think you have to distinction the empirical method the clinical method clinical method as I sit in my consulting room here to talk to people and draw certain conclusions about things. Empirical would be that I would test that conclusion. For example my idea that people who were depressed maybe had some kind of blood disorder at some point you'd have to compare a group of people who were depressed and people were people who were depressed and see if my theory is borne out by the data that I would get. And of course you use things like double blind method so I don't know which member of who's a member of which group. And you know things that we keep my influence from my being suggestive. My my. Influence the outcome of the research. People are amazingly suggestible. I mean I'm a I'm an amateur magician and I don't have to guess about it. I mean there's there people used to make their living. Doing things like hiding things and having people hide things in a room and have them hold their arm and then they would take them to it.

I mean things like the weeds the board really work. Oh sure. Right. So you have all sorts of on tapped resources. Yes. I mean from below conscious. Right. And so so the idea that like Well I mean that's one thing that's interesting is come of the memory research is that the how sure you are about the veracity of your memories is no indication of how true they're you can be sure that I am as sure as I possibly could be I saw it this way has nothing to do with your hit rate with how well you actually do on the memories of would destroy somebody's faith in what they know is their own truth. With that attitude I mean if I remembered something or whatever or you know like I have a sense of a certain thing and you're saying well you can't prove it I mean that would make me think Else Well my sense is see I think people have the wrong idea about memory. They view memory as a video camera. In fact U.S. commercial I've seen it for like very seminars where your mind holds everything you've ever seen. It's all in there and it's all a verbatim record of

what happened. It's not true. Memory is a fragile construct of process. And if you ask with children for example they're great at this if you ask them about something happened and you say well it was the guy wearing a red hat or a blue hat and then say well maybe it was a redhead. They'll remember that had whether there was a hat in the first place or not. So some memories easily contaminated easily changed but if someone has a memory that they've never forgotten you would say you'd be willing to give that more veracity than if somebody has a delayed memory response in there. Well it's difficult to say how much more how much more reliable those memories would be. I think that you have to take a close look. I don't know what the numbers would be so I'd be reluctant to make. I mean members that you've remembered your whole life may also not be true. Yes it's true. But I mean I think that we're crazy. Well you know I remember being strolled in my stroller I remember swinging in the park when I was four is that not true. My crew.

Well I think I think it's not it's not necessarily 100 percent accurate. I remember when my sister was born running into the house and being told by the maid that that my sister was born. But you know I see myself running in that and of course I don't see myself running in real life you can't see yourself run. Right. So that's clearly not an accurate memory entirely there may be elements that are accurate. But memory is very I mean look at the research. Now one eyewitness testimony it's terribly inaccurate. You know it's something we consider to be the most important thing in a court of laws like. Yes that's exactly how I remember and I remember it. That was yesterday. But the fact the matter is the hit rate is not so great. Well just a country large enough complex enough and multiethnic enough to lead the human race. Nobody else can do it. Nobody even thinks anybody else can do it. When we pull out when we get weak when we're confused we end up with a dark and bloody plan in Bosnia Chechnya Somalia Rwanda. That doesn't mean we have to be dumb. It doesn't mean we even have to use our own troops it doesn't mean we

necessarily even have to use our own positions but we have to think far enough ahead and be disciplined and sophisticated enough that we get done what we want to get done. And I don't give you two examples about what happened this week because frankly I get very unnerved sometimes. But the way that liberals are grateful for good events they had almost nothing to do with. We had this week an extraordinarily sophisticated example of human courage and the leading power on the planet when a plane that should not have been unprotected was shot down by a radar that shouldn't have been there and a missile that shouldn't have been there and the pilot was heroic. That pilot had backed. First of all that pilot was trained he will say to me why do we spend so much on defense. Partly because we take every one of our pilots and we teach them how to avoid being captured. And it's very expensive. It's not cheap. And then we try to give them the best equipment the world. So they don't get shot down the first place. And then we give them back up. And then we put

aircraft overhead with radios so they can find some way to get out. And then we back up that red that aircraft with an AWACS which can cover the whole theater and then we call in Marine helicopters off an aircraft carrier that happens to conveniently be sitting there and then we back them up with two Harrier jump jets. And then we back them up with F-16s and then we back all them up with an Army special operations unit that was coming in in case the firefight got too hot. The difference between the massacre at Mogadishu which was a typical liberal understaffed undertrained under-prepared situation. No back up forces you know heavy artillery and heavy artillery can be in the air. It's not just it's not just one firefight. And what happened in Bosnia was simple. The Reagan Bush military was still strong enough to survive despite the Clinton administration's cuts in defense. But you keep cutting the size you keep cutting

the procurement you keep cutting the training. And one morning somewhere in this plan one of our children and this is what makes us different. Other countries send professional militaries. We send our children. Somewhere. On this planet. We're going to send an old piece of equipment with an under-trained pilot. Without adequate backup. And we're going to have what we got in the first two months of the Korean War. Which was a disaster. You can't cut defense and then applaud the people who are still professional. Despite everything that's been done to shrink reduce obsolescence and weaken the system. If people truly care about what happened with Scott O'Grady then we ought to make sure. And we ought to say flatly. Our young men and women are always going to have the best equipment the best training and there's always going to be enough of them that when you get to the test we win we win decisively and we win with minimum American casualties under any circumstance we

accept. And that's how you lead the plan. I wouldn't have kept you so long and talked about nine strategies if I could have figured out five or three or seven. I honestly believe you can't get down with less than nine. But I think nine gets it done. And I think you've got to do the first stage so you can do number nine because you can't leave the planet without a strong culture. Without an economic power without modern technology without a welfare state that has been replaced by an opportunity society without all the changes I describe. But I want to close with this thought. I think we're in a remarkable position and I don't know how many of you feel this way about that. You know I love coming up here in part because frankly of your state slogan. When I talk about the welfare state attitude and the way liberals think about America. I often say you know the New Hampshire slogan is Live

Free or Die. It's not live free or whine. But I came here tonight and we'll be here all weekend. To try to send a very simple message. I think we are one of those unusual moments which is sort of the hinge of history. I think down one road a great country filled with good people revitalize itself catches the flavor of the kind of 21st century we could have creates a wonderful moment of dialogue and launches a partnership for a generation. And in six to 10 years it's a remarkably different country and poor children all of the country start learning and we change the rules of the game when it makes sense to go to work and people start thinking this is exciting and we decide which one can be with the Germans the Japanese the Chinese and we'll win because we're Americans. Down the other road. We just can't quite get the nerve to do it. We can't tell ourselves

the truth we can't face the tough problems. We can't have a dialogue as we're too busy fighting each other and down that road. I think frankly we keep decaying and then our children Harrod a country no longer capable of leading and they are in fact going to live them in a dark and bloody one. Now I believe. Overwhelmingly in my heart. That in fact we're going to succeed. This is a romantic myth. Catherine Drinker Bowen when she wrote her a great book on the Constitutional Convention was attacked by all the elite academics. They said she was a romantic. That she idealized the founding fathers. That she wrote about mythology. And she wrote a wonderful poignant letter to Bernard DeVoto who is one of the great historians of that generation and she said you know. The problem I have is that when I study Washington and Franklin and Jefferson and Adams. They are romantic.

And when I write about the constitutional convention it is a magic moment and I can't be honest about what happened and explain it any other way. Well think about what happened with Scott O'Grady this week and how quintessentially American it was. Just a kid doing his duty. Who managed to survive who managed to be rescued. Because honor duty country still matter to some people and they live it out at any cost. And so I came tonight to say to you that whether you're black or yellow or brown or red whether you come from Thailand or you come from Tokyo where you come from. Manila or you come from Athens Greece or Norway or Ireland or England. Or Mexico or Nigeria. There is one place on the planet that can take a Colin Powell and a John Shalikashvili and make them in charge of the most powerful military in history and never worry about it. Because they're just Americans. And with the 1996 campaign ought to be about real simple.

Three out of four of our children are not learning how to read. This civilization is in crisis. A memento of our appreciation I'd like to invite Dennis laju from Fleet Bank to join us in the presentation of a cheque for twenty five hundred dollars in your name to one of your favorite charities. Big Brothers Big Sisters. Check. Check check check check. Check. Check. Check check. Check. Check check. Check. Check. Check check. Check. Time.

Well I just wanted to talk. With you for. OK that's fine. How do you think. The speaker's. Presence in the States. Is going add. To the public discussion is. As we enter the presidential race. Well clearly the speaker. Defined why he was here. He said that he is here. To. Make sure that. His message. Is. Taken in consideration during the presidential primaries the presidential general election. He has said that he has talked to the president today and the president has asked him to. Entertain. The mutual discussion in a town meeting here in New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a great audience for people to hear what the issues are in this country and he articulated. His nine issues that he feels are very important. We are that we. Talk about. And he also said. That he and the president. Are together on many issues. And that. We need to discuss those issues to work together on and advance those

issues that were not a apart not together on that we should discuss them in depth in the New Hampshire is a great place to have a discussion. Somebody. Is a non candidate. From a debate the state can be like he says he wants to do. You really want to influence what the what the real candidates are talking about. Well I think I can. I don't know that he can do that. But I can tell you that. This weekend for the last two weeks. We have had more media inquiries as Republican Party chairman than I have had in the last two years. And number one I don't know. If. He's carrying with him 220 members of the national media with him. Today the president of states is in town is carrying 70 members of the media. I mean obviously the media is interested in what both people are saying and. They are watching to see. And it's a bellwether of what is going to be happening in the presidential election soon to come. OK. Last question and. As far as the different visions. Are articulated by the speaker or in by the president on the way the. House. Is going to play among. The New Hampshire

electorate I think. You know. You know how people think you're you know. Familiar with how. Voters. Two different election is going to play. Well I think you give me far too much credit. I don't know if I did. My goodness. I wouldn't be a builder today but. I would tell you that. His vision. You know is a clearly defined vision. And he has said these these are my points these are my nine points. He's not disguising them. He's saying these are minor. Points. Whether you agree with him or disagree with them. Is saying these are the points that we need to discuss. Whether it's drugs whether it's education whether it's welfare reform whether it's health care reform. He's taking these nine issues and said we need to discuss them for better or worse and come to a room. What we can afford. Because if we don't. Deal with them we are 20 years from now it's going to be a bankrupt nation. In contrast to what the president is doing you're not articulating it.

I think perhaps the president's message is being muddled. Whether it be by Congress but it's not the message is not clear. He's off message more often than he's on message. And that's an important issue. Thanks. Thank you. Hello. You. Guys. Second. Time. Relaxing. You heard tonight. I'm sorry. I'm. Sorry. I. Thought. It. Was time to get some reaction. To. What you heard tonight. Is that. Correct. Well. You want to take it. I actually thought. Some of his points were really. Good. The thing. That bothers me about this talks that I heard tonight was the.

The. Fact that at one point he did talk about. Everyone working together and. Exchanging dialogue but then on the other hand a few months later he was he was pretty. Separatist with a liberal. Conservative. Thing. And that I thought that that was kind of a contradiction but I thought that a lot of the points that he made were legitimate. When. He didn't like. What he said. I think that we do have a lot of problems that need to be solved. And that we need to come up with new solutions because. The situation that we're in now. We don't really. We're not really solving any of the problem. So. I think that he's right. In that. In that sense. But I think that there was

partisanship. Aspect. Of his talk bothered me. I think that we all should work together. And on one on one hand he was saying that we should work together. But then he was contradicting himself. Tried. To. Yeah by criticizing the liberals. You know there was a lot of liberal bashing which I think is. Counterproductive. I think it's I think we all have to change and I'm leaving as nine points. I think that. I think the budget has to be balanced and I think the big government has to be. That. Stage to take a larger role as we could manage. Why should the government locally. I think that it's time for major change in our country. And I think he's on the right track. And I support him. Some of the things I think are a little bit. Far fetched and that we can't do everything all at once.

I don't want to see all the people hurt. I really still have a question relative to Medicare all. The. Time with programs. I really want to see how they're going to handle it. And I think that. Most people in the United States feel the same way. And we need to we need to do a little more explicit and explain how we're going to do that. And finally I believe that it's a real tribute to the United States you know we've. Done. So well and I think we have to maintain a strong United States. I think we have to have a strong military. I think we have to find it. However by reducing the. Programs for the war or for a lot from the old and a medical program I think we have to take it from the. Programs. Many of the. Representatives and senators have to have their own agendas and they continue to protect. Them. When they're. Cleaning house. I think he did a good job. I think he's

very articulate and I think. It was a good day. You guys are both very very clear and very thought. Things. Would you consider voting. No. I think he has a major job to do. In the House of Representatives. The Speaker. Is. On the right. Foot. I think he needs a little more time to. Get done what he said he's going to do. And what I see that then I'll. Get more presidential. Well. That's wonderful. You guys actually reflect the. Polls. That are out lately and not what people think about. Really. Yes. My name is Christine trough and I live in Harris. Well. Christine what's your last name day. Trump. Trump. OK. My name is Noel Greiner and I live in I was in New Hampshire. No. No. Reiner. I. Thought it. Was. The heart. Of. Him.

Yes. Nice to meet you. Thank you very much. Very thoughtful comments really. So. Thank. You. You. Fine. I'm from New Hampshire Public Radio. I just.

Yes. You got a lead up. Yeah. And. I just wanted to get you guys reaction to. Mr. new. Good bad or indifferent. It's. Great. Having. You elaborate. Why. I think he's saying he's giving a message to the country that the country really needs to hear. We've got to return to traditional values we've got to hold people. There is part of being a citizen that is called responsibility. And for too long we have let that slide and we have said all the responsibility lies with the government. And I think that time is gone. And and I think people want to take responsibility they don't want to be. Babied or are handled like children. We are we are you know human beings who have a brain and we can do it ourselves. To. Feel. Like this is anyone else. Is.

People. Are. To. Live. In. The night. I think you've heard some of the I'm pretty much fall in or really go over the same lines as what Newt is talking about there now that the Contract with America is not it's really I think the contract to the family the American family. That's the important stuff. I think that you see him go through all of that. It's the parents that grew small it's going to kill the children. And you know as you put it in their hands and take it out. The government says the country works. And. You know. What I what I think is the unique message that I think Newt brings is that he has a clear vision that he can articulate well that he's not afraid to say a lot of other people who run for president have a lot of responsibilities on the shoulders and sometimes they're afraid to say things that might alienate one particular group. Newt Gingrich is unafraid to say what really he thinks needs to be said and he has an overall vision to put it into

context. And I think as a consequence that makes him a very very attractive leader. However I also believe unequivocally that he is not going to run for president. And I think what he is going to set the agenda and and the other Republicans like Senator Dole and Senator Graham are going to take his sleeve and they are going to become even more forceful become more leaders. And I think Republicans in general is going to have an extraordinary great field of candidates to choose from. I feel that way and not only that I feel that's why there was such a big gathering here tonight that's why so many people were attracted to this because he is neutral ground for the Republican Party. He is shaping the Republican Party and that's why everyone is so attracted to this particular person and this these particular events because of the shaping of the Republican Party and how it's taking shape. I think it is so exciting just to be a part of this. And I'm just so glad to be here and when I heard Newt Gingrich

speak I was just so excited. Every single thing he said was right on right on target. And I just gave him I support him whatever endeavor he decides. But I also agree with Representative Frank core that. Phil Gramm is definitely the candidate out of all the candidates I've heard so far that really goes along the line that Speaker Gingrich is saying and I really feel that. Very. Much. Can I. Get your name. My name is B and I'm from Hudson New Hampshire. Let me be frank Gore. Oh. Yeah there you go. That was Tracy Hadjis running for mayor. And Bill had your husband ran for Congress. And he's done several of the. Very fascinating things which made it hard. Yeah. Thank you very much. Now. Listen you know I did. Thank you very much for your comments.

I wonder are you. Can. Get. Through