tv 2008 Vice Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN October 2, 2016 3:36am-5:12am EDT
what i talk about in high schools, when i talk about at job-training centers, and it is the advice that my maternal grandmother who is 97-years-old we are a modern day four-generation family. the advice she gave me when i was growing up is advice that i have given my children and i have given to a number of people. it is very simple. very common sense. she says, you can do anything you want to if you just set your mind to it and go to work. the dukakis supporters sneer at that because it is common sense. [cheers and applause]
sen. quayle: they sneer at common sense advice. midwestern advice. midwestern advice from a grandmother to a grandson. important advice. something that we ought to talk about. because if you want to, you can make a difference. you, america, can make a difference. you are going to that choice in this election. everyone can make a difference if they want to. >> sen. bentsen? sen. bentsen: i think to have spent art of my life seeing some of the struggles in one of the lowest per capita incomes in the united states and that is one of the
reasons i worked so hard to assist on education. when i found the bankers in that area could not handle loans because some of the details and expense, cannot make a profit, i went down there and helped with a nonprofit organization to buy up those lines from them in and manage them and do it in a way in which they continue to make those loans. they have. they have educated more than 20,000 of those students learned out more than 100 dollars and it has not cost the taxpayers of this country one cent. that is why worked to bring better health care to people because what i have seen in the way of poverty in that area and the lack of medical attention and trying to see that is turned around. that is why i worked so hard on the welfare reform now. to break the cycle of poverty. for the chance to step up in life.
>> we have now come to the end of the questions. i would like to thank all of you for joining us. sen. quayle, yours is the first closing statement. sen. quayle: thank you. tonight has been a very important evening. you have been able to see dan quayle is a really am and how george bush and i want to lead this country into the future. thank you america for listening. thank you for your fairness. now you will have a choice to make on election day. you will have a choice of whether america is going to choose a road with michael dukakis or the road with george bush as we march toward the 21st century.
the road of michael dukakis comes down to this -- bigger government. higher taxes. they have always believed in higher taxes. i always have and they always will. cuts in national defense. back to the old economics of high interest rates, high inflation, and the old politics of high unemployment. now the road of george bush is the road to the future will stop it comes down to this -- and america's second to none with visions of greatness. economic expansion. tough laws. tough judges. strong values. respect for the flag and our institutions. george bush will lead us to the 21st century. a century that will be of hope
and peace. ronald reagan and george bush saved america from decline. we changed america, michael dukakis fought us every step of the way. it is simply that they will take america backwards. george bush has experience. with me, the future. a future committed to family. a future committed to freedom. thank you, good night, and god bless you. [applause] >> mr. bentsen? sen. bentsen, your closing statement. sen. bentsen: in just 34 days america will elect new leadership for our country.
it is a most important decision. because there is no more important job than governing this great country of our hands leading us into the future. michael dukakis and lloyd bentsen offer you experience, capable leadership to meet those challenges of the future. the opposition says lower your sites. mike dukakis in lloyd bentsen think america can do better. that america can't it just coast into the future clinging to the past. this race is too close. the competition is too tough. the stakes are too high. michael did caucus lloyd bentsen think america must move into that future united in a commitment to make this country of ours the most powerful, the most prosperous nation in the
world. as americans we honor our past and we should. but our children are going to live in the future and mike dukakis does the best of america is yet to come. but that will not happen taking care of our economy putting in on automatic pilot. it will not happen by accident. it will take leadership and courage and the commitment and contribution by all of us to do that to work for the betterment of our country both in war and peace. i worked as a bomber pilot, have been a businessman and a united states senator working to make this nation the fairest and the strongest and the most powerful in the world. help us bring america to a new era of greatness. the debate has been ours, but the decision is yours. god bless you. [applause]
a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> go to c-span.org tuesday evening for the vice presidential debate on your desktop, phone or tablet. watch live streams of the debate and video-on-demand of every question to the candidates and their answers. use our video clipping tool to create video clips of your favorite debate moments to share on social media. not able to watch? watch live on the app. live coverage of the vice presidential debate tuesday evening on c-span.org and the c-span radio app. >> the 2008 vice presidential debate between joe biden and sarah palin was the most watched in u.s. history. they faced each other at washington university in st. louis. this is one hour and a half.
ms. ifill: good evening from washington university in st. louis, missour vice presidential debate between the republican nominee, governor sarah palin of alaska, and the democratic nominee, joe biden of delaware. the commission on presidential debates is the sponsor of thisevent and the two remaining presidential debates. tonight's discussion will cover a wide range of topics including domestic and foreign policy matters. it will be divided roughly into five-minute segments. each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond to a direct question and then an addition two minutes for rebuttal and follow-up. the order has been determined by a coin toss. the specific subjects and questions were chosen by me, and have not been shared or cleared with anyone on the campaigns or
on the commission. the audience herein the hall has promised to remain very polite: no cheers, applause, no untoward outbursts -- except right at this minute, now, as we welcome governor palin and senator biden. [cheers, applause.] gov. palin: [to sen. biden.] nice to meet you. sen. biden: [to gov. palin.] take care tonight. gov. palin: [to sen. biden.] hey, can i call you joe? sen. biden: [to gov. palin.] you can call me joe. gov. palin: [to sen. biden.] ok. thanks. sen. biden: [to gov. palin.] thank you. gov. palin: [to sen. biden.] thank you. [to ms. ifill.] thank you, gwen. thank you. thank you. thank you. [cheers, applause.] ms. ifill: welcome to you both. as we had determined by a coin toss, the first question will go to senator biden, with a 90-second follow up from governor palin.
the house of representatives this week passed a bill, a big bailout bill -- or didn't pass it, i should say -- sen. biden: [laughs.] ms. ifill: -- the senate decided to pass it and the house is wrestling it -- with it still tonight. as america watches these things happen on capitol hill, senator biden, was this the worst of washington or the best of washington that we saw play out? sen. biden: let me begin by thank you, gwen, for hosting this. and governor, it's a pleasure to meet you, and it's a pleasure be with you. i think it's neither the best nor worst of washington, but its evidence of the fact that the economic policies of the last eight years have been the worst economic policies we've ever had. as consequence, you've seen what's happened on wall street. if you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been --this excess of deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting wall street run wild -- i don't think you needed any more evidence than what you see
now. so the congress has been put in --democrats and republicans, have been put in a very difficult spot. but barack obama laid out four basic criteria for any kind of rescue plan here. he first of all said there has to be oversight. we're not going to write any checks to anybody unless there's oversight for the -- of the secretary of treasury. he secondly said you have to focus on homeowners and folks on main street. thirdly, he said that if -- you have to treat the taxpayers like investors in this case. and
lastly, what you have to do is make sure the ceos don't benefit in this, because this could end up in the long run people making money off of this rescue plan. and so a consequence of that, it brings us back to maybe the fundamental disagreement between governor palin and me and senator mccain and barack obama. and that is that the -- we're going to fundamentally change the focus of the economic policy. we're going to focus on the middle class, because it's -- when the middle class is growing, the economy grows and everybody does well, not just focus on the wealthy and corporate america. ms. ifill: thank you, senator. governor palin? gov. palin: thank you, gwen. and i thank the commission also. i appreciate this privilege of being able to be here and speak withamericans. you know, i think a good barometer here, as we try to figure outgas this been a good time or a bad time in america's economy is go to a kids' soccer game on saturday and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, "how are you feeling about the economy? "and i'll bet you you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market -- did we just take a major hit with those investments? - fear about how are we going to afford to send our kids to college; a fear, as small business owners, perhaps, how we're going to borrow any money
to increase inventory or hire more people. the barometer there, i think, is going to be resounding that our economy is hurting and the federal government has not provided the sound oversight that we need and that we deserve. and we need reform to that end. now john mccain, thankfully, has been one representing reform. two years ago, remember, it was john mccain who pushed so hard with the fannie mae and freddie mac reform measures. he sounded that warning bell. people in the senate with him and his colleagues didn't want to listen to him and wouldn't go towards that reform that was needed then. i think that that alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight again thanks to john mccain's bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first. ms. ifill: you both would like to be vice president. senator biden, how, as vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight? sen. biden: well, that's what i've done my whole career, gwen, on very, very controversial issues, from dealing with violence against women to putting 100,000 police officers in the street to trying togged something done about the genocide in -- that was going on in bosnia. and i -- i have been able to reach across the aisle. i think it's fair to say that i have as -- almost as many friends on the republican side of the aisle as i do the democratic side of the aisle.
but i -- am i able to respond to -- are we able to stay on the -- on the topic? ms. ifill: you may if you like. sen. biden: yeah. well, you know, until two weeks ago, it was two mondays ago john mccain said at 9:00 in the morning that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. two weeks before that, he said george -- we've made great economic progress under george bush's policies. nine o'clock, the economy was strong; 11:00 that same day, two mondays ago, john mccain said that we have an economic crisis. that doesn't make john mccain a bad guy, but it does point out he's out of touch. those folks on the sidelines knew those two months ago. ms. ifill: governor palin, you may respond. gov. palin: john mccain, in referring to the fundamental of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the american workforce. and the american workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce. that's a positive, that's encouragement, and that's what
john mccain meant. now, what i've done as a governor and as a mayor is truly had that track record of reform, and i've joined this team that is a team of mavericks, with john mccain also with his track record of reform, where we're known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done. now, barack obama, of course he's pretty much only voted along his party lines -- in fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line -- not having that proof for the american people to know that his commitment, too, is you know, put the partisanship put the special interests aside and get down to getting business done for the people of america. missing end we're tired of the old politics as usual. and that's why, with all due respect, i do respect your years in the u.s. senate, but i think americans are craving something new and different, and that new energy and that new commitment that's going to come with reform. i think that's why we need to send the maverick from the senate and put him in the white house, and i'm happy to join him there. ms. ifill: governor, senator neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice
president. [laughter] i'm going to come back to that throughout the evening tottery to see if we can look forward, as well. now, let's talk about -- the next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown. who do you think was at fault? i start with you, governor palin. was it the greedy lenders? was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? and what should you be doing about it? gov. palin: darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried total americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. there was deception there. and there was greed, and there is corruption on wall street. and wended to stop that. again, john mccain and i, that commitment that weave made, and we're going to follow through on that, getting rid of that corruption. one thing that americans do at this time also, though, is let's commit ourselves -- just everyday american people -- joe six-pack, hockey moms across the nation -- i think we need to band together and say, never
say, never again. never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who're managing our money and loaning us these dollars. we need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings. and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. don't live outside of our means. we need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all this. it's not the american people's fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of. ms. ifill: senator. sen. biden: well, gwen, two years ago, barack obama warned about the subprime mortgage crisis. john mccain said shortly after that in december he was surprised there was subprime mortgage problem. john mccain, while barack obama was warning about what we had to do, was literally giving an
interview to the wall street journal saying that "i'm always for cutting regulations." we let wall street run wild. john mccain -- and he's a good man-- but john mccain thought that the answer is that tried and true republican response: deregulate, deregulate. so what you had is you had overwhelming, "deregulation." you had actually the belief that wall street could self-regulate
itself. and while barack obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, john, on 20 different occasions in the previous year and half, called for more deregulation. matter of fact, john recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do forth health care industry, deregulate it and let the free market move, like he did for the banking industry. so deregulation was the promise, and guesses what? those people who -- and say don't go into debt, they can barely pay to fill up their gas tank. i was recently at a -- my local gas station, asked a guy named joey danka -- i said joey, i -- how much it cost to fill your tank? do you know what his answer was? he said, "i don't know, joe; i never have enough money to do it." the middle class needs relief, tax relief. they need it now. they need help now. the focus will change with barack obama. ms. ifill: governor, please, if you want to respond to what he said about senator mccain's comments about health care? gov. palin: i'd -- i'd like to respond about the tax increases.
and you know, we -- we can speak in agreement here that darn right we need tax relief for americans so that jobs can be created here. now, barack obama and senator biden also voted for the largest tax increases in u.s. history. barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction -- 94 times. now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up oureconomy.we do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what weearn and produce. government's going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less, if that's what it takes to rein in the government growth that we've seen today. but we do need tax relief, and barack obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. that's a -- that's a lot of middle-income average american family -- to increase taxes on them -- i think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy. ms. ifill: senator? sen. biden: the charge is absolutely not true. barack obama didn't vote to raise taxes. the vote she's referring to -- john mccain voted the exact someway. it was a budget procedural vote. john mccain voted the someway. it did not raise taxes. number two, using the standard that the governor uses, john mccain voted 477 times to raise taxes.
it's a bogus standard. but if you notice, gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending john mccain about not going along with the deregulation, letting wall street run wild. he did support deregulation, almost across the board. that's why we got in so much trouble. ms. ifill: would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on? gov. palin: oh, i'm still on the tax thing, because i want to correct you on that again. and i want to let you know what i did as mayor and as a governor. and i may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but i'm going to talk straight to the american people
and let 'em know my track record also. as mayor, every year i was in office i did reduce taxes. i eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small-business inventory taxes. and as governor, we suspended our state fuel tax. we did all those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. now, as for john mccain's adherence to rules and regulations, and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he has -- is known for, though. look at the tobacco industry. look at campaign finance reform. ms. ifill: ok, our time is up here. gov. palin: ok. ms. ifill: i'm going to move on to the next question. senator biden, you want to talk about taxes, let's talk about taxes. sen. biden: good. ms. ifill: you have proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. the question for you is, why is that not class warfare? and the same question for you, governor palin, is you have proposed a tax the employer health benefits, which some studies say would actually throw 5 million more people onto the rolls of the uninsured. i want to know why that isn't taking things out on the poor. starting with you, senator biden. sen. biden: well, gwen, where i come from, it's called fairness,just simple fairness. the middle class is struggling.
the middle class, under john mccain's tax proposals, 100 million families --middle-class families -- households, to be precise -- they got not asingle change -- they got not a single break in taxes.no one making less than $250,000 under barack obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised, whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax. and 95 percent of the people in the united states of america making less than $150,000 will get a tax break. now, that seems to me to be simple fairness. the economic engine of america is the middle class. it's the people listening to this broadcast. when you do well, america does well, even the wealthy dowel. this is not punitive. john wants to add 300 million dollars -- billion dollars in new tax cuts per year for corporate america and thievery wealthy while giving virtually nothing to the middle class. weave a different value set. the middle class is the economic engine. it's fair. they deserve the tax breaks, not the super wealthy, who are doing pretty well. they don't need any more tax breaks. and by the way, they'llpay no more than they did under ronald reagan. ms. ifill: governor? gov. palin: i do take issue with some of the principle therewith that redistribution-of-wealth principle that seems to be
espoused by you. but when you talk about barack's plan to -- tax increaseaffecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgettingthe millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. so they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes, thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity. now, you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes -- or paying higher taxes is patriotic. in the middle class ofamerica, which is where todd and i have been, you know, all of ourlives, that's not patriotic. patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always a solution; in fact, too often you're theproblem.so government, lessen the tax burden on the private sector and onour
families, and get out of the way and let the private sector andour families grow and thrive and prosper. and increased tax formula that barack obama is proposing, in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing, is a backwards way oftrying to grow our economy. ms. ifill: all right. governor, are you interested in defending senator mccain's health care plan? gov. palin: i am, because he's got a good health care plan thatis detailed, and i want to give you a couple of details on that. he's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can purchase their own health care coverage. andthat's a smart thing to do. that's budget neutral. that doesn't cost the government anything, as opposed to
barack obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have this universal,government-run program. and unless you're pleased with the way thatthe federal government has been running anything lately, i don't thinkthat it's going to be real pleasing for americans to consider healthcare being taken care by the feds. but a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax that'sbudget neutral, that's going to help. going to help. and he also wants to erase those artificial lines between statesso that, through competition, we can cross state lines. and if there's a better plan offered somewhere else, we'd be
able to purchase that. so affordability and accessibility will be the keysthere, with that $5,000 tax credit also being offered. ms. ifill: thank you governor.senator? sen. biden: gwen, i don't know where to start.we don't call a redistribution in my neighborhood -- scranton,claymont, wilmington, the places i grew up -- to give the fair -- to say that not giving exxon mobil another $4 billion tax cut this year,as john calls for, and giving it to middle-class people to be able topay to get their kids to college -- we don't call that redistribution;we call that fairness, number one.number two, factually, 95 percent of small businesses in america,their owners make less than $250,000 a year. they would not get onesingle solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses. now with regard to the -- to the health care plan, you know it's-- one with one hand you give it; the other, you take it. you knowhow barack obama -- excuse me. you know how john mccain pays for his$5,000 tax credit you're going to get, a family will get?
he taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who hasa health care plan through your employer. that's how he raises $3.6trillion on your -- taxing your health care benefit, to give you$5,000 plan, which, his website points out, will go straight to theinsurance company. and then you're going to have to replace a $12,000-- that's the average cost of the plan you get through your employer;it costs $12,000 -- you're going to have to pay -- replace $12,000plan, because 20 million of you are going to be dropped. twenty million of you will be dropped. so you're going to have to place --replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you've just given to theinsurance company. i call that the ultimate bridge to nowhere. ms. ifill: thank you, senator. now -- [laughter] -- i want toget -- try to get you both to answer a question that neither of your principals quite answered when my colleague jim lehrer asked it lastweek.starting with you senator biden, what promises -- given theevents of the week -- the bailout plan, all of this -- what promises have you and your campaigns made to the american people that you arenot going to be able to keep? sen. biden: well, the one thing
we may have to slow down is acommitment we made to double foreign assistance. we'll probably have to slow that down. we also are going to make sure that we do not go forward with thetax cut proposals of the -- of john mccain -- the existing one forpeople making over [$]250,000, which is $130 billion this year alone.we're not going to support the $300 billion tax cut that they have for corporate america and the very wealthy. we're not going to support another $4 billion tax cut for exxonmobil.and what we're not going to also hold up on, gwen, is we cannotafford to hold up on providing for incentives for new jobs by anenergy policy creating new jobs. we cannot slow up on education togive -- because that's the engine that is going to give us theeconomic growth and competitiveness that we need. and we are notgoing to slow up on the whole idea of providing for affordable healthcare for americans -- none of which, when we get to talk about healthcare, is as my -- as the governor
characterized. the bottom line here is that we are going to, in fact, eliminatethose wasteful spending that exist in the budget right now. a numberof things -- i don't have time because the light is blinking -- that iwon't be able to mention, but one of which is the $100 billion taxdodge that in fact, allows people to take their post office boxoffshore, avoid taxes.i call that unpatriotic. that's what i'mtalking about. ms. ifill: governor? governor? gov. palin: well, the nice thing about running with john mccainis i can assure you he doesn't tell one thing to one group and thenturns around and tells something else to another group, including hisplans that will make this bailout plan, this rescue plan even better. i want to go back to the energy plan, though, because this is --this is an important one that barack obama, he voted for in '05. senator biden, you would remember that in that energy --
energy plan that obama voted for, that's what gave those oil companies those bigtax breaks. your running mate voted for that. you know what i had to do in the state of alaska? i had to takeon those oil companies and tell them, no, you know, any of the greedthere that has been kind of instrumental, i guess, in their mode ofoperation, that wasn't going to happen in my state. and that's whytillerson at exxon and mulva at conocophillips, bless their hearts,they're doing what they need to do as corporate ceos, but they're notmy biggest fans, because what i had to do up there in alaska was tobreak up a monopoly up there and say, you know, the people are goingto come first and we're going to make sure that we have value given tothe people of alaska with those resources. and those huge tax breaks aren't coming to the big multinational corporations anymore, not when it adversely affects the people wholive in a state and, in this case, in a country who should bebenefiting at the same time.so it was
barack obama who voted for that energy plan that gavethose tax breaks to the oil companies that i, then, had to turnaround, as a governor of an energy-producing state and kind of undo inmy own area of expertise, and that's energy. ms. ifill: so, governor, as vice president, there is nothingthat you have promised as a candidate that you would -- that youwouldn't take off the table because of this financial crisis going on? gov. palin: there is not. and how long have i been at this,like five weeks? so there hasn't been a whole lot that i'm promised,except to do what is right for the american people -- put governmentback on the side of the american people, stop the greed and corruptionon wall street. and the rescue plan has got to include that massiveoversight that americans are expecting and deserving. and i don'tbelieve that john mccain has made any promise that he would not beable to keep, either. ms. ifill: senator. sen. biden: [chuckles.] again -- let me -- let me -- let's talkabout the tax breaks. barack obama -- obama voted for an energy billbecause, for the first time, it had real support for alternative energy. when there were separate votes on eliminating the tax breaksfor the oil companies, barack obama voted to eliminate them, john
did not. now, let me just ask a rhetorical question. if john reallywanted to eliminate them, why is he adding to his budget an additional$4 billion in tax cut for exxonmobils of the world that, in fact, havealready made $600 billion since 2001? and look, i agree with the governor. she imposed a windfall profits tax up there in alaska. that's what barack obama and i wantto do. we want to be able to do for all of you americans, give youback a thousand bucks like she's been able to give back money to her folks back there.but john mccain will not support a windfall profits tax. they've made $600 billion since 2001, and john mccain wants to give them --all by itself, separate, no additional bill -- all by itself another$4 billion tax cut. if that is not proof of what i say, i'm not surewhat can be.so i hope the governor is able to convince john mccain to support our windfall profits tax, which she supported in alaska, and i giveher credit for it. ms. ifill: next question governor palin, still on the
economy. last year congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult fordebt-strapped mortgage holders to declare bankruptcy to get out fromunder that debt. this is something that john mccain supported. would you have? gov. palin: yes, i would have. but here again, there have beenso many changes in the conditions of our economy in just even thesepast weeks, that there has been more and more revelation made awarenow to americans about the corruption and the greed on wall street.we need to look back even two years ago and we need to beappreciative of john mccain's call for reform, with fannie mae, withfreddie mac, with the mortgage lenders, too, who were starting toreally kind of rear that head of abuse. and the colleagues in thesenate weren't going to go there with him. so we have johnmccain to thank for at least warning people.and we also have john mccain to thank for bringing, in abipartisan effort, people to the table so that we can start puttingpolitics aside, even putting the campaign aside, and just do what'sright to fix this economic problem that we are in. it is a crisis.it's a toxic mess, really, on main street that's affecting wallstreet.and now we have to be ever vigilant in also making sure thatcredit markets don't seize up. that's where the main streeters likeme -- that's where we would really feel the effects. ms. ifill: senator biden, you voted for this bankruptcy bill.senator obama voted against it.some people have said that mortgageholders really paid the price. sen. biden: well, mortgage holders didn't pay the price.
only10 percent of the people who are -- have been affected by this wholeswitch from chapter 7 to chapter 13. it gets complicated. but the point of this, barack obama saw the glass as half-empty, i saw it as half-full. we disagreed on that. and 85 senators voted one way, and15 voted the other way.but here's the deal. barack obama pointed out two years ago thatthere was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the secretary of treasury. and he said: you better get on the stick here. you better look atit.john mccain said as early as last december quote -- i'm -- i'mparaphrasing -- i'm surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis,number number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, gwen, what we shouldbe doing now -- and barack obama and i support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to readjust not just theinterest rate you are paying on your mortgage to be able to stay inyour home, but in -- be able to adjust the principal that you owe
the principal that that you owe. that would keep people in their homes,actually help banks by keeping them from going under. but john mccain, as i understand it -- i'm not sure of this, but i believe johnmccain and the governor don't support that. there are ways to help people now, and the ways that we areoffering are not being supported by -- by the bush administration nordo i believe by john mccain and governor palin. ms. ifill: governor palin, is that so? gov. palin: that is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, i want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus --your ticket's energy -- ticket also. i think that this is importantto come back to, with that energy policy plan, again, that was voted for in '05.when we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do allthat we can to allow this nation to become energy-independent. it's anonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic
supplies of energy all over this great land, and east coast \great land, and east coast politicians who don'tallow energy-producing states like alaska to produce these, to tap into 'em, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to producefor us -- we're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreigncountries, some who do not like america; they certainly don't have ourbest interests at heart -- instead of those dollars circulating here,creating tens of thousands of jobs and allowing domestic supplies ofenergy to be tapped into and to start flowing into these very, veryhungry markets.energy independence is the key to this nation's future to oureconomic future and to our national security. so when we talk aboutenergy plans, it's not just about who got a tax break and who didn't-- and we're not giving oil company tax breaks -- but it's about aheck of a lot more than that. to america's future. ms. ifill: governor, i'm happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. let's talk about climate change. what is true and what is false about what we have heard, read
discussed, debated about the causes of climate change? gov. palin: yeah, well, as the nation's only arctic state andbeing the governor of that state, alaska feels and sees impacts ofclimate change more so than any other state, and we know that it's real. i'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to thechanges in the climate. there is something to be said, also, for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. but there are real changes going on in our climate, and idon't want to argue about the causes. what i want to argue about is how are we going to get there topositively affect the impacts? we have got to clean up this planet. we have got to encourage other
nations also to come along with us.with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that, asgovernor, i was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. we've got to reduceemissions. john mccain is right there with an all-of-the-aboveapproach to deal with climate change impacts.we've got to become energy independent for that reason also. aswe rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much aboutthe climate as we do we're allowing them to produce and to emit andeven pollute more than america would ever stand for. so even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have anall-of-the-above approach, tapping into alternative sources of energyand conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change. ms. ifill: senator, what is true and what is false about the causes? sen. biden: well, i think it is man-made. i think it's clearly man-made. and look, this probably explains the biggest
fundamental difference between john mccain and barack obama and sarah palin andjoe biden -- governor palin and joe biden. if you don't understandwhat the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with asolution. we know what the cause is. the cause is man-made. that's why the polar ice cap is melting. now, let's look at the facts. we have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. we consume 25 percent of the oils -- of the oil of theworld. john mccain has voted 20 times in the last decade and a halfagainst funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources:wind, solar, biofuels, the way in which we can stop the greenhousegases from emitting.we believe, barack obama believes by investing in clean coal andsafe nuclear we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in theunited states, we can export it. china is building one to three newcoal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. it's polluting not only the atmosphere, but the west coast of the united states. weshould export the technology by investing in clean coal
technology. we should be creating jobs.john mccain has voted 20 times has voted 20 times against funding alternative energysources and thinks, i guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill.drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to comeout of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled. in themeantime, we're all going to be in real trouble. ms. ifill: let me clear something up. senator mccain has saidthat he supports caps on carbon emissions. senator obama has said hesupports clean coal technology, which i don't believe you've alwayssupported. sen. biden: i have always supported it. that's a fact. ms. ifill: well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start withgovernor palin. gov. palin: yes, senator mccain does support this.the chant is "drill, baby drill," and that's what we hear allacross this country and our rallies, because people are so hungry forthose domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. they know thateven in my own energy-producing state, we have billions of barrels ofoil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green naturalgas. and we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline,which is north america's largest and most expensive infrastructureproject ever, to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets. barack obama and senator biden you've said no to everything intrying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in.you even called drilling -- safe
environmentally friendly drilling offshore -- as raping the outer continental shelf. there -- with newtechnology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill,and we need to do more of that. but also in that all-of-the-aboveapproach that senator mccain supports, the alternative fuels will betapped into -- the nuclear, the clean coal. i was surprised to hearyou mention that because you had said that there isn't anything --such a thing as clean coal and i think you said it in a rope line,too, at one of the rallies. ms. ifill: we do need -- we do need to keep within our two minutes. sen. biden: [laughs.] ms. ifill: but i just want to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions? gov. palin: i do, i do. ms. ifill: ok. and on the clean coal issue. sen. biden: absolutely absolutely we do. we call for setting hard targets, number one -- oh, i'm sorry. ms. ifill: clean coal. on clean coal. sen. biden: oh, on clean coal.my
record -- just take a look at the record. my record, for 25years, has supported clean-coal technology. a comment made at a ropeline was taken out of context. i was talking about exporting they burn their dirty coal it won't be asdirty, it will be clean.but here's the bottom line, gwen: how do we deal with globalwarming with continued addition to carbon emissions? and if the onlyanswer you have is oil -- and john -- and -- and the governor saysjohn's for everything. well, why did john vote 20 times -- maybe he'sfor everything as long as it is not helped forward by the government.maybe he's for everything if the free market takes care of it. ms. ifill: the next -- sen. biden: i don't know. but he voted 20 times against funding alternative energy systems. ms. ifill: the next round of -- pardon me -- the next round ofquestions starts with you, senator biden. sen. biden: sure. ms. ifill: do you support, as they do in alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? sen. biden: absolutely. do i support granting same-sex benefits?
absolutely, positively. there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. the fact of the matter is that under the constitution, we should be granted --same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in thehospital, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, etcetera. that's only fair. it's what the constitution calls for. and so we do support, we do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property
rights, their rights of visitation, their rights of insurance, the rights of ownership, asheterosexual couples do. ms. ifill: governor, would you support expanding that beyond alaska to the rest of the nation? gov. palin: well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man andone woman; and unfortunately, that's sometimes where those steps lead. but i also want to clarify. if there's any kind of suggestion atall from my answer that i would be anything but tolerant of adults in america choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deembest for themselves, you know, i am tolerant. and i have a very diverse family and group of friends, and even
within that group youwould see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dearfriends who don't agree with me on this issue.but in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a mccain-palin administration, to do anything to prohibit say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties. but i will tell americans \bu i will tell americans straight-up that i don't supportdefining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman. andi think through nuances, we could go round and round about what that actually means, but i'm being as straight-up with americans as i can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition
of marriage. ms. ifill: let's try to avoid nuance, senator. sen. biden: let me be straight for -- ms. ifill: do you support gay marriage? sen. biden: no, barack obama nor i support redefining from acivil side what constitutes marriage. we do not support that. thatis basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and peoplewho practice their faiths, the determination what you call it.the bottom line, though, is -- and i'm glad to hear the governor-- i take her at her word, obviously -- that she thinks there shouldbe no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committedgay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. if that's the case,we really don't have a difference. ms. ifill: is that what you said? gov. palin: your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that i do not. ms. ifill: wonderful, you agree. on that note, let's move toforeign policy. [laughter.] gov. palin: ok. ms. ifill: you both have sons who are in iraq or on their way toiraq. you, governor palin, have said that you would like to see areal clear plan for an exit strategy. what should that be, governor? gov. palin: i am very thankful that we do have a good plan. and the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy in iraq that has provento work, i am thankful that that is part of the plan implemented undera great american hero, general petraeus, and pushed hard by anothergreat american, senator
john mccain. i know that the other ticket opposed this surge, in fact, evenopposed funding for our troops in iraq and afghanistan. barack obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would notdo so. and senator biden, i respected you when you called him out on that. you said that his vote was political and you said it would costlives. and barack obama at first said he would not do that. heturned around under political pressure and he voted against fundingthe troops.we do have a plan for withdrawal. we don't need early -- withdrawal out of iraq. we cannot afford to lose there or we're goingto be no better off in the war in afghanistan, either. we have got to win in iraq. and with the surge that has worked, we're now down topre-surge numbers in iraq. that's where we can be. we can start putting more troops in afghanistan as we also work with our nato allies who are
the restrengthening us. and we need to grow our military. we cannot afford to lose against al qaeda and the shi'a extremists who are still there,still fighting us. but we're getting closer and closer to victory,and it would be a travesty if we quit now in iraq. ms. ifill: senator? sen. biden: gwen, with all due respect, i didn't hear a barack obama's offered a clear plan: shift responsibility to the iraqis, over the next 16 months draw down our combat troops --ironically, the same plan that maliki, the -- the prime minister ofiraq, and george bush are now negotiating. the only odd man out here,only one left out, is john mccain number one.number two, with regard to barack obama not quote, "funding thetroops," john mccain voted the exact same way. john mccain votedagainst funding the troops because the amendment he voted for -- votedagainst had a timeline in it to draw down american troops, and johnsaid "i'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there was atimeline."barack obama and i agree fully and completely on one thing: you've got to have a timeline to draw down the troops and shiftresponsibility to the iraqis. we're spending $10 billion a monthwhile the iraqis have an $80 billion surplus.
barack says it's timefor them to spend their own money, have the 400,000 military we'vetrained for them begin to take their own responsibility, andgradually over six months -- 16 months withdraw. john mccain -- this is a fundamental difference between us -- we will end this war. for john mccain, there is no end in sight to end this war. fundamental difference: we will end this war. ms. ifill: governor? gov. palin: your plan is a white flag of surrender in iraq, andthat is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure, andit's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. you guysopposed the surge, the surge worked. our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditionshave been met. and maliki and talabani also, in working with us, areknowing, again, that we're getting closer and closer to that point,that victory that's within sight.now you said regarding senator mccain's military policies there,senator biden, that you supported a lot of these things.
in fact you said that you wanted to run -- you'd be honored to run with him on theticket, and that's an indication, i think of some of the support thatyou had, at least until you became the vp pick here. sen. biden: [chuckles.] gov. palin: you also said that barack obama was not ready to becommander in chief. and i know, again, that you opposed the move thathe made to try to cut off funding for the troops, and i respect youfor that. i -- i don't know how you can defend that position now, buti -- i know that you know, especially with your son in the nationalguard -- and i have great respect for your family also and the honorthat you show our military -- barack obama though -- another storythere. anyone i think who can cut off funding for the troops after promising not to -- that's another story. ms. ifill: senator biden? sen. biden: john mccain voted to cut off funding for the troops. let me say that again. john mccain voted against an amendmentcontaining $1,600,000,000 that i had gotten to get mraps, those thingsthat are protecting this -- the governor's son and, pray god, my son,and a lot of other sons and daughters. he voted against it. \the funding, because, he said, the amendment had atimeline in it to end this war, and he didn't like that.but let's get straight who has been right and wrong. john mccainand dick cheney said, when i was saying we would not
as liberators; we would not -- this war would take a decade not the --not a day, not a week, not six months; we would not be out of there quickly -- john mccain was saying the sunnis and shi'as got along witheach other, without reading the history of the last 700 years. john mccain said there would be enough oil to pay for this. john mccain has been dead wrong. i love him. as my mother would say, god love him. but he's been dead wrong on the \bu he's been dead wrong on the fundamental issues relating tothe conduct of the war. barack obama has been right. they're thefacts. ms. ifill: let's move on to iran and pakistan. senator biden, which is the greatest threat, anuclear iran or an unstable pakistan? explain why. sen. biden: well, they're both extremely, extremely dangerous.i always have focused -- as you know -- [chuckles] -- gwen, i've beenfocusing on for a long time, along with barack, on pakistan. pakistan already has nuclear weapons.
pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. pakistan's weapons can already hit israel and the mediterranean. iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. they are more than -- they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. they're both very dangerous. they'd both be game-changers.but look, here's what the fundamental problem i have with john's policy about terror and stability. john continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in iraq. i promise you, if anattack comes in the homeland, it's going to come -- as our -- oursecurity services have said -- it's going to come from al qaedaplanning in the hills of afghanistan and pakistan.
a stable governmentneeds to be established. we need to support that democracy by helpingthem not only with their military, but with their governance as wellas their economic well-being. there have been 7,000 madrassas built along that border. we should be helping them build schools to competefor those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that weactually are able to take on terrorism.and by the way, that's where bin laden lives, and we athim if we have actionable intelligence. ms. ifill: governor, nuclear pakistan -- unstable pakistan,nuclear iran -- which is the greater threat? gov. palin: both are extremely dangerous, of course.and as for who termed that central war on terror being in iraq,it was general petraeus and al qaeda, both leaders there -- and it'sprobably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but thatit was the central war on terror is in iraq. you don't have tobelieve me or john mccain on that; i would believe petraeus and thatleader of al qaeda.an armed -- nuclear-armed especially -- iran is so extremely dangerousto consider, they cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons,period.israel is in jeopardy, of course, when we're dealing withahmadinejad as a leader of iran, iran claiming that israel is -- hetermed it a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off theface of the earth. now, a leader like ahmadinejad who is not sane orstable when he says things like that, is not one whom we can allow toacquire nuclear energy, nuclear
ahmadinejad, kim jong il, the castro brothers, others who aredangerous dictators, are ones that barack obama has said he would bewilling to meet with without preconditions being met first. an issuelike that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment. a statement that he made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like ahmadinejad, who would seekto acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an allylike we have in israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first. ms. ifill: governor and senator, i want you both to respond tothis. secretaries of state baker kissinger, powell -- baker they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. are these former secretaries of state are wrong on that? gov. palin: no. and dr. henry kissinger
especially, and i had agood conversation with him recently and he shared with me also hispassion for diplomacy. and that's what john mccain and i would engagein also.but again, with some of these dictators -- who hate america andhate what we stand for, with our freedoms our democracy, ourtolerance, our respect for women's rights -- those who would try todestroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on apresidential level, as barack obama had said he would be willing to do. that is beyond bad judgment. that is dangerous. no, diplomacy is very important. first and foremost that is whatwe would engage in. but diplomacy is hard work by serious people. it's lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up also, before any kind of presidential summit would take place. ms. ifill: senator? sen. biden: can i -- can i clarify this? that's just simply not true about barack obama. he did not say he'd sit down
with ahmadinejad. the fact of the matter is, it surprises me that senatormccain doesn't realize that ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in iran. the theocracy controls the security apparatus,number one. number two, five secretaries of state did say we should talk with and sit down. now, john and governor palin now say they're all for --they have a "passion," i think the phrase was, a "passion fordiplomacy," and that we have to bring our friends and allies along.our friends and allies have been saying, gwen, sit down, talk talk, talk. our friends and allies have been saying that. five secretaries of state, three of them republicans.and john mccain has said he would go along with an agreement, buthe wouldn't sit down. now, how do you do that when you don't haveyour administration sit down and talk with the adversary? and look what president bush did. after five years, he finallysent
a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-rankingdiplomats in iran in europe to try to work out an arrangement. our allies are on that same page. and if we don't go the extra mile indiplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us? and last point i'll make: john mccain said as recently as acouple weeks ago, he wouldn't even sit down with the government of spain, a nato ally that has troops in afghanistan with us now. ms. ifill: governor, you mentioned israel and your support forisrael. gov. palin: yeah. ms. ifill: what has this administration done right or wrong? this is the great lingering unresolved issue, the israeli-palestinian conflict. what have they done and is a two-state solution thesolution? gov. palin: a two-state solution is the solution. and secretaryrice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other therealso, still in these waning days of the bush administration, trying toforge that peace.and that needs to be done, and that will be top-of-an-agenda item alsounder a mccain-palin administration.israel is our strongest and best ally in the middle east. we have got to assure them that we will never allow a second
holocaust despite, again warnings from iran and any other country that wouldseek to destroy israel that that is what they would like to see. wewill support israel: a two-state solution, building our embassy also in jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able toaccomplish with this peace-seeking nation. \this peace-seeking nation. and they have a trackrecord of being able to forge these peace agreements. they succeeded with jordan. they succeeded with egypt. i'm sure that we're going tosee more success there also.it's got to be a commitment of the united states of america,though. and i can promise you, in a mccain-palin administration, thatcommitment is there to work with our friends in israel. ms. ifill: senator? sen. biden: gwen, no one in the united states senate has been a better friend to israel than joe biden. i would have never, everjoined this ticket were i not absolutely sure barack obama my passion. but you asked a question about whether or not
this administration's policy had made sense, or something to that \made sense, or something to that effect.it has been an abject failure, this administration's policy. infairness to the secretary rice, she's trying to turn it around now inthe seventh or eighth year.here's what the president said when we said no. he insisted onelections on the west bank when i said and others said and barackobama said big mistake, hamas will win, you'll legitimize them. what happened? hamas won. when we kicked -- along with france, we kicked hezbollah out oflebanon, i said and barack said move nato forces in there fill thevacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, hezbollah will control it. now what's happened? hezbollah is a legitimate part ofthe government in the country immediately to the north of this policy with thoughtful real, live diplomacy that understand that you must back israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation and stand with them, not insist on policies like this administration has. ms. ifill: has this administration's policy been an abjectfailure, as the senator says, governor? gov. palin: no, i do not believe
that it has been. but i'm soencouraged to know that we both love israel, and i think that is agood thing to get agree to, senator biden. i respect your position on that. no. in fact, when we talk about the bush administration, there'sa time too when americans are going to say enough is enough with yourticket on constantly looking backwards and pointing fingers and -- and doing the blame game. there have been huge blunders in the war. there have been huge blunders throughout this administration as thereare with every administration. but for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking intothe future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to evermake us believe that's where you're going.positive change is coming, though. reform of government iscoming. we'll learn from the past mistakes in this administration andother administrations. and we're going to forge ahead with puttinggovernment back on the side of the people and making sure that ourcountry comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside. that'swhat john mccain has been known for. in all these years, he has beenthe maverick. he has ruffled feathers. but i know, senator biden,you
have respected him for that, and i respect you for acknowledging that. but change is coming. ms. ifill: just looking backwards, senator? sen. biden: look, past is prologue, gwen. the issue is, how different is john mccain's policy going to be than george bush's? ihaven't heard anything yet. i haven't heard how his policy's going tobe different on iran than george bush's. i haven't heard how hispolicy is going to be different with israel than george bush's. i haven't heard how his policy in afghanistan is going to be differentthan george bush's. i haven't heard how his policy in pakistan isgoing to be different than george bush's. it may be, but so far it is the same as george bush's, and you know where that policy has taken us. we will make significant change so once again we're the most respected nation in the world. that's what we're going to do. ms. ifill: governor, on another issue, interventionism nuclear weapons, what should be the trigger or should there be a trigger whennuclear weapons use
is ever put into play? gov. palin: nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all,end-all of just too many people and too many parts of our planet.so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear nuclear weapons, period. our nuclear weaponry here in the u.s. is used as a deterrent, andthat's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry. but for those countries -- north korea also under kim jong il -- we have got to makesure that we're putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make surethat leaders like kim jong il and ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate or to use those nuclear weapons. it is that important. can we talk about afghanistan real quick also, though? ms. ifill: certainly. gov. palin: ok. i'd like to just really quickly mention theretoo, that when you look back and you say that the
bush administration's policy on afghanistan perhaps would be the same as mccain -- and that's not accurate. the surge principles, not theexact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in iraq need to be implemented in afghanistan also. and that perhaps would be a difference with the bush administration.now, barack obama had said that all we're doing in afghanistan isair raiding villages and killing civilians. and such a reckless,reckless comment, an untrue comment again, hurts our cause. that's not what we're doing there. we're fighting terrorists and we'resecuring democracy, and we're building schools for children there sothat there is opportunity in that country also. there will be a big difference there. and we will win in afghanistan also. ms. ifill: senator, you may talk about nuclear use, if you like, and also about afghanistan. sen. biden: i'll talk about both. with afghanistan, facts matter gwen. the fact is that our commanding general in afghanistansaid today that a surge -- the surge principles used in iraq will not-- let me say this again now. our commanding general in afghanistan said the surge
principle in iraq will not work in afghanistan. not joe biden; our commanding general in afghanistan. he said we need more troops, we need government building, we need to spend more money on the infrastructure in afghanistan. look, we have spent more money -- we spend more money in threeweeks on combat in iraq than we've spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in afghanistan building that country. let me say it again. three weeks in iraq; seven years -- seven years, or six and a half years, in afghanistan. now, that's number one.number two, with regard to arms control and weapons, nuclearweapons require a nuclear arms control regime. john mccain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every republican has supported. john mccain has opposed amending the nuclear test ban treaty with
an amendment to allow for inspections. john mccain has not been -- has not been the kind of supporter for dealing with and -- by the -- let me put it another way. my time's almost up. barack obama, first thing he did when he came to the united states senate, new senator reached across the aisle to my colleague dick lugar, a republican, and said, "we've got to do something aboutkeeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." they puttogether a piece of legislation that, in fact, was serious and real.every major -- i shouldn't say every -- on the two, at least,that i named, i know that john mccain has been opposed to extendingthe arm control regime in the world. ms. ifill: governor? gov. palin: well, first, mcclellan did not say definitively that the surge principles would not work in afghanistan. certainly,accounting for different conditions in that different country -- and conditions are certainly different. we have nato allies helping us, for one, and even the geographic differences are huge.
but thecounterinsurgency principles also could work in afghanistan. mcclellan didn't say anything opposite of that.the counterinsurgency strategy going into afghanistan --clearing, holding, rebuilding the civil society and the infrastructure-- can work in afghanistan. and those leaders who are over there, whohave also been advising george bush on this have not said anythingdifferent but that. ms. ifill: senator? sen. biden: well, our commanding general did say that. the factof the matter is that -- again, i'll just put it in perspective. while barack and i and chuck hagel and dick lugar have been callingfor more money to help in afghanistan, more troops in afghanistan, john mccain was saying two years ago, quote, "the reason we don't readabout afghanistan anymore in the paper, it's succeeded." barack obama was saying we need more troops there. again, we spend in three weeks on combat missions in iraq more than we spent inthe entire time we have been in afghanistan. that'll change in a barack obama
administration. ms. ifill: senator, you have quite a record -- this is the next question here -- of being an interventionist. you have argued forintervention in bosnia and kosovo, initially in iraq, in pakistan, and now in darfur, putting u.s. troops on the ground, boots on the ground. is this something the american public has the stomach for? sen. biden: well, i think the american public has a stomach for success. and my recommendations on bosnia -- i admit i was the firstone to recommend it. they saved tens of thousands of lives. and initially john mccain opposed it, along with a lot of other people. but the end result was it worked. and look what we did in bosnia. we took serbs, croats andbosniaks, being told by everyone -- i was told by everyone that this would mean that -- they've been fighting and killing each other for a thousand years, it could never work. there's a relatively stablegovernment there now, as there is in kosovo. with regard to iraq, i indicated that it would be a mistake to
gointo -- i gave the president the power, i voted for the power, because he said he needed it not to go to war, but to keep the united states-- the u.n. in line, to keep sanctions on iraq and not let them belifted. from the -- i, along with dick lugar, before we went to war, said if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind ofsupport we needed we'd be there for a decade, it would cost us tensof billions of dollars. john mccain said no, it was going to be ok.i don't have a stomach for genocide when it comes to darfur. wecan now impose a no-fly zone. it's within our capacity. we can lead nato, if we're willing to take a hard stand. we can. i've been inthose camps in chad. i've seen the suffering. thousands and tens ofthousands of people have died and are dying. we should rally the world to act, and we should demonstrate it by our own movement toprovide the helicopters to get those 21,000 forces of the african union in there now to
stop this genocide. ms. ifill: thank you senator. governor. gov. palin: oh, man, it's so obvious that i'm a washington outside and someone just not used to the way you guys operate, becausehere you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. you're one whosays, you know, as so many politicians do, i was for it before i was against it or vice versa. americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it tell us why you votedfor it. and it was a war resolution, and you had supported john mccain's military strategies pretty adamantly until -- until this race, and you had opposed very adamantly barack obama's military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops, that attempt, all through the primary. and i watched those debates, and -- and so, you know, i remember what those were all about.but as for darfur, we can agree on that also -- support of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also.america is in a position to
help. what i've done in my position to help, as the governor of a statethat's pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund, call the alaska permanent fund. wheni and others in the legislature found out that we had some millions ofdollars in sudan, we called for divestment through legislation ofthose dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would see --be seen as condoning the activities there in darfur. that legislation hasn't passed yet, but it needs to because all of us as individualsand as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all that wecan to end those atrocities in that region of the world. ms. ifill: is there a line that should be drawn about when wedecide to go in? sen. biden: absolutely, there is a line that should be drawn. ms. ifill: what is it? sen. biden: the line that should be drawn is whether or not we,a, first of all, have the capacity to do anything about it, numberone; number two, there are certain new lines that have to be drawninternationally. when a country engages in genocide, when a countryengages in harboring people who are killing our people -- terrorists-- and they will do
nothing about it, that in fact -- at that point,that country, in my view and in barack's view forfeits their right tosay you have no right to intervene at all. the truth of the matter, though is that -- let's go back to johnmccain's strategy. i never supported john mccain's strategy on thewar. john mccain said exactly what dick cheney said. go back and look at barack obama's statements and mine. go look at joebiden.com-- contemporaneously held hearings in the summer before we went towar, saying if we went to war we would not be greeted as liberators. we would have a fight between the sunnis and shi'as, we would be tieddown for a decade, it would cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.john mccain was saying the exact opposite. john mccain was lockstep with dick cheney at that point about how this was going to be easy. so john mccain's strategy in this war -- not just whether or not to go, the actual conduct of the war -- has been absolutely wrong from the outset. >> governor?
gov. palin: i beg to disagree with you again, here, on whetheryou supported barack obama or john mccain's strategies. here again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are askedto vote on this, but we listened to the debates. i think tomorrowmorning, you know, the pundits are going to start doing the "who saidwhat at what time" and we'll have proof of some of this.but again, john mccain, who knows how to win a war, who's beenthere and he's faced challenges and he knows what evil is and he knowswhat it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military. heknows to learn from the mistakes, from the blunders that we have seenin the war in iraq especially. he will know how to implement thestrategies, working with our commanders, though, and listening to whatthey have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. he'llknow how to win a war. ms. ifill: thank you governor.probably the biggest cliche about the vice presidency is thatit's a "heartbeat away." everybody's waiting to see what would happenif the worst happened. how would -- you disagree on some things from your
principles. you disagree on drilling in alaska, thenational wildlife refuge. you disagree on surveillance law, at leastyou have in the past. how would a biden administration be different from an obama administration, if that were to happen? sen. biden: god forbid that it would ever happen. it would be anational tragedy of historic proportions, if it were to happen. butif it did, i would carry out barack obama's policies: his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure that they get a fair break, making sure that they have access to affordable health insurance;making sure they get serious tax breaks; making sure that we can help their children to get to college; making sure we have an energy policy that leads us in the direction of -- not only toward independence anda cleaner environment, but an energy policy that creates 5 million newjobs; a foreign policy that ends this war in iraq; a foreign policythat goes after the one mission the american public gave the presidentafter 9/11, to get and capture or kill bin laden and to eliminate alqaeda; a policy that
would, in fact, engage our allies in making surethat we knew we were acting on the same page and not dictating, and apolicy that would reject the bush doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation. ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest-ticket item that wehave in this election. this is the most important election you willever, ever have voted in, any of you, since 1932, and where such stark differences -- i would follow through on barack's policies because inessence i agree with every major initiative he is suggesting. ms. ifill: governor. gov. palin: and heaven forbid, yes, that that would ever happen, no matter how this ends up, that that would ever happen with either party. as for disagreeing with john mccain and how our administration would work, what do you expect? a team of mavericks; of course
we're not going to agree a hundred percent one everything. and as wediscuss anwr there, at least we can agree to disagree on that one, andi'm going to keep pushing him on anwr though. i have so appreciatedthat he has never asked me to check my opinions on the door. and hewants deliberative debate and healthy debate so that we can make goodpolicy.what i would do also if that were to ever happen, though, is tocontinue the good work that he is so committed to, and that's puttinggovernment back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed andthe corruption on wall street and in washington. i think we need a little bit of reality from wasilla main streetthere brought to washington, d.c., so that people there can understandhow the average working-class family is viewing bureaucracy in thefederal government and congress, and the inaction of congress. just everyday, working-class americans saying: you know government, justget out of my way if you're going to do any harm and mandate more things on me and take more of my money and income tax and businesstaxes.we are going to have a choice in just a few weeks here on
either supporting the ticket that wants to create jobs and bolster oureconomy and win the war, or you're going to be supporting a ticketthat wants to increase taxes, which ultimately kills jobs and is goingto hurt our economy. sen. biden: can i respond? look. ms. ifil >> can i respond? look, all you've got to do is go down union street with me in wilmington or go to katie's restaurant or walk into home depot with me where i spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years. and then ask them whether there's a single major initiative that john mccain differs with the president on. on taxes, on iraq, on afghanistan, on the whole question of how to help education, on the dealing with health care. look, the people in my neighborhood, they get it. they get it. they know they've been getting the short end of the stick. so walk with me in my neighborhood, go back to my old neighborhood in claymont, an old steel town or go up to scranton with me.
these people know the middle class has gotten the short end. the wealthy have done very well. corporate america has been rewarded. it's time we change it. barack obama will change it. >> governor? >> say it ain't so, joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. you prefaced your whole comment with the bush administration. now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. you mentioned education and i'm glad that you did. i know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years and god bless her. her reward is in heaven, right? i say, too, with education america needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. teachers needed to be paid more. i come from a house full of school teachers. my grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. my brother, who i think is the best schoolteacher in the year and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at gladys wood elementary school, you get extra credit for watching this debate.
education in america has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax, and we have got to increase the standards. no child left behind was implemented. it's not doing the job though. we need flexibility in no child left behind. we need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. we need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, i think, absolute top of the line. my kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. i'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena. >> everybody gets extra credit tonight. we're going to move on to the next question. governor, you said in july that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. you, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances. now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. but tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.
>> in my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke too, i guess, because nobody got it. of course we know what a vice president does. >> they didn't get yours or mine? which one didn't they get? >> no, no. of course, we know what a vice president does. and that's not only to preside over the senate and will take that position very seriously also. i'm thankful that the constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. john mccain and i have had good conversations about where i would lead with his agenda, and that is energy independence in america and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. that's near and dear to my heart also. and in those arenas, john mccain has already tapped me and said that's where i want you, i want
you to lead. and i said, i can't wait to get there and go to work with you. >> senator? >> gwen, i hope we'll get back to education because i don't know any government program that john is supporting, not early education, more money for it. the reason no child left behind was left behind was the money was left behind, we didn't fund it. but we can get back to that i assume. with regard to the role of vice president, i had a long talk, as i'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with barack. and let me tell you what barack asked me to do. i have a history of getting things done in the united states senate. john mccain would acknowledge that. my record shows that on controversial issues. i would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the united states congress for our administration. i would also, when asked if i wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. but barack obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. so every major decision he'll be making, i'll be sitting in the
room to give him my best advice. he's president, not me, i'll give my best advice. and one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. that is sort of my reputation, as you know. so i look forward to working with barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs. >> governor, you mentioned a moment ago that the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. do you believe as vice president cheney does, that the executive branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the legislative branch? >> well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. and we will do what is best for the american people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. yeah, so i do agree with him
that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. and it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as v.p. with mccain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. it is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the white house also. >> vice president cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency? >> vice president cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in american history. the idea he doesn't realize that article i of the constitution defines the role of the vice president of the united states that's the executive branch. he works in the executive branch. he should understand that. everyone should understand that. and the primary role of the vice president of the united states of america is to support the president of the united states of america, give that president
his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. the constitution is explicit. the only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. he has no authority relative to the congress. the idea he's part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. it has been very dangerous. >> let's talk conventional wisdom for a moment. the conventional wisdom, governor palin, with you, is that your achilles heel is that you lack experience. your conventional wisdom against you is that your achilles heel is that you lack discipline, senator biden. what is it really for you, governor palin? what is it really for you, senator biden? start with you, governor. >> my experience as an executive will be put to good use as a mayor and business owner and oil and gas regulator and then as governor of a huge state, a huge energy-producing state that is accounting for much progress towards getting our nation
energy independence and that's extremely important. but it wasn't just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of america. being a mom, being one who is very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? about times and todd and our marriage in our past where we didn't have health insurance and we know what other americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out, how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? we've been there also so that connection was important. but even more important is that worldview that i share with john mccain. that worldview that says that america is a nation of exceptionalism. and we are to be that shining city on a hill, as president reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. we are not perfect as a nation.
but together, we represent a perfect ideal, and that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world. john mccain and i share that and you combine all that with being a team with the only track record of making a really, a difference in where we've been and reforming, and that's a good team, it's a good ticket. >> senator? >> you're very kind suggesting my only achilles heel is my lack of discipline. others talk about my excessive passion. i'm not going to change. i have 35 years in public office. people can judge who i am. i haven't changed in that time. and, by the way, a record of change -- i will place my record and barack's record against john mccain's or anyone else in terms of fundamental accomplishments. wrote the crime bill, put 100,000 cops on the street wrote the violence against women act, which john mccain voted against both of them, was the
catalyst to change the circumstance in bosnia, led by president clinton, obviously. look, i understand what it's like to be a single parent. when my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, i understand what it's like as a parent to wonder what it's like if your kid's going to make it. i understand what it's like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says, "i've got to leave, champ, because there's no jobs here. i got to head down to wilmington. and when we get enough money honey, we'll bring you down.” i understand what it's like. i'm much better off than almost all americans now. i get a good salary with the united states senate. i live in a beautiful house that's my total investment that i have. so i -- i am much better off now. but the notion that somehow, because i'm a man, i don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, i don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- i understand. i understand, as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it's like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. and guess what?
they're looking for help. they're looking for help. they're not looking for more of the same. >> governor? >> people aren't looking for more of the same. they are looking for change. and john mccain has been the consummate maverick in the senate over all these years. he's taken shots left and right from the other party and from within his own party, because he's had to take on his own party when the time was right, when he recognized it was time to put partisanship aside and just do what was right for the american people. that's what i've done as governor, also, take on my own party, when i had to, and work with both sides of the aisle, in my cabinet, appointing those who would serve regardless of party, democrats, independents, republicans, whatever it took to get the job done. also, john mccain's maverick position that he's in, that's really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has. look at lieberman, and giuliani, and romney, and lingle, and all