Bush_town_hall_post.txt

I can see why people at your workplace think he changes positions a lot, because he does.
 He said he voted for the $87 billion and—or voted against it right before he voted for it.
 And that sends a confusing signal to people.
 He said he thought Saddam Hussein was a grave threat and now said it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
 No, I can see why people think that he changes position quite often, because he does.
You know, for a while, he was a strong supporter of getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
 He saw the wisdom, until the Democratic primary came along and Howard Dean, the antiwar candidate, began to gain on him.
 And he changed positions.
 I don't see how you can lead this country in a time of war, in a time of uncertainty, if you change your mind because of politics.
He just brought up the tax cut.
 You remember, we increased that child credit by $1000, reduced the marriage penalty, created a 10-percent tax bracket for the lower income Americans—that's right at the middle class.
 He voted against it, and yet he tells you he's for a middle-class tax cut.
 It's—you've got to be consistent when you're the President.
 There's a lot of pressures, and you've got to be firm and consistent.
Each situation is different, Robin.
 And obviously, we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force.
 The hardest decision a President makes is ever to use force.
After 9/11, we had to look at the world differently.
 After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us.
 In the old days, we'd see a threat, and we could deal with it if we felt like it or not.
 But 9/11 changed it all.
I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people.
 That's why we're bringing Al Qaida to justice.
 Seventy-five percent of them have been brought to justice.
 That's why I said to Afghanistan, "If you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist.
" And the Taliban is no longer in power, and Al Qaida no longer has a place to plan.
And I saw a unique threat in Saddam Hussein, as did my opponent, because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.
 And the unique threat was that he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like Al Qaida, and the harm they inflicted on us with airplanes would be multiplied greatly by weapons of mass destruction.
 And that was a serious, serious threat.
So I tried diplomacy.
 I went to the United Nations.
 But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the Oil for Food Programme to get rid of sanctions.
 He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason.
 He wanted to restart his weapons programs.
We all thought there was weapons there, Robin.
 My opponent thought there was weapons there.
 That's why he called him a grave threat.
 I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why.
 But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, and the world is better off without him in power.
 And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power and the world would be more dangerous.
Thank you, sir.
Remember the last debate? My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we use force to protect ourselves.
 That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working.
 That's the kind of mindset that says let's keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well.
Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies.
 Sanctions were not working.
 The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.
Two days ago in the Oval Office, I met with the Finance Minister from Iraq.
 He came to see me, and he talked about how optimistic he was and the country was about heading toward elections.
 Think about it.
 They're going from tyranny to elections.
 He talked about the reconstruction efforts that are beginning to take hold.
 He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to be free.
 He said he was optimistic when he came here.
 Then he turned on the TV and listened to the political rhetoric, and all of a sudden he was pessimistic.
This is a guy who, along with others, has taken great risk for freedom, and we need to stand with him.
 My opponent says he has a plan—sounds familiar because it's called the Bush plan.
 We're going to train troops, and we are.
 We'll have 125,000 trained by the end of December.
 We're spending about $7 billion.
He talks about a grand idea: Let's have a summit; we're going to solve the problem in Iraq by holding a summit.
 And what is he going to say to those people that show up to the summit? "Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place"? Risk your troops in a war you've called a "mistake"? Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn't believe we can succeed and somebody who says the war where we are is a "mistake.
" I know how these people think.
 I meet with them all the time.
 I talk to Tony Blair all the time.
 I talk to Silvio Berlusconi.
 They're not going to follow an American President who says, "Follow me into a mistake.
"
Our plan is working.
 We're going to make elections, and Iraq is going to be free, and America will be better off for it.
First of all, we didn't find out he didn't have weapons until we got there, and my opponent thought he had weapons and told everybody he thought he had weapons.
 And secondly, it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Usama bin Laden.
 The war on terror is to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not end up with weapons of mass destruction.
 That's what the war on terror is about.
Of course we're going to find Usama bin Laden.
 We've already got 75 percent of his people, and we're on the hunt for him.
 But this is a global conflict that requires firm resolve.
No, I appreciate that.
 I—listen, I—we've got a great country.
 I love our values.
 And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country.
 I remember when Ronald Reagan was the President.
 He stood on principle.
 Some might have called that stubborn.
 He stood on principle, standing up to the Soviet Union.
 And we won that conflict, yet at the same time, he was very—we were very unpopular in Europe because of decisions he made.
I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular, but I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security.
You know, I've made some decisions on Israel.
 That's unpopular.
 I wouldn't deal with Arafat because I felt like he had let the former President down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state.
 And people in Europe didn't like that decision.
 And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do.
 I believe Palestinians ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that's committed to democracy and freedom, leadership that will be willing to reject terrorism.
I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to—brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge.
 I don't think we ought to join that.
 That was unpopular.
 And so what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right.
We'll continue to reach out.
 Listen, there's 30 nations involved in Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan.
 People love America.
 Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a President who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing.
 You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.
I remember sitting in the White House, looking at those generals, saying, "Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?" I remember going down in the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops—as last resort—looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, "Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?" And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr.
 President.
" Of course I listened to our generals.
 That's what a President does.
 A President sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.
That answer almost made me want to scowl.
  He keeps talking about letting the inspectors do their job.
 It's naive and dangerous to say that.
 That's what the Duelfer report showed.
 He was deceiving the inspectors.
Secondly, of course we've been involved with Iran.
 I fully understand the threat.
 And that's why we're doing what he suggested we do, get the Brits, the Germans, and the French to go make it very clear to the Iranians that if they expect to be a party to the world, to give up their nuclear ambitions.
 We've been doing that.
Let me talk about North Korea.
 It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea.
 Remember, he is the person who is accusing me of not acting multilaterally.
 He now wants to take the six-party talks we have— China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan, and the United States—and undermine them by having bilateral talks.
 That's what President Clinton did.
 He had bilateral talks with the North Korean, and guess what happened? He didn't honor the agreement.
 He was enriching uranium.
 That is a bad policy.
Of course, we're paying attention to these.
 That's a great question about Iran.
 That's why, in my speech to the Congress, I said there is an axis of evil, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and we're paying attention to it, and we're making progress.
Yes, great question.
 Thanks.
I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft.
 We're not going to have a draft—period.
 The All-Volunteer Army works.
 It works particularly when we pay our troops well.
 It works when we make sure they've got housing, like we have done in the last military budgets.
 An all-volunteer army is best suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these people as they hide around the world.
 We don't need massed armies anymore.
One of the things we've done is we've taken the—we're beginning to transform our military.
 And by that I mean we're moving troops out of Korea and replacing them with more effective weapons.
 We don't need as much manpower on the Korean Peninsula to keep a deterrent.
In Europe, we have massed troops as if the Soviet Union existed and was going to invade into Europe, but those days are over with.
 And so we're moving troops out of Europe and replacing it with more effective equipment.
So the answer to your question is, we're withdrawing—not from the world—we're drawing manpower, so they can be stationed here in America, so there's less rotation, so life is easier on their families and therefore more likely to be—we'll be more likely to keep people in the All-Volunteer Army.
One of the most important things we're doing in this administration is transformation.
 There's some really interesting technologies.
 For example, we're flying unmanned vehicles that can send real-time messages back to stations in the United States.
 That saves manpower, and it saves equipment.
 It also means that we can target things easier and move more quickly, which means we need to be lighter and quicker and more facile and highly trained.
Forget all this talk about a draft.
 We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the President.
You tell Tony Blair we're going alone.
 Tell Tony Blair we're going alone.
 Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone.
 Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone.
 We've got 30 countries there.
 It denigrates an alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices.
 You cannot lead an alliance if you say you're going alone.
 And people listen.
 They're sacrificing with us.
That's an odd thing to say since we've tripled the homeland security budget from 10 to 30 billion dollars.
 Listen, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland.
 My opponent is right: We need good intelligence.
 It's also a curious thing for him to say, since right after 1993, he voted to cut the intelligence budget by $7.
5 billion.
The best way to defend America in this world we live in is to stay on the offense.
 We've got to be right 100 percent of the time here at home, and they've got to be right once.
 And that's the reality.
 And there's a lot of good people working hard.
 We're doing the best we possibly can to share information.
 That's why the PATRIOT Act was important.
 The PATRIOT Act is vital, by the way.
 It's a tool that law enforcement now uses to be able to talk between each other.
 My opponent says he hasn't changed his positions on it.
 No, but he's for weakening it.
I don't think my opponent has got the right view about the world to make us safe.
 I really don't.
 First of all, I don't think he can succeed in Iraq.
 And if Iraq were to fail, it would be a haven for terrorists, and there would be money, and the world would be much more dangerous.
 I don't see how you can win in Iraq if you don't believe we should be there in the first place.
 I don't see how you can lead troops if you say, "It's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.
" I don't see how the Iraqis are going to have confidence in the American President if all they hear is that it was a "mistake" to be there in the first place.
This war is a long, long war, and it requires steadfast determination.
 And it requires a complete understanding that we not only chase down Al Qaida, but we disrupt terrorists' safe havens as well as people who could provide the terrorists with support.
Well, we'll talk about the tax cut for middle class here in a minute.
 But yes, I'm worried.
 I'm worried.
 I'm worried about our country.
 And all I can tell you is, every day I know that there's people working overtime, doing the very best they can.
 And the reason I'm worried is because there's a vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate.
 And the way to defeat them long-term, by the way, is to spread freedom.
 Liberty can change habits, and that's what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I haven't yet.
 I just want to make sure they're safe.
 When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.
 And that's why the FDA and that's why the Surgeon General are looking very carefully to make sure it can be done in a safe way.
 I've got an obligation to make sure our Government does everything we can to protect you.
 And one of—my worry is that it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a third world.
 We've just got to make sure, before somebody thinks they're buying a product, that it works.
 And that's why we're doing what we're doing.
 Now, it may very well be, here in December, you hear me say, "I think there's a safe way to do it.
"
Other ways to make sure drugs are cheaper: One is to speed up generic drugs to the marketplace quicker.
 Pharmaceuticals were using loopholes to keep brand drugs in place, and generics are much less expensive than brand drugs.
 And we're doing just that.
 Another is to get our seniors to sign up for these drug discount cards, and they're working.
 Wanda Blackmore, I met here from Missouri—the first time she bought drugs with her drug discount card she paid $1.
14, I think it was, for about $10 worth of drugs.
 These cards make sense.
And you know, in 2006, seniors are going to get prescription drug coverage for the first time in Medicare, because I went to Washington to fix problems.
 Medicare—the issue of Medicare used to be called "Medi-scare.
" People didn't want to touch it for fear of getting hurt politically.
 I wanted to get something done.
 I think our seniors deserve a modern medical system.
 And in 2006, our seniors will get prescription drug coverage.
Thank you for asking.
If they're safe, they're coming.
 I want to remind you that it wasn't just my administration that made the decision on safety.
 President Clinton did the same thing, because we have an obligation to protect you.
Now, he talks about Medicare.
 He's been in the United States Senate 20 years.
 Show me one accomplishment toward Medicare that he accomplished.
 I've been in Washington, DC, 3 1/2 years and led the Congress to reform Medicare so our seniors have got a modern health care system.
 That's what leadership is all about.
Let me see where to start here.
 First, the National Journal named Senator Kerry * the most liberal Senator of all.
 And that's saying something in that bunch.
 You might say that took a lot of hard work.
The reason I bring that up is because he's proposed $2.
2 trillion in new spending and he says he's going to tax the rich to close the tax gap.
 He can't.
 He's going to tax everybody here to fund his programs.
 That's just reality.
And what are his health programs? First, he says he's for medical liability reform, particularly for ob-gyns.
 There was a bill on the floor of the United States Senate that he could have showed up and voted for if he's so much for it.
 Secondly, he says that medical liability costs only cause one percent increase.
 That shows a lack of understanding.
 Doctors practice defensive medicine because of all the frivolous lawsuits that cost our Government $28 billion a year.
And finally, he says he's going to have a novel health care plan.
 You know what it is? The Federal Government is going to run it.
 It is the largest increase in Federal Government health care ever, and it fits with his philosophy.
 That's why I told you about the award he won from the National Journal.
 That's what liberals do: They create Government-sponsored health care.
 Maybe you think that makes sense.
 I don't.
 Government-sponsored health care would lead to rationing.
 It would ruin the quality of health care in America.
What does matter is the plan.
 He said he is for—you're now for capping punitive damages? That's odd.
 You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then.
 Medical liability issues are a problem, a significant problem.
 He's been in the United States Senate for 20 years, and he hasn't addressed it.
 We passed it out of the House of Representatives.
 Guess where it stuck? It stuck in the Senate because the trial lawyers won't act on it, and he put a trial lawyer on the ticket.
Thank you for that.
 We have a deficit.
 We have a deficit because this country went into a recession.
 You might remember the stock market started to decline dramatically 6 months before I came to office, and then the bubble of the 1990s popped.
 And that cost us rev-enue—that cost us revenue.
Secondly, we're at war.
 And I'm going to spend what it takes to win the war, more than just 120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
 We've got to pay our troops more.
 We have.
 We've increased money for ammunition and weapons and pay and homeland security.
 I just told this lady over here we spent—went from 10 to 30 billion dollars to protect the homeland.
 I think we have an obligation to spend that kind of money.
Plus, we cut taxes for everybody.
 Everybody got tax relief, so that they'd get out of the recession.
 I think if you raise taxes during a recession, you head to depression.
 I come from the school of thought that says when people have more money in their pocket during tough economic times, it increases demand or investment.
 Small businesses begin to grow, and jobs are added.
 We found out today that over the past 13 months, we've added 1.
9 million new jobs in the last 13 months.
 I proposed a plan, detailed budget, that shows us cutting the deficit in half by 5 years.
And you're right, I haven't vetoed any spending bills because we worked together.
 Non-homeland, non-defense, discretionary spending was rising at 15 percent a year when I got into office.
 And today, it's less than one percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control.
 Like you, I'm concerned about the deficit.
 But I am not going to shortchange our troops in harm's way.
 And I'm not going to run up taxes which will cost this economy jobs.
Thank you for your question.
Look at the budget.
 One is, make sure Congress doesn't overspend.
 But let me talk back about where we've been.
 The stock market was declining 6 months prior to my arrival.
 It was the largest stock market correction—one of the largest in history, which foretold a recession.
 Because we cut taxes on everybody— remember, we ran up the child credit by 1,000; we reduced the marriage penalty; we created the 10-percent bracket; everybody who pays taxes got relief—the recession was one of the shortest in our Nation's history.
It's just not credible.
 When he talks about being fiscally conservative, it's just not credible.
 If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the spending—the caps, the spending caps, over 200 times, and here he says he's going to be a fiscal conservative all of a sudden.
 It's just not credible.
 You cannot believe it.
And of course he's going to raise your taxes.
 You see, he's proposed $2.
2 trillion of new spending.
 And so they said, "Well, how are you going to pay for it?" He said, well, he's going to raise the taxes on the rich.
 That's what he said, the top two brackets.
 That raises—he says 800 billion; we say 600 billion.
 We've got battling green eyeshades—somewhere in between those numbers.
 And so there is a difference, what he's promised and what he could raise.
 Now, either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you about, or he's going to raise taxes.
 And I suspect, given his record, he's going to raise taxes.
Is my time up yet?
You looked at me like my clock was up.
I think that the way to grow this economy is to keep taxes low, is to have an energy plan, is to have litigation reform.
 As I told you, we just got a report that said over the past 13 months, we've created 1.
9 million new jobs.
 We're growing.
 And so the fundamental question of this campaign is, who's going to keep the economy growing so people can work? That's the fundamental question.
Yes, I mean, he's got a record.
 He's been there for 20 years.
 You can run, but you can't hide.
 He voted 98 times to raise taxes.
 I mean, these aren't make-up figures.
 And so people are going to have to look at the record—look at the record of the man running for the President.
 They don't name him the most liberal in the United States Senate because he hasn't shown up to many meetings.
 They named him because of his votes, and it's reality.
 It's just not credible to say he's going to keep taxes down and balance budgets.
 Off-road diesel engines—we have reached an agreement to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines by 90 percent.
 I've got a plan to increase the wetlands by 3 million.
 We've got an aggressive brownfield program to refurbish inner-city sore spots to useful pieces of property.
I proposed to the United States Congress a Clear Skies Initiative to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury by 70 percent.
 I was—fought for a very strong title in the farm bill for the Conservation Reserve Program to set aside millions of acres of land for—to help improve wildlife in the habitat.
We proposed and passed a Healthy Forests bill, which was essential to working with—particularly in western States, to make sure that our forests were protected.
 What happens in those forests, because of lousy Federal policy, is they grow to be— they are not—they're not harvested.
 They're not taken care of, and as a result, they're like tinder boxes.
 And over the last summers I've flown over there.
 And so this is a reasonable policy to protect old stands of trees and, at the same time, make sure our forests aren't vulnerable to the forest fires that have destroyed acres after acres in the West.
 We've got a good, commonsense policy.
Now, I'm going to tell you what I really think is going to happen over time, is technology is going to change the way we live, for the good, for the environment.
 So I proposed a hydrogen automobile, a hydrogen-generated automobile.
 We're spending a billion dollars to come up with the technologies to do that.
That's why I'm a big proponent of clean coal technology, to make sure we can use coal but in a clean way.
 I guess you'd say I'm a good steward of the land.
 The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been the President; fewer water complaints since I've been the President; more land being restored since I've been the President.
Thank you for your question.
Well, had we joined the Kyoto treaty, which I guess he's referring to, it would have cost America a lot of jobs.
 It's one of these deals where in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty.
 But I thought it would cost a lot of—I think there's a better way to do it.
 And I just told you the facts, sir.
 The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been the President of the United States.
 And we'll continue to spend money on research and development because I truly believe that's the way to get from how we live today to being able to live a standard of living that we're accustomed to and being able to protect our environment bet-ter—the use of technologies.
Let me start with how to control the costs of health care: Medical liability reform, for starters, which he's opposed.
 Secondly, allow small businesses to pool together so they can share risk and buy insurance at the same discounts big businesses get to do.
 Thirdly, spread what's called health savings accounts.
 It's good for small businesses, good for owners.
 You own your own account.
 You can save tax-free.
 You get a catastrophic plan to help you— own it.
 This is different from saying, "Okay, let me incent you to go on the Government.
"
He's talking about his plan to keep jobs here.
 You know, he calls it an outsourcing—to keep—stop outsourcing.
 Robert Rubin looked at his plan and said it won't work.
 The best way to keep jobs here in America is, one, have an energy plan.
 I proposed one to the Congress 2 years ago.
 It encourages conservation, encourages technology to explore for environmentally friendly ways for coal and use coal and gas.
 It encourages the use of renewables like ethanol and biodiesel.
 It's stuck in the Senate.
 He and his runningmate didn't show up to vote when they could have got it going in the Senate.
 Less regulations if we want jobs here.
 Legal reform if we want jobs here.
 And we've got to keep taxes low.
Now, he says he's only going to tax the rich.
 Do you realize 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his plan because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income-tax level.
 And so when you're running up the taxes like that, you're taxing job creators, and that's not how you keep jobs here.
I own a timber company? That's news to me.
 
Most small businesses are Subchapter S corps.
 They just are.
 I met Grant Milliron, Mansfield, Ohio.
 He's creating jobs.
 Most small businesses—70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small business.
 His taxes are going up when you run up the top two brackets.
 It's a fact.
Yes, I appreciate that.
 I really don't think your rights are being watered down.
 As a matter of fact, I wouldn't support it if I thought that.
 Every action being taken against terrorists requires a court order, requires scrutiny.
 As a matter of fact, the tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we've been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals.
 So I really don't think so.
 I hope you don't think that.
 I mean, I—because I think whoever is the President must guard your liberties, must not erode your rights in America.
The PATRIOT Act is necessary, for example, because parts of the FBI couldn't talk to each other.
 Intelligence gathering and the law enforcement arms of the FBI just couldn't share intelligence under the old law, and that didn't make any sense.
 Our law enforcement must have every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists at home and abroad before they hurt us again.
 That's the task of the 21st century.
And so I don't think the PATRIOT Act abridges your rights at all, and I know it's necessary.
 I can remember being in upstate New York talking to FBI agents that helped bust the Lackawanna cell up there.
 And they told me they could not have performed their duty, the duty we all expect of them, if they did not have the ability to communicate with each other under the PATRIOT Act.
Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell.
 I'm the first President ever to allow funding, Federal funding, for embryonic stem cell research.
 I did so because I too hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.
But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science.
 And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important but so is ethics, so is balancing life.
 To destroy life to save life is one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.
There is going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that now exist, that are active, and hopefully we find a cure.
 But as well we need to continue to pursue adult stem cell research.
 I helped double the NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find cures.
 And the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life.
Let me make sure you understand my decision.
 Those stem cell lines already existed.
 The embryo had already been destroyed prior to my decision.
 I had to make the decision: Do we destroy more life; do we continue to destroy life? I made the decision to balance science and ethics.
 I'm not telling.
  I really don't have—I haven't picked anybody yet.
 Plus, I want them all voting for me.
  I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law.
 I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.
 I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it.
 I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decisionmaking process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
 That's personal opinion.
 That's not what the Constitution says.
 The Constitution of the United States says we're all—it doesn't say that.
 It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
 We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, DC.
 Legislators make law.
 Judges interpret the Constitution.
 And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year—next 4 years.
 And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there—no litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
 Trying to decipher that.
  My answer is we're not going to spend Federal taxpayers' money on abortion.
 This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.
 I signed the ban on partial-birth abortion.
 It's a brutal practice.
 It's one way to help reduce abortions.
 My opponent voted against the ban.
 I think there ought to be parental notification laws.
 He's against them.
 I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
 In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant, you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one.
 My opponent was against that.
 These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America.
I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.
 I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.
 And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.
 Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.
Thank you.
It's pretty simple when they say, "Are you for a ban on partial-birth abortion? Yes or no.
" And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no.
 And that's just the way it is.
 That's a vote.
 It came right up.
 It's clear for everybody to see.
 And as I said, you can run, but you can't hide.
 It's the reality.
I have made a lot of decisions, some of them little, like appointments to a board you've never heard of, and some of them big.
 And in a war, there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say, "You shouldn't have done that.
 You shouldn't have made that decision.
" And I'll take responsibility for them.
 I'm human.
But on the big questions about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions because I think they're right.
 That's really what you're— when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about.
 They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is absolutely not.
 It was the right decision.
The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program, and the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
 We knew he hated us.
 We knew he had been a—invaded other countries.
 We knew he tortured his own people.
On the tax cut, it's a big decision.
 I did the right decision.
 Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.
Now, you ask what mistakes—I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them.
 I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.
 But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration.
 Because the President makes the decisions, the President has to take the responsibility.
He complains about the fact our troops don't have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress and then issued one of the most amazing quotes in political history: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.
"
Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma'am.
 And he was a risk that—and this is where we just have a difference of opinion.
 The truth of the matter is, if you listen carefully: Saddam would still be in power if he were the President of the United States, and the world would be "a lot better off.
"
Charlie, thanks.
 Thank you all very much.
 It's been enjoyable.
The great contest for the Presidency is about the future, who can lead, who can get things done.
 We've been through a lot together as a country, been through a recession, corporate scandals, war.
 And yet, think about where we are.
 We added 1.
9 million new jobs over the past 13 months.
 The farm income in America is high.
 Small businesses are flourishing.
 Homeownership rate is at an alltime high in America.
 We're on the move.
Tonight I had a chance to discuss with you what to do to keep this economy going: Keep the taxes low, don't increase the scope of the Federal Government, keep regulations down, legal reform, a health care policy that does not empower the Federal Government but empowers individuals, and an energy plan that will help us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
And abroad, we're at war, and it requires a President who is steadfast and strong and determined.
 I vowed to the American people after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest nor tire until we're safe.
 The 9/11 Commission put out a report that said America is safer, but not yet safe.
 There's more work to be done.
 We'll stay on the hunt on Al Qaida.
 We'll deny sanctuary to these terrorists.
 We'll make sure they do not end up with weapons of mass destruction.
 The great nexus, the great threat to our country is that these haters end up with weapons of mass destruction.
But our long-term security depends on our deep faith in liberty.
 We'll continue to promote freedom around the world.
 Freedom is on the march.
 Tomorrow Afghanistan will be voting for a President.
 In Iraq, we'll be having free elections, and a free society will make this world more peaceful.