They are to restore a balance in government and private spending that will increase productivity, broaden the base of the economy, help provide the jobs for those people that are unemployed. And when that all happens, as it did in the Kennedy years, the government itself ended up getting more money. We should talk tax rate reductions. And it is a difficult thing to explain to people, that those reductions in rates for each individual are intended to result in more people paying taxes and better earnings so that government will get a normal percentage increase, even though the individual is better off. Do you see any circumstances where you might want to delay or cancel these tax rate cuts of last summer in order to balance the budget? As a matter of fact, I will tell you, I firmly believe and I have the support of a number of economists on this that had we not been forced to compromise, had we been able to make these tax cuts first of all, we asked for 30 percent, not 25, over the 3 years. We had to take that cut to get it. The second thing was we had asked for it to be retroactive to last January 1st so that the people would have been having a tax cut immediately retroactively, in fact. And we then first had to compromise down to July last July lst and finally it ended up October 1st, the beginning of the fiscal year. So, in effect, the actual tax cut for 1981 is only about 1 1/4 percent. Well, that is not exactly a stimulant to the economy that we had in mind. Now, these people, these other economists and, as I say, I myself believe that had we not had to compromise, very possibly we would not have had this recession. So, rather than push it back or postpone no, the thing that I would yield to if it could practically be done would be to move it forward. But politically it might be impossible, because if we once open that subject, that we know is what will happen. Let me jump in here with another impact type question. When you ran against Carter and during the debate, you asked people to judge his impact on their lives, and you asked them to ask themselves whether they were any better off now than when he first became elected. Do you think it is now fair to ask people whether they are better off than when you became elected? Yes, but I was asking at the end of 4 years. Now they are comparing me to 1 year ago and with a recession.


I think by actual figures I could prove that they are better off. First of all, the interest rates are over five points lower than they were when I took office. The inflation rate is down to single digit, when it was almost 14 when I took office. Their rate of taxation is now lower than it was when I took office. So, I would suggest that if the people actually looked at the figures but I think in a recession it is easy to find people out there who say, No, I am not, and particularly if you ask around Washington, because we have drastically reduced the size of government. There are fewer government employees and one of them, if he has not found another job would say. ENTITY, in your first year you had extraordinary success in cutting the rate of growth in Federal spending. Would you favor, to hold down the deficits, beginning to cut into those entitlement programs, social security and such, or perhaps go to the excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes? Well, social security, of course, is now in the hands of a commission and that was something else, again, that I'd always spoke of during the campaign, and then thought maybe we were going to be able to get something done without going that route. But we are going back to it. So, I except that and take the others. And it is not a case as when you say cut down, immediately the impression is given to anyone who is dependent on government that they are now going to have less than they had before. I think that there are great improvements that can be made with regard to eligibility and ensuring that those who are getting entitlements are truly in need of them and justified in getting them. There are corrections that can be made, such as our own Inspector General's finding out in the last 6 months that 8,500 and this is not the final check, this was just on a first check, partial check that 8,500 social security recipients have been receiving checks for an average of 7 years, that they have been dead that long. ENTITY, one of the measures that you supported last year in budget cutting was the elimination of 13 extra weeks of jobless compensation. With the unemployment rate now at 8.9 percent and some predictions it'll go higher do you see any chance that you might support a move to restore that extra 13 weeks? Well, this is one that I just do not think I could give you an answer on this, because we have not discussed that.

Ronald Reagan Interview With Reporters From the Los Angeles Times


That is, there is been no discussion of this, and I have not seen the facts or figures on that. Also, on the unemployment picture you were asked, I think, at the press conference about what did you plan to do about the 17 percent rate among blacks, and you pointed to the local newspaper and said you'd made it a point to count the number of pages in the want ads, 24 pages. And then you said that you needed to get more qualified people to apply for those jobs, and you would do what you could to see that there were more qualified people. Do you have a specific program in mind? Well, we have been working with this national task force that we have on voluntarism, and they have been discussing some plans that employ a combination of government and private for this. Now, there are a number of programs that are going forward. For example, in five States, started by the governments which ought to restore some people's faith that our turning back of things to the State governments is not in these five States they have started programs, not statewide, but in several important, key cities as an experiment and a very successful one so far in which the private sector is involved in taking the least likely to succeed seniors in high school into job training programs. They do not go for the best they do not , those they figure but they found some actual statistics of the percentage of high school students that were you could really conceive that they were going to have trouble when they got out and they probably were not going to go on to any additional education in college or anything. And 60 percent of them wind up within 2 years on welfare. So, they started this experiment, and it has been, I think it is something like up in the 90 percent of salvage of these students who were judged by their associates and their teachers and so forth to be the least likely to make it. But you do not have a specific government program in mind at the time to do anything? Well, only to the extent of as I say, right now the government is working with the private sector on some programs of this type. And it is a little premature for me now to say what they are doing or how they are succeeding. You are going to comment on this in your State of the Union? Will this be in your State of the Union?


On another matter, in bringing Bill Clark here as your assistant for national security you brought a longtime associate and close friend who, other White House officials say, will have enormous influence beyond this area of national security, both because of this rapport with you and because he knows so many other people in the administration. Can you comment on that? And do you see the so called troika that people say runs the White House will now be transformed into a quartet? And I think that you will find that the job that Bill Clark has, that is a round the clock job, and he is working very well in that position. Now, we had always planned well, not always, but I mean recently planned having started on one system before there was ever any thought of a change of personnel, we were looking toward a more direct access on the foreign policy matter. We found that what we had, the system we were working with was more cumbersome than it had to be. So, that change is already taking place. But he obviously discusses matters other than national security with you, does not he?  With the state of the world today, I could tell you honestly, every conversation he and I have had has been on national security. Speaking of the state of the world, some people in the Pentagon are worried that after a year or two, because of the realities and pragmatism of economics and politics, that your commitment to a defense buildup may slack off and that you will not be able to carry through with the big defense spending that you are now planning to. How committed are you to carrying forth with a No, I am committed to The ENTITY I do not think that the people I think they sense it; they did all during the campaign that we are not where we should be with regard to our ability and security, and we are not. That window of vulnerability term that we used, that exists. But I am optimistic that there can come a day when we can slack off, if we are successful, in what I believe goes along with this. And that is true, legitimate, verifiable arms reductions of our adversaries, such as the Soviet Union. Now, up till now, my criticism of the negotiations that have been held, such as the SALT talks, my criticism was that on one side of the table sat the Soviet Union in the midst of an enormous the greatest that man has ever seen in the buildup of their military.


And they were seeing us across the table in these recent years, unilaterally disarming, which meant that all we could do to them was ask them, Why do not you do it, too? They did not have to give up anything. And we were already giving it up voluntarily. Now, as we go forward with our program, the Soviet Union realizes they are no longer going to have that free ride. And I believe since they have strained their economy to the limit, they are not really able to adequately provide their people with consumer goods and food, because everything is devoted to the military buildup. So, strained to the limit as they are and suddenly faced with the prospect of maybe trying to have to match the great industrial capacity of the United States now turning to a military buildup, that we can get legitimate reductions in arms. Do you think that is likely in the next 3 or 4 years, in your term? Well, I think it is going to take a while to build up, but we have started in Geneva with the intermediate range missile program. Now, if we had not gone forward with a program of promising missiles and cruise missiles to our NATO allies to match the SS 20's and 4's and 5's that the Soviet has based, targeted on Europe, they could wipe Europe out. But now, faced with our buildup in which we will put a deterrent force in Europe aimed at their cities, they are willing to sit down in Geneva and have a meeting with us on this. Where would we be in those kind of talks if we were sitting there with no plan of a deterrent force at all and simply asking them to give up their SS 20's? What you are saying is you are going full speed ahead on the arms buildup, at least until we get a verifiable arms control pact. Yes, until things can develop that we can in other words, I am very willing to talk arms reduction. legitimate arms reduction. But let me tell you what out of the SALT talks, to illustrate what I was talking about. I have been given figures that if the SALT II treaty had been ratified, it would have permitted the Soviet Union to add to its arsenal nuclear explosive power equal to what we dropped on Hiroshima every 11 minutes for the life of the SALT II treaty. Now, how do you call that strategic arms limitation?


On a corollary issue, do you see any circumstances where you might approve of a peacetime draft, reassess your opposition that could please the allies? My change of mind on the registration was only because I had accepted, as most people did, even when the head of the Selective Service himself testified in 1980 that that rather costly operation would only shorten mobilization time by a few days. However, I have now since and greater study has been made and the information has been brought to me that, no, we can shorten mobilization by as much as 45 days. I will continue the registration. The peacetime draft we have now seen an upgrading in the type of personnel enlisting, an increase in the numbers, an increase in the numbers who have reenlisted. There is an entirely different spirit in the armed services, and I believe that the voluntary military, which has been traditional in our country, other than in wartime, will work. If there were anything at all you said, could anything make it peacetime I would have to hark back to the days preceding World War II, and there for the first time we instituted a peacetime draft. But the rest of the world was at war; the whole world was going up in flames. And so, hypothetically you'd have to say there could be a situation where you thought the risk was so imminent that you might do this. But I do not see that risk as imminent now, and I am philosophically opposed and practically opposed to the peacetime draft. But are you concerned though that there is sort of a growing movement in the United States of people who do not seem to take seriously the warning that you have given about the Soviet buildup and who do not think that we should be preparing for the possibility of a nuclear war? And what can you do to convince the American people that you are right about that? We tried one thing. We put out that booklet, that pamphlet Well, yes, and a great many of those skeptics are people that I think could be described as figures do not lie, but liars figure. I think the skeptics are wrong, and I think they are doing a disservice to the country and to the people of this country, because our situation is dangerous. Is it more dangerous now, do you think, than in recent years? I mean, in the past year or so has the world situation changed so much that it is more dangerous?


Well, our own deterioration had continued right on down to when we took office and then started to reverse it. We have now put into operation the first realistic buildup of forces and strategic forces in over 20 years. May I ask you a question on another subject? David Stockman, your budget director, is a very important figure in your economic program in the first year. Of course, he offered his resignation after the article in the Atlantic Monthly criticizing your program came out. A lot of Republicans not just Democrats but Republicans have said he is lost his credibility on Capitol Hill. In view of that, do you expect him to continue as budget director throughout your term?  But he still lost credibility though? Recently, in the last efforts up on the Hill there on the thing of getting the continuation that we wanted for covering these months and so forth, he was the man with the figures and the man that certainly our side was relying on. And I had any number of them come down and say that they would have been lost without him. Is he going to resume dealing with Democrats, because he has not been doing that since the article came out, according to Congressman Jim Jones, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. Well, maybe he was speaking from a partisan standard. I would not have seen where there was much of a need lately. He will be involved now as we go forward with the as we present the 1983 budget. Do not you think that the Democrats are waiting in ambush for him when he comes on Capitol Hill next time, with the information from the Atlantic Monthly article? I think that they are laying and waiting ambush for me. Stockman said that it is not uncommon for him, when he is preparing our budget, not to be talking to Democrats. I have got to ask you an environment question. When you became Governor of California, people were very concerned about your environmental positions. So, the first thing you did was appoint as your resources secretary, Livermore, who had great environmental credentials from the Sierra Club ENTITY, and he gave you environmental credentials. You did just the opposite here, it seems in many people's view. You appointed a guy Interior Secretary who is perceived to be the extremist on the developmental side. And I am wondering, do you have second thoughts about maybe the way the environmental issues were handled? And, George, let me remind you of something. But a lot of people do not fancy Watt as that.


I know, except that I can remember when a man from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency came to Sacramento to make a speech toward the end of my terms there and said that California was ahead of the National Government in what it had done. That is why I am wondering whether you might have second thoughts about what you have done here. No, let me point something out. It was considered to be autonomous, and no one could control it. And if you remember, there were always battles going on in the State because if they decided this is where the highway's going to go, they did not care whether it went through a grove of redwoods. Do you remember Pat Brown once saying, when it was going to go through a grove of redwoods, Well, we will plant some more ? And the people were very well, one of the first things I did when I got in was make a change in the highway commission and dictated that if a slight curve was necessary to preserve an historical monument or something unique, like a grove of trees or a beauty spot or something, they'd make the slight curve. And the result was that California won in 9 out of 13 national awards for highway building that preserved the environment and historical artifacts and so forth. How about all that offshore drilling that your administration has to do now? We were the ones who stopped the offshore drilling until we were satisfied after the oil spill and the oil spill was Federal, not State. And, George, the head of the oil company told me afterward, he was not he had risen to his point from the commercial end of it, not from the engineering end and he said what he had learned in that whole thing was that had they been drilling outside the limit, under the State regulations instead of the Federal, there'd never have been a blowout. No, because and I wonder why everyone I saw again, that was was it 60 Minutes or someone did the thing on Watt and the million petitions that the Sierra Club got, asking for his resignation. Why has not anyone mentioned that in response to that, a petition of over 7 million signatures was brought in wanting him retained? I think that what happened, and what happened in our own State was and I was seeing it happen that the environmental movement there .had not been such a thing before our administration. It started during my terms as Governor. I do not say I started it it started. But it got out of control. And we had environmental extremism that was going beyond all bounds of reason.


And I felt that way then, and I feel that way now. And I think that Jim Watt he is not going to destroy the environment, but he is going to restore some common sense. ENTITY, Larry's waving us out of here, so may I ask you one very quick question and make it a couple of parts? One, did the assassination attempt in any way sort of change your outlook on the Presidency and what you, you know, on how you are proceeding in your job, how you look toward the future? And most of your aides say you really enjoy the job here. Do you really enjoy the job and do you miss the California weather very much? Oh, well, I think anyone from California is kind of perpetually homesick. I am, and particularly because California means to me that ranch, which I love very much, and that kind of life and all. But, yes, I enjoy it. I have talked for so many years without ever thinking that I would ever do anything except when I say talk, make speeches; you know, I have always described it that in Hollywood, if you did not sing or dance, you ended up as an afterdinner speaker about the things that I felt should be corrected. And it was the same thing I discovered as Governor, that the satisfaction in being able instead of just talking to cope with them and try to get things changed yes, I like very much. So, we can expect you to be running for reelection in 1984? Well, I have always said the people tell you that, whether you So the people tell you you should run? Will you talk about how the assassination attempt really changed any way you look at life or the way you approached your job or the way you feel about things? Well, I think you are more aware, and I am also very aware that the Lord certainly was watching out for me on that day. Yeah, does it give you some sense of redoubling your efforts to do what you are trying to do as ENTITY, or is that As I say, I think that He has the first claim on my time from now on. You were going to ask a question, I thought. I was just going to follow up and ask one there. I also was really wondering if we have got half a second to ask you about you were talking about the danger that the country is in and the threat of nuclear war. What is your personal view of the intentions of the Soviet Union?


Do you think, as some people do, that they are primarily a sort of a defensive, fearful country, looking in Afghanistan and Poland for buffers, or do you think they still have an appetite for other people's territory? Well, I think there is a combination of both. At least they talk a great deal about their fear that the world is going to close in on them, but the other, you cannot deny that the Marxian theory and Lenin's theory and every Soviet leader since has at some time or other publicly reaffirmed his dedication to this and that is that Marxism, the theory, can only succeed when the entire world has become Communist. So is it a little naive, perhaps, to think that if we just reassure them, placate them, that they will moderate their They have got to, and maybe the failures of their own system, which make them dependent on the rest of us for help as they are maybe this will help them see the fallacy of this. But this is why I mean it is a combination not only of fear; it is not just defense. They believe that that religion of theirs, which is Marxist Leninism, requires them to support world revolution and bring about the oneworld Communist state. And they have never denied that. And we have to, you feel, have to contain that, have to stop that, not just in places like Poland but in Africa Yes, because I they have proven that their system is not of increased freedom. It is one of dictation. Can anyone say that the Tsar any more repressive on the Soviet people than this regime is? Did the aristocracy in the old days, did they have any different elevation of luxury over the peasantry than the hierarchy has over the average Soviet citizen, the so called masses, today? Beach homes on the Black Sea, private jets, helicopters, country homes outside, special stores where only they can purchase the certain special kind of goods they have created an aristocracy. What is ever happened to that equality of man that they teach? Incidentally, since it is almost time that you will be hearing it anyway why did not you, in your interview, ask about yesterday's press conference and the fuss about the number of unemployed in '80 and '81? Well, we will ask about it. In fact and the others were right. But the others compare the number of unemployed in December 1980 and December 1981. But the figures that are normally taken are the average for the year.


First of all, let us talk about why you came, and that is Medicare. And you know I mean, this is something that is been important to you for a long time getting Medicare, part of the prescription drug program included in Medicare. Talk about why that is so important to have that. Well, Medicare is a program that is 35 years old, and it is been a godsend for 35 years for a lot of our seniors. But when it was established, most of medicine was about doctors and hospitals and very little about prescription drugs. Now, the average 65-year-old has a life expectancy of 82 or 83 years, the highest in the world for seniors. And more and more, people need these drugs to stay alive and also to stay healthy. Over and above that, America has about 5 million people on disability who are eligible for Medicare, and they need the medicine even more. So what we have been saying is, Look, we have got this surplus. We have the money. We should add a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare, because we have, all over America, seniors who are choosing every week between food and medicine because they cannot pay their medical bills and because there is no other viable way to give them the medicine they need. So I proposed this program, and I told the American people how we can add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, still have a family tax cut, still invest in education, and keep paying us out of debt. I think that it is so critical to provide for the elderly and disabled in America. Do you think it will happen before you leave office? I think the problem is the Republicans in the Congress believe that the program might be too expensive, although it is not nearly as expensive as their combined tax cuts, and they want they also want a private insurance plan. But the bill they passed is just like one that got passed in Nevada, and not a single insurance company would offer the drug coverage because they knew they could not offer it at an affordable price. Now, what is really going on here is that the pharmaceutical companies that make the drugs, they have reservations about it because they are afraid that if you put 39 million seniors, including 2.7 million seniors in Florida and 5 million disabled people, if you look at all of them and a significant percentage of them get in one program, that the people buying drugs for that one program will have too much marketing power, and they will get the drugs for too cheap.

Interview With Kelly Ring of WTVT Television in Tampa


Because what happens is, our pharmaceutical companies charge Americans more for drugs to cover all the research costs in America. Then they can sell them much, much cheaper in Canada or Mexico. You have seen all these press stories about people going there. Now, I just think that is not a very good reason to deprive senior citizens of medicine, and I do not think it is a partisan issue outside Washington. I think out here in Tampa or in Arkansas or New York or California, nobody asks you what party you are in when you go to the drugstore to buy medicine. In Washington, it is become part of an issue because the drug companies are against providing prescription drug coverage for Medicare. Let us talk about the importance of Florida for this Presidential election. We have a Republican Governor popular. His brother is running, but tell me what the Democrats are going to do to win Florida. For one thing, I think we have worked very hard here for 8 years. We brought the Southern Command to Miami. We brought the Summit of the Americas to Florida. We worked on the plan to save the Florida Everglades. We have worked on trade policy. Our trade policy has helped a lot of Florida economic sectors. I was just here with Congressman Davis meeting with people from the Tampa area who would benefit greatly from the opening of trade to China. So I think we have got a strong record to run on. If you look at Tampa when I became ENTITY, unemployment here was 7.1 percent. So, first we are going to run on our record. It is been good for America and good for Florida, and Al Gore will continue that economic policy, and I think that is important. Then, the second thing I think is just what we have to do is get out the differences on the issues. For example, Senator Graham has a bill of his own to provide prescription drugs for seniors that is a little different from ours but essentially in the same ballpark. And I know how much credibility he has with the Florida voters. So we can talk about Medicare, and we can talk about education, and we can talk about paying the debt off. I think when you see the Vice President and his running mate and Bill Nelson and all of these other Democrats out there just having a conversation with the people, we do not have to have a mean election this year. This year the economy is in great shape. The country is doing well, and we ought to have an old-fashioned citizenship lesson in this election.


And it is like you said in the speech a little while ago, you are talking about the differences. Well, I think it is because they know that there is a tendency in the country to give the other crowd a chance after they have been out a while, and they know that Governor Bush is an immensely charming, attractive man, and Mr. Cheney, Congressman Cheney, is a very nice man and has had Washington experience. So what they want to do is to seem safe and reliable and compassionate and inclusive. So they are not going to be up there saying, Vote for us. Our favorite Supreme Court judges are Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, and we are going to repeal Roe v. Wade, but that is what is going to happen. But they are not going to say that. They are not going to be up there saying, Vote for us. We want to weaken air pollution laws on the chemical industry, or, Vote for us. We want to make sure that we do not have a Medicare prescription drug program that works, or, Vote for us. We are going to give all your money away in tax cuts, and we will have higher interest rates and a deficit. But what I think is important is, they should be able to defend their policies, but what they want to do is to obscure the differences. I see this as I travel from State to State now. They accuse the Democrats of running negative campaigns if they have advertisements pointing out how the Republicans voted. It is like they are almost saying, We have a right to obscure our record from the people if you want. What I think the voters need is clarity of difference. Let them state the differences honestly, but do not pretend the differences do not exist, because an election is a choice, and choices have consequences. And the American people should know the choice, know the consequences, and then make up their mind. And what we should do is to say, Hey, this country is in great shape now, and we have a unique moment in history to make the most of our prosperity. So we will bring our ideas; they will bring theirs. Let us clarify the differences. Let us do not say bad things about our opponents. Let us assume everybody is patriotic, loves their family, loves their country, is honest, and would do what they have said they would do. But let us do not pretend that they did not say they would do some of the things they said they would do.


Let us just clarify the differences, and let the people make their mind up. That is my whole theory of the election. Now that you are in the last few months of your Presidency, your wife is just beginning her own political career. I am very proud of her. I know you are so proud of her. But on the other side, politics is mean- spirited. How do you feel about that? It hurts me. I get more nervous about her than I ever did about me, and everybody that always hated me all those years and were so mean to me, they have all transferred all their anger to her now. It is almost as if they have got one last chance to beat me. And then there are some people who voted for me that think they are mad at her because she is running in New York, and we just bought a home there. All I can say to them is, it was not her idea. The New York Democratic House delegation came to her and asked her to run. And before she said she would do it, she said, I am going to go up there and look around, talk to people, and see if I could serve. She spent almost a year doing that, and then finally she decided that she would like to serve if they wanted her to. So I think if we can get this election again in a position where they just look at who is got the greatest strength, who is got the ability to do more, and which candidate do they agree, I think she will do fine. I am really proud of her, though. As you said, it makes you very nervous thinking about what she is getting into. I guess when you are in a campaign, you do not have time to think about it. But I spend a lot more time worrying about her than I ever did worrying about myself when I was out there running. I feel like I just wake up every day wishing I could do something else to help. What are you going to do when you leave office? Everybody's talked about all kinds of things, and I know you probably have not decided yet. Well, I am going to build a library and a public policy center at home in Arkansas. I know I am going to do that. And I will be there a couple of days a week. And then I will probably be with Hillary a couple of days a week in New York.


And then, of course, she will have to work in Washington if this election goes well, and I believe it will. So I will just decide what to do. There are a lot of things that I have in mind to do, but I do not think I really should make final decisions until after I leave here. What I want to do is to spend every last waking moment I can doing as much as I can for the people of America. When I lay the job down, then I would like to rest a bit and have a clear head and decide what to do. I will try to find something to do to be useful for the rest of my life. I think I will be able to find something to do. You are so young, so you have got so many opportunities. You have got to be so proud of your daughter, Chelsea. I mean, we reported last week she is made a decision to take a break and spend time with you that is wonderful and to help her mom campaign. When your children grow up I can say, now that I have this experience you are always mildly surprised when they still want to spend time with you and completely relieved and happy. So you know, she is lived 40 percent of her life in the White House. She is 20, and she was just, when we came here in '92, she was still 12 years old. She was actually I mean, in '93 she was still 12 years old. She had her 13th birthday in the White House, in February. She wanted to help her mother some; she wanted to be with me when I would otherwise be alone; and like, she went up to Camp David with me and stayed the whole 15 days and kept everybody in a good humor. She flew to Okinawa with me, and she did a great job. And I think the third thing she wants is just to be in a place that has been her home for nearly half her life, every night she can be. Because she knows when she leaves, it is for good, you know, and she will never be back, I mean, as a resident. So I think it is a very smart decision for her, and I am thrilled. I mean, everybody's fallen in love with her. I think she is an unusual young woman, and we are very proud of her and very grateful. You know, tomorrow she and her mother are going to Long Island together. They will have a big time.


One more can I ask about Mid East peace, because I know how important that is? You spent 3 tough weeks. Do you ever foresee a time when there is going to be peace in the region, and is Jerusalem the sticking point there? The answer to both questions is basically yes. I think yes, I think there will be peace in the region; yes, Jerusalem is the most difficult issue. They did not agree on everything else, but they are close enough that I think that we can still get an agreement. Just a few hours ago, before we sat down for this interview, the Barak government, Prime Minister Barak's government in Israel was confirmed in a no confidence vote; that is, they did not vote him out of office. So I think now, we just have to see if we can get some movement from the Palestinians, as well, and see if we can put this thing together again. If they want it, they can get it, because they are close enough now. They can get it. And I saw something after we had been there 2 weeks sort of the body language that the Israelis and the Palestinians, the way they relate to each other. They know each other. They call each other by their first names. They know they are neighbors, whether they like it or not. And they know their children are going to have to be partners and hopefully friends; and I think they will find a way. I do believe that. I think it is just a question of making sure that we keep pushing them. When you deal with issues this difficult and this painful, it is like going to the dentist without having your gums deadened. You are not going to do it unless somebody herds you on, and you do it. But the calendar is working against them a little bit, because they have pledged to finish by the 13th of September. And that puts all kind of pressure, especially on the Palestinians. They have got to do everything they can to get as much as they can done over the next 6 weeks. They have got to make the decisions and live with them, but we will do everything we can to help. Will you try to bring them back to Camp David? It is too premature to make a decision. What I will try to do is do whatever I can to get the peace process up and going and to bring it to a speedy conclusion.


ENTITY, it is nice to see you. I have had the pleasure, as you know, to sit down with you one-on-one a few times in the past, and so I know that asking you to make a prediction is like wasting my time. So I am not going to ask you to predict anything about tomorrow's elections, but let me ask you, on a scale of 1 to 10, if I can, 10 being confident, 1 being apprehensive, how do you feel about tomorrow on this election eve? And I will tell you why. If you look at it, first of all, in the House of Representatives, there are probably 36 elections that could go either way. And in my opinion, it will depend overwhelmingly on the turnout. Then there are in the Senate seven, perhaps eight, elections that could go either way, depending on the turnout. It is clear to me that our message has resonated with the American people, though we have been at an enormous, enormous financial disadvantage, the largest in my lifetime. The Republican committees-the Senate committee, the House committee, and the national committee raised over $100 million more than their Democratic counterparts in these last 2 years. I feel good about it, but it depends upon who votes. You mentioned just a moment ago that this may be the election where the imbalance has been greatest with regard to fundraising in your lifetime, Republican and Democrat, that you have been involved in. Speaking of your lifetime, let me ask you whether or not it would be fair for me or anyone else to suggest that this election is not just important to the country, it is not just important to African-Americans, but it is, in fact, quite important to ENTITY. Would I be wrong in my assessment that this may be the most important election day of your entire political career? No, I do not agree with that. No, no, it is not the most important election in my career. But it is very important to me because it will determine how much I can do for the American people in the next 2 years. We did very well here in this budget this year. We got a downpayment on our 100,000 teachers; we got programs for hundreds of thousands of kids after school; we fended off a Republican attempt to raid the surplus before we fixed Social Security.

Interview With Tavis Smiley of Black Entertainment Television


And there is so much we still have to do that if we got a few more Democrats here, we could pass this Patients' Bill of Rights; we could have modernized schools and 100,000 more teachers; we could raise the minimum wage; we could secure Social Security; we could reform Medicare in the right way; we could do something for child care; we could do more for the areas of our country which still have not felt the economic recovery. And so the last 2 years of my Presidency, I think, would be far more focused on progress, as opposed to this Washington partisan politics. So I would like it very much. It is terribly important to me. But the most important elections were the election and reelection in '92 and '96. Let me follow up on that, and again I ask this respectfully, and I will move on. The reason I asked that question in the first place is because you and I both know what you personally have at stake, what personally is riding on this election tomorrow. And you mentioned that the two most important elections were the one when you were elected in '92 and, of course, reelected in '96. And I would expect you to say that. But the reason why I asked whether or not you felt there was more riding on tomorrow is precisely because this election, depending on the outcome, could be the beginning of the undoing, the unraveling of what those two elections were all about. And I hope that the American people will turn out, and I hope that the electorate tomorrow will reflect what we know the electorate as a whole feels. The American people as a whole want us to put this partisanship behind us, want us to get back to their business. They think altogether too much time is spent in Washington on the considerations of the politics of Washington and altogether too little time spent on the real problems and the real opportunities of people out there in the country. So I agree with that, and I think that they can do a lot tomorrow to reduce partisanship and to increase progress if they all show up. It is really a function of whether the people who show up tomorrow are fairly reflective of what all the research and all our instincts, mine and everybody else's, tell us where the American people as a whole are.


We will move on and ask a couple of questions that I admit at the outset I am somewhat apprehensive in asking, but I ask them because they are things that you have spoken about in the past, and I want to give you a chance to expound and extrapolate, if you will. You have talked in the past a great deal about atonement, leading up to this election day tomorrow. one, atoning as ENTITY, and secondly, atoning as a husband and a father. With regard as atoning as ENTITY, you promised to work harder to be a better ENTITY. the budget deal with Congress; the historic peace agreement between Israel and Palestine; I note last Friday the G- 7 nations agreed on your proposal to put money into markets that are jittery at the moment. You are on a roll, domestically and internationally, with regard to that atonement issue and your being ENTITY. What you have not talked about much lately- and I want to give you a chance to respond if you so choose-is how the atonement process is coming along with regard to your being a husband and a father. I have not talked about it deliberately, because I think that it ought to be a private matter between me and my family. All I can tell you is I am working at it very hard, and I think it is terribly important. It is more important than anything else in the world to me- more important than anything else in the world. But I think the less I say about it, the better. I think one of the things that I hope will come out of the reassessment of this whole business is a conviction again, which I believe the American people already have, that even people in public life deserve some measure of private space within which to have their family lives and to deal with their-both the joys and the trials of their personal lives. So I do not think I should say more about it except that I am working at it. I respect that. As you know, there was not a single reference-not a single reference-to Whitewater, as your White House staff and the entire Clinton administration reminds us every day-not a single reference to Whitewater in the Starr report. On the eve of this election day, though, it occurs to me that you still, though, have not been, despite that reality, you still have not been officially exonerated with regard to the Whitewater matter.


I am wondering whether or not that frustrates you in any way, whether you are bothered by the fact that there was not anything in the report but you still have not been officially exonerated. Well, I think the American people should draw some comfort from the fact that after 4 years and $40 million, reviewing all my checks, contributions, and the pressure- the extraordinary pressure a lot of people were put under to say things damaging, that nothing has come out. That is because neither my wife or I did anything wrong. And eventually that will become clear to the American people. I hope it will become clear sooner rather than later, but I know that. I knew that in the beginning. I knew it from the start. And so I am at peace about that, and I will just have to let what others do be a matter for them to decide. A vast rightwing conspiracy - I am sure you have heard those words somewhere before- a vast rightwing conspiracy, of course, uttered by your wife on the Today show a few months ago. Number one, as I just suggested, the Starr report has come out with embarrassing, lurid, salacious details, and no mention of Whitewater; we have since had a straight party-line partisan vote in the House to move forward with this impeachment inquiry; thirdly, the Washington Post tells us last week that the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich himself, was behind these personal attack ads against you. I am wondering, in light of that, and a number of other things I am sure you could list, but those are three things that come to my mind-I am wondering whether now we can reassess the First Lady's comments and ask whether or not Hillary Rodham Clinton was right when she suggested that there is, in fact, a vast rightwing conspiracy. Well, I think the facts speak for themselves, and as more facts come out, they will speak for themselves. The only thing I would say is there is a sort of a permanent political class in Washington that tends to thrive on such matters because they are not affected by what I came here to do. In other words, most of these people, it does not matter to them whether there is a Patients' Bill of Rights or not, to make sure doctors, instead of accountants, make health care decisions. It certainly does not matter to them whether there is a minimum wage increase.


It does not matter to them whether we have 100,000 more teachers and modernized schools. It does not matter to them whether we save Social Security for the 21st century. So there is a group in America where the acquisition of political power is more important than the purpose for which it is used. To me, I never came here to be part of that permanent political class. I did not come-I am not a Washington person, in that sense. My whole goal was to use these precious years the American people have given me to deal with the challenges facing our country. I have done my best to do it, to move our country forward and to bring our country together. And I have to say, I think I have not really succeeded in reconciling the political parties in Washington. But to me, that is what is going on here. This is a question of whether you have got politics or people as your top goal. That phrase, a vast rightwing conspiracy, would seem to suggest on some level that there is a visceral hatred, if you will, of Bill and Hillary Clinton in this city by some folk. You buy that? Let me ask you, first of all, if you buy that, ENTITY. And number two, if you buy that, let me just ask you in a very point-blank and direct way-and I am not so sure I have ever heard you asked this question before, so maybe I am a revolutionary here, I do not know, maybe I am not-why do they hate you so much? Again, I think that people whose whole life is whether or not they are in or out of power, rather than what they do with power when they get it, do not like it when they are out. And a lot of these people really never thought there would be another Democratic in our lifetimes. And all the things they said about Democrats-that we could not run the economy, that we could not balance the budget, that we could not deal responsibly with welfare, that we could not be tough and smart on crime, that we could not be strong on foreign policy- all those things that they told the American people about Democrats generally over decades turned out not to be true. And we now have 6 years of evidence that it is not true. So there are some, again, whose life is solely-they evaluate themselves solely on whether they are in or out, who are very angry about that. And I am sorry for them.


I am not even angry at them anymore. I am just sorry, because I believe that there are people in the Republican Party who are good people, who have honest differences of opinion with me, that I can work with, and we could have these debates and work through to have a good, positive result. I think-but the ones that are consumed with personal animosity toward me or toward Hillary, I think, are just angry because they thought they and their crowd would always be able to drive up to the West Wing to work every day. To me, I just never thought of it that way. To me, every hour I serve here is an honor and a gift. But I never thought of myself as someone whose whole life was evaluated based on whether you were in or out. I think it is what you do when you are in that counts. Speaking of what you do while you are in that counts, there are a significant number of African-Americans who feel that part of the reason why this hatred exists, part of the reason why this animosity exists, part of the reason why this friction exists between you and them is because you have been not just friendly to black folk and people of color-a lot of folk are friendly to black folk, and they speak and pat you on the back and stop by your fundraiser and your dinner-it is not just that you are friendly to black folk, it is that you appear downright comfortable with black folk and other people of color, and women, for that matter. I am wondering whether or not, with regard to the issues, you think that the reason why this hatred exists is because you have been so comfortable, so open, so accepting of diversity. Toni Morrison, as I am sure you know, recently in the New Yorker magazine wrote that you are the first-ENTITY is the first black ENTITY. There are lot of black folk who feel that way about you. I love that. might that be part of the reason why people do not like you, because you are just so friendly and so open to this concept of diversity? I honestly do not know the answer to that.


I can tell you that I have watched over time, since I was a little boy, and we had all the racial troubles in the South when I was a kid- from that day to the present moment, where I am trying to stop a disaster in Kosovo from occurring, and then we have dealt with Northern Ireland and the Middle East and tribal warfare in Africa and all these things-there are many different kinds of people in the world, but there are certainly two different kinds. There are those which draw their strength and identity from what they are not and who they are not , and they feel more secure when they know they are in a more dominant position over others. And then there are people who believe that they are more secure and stronger when they are unified with others, when they are connecting with people, when they are reaching across the lines that divide, and they do not feel threatened by the success of people who are totally different from them. And I was raised by my mother and by my grandparents to be in that latter group. And I do not claim any credit for it. And this racial issue, to me, it goes way back before I was ever in politics. It is been a passion of a lifetime. I think my life is more interesting, more fun, more fulfilled because I have been able to reach out and have friends of different races and different backgrounds. And I just thank God that I was put in a position of political influence for a period of time where I could help more people to come into that mainstream of American life. I think this country is better off, and I think people individually are better off when they are connecting with people who are different from them. To me, that is one of the things that makes life interesting. So it may be that that is a source of anger and animosity toward me. But if it is, I have gotten a lot more from this than I have paid for it. I cannot imagine any more important job for ENTITY right now than trying to unify this country across racial lines. And while you have enjoyed a great deal of support-overwhelming, in fact-in the African-American community, there are some black folk who think that you have not been liberal enough. You are not the most liberal ENTITY, let us face it, that we have ever had.


There are some folk who think that the black community still is taken for granted by the Democratic Party; that we are blindly loyal to the Democratic Party; that the Democratic Party wants black votes, but they do not put the resources they ought to put to secure those black votes, and then the weekend before election day everybody comes running to the black community begging for support. What do you say to folk who think-black folk, particularly-who think that they are being taken advantage of, being taken for granted by the Democratic Party, and that too many of us, quite frankly, are blindly loyal, as black folk, to the Democratic Party? I would say a couple of things. First of all, I do not think the evidence supports that in my case. I mean, in these 6 years, whether you measure it by Cabinet members, by 54 Federal judges, by any other standard, I have tried to make black Americans an integral part of our national life and my administration. Secondly, if you look at the record here- there are those who say I am not liberal enough. Let us talk about that in two different ways. This economic policy I have pursued and the special efforts that we have made through empowerment zones and community development banks and other initiatives-housing initiatives in the inner city-has given us the highest homeownership in history, the highest African-American small-business ownership in history, the lowest African-American poverty ever recorded, more access to college than ever before. So I think that if you just look at that, I think the evidence is clear. Now, there are those who say that I was wrong to sign the welfare bill that I signed. But I vetoed the welfare bills that would have taken food and medical guarantees away from poor children and families. The bill I signed simply says that every State has to make an effort to get able-bodied people in the workplace, and if able-bodied people can go into the workplace, they should not be able to draw public assistance after a certain period of time. I think I was right about that. The crime bill I signed puts 100,000 more police on the street, but it also gives young people programs and ways to stay off the street. Now-so I believe that. Then there are some African-Americans who say that I am not conservative enough because they favor-and they say they favor the Republicans on business grounds. It would be hard to argue that.


We have done more to promote economic activity in the inner city and for African-Americans than anybody ever has. So I actually would like it, believe it or not, someday if we could restore some balance in the party's appeal to the races. But as long as the Republicans follow the policies they are following, and if Democrats will follow the policies I have followed, I think that African-Americans are simply making the right decision based on what is right for their families and children. I think most white Americans ought to be voting for us. The truth is, I think you could make a compelling case that a lot of the non-African-Americans who vote for the Republicans are doing the irrational thing. They are voting against their selfinterest and what is best for our country and what is good and strong for our country. If you listen to what I say-the speech I gave in that Baltimore church yesterday, I could have made that speech in a white church. I could have made that speech to a white civic club. I believe that what I am trying to do is to unify America, not divide it. I know that you are tight on time, and I appreciate your sitting down with me, and I am getting some time cues here, so if I can squeeze out a couple of quick questions. Far be it for me to rush ENTITY off. I'd talk to you for another hour and a half. Let me squeeze out a couple more if I can. When we last sat down-speaking of black folk-when we last sat down one-on-one, just a few months ago, you granted me an exclusive interview in Capetown, South Africa, as you recall. I thank you again for that. One of the questions I was pressing you on that particular day, as you were about to make a trip to Goree Island-I pressed you that day on whether or not when you got to Goree Island you were going to offer an apology for slavery. You made some rather provocative statements, but you did not quite, in the minds of many, offer that apology for slavery. Your race commission, subsequently, has punted, if I could use that phrase, the question of the slavery apology. I am wondering whether or not, since no one seems to want to apologize for slavery, whether or not in your mind that means that this country, America, is unapologetic about slavery.


First of all, I think Dr. John Hope Franklin, who is the Chairman of my race commission, has enormous credibility with all African-Americans. And I think what he decided was that he did not want-that, in effect, the country had been apologizing for it for over 100 years in the sense that it was abolished after the Civil War by, first, the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln, and then by the passage of the constitutional amendment, the 13th amendment, and then that we had been on this long struggle, that it was self-evident that what we had done was wrong, and that we had been struggling to overcome it, and that all of us-at least virtually all thinking Americans and feeling Americans-were deeply sorry for what had happened and that we were still struggling to overcome it. But I think that Dr. Franklin and the race commission concluded that it might be a diversion from our present task, which is to look at the problems we have today and to figure out how to overcome them, and to recognize, too, that the race issue in America is today and going forward even more complicated because it is not just about black and white Americans; it is about Hispanic-Americans; it is about Asian-Americans; it is about people from South Asia, people from the Middle East. I gave a speech Saturday-a little talk-on my school modernization initiative over in Virginia at an elementary school, where there were children in just this elementary school from 23 different countries. And they said they were very sorry that they could not have simultaneous translation of my remarks in Spanish and Arabic. So what I think the race commission wanted to do was to say, Hey, the overwhelming majority of white Americans regret the whole episode of slavery, have been trying in various ways with fits and starts to overcome it for 100 years, have to continue to try to overcome it, but we should focus now on where we are and where we are going. I asked you earlier how important you thought this election day was for you. I have tried in the few moments that I have had to ask you how important you think it is for black America, specifically. Let me close by asking you how important you think this election is for the entire country tomorrow. And I think it is really a question of what the country wants us to do here. Do they want more of the last 8 months of partisanship, or would they like more progress?


And now, Democratic presidential candidate ENTITY is here with me in Milwaukee. I appreciate your being with me. You just heard Hillary Clinton say your campaigns are talking to each other about another debate. You have asked for one. Of course, as you are aware, earlier today, a Clinton campaign spokesman said your requests for debates are a quote/unquote, publicity stunt. Do you think she is serious about debating you? So I would hope that we would have a good debate. My understanding is she would like to do it in Brooklyn. I was born in Brooklyn. Let us do it! The other big news, of course, you heard at the top of the program, you saw the video today from a Trump rally. But of course, Donald Trump's campaign manager charged with simple battery for an altercation with a reporter recently. Moments ago, he just defended that campaign manager. He said, I know it would be easy for to discard people. I do not discard people. Should Trump fire Corey Lewandowski? Well, let us see what happens in the legal process. He is been charged, and we do not find people guilty until you go through a process. But my campaign manager does not assault female journalists, let me just say that. You know, John Kasich came out and said he would if this had happened to him. He would go ahead and fire his campaign manager. Well, let me just say this. Let me just say this. What has concerned me very much about Donald Trump is the edginess of calls to violence around his campaigns. But he was prepared - or at least indicated that he was prepared -- to pay the legal fees for somebody who quite openly sucker-punched somebody - right, knocked them down. And when you say you are going to pay the legal fees for someone who commits a gross act of violence, what you are really telling your supporters is that violence is okay. But ENTITY, to me, all of that stuff is interesting political stuff. But what we are trying to focus on in this campaign are the issues that impact the American people. One of the key issues that we are dealing with is a rigged economy in which millions of people today are working longer hours for lower wages. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost because companies shut down here, moved to Mexico, moved to China. We need a trade policy that works for workers, not just the CEOs of large corporations. Now, you are obviously making this case here in Wisconsin.

Bernie Sanders Interview with Erin Burnett of CNN


You have the landslide wins on Saturday, right, in three crucial states. Now you are here in Wisconsin. Absolutely. 96 if you count the ones up for grabs. Are you going to win Wisconsin? I am never into speculation. I will tell you that the night of the election, all right? I will tell you exactly what the results are. But it is silly to be talking about it. We have a lot of volunteers here in the state. We are going to be knocking on doors, we are going to be making phone calls. And our message about the need to create an economy that works for all people is in fact resonating here in Wisconsin. So, one of the arguments you are making on that front, right, is free college. You see, every time I am on a show, somebody says free college. It is free tuition at public colleges and universities. OK, so on that front, though -- because it is important how you word it, your plan -- we have a federalist system. You would be chipping in money to the states, and they would then have the decision to make. Hillary Clinton says that is just not going to happen in a state like Wisconsin. Let me just play what she said, basically about you this afternoon. I mean, Scott Walker turned down half a billion dollars in Obamacare. OK, let me just say the danger - let me just say this. Number one, in the year 2016, we have got to recognize that a college degree is pretty much the equivalent of what a high school degree was 50 years ago. We need to have the best educated work force in the world. Young people should not be denied the opportunity because they do not have the money. Or they should not have to leave school $50,000, $100,000 in debt. Now, what Secretary Clinton said is that Scott Walker may not go along with that. Well, you know what happens to the state of Wisconsin if he does not? California will, Vermont will, states all over this country will, and young, bright people will be leaving Wisconsin. And I think the people of Wisconsin will tell Scott Walker, you know what? This will be a disaster for the future of our state. It is paid for, ENTITY, by a tax on Wall Street's speculation. When Wall Street's illegal behavior destroyed our economy, middle class bailed them out. It is now time for them to help the middle class.


During the midst of the financial crisis when people said, let Bank of America go under. You are not just talking about tens of thousands of people that would have worked for that bank, but also the millions of Americans that have -- own shares of that bank and their 401, their IRA. millions of Americans own stocks now. Middle class Americans who could end up paying for them. No, no, the vast majority of that speculation tax will be paid by upper-income people. And that is the way we have designed it. But at the end of the day, look, this campaign is not your typical campaign. Now, you tell me, if Germany can provide in fact free college education, Scandinavia can do it, other countries around the world can do it, why cannot we do it? Why cannot we have the best educated work force in the world, which we are going to need if our economy is to survive? And let me also add this. I know you do not talk about it too much in the media, but that is the fact. We are talking about trillions of dollars. So yes, I am running for president, and am telling the top one-tenth of one percent they are going to have to pay more in taxes. And just a question, let me take a step back about the whole idea. You say you want the best educated work force. When you look at the top-ranked countries, you are looking at places like Canada, like South Korea, like Japan. All of them require people to pay in most instances about what people pay here for public education. People are going to be paying for Harvard and Yale and all kinds of private schools. The way I see it, ENTITY, is that right now, and for the last hundred years, we have had public education which says that no matter what your income is, right? You are rich or poor, you can go from the first grade to the 12th grade for free. We take it for granted. All I am saying is that in the year 2016, with a radically changing economy, where young people need more education, let us extend that concept beyond the 12th grade through public colleges and universities. ENTITY Sanders is staying with me. We are going to have much more in our exclusive conversation in just a moment in the wake of the terror attacks in Brussels. We are going to talk about that and the fight against ISIS. And we are also going to be counting down, of course, to the town hall for the GOP.


We are live tonight in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where in less than an hour, the three remaining Republican presidential candidates will be going before voters at our town hall across town here and make their case. And of course, right now, I am talking exclusively to ENTITY, who is also come campaigning here in this must-win state up against Hillary Clinton. ENTITY, let us continue our conversation. The open primary here in Wisconsin is important. They can vote for whomever they would like, Democrats, Republicans. We have seen this across the country, people choosing between you and and Donald Trump. Some union workers, we understand here, are deeply considering whether they should vote for you or Donald Trump. What do you say to people who are making that choice? Well, I think we will get the vast majority of the union workers. Trump will get some, but I think we will get a lot more. I think what is going on, ENTITY, is there is a lot of anger in this country. For your average guy, he is asking why he has to work longer hours for lower wages. Why he is really worried or she is worried, mother really about the future of their children. And yet, almost all income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent. What Trump is doing is taking that anger and saying, it is the fault of the Mexicans or it is the fault of the Muslims. We have got to scapegoat people. Well, beating up on Mexicans who make eight bucks an hour is not going to deal with the real issues facing -- Are you, though, blaming rich people for it? We are blaming a economic system right now where factually almost all the income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent. Where you have billionaires and large corporations that are not paying their fair share of taxes; there are some major corporations make billions a year in taxes, stash their money in the Cayman Islands, do not pay a nickel in taxes. And what I want to do is take that money, do away with that loophole, invest it in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. We can create 13 million jobs over a five-year period with a trillion-dollar investment. It is not a question of blaming, it is a question of understanding the reality. People on the top are doing phenomenally well; everybody else is doing worse. We have got to change that. Susan Sarandon is a supporter of yours, as you know.


The actress, she said, Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in. Is Donald Trump more likely to bring about a revolution in this country -- and you have been having revolutionary talk. I know not of the violent sort, but in terms of making changes in this country. Is he more likely to accomplish that -- Well, I am not sure -- I heard that. I did not really see here Susan's context -- Susan's comment within a broader context. I think Trump will be a disaster for this country. I think the idea of insulting women and veterans and African-Americans and Mexicans and Muslims is precisely what this country does not need and does not want. Look, in every poll that I have seen, including a CNN poll, we were 20 points ahead of Trump. I do not believe Trump is going to become president of the United States. You do win in those head-to-heads, of course, in the polling. We spoke to some female Donald Trump supporters yesterday in Arizona. It was a fascinating conversation about why they do believe in Donald Trump, why they support him. Here is what one of them had to say. Well, it is not only -- no, I do not understand his appeal to women. I do not think he is particularly popular with women in general. You cannot go around insulting women everyday and expect to gain support. But I understand where that woman is coming from. Look, people are sick and tired of establishment politicians. Politicians say one thing, they do another thing. You know, the Congress has a favorability rating of 15 percent or something. And Trump is, of course, very blunt and straightforward. But you have got to look at what he is saying. Does that woman really believe the billionaire class should receive hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks over a 10-year period? I doubt it. Does she not think that we should raise the minimum wage? Does she really think we should insult Muslims all over the world? I do not think she does think that. So, I think the appeal of Trump is his bluntness, is his straightforwardness. And by the way, this guy is a good entertainer. He has done a very good job manipulating the media. He is a professional at that. And he has been successful doing it. So, let me talk about Muslims and the issues that he has brought up on that. I was in Brussels last week.


I spoke to a young man, and it was 10 to 15 people who have gone to Syria to fight with ISIS. I spoke to the brother of the Paris attacker - of one of the Paris attackers a few months ago in Brussels. He told me he knows many young men who are in Syria training to fight with ISIS. And yet, you can still, without a visa, get on a plane in Brussels and fly to the United States. How do you prevent these young men who say their ultimate goal is to attack the United States from coming here without racially profiling, as Donald Trump suggested? You do everything that you can. And that means you have information, and we have -- that is what intelligence services are all over the world. And you share that information. And if people are going to Syria, if they are going to training camps, they are not going to come -- or if they come back into Brussels or they come into the United States, they are going to be arrested in five minutes. We have zero tolerance for people who are going to hurt Americans or people anyplace else in the world. When people -- I know people in Brussels who said my son - one of - the bomber here, they said, my son is in Syria. So if they do not know the names who is there, they do not know who is coming back. No one is saying -- first of all, let us look at the broader issue. They have lost about 40 percent of the territory they controlled. And I believe that if we are smart, if we do a good job in training the Iraqi army, and the Muslim nations, they can be destroyed in a year or two. And second of all, we have got to do everything that with can. No one has any magical solutions. But we do have to improve our intelligence capabilities. We do have to make sure that federal, state and local law enforcement is much better coordinated in preventing these types of attacks. Before we go, federal officials, as you know, this week say they have unlocked the iPhone of one of the shooters in San Bernardino. Now, they had been suing Apple to force Apple to do just that. They figured out how to do it themselves. I know you have said you are fearful of Big Brother in America. Is it a good thing the FBI broke into it? Look, I think that clearly, we need to get all of the information that we can to stop terrorism.


We have enjoyed having you. You have been very helpful to us. ENTITY, can you tell us anything about this visit? At the Crown Prince's suggestion, we divided up into groups this morning for a very deep discussion of some of the major issues that bind us together. The Crown Prince and I were alone, and then Secretary Vance had a chance to meet with Prince Saud, who is a foreign minister. And I think that was a much more productive arrangement than we have had in the past. But we discussed a wide range of issues, including future oil pricing prospects and the interrelationships between the OPEC nations and the countries in Africa. We discussed the Horn of Africa and how to keep the Red Sea region peaceful. We discussed the hopes or possibilities for a Middle Eastern peace settlement this year. We had a long discussion about our own involvement in this process. I think that we understand each other very well. And so far as I know, between ourselves and Saudi Arabia there are no disturbing differences at all. So, I think that I have benefited greatly from those meetings. The Crown Prince will now meet with the Senate Committees on Energy and Foreign Relations and also with the House Committees. What did you agree on on oil prices? What did he say about the oil prices? I would have to let him make comments on that. Just pleasure at the progress that has been made there within the last 12 months. Was there ever any mention of the threatened embargo which we heard about last weekend? What did he ask you to say to Israel? Just to continue a search for peace and keep the process alive to make sure that no one closes the door for a settlement that would provide a just and lasting peace. He also expressed his strong hope that Israel would be reassured about the inclinations of his country towards the protection of their security. These were the comments that he made concerning about his view Do you feel he expects you to pressure Israel in any way? I think it is obvious that we have some influence in Israel and also the Arab countries. But we also, obviously, have no control over Do you think that Begin would close the door? I think he shares my views that it is too early to comment on the future policies of the new government. No one knows the composition of it yet. In your public statements so far you have not mentioned the 1977 Geneva conference possibilities or a Palestinian homeland. He mentioned it yesterday at the hand-out. It was placed right in your hand.

Visit of Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia Remarks to Reporters on the Crown Prince's Departure


Before I do anything else I have to acknowledge we have some amazing women warriors - our we have got a whole crew of veterans I had nothing to do with this the USO wanted to bring them here. And I just wanted everybody to give them a big round of applause, too. I do want to ask you this, though, before we I am putting together a scrapbook of the whole 2012 campaign, and I do not I have these great pictures from the two debates. But I do not know which debate they are from. So if you could I have two pictures. I do not know if you can get that. And I am wondering, could you tell me which were the I do not I do not know if I have the dates right. Did you feel did you here is what happens to me sometimes. Sometimes I will go onstage and I will have, let us say, an open-faced turkey sandwich and a shot of NyQuil. Did you sense were you taken aback by the reaction to it? Look, you know, I think, obviously, I had an off night. They did not change after the first debate, and they did not change in the second debate and that is that the stakes in this election are really big. You know, Governor Romney makes a good presentation, but the fundamentals of what he is calling for are the same policies that got us into this mess that we have been fighting against for the last four years, trying to dig our way out of an economy that was good for a few folks at the top, but was not working for ordinary Americans. And after 31 months of consecutive job growth, we have seen 5.2 million jobs created, manufacturing is starting to come back, the auto industry recovering, housing starting to rise again. I want to make sure that we are not going back to those policies. And I want to make sure that, over the next four years, we are building on the progress that we have already made to create jobs right here in America for folks and to make sure that middle-class families have some security. Would you say do you feel like you have a stronger, affirmative case for a second ENTITY presidency, or a stronger negative case for a Mitt Romney presidency? What isin your mind, what is the stronger case to be made? Or do you prefer a ? But what is because I am curious, what do you think?

Interview with Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show


Do you feel like you do you feel you have made the strong enough, affirmative case, or a stronger negative case? I think I have got a strong case on both ends. Look, four years ago, I said I'd end the war in Iraq; we did. Said I'd pass health care reforms, make sure people do not go bankrupt when they get sick; we have. Said that we would refocus our attention on al-Qaida; we have. Made sure that made sure that we saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse; we have done that. So we have got a very strong story to tell, whether it is on social issues, like do not ask, do not tell, or economic issues that matter for middle-class families. I do think that part of the ENTITY's job is not only moving forward on things that will work, but also preventing things that will not work. So I think you want a ENTITY in the Oval Office who is going to say, no, we are not going to amend our Constitution for the first time to restrict rights for gay and lesbian couples. We are not going to we are not going to we are not going to pass a budget where all the work that we have done to make college more affordable for young people gets wiped aside so that suddenly lenders and banks are getting extra tens of billions of dollars. We are not going to rollback health care so that millions of people are thrown off the rolls. We are not going to turn Medicare into a voucher system. So but but when you think about it, it is it is two sides of the same coin. The question is, what kind of vision do you have for this country? We need to make sure that we are developing oil and gas, but we are also developing solar and wind. So we are leapfrogging current technology to make sure that the technology 20 or 30 years from now is developed here in the United States. That is what creates jobs. And I the most important thing is, when you think about the economy, I am absolutely convinced, when you look at the historical record, that when middle-class families do well, when there are ladders of opportunity for poorer families to get into the middle class And when a few folks are doing very well at the top and everybody else is getting squeezed, the economy grows slower. And that is the central issue in this election, that we have got to make sure we address.


If you had to say, Governor Romney, there is one place where you feel like, man, that is an area I wish I had done I had a stronger record on that he hits, is it unemployment? Is it the case you know, he talked in the debate, you know, the administration had said, we are going to have this thing down to 5.4 percent, it is still at 7.8 percent, that is a difference of 9 million people. Is there something in what he says? We had the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We could be growing even faster than we have if Governor Romney's allies in Congress would move on some of the things that we have recommended. I will give you an example. On housing, right now we could make sure that families whose homes are underwater, where they owe more than their mortgage or more than their house is worth, if they refinance, typically they get 3,000 bucks in their pockets a year. That is $3,000 they are spending  or $3,000 that they are putting back into equity in their home. Governor Romney opposes it. But do not you have a HAMP program? Do not you have was not $50 billion set aside for HAMP, and only 5 1/2 billion of it has been used? Actually what is happened is we have got 5 million homes that have already we have seen foreclosures prevented. We have a settlement with the banks that provides another $25 billion to help the housing market. But the central question is, there are a whole bunch of things that we can do right now that will make the recovery even stronger, put more folks back to work. When you look at what we did with the auto industry, that is not the only industry where manufacturing can take root back here in the United States again. Now, we have got a whole bunch of cities where you have got workers who are, you know, trained in machinery and advanced manufacturing, but and companies are starting to look at maybe we in-source instead of outsource. But we are going to have to change the tax code to make sure that companies have a strong incentive to do that. Or if you win again, do you get to, at some point, say and I am just going to throw a phrase out there abracadabra? But so if their is what created the drag on the economy, and that is not going to be ameliorated, what will be the difference?


Well, number number one, I want to make sure that we get as many Democrats re-elected as possible and maybe we can take some seats back. Number two number two, when you look at some of the things that we need to do, let us say, in the first year, 2013, having a plan to bring down our deficit that is balanced, that will be settled one way or another next year. The question is going to be, do we do it in a balanced, responsible way, or are we not asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a dime of extra taxes to preserve investments in education? This is the first I am hearing of this. What is that about millionaires? What are you doing to us? No, I am going to throw a commercial in. You and I are going to have a conversation and then we will come back. We are going to have to go to commercial. We are here with ENTITY. How many times a week does Biden show up in a wet bathing suit to a meeting? I had to put out a presidential directive on that. We had to stop that. You have got to put towels down. I do not doubt that in any way, shape or form. Before when you ran, you had certain things that you thought, I wonder if four years as ENTITY has in any way changed that. OK, first one is, we do not have to trade our values and ideals for our security. I still want to close Guantanamo. We have not been able to get that . You know, one of the things that we have got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need congressional help to do that to make sure that not only am I reined in, but any ENTITY's reined in in terms of some of the decisions that we are making. I mean, there are times where there are bad folks somewhere on the other side of the world and you have got to make a call, and it is not optimal. But when you look at our track record, what we have been able to do is to say we ended the war in Iraq, we are winding down the war in Afghanistan, we have gone after al-Qaida and its leadership. It is true that al-Qaida is still active, at least sort of remnants of it are staging in other parts of North Africa and the Middle East. And sometimes you have got to make some tough calls.


But you can do so in a way that is consistent with international law and with American law. Within that, as it ratchets down, I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened.  Well, you know, the truth is actually we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that were not there before on a whole range of issues. They are not the kinds of things that you are going to you Let me put it this way. I saw you flash that Shades of Grey thing, so I know what you have been reading. I appreciate that. No, I understand that. I respect the position. The second thing and this one I thought and in the debate, it was obviously a big moment. Governor Romney said, you never called what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack, you said, check the transcripts. Candy Crowley said, he did call it that, but also said to the larger point there was confusion within the administration over what happened. What was it that caused that confusion? Well, we were not confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed. I was not confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world right after it happened. I was not confused about the fact that we had to investigate exactly what happened so it gets fixed. And I was not confused about the fact that we are going to hunt down whoever did it So as I said during the debate, nobody's more interested in figuring this out than I am. When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world immediately, a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in, people try to piece together exactly what happened. And what I have always tried to do is to make sure that we just get all the facts, figure out what went wrong and make sure it does not happen again. And we are still in that process now. But everything that every piece of information that we get, as we got it, we laid it out for the American people. And then we know how we make sure we prevent it in the future.


The difficulty, the perceptions seem to be that state was on a different page than you, or that you had Susan Rice five days afterwards saying on shows, well, this video and could have been a part of that and then other people were coming out ENTITY, you know, the truth is is that information comes in, folks put it out. Throughout the process, people say it is still incomplete. What I was always clear about was we are going to do an investigation and figure out exactly what happened. Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions of not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within? I would say even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as us all being on the same page. Well, here is what I will say. And we are going to fix it. And what happens during the course of a presidency is that, you know, the government is a big operation. At any given time, something screws up, and you make sure that you find out what is broken and you fix it. And you know, whatever else, you know, I have done throughout the course of my presidency, the one thing that I have been absolutely clear about is America's security comes first and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, national security and protecting Americans. And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency. We have been speaking now for, I think, a good 12 to 14 minutes. And I am curious, how many emails during that time do you think your campaign has sent me? But here is what I will say to everybody who is watching. The stakes on this could not be bigger. War, peace, Supreme Court, women's right to choose, you know, whether we are creating jobs in this country or whether they are getting shipped overseas, whether our kids are getting the best education they can, all that stuff is at stake. And I hope you vote for me!


The Orioles lead the Kansas City Royals 3-2. It is opening day, and ENTITY was here today to throw out the first ball, and he will be joining us momentarily, as soon as we get him miked up.  We finally have some balance up here. Can we get a ENTITY chair in here? It was not fast, but I had a good time. This is a good time of the year for you. I know you are a big college basketball fan, having gone to Arkansas. Unfortunately, the Razorbacks were eliminated, did not make it to the finals. But I am very proud of them. They started 4 freshmen and made it to the Sweet 16, so I think they did well. Everybody who watched the games must have felt it was a great tournament. I know you love being here on opening day. It is great to see this new Baltimore team. You know, they have got a chance to go all the way. And yet, if my count's right, all their RBI's go to Mr. Ripken today. Yes, he got 30 percent of what he had in all spring training. And of course, they all want to get to the White House, because I know you had the Atlanta Braves there in early March. I know you get out to a game or two during the season. Do you watch at the White House when you are home? I watch the games when they are on, especially at night. When I come home late at night and I am kind of keyed up and I do not want to go to sleep, I often watch the games that are on. Johnny Damon makes the catch on the warning track. Johnny Damon taking an extra base hit away from Chris Hoiles. So you were saying you watch our games late at night. I guess in essence what you are saying is that we put you to sleep. This is the youngster that last year, at Double A, got about 188 at bats, but the reason Bob Boone left him in center field, even though they have a very good center fielder in Tom Goodwin, is because of his ability to make plays like that. Did you play baseball yourself in high school? My school did not have a team, but we had church league and Boys Club. We had all those. I played in some of those teams when I was a kid. I loved it. I know you love to golf; did you play any other sports growing up?

William J. Clinton Interview With Mel Proctor, Jim Palmer, and Mike Flanagan of Home Team Sports in Baltimore


Yes, but only not in school; I played church league basketball, softball, baseball, but you know, everybody that grew up where I did wound up loving sports. Now, are you allowed to have a favorite team? In the basketball years in the basketball season, excuse me, people understand it when I cheer for my home State team or for my alma mater, Georgetown. And when I was a kid, interestingly enough, in Arkansas, the St. Louis Cardinals were the closest baseball team to us; there were no Texas teams then. And so we used to listen to Cardinals baseball. That is what I studied to when I was a boy. I know you were out here last year when Cal Ripken broke Lou Gehrig's consecutive game streak. What did that mean to you? I think it meant a lot to me not only as a baseball fan but as a citizen and as ENTITY now, as someone who really wants his country to work well. The idea that a man could show that kind of discipline and devotion to his work and stay with one team for a career in a time and age when a lot of people do not last very long because they do not have the discipline to do it and just go for the big-time bucks in the short run and float around from team to team, or in the case of non-athletes from company to company, I think it really sort of was reassuring, not only to me but to the American people, to see that kind of record set and to see that kind of discipline and loyalty. I liked it a lot. Are you aware that Ken Griffey, Jr., is a Presidential candidate and has promised, if elected, to let people not pay taxes for 2 months? Yes, I am worried about that. I am worried about him. I figure that-at the very least he is going to take more votes away from me than Senator Dole. I am really worried about it. I think-you know, I have always been a big fan of his. I feel sort of stabbed by it. It is breaking my heart. You would not consider that, would you? What I want to know is how he is going to pay the bills. I will consider it. I want to hear the rest of the deal. How is he going to not pay the bills? Base hit for Jeffrey Hammonds, who is two for two a double his first time up and now a single.


Hammonds is back healthy and swinging the bat well. Getting back to Cal Ripken and all of the pressure that he must have been under last year during that streak and you can certainly identify with pressure in your office what do you see about the way he handled the pressure? I think he did what I try to do; he did not vary his routine. He just focused on the day that was before him. And I think that he must have had the record in mind, but it did not paralyze his play. Even the night he was here, the night he broke the record, he hit a home run on a 0-3 pitch. So he still had enough presence of mind not to even just take the walk, you know? He was alive to every moment, and I think that is what you have to do. When you are under a lot of pressure, you have to just take a deep breath and do what you know to do. Pitch is low to Brady Anderson, who has struck out and grounded out.  I think you have got to give a lot of credit to conditioning, too. And the way he keeps himself in shape in the off-season and during the season must have an incredible amount to do with the fact that he was able to play relatively injury-free all these years. And that requires a lot of discipline. And you know, a lot of discipline Mike and I played for the Orioles for a number of years, and a lot of people wonder what it is like to play in the big league. Oh, yes, I enjoy it very much. I am honored every day when I go to work. There are some parts of it that are a little rougher than I thought it would be, but I have no complaints. I signed on for the whole show, and I am just honored to have a chance to do it, to make a difference, to stand up for what I believe in, and to serve. It is an incredible opportunity, and if I had it to do over again, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Even Cal gets one off in the spring.


You know, the only frustrating thing is when you come up against a problem that you know cries out for some sort of resolution, and you are not sure you have the power to do anything about it; or when you get a problem where it seems 50-50 on both sides, you just have to kind of feel your way through to the answer, but you are not neither you nor anyone else can be sure about whether it will come out all right. Those things are frustrating, but in terms of the pressure and the tension of the job, I do not mind that at all. I like it. It is part of the challenge. Jeffrey Hammonds is at first with two outs. Come on, Brady, you need a hit. There goes Hammonds, throw to second by MacFarlane. He bounces it. He made it. But it gets him anyway. Well, maybe we can get the umpire to change his mind. I went to see the umpires before the game. Did they have their glasses on? Yeah, they got him. They got him. We will be back, ENTITY, in a moment. Take a commercial break; we will be right back. We are visiting with ENTITY of the United States, ENTITY, who is enjoying opening day here at the ball park. One nice thing is, look how hard the wind is blowing, and you see the flags up there, and yet it is kind of calm in here, so it does not seem to be distracting the game. Joe Vidiella will lead off the fifth inning for the Royals, with the Orioles ahead 3 to 2. Vidiella was called out on strikes his first time up. We were talking about your job and the enjoyment you derive from it, but what is the biggest challenge you have faced so far since you have been in office? The initial challenge was to try to get the economy turned around and get the deficit down, get the interest rates down, get the jobs coming back into the economy. Now the big frustration is how to make how to get that economic benefit of we have over 8 million new jobs in the economy. Unemployment is low, lower than the last 25-year average. But there is still a lot of people that feel uncertain, because things are changing so fast.


Because there is of course a question on everybody's mind, I am sure you know what it is. Have you selected your vice president and who is she? Well, since this is embargoed to Thursday, I am not going to tell you. There has been some criticism within your party that the process has been messy. How many women are on the shortlist exactly? Well, first of all, if they think it is been drawn out, they have not watched any other vice presidential picks in history. This is in fact ahead of time, as a matter of fact. Notice most vice presidential nominees are not announced until a day, two or three before the convention. I have gone through it. Every one of the women we have interviewed is qualified. I have narrowed it down, and I will be ready to make that ann- ENTITY, you have been through this experience before, the vetting process, the speculation, but someone on your own VP selection committee, former Senator Chris Dodd, reportedly has been critic critical of some in contention like Senator Kamala Harris for not being more conciliatory since she went toe to toe with you during the debates. Well, he did not say that to the press. He was talking to somebody offline and it was repeated. Now I do not hold grudges. I have made it really clear that I do not hold grudges. It is as simple as that, and she is very much contention. Now on day one of your presidency, if we listen to the scientists and the doctors, as you say you will do, you are likely to begin your presidency in the middle of this ongoing pandemic. How likely is a rollback on day one of the re-openings of businesses that we have seen nationwide? That is a good question, but an unfair question, because I have no idea what this president's going to leave me with. If he acts responsibly, which he has not done thus far, if he acts responsibly I may be in a position where we do not have to roll back. But if he continues to walk away, wave the white flag and just say open and then listen to some quacks telling him that what we should be doing and you can mass cause ENTITY, the whole thing is he is got to be more responsible.

Joe Biden Interview Transcript August 6: Compares Black and Latino Diversity & Faces Criticism