Home

Iowa Press Transcripts

Iowa Press Links

 

Iowa Press #2707 - Alan Keyes
October 17, 1999

Borg: IN LESS THAN FOUR MONTHS, IOWANS BEGIN THE PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION PROCESS WITH THE IOWA CAUCUSES OF 2000. JOINING US TO DISCUSS THE CAMPAIGN, AND HIS ROLE IN IT, IS REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL ALAN KEYES ON THIS EDITION OF IOWA PRESS.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, 80,000 MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

THIS IS THE SUNDAY, OCTOBER 17th EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: THE CANDIDACY OF ALAN KEYES TO BECOME THE 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS A LONG SHOT, BUT MR. KEYES IS A SURVIVOR IN THE ONCE-CROWDED REPUBLICAN FIELD OF CONTENDERS, AND HE CONTINUES HIS LOW-PROFILE CAMPAIGN FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION, ALTHOUGH OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE FOLDED THEIR CAMPAIGN TENTS. KEMP, KASICH, QUAYLE, ALEXANDER, AND ASHCROFT ALL HAVE GONE TO THE SIDELINES. BUT MR. KEYES CONTINUES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, AND THAT'S TESTIMONY TO BOTH HIS DURABILITY AND HIS MESSAGE. THE FORMER AMBASSADOR IS KNOWN AS AN ARTICULATE SPEAKER, AND A FORCEFUL VOICE ON A RANGE OF SOCIAL ISSUES, WHERE HE HAS STAKED OUT THE HIGH MORAL GROUND. MR. KEYES, WELCOME BACK TO IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

Keyes: GLAD TO BE WITH YOU.

Borg: ACROSS THE TABLE, POLITICAL REPORTERS DAVID YEPSEN OF THE DES MOINES REGISTER AND MIKE GLOVER OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Glover: MR. KEYES, ONE OF THE THINGS WE LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS PROGRAM IS TO GIVE CANDIDATES AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR CASE. LET'S HEAR YOUR CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL. WHY SHOULD ALAN KEYES BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Keyes: WELL, I THINK IT'S CLEAR FROM THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGE WE ARE FACED WITH RIGHT NOW AS A PEOPLE IS THE CHALLENGE OF OUR MORAL FOUNDATIONS, WHICH ARE CRUMBLING. I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT WE WILL NOT SURVIVE AS A FREE PEOPLE, A PEOPLE WHO CAN MAKE THE INSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT WORK, IF WE DON'T ADDRESS THE SERIOUS MORAL CRISIS THAT CLEARLY BESETS THIS COUNTRY. IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS IT BECAME A CRISIS OF THE PRESIDENCY, A CRISIS OF THE CONGRESS. BUT IT, ACTUALLY, REFLECTS, I THINK, A DEEP CRISIS IN OUR OWN CHARACTER AND CONSCIENCE AS A PEOPLE, WHICH HAS BEEN AGGRAVATED BY OUR WILLINGNESS TO TURN OUR BACK ON THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THIS NATION'S LIFE, STARTING WITH THE DECLARATION PRINCIPLE THAT OUR RIGHTS COME FROM GOD AND MUST THEREFORE BE RESPECTED OUT OF RESPECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF GOD. IF WE THROW THAT AWAY AS A PEOPLE, WE ARE, IN FACT, DESTROYING THE MOST IMPORTANT FOUNDATIONS OF OUR WAY OF LIFE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH CONSEQUENCES THAT WE SEE IN OUR SCHOOLS, ON OUR STREETS AND, OF COURSE, IN OUR POLITICS. I THINK THAT THAT'S OUR TOP PRIORITY RIGHT NOW AS A PEOPLE AND THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THAT, LIKE ABORTION, LIKE ISSUES THAT AFFECT THE FAMILY, AND OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE MARRIAGE-BASED FAMILY AND SO FORTH. THOSE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME, AND WHETHER WE REALIZE IT OR NOT THEY WILL DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF OUR LIBERTY.

Yepsen: WE'LL GET TO SOME OF THOSE ISSUES IN A MOMENT, MR. KEYES, BUT I WANT TO ASK A MORE BASIC QUESTION. WE LIKE TO INTRODUCE CANDIDATES TO OUR VIEWERS. WHO IS ALAN KEYES?

Keyes: I DON'T KNOW. IT'S KIND OF A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER. I'M JUST SOMEBODY WHO HAS A STRONG INTEREST IN LIBERTY, I GUESS, ON ACCOUNT OF MY BACKGROUND. I'VE BEEN ENGAGED IN GOVERNMENT IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES, MOSTLY WHEN I WAS IN FOREIGN POLICY, THOUGH I'VE WORKED ON BUDGET ISSUES AND BEEN INVOLVED IN EDUCATION DIRECTLY IN MY ROLE AS INTERIM PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND OTHER THINGS. I THINK, BASICALLY, IN THIS PROCESS I'M JUST A CITIZEN, WHO THINKS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF OUR NATION'S LIFE, WHICH IS, I THINK, OUR LIBERTY, IS BEING THREATENED IN WAYS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH OUR OWN MORAL CHOICES, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO PRESENT TO FOLKS.

Glover: DEAN MENTIONED IN HIS OPEN THE POLLS WOULD SHOW THAT YOU'RE A LONG-SHOT CANDIDATE, THAT YOU'RE TRAILING THE OTHERS. HOW REALISTIC IS YOUR CANDIDACY?

Keyes: WELL, HOW REALISTIC ARE THOSE POLLS? I'VE JUST HAD TOO MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH FOLKS WHO SUPPORT MY CANDIDACY SAY THEY'VE BEEN CALLED BY POLLSTERS, AND WHEN THEY GIVE MY NAME, IT'S NOT ACCEPTED. OR AN INSTANCE LIKE THE ONE THAT WAS IN THE PAPERS THE OTHER DAY, IN THE WASHINGTON AREA THEY DID A POLL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AT WMUR, AND WHEN YOU WENT DOWN THE ARTICLE, YOU LEARNED THAT THEY HAD INADVERTENTLY LEFT MY NAME OUT OF THE POLL. I, FRANKLY, THINK THAT THOSE POLLS ARE A LOT OF MANIPULATED NONSENSE. AND I THINK THAT OUR RELIANCE ON THEM IS VERY DANGEROUS, BECAUSE WE ARE, ACTUALLY, REACHING A POINT NOW WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO PRETEND THAT PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE THEIR CHOICES, SOMEHOW INFLUENCED BY POLLS, OTHER THAN THE POLLS TAKEN ON ELECTION DAY, WHICH MEANS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THOSE POLLS, CONTROL THE COUNTRY. WE WOULD THEN END UP WITH A SYSTEM IN WHICH THE PEOPLE NO LONGER GOVERN THEMSELVES BECAUSE A LITTLE OLIGARCHY THAT CAN CONTROL THE POLLS AND THE MEDIA HAVE TAKEN OVER THE POLITICAL PROCESS. SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THEM MUCH RELIANCE.

Glover: WHAT DO YOUSAY TO A CONSERVATIVE WHO SAYS, MR. KEYES, I LIKE WHAT I HEAR FROM YOU. I LIKE THE MESSAGE YOU'RE BRINGING TO THIS CAMPAIGN, BUT I WANT TO CAST A VOTE FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT A SHOT AT WINNING.

Keyes: OH, I SAY THE SAME THING ALL THE TIME. I THINK, PUT NOT TOO FINE OF POINT ON IT, THAT THAT POSITION IS STUPID. THINK ABOUT IT JUST FOR A SECOND. IF I BELIEVE X AND NEVER VOTE FOR X, CAN X EVER WIN? THAT'S A SELF-FULLFILLING PROPHECY, AND PEOPLE WHO GIVE INTO THAT LOGIC, ARE EITHER VERY STUPID OR THEY'RE INSINCERE.

Glover: DO YOU HEAR IT?

Keyes: ACTUALLY, I HEAR IT ALL THE TIME. AND I'LL SAY IT BLUNTLY TO THEM. I SAY IT TO MY AUDIENCES, YOU KNOW, HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE? SOMEBODY COMES UP TO YOU AND SAYS, "OH, DON'T GO VOTE FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE. VOTE FOR THE WINNER." HAVEN'T YOU FIGURED YOU OUT YET THAT IF YOU NEVER VOTE FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IT CAN'T POSSIBLY WIN? OH, GOSH, ALAN, THAT'S RIGHT. IT IS RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THAT ONCE PEOPLE PAUSE -- I'VE NEVER HAD AN AUDIENCE THAT ONCE I LOOKED THEM IN THE EYE AND SAID THAT THE LIGHT BULB DIDN'T GO ON AND THEY DIDN'T REALIZE I'VE GOT TO STOP LISTENING TO THAT REASONING BECAUSE IT'S REASONING THAT DEPRIVES ME OF MY FRANCHISE. I HAND IT OFF TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

Yepsen: OKAY, THE POLLS ARE ONE THING; CAMPAIGN MONEY IS SOMETHING ELSE. AND GEORGE W. BUSH HAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY, $50, $60 MILLION. WHY ISN'T THE RACE OVER GIVEN THAT FACT?

Keyes: WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK MONEY HAS AN IMPACT WITHOUT ANY DOUBT. I'M NOT SURE IT'S AS DECISIVE AS PEOPLE SAY. TAKE THE LAST IOWA CAUCUSES, FOR INSTANCE. AS I RECALL, STEVE FORBES SPENT, WHAT, $5 MILLION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN IOWA? AND ALAN KEYES SPENT, I FORGET, I THINK OUR CAMPAIGN SPENT MAYBE HALF A MILLION IN THIS STATE. I THINK IT WAS LESS THAN THAT. HE ENDED UP WITH 9 PERCENT. I ENDED UP WITH 7 PERCENT. THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING, I THINK, AT LEAST ABOUT POLITICS IN IOWA. I DON'T THINK MONEY IS EVERYTHING. I THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT DO YOU USE THE MONEY FOR? TO GET THE SUPPORT OF PEOPLE. IF YOU CAN FIND A WAY THROUGH HARD WORK AND ORGANIZATION AND REAL GRASSROOTS APPEAL HARNESSING THE ENERGY OF OUR PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND SPREAD THE WORD AMONGST THEIR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS, YOU CAN SUBSTITUTE PEOPLE FOR MONEY AND IT CAN HAVE A WINNING IMPACT AT THE POLLS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY, BY THE WAY, THESE STATES LIKE IOWA WHERE GRASSROOTS IS STILL IMPORTANT, I THINK THEY ARE VITAL TO OUR PROCESS BECAUSE THE COST OF ENTRY OR THE BARRIERS TO ENTRY, IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT THAT WAY, ARE NOT AS HIGH HERE AS THEY ARE, SAY, IN CALIFORNIA OR SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND THAT MEANS THAT VOICES, AUTHENTIC VOICES FROM THE GRASSROOTS CAN GET A FOOTHOLD HERE AND CAN ACHIEVE VICTORY IF THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK HARD AND IF THEY ORGANIZE WELL ENOUGH.

Yepsen: WHAT ABOUT THE BUSH ARGUMENT THAT THE CORE OF HIS CANDIDACY, WHICH IS YOU WIN ELECTIONS IN THE CENTER, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?

Keyes: IT'S A LIE. OBVIOUSLY, EXPERIENCE. IN MY LIFETIME, AT LEAST, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAJOR REPUBLICAN VICTORIES AND GAINS, THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN WON IN THE CENTER. THAT'S SIMPLY A LIE. RONALD REAGAN DID NOT WIN BY RUNNING FROM THE CENTER. AND IN 1994 THE REPUBLICANS DID NOT RETAKE THE CONGRESS BY RUNNING IN SOME WISHY-WASHY UNPRINCIPLED CENTER. THAT IS SIMPLY A FALSE STATEMENT BASED ON THE POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WE ACTUALLY HAVE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACES IN THE COURSE OF THIS CENTURY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NEVER TURNED THE WHITE HOUSE OVER TO A NEW FACE, OR A NEW PARTY, WITHOUT A REASON. AND THIS IS WHAT I KEEP TRYING TO TELL THESE SILLY REPUBLICANS WHO THINK THAT FOLKS LIKE G. W. BUSH WITH NO PRINCIPLES OR POSITIONS CAN ACTUALLY WIN. IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE MORAL ISSUES THAT I TALK ABOUT, AND THE SCANDALOUS, HUMILIATING DISASTER THAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REPRESENTS FOR US ON THE MORAL FRONT, EXACTLY. WHAT IS IT THAT WE HAVE TO HOLD AGAINST THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION? THE ECONOMY ISN'T FALLING APART? NOT AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. IS IT LIKELY TO FALL APART BEFORE ELECTION TIME? NOT SO FAR AS I KNOW. IN THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION, DO WE HAVE SOME, I DON'T KNOW, IRAN-STYLE EMBARRASSMENT GOING ON, SOME SECURITY FAILURE, AND SO ON? YEAH. I THINK THIS IS THE WORST NATIONAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION THAT WE'VE SEEN EVER, BUT THE CHICKENS DON'T COME HOME TO ROOST FOR FIVE OR TEN YEARS. IN THE MEANWHILE, IS THERE ANYTHING GOING ON IN THE WORLD THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO VISCERALLY THINK, "THESE CLINTON PEOPLE, WHAT A DISASTER." NO, THEY'RE NOT. SO ON THE MAJOR AREAS WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE USUALLY CHANGES PARTY HANDS, RIGHT NOW IF YOU WERE GOING TO PLACE BETS BASED ON THAT EXPERIENCE, YOU'D HAVE TO BET ON THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE IN THOSE KEY AREAS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T HAND THE WHITE HOUSE TO A NEW PARTY WHEN THERE'S NOTHING WRONG. BUT THERE IS, IN FACT, SOMETHING DEEPLY WRONG. THE PARTY REPRESENTS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE CIRCLING OF THE WAGONS, AROUND LYING AND CORRUPTION AND MORAL DEPRAVITY THAT WE'VE EVER SEEN IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. THAT IS THE ISSUE. AND G. W. BUSH DOESN'T HAVE THE CONVICTION AND HE DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO RAISE THAT ISSUE. AND THEREFORE, HE WILL LOSE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, BECAUSE HE'S GOT NOTHING TO RUN ON.

Glover: JUST THIS PAST WEEK ON A MORE PRAGMATIC NOTE, IOWA ANNOUNCED A NEW DATE FOR ITS PRECINCT CAUCUSES. THAT ASSURES THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEBATE OVER THE LINEUP OF THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2004. WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON HOW THIS WHOLE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OUGHT TO BE STRUCTURED, PRAGMATICALLY, IN TERMS OF THE WAY IT OUGHT TO START, THE WAY THAT IT OUGHT TO PROCEED. HOW SHOULD THE LINEUP LOOK?

Keyes: WELL, LET'S BE -- AT ONE LEVEL THERE ARE PEOPLE PUSHING REAL HARD, I THINK, RIGHT NOW, TO TRY AND MANEUVER US INTO SOME BIG NATIONAL PRIMARY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A HUGE ERROR. NOT ONLY WOULD IT MEAN THAT STATES LIKE IOWA WOULD ESSENTIALLY GET ECLIPSED IN THE PROCESS AND THAT THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS WOULD THEN REST ON THE POPULOUS STATES WITH BIG CITIES AND URBAN AREAS AND AREAS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT -- AFTER ALL, DO WE GROW OUR FOOD IN THE CITIES? NO, WE DON'T. DO OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF OUR LIFE INCLUDING, THESE DAYS, THE KIND OF CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE MADE TO THINKING AND FAMILY STRUCTURE AND BASIC VALUES, DO THEY COME EXCLUSIVELY FROM OUR URBAN AREAS? NO, THEY DON'T. CAN WE AFFORD TO BE A COUNTRY THAT HAS TILTED ITSELF POLITICALLY IN A DIRECTION THAT ECLIPSES THE INFLUENCE OF THE NONURBAN, LESS POPULAR AREAS OF THE COUNTRY? NO, WE CAN'T. I THINK IT WILL DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION IF WE GO IN THIS DIRECTION. SO I VERY MUCH BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO RETAIN A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS A FAIR WEIGHT AND ROLE TO BE GIVEN IN THE PROCESS, EVEN IF IT'S JUST AS IT IS IN IOWA. IT'S NOT A ROLE THAT DETERMINES THE OUTCOME, IT'S A PERCEPTUAL ROLE. IT'S A ROLE WHERE THE PEOPLE IN THIS STATE GET THEIR OAR IN SOON ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE CAN SAY, "WELL, MAYBE I BETTER LOOK AT THIS GUY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE WAS WORTH SOMETHING." AND AS A RESULT, WE'VE SEEN SOME VERY IMPORTANT AND INTERESTING INTRODUCTIONS IN OUR POLITICS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE. AND I THINK WE'D BE WORSE OFF FOR IT. SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE CAREFUL TO KEEP A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS THE LESS POPULOUS, LESS URBANIZED STATES TO HAVE A PROPER ROLE.

Borg: I'D LIKE TO TAKE SOME OF THAT PHILOSOPHY NOW INTO SOME OF THE ISSUES. AND YOU RAISED A POINT, YOU SAID, "WE DON'T GROW OUR FOOD IN THE CITIES." WHAT KIND OF CREDIBILITY CAN YOU, AS A CANDIDATE IN IOWA -- I LOOK AT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS -- EASTERNER, URBAN, AFRICAN-AMERICAN, ON AND ON -- THAT DON'T IDENTIFY WITH AN IOWA FARMER? HOW CAN YOU ESTABLISH CREDIBILITY HERE?

Keyes: I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME IS THAT WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE, I DON'T PRETEND THAT I'M GOING TO GO TO WASHINGTON AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S FOOLISH, IT'S SOCIALIST, IT'S TOTALITARIAN, IT'S AN ERROR, IT'S THE WRONG WAY TO DO THINGS. OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FEDERAL SYSTEM WHERE WE LEAVE DECISION-MAKING POWER AND DECENTRALIZE INSTITUTIONS ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE AT THE GRASSROOTS SO THAT THE FOLKS WHO KNOW BEST WHAT IS GOING TO WORK IN THEIR OWN LIVES AND FOR THEIR OWN OUTLOOKS WILL HAVE THAT POWER IN THEIR HANDS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I OFFER PEOPLE. IF I SUCCEED AT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A SYSTEM THAT IN TERMS OF POLITICS, IN TERMS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL AND SO FORTH, WOULD BE DECENTRALIZED ENOUGH TO PUT POWER AND ACCESS BACK IN THE HANDS OF IOWA FARMERS WHO ARE RIGHT NOW BEING MANIPULATED THREE WAYS FROM SUNDAY BY BANKERS AND FARMERS WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM, DON'T HAVE A REAL STAKE OR INTEREST IN THEIR SURVIVAL.

Borg: BUT IF A FARMER WERE TO ASK YOU "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN FARM POLICY," HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND USING THAT PHILOSOPHY?

Keyes: I BELIEVE IN A FARM POLICY THAT WOULD, FIRST OF ALL, RETURN US TO DECENTRALIZED ACCESS TO CAPITAL. I THINK THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OUR CENTRALIZED SYSTEM OF BANKING, WHICH CAME IN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE. MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT THE FIRST THING JUST ABOUT THAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT SYSTEM WAS ESTABLISHED WAS THE PANIC OF 1920, '21 IN WHICH ABOUT A MILLION OF OUR SMALL FARMERS WERE WIPED OUT BECAUSE CAPITAL DRIED UP THROUGH AN ARTIFICIALLY-CREATED SCARCITY OF CAPITAL THAT RESULTED FROM THE MANIPULATION OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL BY THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS WITH THE COLLUSION OF THIS NEW CENTRAL BANK OF OUR OWN. WE PUT FARMERS IN AN IMPOSSIBLE POSITION, I BELIEVE, WHEN WE ALLOW THEM TO BE PREY TO BANKS THAT DON'T LIVE IN AND DEPEND ON THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THOSE FARMS EXIST. WE'VE ALSO CREATED A SYSTEM THAT IS SKEWED AND TILTED IN THE DIRECTION OF WIPING OUT FAMILY FARMS AND SUPPORTING, IN FACT, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUGE CORPORATE MEGALITH.

Borg: THERE ARE DECISIONS TO BE MADE IN HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS FARM PRICES AND SURPLUSES AND SO ON.

Keyes: IN THE SHORT TERM, FOR INSTANCE, THIS BILL THAT WAS JUST PASSED IS GOING TO PROVIDE SOME TEMPORARY RELIEF, AND IT'S ALWAYS ON THIS EMERGENCY BASIS. AND I WAS READING IN THE PAPER JUST THE OTHER DAY FOLKS REACTING TO THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL HERE IN IOWA AND, BASICALLY, SAYING, "LOOK THIS IS ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO DEAL WITH OUR PERMANENT PROBLEM. WHY IS IT THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO SIT AROUND AND WAIT FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF. WHY CAN'T WE GET SOME KIND OF FAIRNESS IN THE WAY THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS STRUCTURED SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON THESE EMERGENCY MEASURES AND SO FORTH." AND THAT'S WHAT I AM ADDRESSING HERE. I THINK THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT JUST WHAT DO WE PUT IN THIS PARTICULAR FARM BILL TO SAVE PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED A FINANCIAL STRUCTURE TO DEVELOP THAT IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE EXISTENCE OF FAMILY FARMS. WE MUST ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, OR WE'RE JUST GOING TO WATCH WHAT HAS HAPPENED CONTINUE. PEOPLE TALK A GOOD GAME ABOUT HOW THEY CARE ABOUT THE FAMILY FARMING SECTOR, AND THEN THEY GO DOWN ROADS, IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT POLICY. RIGHT NOW THAT BILL THAT WAS PASSED, FOR INSTANCE, GIVES TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGES THAT AREN'T EVEN FAIR. YOU'LL BE HANDING OFF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO HUGE CORPORATE MEGALITHS, RIGHT, WHO, ACTUALLY, ARE NOT EVEN IN NEED OF THAT SUSTINENCE, BUT WHO WILL GET IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THESE BILLS HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED. IS THAT HELPING FAMILY FARMS? NO, IT'S NOT. WHAT I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, AND THIS IS TRUE IN THE FAMILY FARM AREA, IT'S TRUE IN THE TAX AREAS, AND OTHER AREAS, IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY WE SURRENDER TO SOCIALISM IN KEY AREAS OF THIS NATION'S LIFE. IN TERMS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF OUR BANKING SYSTEM AND IN TERMS OF OUR INCOME TAX IN PARTICULAR, WE ADOPTED SOCIALIST INSTRUMENTS. WE NEED TO GET RID OF THEM SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ONCE AGAIN HAVE ACCESS TO CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION INSTITUTIONS THAT CARE ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE, AND THAT WILL NOT TAKE THE RESOURCES THEY GENERATE IN SURPLUS YEARS AND HAND THEM OFF TO AN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TO BE USED FOR OTHERS.

Borg: I WANT DAVID TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER ISSUE.

Yepsen: MR. KEYES, THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL FACE AN ISSUE IN AMERICA OF TAX POLICY AND WHAT TO DO WITH THE NATION'S BUDGET SURPLUS. WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT TAX POLICY?

Keyes: FIRST, CAN I ADDRESS THAT BUDGET SURPLUS THING, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE REAL CAREFUL ABOUT THIS, AS WE KNOW. THE REASON THAT THEY'RE HAVING PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE THE SO-CALLED BUDGET SURPLUS CONSISTS MAINLY OF MONEY BEING GENERATED STILL BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY RECEIPTS; RIGHT? AND SO YOU'VE GOT THEM ARGUING, "WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE WE'RE TOUCHING THE SOCIAL SECURITY RECEIPTS." WHY? WELL, BECAUSE WE GOT WISE. IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, IT HAS ACTUALLY BECOME KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC THAT THEY'VE BEEN LOSING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SO-CALLED TRUST FUND. AND THAT THEIR PROMISE THAT THEY HAD HIKED UP OUR TAXES IN THE '80S IN ORDER THAT IT WOULD BE SOLVENT IN THE NEXT CENTURY WAS A LIE, AND THEY USED IT TO COVER CURRENT EXPENSES. SINCE WE CAUGHT THEM AT IT, THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT THEIR HAND BACK IN THE COOKIE JAR WHILE WE'RE LOOKING. BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THAT SURPLUS STILL CONSISTS OF MONEY IN THE COOKIE JAR. A LOT OF IT. SO LET'S NOT PRETEND THAT IT'S THERE, BECAUSE IN POINT OF FACT, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO RESCUE THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IF THEY HADN'T LOOTED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY CONFORMED WITH THE PROMISES THAT THEY HAD MADE TO PEOPLE. IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL BUDGET SITUATION, I THINK WE ONLY HAVE A BUDGET CRUNCH IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON WANT TO SPEND MORE MONEY THAN THEY TAKE IN, AND WHAT DO THEY WANT TO SPEND IT ON? PROGRAMS THAT ARE ACTUALLY DOING SOME GOOD? NO. A LOT OF THE PROGRAMS THEY WANT TO SPEND IT ON ARE PROGRAMS GEARED TO SATISFY THEIR POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY SO THEY CAN GET REELECTED. THEY'RE THINGS DETERMINED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PATRONAGE POLITICS AND POWER POLITICS, NOT BY THE REAL NEEDS OF THIS COUNTRY, WHICH IN ANY CASE, I BELIEVE, CAN'T BE DETERMINED IN WASHINGTON. MY VIEW ON TAX IS VERY SIMPLE. WE HAVE A BASIC TAX SYSTEM THAT IS ANTITHETICAL TO SELF-GOVERNMENT. IT WAS PUT IN PLACE WHEN THE INCOME TAX WAS PUT IN PLACE. THEY AMENDED OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, OUR CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, AND GAVE US INSTEAD A SOCIALIST CONSTITUTION THAT HANDS OFF TO THE GOVERNMENT A PREEMPTIVE CLAIM TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OUR INCOME DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WISE UP? IF I GIVE YOU A PREEMPTIVE CLAIM TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF MY INCOME AND YOU GET TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE IS, HOW MUCH OF MY MONEY DO YOU CONTROL IN PRINCIPLE?

Yepsen: SO YOU'D --

Keyes: YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION THOUGH. PEOPLE NEED TO GO TO THE CONCLUSION. YOU CONTROL ALL OF IT. THE INCOME TAX HANDS OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT, IN PRINCIPLE, CONTROL OF ALL OUR HARD EARNED MONEY. HOW CAN WE LIVE WITH THIS SYSTEM? I BELIEVE IT'S VERY SIMPLE. ABOLISH IT. RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND FUND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH A TAX SYSTEM THAT IS BECOMING MORE INEVITABLE ANYWAY, A SALES TAX SYSTEM, A NATIONAL SALES TAX. AND BY THE WAY, LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NATIONAL SALES TAX. THEY'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW WHY?

Yepsen: INTERNET.

Keyes: INTERNET, EXACTLY. NEW TECHNOLOGY IS CREATING NEW WAYS OF DOING ECONOMICS. AND THOSE NEW WAYS OF DOING ECONOMICS WILL REQUIRE THAT WE GO TOWARD A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS SOME ACCESS TO THE HUGE MONIES THAT WILL SOON BE POORING INTO INTERNET COMMERCE. A SALES TAX WILL BE THE WAY THEY GET AT IT. AND THEN WE HAVE A QUESTION... DO WE WANT THEM BOTH? DO WE WANT A NATIONAL SALES TAX AND AN INCOME TAX? I SURE DON'T. SO LET'S GET RID OF THIS SOCIALIST INCOME TAX SYSTEM. LET'S GO WITH THE SALES TAX SYSTEM OUR FOUNDERS WANTED FOR US BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.

Glover: ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH IS FACING CONGRESS RIGHT NOW, FACING THE NATION'S POLITICAL SYSTEM, IS SOCIAL SECURITY. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE SOCIAL SECURITY'S GOING TO BE AROUND IN A FEW YEARS. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO ASSURE THAT THERE IS A SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR THE GENERATION NOW COMING OF AGE?

Keyes: WELL, SHORT ANSWER, KEEP THE PROMISES WE'VE MADE SO THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE IN GOOD FAITH PAID INTO THE SYSTEM EXPECTING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE IN THERE FOR THEM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED. AND THAT MEANS EVEN IF WE HAVE TO USE GENERAL REVENUES, STOP THIS WHOLE MYTHOLOGY WITH THE TRUST FUND AND JUST DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO KEEP THOSE PROMISES. BUT THE SECOND THING, WHICH WE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF IF WE HAD STARTED IN THE LATE '80S WHEN FOLKS LIKE MYSELF WERE SUGGESTING IT, STOP MAKING PROMISES WE CAN'T KEEP AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO OPT OUT OF THIS GOVERNMENT-DOMINATED SYSTEM AND START TO TAKE THE MONEY, WHICH, I GUESS, YES, I WOULD SAY MANDATE IT. SAY YES, YOU MUST PUT ASIDE FOR YOUR RETIREMENT, BUT YOU GET TO SUPERVISE THE INVESTMENT, AND THAT INVESTMENT IS GOING TO EXIST IN YOUR NAME AND IT'S GOING TO BE THERE AS ACCRUED WEALTH FOR YOUR FAMILY WHEN YOU GO SO THAT YOU CAN BUILD UP SOMETHING IN YOUR LIFETIME. WE NEED TO OFFER THAT TO NEW WORKERS WHO ARE COMING IN, AND AS AN OPTION TO PORTIONS OF WORKERS THAT MIGHT WANT TO START GOING INTO THAT SYSTEM NOW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE PRESENT WAY WE'RE DOING IT WE'RE LYING TO OURSELVES AND WE'RE LYING, MOST OF ALL, TO OUR PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. AND YOU WANT TO KNOW THE WORST THING, WHICH HAS SORT OF BEEN THERE ALMOST SINCE THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM STARTED, TOO MUCH OF A WILLINGNESS TO PUT THE BURDEN OF WHAT WE'RE DOING ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. IT'S SIMPLY NOT FAIR TO KEEP PILING UP I.O.U.'S THAT OUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PAY.

Yepsen: LOT OF CONCERN, MR. KEYES, ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE NATION'S MILITARY. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO REBUILD THE NATION'S DEFENSE.

Keyes: WELL, I THINK THAT WE NEED, FIRST OF ALL, TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT SHOULD BE A TOP PRIORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF ITS CORE TASKS, AND A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS IT GETS ENGAGED IN AREN'T PROPERLY ITS BUSINESS AND THEY'VE BEEN BOTCHING IT UP, AND THIS INCLUDES AREAS WE TALK ABOUT A LOT, LIKE EDUCATION AND SO FORTH AND SO ON. I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD AN ADMINISTRATION THAT IN TERMS OF MORALE AND IN TERMS OF READINESS HAS BEEN SCANDALOUS. AND I THINK THAT WE NEED, AS THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO, TO CONCENTRATE SOME EFFORT ON BRINGING THAT UP TO SNUFF IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCES THAT WE PROVIDE FOR THE TRAINING AND READINESS OF OUR FORCES SO WE DON'T GET INTO EMBARRASSING SITUATIONS AS WE WERE IN KOSOVO, WHERE WE SENT THE HELICOPTERS OVER THERE AND BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE TRAINING THEY'RE NOT PREPARED TO DO THE JOB. I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THOSE THINGS. THE SECOND THING, GIVEN THE SCANDALOUS, BETRAYAL OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS THAT THAT HAS HANDED OFF TO THE COMMUNIST CHINESE, VITAL SECRETS ABOUT OUR TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE THREAT TO THIS NATION AND ITS CITIES IN THE COURSE OF THE FIRST PART OF THE NEW CENTURY. I THINK WE NEED TO WORK HARD AND FAST ON DEPLOYING AN ANTIMISSILE DEFENSE, BASED THE AEGIS SYSTEM, MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, CONTINUE THE RESEARCH THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DEPLOY A COMPREHENSIVE UMBRELLA OVER THIS COUNTRY, STOP DOING WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION DID. FOR SEVERAL YEARS THEY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. IT WASN'T EVEN ON THE BACK BURNER, IT WAS IN THE DEEP FREEZE. AND THEN, FINALLY, WHEN ALL THE SCANDALS STARTED COMING ON ABOUT CHINA THEY SAID, "OKAY WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT," AS IF THEY WERE DOING US A FAVOR. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN DOING THEIR JOB. THEY HAVE SCANDALOUSLY FAILED IN KEEPING THE OATH TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND AND PROTECT THIS NATION'S INTERESTS. AND I'D WANT TO MOVE AS A TOP PRIORITY TO CORRECT THAT.

Glover: ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL YOU OFTEN TALK ABOUT YOUR OPPOSITION TO ABORTION. AS A PRESIDENT WHAT WOULD YOUR POLICY ON ABORTION BE. WHAT WOULD YOU DO SPECIFICALLY TO DEAL WITH ABORTION?

Keyes: WELL, THE FIRST THING I WOULD DO IS RESTORE THE REAGAN ERA OF PROTECTIONS FOR THE LIFE OF UNBORN CHILDREN AGAINST ANY EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTION. THERE ARE THINGS THAT GO ON IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, INCLUDING THE MILITARY AND ITS HOSPITALS, THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DETERMINE BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND I WOULD DO SO. IN TERMS OF STOPPING ANY COMPLICITY BY MY ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT, RIGHT, IN THE BUSINESS OF VIOLATING, FUNDAMENTALLY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF OUR HUMAN BEINGS IN THE WOMB. THAT'S THE FIRST STEP. SECOND, I WOULD STRONGLY CHAMPION AND SPEAK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF A HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND BRING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSTITUTION IN LINE WITH THE BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT OUR FOUNDERS SET FORWARD IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. WE ARE MOVING FORWARD NOW LIKE ARCHITECTS WHO ARE DISREGARDING THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ENGINEERING. WE DON'T WANT TO WALK ON BRIDGES BUILT BY ARCHITECTS WHO DO THAT. AND WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE WE HAVE IGNORED THE BASIC PREMISES AND PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONSTITUTION IN CARRYING OUT OUR CONSTITUTION. THIRD THING I WOULD DO IS I WOULD APPOINT JUDGES WHO RESPECT THE DECLARATION PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE, WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE ROE VS. WADE POSITION. G. W. BUSH AND THESE PEOPLE SAY, "WELL, WE CAN'T HAVE A LITMUS TEST." THAT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS. YOU KNOW WHAT A LITMUS TEST IS. IT MEANS QUALIFICATIONS. HE'S TELLING ME THAT WE CAN'T HAVE QUALIFICATIONS FOR JUDGES, AND HE'S TELLING ME THAT ONE OF THOSE QUALIFICATIONS CAN'T AND SHOULDN'T BE RESPECT FOR THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. AS I SAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HIRE AN ENGINEER OR SOMEBODY TO BUILD A BRIDGE, ISN'T ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WANT TO BE SURE OF THAT THEY KNOW AND WILL RESPECT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY WITH BUILDING BRIDGES? WE NEED JUDGES WHO RESPECT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COUNTRY.

Glover: DOESN'T THAT ARGUMENT SCARE AWAY WOMEN?

Keyes: ABSOLUTELY NOT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET THAT THE LARGEST WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS POLITICALLY ACTIVE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS, LIKE CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA AND PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY'S EAGLE FORUM, THAT STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PRO-LIFE POSITION. WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN, AND WHAT I ALWAYS FIND INTERESTING IS, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GET DOWN TO IT, THEY MIGHT HAVE -- THEY CLAIM WHAT A QUARTER OF A MILLION MEMBERS, 300,000? C.W.W. HAS 600,000 CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATED. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PERCEPTION THAT DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO REALITY WHEN WE PRETEND THAT WOMEN HAVE THIS HUNGER TO KILL THEIR BABIES IN THE WOMB. THEY DO NOT.

Yepsen: MR. KEYES, WE'VE GOT WAY TOO MANY QUESTIONS AND NOT ENOUGH TIME. EDUCATION, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT EDUCATION?

Keyes: BASIC PRINCIPLE IS SIMPLE. EDUCATION SHOULD BE TURNED BACK OVER TO THE PARENTS. AND WE NEED A SYSTEM WHERE PARENTS MAKE THE BASIC DECISIONS AS TO WHERE THEIR CHILDREN WILL GO TO SCHOOL, AND WHERE THE MONEY WE SPEND ON EDUCATION FOLLOWS THE CHOICE OF PARENTS, NOT THE CHOICE OF POLITICIANS, EDUCRATS, BUREAUCRATS, AND THE WHOLE LOT OF THEM. THAT MEANS THAT I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD MOVE TOWARDS SYSTEMS, AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO DICTATE FROM A FEDERAL LEVEL WHAT THEY ARE, BUT YOU NEED TO MOVE TOWARD SYSTEMS WHERE I AS A PARENT COME TO A CONCLUSION IT'S BEST FOR MY CHILD TO GO HERE. AND THEN IF THE PUBLIC WANTS TO SECOND THE MOTION IN TERMS OF PUBLIC FUNDING, THAT FUNDING SHOULD FOLLOW MY CHOICE. THEY SHOULD COME IN BEHIND ME. IT'S A PRINCIPLE THAT WAS THERE IN OUR FOUNDING. I REMEMBER READING IN BEN FRANKLIN'S BIOGRAPHY YEARS AGO, WHEN THEY ESTABLISHED A SCHOOL IN PENNSYLVANIA, RIGHT? AND APPARENTLY, THERE HAD BEEN THIS INSTITUTION AND THE BUILDING WAS NO LONGER BEING USED. PEOPLE GOT TOGETHER IN THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DID SUBSCRIPTIONS TO START A SCHOOL THERE. AND THEN SOMEBODY GOT THE IDEA WHY DON'T WE GO TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SEE MAYBE, YOU KNOW, HAVING EDUCATED PEOPLE IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMONWEALTH, MAYBE THEY'D WANT TO CHIP IN AND HELP OUT. AND SO THEY WENT TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND THEY PASSED A BILL HELPING US OUT. THAT'S THE PROPER PRIORITY, YOU SEE. THE PEOPLE AND THE PARENTS MOVED FIRST. THEY ESTABLISHED WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS BEST IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR KIDS. AND THEN, SEEING THE BENEFITS FOR THE PUBLIC, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED IN AND SAID, "YEAH, WE'LL SECOND THE MOTION WITH SOME SUPPORT." THAT'S THE PROPER ORDER OF PRIORITY. WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS IS PUT THE GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE, AND WE'VE TAKEN THAT RESPONSIBILITY FROM PARENTS. AND YOU KNOW WHAT'S WORST OF ALL? SOME OF THEM, OBVIOUSLY, ARE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT SITUATION. TO SIT BACK AND SAY, "WELL, THAT'S THE TEACHER'S JOB, THAT'S THE SCHOOL'S JOB," THAT'S A LIE AND WE KNOW IT. I HAVE NEVER TALKED TO A TEACHER WHO DIDN'T TELL ME AT SOME POINT IN THE CONVERSATION, "YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE REALLY UP AGAINST HERE, WE HAVE TO HAVE PARENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE TAKING THEIR ROLE IN EDUCATION."

Borg: LET'S LET MIKE SQUEEZE IN ANOTHER SUBJECT HERE.

Glover: AN EMERGING ISSUE IN AMERICAN POLITICS IS GAY RIGHTS. WHAT WOULD YOU DO AS PRESIDENT TO EITHER PROTECT OR CHANGE GAY RIGHTS?

Keyes: FALSE ISSUE. IT'S ONE THAT'S A MISAPPLICATION OF TERMS. INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE "GAY" HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. THERE IS NO SPECIAL CATEGORY OF RIGHTS CALLED GAY RIGHTS. THERE'S NO SPECIAL CATEGORY OF RIGHTS CALLED BLACK RIGHTS EITHER. WE USE THESE WORDS IN CARELESS WAYS. WHAT WE REALLY MEAN TO SAY IS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR RACE OR ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR GENDER, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE RESPECT THAT IS DUE TO YOUR RIGHTS AS A HUMAN BEING. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE. BUT THEN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH MY EXERCISE OF FREE CONSCIENCE TO PASS JUDGMENT ON MORAL BEHAVIOR AND THAT ACCEPT YOU ARE GOING TO INTERFERE WITH MY FREE EXERCISE OF MY RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE. YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT I CANNOT PASS THAT JUDGMENT. AND SO WHEN WE MOVE AHEAD WITH SO-CALLED GAY RIGHTS, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING IS DESTROYING THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION GUARANTEED BY OUR FIRST AMENDMENT.

Borg: I HAVE TO INTERRUPT THERE BECAUSE WE ARE OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU, MR. KEYES, FOR BEING OUR GUEST TODAY. ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF IOWA PRESS, WE TURN OUR FOCUS TO FARMLAND IOWA AND TO ASSESSMENTS IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS, WHICH HAS FORCED THE U.S. CONGRESS TO SEND ANOTHER EMERGENCY BAILOUT, AS MR. KEYES SAID, TO PRODUCERS OF FOOD AND FIBER. JOINING US NEXT WEEK, ED WIEDERSTEIN, WHO IS PRESIDENT OF THE IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, AND JOHN WHITAKER, PRESIDENT OF THE IOWA FARMERS UNION DISCUSSING THE DEPTH OF THE CRISIS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND 7:00 HERE ON IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION. AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S EDITION. I HOPE YOU WATCH NEXT SUNDAY. UNTIL THEN, I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, 80,000 MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.