2004 Debate One: Alan Keyes and Barack Obama

8/14/2019 2004 Debate One: Alan Keyes and Barack Obama

1/21

~ ILLINOIS SENATE RACE 2004 ~

DEBATE ONE:ALAN KEYES

BARACK OBAMA


2/21

2004 DEBATE ONE: ALAN KEYES AND BARACK OBAMA AlanKeyes.com

~ 2 ~

Alan Keyes and Barack Obama DebateHosted by Illinois Radio Network

~~~

October 12, 2004

JIM ANDERSON, MODERATOR: From the historic state capitol in Springfield, Illinois, this isthe U.S. candidates' radio debate. Our candidates are Democratic State Senator Barack Obamaand Republican former Ambassador Alan Keyes.

I'm Jim Anderson of the Illinois Radio Network, and I will be joined in questioning thecandidates by Craig Dellimore, political editor of WBBN Newsradio in Chicago, and MikeFlannery, political reporter for channel 2 of Chicago.

Craig, tell us the rules.

CRAIG DELLIMORE, MODERATOR: Well, Mike Flannery, Jim Anderson and I will ask

questions that we have chosen for this debate. We may also follow up. There are no set timelimits for the answers. We hope that that will allow for more of a discussion of the issues, but wealso want the two candidates to say what they have to say, and no more. If the candidate is notanswering the question or repeatedly plowing the same rhetorical turf, we do reserve the right tonudge things along.

And moving right along, our first question comes from Jim Anderson.

ANDERSON: Ambassador Keyes, the U.S. has armed forces in Iraq. How long will they staythere, and when should they get out, and how should we get them out?

ALAN KEYES, (R) ILLINOIS U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: I think they stay there until theyget the job done. I know that John Kerry is preoccupied with an exit strategy, but as I've beentelling folks lately, if you get into a battle and the only thing you're thinking about is how to getout, I think we have a word for youand it's not very complimentary.

We are engaged in a war . . .

MODERATOR: What is the word?


3/21


~ 3 ~

KEYES: We are engaged in a war against terror that was started by the terrorists, that claimed

the lives of thousands of Americans, that involves a global infrastructure of insidious individuals.We have seen the work they do, in Russia and elsewhere, against innocent lives in the mostbestial fashion possible.

To fight that war, as I learned in my experience when I was on the National Security Councilstaff working directly on the problem of terrorism, it is not sufficient to have rhetoric, it is notsufficient to react after the fact. You have got to preemptively move against their bases, againsttheir sources of supply, against their training camps, against the states the provide them with safehaven and infrastructure. If you do not, then they will simply prepare for further attacks.

And in a world where we have weapons of mass destruction, it's not good enough to say that,

"Well, if there's a 50% chance that they could use them, I will act"because once one suchattack succeeds, we could end up losing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.

I think that G.W. Bush has done the correct thing. He has moved preemptively in Afghanistan,he moved preemptively in Iraqacting not on the wisdom of hindsight but on the foresight thatis required in order to make sure that the American people will not again suffer even worsedamage from this kind of insidious attack. And I think we ought to stay there until our nationalsecurity purposes are served.

One point. We ought to understand that the national security objective is different than thepolitical objective. It is up to the people of Iraq, and we can work with other countries,

internationally, to help them establish a regime that will be more respectful of human rights, thatwill never again become a base for terror or involved in the infrastructure of terror. But our mainobjective in which we have to act, whether we have cooperation or not, is to defend the securityand lives of our people.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama, you were against the war, no doubt about it, before the warbegan. But now you're in favor of keeping troops there. How long?

BARACK OBAMA, (D) ILLINOIS U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: Well, let me first of all saythank you for hosting this debate.

Ambassador Keyes and I agree on one thing, and that is that the War on Terror has to bevigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because I think Afghanistan in factwas not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for9-11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidenceand I say that not in hindsight, orMonday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned theevidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, I do think we nowhave a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If is it not stable, notonly are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, I think we are also going to have a huge nationalsecurity problem on our handsbecause, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a


4/21


~ 4 ~

consequence, in part, of our incursion there.

In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who thinks we can say with certainty that a year fromnow or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops. I think that we have todo three things. Number one, we have to rapidly advance the speed with which we are trainingIraqi troops and security forces so that they can stabilize the country, and that's going to requireour help.

But it's also going to require the help of the international community, which is why we have tointernationalize this process. I'm under no illusions that the Germans and the French are going tobe sending troops in any time soon, but I do believe that we can get them to put more resourcesinto the training and infrastructure required to secure the Iraqi borders and the Iraqi streets.

And finally, I think it's important that we get our reconstruction moving. I think it is undeniablethat the reconstruction process that has taken place has been completely inept. And that's notsimply my estimation, that's the estimation of the two ranking Republican Senators on the SenateForeign Relations Committee, Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar, who issued a blistering attack onthis administration six weeks before the presidential election. Highly unusualand I think itindicates how badly botched this job has been.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama, Afghanistan has just conducted the first elections in its 5,000-year history. They appear to have gone very wellat least, up to this point. The Bushadministration is pointing to that as a suggestion of the way the elections might proceed in Iraq.

Is that not a hopeful sign for Iraq, and for the elections that we may be seeing there in January?

OBAMA: I think it is an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. And as I havestated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My onlyconcerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan interms of moving into Iraq, and I think would could have done a better job of stabilizing thatcountry than we have in providing assistance to the Afghani people.

But I think that all of us, Republican and Democrat, should be rooting for the Afghani peopleand making sure that we are providing them the support to make things happen. With respect toIraq, I think it's going to be a tougher play. But, again, I don't think any of us should be rooting

for failure in Iraq at this point. This is no longer George Bush's war, this is our war, and we allhave a stake in it.

But, you know, the analogy that I use is that, you know, if a driver of a car, your car, drives itinto a ditch, there are only so many ways to pull it out. And so, John Kerry is going to be doingmany similar things to what George Bush is doing in terms of making sure that we do the bestwe can in Iraq.

That doesn't mean we don't fire the driver, and it doesn't mean that we don't examine carefully


5/21


~ 5 ~

what lead us to be in this ditch in the first place. I think it was a bad strategic blunderand as I

said, that's not simply my estimation. That's the estimation of a number of Republicans.

MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, isn't there a distinction, as Senator Obama draws, betweenAfghanistan and Iraq and our military incursions into both places?

KEYES: As a matter of fact, I think there is not. I think one of the problems with folks whohaven't really had much experience in dealing with terror is that they don't understand that we arein fact faced with a global infrastructure.

Saddam Hussein was providing, for instance, payments to the families of suicide bombers whowere moving against the Israelis. Al Qaeda, when it acted against the United States and brought

down the World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden made it very clear that he was doing so onbehalf of, he said, the Palestinians and their cause.

All of this suggests what is the reality: that we are not dealing with discrete elements here. Weare dealing with a single war that has a front in Afghanistan, a front in Iraq, that has a covertseries of fronts that we don't hear much about, but in which our people are presumably goingafter the cadre of terror, that has a financial front and other fronts.

To deal with this as if we're dealing with discrete little episodes is to show that you have no realunderstanding of the danger that we face. And I think the administration has actedcomprehensively against a comprehensive threat.

The other thing that I think that naivet neglects is that, in the face of the attack that we had onSeptember 11th, it was absolutely essential to send a clear message to the entire terror networkthat we were not going to allow safe havens, that we were not going to allow states that aidedand abetted the terrorists off the hook. This has had its desired effect, by the way, with theLibyans backing away from their commitment, with Syria now talking as if it wants to reach anaccommodation.

So, I think it's a failure of strategic understanding if one isolates the Iraqi situation and does notsee it in the context of what must be the larger mission of the United States to deal with the entireglobal infrastructure of terror. We have also, of course, created for ourselves a clear base of

operations in the Middle East, that will then have further implications for others, including Iran,that might want to stir up trouble in the future.

So, I think we have to be persistent, we have to deal first and foremost with the national securitychallenge, we must work with others when it comes to the political arrangements for Iraqbutwe must put first the safety of the people of the United States as we deal with the insidious threatof terror.

OBAMA: Let me just respond quickly by pointing out that, you know, Ambassador Keyes may


6/21


~ 6 ~

have better intelligence than I do, but the CIA, Paul Bremer, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell have

all indicated that they could not find a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, thatweapons of mass destruction are not found in Iraq. And so, it is absolutely true that we have anetwork of terrorists, but it takes a huge leap of logic to suddenly suggest that that means that weinvade Iraq.

Saudi Arabia has a whole bunch of terrorists in Saudi Arabia. There are a whole bunch ofterrorists in Syria and Iran, and all across the globe. And the notion that we then would stretchour military and our intelligence capacities to mount full-scale invasions as a consequence ofthat, I think is a bad strategy. It makes more sense for us to focus on those terrorists who areactive, those cells that are active, to try to roll them up where we have evidence that in fact thesecountries are being used as staging grounds that would potentially cause us eminent harm, then I

think that we go in. And I have been very clear about the fact that the United States has toreserve all military options in facing such an imminent threatbut we have to do it wisely.

KEYES: Well, see, I think that that's the fallacy, because you did make an argument just thenfrom the wisdom of hindsight, based on conclusions reached now which were not in thePresident's hands several months ago when he had to make this decision.

And the thing I worry about with John Kerry and people like him, decisions aren't made with thewisdom after the fact. You have to move to defend the American people with the informationyou've got, and with a strategic vision that is determined to defend them against the probabilities,not just the certainties. And if you don't have the guts to make those decisions, then you shouldn't

be President of the United States.

MODERATOR: Let's talk about some of the decisions that might have to be made. There maynot be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but there are such weapons in Iran, there aresuch weapons in North Korea. Ambassador Keyes, how strongly would you consider preemptiveaction against those nations?

KEYES: Well, all such decisionsand that's what I thought was one of the brilliant things aboutthe Iraq decisionis that you go after those things that are most susceptible to the right kinds ofaction. Iraq was susceptible to direct military action, and so the President acted. If you're talkingabout North Korea, you have to look at the entire context in which we deal with the North

Korean threat. And that includes relationships with the Chinese and the possibility that you'retalking about something that could escalate into a larger war. We also have mechanismspreexisting for bringing international pressure to bear on both the North Koreans and theIranians, when it comes to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclearweapons.

I think that we consider the possibility of direct action in an appropriate form only if we haveevidence that there is a probably threat, and that they are moving on that threat. Then, in order todefend Americans from death, you do what you have to do. In the meantime, you take advantage


7/21


~ 7 ~

of those mechanisms that will allow you to address the problem without necessarily committing

the nation to war. And that includes, by the way, a strategy that will work with indigenouselements in Iran in order to promote an alternative to the government there that would be morecompatible with international and regional peace and security, more respectful of human rights.

This is the kind of comprehensive approach that needs to be taken and can be taken, so that youdon't have to resort always to the sword, but that you keep it in readiness against those threatswhere it is required.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama, how would you handle the potential threat from countries likeIran and North Korea?

OBAMA: Well, I think that we have to do everything we can diplomatically. I think that theBush administration has done the right thing in ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, and attemptingto ratchet up some pressure on North Korea to see if they will stand down with respect to thedevelopment of nuclear weapons.

I must say that I am less optimistic about the threat, or, our ability to deal with the threat in Iran,in part as a consequence of Iraq. Because I think that the Iranians at this stage are fairly confidentthat it's going to be difficult for us to mount any significant military strike there, but I wouldreserve all options. And I have said this publicly, that, you know, we have to have to have allmilitary options reserved in order to deal with these potential nuclear threats.

Let me just add one thing that I think is critical, and that is that one thing that it appearsAmbassador Keyes and I may agree on is that the single biggest threat that we face is a nuclearweapon or some weapon of mass destruction. What that means is that we have to beextraordinarily aggressive and vigilant in controlling nuclear proliferation. We have a nuclearproliferation treaty and strategy that has failed. I think it failed in Iran. It also failed in NorthKorea. That has to be rewritten and renegotiated. And I think that we have to rapidly acceleratethe manner in which we are locking down nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. Youknow, the Lugar-Nunn bill has shown itself to work. Unfortunately, right now it's on a thirteen-year timetable, in which the United States puts in resources to make sure that those resources aresecured. I think we can rapidly advance it to the point where we get it down to four years.

KEYES: I've got to say, I think that one of the problems is that you can't negotiate facts out ofexistence. When you are dealing with those facts, such as the potential that Iran might have forthe development of nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons. Youhave to deal with those facts as realities. It may be true that we have a nonproliferation regime inplace. We can seek to bring pressure to bear. But I think we have to be ready to use appropriatetools.

And that doesn't necessarily mean that you have a massive invasion of this country or that. It cansometimes mean, as the Israelis have shown, that you move against that capacity, as they did


8/21


~ 8 ~

when they bombed the nuclear reactors that were being developed in Syria and so forth.

These are things that can be done that need to be part of a comprehensive, forward-lookingapproach that includes, as I have said, the political dimension in Iran. I think if we are workingwith indigenous elements in Iran to promote a change in the respect for human rights, a changein the nature of representative government, a move toward a more pacific instead of terroristicapproach to international relations, that will also preoccupy the Iranians in ways that will keepthem from trying to stir up trouble, either for us or for others in the region.

MODERATOR: We're at the old state capitol in Springfield, Illinois. This is the U.S. Senatecandidates' radio debate. Our candidates are State Senator Barack Obama, the Democrat, andRepublican Alan Keyes, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Senator Obama, you talked about diplomacy and you said we have to exercise as muchdiplomacy as possiblebut we're dealing here not with sovereign nations, we're dealing herewith terrorists who . . .

OBAMA: Well, no. I was referring specifically with respect to Iran and North Korea. I was notreferring to our dealings with terrorists. I think with terrorists I have a very hawkish position. Ithink we should hunt them down, kill them, dismantle their operations. And to do that, we've gotto drastically improve our intelligence gathering. We have to, on a bipartisan basis, I thinkrecognize that we've had significant intelligence failures. I'm glad to see that we have a newdirector of the CIA that was approved. And I think the Democrats did the right thing by not

blocking that appointment. And I think that all of us have to take to heart the 9-11 CommissionReport and the recommendations that it made that we start consolidating our intelligenceoperations, that we improve our intelligence on the ground so that we have human intelligenceand not simply relying on satellite data. All those things are going to take time, but we have tomove as rapidly as possible with them.

MODERATOR: Would you please assess where the U.S. stands diplomatically? Do we have abad reputation now?

OBAMA: Well, I think that this administration has not been very good at what's been called theexercise of "soft power." You know, all of us recognize and reserve the right of the United States

to exercise its military power in the national interest and for our national securitybut we alsohave to recognize that a lot of our power comes from our ideals, our belief in freedom, our beliefin democracy, our belief in the ability to work things through in a manner that comports withwhatever frameworks of international law that have been shaped. And I think that, unfortunately,this administration has tended to be dismissive of any international effortsand in his campaign,I think you witness it with a general disdain for, quote unquote, "globalism." In some cases, thisis just a function of us trying to have conversations with our allies so that we can move moreeffectively.


9/21


~ 9 ~

KEYES: See, I think the great problem is that you cannot give a soft response to a hard threat. It

would be kind of like trying to meet a bayonet with a spaghetti noodle. And it's not going to helpthe people of this country to survive.

After 9-11, we were faced with a hard threat. We had lost thousands of people, and we had tomove aggressively. The belief that Afghanistan was enough is a belief based on a failure tounderstand the global infrastructure of terrorso that you deal with the threat that has hit youinstead of with the threats that will hit you later if you neglect to preemptively move against theirbases of support.

It is precisely in order to create a situation in which maybe people who would be otherwisesupportive of this bloodthirsty threat will respond a little better to your overtures that you move

with decision against regimes like the Iraqi regime that had shown itself disposed to supportterror, to fund terror, to be part gleefully of the global infrastructure of terrorand to act againstthem before they have the opportunity to act against you.

MODERATOR: Gentlemen, I think we've explored your differences on this pretty clearly. Let'smove on. Let's pivot to domestic issues. Canals, roads, railroads, this capitol buildingAbrahamLincoln worked tirelessly to move the capitol from Vandalia to here and to build this building.You've been, each of you, now for some months or years, you've been traveling around the state.Specifically, Ambassador Keyes, what infrastructure projects do you think are priorities inIllinois, and which ones would you work for in the U.S. Senate?

KEYES: Well, I think that there is a serious infrastructure priority that has to do with what I call"fixing the plumbing."

But let me state, as a preference, that I think dealing with our infrastructure ought to be a no-brainer. It's sort of like somebody who owns a house, and when the plumbing starts to fall intodisrepair, you don't wait around as the whole place deteriorates. . . .

MODERATOR: [interrupting and talking over Keyes] The problem is that there are so manypieces of plumbing falling apart. We need priorities. What specifically

KEYES: Let me finish. Excuse me, excuse me. . . . Let me finish.

MODERATOR: The question was, what specific projects are you in favor of.

KEYES: Excuse me, sir. Let me finish.

And so, if youI don't see that we should really be in any doubt that we move to deal with thoseinfrastructure problems that are clear, starting with the problem that supports one of the mostimportant sectors in our state, which is the need to take the 70-year-old locks and dams that havebeen preserved by the Corp of Engineers, but which everybody knows now are in need of


10/21


~ 10 ~

attention so that we can maintain the transport system that supports our agriculture. I think that

that would be a first priority.

Second, we have the problem of congestion in the air space over O'Hare that has been, I believe,held up by a whole bunch of political paralysis; people paying lip service to what needs to bedone, while they stand back in fear of having to deal with what is really, at the end of the day, aneffort to control the situation politically.

We need to break the political log-jam, we need to move to develop the infrastructural potentialof this statestarting by looking at Rockford and what could be done there to develop what is,after all, an airport with 10,000-foot runways capable of handling both freight and passengers.That would help to relieve the pressure, with respect to O'Hare. We need to stop talking about

the development of a south-suburban airport and start developing the plans that will make surethat we do itand don't do it in a piecemeal fashion, either. This notion that you start withsomething, and then later, when it becomes a problem, you expensively revamp it and move onto something elsewe need a comprehensive, modular plan that would allow us to beginanswering that problem, providing both the jobs and the economic opportunities for people whoare in the south side and the south suburbs, and so forth, and to do it in a way that then allows usto build progressively, in the course of the next twenty years, to add on to that airport, as needed,in order to meet the challenges of Illinois' future.

That can't be dealt with unless you are willing to deal with the problem of freight. And I thinkthat here we are in danger of losing one of the most important assets of the state, if we're not

willing to look at what needs to be done to improve the situation in terms of freight rail, and toget federal support and participation, so that we can develop that infrastructural priority.

We also need to look at the way in which we connect the airports and the major areas with lightrail that will allow us to move passengers easily between those airports that allow opportunity forgoods and services to be moved in and out of the state.

And finally, I think we need to integrate central and southern Illinois into this plan, by makingsure that we have encouraged Amtrak to develop its full potential, in terms of rail transportation,that knits together our whole state.

MODERATOR: So you disagree with the Bush administration's Amtrak cutbacks. You thinkmore money should be spent there by the federal government?

KEYES: I think that infrastructure ought to be a priority.

MODERATOR: All right. Craig has an announcement to make.

CRAIG DELLIMORE: You're listening to the first debate between Republican U.S. Senatecandidate Alan Keyes and Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama. We're coming to you


11/21


~ 11 ~

from the old state capitol in Springfield, and we're going to give the stations of the Illinois Radio

Network five seconds to identify themselves.

[pause]

Senator Obama, you wanted to respond.

OBAMA: Well, I actually, I think Ambassador Keyes and I agree on a couple of things. I thinkfreight rail is important, and that's part of what makes us the transportation hub of the nation.And I think we need to significantly improve on it. There's already a program in place calledCREATE that would create a public/private partnership in order to improve our rail linecapacity. I think the south suburban airport is a good ideaalthough we may depart on how to

build it. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has come up with, I think, a plan that involves privateinvestors who are willing to lay out the risk for this project, and I think we should get moving onit quickly.

I do believe in O'Hare expansion. That's the crown jewel of our transportation system. And weneed to go ahead and make that happen.

But there are some other major projects that are crying out for funding in downstate Illinois. Letme give you a couple of examples. Locks and dams has already been mentioned, and I thinkthat's something that we both support. The FutureGen Project down in southern Illinois, thatcould do something about revitalizing the coal industry in southern Illinois by funding a billion-

dollar project to develop clean coal technology, so that Illinois coal can be utilized in a way that'senvironmentally sound.

That is actually something that not only Illinois should want, but the entire nation should want,because one of our highest priorities has to be energy and dependence in the future. There are acouple of others, like the Mississippi bridge project, that had been languishing and waiting forthe funding to get moving on these projectsthose are the kinds of things that I think we have tomake investments on that are good for the future of Illinois.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama, we're going to turn to healthcare. Neither you nor AmbassadorKeyes would have supported the new federal prescription benefits for seniors, but your reasons

are very different. What do you think is wrong with that approach as a way to address the risingcost of healthcare?

OBAMA: I think it was fundamentally flawed as a piece of legislation. The central premise ofthis prescription drug bill that was passed by President Bush was that the federal government,through the Medicare program, and senior citizens who were beneficiaries of that program, couldnot negotiate for the best possible price with the drug companies, so that they could actually getthe kinds of discounts the Canadians enjoy for the drugs that are manufactured here in the UnitedStates.


12/21


~ 12 ~

The reason that that was done is because the drug companies didn't let it happen. And as aconsequence of that, what we have is a bill that's bad for taxpayers and bad for senior citizens.Taxpayers are hit with a half-a-trillion-dollar tab that was originally estimated at three hundredbillion. And about three weeks later, is was suddenly half a billion dollars or half a trilliondollars, and seniors have a big donut hole in the middle of their benefits. So, what I would do is Iwould say that senior citizens, through the Medicare program, can do the same thing that Wal-Mart does and other large companies do. Because they are bulk purchasers, they go and theynegotiate the best possible price as a consequence of being bulk purchasersand that would besomething that I think that all people should support, because it comports with basic free-marketprinciples.

MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, Senator Obama seems to think this program did not go farenough. I believe you think it went too far.

KEYES: Well, no. I think that part of the problem is that we resort to government spendingbefore we have done the common-sense things that are necessary to, for instance, apprise peopleof the opportunities that are right there in front of them.

A lot of studies have been done that show that if people are apprised of the advantages of genericdrug purchases, the same kinds of results that they are getting from very expensive brand namedrugs can be produced, and that you can actually, if you are able to shop around and have thenecessary information, reduce your drug costs by even 90 and 95%.

But before we have explored that kind of ability to develop an informational response thatempowers people with the knowledge to make better use, and more cost-effective use, of thedollars already being spent, we are throwing good money after bad.

We're also suggesting that we need to take an approach that ignores the reality for some of ourpharmaceutical companies. I believe in a balance. I believe we have to be sure that consumersare getting access, cost-effectively, to the best prices they can find in drugs, but at the same time,if we do it in such a way that we undercut what is necessary to repay the costsnot only topharmaceutical companies, by the way, but also to the taxpayersof the research anddevelopment that goes into the development of new drugs, then we are going to find ourselves

killing the goose that lays the pharmaceutical golden egg. And we'll be destroying that whichactually produces an expanding horizon of effectiveness on the part of our drugs.

So, I think we need an approach that will, first of all, empower folks with the information theyneed in order to take advantage of the existing marketplace to make more cost-effective use oftheir dollars.

And second, I think it's a comprehensive problem that has to do with our whole healthcaresystem. We need to be doing things like medical savings accounts, empowering the consumer to


13/21


~ 13 ~

be an effective policeman of the relationship between price and quality in the health marketplace.

And finally, we need also, for the benefit of seniors, to be encouraging people who are in theprime of life to be taking better care of themselves. One of the reasons we have skyrocketinghealthcare costs is because we have an expanding sickness arisingpartly due to the fact thatwe're not applying the lessons we know about fitness and about diet, in order to make sure thatpeople take the steps they can take to remain healthy in their prime years as long as possible. Ifwe did that, it would reduce cost and free up resources that can then be used for seniors andothers who need help.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Let me just say that I think that the use of generics is important, and one of the thingsI'm proud of as the chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee is that I'vecontinually encouraged the use of generic drugs at the state level. Part of the problem and thereason we're not using generic drugs as much as we should is because we have a convoluted setof patent laws that allow drug companies to change the shape or color of the tablet, and as aconsequence, renew their patents and block generic drugs from coming onto the market. So,those kinds of approaches I think do have to be taken.

I also think that it does make sense for us to encourage preventative care and improve our healthand lifestyles. But let me tell you a quick story of a father in Galesburg that I met who had justlost his job, just got his pink slip, and whose son had just had a liver transplant, and he's trying to

figure out how does he pay $4,200 a month in immunosuppressant drugs in order to keep his sonalive. Now, the reason that son had a liver transplant is not solvable by better health. Criseshappen in our lives. And one of the things that I think that we absolutely have to do is to makesure that, to the extent possible, we control costs when we can and we expand affordability andaccessibility of healthcare.

KEYES: Well, I think one of the problems is, you look at that situation, and there are twoproblems: the first is, obviously, you can't deal with a catastrophic situation with a generalresponse, but you can, through a greater emphasisnot just on preventative care, but on theresponsibility people haveto follow the prescription that will keep them as healthy as possible,you can free up the resources needed to help people in those catastrophic situations.

But I would say that in that situation, the real root of the problem isn't medical at all; it's thesebadly negotiated trade agreements that have resulted in the destruction of the manufacturing baseand job base of our workers here in Illinois.

I have consistently voiced, even against the leadership in my party, the belief that we needfreedom trade and fair trade. Free trade is a mythand those people who say it's a good thing areactually selling out the American people in favor of a handful of special interests who areoutsourcing our jobs, allowing these despotisms in China and elsewhere to export goods into the


14/21


~ 14 ~

United States when they refuse to pay the price in terms of what's needed to respect union rights

and freedom of association and the decent conditions of work.

We pay that price in America. And yet, when these cheap goods come over here, we allow thatslave good to compete with our free good without making any distinction whatsoever betweenthe false price of the slave-produced good and the real price that reflects human dignity andhuman rights.

I think it's time that we stood against this kind of false doctrine that's benefiting a handful ofspecial interests while it destroys the manufacturing base in Illinois. 18.8% of our manufacturingjobs lost since 1998, and I think it's mainly due to the fact that we have not had folks to stand upin the United States Senate with the experience, the background, the skill that I have gained from

years of negotiating in the international arena, to speak truth to our colleagues in the Senateabout how we need to change this bad and false approach.

MODERATOR: There's a whole question we didn't ask, but Senator Obama, you might as wellget a chance to respond to as well.

OBAMA: I think our current trading structures are flawed. And I think we need to do better. AndI've suggested in this campaign very specific ways that I think we can do better.

It is absolutely true, for example, that when China devalues its currency by 40%, that it makesour exports more expensive to China, and theirs vastly cheaper. And the irony is that about 50%

of the trade deficit that we have with China are actually as a consequence of multinationalcompanies that have moved and relocated to China and then are shipping back goods that used tobe produced right here in the United States. That's a bad deal for United States workerswhichmeans that our administration and our Congress, when we're thinking about our tradeagreements, whether it's NAFTA or any other trade agreement, has to make sure that we'renegotiating not just on behalf of these multinational companies, but that we're negotiating onbehalf of workers and communities.

And thenow, what is also true is that we've got a tax code that is encouraging flight of jobs andoutsourcing. And that's why we've specifically recommended in this campaign that Congresschange our tax code so that we stop giving tax breaks to companies that are moving to Mexico

and China and other places, and start putting those tax breaks into companies that are investinghere in the United States.

MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, I want to ask something specific in your response, becausethe tariffs that you want to put on those foreign companies that are trying to sell their goods herealso would go on to, say, a Wal-Mart or a Target that may be getting many of its goods fromChina. Now we're talking retail jobs that may be threatened by the kind of higher prices thatpeople would be finding at those stores.


15/21


~ 15 ~

KEYES: Actually, I think that's static analysis. One of the problems that we have right now is

that we are shrinking our manufacturing and industrial base. We're taking people from highqualities of life to lower standards. They can't go into Wal-Mart and buy the kind of goods thatthey could buy if we had preserved those higher-paying jobs.

So, I think we ought to look at this dynamically. We are paying a cost in terms of what should begoing on in the retail sector because we have depressed the real earnings of Americans since thiswhole business began, by 12% or more, since we started with this whole "free trade" regimewhich is a misnomer.

I think, as well, the scheme that Senator Obama is talking about, it irritates me a little bit,because here we are: our workers have already paid a price in terms of lost jobs, lost

opportunities, reduced quality of life, then we want to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for someincentives to keep companies in America, when the government created the problem in the firstplace by negotiating bad trade agreements that give them an incentive to outsource the jobsoverseas.

Let's go to the root of the problem. Let's deal with the fact that, if we weren't negotiating theseagreements in multilateral fora that strip the United States of most of its clout that is the result ofthe hard work of our people, we would be getting better resultsnot just for our workers, butalso for our farmers, where we haven't been able to get access to the richest markets for theirfarm products. And instead, we have the Japanese and others saying, "Oh, we've opened the doora crack," and I'm thinking, "But you haven't put your head out yet, and in point of fact, you're

exploiting down to the ground the hard work of the American people, as they have put togetherthe strongest engine of economic development in the world." Everybody's taking advantage of it,and we're letting them take advantage of us.

OBAMA: Just a quick point of clarification. In terms of our proposal, it's not having taxpayersgive additional tax breaks, these are eliminating tax breaks that have been loaded up in theexisting tax code, and us eliminating them and giving those same tax breaks. If we're going togive tax breaks they should go to companies that are creating jobs here in the United States.

MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, let's talk about the farm economy. The more farmersproduce, the less they get for every bushel of corn and beans that they send down the Illinois

river. Very few farmers own the land they farm. There's not a future in the business, it looks like.I mean, the average farmer is like 60 years old. What do you see is the future of this business?

KEYES: I think it has a great future, because if it doesn't, America has no future.

One of the things I learned in my experience dealing with the problems of economicdevelopment around the worldand that's what I did as Assistant Secretary, as Ambassador tothe Economic and Social Council, dealing with the north-south dialogue, dealing withdevelopment challengesdo you know what the major problem is in most developing countries?


16/21


~ 16 ~

They can't solve the problem of agriculture. If you don't have a thriving agricultural sector, if you

haven't done, as we have, what's necessary to create a predictable and stable environment ofprofitability for your farmers, then everything else is going to fall to pieces.

It's one of the reasons why I have objected so strongly to something I have found in Illinois, thatthere are people in the leadership who seem to believe that it's sort of Chicago and "the greatIllinois desert."

I greatly respect the strength and dynamism of Chicago, but we need to understand that theIllinois economy is based on the powerhouse of Illinois' agriculture. And we need to be takingthe steps that are necessary, maintaining the support programs, developing the infrastructure,distributing opportunity in terms of jobs and other things around our state so that some of the

young people will stay in their communities, will remain close to the land, will remain part of therural and farm economy, instead of being drained off to other states and other areas.

These are the kinds of approaches that will assure that we not only get the economic dynamism,but the other thing that I think is critical: the rural agricultural sector also represents, as Jeffersonpointed out many years ago, a contribution in terms of our cultural heritage, of our moral values,of respect for family life and self-discipline and hard workthe kinds of things that AbrahamLincoln came to represent and that our rural farm communities and those that are close to landstill represent today.

And I think that's why I think overall we need to make a commitment to make sure that we will

have leaders who speak for all of Illinois, recognizing the co-interdependence of our urban areas,our suburban areas, and our rural areas, without acting as if we should neglect them, as GovernorBlagojevich has done. He can't even find his way to Springfield, he shows such contempt for thepeople in central and southern Illinois.

MODERATOR: It's nice that you found your way to Springfield. Am I to understand that you'resaying that a mega-hogfarm may be an excellent business model in terms of efficiency, but weneed family farms because of the tradition and moral underpinnings associated with them?

KEYES: Well,I'm not saying it; I think it has been something that has been said throughout thehistory of this country. Every time we have a debate on the farm bill, the virtues of the family

farm are lauded, but sometimes we pass measures that then don't show much respect for the realrequirements of sustaining the independent and smaller farmer. I think one of the importantthings is access to capital, and making sure that we have a banking system that is structured to bea citizen of our rural communities, rather than imposing the priorities of an international bankingstructure on people in those communities.

If we take account of that kind of need through both government action and through therestructuring of our financial base, to respect the requirements, particularly in terms of access tocapital of our family farms, we'll see them survive better and longer.


17/21


~ 17 ~

MODERATOR: The clock is ticking. Senator Obama?

OBAMA: Well, I think that the farm economy is vital, not just to rural areas, it's vital to theentire state of Illinois, which is why I'm proud of the fact that over the last eight years, as amember of the state legislature, I have consistently supported programs that would improve thefarm economy.

One particular example, I think, is ethanol. This is a vital program, something that is responsibleto a large degree for the marginal profits that most farmers in this state have, and as aconsequence, that money gets re-circulated into this economy. I've consistently supported it, andI think it's something that we have to go ahead and get done at the federal levelimproving bio-

diesel, and other alternative uses for our wonderful agricultural products, I think is critical, andinvesting more in the wonderful research labs that we have throughout the state of Illinois I thinkwould make a big difference.

I do think that there is a big difference between family farms and agri-business, and one of thedistressing things that I think has occurred is with consolidation of farm lands. You've seen largeagri-businesses benefit from enormous profits from existing farm programs, and I think weshould be focusing most of those programs on those family farmers. I'm glad that Ambassador . ..

MODERATOR: Could I jump in here? Because, again, the clock is ticking, and that leads to the

question about this monstrous federal deficit. Is it a problem, is it a threat to the future ofAmerica's children? Or is it not a problem? Senator Obama.

OBAMA: I think it's an enormous problem.

MODERATOR: What are you going to do, specifically, to cut it or to raise, either to stopspending, or to raise revenues?

OBAMA: I think it is an enormous problem. This has been the most fiscally-irresponsibleadministration in certainly my memory.

We have gone from trillion-dollar surpluses to trillion-dollar deficits in the blink of an eye. Notall of those costs are the fault of the administration, obviously. 9-11 occurred, and the decline inthe economy. But what is also true is that it was aided and abetted by a set of fiscal policies that Ithink were on the wrong course.

We could take a look, for example, of yesterday's vote. You've got a corporate Christmas treewhat John McCain called the worst lobbyist bill that he has ever seen come down the pikepassthrough the Senate. And I think it has to stop. So, specifically, here are some things that I thinkhas to be done. Number one, we have to return to pay as you go. Up until this administration, for


18/21


~ 18 ~

a decade we were operating under a regime that said if you want to cut taxes or you want to

increase spending, you've got to figure out how it balances out. And that constrained both thosewho wanted to increase spending on domestic programs, but it also constrained those who wouldcut taxes without a corresponding cut in spending. So, that has to take placeand until we havethat kind of approach, I think we're going to continue to see a one-sided approach that runs upthe [unintelligible] for our kids.

MODERATOR: [talking over] Ambassador Keyes, some specific cuts or tax increases? Youwant to reinstate tariffs, I know, so that would bring in revenue. But what about cuts?

KEYES: Before we get into the question of specific cuts, let's deal with the real source of theproblem, why don't we. And the real source of the problem is, first, a morally-irresponsible

attitude toward the burden that we're placing on future generations, both in the actual deficit ofthe federal government, in the unfunded liabilities that are being passed on to future generationsin the Medicare and Social Security programs. These are things that I believe we have aresponsibility to deal with.

How do we deal with them? It's really first that you've got to tackle what I believe is the majorproblem. When I was at Citizens Against Government Waste as president, we challenged abalanced budget approach, a taxpayer bill of rights that would require that the government staywithin the limits of inflation and population growth, and that when the government's budgetexpanded, it would respect those limits and make the necessary cuts and adjustments in order tostay within those limits.

But in order to that, you're going to have to change the whole Christmas-tree-approach to politicsthat sadly is represented by many of our politicians, particularly those of the liberal persuasion,who want to hang the Christmas tree ornaments of "gimme" politics, whether it's for corporationsor others, on the tree of government budgeting.

I think we've got to realize that a different approach is requiredan approach that will encouragepeople to take back control of their families, of their schools, of their lives, of their sense ofresponsibility. It's one of the reasons I favor abolishing the income tax and giving people onceagain control of their surplus income, so they can invest it and decide what to do with it.

The dollars that the government spends do not produce the kind of economic results that thedollar spent in the private sector can produce. That's why folks who think, "Well, we'll fund thiswith tax cuts," I mean, "with tax increases," are doing it the wrong way around. When we sawthe tax cuts of the Reagan years, do you realize we had the greatest expansion in the revenuebase that we'd seen in the history of the country? In every year of the Reagan tax cuts, morerevenue was produced than in any year in the course of our history.

MODERATOR: Are there specific spending cuts you'd make?


19/21


~ 19 ~

KEYES: We need to get back to the fundamentals, in order to stop the whole approach to politics

that produces the expansion of the deficit by trying to fund the reelection of politicians throughpork-barrel spending.

And I think that when we address the root problem, we won't have to bicker in this class warfareway over who's paying for what, because we will have returned to an approach to governmentthat keeps our politicians within the boundaries of responsibility.

MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, we have to move on, and we have very little time in whichto do it, but you have accused your opponent of infanticide. He says you don't understand whatthat vote was about. You have to be very brief on this, though, but explain what it is you meanwhen you say he has voted for infanticide.

KEYES: Well, I think it's very clear. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act that was aimed atmaking sure that children born alive after an abortion procedure would not be set aside to die likegarbagewhen babies at exactly the same stage of development are being accessed and thensaved right there down the hall in the same hospitals where they are boasting about their abilityto save preemies. I think that we have to take seriously the testimony of people like Jill Stanekand others, and not pretend that this problem does not exist.

There was a bipartisan vote in support of the need to stop this in the Illinois senate, so a lot ofpeople heard and were moved by the cogent testimony, instead of extending the mentality of so-called "abortion rights" to the business of taking fully-born babies . . .

Now, everybody should understand this. This isn't a child in the womb.

A fully-born, human infant for whom a birth certificate will be issued and a death certificate willbe issuedand in between those two issuances, the child is not being treating with the samerespect that you or I would demand for our right to life.

And I think that's a travesty. Senator [Obama] ignored that travesty, not once, not twice, butthree times on the plea now, I suppose, that this problem does not exist. I guess he's calling thenurses involved liars.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, you know, this is apparently the entire basis on which Ambassador Keyesdecided to contradict himself with respect to his views about federalism and not carpet-baggingand not running in other states. According to Ambassador Keyes, this was the reason, this bill.And unfortunately, it's premised on a falsehood. You know, if Ambassador Keyes had called meup, he could have saved himself a trip because existing Illinois law mandates that any infant thathas a chance for survival is provided life-saving treatment. Not only that, you've got to have asecond doctor there to certify that in fact that is the case. That continues to be the case, that is


20/21


~ 20 ~

current law today, as it should be.

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade, whichis why 21 other senators, Democrat and Republican, why the Illinois Medical Society objected tothe bill. At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendmentsaying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

KEYES: I find it fascinating that . . .

MODERATOR: We really are out of time, if you want to have time to make your closingstatements.

SECOND MODERATOR: Gentlemen, you've each got about a minute. I'm going to ask you asimple question. Tell the people why you should vote for you.

KEYES: Well, I think the most important reason is that we have to start looking at the rootproblems that are besetting our society.

And the root problem is clear: when you examine what contributes to the failures of oureducational system, when you examine what is contributing to the rise in poverty, when youexamineas I was reading in a paper the other day that was given me by the MetropolitanPlanning Council, they examined the affordable housing gap, and do you know what they found?They found that the change in family structure, the move to single-parent households, the decline

of our family structure was the main contributing factor to the lack of affordable housing.

The problem here is not simply a problem you can throw money at. We have got to deal with theunderlying fact that we have been destroying the moral culture of the family, hardening the heartof parents against their children with abortion, with the wholesale assault against the traditionalfamilytraditional marriage that Barack Obama does not want to defend. He refuses to supportthe family marriage amendment, he refuses to support the Defense of Marriage Act.

But if we are not willing to restore our respect for the moral values that underlie our families, asthe family fails, America will fail.

I think we need to get to that root problem and restructure our approach in all of these areas, inorder to address the moral crisis of the country.

MODERATOR: Barack Obama, why should people vote for you?

OBAMA: Well, I'm very proud of the track record that I've developed. As a communityorganizer with church-based organizations on the far south side helping dislocated workers, as acivil rights attorney, and for the last eight years as a state senatorin each of those instances,I've been motivated by a belief that government can't solve all our problems, but that it can help


21/21


~ 21 ~

in terms of dealing with the crushing burdens that many of our middleclass families are

experiences.

You know, as I've traveled across the state for the last eighteen months, what people are worriedabout is whether an illness in their family is going to cause them to go bankrupt. They'reconcerned about whether the job that they have right now is going to stay here, and whether theirpensions are going to be secure. Senior citizens are concerned about whether or not they're goingto have prescription medicine.

In each of those instances, I have specific programs that I have proposed, but more than justtalking the talk, I've walked the walk. Over the last eight years, I can point to specificaccomplishments that will actually help ordinary working familiesand I hope that those voters

look at that record.

MODERATOR: Gentlemen, thank you. That concludes the debate between Republican AlanKeyes and Democrat Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate. And the Illinois Radio Network, fromMike Flannery of CBS 2 Chicago and Jim Anderson of IRN, I'm Newsradio 780's CraigDellimore, and we thank you for listening.

Documents

2004 Debate One: Alan Keyes and Barack Obama