Democratic Primary Debate
SEN. MANCHIN: First of all, I'd like to take a moment to thank Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino's Penn and Teller Theater, CNN News, and our wonderful host, Jake Tapper, for hosting this debate right here in Paradise. I'm grateful for this opportunity for an open discussion on how we can take back the White House and get this country moving again after 12 years of stagnation and bad decisions.
Given Osama Bin Laden was hiding out for years in Pakistan with the support of the Pakistani Military, would you, as President, support sanctions or military action against Pakistan?
SEN. MANCHIN: You know, Jake, this is a pretty important issue to me and most other Americans. I'd like to begin with a tribute to the 2,977 Americans who died at the hands of al'Qaeda on September 11, 2001. It's been over a decade since then, but even today many Americans, including myself, remember that terrible day, and its consequences for this nation. I, like many Americans, was very proud of our nation and our troops when we finally got Osama bin Laden. And yes, I was disconcerted, and quite concerned, that he had been residing in Pakistan with aid from Pakistan. While I'm not entirely sure if sanctions or military action is the way to go, I definitely think President McCain should look into this matter. If I'm elected president, I would give some serious thought to sanctions, or something along those lines, against Pakistan because of this. Now, having said that, I really question if military action is the solution here. Yes, what Pakistan did is bad, and will certainly be responded to under a Manchin presidency, but we've still got troops out there in Afghanistan and my mind is still fresh with our ill-fated invasion of Iraq. Perhaps in extreme circumstances military intervention is justified here, but I don't think we're at that stage yet. What worries me is that this may be what John McCain and the Republicans use as a pretext, a hollow excuse, for another Iraq-style invasion.
How would you fix the ongoing housing crisis here in Nevada?
Honestly, Jake, this housing crisis is entirely the result of the failed Republican administrations of Bush and McCain. You know, Bush started this crisis, it started during the Bush presidency, because of Bush, because of his half-baked ideas, and honestly, Senator Edwards had some solutions. Us Democrats had solutions, we had them outlined, we had a road to recovery planned. In this regard I think all four of us - Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Sanders, and myself - our in agreement. But the trouble, of course, is that McCain won. Now he's basically continued Bush's failed policies and extended the housing crisis. This great state, the Silver State, has been hard hit. To put it very simply, what we need is a Democratic president to undo the disaster that is the Republicans' economic policy. I'm all for small government, for lower taxes, to an extent. But Bush's 2001 tax cuts were, quite frankly, pandering to the rich, at the cost of the middle-class American, and we see its consequences right here in Nevada. What I can pledge is that if I am elected those tax cuts and others, that favour the rich, are reversed, and so is this housing crisis, and if either of those two things don't occur during a Manchin presidency, you can vote for my opponent in primary and general in 2016. But we need progress. So in this respect, what we need is a Democratic president to undo the damage, but not a Democratic president like Bernie Sanders who'd increase taxes to monster levels. We need tax increases, and we need to undo the Bush era tax cuts, we need to undo Bush and McCain's economic policy and then see how we can fix this disaster. I can tell you this: people in Nevada, people across the nation, they want change, they want this extended crises over, and they know they need a Democratic president to achieve that.
What steps would you take to ensure that the United States never defaults on it's sovereign debt?
This kinda goes back to my previous point. We need higher taxes. I'm not talking about taxes on the lower class or middle class, no, I'm talking about massive tax hikes on the top 1% of the American people, the people who prospered because of the Bush tax cuts, the McCain tax cuts, at the expense of everyday, hardworking Americans, who go from paycheque to paycheque, who are honest enough to pay their taxes instead of looking for loopholes. Aside from that, I do think we need a smaller military. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, and in light of that we need a big military. But Bush and McCain have bloated the military so much, for projects like Iraq, that it's causing other problems. We need to reduce government waste, and it needs to start by us spending less on wasteful military projects and on dubious military contracts. And there will have to be other spending cuts, too. There will have to be. I think that's necessary. We can keep them to a minimum, but it needs to be done. So with spending cuts and tax increases, I think we can start tackling the debt. Of course it won't be paid out by 2016 or even 2026, but I'm not going to continue the tradition that quote unqoute 'small government' presidents like Bush and McCain have started, of inreasing the national debt with a big military and tax breaks for the richest of the rich. I'm not sure how much of the debt we can pay down, but we can most certainly, and must, stop it from expanding so rapidly.
Would you support the legalization of online gambling?
Well, I know how important gambling and casinos are here in Nevada, heck, look where we are right now! Frankly, Jake, I'm not a whiz, or some expert, on online gambling. Maybe one of my opponents has researched online gambling, but I really haven't. So I don't have some detailed plan on how to address this. But I think for now we have more pressing issues at hand. I might be open to supporting legalizing online gambling later, but for now, I am opposed to it. It just seems wrong to me, and I'm concerned at the impact it'd have on the economy here and in Reno and in Vegas. Later, maybe. But for now, no. Either way it will not be a number one or even a number five priority on the agenda during a Manchin presidency; quite honestly, we have much more important issues, like the national debt, that have to be dealt with.
Would you support a health care plan, similar to that passed by Secretary of Commerce Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts?
Jake, I'm very glad this question's been asked. Short answer: yes. You know, we have an alarmingly high number of uninsured Americans in this country, who don't have access to proper healthcare or who have to deal with bills that middle-class Americans simply can't afford. Bush and McCain have focused so much on the military they've forgotten about the people right here at home. Jake, people here in Nevada, across the country, they have to pay so much for prescription drugs that are available for a fraction of the cost elsewhere. So this needs to be dealt with. But there's a big difference between dealing with it and wanting socialized medicine, you know, government controlling healthcare. That's what Senator Sanders wants, and it alarms me a great degree. The problem with Sanders' rhetoric is that he makes it sound like an all-or-nothing deal; either you have socialized medicine or the disaster that is the current healthcare system of America. Well, I offer Senator Sanders a more moderate alternative, something that works without becoming alarming government overreach: Secretary Romney's plan as governor. I disagree with Romney on a lot of issues, you know, but I'm a big fan of his system, Romneycare, as governor of Massachusetts. You'll notice Massachusetts is one of the healthiest states in the nation, low obesity, very healthy, high life expectancy. And when I look at Massachusetts' health care system, I think, why can't this be national? Why not? So really, I'd definitely support making Romneycare national, you know, Manchincare. Medicaid ain't enough, and Sanders' plan is the other extreme. Americans shouldn't have to pick between that one extreme and that other extreme. They should be able to get something in between, something that works without going several steps too far. So yes, I'd support this, with perhaps a few tweaks or changes. In fact I think we can go even further. But I'd definitely consider this a great starting point. It would be one of the top items on the Manchin agenda.
Given that we have two vacancies on the Supreme Court at the moment, name at least one person you would consider nominating to fill those vacancies.
Great question, Jake. I think most Americans appreciate the importance of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. You know, there are nine people who serve on there, for life, and they get to decide what's constitutional and what not, they interpret laws, they interpret our great Constitution. So it cannot, it can not, be understated how important they are to our nation, how important a choice it is to pick someone qualified, someone experienced, someone with the right idea of how government works. So, you know, I've given this a great deal of thought, the question, who would I pick to be on the Supreme Court? Because it's a great question, and a very important question. It will help decide if our Supreme Court supports bigger government or smaller government. I take this question very seriously. I think Merrick Brian Garland is one great choice. He's been on the US Court of Appeals, another very important judicial institution, from the DC circuit for a while. He helped investigate the Oklahoma City bombers. He's moderate, pragmatic, flexible, and is an adherent to the philosophy of a government that is big, that serves the people, without overreaching and becoming too big. He is definitely someone I would nominate for one of those vacancies, Jake.