Sue Myrick
Sue Myrick: Well, I co-chaired the platform committee, and before we got to Philadelphia we spent a ton of time on phone calls, meeting with everyone who wanted to meet with us, meeting with everyone we could think of who might have some concerns about the process of the platform. We went to Philadelphia more unified than we have ever been. It was interesting to me that on the platform committee, of course, the big issue was abortion. And we kept a pro-life plank. Gov. Bush told everybody from the beginning we would, and we told everybody we would. And we ended up with it.
So the people from across the country who were involved, the delegates on the platform committee, everybody was willing to put aside their differences on particular issues because they sensed victory. We were able to come out united for the first time in sixteen years, and move forward, because we want to get Gov. Bush in the White House, so we can accomplish something toward moving the country in the direction most of us support moving in.
So I was pleased with it overall. I mean, sure, I was upset about a couple of things. A lot of people were upset about things. But when you take the big picture of where we were, where we are now, the platform we have for the American people – what we’ll work for and this is why we want you to vote for us – I’m very pleased.
Warren Smith: Jerry Falwell said religious conservatives got a pro-life running mate, a pro-life platform that is by and large the most conservative platform we’ve had in a long time, now we religious conservatives have to sit back and just trust Gov. Bush to do what he needs to do to get elected and once elected he’ll do the right thing. Do you think that’s an appropriate position?
Sue Myrick: I don’t want them to sit back, I want them to work like heck for him.
Warren Smith: Well, that brings me to my next question. Do religious conservatives step up to the plate? I hear from some of the more conservative candidates that fundraising is hard this year, that even though we have as conservative a slate of candidates as we’ve had in a long while, especially at the council of state level, that religious conservatives are not getting out to work for these candidates. Do you think that’s a valid criticism?
SM: No, because I’m not around the state. My life is Washington, and the district here. I am really not the right person to comment. I will just comment on what I have observed. People I have talked with are very supportive and want to get out but I have a fear that there are people who will just relax and stay home, who will not go vote, not give money, not volunteer in campaigns at the grass roots. And if they don’t, we’re sunk.
We can’t get elected as Republicans in this country if we have just Republicans working for us. We have to have Independents, we have to have Democrats, and we have to have every Republican.
WS: How can Republicans do that? The overwhelming majority of religious conservatives are Republicans. And the reason religious conservatives get mobilized is because they view a couple of issues -- abortion being one of them, resisting the homosexual agenda’s institutionalization in public policy as another – as being vital and crucial. How can the Republican leadership hold the line on those issues without alienating the moderates and the Democrats?
SM: I’ll tell you why in this case they can. First of all, they need to trust Gov. Bush. Because if there was ever a time – and I was there; I saw every minute if it and I was a part of it. There was pressure on Gov. Bush to change the pro-life platform plank in Philadelphia. Tremendous pressure. He never wavered one minute. From day one he said this is the way it’s going to be and on day eight when we finished that’s the way it was. So I think their trust level should be strong, because he could have changed.
Number two, I really think that what we have in that platform is conservative, and I don’t there is any reason people should [worry] that it is going to change. We use that platform to sell ourselves, to use a marketing term, to the American people. The biggest mistake we could make is to make any changes in that, and then try and get elected. It would be really stupid! After having gone through the process myself, and hearing all the discussion, being pressured myself, I have all the confidence in the world that we are going to have a good conservative president and a good conservative vice president who will stick to a conservative agenda.
The moderates and others in the party who may feel differently have agreed to be quiet and go along because they want to see a Republican in the White House. Really and truly. I don’t think you’re going to see that dissension.
WS: Marvin Olasky wrote a book called "Compassionate Conservatism,"….
SM: I’m very familiar with Marvin Olasky. [Laughing.] Newt made us read his book when he first became speaker….
WS: "The Tragedy of American Compassion" was the book he wrote in 1992, and that was one of ten books…
SM: Oh, yes. The reading list. And you’re bringing him here, aren’t you?
WS: Yes, we’re bringing him to Charlotte in November. And I wanted to ask you about that term, "compassionate conservatism." That term sounds as though it could be the "It’s the economy, stupid," of this election cycle. In other words, it’s an idea and a phrase that, to use the vernacular, is beginning to get some traction. What do you think about it? Is it helping the Republican party? Is it an idea that will continue to gain traction with the American people?
SM: Well, no offense to Marvin, but I was calling myself a compassionate conservative back in the mid-80s, because that’s how I explained what I was. Fiscally conservative, but there were issues that I believe we need to deal with as a society that deal with teaching people how to fish, not giving them a fish. I’ve been on this bandwagon forever. I think it’s very reasonable. I think it’s very logical. I think it makes a lot of sense to the majority of the American people. It’s something they can understand. It’s just common sense.
WS: I’d like to drill down below the national agenda and focus on North Carolina. We’re near the end of one session of Congress. Obviously, another one will start up in January. Reflecting back over the past two years, what would you say were your big disappointments?
SM: I think one of them is that we haven’t been able to get the tax relief we wanted. We have a surplus of income tax dollars, as well as a surplus in social security. Our whole attitude has been that this is more money than our government needs to operate. This is the people’s money. Let’s give it back to them.
We’ve had a president who doesn’t agree with that. So every time we bring up a tax bill, like the marriage penalty relief, which helps every couple by giving them $1400 a year, he vetoed it. Now, we’re going to bring it back, and try to override his veto. But my point is that we haven’t been able to do some of those things that we would have liked to have done.
We’re in a surplus economy, which is wonderful, but that doesn’t mean we just need to spend it. So that’s been a frustration.
WS: But why is that? The Democrats were willing to give up a little bit. Is there gamesmanship involved in this? Were the Republicans reluctant to let the Democrats have a victory on this issue, even though it might have created a little bit of relief?
SM: No, that really didn’t have anything to do with it. The difference was the Democrats wanted to spend more money. And the reason they didn’t want to give tax relief was they wanted to spend money on more new government programs. It’s a philosophical difference. We don’t think we need more new government programs. Sure there’s a purpose for government. There are needs that have to be met, there’s no question about that. But overall this is a philosophical difference on how you do government. We think government should be more limited and should stay out of people’s lives. A helping hand, but not a controlling interest. That’s the way we are. The Democrats, generally speaking, believe that we should tax more, to raise more money, to do more things that government is in control of, and has more involvement in people’s lives. They believe they can spend the money better than we as individuals can. That’s a philosophical divide that is what is behind these tax issues. The joke of it is, all of a sudden the Democrats are the big protecters of the money, when for 40 years they used literally every penny of the social security surplus, which is why we got these problems to begin with.
It wasn’t until Republicans took control of Congress that we finally balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years. And end up with a surplus.
WS: So it’s this overriding philosophical difference that you think the Republicans needed to stand for rather than "take a little, leave a little."
SM: "Take a little, leave a little" wasn’t going to do enough to really benefit. The fact that we were going to leave those dollars in Washington allowed them to be spent. You can’t keep money in Washington. It will be spent. It’s the nature of the beast up there. There’s always something to spend it on. We want to get it back to the people instead of leaving it there. And it wasn’t enough to make a difference.
WS: So, not being able to get a meaningful tax cut was a disappointment. Any other disappointments?
SM: Not really. We started working well together. Denny Hastert did an excellent job bringing us together in the House. He did an excellent job of working with the Senate. I think we made some great strides.
One of the things I’m most proud of is that we’re paying down the debt. Again, that was never talked about until we got into 94. We balanced the budget in 97, which we did five years ahead of time. We have paid off $436-billion of public debt. This budget we’re doing now pays off another $250-billion. We have put a lock-box on Social Security, so it can’t be touched. On Medicare so it can’t be touched. We also passed a bill that says any additional surplus over and above what we know now we have coming in will go into debt relief. So we have a plan to pay off the public debt by 2012. Which is a first in – well, forever. To me, that’s a big accomplishment because of what it means for our kids and our grandkids.
WS: We’re sitting here in your campaign office, and yet I think it’s fair to say that you’re in a relatively safe seat.
SM: Oh, no, no, no, no….
WS: You don’t think that?
SM: I don’t. I have a very credible opponent. He’s got a good educational background. He has some business background. And the biggest thing is he is a millionaire and he can self-fund his race. He said he’s going to spend a million dollars and he has the money to do it. I take that very seriously.
WS: Given that, does it concern you that a lot of special interest groups seem to be targeting Republican candidates. I haven’t seen any ads targeting you, but I have seen ads targeting Robin Hayes, for example. I know both sides do it. But does it trouble you? What can and should be done about that?
SM: It troubles me a lot. We should have some type of campaign finance reform that affects everybody. The problem with everything that has been suggested so far is that none of it touches the labor unions.
Right now the labor unions are running ads against Robin Hayes, as you mentioned. They take their members’ dues, without their members’ OK, and spend them on politics. And they do it, basically, to support Democrats. The dollars are used against Republicans. So every campaign finance proposal that has come up has not done anything about addressing that issue. So that means that being a Republican means we are out there with no help, while the Democrats have the labor unions putting money into campaigns.
And it’s millions of dollars. They say they’re going to spend $50-million. They were documented at having spent several hundred million dollars during the last campaign. It’s massive dollars. Money and grassroots support.
We need to find a way to make it even. I don’t care what they do. But I would love to see campaign finance reform, but I’m not going to support something that gives one party an edge over another. That’s totally unfair.
WS: Of course, we’ve got the same problem here at the local level. Connie Wilson, our local representative, has suggested that a simple solution would be full disclosure. Anyone can give any amount they want, they just….
SM: I support full disclosure. I am in favor of that. But that’s not stopping it, it just lets everyone know where it’s coming from.
WS: Would that be enough for you?
SM: It would be fine if we could get it. I’m willing to try anything as long as it’s fair. I really am. I mean, in this market it is not as expensive as it is in New York or Los Angeles, so we don’t have the same need for spending millions of dollars. I’m told the average congressional race around the country is $2- to $3-million. And that’s the average. And you have to raise that every two years. It’s insane.
WS: Well, next time around, when Congress comes back into session, what are going to be the big issues?
SM: That depends on who’s president. Without knowing that, there’s no real way to say. If we have a Republican president one of the main issues will be changes in the education system. That’s a big one for Gov. Bush.
There will still be an emphasis on Social Security, where we would have private investment accounts for Social Security where you could take, say, 2% of the money you put in and invest it in the stock market, with some safeguards on it, of course. So you could earn more and have a better, more secure future.
The continuation of a very strong national defense. Making sure that our men and women are equipped to fight in any battle they are called upon.
Those things would happen. Those are the key things. And there would be tax relief, because we’d be able to get it through. A refund of the people’s money.
Those would be four areas where you would see something happen almost immediately.
WS: On education, the ABC scores were recently released here in North Carolina. Charter schools performed poorly, at least by some interpretations of those numbers. Gov. Bush has been a proponent of charter schools as a mechanism to create school choice. You and Gov. Bush have been proponents of school choice. How do you reconcile this philosophy with the data that shows poor performance of the charter schools?
SM: I think it’s a little early. I think it’s unfair to judge a charter school that doesn’t even have a year under its belt and expect them to perform like a school that’s been there for twenty-something years. That’s my first comment.
I’m not an expert in this area, but I will tell you that we know what we’re doing now doesn’t work. We need to be looking for other ways to educate our kids. One of the suggestions is that parents be able to take the dollars that have been assigned to their child, and if they’re in a failing school, that is not safe and in which they’re not learning, they can move to a school that is safe and that they can learn in. I think that’s a good idea. Right now, if you’re rich, you can do that. You can put your kid in a private school. But if you’re not you have to let your child suffer. What I see that doing is not harming the public school system. I see it as providing competition. The schools that are not performing will get their act together. There’s no reason they can’t. I think we should have teacher accountability. Why not? Everyone else has to be accountable for their jobs, so why not teachers? And good teachers don’t mind that. They really don’t.
WS: Well, while we’re on the subject of education, and since you were on the platform committee, that raises a question. Four years ago, the abolition of the Department of Education was a plank in the platform. This time around, though by most reports this is a solidly conservative platform, that plank was left out. Is that a change in philosophy? Was that a backslide from the earlier platform?
SM: It’s not a change in philosophy, but it is a change in reality. We tried, ever since we were there in 1995, to get rid of the Department of Education. I was on one of those task forces. It isn’t feasible to do now, because we don’t have any votes to do it. What we’re looking at are ways to make changes within the system that are realistic and we know we can get done. It doesn’t mean that we still don’t believe the bureaucracy in Washington is too big, because we do. There’s no question about it. But you can’t make miracles happen. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. That’s why it was taken out of the platform. Because we tried to have a platform that we could say to the American people: "We can do this. This is realistic. This is something we can accomplish. Here’s why you have to vote for us."
That’s what it’s about. If you took a vote in the Republican half of the Congress regarding how many people would like to get rid of the Department of Education, you would have the majority of the members of the Republican Congress raising their hands, but we can’t get it done right now with the Congress and the president we have.
WS: But sometimes you continue to fight for lost causes. There are several reasons to do this. To keep the debate alive. To get your opponent on the record in the debate. Some people are concerned that this one will just go away. That once the battle is lost, it’s lost. But what I hear you saying is that when the time is right, the battle will be fought again.
SM: Sure it will. And when you say you want to eliminate the Department of Education what the American people hear is that you are against education. That’s what we kept running up against. We aren’t against education. We want to make changes in the education department so our kids learn. So we felt that the best way to be able to communicate to the people that we want to change the system and want to do what’s right, was to start on the path we’re on. Philosophically, none of that has changed. But I’ve learned in politics that you can beat your head against the wall all day long and accomplish nothing. And that’s one of those issues that does that. Education is the number one issue with the American people today.
WS: I understand that, but just to hit a few things quickly, if vouchers came up, you’d be for them?
SM: Absolutely. I support vouchers, and I always have.
WS: Tax credits?
SM: Same. And Education Savings Accounts. We’ve just passed that again.
WS: Vouchers cause some concern because some conservatives believe there might be some sort of federal government intervention in private schools.
SM: Not with the voucher program we want to put in place. We want a no-strings-attached voucher program. We had a bill that said that 95% of all dollars going into the classroom would be no-strings-attached. The local community could use it for what they want. That’s our philosophy. Less federal control. More local control. All of the bills we have passed in those areas have done that. The last thing in the world we want to do is put more strings on people.
WS: In the few minutes we have left I’d like to ask what is energizing you these days? What are the issues you are passionate about? And, if you’ll forgive me for asking, how are you feeling? How’s your health?
SM: I’m glad you asked. I’m doing wonderfully. I’ve been very blessed through all this. The Lord’s been good to me. So much good has come from a bad situation. A lot of women have gone to get help.
I did have breast cancer, and I finished my treatment in May. About a month afterward I got tired, and they told me that would happen, but I was hoping I would beat it. So I had to pace myself a bit. But I’m doing great now. My doctors have given me a clean bill of health. That is an issue I’ve become a big advocate for. In fact, today we had our first meeting of a breast cancer task force here in Charlotte and if anyone would like to join us, men or women, we’d be delighted to have them. We’re going to branch it out so it’s an advocacy group for cancer in general. I’m going to start a cancer caucus in Congress. We’re going to work toward funding research into causes and cures. My main interest is in causes. Why do one in four Americans get cancer. Alternative treatments. Diet. Exercise regimens. How they affect cancer patients. So, yes, that is a new issue for me. I’ve always supported funding for the NIH and that sort of thing, but getting into this full force is new for me.
I still want to be involved in the education issue, to try to get everything back here to the local level.
I’m also very much concerned about what is going on regarding the fabric of our society. Integrity. Character. Faith. Things that we used to stand on. It’s kind of scary right now.
Those are issues that are important to me, and I think that in Congress we have an excellent opportunity to be an example by the way we act, the way we treat one another, to make some change in the country.
WS: I know that you’re involved in a Bible study in Washington. You’ve gone through this health crisis. You said that God has made a good thing out of this bad thing…
SM: I believe He’s healed me.
WS: He’s healed you?
SM: Because of all the prayers of people all over the country.
WS: Say more about that. What has happened to your faith over the past year or two as a result of all of this?
SM: I realized that I didn’t have any place to go but to the Lord. It deepened my trust level unbelievably. It got me through every day, because I had a lot of bad days. I knew that He was going to get me through it. And He did.
I knew some good would come of it, because every time I have had a bad experience in my life, good has come out of it. I didn’t know what, but it turned out that because I do have the job I have, I have a national platform and I can be a spokesperson and I’ve done some national things. It’s given me an opportunity to talk about my faith. When they do interviews that are live, they can’t edit it.
WS: In those situations, what do you say? If you just had 30 seconds to say "This is what I believe?" what would that be?
SM: God is totally in control of my life. There’s no question in my mind. Nothing happens that He is not a part of. I trust Him to lead me, to guide me, to give me the strength to do whatever it is He wants me to do here on this earth.
