I extend that to the abortion issue, I extend that to the so-called gay rights issue, I think this is a freedom principle and consistent with the analysis in the economic area as well.

Natural resources are so vast that no single individual or business is going to protect them; they don't have an incentive to.

I have come to realize that Jesse Helms stands for everything in politics that is anathema to me.

Managing people's sex lives is something that I don't think is a good role for government.

I think government has a major role to play in helping us with the pursuit of happiness.

I dare say that a majority of the American people think that having a fair hearing on an issue of importance in our relations with Mexico is extremely important to our national interest, as well as theirs.

I don't understand the Democrats' approach to Social Security in this country, and I'm not alone.

Before my tenure, people didn't seem to think that citizens had a right to limit the size of their government.

My slogan when I ran was that there is no such thing as government money, there is only taxpayer's money, and that cut pretty deep.

Government is never so noble as when it is addressing wrongs.

One of the functions of government is to act as a safeguard not just of property but of our liberties.

We absolutely have to restrain concentrations of wealth in industry from spoiling the situation for everybody.

It's not good for government to tell people that the world owes them a living and that things are free.

We need a complete ban on soft money, which is sort of an enveloping problem, and a ceiling on the amount of money that can be spent on a given race.

The system that had grown up in most states is that wealthy districts with an affluent population can afford to spend a lot more on their public school systems than the poorer districts.

So government acts as a safeguard of our property.

Government has a role as well in what is referred to as redistributive justice.

Much is forgiven anyone who relieves the desperate boredom of the working press.

I think transportation and corrections are not the first two areas that I would go looking for massive change.

It's healthy for government to be a kind of moral catalyst, using the bully pulpit of high office.

I think coercive taxation is theft, and government has a moral duty to keep it to a minimum.

I suggest to you that increasing the size of America's economic pie - which can be achieved only if everybody has a seat at the table - is the most important challenge facing our country today.

The unemployment rate is still twice as high for blacks as for whites.

In the nineteenth century, slavery was the greatest wrong, and government never stood so tall as when it was redressing that wrong.

Government can contribute to a shared sense of purpose on the part of the citizenry; that's its highest and best application.

There are several such issues where I have departed radically from the Republican orthodoxy.

Do we believe that there is equal economic opportunity out there in the real world, right now, for each and every one of these groups? If we believed in the tooth fairy, if we believed in the Easter Bunny, we might well believe that.

The courts are truly the least dangerous of the three branches of our government.

If we have major geographic areas within our continent that have a tremendous lack of economic opportunity, we found that that is going to produce instability _ economic, political and social.

Opposing the free flow of goods or people is a bad idea.

Micro managing anything is not a great role for government.

I extend that to the abortion issue, I extend that to the so-called gay rights issue, I think this is a freedom principle and consistent with the analysis in the economic area as well.

Liberals often don't see the problems, and conservatives don't see the promise, of government.

I frankly don't care if you agree with my stand on abortion. I take that stand because no other stand is consistent with decent principles, and no other standard is consistent with the will of God.

The media seems to think only abortion and gay marriage are religious issues. Poverty is a moral issue, it's a faith issue, it's a religious issue.

If they are opposed to abortion, they should be for preventing unintended pregnancies.

But I've been very clear in this campaign - I don't believe the party should have a position on abortion.

I don't think there is a good reason for an abortion, but Dr. Jasper made me really realize it was just a racket. He was just doing it for the money. He didn't care about the women.

We have had virtually unlimited access to abortion for nearly twenty years. Yet during that same period, more and more women and children have slipped into poverty.

I really didn't know there was two sides to the abortion issue.

The FDA is redefining birth control as abortion. The FDA is setting the bar higher for this kind of drug.

While the political debate over abortion will continue for a very long time, the federal government can and should be doing more to support programs and services that provide women with better options.

The emphasis must be not on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.

Advocates of unrestricted abortion do not want the public to focus on these undeniable facts of fetal development, but the facts cannot be ignored.

I do not support abortion rights. Although what I would support in this vexed area is not clear to me.

A vast abortion industry, generating some half a billion dollars annually, sprang into existence in the wake of Roe and Doe.

A majority of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion, and Judge Hamilton's decision flies in the face of Congress passing and President Bush signing legislation banning such horrible acts of violence.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

The issue is not abortion. The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do.