of the FREE: May 2007

I watched a lot of the debate last night and for the few parts I missed, I saw a lot of the clips on the news media that I'm sure made up for it. I decided an interesting exercise would be to go back and answer the questions posed in the debates for myself. These aren't going to be answers meant to provide a sound bite but to actually honestly answer the questions. Here goes...

CW: Senator McCain, you say that you are willing to be the last man standing for U.S. involvement in Iraq. But the Iraqi government has failed to meet one political benchmark after another for political reform. Why should Americans continue to fight and die while Iraqi politicians continue to do so little?

SET: We have to continue to fight and put ourselves at risk because it's in our interests to do so. If we were to quickly withdraw from Iraq it would have a horribly destabilizing effect on both the country and the region. The central area would be overrun with terrorist activity and the current government would be too overwhelmed to be able to handle the problem. The Southern region would immediately be more susceptible to influences from Iran. The Northern region would likely also be destabilized as border struggles with Southern Turkey ensued.

But that's not the whole story. We also have to do a better job of working with the current Iraqi government to help them understand that while it's in our interests to see Iraqi be a successful, stable democracy, it's also in their best interests. We need to effectively communicate that there are other ways of dealing with these problems of immediate withdrawal and we do not intend to allow our soldiers to continue to bleed and die for a people that is unwilling to help itself.

CW: Governor Thompson, in the last debate, you said that you would, quote, "Require the Maliki government to vote on whether or not they want us to continue to stay in Iraq." You said that you would, quote, "Require the 18 provinces to elect governments and that you would split oil revenues."

This is a freely elected government, sir. How can you require them to do anything?

SET: You require them to modify their behavior by attaching conditions on the involvement that we have in the region. They need to understand that in order to continue to have our unequivocal support that they need to step up and be more autonomous and willing to take own their own problems.

That said, I'm not sure that splitting oil revenues is "the" answer. It's certainly an option and something that needs to be evaluated but I'm not sure it's a silver bullet.

CW: Governor Romney, can you foresee any circumstances under which you would pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a stable political and security situation?

SET: There are no good options given the current situation. At the point where an unstable situation in Iraq is the lesser of the evils then that's the decision you make. I think we're currently a long way from there but that certainly doesn't mean we'll never get there. I think we'd likely completely overhaul our tactics before reaching that point.

CW: Senator Brownback, when President Bush announced the troop surge, you opposed it and said that instead you favored the Iraq Study Group, which has a goal of getting all U.S. combat forces out by March of next year. You said that you wanted to find a way for Republicans and Democrats to work together.

Question: Is that any way to fight and win a war, to look for a consensus among the politicians in Washington?

SET: Absolutely not. There's a reason our country was founded with a single Commander in Chief instead of a committee. Often times decisions of this level of gravity will never be unanimous and have to be acted on quickly. That's one of the reasons the Office of the President is of such vital importance.

Fighting a war with more than half the country now insisting that we shouldn't be fighting the war and some insisting that we're losing the war is no way to fight a war either, though. It's because of this that we need to take the time to honestly understand one another's genuine concerns and try to address them as much as possible. This doesn't take a seat to first supporting our troops, though.

CW: Mayor Giuliani, in our interview the other day you said that congressional Republicans who say they must see progress by September are, quote, "fundamentally irresponsible," and that in effect they are giving a timetable for retreat to our enemies.

Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?

SET: No, it's not. As I said earlier, we have to make sure that the current Iraqi government understands that they have to be as committed to success as we are. That involves clearly stating goals, objectives, rewards, and yes, consequences. Those are things that must be worked through in private between leaders, though. You don't broadcast a deadline such as this and give a potential tactical advantage to your enemy. That doesn't help anyone.

CW: Congressman Tancredo, you are one of those congressional Republicans who talks about disengaging -- the word you use -- from Iraq. You opposed the troop surge. You have talked about November as a timeframe for beginning to pull some of our troops back from the frontlines. Are you in effect giving our enemies a timetable for retreat?

SET: Not at all. As I just stated, we have to outline our plan but that plan exists between the leaders of our governments, not in the media.

CW: Congressman Paul, you're one of six House Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?

SET: Supporting the efforts to create a stable democracy in Iraq isn't a party issue. It's a national issue. It's a human kind issue. Building a stable democracy in Iraq, given the current situation, is our best hope of creating a stable ally in the region and being able to safely and quickly bring our troops home.

CW: Congressman Hunter, you talk about standing up the Iraqi military and that at some point soon they may be able to replace some American troops. Now the Bush administration has been saying this, the same thing for basically four -- more than four years, and we now have as many troops in Iraq, U.S. troops in Iraq, as we did when we invaded the country.

Why should we believe that this replacement is going to start happening any time soon?

SET: I think we've allowed a lot of the problems within the Iraqi government itself to slow the training and deployment of their troops. If we communicate effectively with the Iraqi government and bring them to an understanding that our commitment to them is strong and unwavering but will not be so in the absence of an equal commitment on their part then I think we can cut through a lot of the red tape that's continually hindered this process.

CW: Governor Huckabee, you said in the last debate that President Bush made a mistake listening too much to civilians in suits and silk ties and not enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots, especially when it came to how many troops were needed to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

If the generals were to come to you as president and say, we don't have enough troops there; we need, let's say, 300,000, would you be open to significantly increasing our presence in Iraq?

SET: I don't think anyone has any reason to believe this is what the military leadership is indicating but if that was the consensus of the boots on the ground that deploying 300,000 soldiers to Iraq would ensure stability while we trained an Iraqi army so that we could bring all of our soldiers home permanently then I wouldn't hesitate to do that at all.

CW: Governor Gilmore, we have an internet question for you from Harry from Boston, who says, we should look ahead to the threat from Iran. He asked, quote, "What would you do to resolve this nuclear issue? And will you launch a pre-emptive strike if they were close to achieving a weapon?"

SET: Foreign involvement should almost always be our last option but sometimes it is necessary. While I think we should look at what we can do to limit the ability of Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, including a pre-emptive strike if necessary, I think we should also look at how we respond to the inevitable situation where a rogue state or terrorist group has acquired a nuclear weapon. If not Iran in the near future then Iran in the longer term. If not Iran in the longer term then another country. How will we respond once someone has them? We need to be evaluating missile defense options, new technologies for detecting a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the US, and other things of this nature.

WG: Gentlemen, we have a series of questions on the economy, the budget, taxes and entitlements. And I have one for each of you, starting with you, Governor Romney.

Your critics have called you "flip-flop Mitt" for, among other things, your decision to take the "no new taxes" pledge this year after refusing to do so in 2002. Tell me why your decision to take the pledge shouldn't be seen as a blatant appeal to the party base, sir?

SET: I would have taken the "no new taxes" pledge in 2002. Furthermore, it's not enough just to pledge no new taxes. We need to be pledging no more of the current tax structure. That's my pledge today. The current tax structure and corresponding spending structure in Washington is broken. I think the IRS needs to be done away with and replaced with a small bureau that handles the administration of something similar to a FairTax program. I also think that any new spending proposal from Congress needs to include the section of the Constitution whereby we as the government derive the power to take people's money for such a cause.

WG: Senator McCain, you opposed President Bush's 2001 tax cuts. Now you say you were wrong. How can you convince Republican voters you will push a Democratic Congress hard enough to make those tax cuts permanent, sir?

SET: I just gave two examples of things that need to happen. Taxes under the current structure happen almost solely for two reasons: to influence behavior and to buy votes. A new tax system would help to change this mindset. It would get politicians back to thinking about what's in the nation's best interest rather than what's in their reelection campaign's best interest.

WG: Governor Huckabee, the alternative minimum tax caught 4 million people this year; it'll get 23 million next year unless Congress acts. How would you eliminate the tax without raising the budget deficit, sir?

SET: I don't mean to be redundant, but FairTax. FairTax would remove the AMT as well as all other forms of personal income tax as well as corporate income taxes. It shifts the tax burden away from earning and onto consumption. That's something that can also hopefully help families get the problem with debt that we have in our society under control. That in turn will encourage a greater degree of personal responsibility. There really is no downside to the FairTax system unless you're a politician, accountant, tax attorney, or lobbyist.

WG: Mayor Giuliani, you get the credit for killing the line-item veto. You fought and won when it pinched New York. And yet in your administration, spending for the city rose even before 9/11, after which it soared. Show me where you exercise fiscal discipline, sir.

SET: Fiscal discipline isn't easy to come by given the current system. That's why we don't need another patch: we need an overhaul. Implementing FairTax where people are actually able to see and understand the taxes that they're paying will force a degree of responsibility in Washington because people will finally see how much we cost them. Having any bill before Congress include the section of the Constitution whereby the authority is authorized will also help rein in spending. We are currently involved in a lot of activates that are not the role of the government.

WG: Senator Brownback, gasoline prices headed north again. Should Americans resign themselves to living with $3.50, $4, $5 a gallon gasoline? [And if not] how would you prevent that, sir?

SET: I believe in a free market economy. In a free market, supply and demand determine the prices of goods and services, not a politician or government. I'll let the market decide what the price of gasoline should be but speaking for my pocketbook, I hope it's a whole lot cheaper than that.

I think it can be cheaper than that. I think we have to continue to look at ways to increase supply. Increasing supply is increasing the capacity of our refineries and looking at additional sources both at home and abroad.

I think we also need to look at how to decrease demand because our current level of demand makes us very vulnerable to some countries that I'd rather we had no dependency on. We can decrease our demand by continuing to research and making strategic investments in alternative approaches. I think these would include hybrids, bio fuels, and alternative engines including hydrogen, etc.

I think there are enough people concerned about this problem whether it's from an environmental standpoint, an economic standpoint, a security standpoint, or a combination thereof that we can fix this problem. With all that we've accomplished from putting a man on the moon to putting a pda / phone / mp3 player in my pocket, I'm confident that we can fix this problem as well with the proper focus and attention.

WG: Governor Thompson, Brian from Fort Wayne asks this question via the internet, a question about controlling government spending. Some of your critics say you lack fiscal discipline. Tell me three federal programs you consider wasteful and would eliminate.

SET: I've already named one, the IRS. I would also look at seriously overhauling or eliminating the TSA, FCC, FAA, and Department of Education, just to name a few.

WG: Governor Gilmore, in the next president's term, baby boomers will retire, the costs of Social Security and Medicare will soar, sir. Tell me whether you'd be willing to reduce benefits even for wealthy Americans in order to avoid raising payroll taxes?

SET: I wouldn't look at reducing benefits on wealthy Americans, I'd look are eliminating benefits for everyone. I know that sounds drastic, and it is but the current system is broken. We need to re-educate everyone the role of the government. The role of government is not to fund your retirement. The role of government is to make our nation safe, to enforce our laws, and create an environment where you're able to happily plan and prepare for your own retirement.

WG: Congressman Hunter, virtually all U.S. exporters want access to China's huge market. You have said that you would deal with the enormous trade deficit this country has with that country. Tell me how you'd do it and how fast.

SET: I believe in free trade. That doesn't mean I don't support American jobs, though. Just like I believe in free market within the US, I believe in a free world market. Other markets should welcome our goods and if they do so then we should do the same for theirs. If another factory within the US or a factory outside of the US can produce the same quality product as I can at the same price then I need to get in another line of work. Either my product should be superior from a quality standpoint or I need to be looking to improve and expand my skills. Removing the tax burden that our companies have when competing with companies overseas is a huge way to get a leg up on them and ensure the dominance of the American workforce. We have the brightest, best, and most productive workforce that the world has ever seen. Now let’s remove the tax barriers that are holding them back and force other countries to open their doors to our products.

WG: Congressman Tancredo, there's a lot of talk about the budget deficit and reducing that. But interest on the national debt is $400 billion. That's almost as much as the Defense budget. Do you consider that a problem? Would you reduce it, and how fast?

SET: It's a huge problem. It's just another thing that creates a dependency that we have on other nations that I'd rather us not have. If we can rein in spending by looking at the inefficiencies that we have within our government and also overhaul the income tax system then we can quickly generate the revenues necessary to start making a dent in our national debt.

CW: Governor Gilmore, on the campaign trail you like to say that "Rudy McRomney" is not a conservative and he knows he's not a conservative. With them standing here on the stage with you, you would tell us specifically why Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain and Governor Romney are not conservatives?

SET: Each of them has aspects of their policy beliefs that don't line up with mine. Whether or not they're conservative or not I'll leave for you to decide. I'll let them tell you about their vision and I'll stick to telling you about mine. In the end, you can decide which vision you'd rather see for this great nation.

CW: Mayor Giuliani, let's start with you. You're pro-choice, you're pro-gay rights, you're pro-gun control; you supported Mario Cuomo for governor over a Republican. Are those the stands of a conservative?

SET: I'm not pro-choice. I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life. I think we should do everything we can to preserve life no matter how fragile or unwanted the life may be by others. The life is important to God and it's therefore important to me. Abortion should only be allowed in the case of jeopardy to the mother's life.

I believe in marriage between one man and one woman. I also believe that as long as my choices don't harm others the government should stay out of it. The same is true of choices regarding sexual orientation. If me living and calling myself "married" to two women, another man, a plant, or anything else doesn't harm anyone else then the government should stay out of it.

I'm not pro-gun control. I'm pro the Second Amendment. I'm pro the Constitution as a whole and I didn't support Mario Cuomo.

CW: Senator McCain, although Governor Gilmore did not single you out, except by name, I'd like to ask you, because you have a record that people challenge about your conservatism. You've cosponsored campaign finance reform with Senator Feingold. You've cosponsored comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy. You opposed, as Wendell mentioned, not only the Bush tax cut of 2001 but also the Bush tax cut of 2003. You voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but for expanded funding -- for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

But you say that your record is clear, consistent and conservative. How do you square that with the positions and the votes that I just mentioned, sir?

SET: I'm against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I understand that they'd like to do something about all the money that it takes to run a campaign but limiting free speech is not the appropriate way to handle it.

Likewise I'm against the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. While we need to be pragmatic as opposed to idealistic in dealing with the immigration problem that we have on our hands, there are better ways to deal with it. We have to be tougher on the people who have broken our laws to get into our country.

I support tax cuts but more importantly, as I've outlined, I support tax reform.

I don't believe it's the role of the government to recognize marriage at all other than to recognize legal implications of inheritance and such and that should be able to be done regardless of whether someone is married or not.

I'm against federally funded stem cell research for a couple of different reasons. It's not the role of government to fund research for one. This is a good opportunity to rein in spending. Secondly, I think a lot of people have problems with destroying what some people believe is a human life for the purposes of research. I personally believe that life begins at conception and believe we should not experiment with human life. I think the research opportunities are great though and we should look at other opportunities, specifically research on cord blood which has shown to have even more potential than stem cells.

CW: Governor Huckabee, you got slammed for raising taxes. How do you respond, sir?

SET: I haven't raised taxes and wouldn't. FairTax should not be a tax increase but should initially be tax neutral. As we rein in spending we can use the additional revenues to pay down our national debt and then scale back the FairTax rate.

CW: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?

SET: I think I've made my positions on those issues very clear and historically my positions have been extremely consistent.

CW: Senator Brownback, you weren't mentioned by Governor Gilmore, but I'm going to ask you a question anyway.

You say that you're a full-scale Ronald Reagan Republican, and yet, as you mentioned, you opposed the troop surge and you support comprehensive immigration reform. Are those the stands that Ronald Reagan would take?

SET: I'm not concerned with whether my beliefs are things that Ronald Reagan would support or not. My goal isn't to be the next Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a great leader but I'm only aspiring to be the best leader that I can be. I've tried to articulate my beliefs and more importantly the reason for those beliefs. I think that's one of the things that made Reagan so great, not because his positions were always right or he never made mistakes, but because he was always willing to explain to people exactly why he made the decisions that he did. I've tried to do the same thing.

WG: Gentlemen, the right-to-life has been a part of the Republican party platform for more than 20 years, so I want to ask several of you questions about abortion and stem cell research, starting with you, Governor Thompson.

Some researchers say the lines of embryonic stem cells that President Bush has approved federal funding for are inadequate. Tell me why they're wrong. And more importantly, tell me how you would convince them that they have -- these researchers have all the tools they need.

SET: As I said earlier, I oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for a couple of different reasons. The research that I'm familiar with says that cord blood holds far more potential than embryonic stem cells and avoid the questions of morality that surround the issue.

WG: Mayor Giuliani, I think you expect your stance on a woman's right to choose to attract a lot of attention in this setting, sir. You have said that you personally hate abortion but support a woman's right to choose. Governor Huckabee says that's like saying, "I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it." Tell me why he's wrong.

SET: Like slavery, I think abortion is an issue of rights. When people finally realized that slaves were also people and had rights as people then people quickly opposed slavery. Abortion is the same way. As we learn more and more about the human body and the development of a fetus we realize that they develop far more quickly than we ever thought they did. As we come to the realization that life begins at conception, or if not at conception, then certainly at some point within the first trimester then we realize that the baby has the same rights that we do. As we grow to understand and appreciate the rights of that baby, then people will also quickly grow to oppose abortion.

WG: Senator Brownback, no one thinks abortion should be available casually, but there are often very, very difficult decisions to be made in this case. Tell me, since you've opposed abortion in every instance except to save the life of the mother, how you would explain to a rape victim, who does not believe that life begins at conception, why her trauma should be compounded by carrying the child to term.

SET: Some people do believe that abortion should be available casually. If you believe that the fetus is not a life, why shouldn't it be? How is it any different than killing an unwanted ant colony invading your back yard? If it's not a life then it has no more rights than those ants do.

But my point from earlier was that it is a life and it does have rights whether the mother in this terrible situation believes that the baby has rights or not. Earlier you compared abortion and slavery. When slavery was outlawed there were some that did not believe slaves were people and had rights as such. It was the responsibility of the government and responsible citizens to convince those who did not believe. We who believe that life begins at conception have that same responsibility now.

I can't begin to understand the trauma that this poor woman must face in this situation but as a baby with rights, creating two victims by killing the baby doesn't make the situation any better. There are plenty of crimes where a father is killed or a mother is killed and a child is left without a parent. The child needlessly suffers in these situations. The crime is compounded by the suffering of others. We should refuse to let the same thing needlessly happen in a case of rape when a woman becomes pregnant. We shouldn't let an innocent baby suffer and be killed because a monster did a terrible thing to a woman.

WG: Governor Romney, I want to give you another difficult abortion situation. You've explained that you once were pro-choice because a relative died after she underwent an illegal abortion. Tell me what you would say to someone else who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion, if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v. Wade.

SET: That would be a very difficult conversation but the Office of President is full of difficult decisions and difficult conversations. I'd tell the person that I'm sorry for their loss, that my heart goes out to them. Regardless of how someone loses a child it's never an easy thing to deal with. Outside of that, I've made my beliefs as clear as I believe I possibly can on why I'm opposed to abortion. If they disagree with that then that's their right. The prospect of having to deal with a difficult situation isn't going to make me change my beliefs from what I think is right, though.

CW: Gentlemen, I have a series of questions on immigration, and let me begin with you, Congressman Tancredo.

You have made the fight against illegal immigration the centerpiece of your campaign. I hope you will be as specific as Governor Gilmore was earlier. Do you think that Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney are soft on immigration, and if so, why?

SET: Again, I'll let them lay out their visions and I'll lay out mine. I think the first step to immigration reform is to secure our borders. I think the second step of any comprehensive plan is to identify the people that are here illegally. This should be done as part of a window of opportunity from a few months to a year. Those that come forward and are identified should be routed through some sort of a process whereby they can be made legal. This should include a very stiff penalty for breaking our laws. Those that do not come forward and are later found should be immediately deported and if we do a good job of securing our borders should not be able to reenter the country later. Furthermore, they should be barred from ever legally immigrating to our country.

CW: Governor Romney, you have also called Senator McCain's immigration plan amnesty. Are you prepared to say that sharing the stage with him tonight? And how do you explain your statement to the Lowell Sun last year in which you said, quote, "Those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship as they would from their home country." Why isn't that amnesty as well, sir?

SET: Amnesty means that there is no penalty for the offense. I think people who have broken the laws of the US have to pay for their offenses. You have to balance that with the fact that we have many people already in our country and signing a bill into law doesn't suddenly remove them all. They don't disappear once an immigration reform bill is passed and signed. People currently here in our country illegally need to have a way to obtain citizenship just like someone from their home country would. They don't need to have special treatment but they need to be penalized. Part of that penalty should include a heavy fine.

CW: Mayor Giuliani, when you were running New York, you said the following about illegal immigrants: "If you come here, and you work hard, and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city." If that was good enough for New York, why isn't it good enough for the country, sir?

SET: We can always use more hardworking people in this country. But you have to come to the country through the legal process.

CW: Congressman Hunter, we have an internet question for you, sir, from Scott in Colorado Springs. He asked, what would you do to prevent foreign nationals who have entered our country illegally from using social services such as medical, low-income housing and education?

SET: It's not just people who come to our country illegally, it's anyone. We need to be promoting a culture of independence and self reliance. Social services should exist primarily, not as a function of the government but as a function of the people and churches of our nation.

WG: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

SET: As I've said, I don't support immediate withdrawal but I think the issue of Iraq is a tough one to deal with a seldom do two people see exactly eye to eye on the issue. That's true among people in my party and between people of different parties.

As for why I'm seeking the nomination, it's because I'm not satisfied with the vision that any of the other candidates have for our nation. I think I represent a clear and consistent, tested and tried attitude of smaller government, lower and more streamlined taxes, and personal responsibility.

WG: I think I want to turn to Senator McCain and change the subject, if I will. I don't think we're going to solve this tonight, gentlemen.

An Internet question for you, Senator. Royce from Philadelphia asks if South Carolina should be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings.

SET: As a Republic, the US is a collection of sovereign states. The states are free to decide what they want to fly over the capitol building. I understand that the symbol is offense to some people and I understand why. I think that the reasons people oppose the flag, the message of hatred that it represents to them, that message of hatred is repugnant. I don't want to be around people that talk like that and view other people in that light. It's repugnant speech just like this that the First Amendment is designed to protect, though.

WG: Governor Huckabee, when you became governor of Arkansas, you wrote convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, told him, my desire is that you be released from prison. The parole board released him in 1999. The next year, he killed a woman in Missouri. Do you bear any responsibility for his release, sir?

SET: If this had been me then yes, I would feel that I have some responsibility in this situation. Hindsight is 20/20 and foresight is generally far poorer. As I said earlier, the Office of the President is not for one with a weak stomach or an inability to make difficult decision. This was a very difficult decision that I made and in the end, I'm sorry for that decision. It was the wrong decision and I wish I would have done things differently.

WG: Congressman Tancredo, the ambassador from the European Union says the United States and Europe bear a special responsibility for global warming because the greenhouse gases causing the problem have been put there since the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. We put most of the stuff up there. Do you agree? And what should we do to deal with the problem, sir?

SET: The first thing we need to do to deal with the problem is understand the problem. The media makes it sound as if global warming, and when I say global warming I'm talking about manmade global warming, is a foregone conclusion. In reality, there's a lot of disagreement among scientists. Regardless of who put the emissions in the air, we all need to try to get them out of the sky and repair any damage that may have been done. Open lines of communication and trying to understand different opinions is the first step to being able to do that.

BH: First question to you, Senator McCain. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?

SET: I think for those people that we believe may likely hold such information we need to be aggressive in our questioning. The thing I think you're trying to get at is would I support the torture of those individuals, and I would not.

BH: Mayor Giuliani, the former director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, the current head of the CIA have both said that the most valuable intelligence tool they have had has been the information gained from what are called enhanced interrogation techniques to include, presumably, water-boarding.

What is your view whether such techniques should be applied in a scenario like the one I described?

SET: I think, specifically water-boarding, is a controversial enough technique that it shouldn't be broadly applied. If however we have information that a specific person is withholding valuable information then it may be an appropriate response depending on how critical we believe the information they hold is to us. The technique itself is something that should be further examined and question to ensure that it's not considered torture. Experts currently disagree on this.

BH: Governor Thompson, let me enrich the scenario just a little bit. Let's assume for the sake of discussion here that we now also have additional intelligence that indicates with high certainty that the attackers were trained in a West African country hostile to the United States, in camps openly run by the terrorist organization that sent them. What kind of response would you agree to for that?

SET: I don't think my response would differ. We need to be sensitive not to offend but first and foremost we need to protect our interests.

BH: Senator Brownback, if the decision were up to you, would you do that? And if so, would you decide to go to the United Nations, for example, first to seek some kind of international authorization to do it or would you just move in the way that Governor Thompson described?

SET: I think, as I described earlier, that there needs to be some sort of international consensus on what methods are considered acceptable. If we were in need of information from an individual in order to defend our nation and her people I wouldn't wait for an authorization from the UN or anyone else, though.

BH: I'm going to come to the others in a moment, but I want to circle back to you, Senator McCain. You've heard reference here from me and others of the -- what the administration calls the enhanced interrogation techniques. I may have misunderstood you, but it sounded to me as if you regard those techniques, or from what you know about them, as torture. Do you?

SET: As I've said earlier, I think we need to clarify how we regard these techniques. If I regard them as torture then I do not have them to use as weapons to gather information but other countries don't share that belief then they have an advantage over us. Conversely if we don't consider them torture and use them but other countries do consider them torture then we really risk offending these other nations and upsetting the relationships that we have with them. There needs to be some clarification and consensus.

BH: This kind of attack would pose immediate and obvious problems for the U.S. economy -- they've hit shopping centers. What kind of measures would you take, Governor Gilmore, to assure that the U.S. economy continued to grow in the face of an attack of this kind?

SET: The best way to build a robust economy in the face of potential terrorist attacks, inflation, trade deficits, and everything else we face is to remove as much of the tax burden and liability as you can.

BH: Governor Huckabee, there might be a need for economic policies to change. What policies would you propose?

SET: Policies wouldn't need to change so much in the event of some sort of an attack if our policies were right before the attack. Getting our policies right now will help us better deal with all of the what ifs down the road.

BH: Congressman Paul, one last question for you on this. The president believed after 9/11 that the tax cuts that he had put in place were helpful in softening the economic downturn that occurred, and allowing the United States economy to rise out of it. Would you propose -- what economic policies would you propose under this scenario to avert or soften a recession?

SET: Again, I think if the policies were right in the first place then there'd be much less need for change under any circumstances, terrorist attack or otherwise. I do think things need to change and I feel like I've laid out a very clear vision for that change.

CW: Governor Gilmore, let me start with you. It's been suggested that the 10 of you could all be members of the same country club. What does it say about the Republican Party? And you used to be the chairman of this party and tried to build the tent, to build the base; what does it say that there is no woman, no Hispanic, no African- American, no minority in this field of presidential candidates?

SET: It says they're smart enough to avoid the pressure and scrutiny of a Presidential campaign! I think too often we focus - and this is people in general, not just Republicans - too often we focus on the things that divide us rather than the things that unite us. Even here in these questions, these questions are focused on the differences not the common vision that we can collectively lay out for our nation. We tend to be more pessimistic rather than optimistic. It leads to ugly, negative campaigns and takes the emphasis off the message. There are a number of prominent minorities that share the vision of the Republican party and could easily be here on this stage today from Colin Powell to JC Watts to Alan Keyes to George P. Bush to Condi Rice and many, many others. We do need to do a better job of making sure everyone knows that as long as they share the common vision for the Republican party, smaller government and more personal responsibility then they're welcome under our tent, not just to run as a candidate but also in the polling place.

CW: Governor Romney, during this campaign, you have been criticized -- and again tonight you've been criticized -- for changing your position on some issues. You say that it's a part of learning from experience. Can you point to an area in which your learning from experience led you to change to a position that is less popular with the Republican base?

SET: My positions haven't changed. As to where my positions differ from the Republican base, there are several, probably most notably on the war on drugs. Going back to what I said earlier about smaller government and allowing the decisions that don't affect other people to be my own personal decisions, I believe drug use should be legalized. It doesn't mean people should be able to do it while driving or anything like that so that there a risk to other people. And to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I'm not pro drugs. I've never used drugs. Never. I never will. I've seen within my own family how destructive drug use can be. But I've also seen how ineffective the current war on drugs is at combating the availability of drugs if that's the decision we want to make. We'd be far better off as a society trying to focus on educating people about the ills of drug use and take drugs off the street because people no longer want to use them rather than looking for drugs.

You'd also undercut the entire drug market with legalization. If I am a user and I need a fix, if I can buy pot at the pharmacy with a photo id the way I could alcohol or tobacco then I'm much, much less likely to take a handgun and harm someone else or steal from someone else in order to get the money I need to buy a product that's marked up sometimes thousands of times its value because people are putting themselves in danger to put it on the street. Legalize it and you remove the criminal aspect and part of the rebellious appeal for it. That's the only effective way to combat it.

WG: Congressman Hunter, many people feel that billions of dollars in American debt that China holds is a problem. If the Chinese decide to convert those dollars to Euros, the value of the dollar drops. Do you see that as a security threat, and what would you do about it?

SET: If we right our tax system and free the American people from that burden then we'll be better able to pay off our national debt whether it's the debt held by China or anyone else. As you pointed out earlier, we pay nearly $400 billion a year in interest alone. Once the national debt is paid off then that's yet another huge savings that allows us to reduce taxes even more and return more of the people's money to their pockets.

CW: Chris Wallace
WG: Wendell Goler
BH: Brit Hume
SET: Me!

of the FREE

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Republican Presidential Debate in South Carolina

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Becoming Illegal

About Me

Other Sites

Blog Archive

Labels