May 03, 2007
The Debate Part II -- Full Transcript
More errors we made. Help us correct them!
GIULIANI: And New York...
MODERATOR: And where were you on that?
GIULIANI: I supported it in New York, but I think, in other
places, people can come to a different decision.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
Let me go to Senator McCain. We're in the house of Ronald
Reagan. Every cab driver in America knew what Ronald Reagan stood
for: defeat communism abroad; reduce big government at home.
Can you, Senator McCain, restore that kind of unity of purpose?
MCCAIN: I know that I can. I want to be president of the United
States to defeat our enemies and to work with our allies. I want to
lead this nation.
I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I'm the
most prepared. I'm prepared to take on the greatest challenge of our
time, and that's the specter and threat of radical Islamic extremism,
which threatens our very values and our very life.
I know how the world works. I know the good and evil in it.
I've seen it. I know how the military works. I know what the
military should do, and what it shouldn't do. And I know what it can
do.
I know how to make Congress work, work for you and not for their
re-election.
MCCAIN: My friends, we face enormous challenges, whether it be a
burgeoning deficit, out-of-control spending, a need for energy
independence. And we need, most of all, to restore faith in our
government and confidence in the leadership.
My friends, I don't want to be president of a failed nation. I
don't want to be president of a sad nation or one that thinks our best
years are behind us.
I want to be president of a proud, powerful...
MODERATOR: OK, we have...
MCCAIN: ... great, bountiful nation. And, as president, I
intend to lead it.
MODERATOR: Senator, two or three gentlemen have asked to respond
to that. First Congressman Hunter, and then Governor Huckabee, and
then Senator -- those three. Say just quick, each.
HUNTER: Chris, thanks very much.
John's not the only guy with a defense background. I've been
chairman of the Armed Services Committee for the last four years.
I've helped to rebuild national defense.
We have worked hard to make sure that our people have enough pay,
that they've got the ammunition, that they've got the equipment, while
at the same time looking over the horizon to look at the new threat of
an emerging China and an Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and a
Korea that already has some and is moving to get the means for
delivery.
HUNTER: So a strong national defense, the trademark of Ronald
Reagan is what I would pursue.
MODERATOR: Governor Huckabee, the question is: How do you unify
the country the way Reagan did, a good portion of the country?
HUCKABEE: I think it's important to remember that what Ronald
Reagan did was to give us a vision for this country, a morning in
America, a city on a hill. We were reminded that we are a great
nation not because government is great; we're a great nation because
people are great.
Chris, I want to go back, though, to say why we're a great
nation. We are a culture of life. We celebrate, we elevate life.
And let me just say, when hikers on Mt. Hood get lost, we move heaven
and Earth to go find them. When coal miners in West Virginia are
trapped in a mine, we go after them because we celebrate life.
This life issue is not insignificant. It's not small. It
separates us from the Islamic fascists who would strap a bomb to the
belly of their child and blow them up. We don't do that in this
country.
MODERATOR: OK, let me go to -- Dr. Paul, how do you reconcile
this moral, moral leadership kind of role of conservatism with the
very libertarian strain of conservatism -- the Barry Goldwater
conservatism that you represent? How do you put together what he just
said with what you believe in a unified national purpose?
PAUL: Well, you do it by understanding of what the goal of
government ought to be. If the goal of government is to be the
policeman of the world, you lose liberty. And if the goal is to
promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message
brings us together; it doesn't divide us.
I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it
actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the
Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in
and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy
or air force, and we're getting ready to go to war.
But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending
liberty and minimizing the scope of government.
MODERATOR: I'm sorry, we have to go on. We have to go on.
MODERATOR: Governor Thompson, same theme. If a private employer
finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay
worker?
THOMPSON: I think that is left up to the individual business. I
really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people
have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they
should be.
MODERATOR: OK. So the answer's yes.
THOMPSON: Yes.
MODERATOR: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic
bishops who would deny Communion to elected officials who support
abortion rights?
ROMNEY: I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They
can do whatever the heck they want.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a
religion. And they can do whatever they want in a religion. America
doesn't...
MODERATOR: Do you see that as interference in public life?
ROMNEY: Well, I can't imagine a government telling a church who
can have Communion in their church. We have a separation of church
and state. It's served us well in this country.
This is a nation, after all, that wants a leader that's a person
of faith, but we don't choose our leader based on which church they go
to.
ROMNEY: This is a nation which also comes together -- we unite
over faith and over the right of people to worship as they choose.
The people we're fighting, they're the ones who divide over faith
and decide matters of this nature in the public forum.
This is a place where we celebrate different religions and
different faiths.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Governor.
Governor Huckabee, you've criticized Governor Romney for saying
his faith wouldn't get in the way of his public life, his governing.
Are you going to back that up tonight?
HUCKABEE: I've never criticized Governor Romney for that.
(CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: I said, in general -- and I would say this tonight to
any of us -- when a person says, "My faith doesn't affect my decision-
making," I would say that the person is saying their faith is not
significant to impact their decision process.
I tell people up front, "My faith does affect my decision
process." It explains me. No apology for that. My faith says, "Do
unto others as you'd have them do unto you..."
MODERATOR: But you answered a question that George
Stephanopoulos of ABC about this governor, one of your rivals, and you
answered it in this way: "I'm not as troubled by a person who has a
different faith. I'm troubled by a person who tells me their faith
doesn't influence their decisions."
MODERATOR: That's in direct response to George Stephanopoulos on
February 11th of this year. Why are you changing that point of view
now?
HUCKABEE: Well, I didn't know I was changing the point of view.
MODERATOR: No, you're changing your quote.
HUCKABEE: I'm saying that of anyone, whether it's Governor
Romney or Governor Gilmore...
MODERATOR: Well, you answered in direct response to Governor
Romney and his Mormonism. Why are you pulling back now?
HUCKABEE: I don't mean to be pulling back. I want to state very
clearly: A person's faith shouldn't qualify or disqualify for public
office. It shouldn't do that.
But we ought to be honest and open about it. And I think it does
help explain who we are, what our value systems are, what makes us
tick, and what our processors are.
MODERATOR: Governor Romney, do you accept the fact that he
wasn't talking about you?
ROMNEY: I didn't hear it.
(LAUGHTER)
I didn't hear it on George Stephanopoulos. But I can tell you
this: Of course everyone who's a person of faith has values that are
deeply held in their heart, and they include the value of the
relationship they have with their spouse and their children, the value
that they place with their country and with their community.
ROMNEY: That's what makes America such a powerful land. Look at
us. We're a land that's the envy of the entire world. We are the
hope of the world, not because of our hearts.
And that comes from being a people of faith, but not people of a
particular church or a particular synagogue. Rather, the great values
we share are American values.
MODERATOR: Senator?
BROWNBACK: This is a key point, I think. And I think it's a key
point for the country. Because we've had 40 or 50 years, now, of
trying to run faith out of the public square.
And we're a nation of faith. As my colleague, Senator Lieberman,
a Jew, says, America is a faith-based experiment as a country. We
should celebrate and invite faith.
And our motto is, "In God we trust." This isn't something that
divides. This is something that pulls together and lifts us up. And
it's key, and it's important. We shouldn't be trying to run it out of
the public square. We should invite it in and celebrate it.
MODERATOR: OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator.
MODERATOR: Gentleman, let's talk a bit about the future of your
party.
MODERATOR: Congressman Hunter, Governor Schwarzenegger, who is
here tonight, has won the state twice by downplaying partisanship and
taking centrist positions on the environment, immigration, abortion.
Is that the way to win for Republicans?
HUNTER: You know, it's a way to win, but we need to win the
right way. And about 100 miles south of here, in my town of San
Diego, we build the border fence. When we built that fence, we had a
border out of control, and we built that fence. And it's a double
fence. It's not that little scraggly fence you see on CNN with
everybody getting over it.
We had massive murders on the border, massive illegal
immigration, massive importation of drugs. I built that border fence.
We brought down the smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90
percent.
I think there's an implication in your immigration statement that
the Hispanic community of California wants to have a secure border,
and I wrote that law that extends the San Diego fence for 854 miles
across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that the president signed in
October.
One way to bring down crime in the state of California and every
state in the union is to have an enforceable border.
HUNTER: That means let's build that border fence. When people
want to come into this country, let's ask them to knock on the front
door.
MODERATOR: Governor Gilmore, you know Karl Rove and you've
worked with Karl Rove. Is Karl Rove your friend?
(LAUGHTER)
MODERATOR: Do you want to keep him in the White House if you get
elected president -- the president's chief political operative?
GILMORE: You know, at the end of the day, the responsibility for
this government and for its policies rests with the president of the
United States. And the president is able to choose the people that he
wants to choose in order to implement his policy. The president has
chosen Karl Rove.
MODERATOR: But you, as commander in chief and chief executive,
would you employ Karl Rove?
GILMORE: It isn't a matter of Karl Rove. What's important to
this nation is not Karl Rove.
(LAUGHTER)
What's important to this nation and to this party is the
acquisition of the philosophy and values that we are as Republicans.
There is a time now for us to reach out and to say that we're
spending too much money in government, that it's taking too much of
the resources of this nation, that we have got to do something about
government spending, create more jobs and a higher revenue and a
better opportunity, and thereby to cut taxes for regular people.
GILMORE: I did that as governor.
I'm a consistent conservative that keeps his word and does what
he says that he's going to do.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Governor.
Congressman Tancredo, that Karl Rove question, do you have an
interest in answering that one?
TANCREDO: Yeah. Karl Rove would certainly not be in the White
House that I inhabited. We have had our differences for quite some
time, specifically on the issue of immigration and my criticism
thereof.
And as a matter of fact, this is as close as I've ever been to
Air Force One.
(LAUGHTER)
MODERATOR: Well, by the way, this isn't still the Air Force One.
TANCREDO: To the replica...
(CROSSTALK)
TANCREDO: ... of Air Force One. Exactly.
MODERATOR: All right. Mayor Giuliani, I have to ask you the
next question. Has the increased influence of Christian conservatives
in your party been good for it?
GIULIANI: Sure. The increased influence of large numbers of
people are always good for us. I'd like to go back to the earlier
question that you asked because I think it really is important that
we, you know, define the Republican Party to fit today.
Neither party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. That's just a
fallacy that we sometimes fall into. If we're going to win, and we're
going to govern after we win, we have to reach out, bring in
Democrats, bring in independents.
GIULIANI: I ran a city that was five-to-one Democratic, and I
was able to -- according to George Will, I ran the most conservative
government in the last 50 years in New York City...
MODERATOR: Time...
GIULIANI: ... reduced crime, reduced welfare, balanced the
budget, lowered taxes 23 times.
MODERATOR: Mr. Mayor, it's time.
GIULIANI: And I had 45 Democrats and I think six Republicans.
MODERATOR: OK.
Governor Thompson, same question. Well, actually, you could
respond to just about anything at this point.
(LAUGHTER)
THOMPSON: Well, Chris, then I will.
I'm the reliable conservative. I vetoed 1,900 things. I reduced
taxes by $16.5 billion.
I'm from Wisconsin, a blue state, and I won four consecutive
times. I still have a very high popularity appeal.
And I'm the one that started welfare reform, reduced the welfare
caseload in the United States and the state of Wisconsin by 93
percent.
THOMPSON: And I believe that kind of a record will attract
Democrats and independents, if you stand up and start talking on
principles and ideas.
Where I think the Republican Party lost its way is we went to
Washington to change Washington -- Washington changed us. We forget
to be coming up with new ideas, big ideas like Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan had an optimism and a belief that America could be
stronger and better tomorrow than it is today, and he instilled that
and inculcated that in every American. That's what we have to do as a
party again.
MODERATOR: Thanks, Governor.
MODERATOR: Senator Brownback: Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke
Cunningham in prison for bribes. Just last month, FBI raids of two
Republican members of Congress.
What's with your party and all this corruption?
BROWNBACK: And there are also Democrat members that there was
cash found in refrigerators or deep freezes.
I think you have to look at the overall situation and system and
say this people were wrong and they should go to jail, and they are
going to jail.
BROWNBACK: And they would go to jail under my administration.
But I think you also have to back up and ask, we, as a society,
what we can do to bring stronger families and build a stronger culture
as well. We need to have laws to enforce these systems and, we, as
leaders need to live by those laws as well.
But we need to back up as a society. We need to rebuild the
family structure in this country. We've got 36 percent of our
children born out of wedlock. We've got a culture that's got things
like what Don Imus said going on not only on the radio, now it's in
records that are being marketing to teenagers with million dollar ad
budgets using the same words that he was fired for.
I mean, what I would hope to do is to lead by example, lead
ethically, lead in rebuilding the family and in renewing the culture.
MODERATOR: Congressman Tancredo, you want to respond to that
question that John put about these serious problems of ethics
violations?
TANCREDO: Yes, well, they are not unique to the Republican
Party. These are failures by individuals and it's important to
understand that, and they should, of course, be dealt with.
TANCREDO: Let me also, please, if I -- because I've had enough
opportunity -- I shouldn't say enough, but certainly an opportunity to
address some of these other issues, especially with regard to whether
or not it has to be a centrist who wins the presidency of the United
States.
Look, we're standing in a place dedicated to a man who we would
not call a centrist, who was able to win this state. He was also able
to win the presidency, twice. Why? Because he believed in
principles, he articulated them, and he put them into effect. He had
heart. We know it. We saw it. The American people saw it, and they
respected that.
I believe it's not necessarily whether you're a centrist or not.
MODERATOR: It's time now.
TANCREDO: I believe it's whether or not you believe in your
heart in the things that you say, and I do.
MODERATOR: Senator McCain, when you announced last week, you
took a couple of shots at incompetence in government. You talked
about you wouldn't put up with having police and fire radios on
different frequencies.
MODERATOR: And I somehow got the idea you were talking about New
York City.
(LAUGHTER)
MCCAIN: No, I was talking about the fact that the special
interests have kept the spectrum, which the American people are
supposed to have and our first responders are supposed to have -- we
gave the broadcasters high definition television.
In return, they were supposed to give a spectrum that was going
to be reserved for the first responders.
Again, the special interest influence prevailed over the public's
interest.
On the issue of why we lost the election in 2006, it's because we
did lose our way. We began to value principle (ph) over power, and
spending got out of control. Spending lurched completely out of
control.
Ronald Reagan used to say, we spend money like a drunken sailor.
I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination of the
Congress.
And by the way, I received an e-mail recently from a guy who
said, "As a former drunken sailor, I resent being compared to members
of Congress."
(LAUGHTER)
MODERATOR: It's time now for another round of interactive
questions. We're going to go to Jim VandeHei right now.
MCCAIN: Can I -- I thought I had a yellow -- I thought I had a
yellow light there.
MODERATOR: It's red now.
(LAUGHTER)
MODERATOR: I'm sorry.
MCCAIN: I'm sorry. The first pork-barrel bill that crosses my
desk, I'm going to veto it and make the authors of those pork-barrel
items famous all over America. We're going to stop it.
MODERATOR: Sorry, Senator.
MODERATOR: This is actually a great follow to that, Senator
McCain. Chris Harris from Manhattan, Kansas, is very concerned about
the budget and about deficits. He wants to know, what specific
programs would you cut if you were president?
MCCAIN: Line-item veto is the best tool. President Reagan
sought it, and we need it very badly.
There are a whole variety of programs that need to be cut, and I
would start in cleaning up defense acquisition. The cost overruns
associated with the purchase of our weapons systems is completely out
of control. There's a $160 million combat ship that is now $400
million.
We've got to get that under control first. Let's stop the pork-
barrel spending; then we'll go at programs.
Each one of them must justify their existence every year. They
will lay out their goals, and then they will have to meet those goals,
or they will go out of business.
MODERATOR: Thank you, sir.
Governor Huckabee, a Politico.com reader wants a letter grade.
He wants to know, A through F, how would you rate the Bush
administration's handling of the Iraq war?
HUCKABEE: I think it's too early to give them the grade. You
don't give a student a grade in the middle of the exam. We're still
in the middle of the exam. Let's wait and see how it turns out, then
we can give the president a grade.
MODERATOR: But a teacher will usually give you a heads-up, maybe
midway through that semester.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: My teachers never did. I don't know where you went to
school, but in Arkansas...
(LAUGHTER)
... we didn't get a grade until it was over, and usually we
didn't want to take it home.
(LAUGHTER)
MODERATOR: Governor Romney, you said that being a pro-life
president entails more than just appointing strict constructionist
judges. A Politico.com reader wants to know what you meant by that
and whether that was directed specifically at Mayor Giuliani.
MODERATOR: It's directed at anybody who's not pro-life. And I
have had the opportunity of serving as a governor and finding that
while the courts were making decisions that affected abortion, it's
really upon the legislature and the governor to have an impact as
well.
ROMNEY: And so you can fight, for instance, to make sure that
partial-birth abortion is made illegal. You can fight to have
information given to women who are thinking about having an abortion.
You can fight to make sure that there's opportunities for people to
express their views on this topic openly and near abortion clinics.
You can fight for the opportunity to go out and campaign for the
rights of those who care about this issue to be heard before Election
Day, and the McCain-Feingold law prevents that from happening.
MODERATOR: It's time, Governor.
Let me ask Mayor Giuliani, do you want to respond to this?
Because it seems like across the room here, this strong, unrelenting
-- with the exception of Governor Gilmore, an unrelenting pro-life
position. You seem to have a nuanced position on this. Many people
think you're pro-choice. Could you define it in a couple of seconds?
GIULIANI: Sure. This is a very, very difficult issue of
conscience for many, many people. In my case, I hate abortion. I
would encourage someone to not take that option. When I was mayor of
New York City, I encouraged adoptions. Adoptions went up 65, 70
percent. Abortions went down 16 percent.
GIULIANI: But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I
would respect a woman's right to make a different choice.
I support the ban on partial-birth abortion. I support the Hyde
amendment. But ultimately, I think when you come down to that choice,
you have to respect a woman's right to make that choice differently
than my conscience.
And I'd like to respond on spending...
MODERATOR: OK, later. We'll have to kill you now because it's a
red light.
MODERATOR: Governor Thompson, is racism still a problem in our
society, and can a president do anything about it?
THOMPSON: A president can do a lot of things. A president can
set a vision that's going to abrogate as much as possible racism in
our society. A president has got to be able to get out and speak and
be able to unite.
And the great thing about Ronald Reagan was, he was a uniter, and
that's exactly what I tried to do as governor of the state of
Wisconsin. I tried to bring people together. And if you do that, you
can reduce and abrogate racism to a very great degree, and the
president of the United States has got to be the number one person in
doing that.
MODERATOR: Congressman Tancredo, David Kim from here in
California wants to know: Beside yourself, who do you think should be
the Republican nominee for president of the United States, and why?
TANCREDO: Well, of course, if I thought there should be another
one, I wouldn't be here. I think that I serve the purpose, and I
think we -- good men all here. Don't get me wrong.
But I am telling you this. There are issues that I believe have
not been addressed tonight, not in full, and I believe that they do
separate us. And I certainly believe the issue of immigration and
immigration reform and what's going to happen to this country unless
we deal with this forthrightly -- no more platitudes, no more
obfuscating with using words like, well, I am not for amnesty, but I
am for letting them stay.
That kind of stuff has got to be taken away from the political
debate, as far as I'm concerned, so people can understand exactly who
is where on this incredibly important issue.
TANCREDO: And when they see that, I think, frankly, I'm the
candidate.
MODERATOR: OK. Time.
Anyone have a follow-up with that? Anyone disagree with the
strong anti-illegal-immigration position, take a strong view?
Senator McCain?
MCCAIN: Well, I'm happy to say that we've been working very hard
for a couple of months with Democrats and Republicans, led by the
president and his Cabinet, to come up with a comprehensive solution
and resolution of this terrible problem.
One thing we would all agree on, the status quo is not
acceptable. We have to secure our borders. But we also need a
temporary worker program, and we have to dispose of the issue of 12
million people who are in this country illegally.
This issue is an important and compelling one, and it begins with
national security. But we also need to address it comprehensively.
And I'm proud to work with the president of the United States...
MODERATOR: Time.
MCCAIN: ... on this issue.
MODERATOR: Time. I've got to go to Jim VandeHei.
MODERATOR: Congressman Hunter, Kay Thomas from Honolulu, Hawaii,
wants to know if you watched Al Gore's environmental documentary, "An
Inconvenient Truth."
HUNTER: No, I didn't watch it. But, you know, I think that
global warming and the need to be energy-independent gives us a great
opportunity.
HUNTER: I think we should bring together all of our colleges,
our universities, the private sector, government laboratories, and
undertake what, for this next generation, will be a great opportunity
and a great challenge to remove energy dependence on the Middle East
and, at the same time, help the climate.
I think we can do that. We need to take taxes down to zero for
the alternative energy sources. We need to make sure that all the
licensing from our laboratories that goes to the private sector goes
to the American manufacturing sector for these energy systems.
MODERATOR: Congressman, that's time.
(CROSSTALK)
MODERATOR: That's time.
HUNTER: I think we can do it.
MODERATOR: Congressman Paul, Bob Hussay (ph) from Minnesota
writes that perhaps the most important skill a good president must
have is the ability to make good, sound decisions, often in a crisis
situation.
Please cite an example when you had to make a decision in crisis.
PAUL: I wonder if he's referring to a political decision like
running for office, or something like that.
(LAUGHTER)
I guess, in medicine, I made a lot of critical decisions.
PAUL: I mean, you're called upon all the time to make critical,
life-saving decisions. But I can't think of any one particular event
where I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people.
But I think all our decisions we make in politics are critical.
My major decision, political decision, which was a constitutional
decision, was to urge for (inaudible) years that this country not go
to war in Iraq.
MODERATOR: Dr. Paul, that's -- again, is there another question
for Jim?
MODERATOR: Governor Gilmore, this question comes from Malika
(ph) in Washington, D.C.: "Women are the fastest growing prison
population. Most are mothers who are non-violent, first-time
offenders. What will you do to address the issue of mothers behind
bars and the children left behind?
GILMORE: You know, when I was governor of Virginia, I had to
deal with a great number of these issues, and I think that we have to
insist upon the obedience to the law.
GILMORE: And that means that we have to let the courts and the
juries make decisions based upon all of those matters. When I was
prosecutor -- I was an elected prosecutor -- I had to address these
issues all the time. And the fact is, that we just simply have to
have the law apply in an appropriate way.
I would like to answer that question about decision-making. I
was governor of the state of Virginia during the 9/11 attack, and I
had to act immediately in order to address these issues. And I was
also chairman of a national commission on terrorism that addressed
these issues as well.
MODERATOR: We have to go down the line again. It's always fun
to ask these questions down the line. We have Mr. Reagan here. The
camera will not focus on her, but I will tell you, it will now focus
on you.
Mrs. Reagan wants to expand federal funding of embryonic stem
cell research. Will that progress under your administration,
Governor?
ROMNEY: It certainly will. Altered nuclear transfer, I think,
is perhaps the best source...
MODERATOR: Embryonic. Embryonic.
ROMNEY: Altered nuclear transfer creates embryo-like cells that
can be used for stem cell research. In my view, that's the most
promising source. I have a deep concern about curing disease.
ROMNEY: I have a wife that has a serious disease that could be
affected by stem cell research and others. But I will not -- I will
not create new embryos through cloning or through embryo farming,
because that will be creating life for the purpose of destroying it.
MODERATOR: And you won't take any from these fertility clinics
to use either?
ROMNEY: I'm happy to allow that to -- or I shouldn't say happy.
It's fine for that to be allowed, to be legal. I won't use our
government funds for that. Instead, I want our governments to be used
on Dr. Hurlbut's method, which is altered nuclear transfer.
MODERATOR: The same question, embryonic stem cell research with
federal funds, sir.
BROWNBACK: It will not, with all due respect to Mrs. Reagan and
her desires here. I've studied this matter a great deal. We are
curing and healing people with adult stem cells.
MODERATOR: OK.
BROWNBACK: It is not necessary to kill a human life for us to
heal people. And we're doing it with adult stem cell work, and it's
getting done.
MODERATOR: OK. I'm going to have to go yes or no.
Governor Gilmore, for embryonic stem cell federal funding or not?
GILMORE: We can't create people in order to experiment with
people.
MODERATOR: Governor Huckabee?
HUCKABEE: I would concur. I don't think it's right to create a
life to end a life. That's not a good health decision.
MODERATOR: Congressman?
HUNTER: No. I'd like to show Mrs. Reagan the alternatives,
which are adult stem cells.
MODERATOR: Governor Thompson.
THOMPSON: There's so much research going on, Chris, you cannot
answer that question yes or no. There's research currently going on
right now at the Weissman Center (ph) in Madison, Wisconsin, that's
going to allow for adult stem cells to become pluripotent, which will
have the same characteristics of embryonic stem cells, so you do not
have to kill an embryo.
MODERATOR: Senator, embryonic stem cell federal funding.
MCCAIN: I want to thank Mrs. Reagan for the many kindnesses
extended to me many -- and my fellow prisoners of war many years ago
when we came home to this wonderful state.
I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for
those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these
stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen.
We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a
tough issue. I support federal funding.
MODERATOR: That's a yes. Dr. Paul, yes or no on federal
funding?
PAUL: Programs like this are not authorized under the
Constitution.
PAUL: The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we
either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with
it, and the states should deal with it.
MODERATOR: OK. That's a no.
GIULIANI: As long as we're not creating life in order to destroy
it, as long as we're not having human cloning, and we limit it to
that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in
those situations where you have limitations.
So I would support it with those limitations, like Senator
Coleman's bill in Congress.
MODERATOR: Mr. Tancredo?
TANCREDO: There are billions of dollars going into this research
right now. It does not require me taking money from federal -- from
taxpayers in the United States to fund it...
MODERATOR: OK. Thank you.
TANCREDO: ... because it is morally, I think, reprehensible in
certain ways.
MODERATOR: Governor Romney, a year ago, it seemed that you
couldn't wait to tell the world about your health-care experiment in
Massachusetts. Since then, it's been criticized by conservatives as
something Hillary Clinton could've devised. You hardly mention it on
your Web site. What's changed?
ROMNEY: I love it. It's a fabulous program.
I'm delighted with the fact that we, in our state, worked
together across the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, to find a way to
get health care for all of our citizens that's affordable and that's
portable.
ROMNEY: Now, I know there's some people that don't like it, but
when it came time to vote, you know, we won 198-2. The Heritage
Foundation worked on it with us. We had people on both sides of the
aisle.
Now, I know there's some people who wonder about it. Senator
Kennedy, at the signing of the bill -- we were all there together --
he said, "You know, if you've got Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy agreeing
to the same bill, it means one thing. One of us didn't read it."
(LAUGHTER)
But I helped write it and I knew it well, and this is a country
that can get all of our people insured with not a government takeover,
without Hillary care, without socialized medicine. Instead, get the
market to do its job. Let me people have health care that they can
afford. Get the market to do its job. Let people have the
opportunity to choose policies in the private sector.
We didn't expand government programs. We didn't raise taxes.
There was no government takeover. The market can work to solve our
health care needs, and that's the great, exciting news. And 27 other
states are working on health care reform right now. It's a great
program, a great opportunity for the entire country.
MODERATOR: Senator McCain, some of your colleagues have been hit
pretty hard on flip-flops, but you now support extending President
Bush's tax cuts.
But you originally voted against them. That makes no sense.
MCCAIN: Because in the proposal that I had, there were
significant tax cuts. And the thing that bothered me was that there
was no provision to start addressing Social Security or a contingency.
We had a contingency called the Iraq war. And we had no restrain
on spending. And spending got completely out of control.
Yes, these tax cuts needs to be made permanent. Otherwise they
will have the effect of a tax increase. But spending is destroying
the future of this country. And we've got to get it under control.
And as I started to say before, the first pork barrel earmark
bill that crosses my desk as president of the United States, I'm going
to veto it and I'm going to make the authors of it famous.
MODERATOR: OK. Let's start with an enjoyable down-the-line, OK?
I want each candidate to mention a tax you'd like to cut, in
addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect.
Posted at 09:25 PM
Comments
As a centrist republican here is my ranking of who won the debate:
1. Mike Huckabe
2. Sen. Brownback
3. Paul
4. Hunter
5. Gilmore
6. McCain
7. Giuliani
8. Romney
9. Tancredo
10. Thomson
Ari | 05.03.07 09:41 PM
 |
I think tonight's debate had one winner and it was the democrats. Rudy came off as an amateur, a local politician playing way out of his league and beyond his being in NYC on "9/11" he has no game at all so spinners please, don't insult us.
Romney is slick, he's the one that win the gop primary.
McCain-he's all done, he came off as angry and quite frankly a little bit nutty.
yourmom | 05.04.07 12:53 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
