By Adam Fogle | January 11th, 2008 | 1 comment

I’ve gathered some of the best shots from the end of last night’s debate as well as the post-debate spin room with Hannity and Colmes and put them into a slideshow (below the jump). Thanks again to my photographer James Hall for nabbing these great pictures.

I was going to elaborate on the finer points of the event and who said what or who did well where or what will come back to haunt said person, but sometimes less is more. So my thoughts on the night can be best summed up by SCGOP Executive Director Jay W. Ragley who said, “It was a simply a spirited South Carolina debate.”

As for who won? Of course I thought John McCain did. Why?

“I think the first lines of the debate said it,” McCain’s South Carolina campaign manager Buzz Jacobs told me afterwards. “Romney gave them false hope, we gave them straight talk.”

Also below the jump I have the complete transcript from last night’s debate courtesy of the SCGOP, who did and absolutely phenomenal of putting together the debate and making sure we had everything we needed. So a big thanks to Katon Dawson, Rob Godfrey, Hogan Gidley, Jay W. Ragley, Jamie Shuster and the rest of the state Republican Party staff for all of their hard work.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE
SPONSORED BY FOX NEWS

JANUARY 10, 2008

SPEAKERS: FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.

FORMER MAYOR RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
R-NEW YORK CITY

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS
FORMER GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE, R-ARK.

FORMER SEN. FRED THOMPSON, R-TENN.

BRIT HUME, MODERATOR

CHRIS WALLACE, MODERATOR

CARL CAMERON, MODERATOR

WENDELL GOLER, MODERATOR

[*]
HUME: And now let’s meet the candidates.

Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee.

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, most recently
the governor of that
state.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, now serving
his fourth term in
the U.S. Senate.

Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who served two
full terms as that
state’s governor.

Rudy Giuliani, former two-term mayor of New
York City.

And Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who is now
serving his 10th
term in Congress.

Here is the format for this debate. Each
candidate will be asked
a series of questions on foreign policy and
domestic issues. Answers
are limited to one minute and 30 seconds each. If
we decide that
rebuttal time is required, that will be 30 seconds.

We have green, yellow and red lights to help
the candidates keep
track of their time. And if an answer runs long,
the candidates and
everyone else will hear this sound.

We ask our large and enthusiastic audience to
please limit
applause during the question-and-answer portion of
the debate so we
can devote as much time as possible to the
candidates themselves.

Let’s get started with Chris Wallace.

Chris?

WALLACE: Thank you, Brit.

Good evening, gentlemen. There are growing
concerns that the
country is headed for a recession. Here in South
Carolina, they lost
more than 12,000 manufacturing jobs in just the
last year.

Governor Romney, do you believe that we’re
headed for a
recession? And given your record in
Massachusetts, which had the
third lowest job growth of any state during the
years you were
governor, why should voters trust you over these
other gentlemen to
handle a slowdown?

ROMNEY: Well, first, Chris, let’s get the
record straight.
Could we be headed for a recession? Absolutely.
Do we have to be
headed for a recession? Absolutely not.

Recessions hurt working families. They hurt
people across this
country. Our hearts go out to the people who are
affected by job
slowdowns and growth slowdowns. And so this is
something we’re going
to have to address in a very aggressive way.

As to my record in the state of
Massachusetts, I’m very proud of
the fact that after many, many months of declining
job growth, I took
over the state and helped turn that around. And
in my years as
governor, we kept adding jobs every single month
after we saw that
turnaround.

The pipeline for new jobs coming into our
state was in single
digits when I came into office. When I left, it
was over 200. And
some of the biggest employers are still coming
into the state. Every
month since I’ve left, we keep on adding jobs. So
I’m proud of what
we did there.

What do we have to do at the federal level to
keep a recession
from occurring?

Number one, we’re going to have to make sure
that we stop the
housing crisis.

Number two, we’re going to have to reduce
taxes on middle-income
Americans immediately.

Number three, we’re going to have to deal
with gas prices. We’re
going to have to finally become energy independent
and make the
investments in new technology that will allow us
to get there.

And, finally, R&D, investments in science and
technology. That’s
an area where America can continue to lead the
world.

It’s time for us not just to talk about
improving our economy;
we’re going to have to do the hard work of
rebuilding our economy,
strengthening it.

And I know that there are some people who
think, as Senator
McCain did, he said, you know, some jobs have left
Michigan that are
never coming back. I disagree.

I’m going to fight for every single job,
Michigan, South
Carolina, every state in this country. We’re
going to fight for jobs
and make sure that our future is bright. We’re
going to protect the
jobs of Americans and grow this economy again.

WALLACE: Since you mentioned his name,
Senator McCain, you have
30 seconds to rebut.
MCCAIN: One of the reasons why I won in New
Hampshire is because
I went there and told them the truth. And
sometimes you have to tell
people things they don’t want to hear, along with
things that they do
want to hear.

There are jobs — let’s have a little
straight talk — there are
some jobs that aren’t coming back to Michigan.
There are some jobs
that won’t come back here to South Carolina.

But we’re going to take care of them. That’s
our goal; that’s
our obligation.

We need to go to the community colleges and
design education and
training programs so that these workers get a
second chance. That’s
our obligation as a nation.

We’re not going to end somebody’s career and
life of productivity
at age 35 or 40 or older. We’re going to design
education and
training programs that meet the needs of this
information technology
revolution that we are in.

And by the way, I don’t believe we’re headed
into a recession. I
believe the fundamentals of this economy are
strong, and I believe
they will remain strong. This is a rough patch,
but I think America’s
greatness lies ahead of us.

WALLACE: Senator McCain — and you have 90
seconds to answer
this full question — some of these ideas that are
being talked about,
like education and research and development, are
longer term.

If we’re talking about a recession in the
next few months, in
2008, what kind of short-term, more immediate
government fixes would
you propose to try to keep the slowdown diminished
or to reverse it?
And would you support them even if they added to
the government
deficit?

MCCAIN: Well, the first thing we need to do
is stop the out-of-
control spending. Out-of-control spending is what
caused the interest
rates to rise. It causes people to be less able
to afford to own
their own homes.

We need to stop the spending. And that way
we can get our budget
under control and we can have a — basically a
strong, fundamental
fiscal underpinnings.

The second thing that we need to do, of
course, is stop spending
$400 billion a year overseas to oil-producing
countries that come
right out of our economy immediately. Some of
that money goes,
unfortunately, to fund terrorist organizations.

We’ve got to — and we can use Detroit for
this, where there’s
tremendous technology in the state of Michigan,
and tremendous
abilities to develop technologies to reduce this
dependency on foreign
oil, and eventually eliminate it, and stop this
outflow of some $400
billion a year.
Education and training is obviously
important, but stop the
spending. As president, I know how to do it.
I’ll wield that veto
pen, and I won’t let another pork-barrel earmark
spending bill cross
my desk without vetoing it. And I’ll make the
authors of it famous.

I know how to do it. I saved the taxpayers
$6 billion on a bogus
tanker deal. I’m called the sheriff by my friends
in the Senate who
are the appropriators, and I didn’t win Miss
Congeniality. And as
president, I won’t win Miss Congeniality, either.

I’ll stop the outrageous spending, and
that’ll be the best thing
that can happen to America’s economy.

WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, you have started
running a TV
commercial in Michigan that says voters want a
president who reminds
them of the guy they work with, not the guy who
laid them off.

Do you believe we’re headed for a recession?
And do you have a
short-term government economic stimulus package
that you think would
be more effective than what you’ve heard so far
from Governors Romney
and Senator McCain?

HUCKABEE: Chris, I hope we’re not headed
toward recession, but
if we are, there’s four factors that will be the
reason.

The first one is fuel prices. When gasoline
gets as high as it
is, and oil goes to $100 a barrel, it impacts the
way people live. It
may not impact people at the top, but people who
barely make it from
paycheck to paycheck know that it doesn’t just
affect the fuel going
to and from work.

Everything they reach for on the shelf of
their store costs more
because it took more money to transport it to that
store.

HUCKABEE: So that’s the first thing we have
to realize, is with
our dependency upon foreign oil, if we don’t begin
to reverse that and
become energy independent, we well could continue
this enslavement to
foreign oil, and ultimately wreck our economy.

The second thing, subprime mortgages. Two
million people today
in America risk losing their homes. Now, there’s
culpability on both
lender, as well as a lot of borrowers who bought
more home than they
could.

And I commend the president. I think he’s
handled this right
without trying to rush in an do something with
taxpayer money to fix
this, but certainly to get the parties to make it
work.

Two other thing, health care costs, and the
other is education
cost. All those factors together.

And a lot of people are working harder this
year than a year ago,
and yet they’re not getting ahead. Even if they
make more money,
they’re not making enough money to make up. So
the first thing is not
raise taxes, cut the marginal tax rates, if
anything, and eventually
go to a fair tax which really does stop the
penalties on people’s
productivity.

WALLACE: Mayor Giuliani, you announced plans
for a big tax cut
yesterday. And you have been running ads that say
reducing taxes
actually will increase revenues. But the
bipartisan Congressional
Budget Office, as well as two chairmen of
President Bush’s Council of
Economic Advisers, all say that tax cuts don’t pay
for themselves,
that in fact they add to the deficit, they don’t
reduce it.

So, given that, do you stand by your statement?

GIULIANI: Well, the reality is that some tax
cuts do add to
revenues. Other tax cuts don’t add to revenues.
It depends on the
tax cut. And tax cutting has been part of the
Bush program, the
Reagan program, the Kennedy program, and it always
led to significant
increase in economic activity.

The Club for Growth looked at our plan, which
is the biggest tax
cut in history, and said that it would be a
significant improvement in
the economy and it would add to growth in the
economy. Now, let me
give you an example.

If you cut something like the corporate tax
at 35 percent, you
bring it down to 30 percent, you will get more
revenues from that cut,
because our corporate tax is the second highest in
the world. If you
cut some other tax, you might not get those kinds
of revenues.

So, the question is: What tax are you
cutting? Is it anti-
competitive? If it is anti-competitive, you’re
actually going to get
more revenues from that tax cut. But that’s not
the only answer to
how you deal with a possible recession.

You also have to cut spending as
significantly as you cut taxes.
You have to be willing to impose cutbacks on each
one of the federal
agencies, the civilian agencies. I would do that
the way I did as
mayor of New York City, the way Ronald Reagan did
it as president of
the United States.

You have to be willing to engage in
regulatory reform so that we
have a picture here in the United States where
we’re not regulating
businesses out of the country. The main things
you have to guard
against are overtaxing, overspending,
overregulating and over-suing.
And if you can find balance there, you will do
things that are
necessary to prop up the economy and to allow us
to have a growth
economy.

It’s not just one thing.

WALLACE: Senator McCain, as a deficit hawk,
I just want to ask
you for a 30-second rebuttal on that.

Do you believe the tax cuts pay for
themselves or do you believe
that they add to the deficit?

MCCAIN: I think they stimulate the economy.
I think that one of
the first things we have to do that I forgot to
mention is make these
tax cuts permanent, because we’ve got to give some
certainty to
families and businesses all over America that
these tax cuts will not
expire and then give them the effect of a tax
increase. So I believe
they stimulate the economy, but, Chris, you’ve got
to cut spending.

I’m proud to have been a member of the Reagan
revolution, a foot
soldier. And we cut taxes, but Ronald pay Reagan
knew we had to cut
spending at the same time. And that was our great
failure as a party,
is we cut taxes and then we let spending get out
of control.

And frankly, it cost us a great deal. If we
had adopted the tax
cut package that I had, which entails spending
cuts, then we would be
talking about more tax cuts today.

WALLACE: Congressman Paul, do you support a
government program
to stimulate the economy?

PAUL: Well, a government program is too
vague. What kind of a
government program?

If it’s appropriating money and trying to
stimulate that way and
spend more money, no, that would be the wrong
thing to do. But a
government program of a — of a reduced tax
burden, yes, that would
be.

Also, to solve this problem, you have to
understand why we’re in
a recession. I believe we’re in a recession. I
think it’s going to
get a lot worse if we continue to do the wrong
things that we’ve done
in the past, that it’s going to be delayed, just
as what happened in
the Depression.

But you have to understand that
over-stimulation in an economy by
artificially low interest rates by the Federal
Reserve is the source
of the recession.

PAUL: The recession has been predictable.
We just don’t know
exactly when it will come.

If you do the wrong thing, it’s going to last
for a long time.
The boom period comes when they just pour out easy
credit and it
teaches people to do the wrong things. There’s a
lot of
malinvestment, debt that goes in the wrong
direction, consumers who do
the wrong things, and businessmen who do the wrong
thing.

So we have to attack this and understand the
importance of
Austrian theory of the business cycle. If you
don’t, we’re going to
continue to do this and the longer you delay the
recession, the worse
the recession is, and we’ve delayed a serious
recession for a long
time.

The housing market’s already in depression
and a lot of people
are hurt and the standing of living in this
country is going down.
Look at what’s happening to the dollar.

And what is being offered by the Federal
Reserve and Treasury and
everybody in Washington? Lower interest rates.
Well, lower interest
rates is the problem. Artificially low interest
rates is the
artificial stimulus which causes the bubble, which
allows the
inevitable recession to come.

So what we need to do is deal with monetary
policy and not
pretend that artificial stimulus by more spending
is going to help.
That won’t do you one bit of good.

WALLACE: Senator Thompson, I’d like to get
your opinion, also,
on whether or not we’re in a recession or headed
for one. And, as
well, you have proposed a big tax plan, but much
of it, including, for
instance, extending the Bush tax cut, wouldn’t
help in the short run.

Do you support a short-run government
stimulus package or should
we just leave the economy alone?

THOMPSON: First of all, I need to defend
Rudy a little bit on
his tax plan, because it looks an awful lot like
the one I put out a
couple of months ago.

So the government never loses as much revenue
as the experts say
we’re going to. With the ‘01 and ‘03 tax cuts in
place, we received
more revenue into the government in one day in
April of this year than
ever before in the history of the country.

So much for the experts, as far as that’s
concerned. It does
stimulate growth and it’s overall beneficial for
the economy.

Unemployment is up to five percent. That
used to be considered
full employment, but we’re going in the wrong
direction with regard to
that. It’s not just the subprime market now.
It’s poured over into
the general housing market.

Credit is scarce. It’s affected the consumer
credit market in
general. If you’re talking about automobile loans
or you’re talking
about credit card thieves or anything like that,
the money is getting
tighter and tighter.

We still have a bunch of two-handed
economists in Washington. On
the one hand, we may go into recession, and, on
the other hand, we may
not. Nobody knows. But I think that as we
proceed, we need to count
on the fed doing the right thing in terms of the
interest rates and we
need to look seriously at whether or not we should
do things such as
speed up depreciation schedules for businesses,
those that create
jobs, have a deduction for capital expenses
instead of having to
capitalize them, things of that nature.

We had a stimulus package back in ‘01. It’s
targeted toward the
lower income people. I think that has to be
considered somewhere
along the line if the economy calls for it, not
today, but perhaps a
little later on.

But we have to keep in mind a great many
lower income people
don’t pay income taxes to start with. So an
income tax rebate like
we’ve tried before would not work.

We would all be a lot better off if people
knew that these tax
cuts of ‘01 and ‘03 were not going to expire at
the end of 2010, which
they’re scheduled to do.

HUME: Carl Cameron has the next round of
questions.

Carl?

CAMERON: Thanks, Brit.

Good evening, Gentlemen.

As you all well know, no Republicans ever won
the presidency
without winning the first in the south, South
Carolina, primary.

Governor Huckabee, a question for you.

Your adviser, Ed Rollins, recently said that
the Reagan Coalition
of Economic, Social and National Security
Conservatives is gone and
you’ve been quoted as saying that you’re not
running for another
Reagan term.

Tell us, sir, what part of that coalition is
gone and what has it
been replaced by?

HUCKABEE: Well, I’m not sure anybody said
we’re not running for
a Reagan term. I think I said I wasn’t running
for this president’s
third term, because each of us have to distinguish
ourselves.

So let me correct you on that, not that you
would need
correcting, Carl, but I wanted to throw that in
and make sure you go
that right.

The Reagan Coalition has certainly not seen
those same middle
class, working class Republicans feeling a part of
the Republican
Party as they should and one of the things that I
want us to do, both
as a party and through this election process, is
once again make sure
that people understand that when we lower taxes,
when we cut spending,
when we have a strong national defense, when we
stick to our
principles on the sanctity of human life and the
primacy of
traditional marriage.

And we also unapologetically hold to the idea
that the Second
Amendment is just as precious as the First
Amendment; and, in fact,
without the second, we don’t have the first,
because we have no way to
protect it.

HUCKABEE: All of those things were a part of
that Reagan
coalition. I was a part of it in 1979 and a lot
of the evangelicals
who became a part of helping Ronald Reagan to be
elected.

Over the years, sometimes Republicans have
thought that one part
of that coalition was more important than the
other. I think they’re
all important, and we need to recapture them.

But we need to make sure that we communicate
that our party is
just as interested in helping the people who are
single moms, who are
working two jobs, and still just barely paying the
rent as we are the
people at the top of the economy.

CAMERON: Senator McCain, just a moment ago,
you referred to
yourself as a foot soldier in the Reagan army.
What do you think
about the notion in the Huckabee camp that the
Reagan coalition might
be gone?

MCCAIN: I think, in some respects, that the
Reagan principles
and philosophy and practices we’ve gone away from.
I’ve said a number
of times we came to power in 1994 to change
government, and government
changed us. Spending was one of those.

There’s probably not a Republican in this
room that doesn’t know
what I’m saying when I say the bridge to nowhere,
the $233 million
bridge to an island with 50 people on it.

So I say that we let spending get out of
control. We abandoned
some of our environmental principles that Teddy
Roosevelt was so
famous for.

Climate change, in my view, is probably real,
and climate change
has to be addressed, and we can do it without
asking anyone to shiver
in the dark. Young people in this country want a
better planet to be
handed off to them.

But fundamentally, also, we have to return to
those principles of
less government, lower taxes, strong family
values, strong national
defense, and those that made us the Reagan
revolution that brought
about a new dawn of a new day in America and
helped us immeasurably in
bringing down the iron curtain.

And I’m not sure about the lights here.

CAMERON: Governor Romney, as part of your
universal health
insurance plan in Massachusetts, you say it was
necessary to include
coverage for abortion services. Would you make
that same decision if
Congress were to suggest that mandatory abortion
services would be
part of a national health insurance program?

ROMNEY: Carl, the decision to include
abortion services in
health care in Massachusetts was required by the
court, not by the
legislature, and certainly not by me as governor.

My term as governor was decidedly pro-life.
On every decision I
could make as governor, I came down on the side of
life. And that’s
why the Massachusetts Right to Life Association
awarded me their
leadership award after my term as governor.

But let me come back to your other question
about Ronald Reagan.
Look, the only way we’re going to win the White
House is by appealing
to the coalition that brought together the great
strength that Ronald
Reagan brought to America.

What’s happened in America is that Washington
has moved away from
the Reagan coalition. The Republican Party, in
some cases, has moved
away from the Reagan principles.

But the principles that Ronald Reagan
espoused are what will
allow us not only to win the White House, but to
keep America strong.
Ronald Reagan was the ultimate optimist. He was a
person who had
confidence in America and brought back that spirit
that we rely upon
to be the strongest nation on Earth.

Ronald Reagan said we’re going to have such a
strong military,
we’ll out-compete the Soviets, and he did. He
said we’re going to
have such strong families that the values of
Americans will shine as
an example of a shining city on a hill for the
entire world to see,
and he did that.

And he also said we’re going to have a strong
economy, because he
recognized that the only way we can have strong
families that have
good health care, and schools, and values, and a
strong military is if
our economy is powerful.

Knowing how America works is more important
than knowing how
Washington works. And I’ve spent my life over the
last 30 years
learning how America works, how our economy is the
envy of the entire
world.

And I want to make sure that in this time
when our economy is a
little fragile, not sure where we’re heading, that
we strengthen that
economy. That’s what I know how to do. I’ve seen
jobs come and go;
I’ll make sure that jobs come to America.

THOMPSON: Can I answer that?

CAMERON: Senator Thompson, a 30-second rebuttal.

THOMPSON: Well, it’s not a response. I
mean, you asked a minute
or a minute-and-a-half question of these gentlemen
on the Reagan
revolution. Could I address that?

CAMERON: Sure.

THOMPSON: It’s an important issue, because I
think it
demonstrates what we’re about here today. I think
that Governor
Huckabee’s campaign manager said it accurately in
terms of what they
believe. They believe that it is over.

This is a battle for the heart and soul of
the Republican Party
and its future. On the one hand, you have the
Reagan revolution. You
have the Reagan coalition of limited government
and strong national
security.

On the other hand, you have the direction
that Governor Huckabee
would take us in. He would be a Christian leader,
but he would also
bring about liberal economic policies, liberal
foreign policies.

THOMPSON: He believes we have an arrogant
foreign policy and the
tradition of, blame America first.

He believes that Guantanamo should be closed
down and those enemy
combatants brought here to the United States to
find their way into
the court system eventually.

He believes in taxpayer-funded programs for
illegals, as he did
in Arkansas.

He has the endorsement of the National
Education Association, and
the NEA said it was because of his opposition to
vouchers.

He said he would sign a bill that would ban
smoking nationwide.
So much for federalism. So much for states’
rights. So much for
individual rights.

That’s not the model of the Reagan coalition,
that’s the model of
the Democratic Party.

HUME: Governor Huckabee, you’ve got…

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: Go ahead, Governor Huckabee.

HUCKABEE: The Air Force has a saying that
says that if you’re
not catching flak, you’re not over the target.
I’m catching the flak,
I must be over the target.

(APPLAUSE)

HUCKABEE: Fred, I want to say, I appreciate
the analysis of my
record, but let me try to give you some of the
facts of my record.

I came into Arkansas as a governor. Put in
that position as a
lieutenant governor when my predecessor, a
Democrat, was forced out of
office on a felony conviction.

I did something that had not been done in my
state in 160 years.
I cut taxes, with the legislature working with me,
and we continued to
do that 94 times.

We cut spending. I’ll tell you, the most
painful time of my
being a governor in 10 and a half years was
looking at a budget that
91 percent of which was pretty well fixed on
education, Medicaid, and
prisons — and cutting 11 percent out of that budget.

Everywhere I went for about a year, and every
person — it may
take me just a moment longer, please.

HUME: Go ahead. Go ahead.

HUCKABEE: Because there were a lot of things
on that catalog
there.

HUME: Go ahead. Please, go ahead.

THOMPSON: I know the feeling.

HUCKABEE: Yes.

Everywhere I went, I had people protesting me
and screaming and
yelling and doing demonstrations because I cut
government. But I
stayed faithful to the things that Ronald Reagan
stayed faithful to.

You know, if Ronald Reagan were running
tonight, there would be
ads by the Club for Growth running against him
because he raised taxes
a billion dollars in his first year as governor of
California. It
would be $10 billion today.

What I did was I governed. And the people of
my state must have
liked the way I did it, because they kept
re-electing me.

HUME: Thank you, Governor.

HUCKABEE: And that’s greatest affirmation of
all.

HUME: Thank you, Governor.

HUCKABEE: And I appreciate the opportunity
to set that record
straight, and hopefully, before the night’s over,
a few more things.

HUME: All right. Thank you, Governor.

Carl?

CAMERON: Mayor Giuliani…

GIULIANI: Yes?

CAMERON: … on the campaign trail over the
course of the last
several months when you’ve been asked about your
conservatism, you’ve
said that it was basically up for voters to
decide. I wonder if you
can explain why you’re the complete conservative
tonight without
quoting George Will, and contrast that
conservatism to the rest of the
members on the dais here.

GIULIANI: Well, first of all, the reason
Ronald Reagan was
elected in 1980 was because Ronald Reagan was seen
as the strongest
leader in comparison to Jimmy Carter. And Ronald
Reagan ran a 50-
state campaign.
Of course, it was built around peace through
strength, which
meant a strong military. And it was built around
empowering people,
which is why he lowered taxes. He didn’t lower
taxes just for the
purpose of lowering taxes, he lowered taxes
because he wanted to leave
money in people’s pockets because he felt that
people spending money
creatively is much better than government trying
to direct the
spending of money.

I worked for Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan
appointed me Associate
Attorney General of the United States. He
appointed me United States
attorney in the southern district of New York.
And we’re in different
times. Ronald Reagan’s principles would apply
now, but they have to
apply to different circumstances.

I’m a conservative because I believe in a
strong national
defense, the way Ronald Reagan did. I think peace
through strength
that Ronald Reagan proposed to deal with the Cold
War is similar to
what we have to do now in dealing with this
terrorist war against us.
That’s why my first commitment to the American
people is to be on
offense against terrorists.

I also believe that we have to pursue those
principles of lower
taxes, restraining spending, devolving power to
people, getting power
to governments that are closest to the people. I
believe those are
the core of the conservative coalition that makes
us a 50-state party.

There are some disagreements on social
issues. Not on goals, but
on some of the methods. But if we want to be a
party that can run and
win in states that Ronald Reagan won — New York,
California,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon,
states we haven’t won in
a long, long time, and states in which we don’t
even campaign any
longer, we’re going to have to take a really good
look at what made up
the Reagan coalition. It was a broad outreach, an
inclusive one, not
one that kept people away.

CAMERON: Congressman Paul, many of your
supporters call
themselves 9/11 Troofers. They believe that the
U.S. government was
in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or
covered it up.

Are you tonight prepared to either embrace
that rhetoric or ask
those supporters to abandon it, or divorce
themselves from your
candidacy?

PAUL: Well, I can’t tell people what to do,
but I’ve abandoned
those viewpoints. I don’t believe that, and
that’s the only thing
that is important. And so I don’t endorse
anything they say.

But I would like to take an opportunity to
talk about the issue
that we’ve been debating here for the last 20
minutes…

CAMERON: Sir, would you ask them to cease
that rhetoric tonight
on your behalf?

PAUL: Well, it doesn’t do me any good, so if
they care about me,
they should. But the only thing I have control
over is what I believe
and what I say. I can’t tell them what to do. So
I don’t endorse
what they say and I don’t believe that, so,
please, could I
participate in the current debate rather than
picking (ph) this out.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: No, I would like to address the
subject about whether or
not we’ve lost our way and whether there’s a
coalition building or
whether it’s gone. I think it’s gone. I don’t
think we’re fiscal
conservatives anymore. Look at what we’ve done
over these 10 years.
We finally got control of the government and we
became big-government
people.

Our deficit’s out of control and we no longer
are opposed to new
entitlements. We are entitlement people. And
then we turn around and
we talk about liberty and we’ve undermined the
Fourth Amendment and
personal liberty and personal privacy. In the
year 2000, we won the
election by condemning the Democrats for
nation-building and policing
the world, and now, what are we doing?

We’re policing the world, we’re involved in
all of these
countries around the world and threatening going
into Iran and
Pakistan and on and on. At the same time, our
economy is suffering to
the point where we can’t even finance what we have
here today. We
have to borrow from the Chinese and the dollar is
crashing.

So no wonder our coalition is breaking up.
We actually have lost
our way. Now, over the years, I’ve never voted to
spend one penny of
the Social Security fund, because I’m a fiscal
conservative. If you
want the Social Security system to work, get
people who will vote
against robbing the Social Security fund.
HUME: Thank you, Congressman Paul. It is
time for a break, but
when we come back, we’re going to take a look at
the Middle East and
have some questions about other world hot spots,
right after these
messages. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUME: And we are back, from Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina.

Candidates, let’s begin this round by talking
about Iran.

Governor Huckabee, did the American commander
in the Strait of
Hormuz the other day make the right decision by
responding passively
when approached aggressively by Iranian fast boats
believed to be from
the Revolutionary Guards? He also received, as
you know, a warning
that said that the American ships might be about
to blow up.

Did he make the correct call, sir?

HUCKABEE: I’m going to trust that the
president, with the
information that he had and that those commanders
had, made the right
decision. I think we need to make it very clear,
not just to the
Iranians, but to anybody, that if you think you’re
going to engage the
United States military, be prepared not simply to
have a battle. Be
prepared, first, to put your sights on the
American vessel. And then
be prepared that the next things you see will be
the gates of Hell,
because that is exactly what you will see after that.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: But, sir, in this instance, the
American warships — in
this instance, however, the American warships were
approached in a way
that the commander said that he found provocative,
indeed, aggressive.
They also received a warning that suggested that
the American ships
might be blown up and things were thrown into the
water. They didn’t
know what they were. They did nothing.

Now, are you prepared to say, after what you
just said about
these people being willing to face the gates of
Hell, that that was
the right call?

HUCKABEE: I believe that those commanders,
hopefully, and I
believe they do have the judgment to make in those
split-second
decisions…

HUME: So you support that.

HUCKABEE: I support them having that
capacity. That’s what we
train them for and they have lives of Americans at
stake on those
boats. And they ultimately have our lives at
stake if they take the
wrong decision and give the Iranians or anybody
the idea that America
is a nation that you can kick sand in our eyes.

I think it’s very important that we make it
crystal clear that we
will have the most powerful, the best trained, the
best-equipped
military on the face of the planet that has ever
existed. And we
hopefully will have one that no one wants to
engage in battle, but
we’ll make it clear that if they do, there’ll be a
severe price to pay
for engaging us.

HUME: Senator Thompson, same question to
you. Right call?

THOMPSON: Yes, I think so. I think I agree
with the governor on
that. You can’t take the judgment like that out
of the hands of the
officers on the ground there. I think one more
step and they would
have been introduced to those virgins that they’re
looking forward to
seeing.

(LAUGHTER)

Iran was clearly testing us. They took
British hostages under
similar circumstances and it proceeded obviously
much past what
happened to us, but they’re testing our resolve.
They know that
they’re dealing with a nation that’s not going to
put up with that
sort of thing. But it’s some insight as to the
way that they’re
thinking.

I think the Revolutionary Guard now has taken
over from the
regular military force with regard to those
speedboats and so forth,
so they’re going to get a little more frisky. But
they need to
understand that if they cross the line, they’re
going to be destroyed.

HUME: Mr. Mayor, what do you think.

GIULIANI: Well, this really should give us
some sort of
indication that the NIE should not be interpreted
as the — the
National Intelligence Estimate, where it was
suggested that possibly
Iran had stopped their nuclear program in 2003,
high confidence that
they stopped it in 2003, only moderate confidence
that they haven’t
continued it.

I think an incident like this reminds us that
we shouldn’t be
lulled into some false sense of confidence about
Iran. We have to be
very focused on the fact that Iran should not be
allowed to become a
nuclear power. We should make it very, very clear
that we’re not
going to allow that, and we should go to every
country that we can
think of to impose serious sanctions on Iran.

There are also indications that there are
economic problems
within Iran itself, domestic difficulties in Iran.
We’ve seen some
conflict between some of the leaders there. Maybe
by using this
incident and the fact that Iran certainly
shouldn’t be seen as benign,
as some people saw it when they tried to spin the
NIE, as suggesting
that maybe we were being too serious about Iran.
It would seem to me
that this incident should wake a lot of people up.

HUME: Senator McCain, you’ve been a naval
commander. This
group, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has been
designated a
terrorist organization. They made an aggressive
and provocative
approach to our warships. There was no certainty
they weren’t about
to set off bombs.

What would you have done as a commander?
MCCAIN: I would have placed my confidence in
the captains of
those ships?

HUME: Well, what if you had been the
captain, what would you
have done?

MCCAIN: If I’d have been the captain of the
ship, I probably
would have assessed the situation as it was at the
time. And for
those of us who are not in that situation to
second guess is a little
bit presumptuous. It’s a long, hard process to
become the commander
of a Navy ship. These are the most professional
and well trained and
capable people in the world.

And since our beginning days as an
independent nation, we’ve had
conflicts over the issue of freedom of the seas,
dating back to the
Barbary pirates, dating back to World War I when
German u-boats were
sinking U.S. maritime ships, to the outbreak of –
led to the outbreak
of World War II, as well.

MCCAIN: I agree with Rudy. Maybe the
Iranians think we’re
weaker because of the NIE. Maybe the Iranians
aren’t really slowing
their export of most lethal explosive devices into
Iraq.

And I believe the president of the United
States made the right
statement. He told them that we will preserve the
fundamental
principle of freedom of the sea, and he will do
what’s necessary in
order to preserve it.

So I believe these people — these commanding
officers made the
right decision, and I believe that we entrusted
their ships and the
lives of the people under them in the most
appropriate fashion.

But don’t think that this wasn’t a serious
situation of the
utmost seriousness in one of the most important
waterways in the
world, because of so much of the world’s oil goes
through there.

The Iranians better understand that the
United States will stick
to its many years-long tradition of preserving the
fundamental
principle of freedom of the seas.

HUME: Congressman Paul, what if this happens
again?

PAUL: I would certainly urge a lot more
caution than I’m hearing
here tonight. It reminds me of what happened in
the Gulf of Tonkin.
We went to war there, then, later on, found out
there was a lot of
false information.

So here we have — let’s put it in
perspective. We have five
small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a
Destroyer? They could
take care of those speedboats in about five
seconds. And here we’re
ready to start World War III over this?

And now, guess what, today, the Navy
commander of the Fifth Fleet
was on ABC and announced that, you know, that
voice might not have
come from those vessels. So what does that mean?
Was there a rush to
judgment on this, ready to go to war?

And you know there are people in this
administration and in
Washington, D.C., that are looking for the chance.
They were so
disappointed with the national estimate on
intelligence. And they
were disappointed that there’s no attempt to build
weapons in Iran
since 2003.

HUME: Congressman…

PAUL: So what — I just don’t see this rush
to judgment.

HUME: Well, wait a minute. All of these
people I’ve asked this
question to so far have said they supported the
decision to be
passive. What are you responding to?

PAUL: I’m very sorry, I can’t hear a word
you said.

(APPLAUSE)

You’ll have to speak up.

HUME: Every one of these — of your fellow
candidates have said
they supported the commander’s decision to respond
passively. I just
wonder what you’re reacting to.

PAUL: Well, I didn’t hear that. Of course
we want caution. But
I’m worrying about the policy of why we’re looking
for a
justification. Now there are no weapons, actually
people are looking
around for an excuse to bomb Iran.

I mean, we’re already, with our CIA, being
involved in trying to
overthrow that government, and we don’t need
another war. And this
incident should not be thrown out of proportion to
the point where
we’re getting ready to attack Iran over this.

HUME: Governor Romney, if it happens again?

ROMNEY: I think Congressman Paul should not
be reading as many
of Ahmadinejad’s press releases. But let’s…

(APPLAUSE)

I think Iran represents a very serious
threat. I do not believe
this action was taken by rogue elements within the
Iranian forces. I
believe it was calculated.

And I believe it was designed to test our
defenses. I believe it
was also designed to rattle a sword to the Arab
neighbors to see that
they could go after the Straits of Hormuz. I
believe, as well, that
it was a diversionary tactic for them to consider
other actions in
other places.

And so I believe it was a very serious act.
And the Iranians
continue to take acts like this, it points out
that we have in Iran a
very troubled nation.

And we’re going to have to have a
comprehensive strategy with our
friends and with some others who we need to pull
into our circle of
friendship to put extraordinary pressure on Iran.

And I’ve been speaking since January about
tightening
dramatically the economic sanctions, the
diplomatic sanctions,
directly communicating to the Iranian people. And
I believe — by the
way, I can see you want to get the rest of the
answer to that — of
course, this commander did exactly the right
thing. The captains did
the right thing.
HUME: If it happens again?

ROMNEY: And in the same circumstances, I
will put my trust in
the hands of these captains and their taking the
right course.

Of course they should take whatever action is
necessary to
protect their ships and protect their personnel,
but this is part of a
much broader effort to get Iran to finally pull
into a more reasonable
status. And that is something which is going to
take a more
comprehensive strategy than simply thinking about
how we’d respond to
gunboats like this.

HUME: Thank you, Governor.

Wendell Goler has the next round of questions.

Wendell?

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Gentlemen, let’s continue this
discussion of national
security.

GOLER: Senator McCain, you and Joe Lieberman
today published an
op-ed declaring the surge of troops in Iraq has
worked, though you
warned against bringing home more troops this year
than we sent to
Iraq last year.

Can Republicans win in November with
Democrats arguing that there
has been no real reduction of troops in a war that
is now longer than
World War II, a war that you, yourself, say a
Republican
administration mismanaged for the first three years?

MCCAIN: Can the Democrats win an election
when they continue to
deny the facts on the ground that we are
succeeding? Can the
Democrats deny that casualties have come down,
that the provinces like
Anbar are peaceful, that Baghdad, on New Year’s
Eve, thousands of
people poured out in the streets to celebrate the
new year?

Can Senator Clinton retract her statement to
General Petraeus
when she said she would have to suspend disbelief
in order to believe
that the surge was working? In fact, you would
have to suspend
disbelief that it’s not working. And I say every
time that I’m at a
town hall meeting, al Qaeda’s on the run, but
they’re not defeated.

Today is a historic day, my friends. Today
is the day that the
president of the United States announced the
change in strategy, the
so-called surge.

I supported that, I argued for it. I’m the
only one on this
stage that did. And I condemn the Rumsfeld
strategy before that.

And I’m telling you, it’s succeeding. And
these young people are
going to come home. But it’s not going to be
decided by any
politician in Washington.

It’s going to be decided by the man that
should have been “TIME”
magazine man of the year, General David Petraeus.
That’s who should
decide when American troops come home.

(APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: And I am convinced that if we
continue this successful
path, Americans will be able to come home. But
the most important
thing, there will be a reduction in casualties.
And we can win, and
then these young people will come home and they
will come home with
honor.

GOLER: Thank you, sir.
Mayor Giuliani, President Bush is in the
Middle East right now
laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state.
And he thinks he can
be successful this year. If so, a Giuliani
administration would
introduce a new era in U.S./Mideast relations.

I wonder, sir, how you would keep a
Palestinian state from
becoming a breeding ground for anti-American
terrorism.

GIULIANI: Well, I think the most important
thing is the steps
that the Palestinian Authority now takes and how
realistic they are to
accomplish at least three things.

First of all, to make it clear that it will
accept the right of
Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Number two, to
forgo terrorism,
first as a statement of policy, and then in
reality. Something that
has to be tested.

You know, Ronald Reagan had a theory of trust
but verify. So we
get the statement of policy that they’ve — they
will forego
terrorism, and then we’re going to want to see a
period of time in
which they’ve actually accomplished that and we
don’t have terrorist
acts.

I’d also like to say something to my friend
John. John gets
great credit for supporting the surge.

But, John, there were other people on this
stage that also
supported the surge.

MCCAIN: Not at the time.

GOLER: The night of the president’s speech
– yes, John.

The night of the president’s speech, I was on
television. I
supported the surge, I’ve supported it throughout.

I believe that the goal in Iraq has to be
from the beginning a
stable Iraq that will be an ally of the United
States. And we should
return troops from Iraq on success.

That has been my position since 2003, it has
never changed. I
respect the fact that you haven’t changed yours.
I haven’t changed
mine either.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: Thirty seconds.

MCCAIN: My point was that I condemned the
Rumsfeld strategy and
called for the change in strategy. That’s the
difference.

HUME: All right. Thank you, sir.

GOLER: Congressman Paul, can we go back to
the Middle East? You
have said the United States should not be trying
to broker peace
between the Israelis and Palestinians. Should the
president even be
there today, sir?

PAUL: Well, if he followed my advice, yes,
we wouldn’t be there.
We’ve been doing that for a good many years, and
it hasn’t seemed to
come to success.

No, I think if we weren’t there, there’d be
more incentives to
come to a peaceful agreement. But we support both
sides. You know,
not only with the Palestinians, but the Lebanese
and all the Arab
nations.

We support Israel, and we try to have this
balance. But I think
it would be much better to have a balance by being
out of there. And
I think it would be a greater incentive for Israel
and the
Palestinians and all the Arab nations to come
together and talk
because I think we get in the way too often of
these. And besides,
it’s costing us a lot of money and it’s costing us
lives now.

And it’s time that we come to the point where
we believe the
world can solve some of their problems without us.
And also, we’re
out of money. We can’t do it any longer.

We’re going bankrupt. And the empires of the
world have always
ended badly through economic terms.

PAUL: So whether there are peace agreements
over there, I mean,
for instance, if we would stop all aid to over
there, we would stop
three times as much aid as Israel gets through the
Arab nations.

Why do we arm the Arab nations and they’re
the enemies of Israel?
But we continue to do that. So why don’t we trade
with everybody and
talk with them, and there’s a greater incentive to
work these problems
out.

I think if we’d have been out of there a lot
sooner, there may
well have been a much different settlement after
the Kuwait invasion,
because Israel was quite capable of working with
moderate Arab
nations. They tried to. None of the Arab nations
wanted Saddam
Hussein in Kuwait and I think they could have
taken care of Saddam
Hussein back then and saved all the mess that we
have now, because I
think there are so many unintended consequences
and way too much
blowback.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: I thank the gentleman.

MCCAIN: Could I just make a comment? I’m
not interested in
trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is
burkas. I don’t
want to travel with them. They like one-way tickets.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Governor Huckabee, can you…

PAUL: May I answer that? May I answer that?

GOLER: Yes, Congressman.

PAUL: I’m talking actually about that,
because that’s what we
have been doing. We used to support Saddam
Hussein and we used to be
allied with Osama Bin Laden, and what I want to do
is stop that.

Who are our friends one day turn out to be
our enemies. Right
now, we finally got rid of Saddam Hussein. And
what are we doing now?
We’re re-arming the Sunnis, the old henchmen of
Saddam Hussein.

And what are they going to do with it?
There’s all those weapons
we’re giving the Sunnis in Baghdad. So look out,
believe me, that war
is not over and right now they’re demanding more
troops in Afghanistan
and we’re — some people, like the Senator, he
thinks we should be
there for 100 years if necessary.

How can he commit the young people of this
world, five more
generations, to be in Iraq if it’s necessary? I
say it’s time to come
home.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Senator McCain, 30 seconds.

MCCAIN: I guess, very briefly, it’s not
American casualties.
It’s American presence — I mean, not American
presence. It’s
American casualties. We’ve been in South Korea
for 50 years. We’ve
been in Japan and Germany since the end of World
War II. We’re in
Kuwait.

It’s up to the Iraqi government and the
United States government.
Anybody who thinks it’s the length of time we’re
there that matters,
it’s American casualties that matter and those
casualties have been
dramatically reduced, thanks to these brave and
courageous young men
and women who we should be supporting and not
condemning what they’re
doing.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Gentlemen, if we can, let’s move on.

In his second inaugural, President Bush made
clear that this
country would no longer trade civility for
democracy, yet relations
with Pakistan seem to test that.

Senator Thompson, would your administration
continue to back
Pakistani President Musharraf despite polls that
show two-thirds of
the Pakistani people want him to resign immediately?

THOMPSON: Oh, my goodness, go against the poll?

(LAUGHTER)

How could anybody ever do that? In the first
place, you can tell
that the news is good coming out of Iraq because
you read so little
about it in the New York Times.

(APPLAUSE)

We have different interests as far as
Pakistan is concerned.
It’s a very important nation to us in many respects.

I had the opportunity, with others, to visit
with President
Musharraf some few years ago, visit Pakistan and
Afghanistan and that
region. Democracy of Pakistan is in the long-term
security interest
of Pakistan and, therefore, it’s in our interest.

They were moving in that direction before
Prime Minister Bhutto
was assassinated. Now they’re in the streets.
The government is in
question. Some of our people, I think, are
irresponsibly calling for
Musharraf’s resignation, cutting off of aid and
all those things.

There’s one little problem with that — who
you’re going to get
in return. They’re the only Muslim nation in the
world that has
nuclear weapons and a nuclear capability. Our
national security
interest and who’s hands those nuclear weapons are
going to be in is
an overriding interest of ours.

We need to make sure that there is stability
of that country, to
the extent that we can do anything about, and
certainly in the short-
term, anyway. That involves supporting Musharraf,
while we continue
to encourage him not only to move toward
democracy, put those judges
back in place that he fired, those dissidents that
are in only for
political reasons he needs to release, and he
needs to help us more in
the western mountains of Afghanistan where the
Taliban is still hiding
and where Osama Bin Laden probably is.

We need to put the pressure on him, keep the
pressure on him, but
let’s not ever kid ourselves.

THOMPSON: Our national security interests
require that those
nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of
radicals in Pakistan.

GOLER: Governor Romney, on Senator
Thompson’s last point,
Musharraf says he’s not really looking for Osama
bin Laden. Would you
continue to support him?

ROMNEY: Well, let’s stand back and recognize
that, today,
foreign policy is no longer like it was in the
last century, which was
more like a game of checkers that was our side and
their side. We
tried to get friends and allies and go after each
other.

Now foreign policy is more like
three-dimensional chess, where we
have to understand all the players throughout the
world and develop
strategies to help move the world towards more
stability and safety
for ourselves.

And our interests in Pakistan, just to make
sure, number one,
that the nuclear weapons are secure; number two,
we go after Al Qaida.
And the power going after Al Qaida is in General
Kiyani, who is a
friend, and our funds can go to him and to the
military to fight Al
Qaida. And we will work with him to find Osama
bin Laden.

And if, for some reason, General Musharraf
does not want to find
Osama bin Laden, then we need to make sure that
General Kiyani does.
And our support will be key to being able to
provide that kind of
support to us.

But we also have to make sure that we’re
going to see a much more
robust effort throughout Pakistan to go after Al
Qaida. We have these
three efforts that we’re talking about: what’s
happening in Pakistan;
what’s happening in Afghanistan; what’s happening
in Iraq; and also,
of course, the potential trouble in Iran.

But we need to think more broadly than just
those hot spots and
come together with other developed nations, other
free nations, as
former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain indicated,
and develop an effort
to help move the world of Islam towards modernity.

We as great nations need to help them have
the rule of law, have
good schools that are not Wahhabi schools,
strengthen their economies.
We need to become very serious about moving the
more moderate voices
in the world of Islam to great strength, so that
we don’t have to
spend our blood around the world fighting these
wars.

We have to fight these, because they’re hot
spots, but ultimately
we’re going to have to move the world of Islam,
because ultimately
Muslims themselves are going to have to reject the
extreme.

GOLER: Governor Huckabee, if Pakistan is
politically unstable,
are the nuclear weapons really secure? And with
polls showing
hundreds of millions — or polls, a study showing
hundreds of millions
of U.S. dollars can’t be accounted for, are we
throwing good money
after bad there?

HUCKABEE: Well, we’ve spent $12 billion, and
it was supposed to
be to fight terrorism. We really don’t know how
much of that money
was used to fight terrorism. In fact, we know a
lot of it was used to
build up their own military.

So there is a problem with accountability and
the money. And I
think we now are in a position more than ever that
we should ask the
Musharraf government for a better accounting. And
it also ought to
buy us some leverage with the Musharraf government.

I want to agree with my colleagues. Several
of them have
mentioned that it’s not the best idea just to try
to push Musharraf
out, because we don’t know who might come into
that vacuum.

And that’s why it is important to make sure
that we communicate
with him, that our displeasure with his inability
to go after Osama
bin Laden, and part of the problem is he tells us
that that part of
the area he doesn’t control. On the other hand,
he says, “I don’t
want you going in. Let me do it, and give me the
money.”

He can’t have it both ways. And that has to
be communicated to
him in the strongest way.

But my final seconds, I’d like to just, with
all due respect,
Congressman Paul, the issue of whether the
president should be in the
Middle East comes to something that I think we’ve
got to recognize.

We’ve got one true ally in the Middle East,
and that’s Israel.
It’s a tiny nation. I’ve been there nine time.
I’ve literally
traveled from Dan to Beersheba, and I understand
something of that
nation and the vulnerability of it.

And for us to give the world the impression
that we would stand
by if it were under attack and simply say, “It’s
not our problem,”
would be recklessly irresponsible on our part.

And if I were president, you can rest assured
that we would not
let an ally be annihilated by those enemies which
is surround it, who
have openly stated it is their direct intention to
destroy that
nation. It would not happen under my presidency.

HUME: Congressman Paul, 30 seconds.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a
stepchild. We do not
give them responsibility that they deserve. We
undermine their
national sovereignty. We don’t let them design
their own peace
treaties with their neighbors.
And then we turn around and say that, when
you want to do that or
you want to defend your borders, they have to
check it out with us.

I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made
the point earlier.
We give three times as much money to the Arabs.
Why do we arm their
enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should
be against all the
weapons that go to the Arab nations.

(APPLAUSE)

And I just don’t see any purpose in not
treating Israel in an
adult fashion. I think they’d be a lot better off.

I think they, one time in the ’80s, took care
of a nuclear
reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel
for this. Nobody
else did at that time.

But we need to recognize they deserve their
sovereignty, just as
we deserve our sovereignty.

PAUL: I believe that if they assumed more
responsibility, there
would be more peace there and that there would be
a lot less threat to
us. Besides, we don’t have any money to do this.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: We’ll extend this quickly.

Thirty seconds, Mayor Giuliani, then Senator
Thompson. Then
we’ve got to move on.

GIULIANI: I think the idea that Israel is a
stepchild of the
United States is totally absurd. I’ve been to
Israel very often, as
the governor has. The prime minister of Israel is
a very close friend
of mine. The former prime minister is a very
close friend of mine.

The reality is that Israel is a close and
strong ally of the
United States. America has only a few extremely
reliable allies,
special relationships. The defense of Israel is
of critical
importance to the United States of America, and it
goes much deeper
than just tactical things.

Secondly, on Musharraf, which was the
question on the table, we
have to have a very clear picture of who and what
would replace
Musharraf. But we should put more pressure on him
to catch bin Laden.
I believe I could convince him that we should be
allowed to work with
him to catch bin Laden, because I think that would
be a major
breakthrough in crushing Al Qaida.

HUME: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Senator Thompson?

THOMPSON: Governor Huckabee, if I understood
him correctly,
seemed to be concerned that part of the money
we’re sending to
Pakistan goes to their own military. That’s the
point. We help train
their military. Their new top general over there
was trained here in
the United States for a period of time.

They have lost several people fighting the
Taliban. That’s who
they would fight the Taliban with, is their
military. So our
cooperation with their military, our supporting
their military, is a
good thing.

HUME: All right, thank you very much, gentlemen.

More questions for the candidates after this
quick break. Please
stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUME: And we’re back in Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, with Chris
Wallace, who continues the questioning.

Chris?

WALLACE: Thank you, Brit.

Governor Romney, you have been pushing the
theme of change
recently. But after John McCain beat you in New
Hampshire and Hillary
Clinton beat Barack Obama, is it just possible
that voters want
Washington experience more than they want change?

WALLACE: … but after John McCain beat you
in New Hampshire and
Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama, is it just
possible that voters
want Washington experience more than they want change?

ROMNEY: No.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: I have had the chance to do almost
200 town meetings
across the country. I have listened to people
from — well, in a
restaurant here called Lizard’s Thicket, to places
all over the
country, and I keep hearing the same thing, which
is that Washington
is broken, that Washington has made promises to
America it has not
kept, and it seems incapable of dealing with the
challenges that we
face globally and here at home.

I hear the people say they think we deserve
health care for all
our citizens but not government health care. And
that hasn’t been
done.

They say we ought to be able to get a
reduction on the burden on
the middle class. And that hasn’t been done.

They say we ought to solve the immigration
problem in this
country, protecting legal immigration but ending
illegal immigration.
It hasn’t been done.

They say there is too much pork barrel
spending and earmarking in
Washington. That hasn’t stopped.

And so the same people year after year make
these promises and
then go to Washington and nothing happens. And so
I’m convinced that
you’re going to see the people say across this
country that if you
send the same people back to Washington, just to
sit in different
chairs, nothing will happen.

My whole life has been about bringing change
to things I have
touched, to the business world for 25 years and
tried to bring change.
Sometimes I did positively — not always, but I
learned from that
experience.

I went to the Olympics and turned those games
around with the
help of a terrific team of people. I went to the
state of
Massachusetts when revenues were falling, when
jobs were falling. I
helped turn that around.

I know how to bring change. And I will
change Washington.

I will take it apart and put it back together
simpler, smaller,
smarter. But I will bring change and I will honor
the promises that
the American people have heard from me and from
others who care about
Republican principles.

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Senator McCain, Governor Romney was
more polite tonight
than he sometimes is on the campaign trail. In
fact, recently, he
said, “There is no way John McCain can change
Washington. He is
Washington.”

Given the fact that you have been in Congress
for a quarter of a
century, are you part of the solution, sir, or are
you part of the
problem?

MCCAIN: I think my answer is pretty obvious.

(LAUGHTER)

MCCAIN: I have been one of those involved in
one of the most
important changes that could have ever made, and
that is reverse a
losing strategy in Iraq which would have entailed
the loss of so much
and so much sacrifice of American treasure. And
now we have a new
strategy, and we are succeeding.

If we would have done what the Democrats had
wanted to do six
months ago, al Qaeda would be trumpeting to the
world that they beat
us. I’ll never let that happen. We’ll never
surrender.

I’ve brought about change in spending
practices. The chairman of
the Appropriations Committee called me the sheriff.

I have saved $6 billion on a deal for an Air
Force tanker that
was a terrible rip-off of the taxpayers which
wouldn’t have happened
if it hadn’t been for me.

Ask Jack Abramoff if I’m an insider in
Washington. You would
probably have to go during visiting hours in the
prison. And he will
tell you, and his lobbyist cronies, of the change
I made there.

And also, I think it’s important to know that
I have never asked
for or received a pork barrel project or earmark
for my state. But I
have known how to change things. And we have
changed a lot of things.
And we will change more things.

And, if I can change the things that I was
able to as a senator,
I’m looking forward to the changes that I can make
when I’m the
president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, in your 10 years
running Arkansas,
you raised taxes. They were at the higher at the
end of your 10 years
than they were at the beginning by hundreds of
millions of dollars,
and you increased the size of government.

Is that your idea of change, to be a big
government Republican
president?

HUCKABEE: My idea of government is to get
the job done and make
sure that you balance your budget, that you
respond to the needs of
your people. I don’t think the federal government
needs any more
money. That’s why I have signed a pledge that I
would not raise taxes
as president.

You brought up something about what I raised.
Let me tell you
what I raised, Chris.

I raised hope. I raised the expectation of
the kids in my state
who didn’t have a decent education. And our
courts ordered us to put
more money into it.

And rather than just act about my political
future, I acted about
the future of those kids. And this week, just, in
fact, yesterday,
American kids came and said that our schools were
now the eighth best
in the nation, which is a long way from 49th. We
raised what we hoped
those kids would have — those kids in the delta
who had little access
to health care that was affordable, even accessible.

Roads were horrible.

HUCKABEE: I took on the worst road system in
the country,
according to Trucker’s Magazine. When I left,
they said it was the
most improved road system in the country. We had
no bridges falling
down in Arkansas.

We also improved our natural resources and
environment so that
every kid could go hunting and fishing and not
have to be a part of an
expensive club.

I cut taxes. I managed government. I raised
the quality of life
by making sure that education, and health, and
highways were
accessible to every kid in that state.

WALLACE: Senator Thompson, are you persuaded
by the kind of
change that Governor Huckabee is offering? And do
you have a better
alternative, sir?

THOMPSON: Well, first of all, I know the
governor is pointing
out that he signed the tax pledge. Earlier this
year on Tim Russert’s
show, on another network, he said it’d be a
dangerous thing to make a
tax pledge because you couldn’t foresee what was
going to happen in
the future.

Well, what happened in the future was that,
later on that year,
when the pressure got building, he signed the tax
pledge.

No, I don’t think so. I like to think of my
own record. I
pointed out several points of the governor’s
record, and what he has
done, and what he has said.

But we were able to go to Washington in 1995,
and we passed five
major tax bills; we passed welfare reform; we’ve
passed a balanced
budget for four years in a row.

We were able to do some headway, make some
good with President
Clinton even with regard to sound, conservative
judges. And I
compiled 100 percent pro-life voting record during
that time. And
that’s why the National Right to Life folks and
the South Carolina
Right to Life folks have endorsed me in my
candidacy here.

So I like to feel like we did do some good.
I certainly didn’t
do it single-handedly.

But, yes, you can be a part of something good
in Congress if you
work hard and the voters respond to your
conservative message. We
took a sound, conservative message to the American
people at that
time, the respect for the rule of law, a market
economy, and a nation
that doesn’t tax and spend you to death, and a
nation where a country
boy from Tennessee or a country girl from South
Carolina can grow up
and, if they obey by the rules — abide by the
rules, expect to
achieve the American dream.

That’s what we presented. They responded to
us. And we were
able to do some good things then.

As chief executive, as president of this
country, we could do a
lot more good things. And that’s why I’m running
for president.

HUME: Governor Huckabee, you got kind of a
glancing blow there.
Would you like to respond for 30 seconds?

HUCKABEE: Well, certainly I would.

Senator Thompson, I appreciate you and the
other members of
Congress passing welfare reform, but it was up to
the governors to
make it work. And as a governor, we made it work
in my state and took
half the people off welfare and got them into jobs.

During my tenure, we had the lowest
unemployment records in the
history of our state and we created a record
number of jobs, and jobs
that paid more money than the jobs they replaced.

It’s easy to be in Congress and pass a bill
that maybe will
change some mandates to the states, but those of
us who had to govern
at the state level were forced with something that
members of Congress
didn’t have to do. They actually had to make it
work.

HUME: Thank you very much.

Carl, you have the next round.

CAMERON: Mayor Giuliani, in recent weeks,
Senator McCain has
suggested that your leadership in the aftermath of
9/11 doesn’t quite
constitute national security credentials, in so
far as it’s generally
agreed that one of the challenges of our time is
the war on terrorism.

What equips you? What experience and skills
do you bring that
would make you a better commander-in-chief than
the senator from
Arizona?

GIULIANI: Well, I guess the first point I
wanted to make on what
they were talking about is that the kind of change
that the Democrats
want to bring about is to take the change out of
your pocket.

That’s basically — basically, change is
either good or bad. And
when you just say “change,” if the change that
you’re talking about is
raising taxes, if the change that you’re talking
about is pulling out
of Iraq precipitously, if the change that you’re
talking about is
socialized medicine, these are definitely changes,
but they’re changes
in the wrong direction.

So I think people have to focus a little bit
more carefully on,
what is it that we’re promising? And what are we
trying to do?
Now, if the change is in the direction of
lower taxes, less
spending, giving parents choice over education,
energy independence,
these are things that are going to make a brighter
future and a better
America. But just the word “change” doesn’t
connote good or bad.
You’ve got to get one step beyond that and start
looking at the
changes.

Now, on my foreign policy experience, which
is what you asked me
about, I’ve had foreign policy experience going
back to 1970s when I
served on a committee in the Ford administration
on terrorism.

I negotiated agreements with governments over
illegal
immigration. I negotiated agreements with
governments over prisoners.

When I had to make decisions about foreign
policy, I made
decisions. I threw Arafat out of the U.N. 50
celebration, and I made
sure Castro wouldn’t come to that celebration.

GIULIANI: And when I was confronted by an
Arab prince who wanted
to give us $10 million for the Twin Towers fund, I
said, “No, we’re
not going to take it,” because he wanted us to
question American
foreign policy, in particular, our relationship
with Israel.

As mayor of New York, I was involved in
foreign policy issues all
the time and the difference between being an
executive and being a
legislator is you’re not just one of 100. You
have to actually make
decisions and there are consequences to your
decisions and many of
them are in this area of either foreign policy or
related to it.

CAMERON: Senator McCain, does that satisfy
your concerns earlier
mentioned?

MCCAIN: I have the greatest respect and
affection for the mayor
of New York. My point is that I’ve been involved
in every major
national security challenge for the last 20 years
and before that, I
fought in some of them.

The fact is that I have led the largest
squadron in the United
States Navy, not for profit, but for patriotism,
and I believe that my
experience and background has given me the
judgment to make the
decisions that are necessary in this transcendent
challenge of radical
Islamic extremism.

I have great respect for everyone on this
stage. It’s a tough
business we’re in and I appreciate them. I just
believe that I am
more qualified.

CAMERON: Governor Huckabee, to change the
subject a little bit
and focus a moment on electability.

Back in 1998, you were one of about 100
people who affirmed, in a
full-page ad in the “New York Times,” the Southern
Baptist
Convention’s declaration that, quote, “A wife us
to submit herself
graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.”

Women voters in both parties harshly
criticized that. Is that
position politically viable in the general
election of 2008, sir?

HUCKABEE: You know, it’s interesting,
everybody says religion is
off limits, except we always can ask me the
religious questions. So
let me try to do my best to answer it.

(APPLAUSE)
And since — if we’re really going to have a
religious service,
I’d really feel more comfortable if I could pass
the plates, because
our campaign could use the money tonight, Carl.

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

We’ll just go all the way.

First of all, if anybody knows my wife, I
don’t think they for
one minute think that she’s going to just sit by
and let me do
whatever I want to. That would be an absolute
total misunderstanding
of Janet Huckabee.

The whole context of that passage — and, by
the way, it really
was spoken to believers, to Christian believers.
I’m not the least
bit ashamed of my faith or the doctrines of it. I
don’t try to impose
that as a governor and I wouldn’t impose it as a
president.

But I certainly am going to practice it
unashamedly, whether I’m
a president or whether I’m not a president. But
the point…

(APPLAUSE)

… the point, and it comes from a passage of
scripture in the
New Testament Book of Ephesians is that as wives
submit themselves to
the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves,
and it’s not a
matter of one being somehow superior over the
other. It’s both
mutually showing their affection and submission as
unto the Lord.

So with all due respect, it has nothing to do
with presidency. I
just wanted to clear up that little doctrinal
quirk there so that
there’s nobody who misunderstands that it’s really
about doing what a
marriage ought to do and that’s marriage is not a
50/50 deal, where
each partner gives 50 percent.

Biblically, marriage is 100/100 deal. Each
partner gives 100
percent of their devotion to the other and that’s
why marriage is an
important institution, because it teaches us how
to love.

(APPLAUSE)

CAMERON: Congressman Paul, yet another
question about
electability.

Do you have any, sir? There’s always the
question as to whether
or not…

(LAUGHTER)

… you are, in fact, viable. Your
differences with the
Republicans on the — with the rest of the
Republicans on this stage
has raised questions about whether or not you can
actually win the
Republican nomination, sir.

PAUL: Well, we’ve only had two little
primaries so far. So it’s
pretty premature to decide which one is going to
be the candidate.
But, you know, when you think about it, if
you measured
everything I’ve ever said, every vote I’ve ever
taken against the
Constitution, you know, I’m a strict
constitutionalist.

Are you suggesting the Republicans should
write me off because
I’m a strict constitutionalist? I’m the most
conservative member
here. I have voted, you know, against more
spending and waste in
government than anybody else.

(APPLAUSE)

So you’re suggesting that I’m not electable
and the Republicans
don’t want me because I’m a strict fiscal
conservative, because I
believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be
defending civil
liberties and why should we not be talking about
foreign policy that
used to be the part of the Republican Party?

PAUL: Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn’t even
want us to be in
NATO and you’re saying now that we have to
continue to borrow money
from China to finance this empire that we can’t
afford?

Let me see if I get this right. We need to
borrow $10 billion
from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who
is a military
dictator, who overthrew an elected government.
And then we go to war,
we lose all these lives promoting democracy in
Iraq. I mean, what’s
going on here?

(APPLAUSE)

And you’re saying that this isn’t appealing
to Republicans?
Where did this come about? I think this is the
Republican message. I
defend the platform. It used to say we’d
(inaudible) the Department
of Education. It doesn’t say that now.

We, as Republicans, went and doubled the size
of the Department
of Education, so where have we gone? I think
we’ve lost our way. And
then the insinuation that I am less Republican
because of that?

HUME: Congressman, thank you very much.

We have to take one more break. We’ll be
right back, with one of
the most contentious issues of the day. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUME: And we are back for a final segment of
questions.

Gentlemen, because we’ve had a lot of
rebuttal time tonight,
we’re going to ask you if you can, so we can get
this in in the
allotted time, to have answers of one minute,
followed by 30-second
rebuttals, if necessary.

Wendell, you have the questions.

GOLER: And I’d like to focus on immigration,
which polls
indicate is a big issue here in South Carolina, as
it was in New
Hampshire.

(APPLAUSE)

Senator McCain, the president’s push for
immigration reform
failed mainly because of disagreements over your
plan for dealing with
the 12 million people now here illegally. You say
you’ve learned your
lesson, you’d secure the borders first. OK. Then
how would you deal
with the illegals?

MCCAIN: Actually, it failed because the
American people had no
trust or confidence in the federal government to
do its job, because
we had passed a law in 1986 that said we’d allow
citizenship and
actually what happened was that we didn’t secure
the borders, as we
promised. So Americans need to restore their
trust and confidence.

I know how to secure the borders.

MCCAIN: I come from a border state where our
borders are broken.
More people come across our border illegally every
year than most any
other state.

And I will secure the borders first. And I
will have the border
states’ governors certify that those borders are
secured. And we can
do it with UAVs, with vehicle barriers, with
walls, and with high-tech
cameras.

The remaining 12 million, obviously two
million of them who have
committed crimes have to be rounded up and
deported immediately. They
cannot stay in our society. And we must then, in
my view, address it
in as humane and compassionate way as possible.

The three G.I.s who were missing last year in
action, one of them
was still missing in action, his wife was about to
be deported from
this country. I’m not going to deport the wife of
a fighting
serviceman who’s missing in action. I’m going to
handle it in a
humane, compassionate fashion.

And we will reward no one. They will have to
get to the end of
the line, pay a fine, learn English, and we will
secure the borders
first. And I know how to do that.

GOLER: Thank you, Senator.

Governor Romney, I’m not sure I heard how the
senator would
remove the 12 million people here illegally. You
called his plan a
form of amnesty. What’s yours? And how would it
encourage illegals
to come out of the shadows, sir?

ROMNEY: I didn’t hear that answer, either.
And I’d also tell
you that all of us on this stage agree — I
believe, I don’t know
about Ron Paul, but I think everybody else agrees
– I just haven’t
heard your position; I don’t mean to be critical
– that we secure the
border, we have the fence, and we have enough
Border Patrol agents to
secure the border, and that we have an employment
verification system
of some kind.

But the place of difference between us is
what we do with the 12
million people who are here illegally. We all
agree that anybody
who’s committed a crime should be sent home.

But I believe that the others who’ve come
here illegally should
stand in line with everybody else who wants to
come to this country
and should not be given a special pathway or a
special privilege…
(APPLAUSE)

… to be able to stay in this country. And
that means that
those that are here illegally today would be
looked at person by
person, given a specific time period by which they
arrange their
affairs, they stay here during that time period.
When that time
period is over, they go home, and they get in line
with everybody
else.

There are millions of people around the world
who want to come
here. We’ll do this in a humane and generous way,
but we’re not going
to say to people who’ve come here illegally, “You
have a special
pathway, a special privilege to become a permanent
resident or a
citizen.” Get in line with everybody else.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Senator Thompson, the governor says
the 12 million people
would be looked at individually. How would you
find them? And could
you do it faster than he would, sir?

THOMPSON: You can’t look at them
individually. We need to be a
nation of high fences and wide gates, and we get
to decide when to
open the gate and when to close it.

(APPLAUSE)

I believe with all my heart that if we
enforce the border, if we
crack down on employers who knowingly hired
illegal immigrants, and
required them to use the modern technology that we
have now so that
they can, in effect, push a button on the front
end and find out
whether or not someone is legal, and if we put an
end to sanctuary
cities, where local governments are, in effect,
telling their people
they can’t cooperate with federal authorities with
regard to illegal
immigrants, and we would do that by telling the
sanctuary cities, “If
you continue that, we cut off discretionary
federal funding to those
sanctuary cities,” if we did those things, we
would have enforcement
by attrition.

We would reverse the process that we’re going
in now. It’s not
just 12 million people. We have to be concerned
about another 12
million people.

I disagree with my friend, John McCain, on
the bill that they
proposed last year. I disagree with my friend,
Governor Huckabee,
when he supported in-state tuition for illegal
immigrants, when he
fought the legislature when they tried to impose
verification
requirements before a person could vote so you
could determine they
were an American citizen.

I think that we have got to enforce the
border, crack down on
employers who knowingly hire illegal immigration,
and stop sanctuary
cities and policies that encourage people to
continue across the
border while we claim to be trying to enforce the
border.

GOLER: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)

Congressman Paul, is denying a path to
citizenship for people now
in the country illegally important enough that
Republicans are willing
to concede the Hispanic vote to Democrats in
November?

PAUL: Well, I don’t know that, but I don’t
know if that’s
necessarily true, but I do think we should enforce
the law. And the
law says that illegals shouldn’t be here and that
we shouldn’t have
amnesty.

But I think this whole thing should be
thought of more in
economic terms. Maybe I think about economics too
much. But there is
something said in economics that, if you subsidize
something, you get
more of it.

And this is what we do. We encourage it by
giving free medical
care, and free education, and the promise of
amnesty. And no wonder
more will come.

PAUL: We have a weakening economy and now
immigrants, especially
the illegals, are seen as a threat because they
come and they
undermine our tax system. And some of our
hospitals are being closed
and some of our people won’t work because of the
welfare state.

You can’t solve this problem if you don’t
deal with the terms of
welfarism. And, besides, you know, some of our
border guards are over
in Iraq. I think they would be better off on our
borders, you know,
protecting our borders, not in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: So, yes, I think we have to deal with
it. And if we don’t
deal with it carefully, yes, we’re going to lose
some votes on it.
But quite frankly, the law is the law and we
should enforce the law.

GOLER: Governor Huckabee, President Bush’s
outreach to Hispanics
paid off for Republicans at the ballot box in
2004, and then came this
whole immigration debate, and Hispanic support for
Republicans fell
sharply. The debate is often focused on how we
can keep them out or
throw them out.

How can you convince Hispanics the Republican
Party really wants
them here?

HUCKABEE: Wendell, I think there is a great
misperception that
Hispanic people in this country somehow are soft
and weak on
immigration. They are not. Those who have come
here legally, who
have stood in line, who have patiently waited to
get in this country
are some of the ones who insist that we enforce
the law.

What I think we ought to do is to certainly
start with a secure
border, because nothing else matters until then.
But we can have a
period of time.

I created a nine-point immigration policy
that says there’s a
120-day period in which people go to their home
country and they start
the process from the back of the line. And when
people say, how will
the government round them up? The government
didn’t round everybody
up to get here.

The government doesn’t have to round
everybody up to get back in
line. That’s nonsense. People got themselves
here, they can get
themselves to the back of the line.

The point we need make is that when people do
come here, they
ought to live with their heads up. They ought to
live in the light,
not the darkness. They ought to not be afraid of
seeing a police car.

It’s not just in our benefit that we solve
this problem. It’s in
the benefit of those who do come to this country
so nobody looks at a
person of maybe Hispanic origin and questions
whether or not they are
legal. We ought to have the assumption that
everybody here is legal,
that nobody here is illegal.

GOLER: Mayor Giuliani, you said that it was
so important to you
that illegal immigrants not fear reporting crimes,
that you insist
that police not ask their immigration status. For
that, some of your
colleagues accused you of running a sanctuary city.

As president, would you object if other
mayors insisted their
police not ask immigration status?

GIULIANI: Well, the reality is, it would
have been absurd to ask
illegal immigrants reporting crimes about their
illegal immigrant
status, because then you would not have gotten the
information about
the person who committed the murder, the person
who committed the
mugging, the person who committed the rape. And a
person who commits
those kinds of crimes doesn’t looking for green
cards when they commit
those crimes. So it would have been irresponsible
in the highest
degree to not allow them to report it.

And the policies that I had in New York with
regard to illegal
immigrants, which allowed illegal immigrants to
report crimes, helped
to bring crime down more than any city in America,
more than any city
in the history of America. So I’m very proud of
it. Had I done
anything else, I think I would have ended up with
a city that had the
problems before I came into office.

The same thing with allowing children to go
to school. I allowed
children of illegal immigrants to go to school.

I had 70,000 children of illegal immigrants.
What was I going to
do, allow them to be on the streets so that they
could become the
victims of crime on the streets, maybe engage in
crime themselves on
the streets? Those are the exceptions that were made.

On the other hand, we reported every single
criminal. We
reported every single person suspected of crime.
We reported so many
to the immigration service that the immigration
service actually asked
New York City to stop reporting.

I believe I would be the best at ending
illegal immigration
because I have accomplished things like that
before. You have got to
change behavior here.

It’s not very different than the way in which
I changed behavior
about crime in New York and the way I changed
behavior about Welfare.
We have got to have a system where we have a
tamper-proof I.D. card.
If you want to come into this country, you should
be able to come in
legally.

HUME: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

GIULIANI: We have only 14,000 Border Patrol,
and we have 12
million illegal immigrants.

HUME: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

GIULIANI: Do you think we can handle the
problem with 14,000
border patrol unless we make some very big changes?

HUME: Thank you, sir.

That is it for us tonight. Our thanks to the
candidates and
their staffs, to our debate partner, the
Republican Party of South
Carolina. And also to the good folks here in
Myrtle Beach.

(APPLAUSE)

END