Full transcript from GOP presidential debate in Florida

tcpalm.com ^ | 01/24/2007 | unstated

[iowamark]

Full transcript from GOP presidential debate in Florida Thursday, January 24, 2008

WILLIAMS: Before we begin, a quick review of the rules we will

be following tonight, or trying to, beginning with a word about time.

Our televised debates normally run two hours. However, at the

request of the candidates and their campaigns, tonight's debate will

be limited to 90 minutes duration.

The candidates will have 90 seconds to respond to our questions.

A series of lights will warn them time is running out. Thirty seconds

of rebuttal time may also be granted to a candidate at the discretion

of the moderator.

During one of our segments tonight, the candidates have been

instructed to prepare one question to be asked of one of their

opponents of their choosing.

Joining me in the questioning tonight, my partner, our Washington

bureau chief, the moderator of "Meet the Press" on NBC, Tim Russert.

And representing the Florida Press Association, Paul Tash. Paul is

the editor and chairman of the St. Petersburg Times.

So to our candidates, gentlemen, welcome to you all. Thank you

for being here. And let's begin.

And, Governor Romney, I thought we'd begin with you. The

president just today signed off on this economic stimulus plan that

would send out 116 million checks to American homes.

The plan is somewhat contrary to yours, providing lots of short-

term stimulus to individuals. Your plan, as you know, focuses as much

on the long term as the short term.

Are you disappointed that your recipe for the economy was not

embraced by the president? And, as the follow-up, will you now

embrace this plan?

ROMNEY: Well, there's a great deal that is effective in his

plan. I just wish it went further.

What's effective is, first, he's getting money back to consumers.

And given the fact that two-thirds of our economy is a consumer

economy, getting money back into the hands of our citizens, a lot of

them paying a lot for gasoline, a lot for heating oil, a lot of people

concerned about how to make ends meet, that makes sense to me.

Mine was a little different. It had a permanent tax cut for

people at the lowest income tax bracket. I also have a savings plan

for individuals that allows folks who are making under $200,000 a year

to save their money tax-free, no interest, dividends, or capital

gains.

I guess we can get to that later. But his first start to help

the consumers is a good start. I just think we need to go further.

Second, we go to corporate support and helping corporations have

the incentive to buy more capital equipment. That he also does. I do

it more aggressive than he does, by writing off a larger amount of

capital expenditures, getting companies to, frankly, buy more stuff so

that as they do so that other companies will hire people.

Because if you want to turn an economy around, the key thing is

to grow jobs. It's not just to get checks in the hands of consumers;

it's consumers buying things that creates jobs. It's companies buying

things that create jobs.

And then, finally, his last leg is with regards to helping the

FHA take on a broader array of homes that are in trouble, homeowners

that are in trouble. And that's really very important. And I'm

appreciative of the fact that the president took that step.

We really have across the country a housing crisis, a mortgage

crisis that seems to have spilled out into the entire economy. And

the effect of this, of course, is to put a lot of pain against a lot

of people.

And so helping reverse the housing crisis is critical. And

that's why expanding the FHA loan requirements -- or, excuse me, if

you will, loosening those requirements and expanding the ability of

FHA to help out homeowners will make a big difference.

So net-net, it's something I support. And I look forward to

taking it further.

WILLIAMS: And time is up, Governor.

WILLIAMS: Senator McCain, would you support the part of this

that does not make the Bush tax cuts permanent? And, as the only

member of the Senate on the stage, will you vote for this compromise?

MCCAIN: Yes, I will. And I'm disappointed because I think it's

very important that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I voted to

make them permanent twice already.

If people and businesses and families in America are now planning

their 2010 budget, there is a great deal of uncertainty. And, if we

don't make the tax cuts permanent, then they will experience what

amounts to a tax increase.

I applaud the efforts and the rapidity with which apparently we

are moving, but I also would make sure that not only the tax cuts are

made permanent, but we cut corporate income taxes. That would keep

businesses here and it would keep jobs here and create jobs here.

We pay the highest corporate income tax of any nation in the

world except for Japan. I think that it would be very important that

no pork-barrel projects be added as this bill winds its way through

the various committees of Congress.

I worry about that. I worry that we're going to add pork-barrel

projects.

I'm glad to see that we're going to allow people to expense new

investments and equipment so they can write them off in a very short

period of time, but I really think that we have to understand that the

rate cuts by Bernanke are a good beginning.

Apparently, the markets have stabilized a little bit. But we

also need to continue to cut tax rates in America. And we also have

to encourage savings. Because, if we don't restrain spending, if we

don't restrain spending, then we're going to end up in the same

position that we were in earlier, and that's with an economy that has

very serious fiscal difficulties.

WILLIAMS: Senator, time is up.

Mayor Giuliani, you have in the past supported a wide array of

tax cuts. Do you think it's a mistake that they're not in this

package?

GIULIANI: I think it's packaged for -- what it does is OK, and I

would support it, but it doesn't go far enough. I think, in the face

of what's been going on, which obviously is a matter of serious

concern, we should be very aggressive.

Congressman Dreier and Senator Bond introduced legislation -- I

think it was yesterday -- that was my tax package. It would be the

largest tax reduction in American history. It would take the Bush tax

cuts, make them permanent, reduce the corporate tax, reduce the

capital gains tax, reduce taxes on those things that would allow

business to see America as more competitive.

And you almost don't have a distinction any longer between

temporary and permanent in the kind of an economy that we live in.

Look at it this way -- we're a competitive economy. We're

competing with the rest of the world. If America overtaxes, if

America overspends, if America over-regulates, if America oversues,

then business and jobs and money go elsewhere. And we're doing all

four of those things.

So Senator McCain is right. We need to put as much emphasis on

reducing spending. And this has to be a permanent package. So I hope

that this is the beginning of a dialogue where what will happen is

major tax reductions, major reductions in spending on the civilian

side, a real analysis of our regulations.

Just how much business are we running out of the United States

because of the excesses of Sarbanes-Oxley?

There was a report a year ago that showed that London was going

to pass New York as the financial capital of the world. As a New

Yorker, that was troubling to me. But as an American, it should be

troubling to everyone.

WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, the time is up. The questioning continues

with Tim Russert.

RUSSERT: National security, the war in Iraq had been the

dominant issue in the campaign until a few weeks ago. And now the

economy has taken hold. Ask any of the voters; it's the economy.

Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, "I know a lot

less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy

issues. I still need to be educated."

Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the

most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not

well versed on?

MCCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from.

I'm very well versed in economics. I was there at the Reagan

revolution. I was there when we enacted the first -- or just after we

enacted the first tax cuts and the restraints on spending.

I was chairman of the Commerce Committee in the United States

Senate, which addresses virtually every major economic issue that

affects the United States of America. I'm very well versed on

economics.

And that's why I have the support of people like Jack Kemp,

people like Phil Gramm, people like Warren Rudman, people like Doug

Holtz-Eakin, people like Marty Feldstein.

MCCAIN: That's why I have a strong team around me that respect

my views and my vision. And that's why the Wall Street Journal, in a

survey of economists, recently that the majority of economists thought

that I could handle the nation's economy best.

And I have been a consistent fighter to restrain spending and to

cut taxes. And my credentials and my experience and my knowledge of

these economic issues, I think, are extensive and I would match them

against anybody who's running.

RUSSERT: You all have described yourselves as tax cutters, and,

yet, in your records, there are shortcomings on that issue.

Governor Huckabee, are you comfortable with the fact that

Governor Romney raised fees a quarter of a million dollars as governor

of Massachusetts? Do you trust him as a tax cutter?

HUCKABEE: It's going to be really more do the voters trust him

and do they trust me. I know this: I balanced the budget every year I

was governor. I left a surplus of $850 million, coming up from a

deficit of $200 million.

I know I signed the first ever broad-based tax cuts and I know

that I've made tax cuts that really impacted families by eliminating

the marriage penalty, doubling the child care tax credit, raising the

income level at which people paid their income tax.

But let me speak to the really heart of what I think a lot of

Americans are concerned about with the economy and, frankly, in

talking about the stimulus package.

One of the concerns that I have is that we'll probably end up

borrowing this $150 billion from the Chinese and when we get those

rebate checks, most people are going to go out and buy stuff that's

been imported from China.

I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated the most

by the package. And I'm grateful that something is being done. I

think we all could at least acknowledge that it's good to see Congress

working with the president to do something.

But if we're going to spend $150 billion, I'd like to suggest

that maybe we add two lanes of highway from Bangor all the way to

Miami on I-95. A third of the United States population lives within

100 miles of that.

This nation's infrastructure is falling apart and if we built

those lanes of highways with American labor, American steel, American

concrete, I believe it would do more to stimulate the economy. And

the reason I say that is because when we were going to through a

recession in my state, we were in the middle of a $1 billion highway

construction program that brought about 40,000 jobs and brought $1

billion of capital into the economy.

That's a long-term stimulus package that I think would have more

impact on the American long-term future and it would keep social

capital from being wasted, fuel wasted.

A lot of people in Florida sit around in traffic every day, never

getting to their kids' dance recitals or soccer games because they're

stuck in traffic, and we've done nothing about it.

RUSSERT: Governor Romney, you've criticized Senator McCain for

opposing the first two Bush tax cuts. You've criticized Mayor

Giuliani for going to court to try to retain a commuter tax on people

coming to the city of New York.

Do you trust Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani on the issue of

being tax cutters?

ROMNEY: I trust these two gentlemen and I respect them greatly.

We do have differing views and over time our record with regards to

taxes has been somewhat different.

But I think all of us on this stage want to see taxes brought

down and want to see spending brought down. I have a sound record of

doing that. I came into a state that faced an extraordinary series of

challenges.

Massachusetts was in a ditch. We had about a $3 billion budget

shortfall. Everybody thought we're going to have to raise taxes to

solve the problem.

And I went to work to get Massachusetts back on track. Working

with Democrats across the aisle, we were able to do that without

raising taxes. And that was critical, because it said to the business

community "You don't have to worry about Taxachusetts coming back

again. You're going to see Massachusetts live within its means."

We balanced the budget every one of four years. We also put in

place a surplus of over $2 billion to help make sure that we have the

kind of resources that would be needed if there were a rainy day.

Now, I also support the Bush tax cuts. Senator McCain voted

against them originally. He now believes they should be made

permanent. I'm glad he agrees they should be made permanent.

I think he should have voted for them the first time around and

that's just a difference of viewpoints. The Bush tax cuts helped get

our economy going again when we faced the last tough times, and that's

why right now, as we face tough times, we need to have somebody who

understands -- if you will, has the private sector, has the business

world, has the economy in their DNA.

I do. I spent my life in the private sector. I know how jobs

come and I know how they go and I'll make sure that we create more

good jobs for this nation. And one way to do that is by holding down

taxes and making those tax cuts permanent.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain, Governor Romney invoked your name. Do

you believe Governor Romney raising fees, a quarter of a billion

dollars, is equivalent to raising taxes?

MCCAIN: Well, I'm sure those people that had to pay it did, I

would imagine. But, look, I voted -- I voted on the tax cuts because

I knew that unless we had spending control, we were going to face a

disaster.

We let spending get completely out of control. Of course, those

tax cuts have to remain permanent.

MCCAIN: Otherwise, people experience a tax increase. We let

spending get out of control.

We Republicans lost an election. We lost an election because of

the Bridge to Nowhere and the fact that we presided over the biggest

increase in the size of government that -- a sense of great society,

we let it get out of control.

And the fact is that if we had had the spending restraints that I

proposed, we would be talking about more tax cuts today. We would be

talking about more tax cuts, that trust and confidence in our base was

eroded.

I will restore that trust and confidence because I will restrain

spending, along with further tax cuts. And I'm very proud of my

record.

And if you look at those organizations that grade people, such as

the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste,

Citizens for a Sound Economy, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, my record

is very, very high for a consistent record of being a fiscal

conservative, a record that I'm very proud of.

WILLIAMS: All right. Time.

MCCAIN: But I'm going to stop the pork barrel spending, and

we're not going to have anymore bridges to nowhere.

WILLIAMS: Senator, our time is up.

Congressman Paul, you often have a different view of these

issues, so I'll ask a vastly different question.

Does government -- should government, in your view, have any role

at all in stimulating the economy like this?

PAUL: Well, sure, indirectly. They shouldn't stimulate it by

interfering in the market rate of interest. That's where our basic

problem comes from.

And when you do that, you get into these problems, and then

everybody wants to solve the problem by printing more money and

spending more money and asking the Federal Reserve to, you know, lower

interest rates. And that just makes the problem that much worse.

The government does have a responsibility, but it's supposed to

lower taxes, get rid of regulations, and devise a monetary policy that

makes some -- makes some sense. But, to continue to say that we just

appropriate more money, which is more deficit, then expect us either

to borrow it or expect the Federal Reserve to monetize it, it makes

our problems worse.

Just look at what's happening today. The dollar is crashing.

And why -- and Tim there suggests that we think of the economy, but

not in foreign policy.

You can't do that. They're one in the same. That's where all of

the money is going.

We're spending nearly a trillion dollars a year overseas

maintaining this empire. And then, there's never been a war fought

without inflation and destruction and devaluation of a currency.

And this -- this is what we're doing today to ourselves, is we're

literally spending ourselves into oblivion. But nobody here is

willing to even suggest that we cut something overseas. But we have

to.

We don't need to cut anything here at home. I would like to see

things frozen. I'd like to see massive tax cuts, but we need

deregulation.

I was one of three people that voted against Sarbanes-Oxley. I

knew that would be a problem. And it is a problem to the financial

markets.

So this is the kind of thing we need. We need the government out

of the way, but it should have sound money, low taxes, less

regulations, and a sensible policy where we're not wasting our money

overseas.

WILLIAMS: Congressman, thank you.

Mayor Giuliani, the next question goes to you, a story right out

of the news over the last several days.

Many big brand name banks in this country, Merrill Lynch,

CitiGroup, to name two of them, have gone overseas. It's been said

hat in hand, looking for these cash infusions, up to $20 billion,

literally to stay afloat, looking for money from governments of Abu

Dhabi, Japan, Korea -- Saudi Prince Alaweed, whose money you turned

away in New York after 9/11.

The question is -- and I know you know a lot of these people at

Wall Street firms, the big New York banks -- is there something, even

though it's money to stay afloat, fundamentally un-American in what's

going on?

GIULIANI: Well, first of all, let's distinguish it from the

presentation of the $10 million check. That was a very different

circumstance.

The prince came to Ground Zero at the request of the White House.

I took him there to show him the devastation. I think in part to see

how much of an alliance we could get and how much empathy we could get

and how much support we could get.

He presented me with a $10 million check for the Twin Towers

Fund. And I took it. And then, an hour or so later, he -- I found

out he issued a press release attacking American foreign policy and

saying that American foreign policy and America's support for Israel

was one of the causes of it.

And I gave him the check back, because I thought, and so did the

people that advised me, they thought of it as bought money. That's a

different circumstance than an investment in a private institution.

America is in a global economy. That's what we are. That's

where we are. And we have to look carefully at investments to make

sure they're honest, to make sure they're transparent, to make sure

there's no other hidden motivation behind it.

But we are engaged in the global economy. And when countries

invest in the United States, there's a mutuality of interest that's

developed that is helpful to us.

GIULIANI: Remember back in the '80s, all of the discussion and

worry about Japanese investment in -- I think they even bought your

building.

WILLIAMS: Rockefeller Plaza.

GIULIANI: Right. Well, there was a big worry that it was going

to become a Japanese building. And it all changed. What happened?

It all worked its way into the economy. Japan and the United States

became even closer friends. They're one of our strongest allies now.

I'm pretty much in favor of trade, and I'm pretty much in favor

of free trade. You've got to be careful when you have investments

like this, that there's no ulterior motive. But if there isn't, then

this is a good thing.

And we should be considering what we should be selling to them.

We should be very aggressive about the global economy. Americans

should be thinking about, how much can we sell to the rest of the

world? And how much can we invest in them, as they're investing in

us?

WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, time up.

RUSSERT: The Wall Street Journal-NBC News asked people all

across the country in our poll today, "Which party would be better in

dealing with the economy?" The Democrats had an 18-point advantage.

With that in mind, and looking at the record over the last seven

years, the unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.2 percent; it's now 5.0

percent. The debt was $5.7 trillion; it's now $9.2 trillion. There

was a $261 billion surplus; there's now a $250 billion deficit. Gas

was $1.47 a gallon; it's now $3.02.

Why should the American people continue a Republican in the White

House with that kind of economic record, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: Because you can be sure, if you watch the Democrat

debates, that they will increase spending, they will increase taxes,

they will expand the size of government, and they will continue this

spending spree which, to a large degree, the Republicans have a

greater responsibility. I'll give you some straight talk.

And they will not restore the stability of the entitlement

programs, which are becoming more and more unfunded in their

liabilities in the future. The Democrats have already run and told us

they will increase our taxes, they will increase spending.

Look, the president of the United States signed into law two

years in a row pork-barrel-laden bills, $35 billion worth of pork,

worth of earmarked projects which are outrageous.

Now, we could have given $1,000 tax credit for every child in

America for that $35 billion. Instead, we chose a bridge to nowhere.

I will, as president, veto every one of these big spending bills.

I will impose some fiscal discipline.

There is nothing that anything the Democrats have said, except,

that I have seen, except tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and

elect.

We will clean up our act. And we will regain the confidence of

the American people as being careful stewards of their tax dollars.

And we will fix this problem with having to borrow money from China,

because then we will balance our budget, just like every governor in

America has been required to do, as well.

RUSSERT: Governor Huckabee, George Bush has been president since

2001. The Republicans controlled Congress for most of those years,

losing control in 2006. With this economic scorecard, why should the

American people keep the Republicans in charge?

HUCKABEE: Well, Tim, let me remind you I wasn't in Washington

during all of this time. So that's one of the reasons they ought to

give me a chance, since I wasn't there messing this up.

RUSSERT: So you do think that President Bush and the Republicans

in Congress did not measure up?

HUCKABEE: I don't think you can blame all of this on President

Bush. The president also has done, I think, a fine job of making sure

that the focus of his White House was also keeping us safe.

But let's look at those economic issues. A few months ago, when

we were all in Dearborn, Michigan, your network was the sponsor, with

CNBC and MSNBC, and every one of us were asked, "How's the economy

doing?" Every one of my colleagues said, "It's doing great." And

they gave all the numbers.

When they came to me, I know people acted like I was the only guy

at the U.N. without a headset that night. But the truth is I was the

only guy on that stage who said, "It may be doing great if you're at

the top."

But if you talk to the people at the bottom of the economy, the

people who are handling the bags, the people who are serving the food,

you'd get a different picture, because their health care costs are up

dramatically. Costs to educate their children are up. And the cost

of their fuel has way outstripped any wage increase they've had.

Now, often we hear people talk about trickle-down economics, that

if you have a wonderful surge in the economy, that it eventually works

its way down to all sectors.

But there's another issue, too: There's a trickle-up impact when

the economy begins to go sour.

And if you pay attention to the people who are the single moms

and the working people who barely get from paycheck to paycheck, you'd

find out months in advance that this economy was headed for a downward

turn.

And that's what I think people need in the president, is somebody

who understands the totality of the American family, and not just the

folks at the top.

RUSSERT: Governor Romney, higher deficits, higher debt, higher

unemployment, higher gas prices. Is that the kind of Republican

record that you want to run on?

ROMNEY: I'm not going to run on that record, I'll tell you that.

I can run on my own record. I can run on my record of having been in

the private sector for 25 years, my record for having helped turned

around the Olympics, my record as the governor of Massachusetts. I'll

run on that record of accomplishment.

RUSSERT: Will you run away from this record?

ROMNEY: What I'll do is I'll run away from the record of

Washington. You see, Washington is fundamentally broken. Washington

has made promises to us over the last decade that they just haven't

been able to fulfill.

You can go down the list. They said they'd solve the problem of

Social Security. They haven't. They said they'd rein in spending.

We got all sorts of people, almost every congressman and senator says

they're going to cut spending, cut those earmarks, cut that mentality

in Washington. But somehow, every year more and more and more money

goes in.

They said they'd live by high ethics. They haven't. They said

they'd solve the problem of illegal immigration. They haven't. They

said they'd get us off of foreign oil. They haven't.

Issue after issue that's been raised over the past couple of

three decades have -- has been spoken about, and Washington has failed

to deliver. And I'm not going to...

RUSSERT: Both parties?

ROMNEY: Both parties. And change is going to have to begin with

us in our party. We are the party of change. We are the party of

fiscal responsibility.

And when Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. And

you've seen that over the last several years. We're going to have to

make sure that we rein in spending. It's not just -- we all agree,

the earmarks and the pork barrel spending and the bridge to nowhere,

that's an easy one to take a shot at. But the big one is entitlements

and reining in entitlement costs. And that's where the big dollars

are.

And then you go on to say how are we going to bring down

taxation, because we have the highest tax rate next to Japan in the

world? That hurts our economy.

What you're seeing in the weakening dollar, in the declining

stock market, in foreign countries coming here to buy into our banks,

you are seeing an underground -- the foundation of our economy being

shaken by the fact that we haven't been doing the job that needs to be

done in Washington.

And I'm going to Washington to change Washington.

WILLIAMS: Governor Romney, time is up.

Mayor Giuliani, I can give you 30 seconds. You wanted in on

this.

GIULIANI: I'm the only one who's actually turned around a

government economy. And the reality is, when I became mayor of New

York, the economy of New York was in a very, very bad shape.

Tremendous deficits, 10.5 percent unemployment, 300,000 jobs gone. We

turned that around, cut unemployment by more than half, brought in

450,000 new jobs, and we cut taxes by 17 percent.

And we did it based on growth principles -- exactly the

principles that are in the growth package that was introduced in

Congress yesterday, which the Club for Growth said is the best

stimulus for growth they've seen in a very long time.

I've had the experience to do this in the 17th largest economy in

the world, and I can do it for the country.

WILLIAMS: Mayor, thank you.

Congressman Paul, please take 30 seconds of your own.

PAUL: Well, you know, I think that we can't run on that program.

I think what we have to run on is the old-fashioned Republican

program. I can't be identified with this. I'm known as the

taxpayer's best friend. I have never voted for a tax increase and I

voted for the least amount of spending. So I'm not part of that

crowd.

But what we need to do is reinstate Republican principles. Then

we could run on it. But we have drifted a long way from that. And

that is because of all of these programs.

But there was never -- my participation in this -- I was waving

the flag the whole time, saying, "Slow up, slow up." This isn't going

well.

And here we are, we're at the verge of bankruptcy. We're moving

into a new era, believe it or not, with the dollar and our economy and

the world economy, this is a new era.

WILLIAMS: Congressman, time is up.

As promised, our colleague, Paul Tash, the editor of the St.

Petersburg Times, has been very patient with us. We're going to go to

some of the questions that have been sent in locally for the

candidates.

Paul?

TASH: Senator McCain, this question comes to us from William

Harper of Bayonet Point, Florida. "Our military leaders tell us that

our Army is on the verge of breaking, and our economic experts tell us

that we cannot sustain our economy through the deficit spending. Both

tell us we cannot sustain our present effort in Iraq. You have stated

that you would leave troops in Iraq for an indefinite period. How

will you do this, both militarily and economically? Please, no

generalities."

MCCAIN: I know of no military leader, including General

Petraeus, who says we can't sustain our effort in Iraq. So you're

wrong.

The fact is, we're succeeding in Iraq. We're going back down to

previous levels, and we will be able to withdraw troops over time if

we succeed.

If we do what Senator Clinton said that she wanted to do night

before last, and that's wave the white flag of surrender and set a

date for withdrawal, then we will have expenses, my friends, in

American blood and treasure, because Al Qaida will then have won.

We are succeeding in Iraq, and every indicator is that. And we

will reduce casualties and gradually eliminate them.

Anybody who doesn't understand that it's not American presence,

it's American casualties. We have American troops all over the world

today, and nobody complains about it, because we're defending freedom.

MCCAIN: That's one of the obligations of being the world's

superpower.

I'm proud to be the only one on this stage that said we have to

abandon the Rumsfeld strategy and we have to adopt the strategy that

is succeeding. And that's happened.

I'm the only one that said that. It is succeeding, and we will

be able to reduce our costs, and we will be able to have a stable

Middle East, where our vital national interests -- national security

interests are at stake. And I'm so proud of the jobs that the men and

women in the military are doing there, and they don't want us to raise

the white flag of surrender like Senator Clinton does.

They know they can win. And their message to you and to me is,

let us win.

WILLIAMS: Senator McCain, thank you.

Governor Romney, retired four-star U.S. Army General Barry

McCaffrey is just back from one of his many trips to Iraq and has

written a report, an after-action report on his findings. This

sentence stood out: "The U.S. Army is too small and poorly resourced

to continue successful counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and

Afghanistan at the current level."

The question, Governor, is: How do you double the size of it

from 400,000 to 800,000, as the general recommends in here, without a

draft?

ROMNEY: Well, I'm recommending that we add 100,000 active-duty

personnel to our military. We're right now at about 1.5 million.

Take that to about 1.6 million.

We found in our state that we were losing enrollees for the

National Guard at about 6 percent per year. And the legislature and I

got together and passed something called the Welcome Home Bill.

We said, you know what? If you'll sign up for the National

Guard, we'll pay for your entire education for four years.

We put in some other benefits as well -- life insurance and other

features that we decided to pay for. And the result of that was, the

next year enrollments went up 30 percent.

And so, if we want more people to sign up for the military, we

have to improve the deal. And frankly, our G.I. Bill has gotten a

little old. We need to update our funding level for that so that

young people who go into the military get a full ride as they come

home and get to go into college.

But let me step back also and just talk about what we saw the

night with the Democratic debate as we think about the commitment that

needs to be made to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is simply unthinkable that the Democrats would have said at

that debate when they were asked, "What's more important to you, that

when we get out or that we win?" that with their answer -- they

wouldn't answer directly, but with each of their answers, it was very

clear getting out was their only objective. Just get out as fast as

you can, regardless of the consequences. And that's simply wrong.

We cannot turn Iraq over to Al Qaida and have Al Qaida have a

safe haven from which they can recruit people to carry out bombings,

to attack this country and our friends around the world. It's

unthinkable, and that's why I will not walk away from Iraq until we

have been successful and finished that job.

And one more thing.

What an audacious and arrogant thing for the Democrats to say, as

Hillary Clinton did, that they are responsible for the progress that

the surge has seen by virtue of their trying to pull out so quickly.

Look, the success over there is due to the blood and the courage of

our servicemen and women, and to General Petraeus and to President

Bush. Not to General Hillary Clinton.

WILLIAMS: Governor, thank you.

Tim?

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT: The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll today, the

highest percentage ever of Americans, six in 10, said that the removal

of Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the price we have paid in

blood and treasure.

Every Democratic...

(APPLAUSE)

Excuse me, please.

The Democratic nominee will go to the country and say the war in

Iraq is a bad idea, not worth the price in blood and treasure, and we

should get out.

I want each of you to take 30 seconds.

Will you go to the country, Senator McCain, and say, the war was

a good idea, worth the price in blood and treasure, and we will stay?

MCCAIN: It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used

weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell bent on

acquiring them.

The problem was not the invasion of Iraq. The problem was the

mishandling of Iraq for nearly four years by Rumsfeld.

And again, I railed against that. I was criticized by

Republicans. There were others that called for a phased or secret

withdrawal.

The war in Iraq was justified because of the threat of Saddam

Hussein. It was the mishandling of the war.

Now we're on the right track. Now we are succeeding. And if we

withdraw and if we decide that we have to get out of there, I

guarantee you, Al Qaida will be trumpeting to the world that they have

defeated the United States of America.

RUSSERT: Senator, my question is...

MCCAIN: Your -- my answer.

RUSSERT: ... was the war a good idea, worth the price in blood

and treasure?

MCCAIN: It was a good idea. It was not worth the failures that

happened, but it is worth it at the end of the day, because we will

have peace and success in the Middle East, and our men and women will

return, and return with honor, and they won't have to go back and

fight Al Qaida there.

RUSSERT: Mayor Giuliani, was the war a good idea and worth the

price in blood and treasure?

GIULIANI: It's very, very interesting, the way you put that

question is with a poll, because when the polls were six and seven out

of 10 Americans thinking it was a good idea, Hillary Clinton was in

favor of the war. And now when the polls are six out of 10 are

against, Hillary Clinton is against the war.

To be...

RUSSERT: What does Rudy Giuliani think?

GIULIANI: I was for it when six out of 10 were for it. I'm for

it when six out of 10 are against it. I'm for it not because of

polls, but because America is in a war, an Islamic terrorist war

against us.

America has succeed in Iraq and the goal in Iraq is an Iraq

that's stable and an ally of the United States. And to be president

of the United States, you have to be able to read polls, but you can't

have them push you around.

RUSSERT: Congressman Paul, was the war a good idea, worth the

blood and treasure that we have spent?

PAUL: It was a very bad idea and it wasn't worth it.

(APPLAUSE)

The Al Qaida wasn't there then. They're there now. There were

no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11. There

was no aggression.

This decision on policy was made in 1998 under the previous

administration, because they called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

It wasn't worth it and it's a sad story, because we started that war

and we should never be a country that starts war needlessly.

RUSSERT: Governor Huckabee, was the war a good idea? Is it

worth the cost in blood and treasure?

HUCKABEE: I supported the president when he led us into this, as

did the Democrats, and I think we owe him not a lot of scorn. We owe

him our thanks that he had the courage to recognize there was a

potential of weapons of mass destruction and rather than wait until we

had another attack, he went and made sure that it wasn't going to

happen from Saddam Hussein.

Now, everybody can look back and say, "Oh, well, we didn't find

the weapons." It doesn't mean they weren't there. Just because you

didn't find every Easter egg didn't mean that it wasn't planted.

My point is that when the president acted, this country was

united in believing it was a necessary thing to do. It's easy to

second guess a president. Whoever of us is elected will be second

guessed, too, but I hope we have the courage and the resolve, once we

commit to something, to make sure that we don't back away just because

the polls say we should.

RUSSERT: Governor Romney, was the war in Iraq a good idea, worth

the cost in blood and treasure we have spent?

ROMNEY: It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported

it at the time. I support it now.

It was not well managed after the takedown of Saddam Hussein and

his military. That was done brilliantly, an extraordinary success.

But in the years that followed, it was not well -- we were under-

managed, under-prepared, under-planned, under-staffed and then we came

into the phase that we have now.

The plan that President Bush and General Petraeus put together is

working. It's changing lives there and, perhaps most importantly,

it's making sure that Al Qaida and no other group like them is

becoming a superpower, if you will, in the communities and having a

safe haven from which they launch attacks against us.

It's critical for us. When we think about debating the

Democrats, they might want to go back and talk about what happened at

the beginning. But the most important issue is what do we do now, and

they're just run and retreat, regardless of the consequences, is going

to be a real problem for them when they face a debate with a

Republican on the stage.

WILLIAMS: Governor Romney, thanks. Time is up.

As we go to a break, two quick notes. We've asked members of the

audience, prior to going on the air tonight, to not applaud, no

outbursts of any kind. We're going to have to repeat that request.

Number two, we have embedded in tonight's broadcast two short

commercial breaks to give everyone in here a break. We're going to

take the first of those now.

When we come back in the next segment, the candidates will ask

each other the questions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: We are back in Boca Raton, Florida, where we just now

have a quorum back on stage. Our candidates are assembled.

And we are going begin the second segment of tonight's debate,

where the candidates can ask the fellow candidate of their choice a

question. The answer falls into the 90-second category. In the

exigency that a rebuttal is required, those, again, moderator's

discretion for 30 seconds.

We're going to start this round with Governor Romney.

ROMNEY: I think Governor Huckabee raised a good question when he

spoke about China and the impact of China. I think what you're seeing

in the world, as the emergence of Asia occurs, that the demand for

more oil around the world is driving prices very high.

The Chinese are supplying to us today toys, and Christmas tree

ornaments, and dog food, but they're going to want to make jumbo jets

and patents for various medicines and software. They're going to be a

much tougher competition, China is, competitor is, than we have seen

from Europe in a long time.

And the question that I have is, how are we going to make sure

that, as we compete with China -- and I'm going to address this to

Mayor Giuliani -- as we compete with China, how do we make sure that

trade is done in a way that levels the playing field?

How do we make sure that China stabilizes the world economically,

but that we protect American industry and American jobs and do not

cause a departure of jobs in this country? What kind of relations do

we need to have with China economically? I know our military issues,

but economically.

Mayor, what kinds of things do you think we can do to make sure

that the trade is done on a level playing field and where American

industries are strengthened, and not put in jeopardy by virtue of the

growth of this great part of the world?

GIULIANI: Before, I told you I wasn't going to answer your

question, but I will. We were kidding around about the questions

before and who was going to ask whom.

The reality is that China is a great opportunity for America and

a great caution for America, both. It's a great opportunity for us to

engage, to engage in trade. And the more America engages in trade,

the more we get to know a country; the less likely we are to have

military hostilities.

I think we should be working with China to try to push down some

of these barriers, protection for intellectual property, rule of law,

an ability to sue in China, so that you can be protected if you're

doing business there.

We've got to be very careful about what we import from China,

from the point of view of safety and security, not as much from the

point of view of our economy.

And then I think we have to look at the rise of China as a

wonderful opportunity. I see 20 million or 30 million people coming

out of poverty in China every year. To me, that's 20 million or 30

million more customers for the United States.

GIULIANI: That's 20 or 30 million people we can be selling

things to.

We should be thinking like aggressive, entrepreneurial Americans.

What can we sell to China? We can sell them energy independence.

They need it more than we do. We can sell them health processes. We

can sell them information processes.

They're at a level of development that's here. We're at a higher

level of development. They need to buy what we have.

And then, I believe there's a military aspect to it as well. I

think we should increase the size of our military substantially to

overcome the damage that Bill Clinton did with the peace dividend.

Because when the two of you were talking about the military, what I

wanted to jump in and say was, a lot of the cause of this was Bill

Clinton's peace dividend, in which he cut the military 25 and 30

percent.

We've never redone or did up -- made up for that damage. We have

to do that.

WILLIAMS: Time, Mr. Mayor.

And a reminder to our candidates: Number one, these are

questions to each other; number two, please use the blinking lights as

your guide to when time is up.

Senator McCain, your turn to ask a question of one of your

colleagues.

MCCAIN: Governor Huckabee, you have been one of the strongest

and most persuasive proponents of the so-called fair tax. And it is,

I must tell you, every town hall meeting I have, there's somebody that

shows up with a T-shirt on, and there's enormous groundswell for it.

How do you answer the criticism that a flat-out just sales tax

wouldn't cause lower-income Americans more of the pain and the burden

of running our government and paying for its operations? How do you

respond to that particular criticism of it? And also, how do you

account for the resonance that this proposal has gotten throughout the

nation?

HUCKABEE: Well, the reason that it's getting resonance is

because people would love to see the IRS abolished. They know, as Dr.

Phil might say, we've had it since 1913; how is that working out for

us? It's not working out so well.

The fact is, we're penalized for productivity in this country.

The harder you work, the more you earn, the more the IRS and the

government wants from you. What the fair tax does is says we want you

to earn, we want you to save, and we want you to buy things and sell

things and make a profit.

Republicans ought to embrace the fair tax, as should Democrats,

because it stops this nonsense and goes to the common sense, the idea

that we should encourage people to work and to get something for it.

On the bottom end of the spectrum -- here's the thing -- a lot of

people have never read the entire fair tax. Because when I first

heard about the fair tax, a consumption tax, quite frankly, it sounds

like it would be oppressive and regressive to the poor. The poor come

out best of all because of the provision in the fair tax called the

prebate, in which every American each month is given the amount of the

fair tax back up to the level of poverty.

Everybody gets it; not just those under the level of poverty. It

actually untaxes the poor, untaxes the elderly. It makes sure that we

don't end up paying taxes on groceries and medicine and the basic

necessities of life.

And for each third of the economy, there's a benefit. About a 14

percent benefit for those at the bottom. Those in the middle, about 7

percent. Even those at the very top end of the economy end up with

about a 5 percent benefit.

Everybody gets in the economy. No more underground economy.

Drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, gamblers -- non-Republicans -- all

of those people out there...

(LAUGHTER)

... will be paying taxes. Nobody is working under the table.

And so you have now a broad base in which you're receiving the

money, and it's a completely different, transparent tax system, as

opposed to the one now, where about 22 percent of our products we buy

-- the tax is hidden into it. Corporations don't pay tax. They build

that cost in, pass it onto the consumer.

WILLIAMS: Time.

HUCKABEE: And what's killing the American economy is that

embedded tax and the invisibility of the tax.

That's why I support the fair tax. I want to put the IRS out of

business.

RUSSERT: Governor, there's a real issue of enforceability -- I

want to ask a follow-up. The Citizens for Tax Justice say that 93

percent of Americans, in effect, pay less than 15 percent tax right

now. You're imposing a 30 percent sales tax. How does that help the

93 percent of Americans who are paying 15 percent or less right now?

HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, Tim, it's 23 percent if we were to

break even. And they're not paying 15 percent. That's in their

visible tax in the terms of the takeout from their checks.

When you include the built-in tax, the embedded tax in the

products we buy, that corporations build in, the average American is

paying 33 percent in his or her taxes. The average American is

working through the month of May just to pay off the government.

It would be a dramatic difference if the taxpayers got to choose

the taxes, which they would do under the fair tax.

I think most of us realize that there's got to be a better

system.

HUCKABEE: The one we have now is irreparably broken. It's

chased jobs. Now we have $12 trillion of working capital moved

offshore. It's because our tax system has chased it away.

WILLIAMS: The time for the rebuttal is up.

Congressman Paul, a question for one of your colleagues on stage.

PAUL: My question is for Senator McCain.

This is an economic question that I want to ask. It has to do

with the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.

I'd like to know what your opinion is of this and whether you

would keep it in place, what their role would be if you -- or you

would get rid of this group? And if you kept the group, would you

make sure we would see some sunlight and know what they're doing and

how they're being involved in our markets?

MCCAIN: Well, obviously, we like to see more sunshine. But I,

as president, as every other president, rely primarily on my secretary

of the Treasury, on my Council of Economic Advisors, on the head of

that. I would rely on the circle that I have developed over many

years of people like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Warren Rudman, Pete

Peterson and The Concord Group.

I have a process of leadership, Ron, that is sort of an inclusive

one, that I have developed a circle of acquaintances and people that

are supporters and friends of mine whom I worked with for many, many

years.

PAUL: So you would get rid of this group?

MCCAIN: You remember back in 1982, when Phil Gramm -- Phil Gramm

and Warren Rudman -- Gramm-Latta -- and all those people got the first

real tax cuts done -- the real -- first real restraints in taxes. I

was there. You were there. And I rely on those people to a much

larger degree than any formal organization, although the secretary of

Treasury is one of the key and important posts that I would have.

WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

Governor Huckabee?

HUCKABEE: Mitt, I would like to ask you a question that came up

during your interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." And it

has to do with the Second Amendment. You indicated that you support

the Second Amendment, but on that interview, you indicated that you

also supported a ban on so-called -- and I use the term "so-called" --

assault weapons and supported Brady.

For many of us who are strong adherents to the Second Amendment,

that's not quite consistent, to say you're for Brady and so-called

assault gun ban, but support of the Second Amendment, because we see

that that's really a denial of the Second Amendment.

I would appreciate some clarification on, do you support Brady?

Do you support the assault weapon ban? And your position on exactly

what restrictions government should put on Second Amendment rights.

ROMNEY: I do support the Second Amendment. And I believe that

this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government.

And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.

I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon

ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and

signed a similar bill in our state.

It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and

anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and

found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow

more people to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we

signed that in Massachusetts and I said I would support that at the

federal level, just as the president said he would.

It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need

new legislation.

I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban

nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead

believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and

enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American

people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support

the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or

for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that

people have.

WILLIAMS: Mayor Giuliani, a question for one of the candidates?

GIULIANI: I have a question for Governor Romney.

Governor, people in Florida, as you know, traveling back and

forth across the state as I have, are having real difficulties getting

property insurance. Some of them can't afford it, some it's not

assessable at all. They're living in these homes already and they may

lose their homes. And add it to the other burdens now in our economy,

this is a really very difficult burden.

Senator McCain has said that he does not support a national

catastrophic fund as a backstop. I do. I believe it's necessary. I

believe it can be done in a way that is responsible and in a way that

ultimately would actually cost the government less money.

Senator McCain believes that FEMA should handle this.

MCCAIN: Who's answering this question?

(LAUGHTER)

GIULIANI: Well, you can answer it too, John.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

GIULIANI: OK.

Now, you've said that -- I'm not sure exactly the position that

you took on it.

GIULIANI: And you said you were going to talk to the insurance

companies and get their advice.

And I wonder if you've come to a position on it, because I think

this is something that is important to the people of Florida. Do you

have a position on the national catastrophic fund, yes, no, and what

qualifications?

ROMNEY: The answer is, yes, I do support some kind of national

catastrophic effort to make sure that people can get homeowner's

insurance that protects them against flood, or hurricane, or a

tornado, or whatever natural disaster might occur or manmade disaster,

in some cases.

We had the problem not just in Florida, but we also had the

problem in Massachusetts. Those poor folks that are snow birds that

go from Massachusetts to Florida see it in both states, because people

who live along the coastline across the Atlantic have the same

problem. Getting homeowner's insurance is oftentimes almost

impossible.

And so we're going to have to do, as you just indicated, we're

going to have to work together to create a program that gets people in

high-risk areas insured.

Now, I'm not in favor of saying that the people in Iowa should

have to subsidize the people in Massachusetts or the people in

Florida. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

But to have those states that are in high-risk areas come

together and say, "How do we organize an effort on a national basis

that actuarially deals with the differences between different states

and the different risks they face and make sure that we have a

backstop behind the private insurance industry?" That makes a lot of

sense.

And that's something which I -- well, frankly, I took on tough

problems like that in health insurance. People thought it was

impossible to get everybody health insurance.

And I got a group of people together from the industry, from

government, from academics. We came together. We found a way to get

everybody insured with private, free market health insurance. And I

want to do the same thing with regards...

GIULIANI: But in that case, you used mandates. And you're not

in favor of mandates for the country?

ROMNEY: Well, that's a whole different question, so we'll come

back and talk about our health insurance plan.

WILLIAMS: We are...

ROMNEY: I do support an effort to get everybody some form of

catastrophic coverage. And it may be a public-private partnership

between private insurance industries and the federal government. It

may be done with the states.

But I'll bring together the governors of all 50 states, as well

as leadership in Washington, as well as industry representatives, to

say, "What's the right way to fashion this that makes the most sense

for the people of America?"

WILLIAMS: Time is up.

Senator McCain, I did hear your name in that question. You want

to take 30 seconds for rebuttal, please?

MCCAIN: Well, frankly, it takes a little more than 30 seconds.

But, look, this is a terrible problem, not only here in Florida, but

across the states that are subject to hurricanes.

And as more and more violent weather patterns take place,

people's homes are in more and more jeopardy. We've got to address

this issue.

We can address it regionally. We can address it with the

governors and the legislatures, working with the federal government,

to have insurance spread across state lines, increasing the risk pool.

We can reform insurance.

There's so many things that we can do. And we have to sit down

together and figure it out.

Now, the bill that passed through the House of Representatives

was $200 billion, no insurance reform whatsoever associated with it,

no way to pay for it, and that burden is shared by everybody.

We can sit down together. I will call the regulators, the

governors, and the legislators together. And we will work together.

And we will provide every American that's in jeopardy, particularly of

hurricanes, a way to have the insurance that they need and deserve.

I'm confident we can do it together, working with the insurance

companies, not setting up another huge federal bureaucracy, $200

billion which still nobody has said how you're going to pay for it.

RUSSERT: Mayor Giuliani, I have a follow-up on a potential

catastrophe. Florida has 1,200 miles of beautiful coast which can be

threatened with climate change, global warming, in a major way, as the

world's population goes from 6 billion to 9 billion and the level of

greenhouse gases doubles over the next 20 to 30 years.

And yet you are against a mandatory cap on greenhouse gases.

Why?

GIULIANI: The very best way to do it is to support the

technologies that are alternatives that can save the environment and

to get us to the point where those technologies can actually take

over.

We haven't licensed a nuclear power plant in 30 years. France is

80 percent nuclear; we're 20 percent nuclear; we're going down to 15

percent nuclear. We have to crack through there.

We need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles. We need to expand

the use of clean coal. Carbon sequestration is expensive, but it's a

process that works. We have more coal reserves in the United States

than they have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.

I prefer incentives for these new industries. The same thing is

true with biofuels. We should expand biofuels the way Brazil has

done. We should expand wind, solar, hydroelectric. We should expand

natural gas, liquid natural gas.

We should have a project like putting the man on a moon the way

we did back in the '50s and 60s. It should be a major national

project to be energy independent. That's a matter of national

security. It's also the best way -- the very best way -- to protect

against global warming.

Just think about this. If we did everything we could, we put all

these caps on, all these negative incentives on, we would crush

American industry, and China and India would be sending out more

greenhouse gases than we could ever match.

You've got to solve it as a world problem. You cannot solve it

just in the United States. It needs new industries, new ideas.

They're there. They need to be supported. And you have to do this in

positive way, not a negative way.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps.

MCCAIN: No, I'm in favor of cap-and-trade. And Joe Lieberman

and I, one of my favorite Democrats and I, have proposed that -- and

we did the same thing with acid rain. They're doing it in Europe now,

although not very well.

And all we are saying is, "Look, if you can reduce your

greenhouse gas emissions, you earn a credit. If somebody else is

going to increase theirs, you can sell it to them." And, meanwhile,

we have a gradual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

We need a global agreement, but it has to include India and

China. We need to go back to nuclear power. We cannot be dependent

on $400 billion a year paying for foreign oil. There's a nexus here.

But climate change, in my view, is real. It can affect states

like Florida dramatically, because I think it has to do with violent

weather changes, as well.

But I am confident -- I am confident American technology and the

embrace of green technologies, many of the things that Rudy just

talked about, and nuclear power being one of them, we can reduce these

greenhouse gas emissions.

And suppose that we are wrong, and there's no such thing as

climate change, and we hand our kids a cleaner world. But suppose we

are right and do nothing.

I think that's a challenge for America. We can meet it.

WILLIAMS: Time is up. Senator, time is up, in fact, for this

segment.

We'll take one more break. When we come back, that will take us

the rest of the way tonight with the Republican candidates for

president from Boca Raton, Florida.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: We are back on Boca Raton, Florida tonight. Our final

segment will be going the rest of the way in our 90-minute debate

tonight among the Republican candidates for the nomination.

To resume the questioning, we'll go to you, Mayor Giuliani. Say

what you will about polls and their accuracy these days.

Our latest "NBC News Wall Street Journal" poll shows you having

gone, in the space of 10 months, from a positive rating of 58 percent

to your current low of 29 percent today. And if you cast aside the

polls, your last three finishes have been sixth, fourth and sixth.

What has happened to your campaign?

GIULIANI: This has become a very competitive race and I always

expected it would be a very competitive race, and I believe that I'm

going to have the same fate that the New York Giants had last week,

and we're going to come from behind and surprise everyone.

We have them all lulled into a very false sense of security now.

(LAUGHTER)

When Mitt Romney asked me a question, notice he asked me a very

nice question. So I think I've lulled him into a false sense of

security.

(LAUGHTER)

And we are going to come from behind. We're going to win here in

Florida and if you look at the races that are coming up after that, I

think we're in good shape.

These are terrific candidates. They're all running very, very

good races. I always expected it would be very close and I think it

has -- when it all got down to it, everyone is going to have a chance

and I think we're going to do very well here in Florida and I think

we're going to do very well on February 5th, and I believe that I'll

get the nomination.

WILLIAMS: Senator McCain, next question to you. In an interview

with our friend, Steve Scully over at C-SPAN, your mother, who has

come up in the campaign once or twice, at the age of 95, your mother,

Roberta, said that the Republican Party is going to have to, quote,

"hold its nose and pick you," her son, "as the nominee."

(LAUGHTER)

In all seriousness -- and moms get a special exemption -- it's a

notable...

MCCAIN: Thank you very much.

WILLIAMS: ... it's a notable quote, because she expresses a view

you hear around the GOP, because you haven't voted with your part on

some core stances, like taxes and judges and immigration and campaign

reform.

How do you expect to unite a party behind you?

MCCAIN: In all due respect, I love the way you throw all those

together. I'm so proud of my record on judges, that those of us who

got together and got Justice Alito and Roberts and so many judges

together, and I won't go list by list there, but -- point by point.

But, look, I won the majority of Republican vote in both New

Hampshire and South Carolina. Most conservative Republicans' major

concern is the threat of radical Islamic extremism.

I'm making my case that I can make America safe and safer, I can

restore trust and confidence and that I can make the needed changes to

have the fundamentals of our economy which are still strong bring us

through these difficult times.

Conservative Republicans are also concerned about climate change

that we just mentioned, because of their belief in their stewardship

of this planet and our stewardship.

There's many people who are concerned and have a priority, the

independence of the state of Israel. They know that I know how to

keep Israel independent, as well.

So I'm proud of the broad base of support. I will continue to

work in every way to show people that I have a very, very conservative

record. I'm proud to be a conservative.

But there are times, like when Rumsfeld's strategy was going

wrong, I was criticized by Republicans. When I opposed the "bridge to

nowhere," that was a Republican policy. When I went after Jack

Abramoff, there were people who -- Republicans who suffered from that.

When I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal,

that was a Republican policy deal there. So there are times and the

reason why I've had such strong support amongst independents is

because they know that I'll put my country above my party every single

time, and I'm proud to be a conservative.

WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

Tim?

RUSSERT: Governor Romney, as has become apparent over the last

few weeks, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she'll be

running as a team with her husband.

RUSSERT: Specifically, how would you run against Hillary and

Bill Clinton in November?

ROMNEY: I frankly can't wait, because the idea of Bill Clinton

back in the White House with nothing to do is something I just can't

imagine. I can't imagine the American people can't imagine, and I...

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: What does that mean?

ROMNEY: I just think that we want to have a president, not a

whole -- a team of husband and wife thinking that they're going to run

the country. And instead, you want to elect a president.

But I'm not going to run on the basis of Bill Clinton. If

Hillary Clinton is the nominee, it's going to be Hillary Clinton.

It's going to be her positions and her postures on a whole series of

issues. And frankly, she is so out of step with the American people

on everything from taxes -- she wants to raise taxes.

She has a plan for health care. Her health care plan, quite

simply, is one which says, look, we're going to give health insurance

to everybody by the government. It's going to cost $110 billion more,

every single year, $1 trillion plus dollars over 10 years.

Her approach to the war in Iraq -- just get out as fast as you

can. Just don't even think about the sacrifices that have been made,

or the need to keep Al Qaida from establishing safe havens.

She's exactly what's wrong in Washington. I said before

Washington is broken. She is Washington to the core. She's been

there too long. Bill Clinton has been there too long.

The last thing America needs is sending the Clintons back to

Washington.

Look, sending the same people back to Washington expecting a

different result is not going to get America on track. And I'm going

to make sure that we strengthen this country and we do it the old-

fashioned Republican way, the Ronald Reagan way of pulling together

economic conservatives, social conservatives and foreign policy,

national defense conservatives.

I speak to those three groups. I will pull them together.

That's how we'll win the election and that's also how we're going to

keep the country strong and vibrant.

RUSSERT: Another quick question. People observing this race in

Florida have been somewhat amazed by the number of television ads

you've been running. Can you tell the voters of Florida and

Republicans across the country how much of your own money have you

spent on this race so far?

ROMNEY: In Florida? We'll report that on the 31st of January,

as required by law, and probably not a minute earlier. You'll just

have to wait, Tim.

RUSSERT: But why not tell the voters of Florida and across the

country how much of your own wealth you're spending, so they can make

a judgment and factor that into their own decision?

ROMNEY: Well, I'm not concerned about the voters. I'm much more

concerned about the other guys on this stage. And we have some

competitive information we make sure that we use for our own benefit.

But I can tell you this: I've raised more money than any other

Republican in this race -- raised more. Friends of mine have come

together, people I knew in high school and helped raised money for me.

So I've raised more money, and I've also made a very substantial

contribution. Not as much, by the way, as Jon Corzine did to become

governor of New Jersey. Not as much as Steve Forbes did when he ran

back some years ago. Certainly not as much as Mayor Bloomberg did in

his race. But I made a substantial contribution.

I can't imagine having gone to my friends and asked them to do

what they've done, going out and raising money in my behalf, without

saying I'm going to put some of my contribution behind this effort as

well. Because frankly, I think it's important.

And one thing is real clear: Given the contribution I made in

this race, I know I owe no one anything. I don't have some group

there that I have a special obligation to that raised money for me. I

am by far the biggest contributor to my own campaign, and people can

count on the fact that there's nobody that can call me and say, hey,

look, you owe me. Because they don't.

I'm in this race because I want to make a difference for America.

RUSSERT: Governor (inaudible) from criticism that you're trying

to buy the state of Florida or buy the nomination?

ROMNEY: You know, this is always raised any time someone makes a

contribution to their own campaign. And the answer is, I care very

deeply about this. I've been successful in life, enough to be able to

save enough money. And I'm using that money in a campaign for

presidency to try and change this country.

I'm concerned about the America my kids will inherit and their

kids will inherit, and the kids of the entire nation will inherit.

And I want to make sure that we have a strong and vibrant nation. And

I happen to think that at a time like this, we need someone whose life

has been in the private sector, who knows how America works, not just

how Washington works, but how America works. And for that reason, I'm

giving it my all.

WILLIAMS: Governor, we've got an NBC News-Wall Street Journal

poll coming out in the morning that says, among a lot of other things,

44 percent of respondents say a Mormon president would have a

difficult time uniting the country. And I know you've answered

similar questions about what you were able to do with the Catholic

vote in Massachusetts, but 44 percent nationally, writ large, is a

large number.

ROMNEY: You know, I just don't believe that people in this

country are going to choose their candidate based on which church he

or she goes to. I just don't believe that. And, you know, polls ask

people a lot of questions. And my faith isn't terribly well known

around this country. But I don't think for a minute the American

people are going to say, you know what, we're not going to vote for

this guy for a secular position because of his church. I just don't

believe it.

I think when the Constitution and the founders said no religious

test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public

trust in these United States, that the founders meant just that. And

I don't believe for a minute that Republicans or Americans, for that

matter, are going to impose a religious test when the founders said

it's as un-American as anything you can think of.

ROMNEY: I just don't believe it.

I think when the Constitution and the founders said no religious

test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public

trust in these United States, that the founders meant just that. And

I don't believe for a minute that Republicans or Americans, for that

matter, are going to impose a religious test when the founders said

it's as un-American as anything you can think of.

And so I believe that I'll ultimately get the nomination. I

can't be sure of that, but I'm pretty confident. And I believe in a

head-to-head with Hillary Clinton.

The differences in our perspectives on how to get America going

again and how to get us on the right track are as different as night

and day. She takes her inspiration from the Europe of old, big

brother, big government, big taxes. I take mine from Republican

ideals -- small government, small taxes, individual freedom.

I believe that free American people are the source of America's

greatness. And so I don't think you're going to see religion figuring

into this race after people have had a chance to get to know all the

candidates.

RUSSERT: Dr. Paul -- Congressman Paul, I'd like to talk about

Social Security.

The last time you ran for president, a Libertarian Party

candidate, you filled out a questionnaire asking about Social

Security. And you said, "Abolish it."

There are 3.5 million people in Florida who rely on Social

Security payments. Are you still in favor of abolishing Social

Security?

PAUL: Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program

is the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly.

I'd like to get the young people out -- out of it, just the

younger generation, because there's no money there. And they're going

to have to pay 50 years and they're not going to get anything.

There's no money there.

Now, I'm saying, I'd take care of all the elderly, all those who

are -- who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild

spending overseas. We can save hundreds of billions of dollars and

still take care of the elderly.

Right now they're getting behind because they're having a 10 to

12 percent inflation rate and we give them a 2 percent increase. So

they're really hurting.

I don't want taxes on the Social Security benefits that they

receive. I have a bill in that would secure the trust fund, where

none of that money could be spent in the -- in the general revenues.

So, in many ways, though the goal would be to get us out of this

program that is a failure, it doesn't work, and is going to bankrupt

this country, that the only way you can do that is save enough money,

tide the people over, let the young people get out. Because they're

going to be paying all these years and they're not going to get

anything.

So, ironically, I, who defend the position that, you know, the

federal government probably should have never been involved, I

probably have the only program that would really help the elderly,

because the way we're going now, the money is not going to be there.

There's no way these cost of living increases are ever going to keep

up with their -- you know, their benefits. They're never going to

keep up with the cost of living.

They're decreasing. I say my program has a better chance of

helping them than any other one.

RUSSERT: Governor Huckabee, the chairman of the Federal Reserve,

Ben Bernanke, said very straightforward, if entitlement spending

continues as the baby boomers retire from 40 million to 80 million on

Social Security and Medicare, we'll have to raise taxes by a third or

cut all other programs other than Medicare and Social Security by

half. That is his testimony.

What will you do specifically to save Social Security?

HUCKABEE: I'm going to address that, but I want to first comment

on Mitt's decision on the -- putting an extraordinary amount of money

in the campaign.

First of all, let me say, you've got five exceptional sons I know

you're very proud of. And you said you want them to inherit a great

country. And I have a solution, Mitt, that I think will work.

If the country will elect me president, they'll inherit a great

president and your boys will still get your money, too. And I think

that would be a great answer.

(LAUGHTER)

So I want to offer that as a solution tonight for inheritance.

On the Social Security question, one of the reasons that we're in

trouble is we have a smaller group of people paying into the Social

Security system. Fewer wage earners.

More Americans getting their wealth from dividends and from

investments. So you have a shrinking supply. You have 10,000 baby

boomers a day getting into the system.

One of the reasons I'm a strong supporter of the fair tax is that

you suddenly have a different funding stream for Social Security. It

comes out of the general fund. So you now have a more reliable, a

more stable, and a much broader funding system that will supply Social

Security.

RUSSERT: But if you don't have a fair tax, which is highly

unlikely...

HUCKABEE: Well, you know, everybody keeps talking about how

unlikely it is.

RUSSERT: But...

HUCKABEE: It was unlikely that we'd go to the moon.

RUSSERT: All right. But...

HUCKABEE: It was unlikely that we would have the Manhattan

Project.

RUSSERT: But specifically, what would you do...

HUCKABEE: Being president -- no, Tim, I just want to say,

everybody talks about how unlikely these things are. That's what's

wrong in America.

We're always talking about what we can't do. We need to be

talking about what we can do, whether it's energy independence,

whether it's passing a tax system that will work.

And I do believe when you have an economy that brings that $12

trillion that's parked offshore, bring it back to this country, then

you have a true economic stimulus -- more people going back to work in

America, people making wages. And that's where -- that's where we

start seeing the passing to pay for Social Security.

RUSSERT: Governor Romney, you are a big fan of Ronald Reagan.

Will you do for Social Security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983?

ROMNEY: I'm not going to raise taxes. What I'm going to do

is...

RUSSERT: Well, Ronald Reagan raised the payroll tax. He also

raised the retirement age and he saved Social Security, with Alan

Greenspan and Tip O'Neill and Bob Dole and Pat Moynihan.

Would you do what Ronald Reagan did?

ROMNEY: No. I don't want to raise taxes. I've pointed out that

of the four ways to solve the shortfall in Social Security, the worst

idea is to raise taxes on the American people, because it has a double

whammy.

Not only are you taking money away from their pocketbooks, you're

also slowing down the economy. You slow down the economy, more people

lose work. More people lose work, of course, you're having a lot of

folks that really have their lives turned upside down.

So raising taxes is just something you don't want to do.

There are three other ways that you can solve the problem of

Social Security and they're ways that have been brought forward by a

number of Republicans over the years.

We're going to have to sit down with the Democrats and say,

"Let's have a compromise on these three elements that could get us to

bring Social Security into economic balance."

What are they? Well, number one, you can have personal accounts

where people can invest in something that does better than government

bonds, with some portion of their Social Security. Number two, you

can say we're going to have the initial benefit calculation for

wealthier Americans calculated based on the consumer price index

rather than the wage index. That saves almost two-thirds of the

shortfall.

And, number three, you can change the retirement age. You can

push it out a little bit.

And so those are the three arithmetic things you can do. There's

going to have to be an agreement reached, Republicans and Democrats.

Senator Judd Gregg has introduced legislation cosponsored by

Democrats, saying put an equal number of Republicans and Democrats in

a committee, have them work together, come up with a compromise, bring

it forward, require a 60 percent vote to get the job done, and those

are the three that I think are the ones that have to be pursued for us

to solve the issue of Social Security.

But don't forget, let's not scare anybody listening in who's on

Social Security or near Social Security. It's not going to change the

current program. It's not going to change for anybody who's already

in retirement or near retirement. But we have to be honest to the

people coming along, the program is going to have to change for 20-

and 30- and 40-year-olds.

WILLIAMS: Governor, thanks. Time is up. And to the very

patient Paul Tash we go, in the front row, from the St. Petersburg

Times.

Paul?

TASH: Mayor Giuliani, this question to you comes from Marshall

Brannon (ph) of St. Petersburg.

Your immigration plan calls for all immigrants to learn English

to gain citizenship. So why is your campaign airing an ad in Spanish?

GIULIANI: The reality is I believe that America is a country

that is built around the English language. If you want to become a

citizen, you should demonstrate your facility with English.

If you know other languages, that is wonderful and that's a

wonderful thing and if we have substantial portions of populations

that know other languages, I'm very comfortable trying to reach them

in both English and in Spanish.

The core of my plan on immigration is to stop illegal immigration

at the border, with a border stat system, with technology, with the

increased border patrol. I believe we can stop the illegal

immigration if we stop it right at the border.

And then we should develop a tamper-proof ID card so that people

that want to come into the United States should be allowed to do that.

We have to teach new behavior. The new behavior is if you want to

come into the United States, you have to identify yourself, which,

after all, makes the United States like every other country. Right?

You can't get into most countries without identifying yourself.

And then if you've got the tamper-proof ID card, you'd be allowed to

work, pay taxes, get online, become a citizen, follow the rules. But

at the end of the line, you'd have to be able to read, write and speak

English.

If you speak a second language or a third language or a fourth

language, I think that's great for America. I think America has to be

a country that has facility with more languages given the global

economy we live in and I think we can be very comfortable with that.

But the focus has to be on being able to read, write and speak

English if you want to be a citizen.

RUSSERT: Mayor Giuliani, I'd like to ask a follow-up. I think

many Americans would be surprised by our policy of wet foot-dry foot,

that if a Cuban is caught at sea, he or she is sent back. If one foot

touches American land, they're allowed to stay here.

Why should a Cuban be allowed to stay here, but not a Mexican,

not a Guatemalan, not a Venezuelan fleeing Hugo Chavez, someone

fleeing North Korea, someone fleeing Iran? Why a special policy for a

Cuban?

GIULIANI: Well, of course, this was developed in the 1960s,

because the longest dictatorship, I believe, in the modern world is

the one of Fidel Castro.

The presumption is that if you're fleeing Fidel Castro, given

decades and decades of murder, oppression, including, most recently,

the way he cracked down on the Combio (ph) group, Brothers to the

Rescue, all of these things, there's a presumption in the immigration

law that if you're fleeing Fidel Castro, you're fleeing political

persecution.

GIULIANI: In every other situation, you have to prove it. If

you can prove that you're fleeing political persecution, you'll be

accepted. We've had this exception now for -- what is it -- 40 years.

And I think it's fair one, given the history of Castro, which is a

pretty unusual one. And he is the longest-standing dictator,

certainly in this hemisphere, I believe in the world.

WILLIAMS: We have another question from Paul Tash in the

audience.

TASH: Governor Huckabee, this questions comes from David Haney

(ph) in Spring Hill, Florida.

Chuck Norris, one of your most vocal supporters, recently said

that at 72 Senator McCain would be too old to withstand the rigors of

the presidency. Do you agree or disagree?

MCCAIN: Did you get my response?

HUCKABEE: I did hear what Chuck said. I was standing with him.

And I didn't disagree with him at the time, because I was standing

next to him.

(LAUGHTER)

It's as simple as that. This is a guy who can put this foot on

that side of my face, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Now, I have said publicly -- in fact, I think it was the debate

we had, gosh, back in New Hampshire. And I publicly said -- and I

have said it many times -- I don't think that Senator McCain lacks the

rigor and the capacity to be president.

And I said, if you look at his mother and see her strength at 95,

of all the things we can pick on Senator McCain for, that ain't one of

them. There may be some other things I can pick on Senator McCain

about, but not that.

And, frankly, I think he's demonstrated in the campaign that he's

got the capacity to run. He and I would have different approaches to

be president, but I promise you that is not an issue for me. It might

be from Chuck, but I'm far enough away from him that I feel

comfortable in saying that now.

WILLIAMS: Governor, thank you.

Senator McCain, because it's your mother, 15 seconds.

MCCAIN: Well, now that Sylvester Stallone has endorsed me, I'm

sending him over to take care of Chuck Norris right away.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm going to get him.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: There you go. And I'm glad that "Stormin'" Norman,

General Schwarzkopf has endorsed me, as well. I'm very honored.

We'll send him, too.

WILLIAMS: We're getting into the final round of questions where

it makes staying to time, yellow lights, then red, essential. And

we're going to enforce it.

These questions are designed to speak to who you all are in terms

of how you counter the attacks against you from your opponents, the

weaknesses your opponents, among others, perceive.

Mayor Giuliani, we're going to begin with you. In tomorrow

morning's editions of the New York Times, they are out with their

endorsements in the New York primary, Senator Clinton on the

Democratic side, Senator McCain on the Republican side.

In tonight's lead editorial, they say, quote, "The real Mr.

Giuliani, who many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow,

obsessively secretive, vindictive man. His arrogance and bad judgment

are breathtaking."

How can you defend against that in your hometown paper? How have

you changed as a man since this portrait?

GIULIANI: Because I probably never did anything the New York

Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. And if

I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican.

I changed welfare.

(APPLAUSE)

I changed quality of life. I took on homelessness. I did all

the things that they thought make you mean, and I believe show true

compassion and true love for people.

I moved people from welfare to work. When I did that, when I set

up workfare, the New York Times wrote nasty editorials about how mean

I was, how cruel I was. I think there's a serious ideological

difference.

And I worked for Ronald Reagan. And I remember once, when I was

in the Justice Department, the New York Times wrote a very laudatory

editorial about my boss, Bill Smith, the attorney general. And Bill

was very nervous that Ronald Reagan would get upset that we were off

agenda because of the good New York Times editorial.

So the reality is that I think there is serious ideological

differences. That probably was some of the nicest language they've

written about me in the last six months.

WILLIAMS: Governor Romney, since we've been on the air tonight,

one of the other campaigns has faxed us with a charge about you that

you've heard before, that Governor Romney, quote, "changes positions

with the wind."

One of your own advisers admits the perception among all of the

candidates on stage is that you have changed over time your positions,

that you haven't paid your dues. The New York Times yesterday called

you the most disliked of the five.

Your defense on all that?

ROMNEY: Gosh, that's tough on their part, but, you know, I'm not

terribly worried about their attacks, frankly. I'm not going to

Washington to make friends with politicians; I'm going to Washington

to change things. So I'm not going to worry about that one.

I can tell you that I'm proud of the things that we've been able

to do in my state.

ROMNEY: And when people come after me and say, where do you

stand on this or where do you stand on that, I can point to a very

simple way to find out exactly where I stand, and that is look at my

record as governor.

Every issue that we're talking about in this race that's of a

domestic nature, I dealt with as the governor of Massachusetts. And

so on the issue of abortion, for instance, I came down on the side of

life consistently as governor in every way I knew how I could do that.

At the end of my term, I got awarded by the Citizens for Life in

Massachusetts the leadership award for my service in that regard.

In terms of marriage, as the governor, I fought same-sex marriage

every way I could find a way to do that. And I actually went to

Washington to testify in favor of an amendment to preserve the

sanctity of marriage.

I also have a very clear record with regards to taxes. I said I

was not going to raise taxes, lowered them 19 times. Balanced the

budget four times. Created surpluses that reestablished a ready (ph)

day fund of over $2 billion.

I have a sound record also with regards to the Second Amendment.

As I indicated, the legislation I signed was legislation worked out

between two sides, two very different sides who came together to find

ways to make the Second Amendment work in our state.

So I've got a record that's solid. I know that now and then my

opponents will try and cause questions to arise in people's minds.

But I'm proud of where I stand and I'm happy to show people my record

to show it's been consistent.

WILLIAMS: Time has expired.

Senator McCain, we've talked about the issue that arose with the

Chuck Norris fight, shall we say, with your mom. The "L.A. Times"

famously wrote recently that your own temper, "has been an issue for

years."

Do you see that as a possible impediment?

MCCAIN: I don't.

(LAUGHTER)

I've -- look, I've dealt with people and my friends and

colleagues for many, many years. I think they know me.

I don't think I would have the support of so many of my

colleagues that I work with every day if that -- if that were the

case. And I've been able not only to make close friendships and warm

ones over the years, but also across the aisle.

If you'll indulge me one second, I know this is unusual, but I

happen to know Rudy Giuliani. I happen to know he's an American hero.

And I happen to have gone to New York City after 9/11. And I'm proud

of the way he led this country and united it following 9/11.

And all these are good people who are running here. And I

respect them. And I intend to respect them both during and after this

campaign is over.

WILLIAMS: Governor Huckabee, a Bush administration official said

that your use of faith in your campaign gave him a "queasy feeling."

Your response to that.

HUCKABEE: I would say that would be his problem, not mine. My

faith does not give me a queasy feeling. It gives me a solid core

from which I'm able to live every day.

I don't wake up every day and have to look at a poll to decide

what I believe. My faith grounds me, it gives me a sense of direction

and purpose.

I don't try to impose it on other people. And I certainly would

never use the auspices of government to try to push my faith.

But for me to run from it, impossible. It's who I am. And so if

it gives some people a queasy feeling, then they'll have to deal with

it.

The fact is, this country has always been a country where people

were able to respect people who had faith. And frankly, we ought to

be able to respect people who don't have any.

I mean, I don't feel like a person has to share my faith to share

my love of this country. But if a person hates me or dislikes me

because of my faith, I'm not sure if they understand what it means to

truly be an American, where we can live with each other no matter how

different our faith is, but at least we have that understanding that

historically faith has been an important part of who this country is.

Most Americans believe in God. As I've often said, if you want a

president that doesn't, you'll have to pick somebody else.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Governor.

Congressman Paul, the other campaigns have said to you that their

worry is that you won't stick to your party. If you look at yourself

and see yourself some day as unelectable, perhaps you would launch a

third party movement and hurt the Republicans.

PAUL: My biggest concern is they won't stick to the party

principles that Republicans stood for, for so long. And you know,

being conservative and balanced budgets, and limited government, and

individual freedom, no, I have no intention of going into another

party.

I've been elected 10 times as a Republican. I was from a

Republican family. And no, I don't plan to do that.

I wish they would worry about it, you know, just in case. But,

no, I have no intention of doing that, but it might keep them on their

toes.

But, no, I just think that the Republican Party has a problem

because we don't act like Republicans. And we talked about this

earlier, you know, that we're spending money that we don't have, we

run up these deficits.

PAUL: We -- instead -- you know, in the old days, we used to be

against the Department of Education. Now we doubled the size of it.

No Child Left Behind -- even the Democrats are running against some of

the things that we do, and they used to love that kind of stuff.

And it used to be that we used to stop the wars. We stopped the

Korean War. We were supposed to stop the Vietnam War that Democrats

started. And here, we're starting these wars. So that's why we've

lost our way.

So I don't think it's a matter of me leaving the Republican

Party. If they would look toward what we're doing and the number of

people who want to come into the party, they shouldn't be obstructing

us. They should welcome.

The party is getting smaller. Yet they say, oh, you're too

strict on the Constitution. Why shouldn't us, who believe strictly in

the constitutional rule of law, be excluded? That's the way a lot of

the people that gather around my candidacy think they're being

treated.

So I would say, why don't we have a big tent and welcome those of

us who believe in liberty and believe in the Constitution? That's

what it's all about, and that's what the Republican Party used to

stand for.

WILLIAMS: Congressman, thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

That will have to be the -- before we allow the audience the chance to release their pent-up feelings about tonight, and as we bring tonight's debate to a close, we would like to remind those who missed any or all of tonight's debate, it will re-air on MSNBC tonight at 9:00 p.m. on the West Coast, midnight here in the East.

END

[iowamark]

NY Times single page version at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/us/politics/24text-debate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

[VU4G10]

Giuliani:
The core of my plan on immigration is to stop illegal immigration

at the border, with a border stat system, with technology, with the

increased border patrol. I believe we can stop the illegal

immigration if we stop it right at the border.

And then we should develop a tamper-proof ID card so that people

....zzzzzzzzz