Mitt Romney/HRR Interview Transcript

EM: This is Ed; I am my own producer, so eh, you get me right off the bat. [Laughter]

GR: That’s fine. Well it’s been awhile, since, I guess we saw each other quite a while ago.

EM: We saw each other in June, yeah. I’m looking forward to you coming through Minnesota and hopefully I’ll get a chance to do another ride along with your campaign. It was a great experience the first time, thank you.

EM: Well, we want to get a few questions here; I know that you’re pressed for time. First off, this has been a tough campaign; it’s been over a year, in progress and these campaigns tend to really wear on people, how do you see this year long trial that everybody has gone through not just yourself and how’s it affected you and your family

GR: You know a years long process like this which is as intensive as it is really does test the mental of the people who are running for president. It not a bad idea to see who has the stamina and energy to assume the presidency. In my case, my kids are raised and the campaign has brought them back in to the family everyday. They’re on the campaign trail and I get to see one or the other of them almost, you know, every few days or every week at least and that’s fun. I enjoy campaigning with my sons, daughters in law and grandkids. Ann and I have typically have separate schedules and we’re together every few days. That’s the hardest part. You know, I like being with my wife and when we’re apart, that makes it tough. But energy wise, you get a lot of energy from the people you meet and of course from the friendship you make. They’re has never been an experience in my life where I have met so many people and made so many friends.

EM: Well, as a matter of fact, it has already started to narrow down the field. I mean after a full year, we’re finally starting to see some of the field drop away and it’s kind of coming down to two or three candidates here or four candidates at the end and with the departure of Fred Thompson from the race, conservatives who were backing Fred Thompson are looking to find the Reagan coalition conservative in the race that they can back. You have been trying to make the argument for being that candidate all along. Can you concisely state what makes you the Reagan coalition conservative that can hold together the party?

GR: Well, I do represent all three branches of the conservative coalition. I’m a social conservative. I respect the right to life; I respect traditional family and I respect the right to citizens to bear arms and so from a social conservative standpoint, my credentials are firm. With regards to economic conservative my record is of not having raised taxes; balanced the budget of all four years of Governor; created a surplus account for over two billion dollars during my term as Governor and so my record of a growth conservative is also firm. And finally with regards to foreign policy and national defense, I am in support of growing our military capacity by a hundred thousand troops. I’m the first, I believe, of the candidates for calling raising military spending to fours percent of GDP. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has now called for a similar figure and I believe that these credentials as well as my perspective on helping developing the world wide strategy to defeat global Jihad establish my credentials as a conservative in all three areas of conservative strength.

EM: Now, regarding global Jihad, are you in favor of pursuing the same type of forward of strategy as the Bush administration has used? I’m not necessarily speaking about Iraq, but in terms of making sure that Americans forces are deployed in areas where the Jihadis have to address America through its military rather than attacking its civilians. That’s been sort of a concept that the Bush Administration has been trying to use since 2001. Do you plan to use a similar strategy or do you plan to adjust this in a different direction?

GR: Well, we face a wide array of nations that are under the threat of global Jihadist, and some like the Philippines or Indonesia the threat is of a very different nature of that, which is being experienced in a place like Iraq and so our involvement and the nature of our involvement is going to be different. So let me describe the kind of options we have. First, I would bring together other nations along with ourselves to make sure collectively that we are fighting global Jihad and that we are fighting it with our military as well as our non-military resources. In terms of our military force, in some cases it will require the kind of actions that you see in a place like Afghanistan, a full military attack. In others, a different kind of military effort would be called for. As an example, in the Philippines, an Army Special Forces team was able to help those people reject an offshoot of Al Qaeda. This was not, you know, men with rifles and tanks but instead a Special Forces unit that helped build bridges, build water projects, move the civilian population to support the Filipino government and democracy and ultimately that has virtually eliminated the threat of global Jihad there. And I have called for what I have described as a special partnership force; meaning the creation of small units of intelligence plus army special forces personnel which are able to drawn into a nation which ask for help, to support that nation in its effort to reject the violent and the extreme. In many cases, the Muslim nation itself will be able to do the best job in eliminating the threat of radical Jihadist and we can support that effort through a special partnership force of the type I have described. Incidentally, in this regard, I have received counsel and perspective from Cofer Black and _______ two of the people who for many, many years lead our anti terrorist effort.

EM: Where do you see our efforts going in Afghanistan and Pakistan? That’s really the two biggest hot spots terms of global Jihad now and it seems like the gains that we’ve made are increasingly at risk and instability especially in Pakistan seems to be one of the greatest threats that we face. How would you specifically address those issues?

GR: Well, when I was in Afghanistan and in Iraq, my conclusion I remarked to the other Governors I was with in some respects, it looked to me like Afghanistan was going to be tougher long term even than Iraq because it is so backward economically. It does not have the kind of economy strength to be able to protect itself in the way a more developed nation might. With regards to Pakistan, however, there are several things that are critical to us. Number one is to secure the nuclear weaponry and make sure it does not fall into terrorist hands. The new army chief of staff General Kiyani is someone in who we have a good deal of confidence and we should be in constant communication with him and his military to be sure the radical elements in the country and the military do not make a play to remove the leadership that is moderate and modern. Secondly, we have an objective to eliminate Al-Qaeda from Pakistan and I do believe that it makes sense for our military along with other NATO military to participate along with the Pakistanis in effort to eliminate Al-Qaeda from Pakistan. Three, we want to keep the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from crossing from crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan and disrupting the peace and security of Afghanistan and again that is an effort that is going to have to be worked collaboratively between ourselves and the Pakistani military. And finally, we want to see Pakistan itself achieve a level of greater stability. I believe that the government needs to have the legitimacy associated with democracy as a nation and for that reason, I am looking forward to elections where General Musharraf will presumably be able to share power with the Zahari family as well as the Sharif and his party. I think a broader democratization has the potential of having greater legitimacy and stabilizing elements within the nation so that we can concentrate together on the threat of radical Jihadist within their borders.

EM: Let’s talk about some domestic priorities for conservatives and ask you to address conservatives on those issues. First off, the second amendment there was some concern whether or not that you would support an assault weapons band and the parameters of that. You’ve described yourself as a “second amendment” conservative; could you talk a little bit about how you see assault weapons bands as part of that.

GR: Like President Bush, I would have signed the extension on of the last assault weapon band. It was not brought forward to his desk he, therefore, did not sign it. I do not support any new assault weapon band including a ban on semi automatic weapons. Of course if there are weapons of extreme lethality — automatic weapons and the like — I would support banning those as does as the NRA and other groups support bans of those nature, not only on current weapons of that nature but of new potential weapons of that nature. But I do not support a new federal law to ban the so called assault weapons, and that of course includes semi automatic weapons. I do support background checks and those were, I believe, important in trying to reduce the practice of people who have committed crimes or mentally unstable having weapons and I do support that and I do not support a new Brady bill to do that because now we have new technology that allows that to be done instantly. And therefore, I support the second amendment and I think in every way that other supporters of the second amendment would hope. I believe the right to bear arms is personal and therefore, I am expecting the Supreme Court to make the right decision and to affirm the right of individuals to bear arms.

EM: Let’s talk a little bit about entitlement programs. You’re a businessman, extremely successful businessman; you understand how unfunded liabilities can build up. We have a couple of great examples of that in the federal government, we’ve got Social Security, we’ve got Medicare, both of which are heading towards unbelievable crisis. How would you address the multi trillion dollar crisis that’s coming in both Social Securities and Medicare and more importantly how can you unite Republicans and Democrats behind a sensible solution that doesn’t include raising taxes?

GR: Well, you know, the closer you get to crisis the greater the likelihood is you can actually get progress and we are approaching crisis where instead of putting money away, if you were saving money in Social Security and Medicare, we’re going to have put money into those programs from the federal budget and so this is going to concentrate the mind of a lot of Senators and Representatives in both parties. Social Security is the easy one and the reason is that we know mathematically the steps that you take to balance Social Security and to make it economically firm and the Democrats want to raise taxes to do that and I say no to raising taxes, I say instead, personal accounts, a retirement age and a new calculation for the initial benefit for the people that are wealthier. And the combination of those three latter factors will allow us to balance Social Security. Medicare requires a more fundamental reform of overall health care. Reform such as the kind we put in place in my state with full transparency, allowing citizens to be able to purchase co-insurance where they’re responsible for a percent of their bill.
These will dramatically change health care in our nation and finally reign in the excessive growth in health care. Some combination of dramatic basic reforms of health care are going to required to improve Medicare and I would have hoped that those would be done as part of the Medicare part D negotiations but as you know, it was not.

I’m a social conservative. I respect the right to life; I respect traditional family and I respect the right to citizens to bear arms and so from a social conservative standpoint, my credentials are firm. With regards to economic conservative my record is of not having raised taxes; balanced the budget of all four years of Governor; created a surplus account for over two billion dollars during my term as Governor and so my record of a growth conservative is also firm.

Respects the right to life by doing nothing to support it. Rather he approved a plan to make a Planned Parenthood activist a permanent member of the board on his plan. He enplaced judges, by his own choice, that were Liberal activists in the worst ways. He tried to talk the talk, but did not come close to walking the walk.

Fiscally, he cut taxes and raised fees to more than make up the difference, did not support the Bush tax cuts, both of which he attacks his opponents for doing.

He is as bad or worse than McCain. Such a sad state the purportedly Conservative party has fallen to that people glomp onto him hoping that he might keep promises he showed no signs of keeping in the past.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.