Sarah Palin's $159,050 Conflict of Interest

At Huffington Post, Chris Kelly writes:

While you read this, Alaska's First Dude, Todd Palin, is riding a snowmobile -- I'm sorry, snow machine -- 1971 miles from Big Lake to Fairbanks. In the course of performing this awesome feat, his Arctic Cat's powerful two-stroke engine will emit the same amount of hydrocarbons as an automobile driving from Chicago to San Francisco and back 150 times.

A small price for the rest of us to pay to honor the indomitability of the human spirit and one man's ability to sit and hold on.

It's not just a blaze of glory and aromatic hydrocarbon. A conventional two-stroke engine emits as much as a quarter of its fuel unburned, directly into the air. This week, as a participant in the Iron Dog™ snow machine race, Todd Palin will release as many cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants as a Chevy Malibu driven around the Earth at its equator 28 times.

Seems like a lot of work, just to get away from Sarah Palin.

But Todd's not just doing it because he hates his home life and likes things that make loud noises and emit benzene. He does it because it's there. And for hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts from corporations who do business with the Governor's office.

For riding a snowmobile.

Something you could train a bear to do.

The Emperor Nero used to clean up at the Olympic games. It was eerie. He won everything. According to Suetonius, he once won a chariot race despite falling off and not finishing the course. That's how good he was. He also never wore the same clothes twice. So he would have fit right in with the Palins there also.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just saying.

The total purse value of this year's Iron Dog™ is $159,050. The sponsors include the petroleum giants Tesoro and Conoco-Phillips; State Farm, Wells Fargo, Frontier Airlines, Alaska Airlines and the Alaska First National Bank.

The Iron Dog™ has fewer than 40 entrants a year, and one of them is always Todd.

Does this smell? I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I hate the cold and I think motor sports is an oxymoron. But he is Alaska's First Lady, and Tesoro is an oil company.

Let's say this was Louisiana in the '30s. If Texaco sponsored a pancake-eating contest, and Huey Long's wife kept winning it, there would have been talk.

To be fair, Todd can't win the whole purse. There are lots of little door prizes just for rookies and women and steak dinners for Cutest Hat. Just like in Jack London days.

And, to be fair, Todd doesn't always walk away from the camping trip with the hundred grand first prize. He's only won four times.

Once after Sarah was elected to the Wasilla City Council, once after she was elected mayor, the year she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, and the year she was elected governor.

Palin Signs Capitol Spending Bill, But Vetoes Majority of Projects

But Did She Really?

The AP's Anne Sutton reports:

Gov. Sarah Palin signed a hotly disputed state supplemental budget bill Thursday, using her line item veto pen to strike more than 80 percent of $70 million in capital projects that were inserted by lawmakers.

But it’s not all bad news for them. She’s recommending that most of those vetoed projects be funded in the 2009 capital budget instead, using this year’s surplus revenues from high oil prices. That’s a promise legislators are banking on.

“Overall I’m pretty pleased with it,” said House Finance Committee Co-Chairman Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage. “It’s my understanding she approved the projects; she just wants them vetted in a different vehicle.”

Local members of the Republican Senate minority largely credited Palin for her approach.

“The minority was on board to have them all moved — if any of them were to remain,” said Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole. “But I think the way she split it was fair.”

Sen. Gary Wilken, R-Fairbanks, a former Senate Finance Committee co-chair, called the move a “reasonable approach.”

He said he’d never heard of any other governor doing it, but added, “We’ve never done capital in the supplemental, either.”

Capital projects have been included in the supplemental budget before, but not in the manner they were this year.

The supplemental budget bill became the battleground in recent weeks between lawmakers asserting their power of appropriation and the governor asserting her right to constrain and shape government spending.

Although the $4.3 billion budget contains significant items, such as $3.6 billion in savings, $18 million for senior benefits and $125 million in tax credits for oil and gas producers, it was capital projects that captured the most attention.

Palin left 52 projects worth $12.4 million in the bill, mostly for rural areas where she said timing was critical for barging in equipment and supplies for this year’s building season.

She is recommending that 155 projects totaling $35.4 million be added to the capital budget.

The remaining 16 projects totaling $22.3 million were vetoed outright.

“It’s time to move beyond the supplemental and work together in a cooperative manner to move Alaska forward,” Palin said.

The House Finance Committee begins work this week on the Senate’s version of the capital budget, which Palin roundly criticized, saying it lacked critical projects.

Now Palin must work with Meyer to see her own items, such as Dalton Highway repairs and deferred maintenance on state-owned facilities, reinserted. Meyer expects to work cooperatively.

“What we found out with the supplemental is that she is listening to us,” Meyer said. “I’m anticipating that we are going to be working closer with the governor as we put together the capital budget on the House side.”

Palin’s decision ends two weeks of meetings with individual lawmakers over the construction projects and equipment that were among the scores of community and school district priorities that she vetoed last summer, to the surprise and anger of lawmakers.

All but five legislators accepted her invitation to meet and explain why their districts’ projects should be included in a bill that is normally reserved for emergencies and cost overruns in the current fiscal year.

The exercise was invaluable, Palin said.

“My staff and I listened and learned a great deal about the many needs across the state. The needs are great and vary dramatically from one community to another,” Palin wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, announcing the bill’s signing.

Palin left $4 million in the budget for the design and construction of a public safety building in Nome and $1.3 million to extend electrical service to key airport safety equipment in Juneau. The bill also includes numerous school maintenance and water and sewer upgrades in rural villages as well as Anchorage traffic improvements.

Of the projects that were vetoed outright, four had already been completed while others had other funding sources available. A $10 million expansion of the Anchorage port was recommended for a bond package and $5 million for Palmer Wasilla Highway improvements was recommended for funding in the 2010 budget.

House lawmakers met with Palin in March in an unsuccessful effort to ward off another round of vetoes. House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, was disappointed when the talks fell through but is pleased with the final outcome.

“I think there are still difficulties, but this was very smart. The way the supplemental was worked through made sense,” Kerttula said. “I hope everybody comes out of their corners and starts working well with each other. We want to see a good working relationship on all levels.”

The Senate resisted invitations to negotiate with Palin about the supplemental budget.

Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, said the capital budget should ideally be crafted “so whomever the governor is has little or no need to use the veto, and they don’t use the veto pen as a de facto budget-writing vehicle.

“The more communication the governor has with the Legislature, which is the appropriating body, the better.”

The bill is Senate Bill 256.

Staff writer Stefan Milkowski and Associated Press writer Steve Quinn contributed to this report.


Gov. Sarah Palin has used her line item veto to strike two-thirds of the capital projects that lawmakers had earlier inserted into a spending bill for the current year.

She left 52 projects worth $12 million in the bill, mostly for rural areas where she said timing was critical for barging in equipment and supplies.

She is recommending that 155 projects totaling $35 million be added to next year's capital budget instead. Some Fairbanks-area projects also survived the cuts; others were set aside. See list below.

The remaining 16 projects totaling $22 million were vetoed outright. These were projects that she had vetoed last summer in the 2008 capital budget.

Palin's staff visited lawmakers' offices ahead of time to inform them of her decision.

The governor signed Senate Bill 256 into law on Thursday. The $4.3 billion supplemental budget bill also adds $3.6 billion to savings accounts and pays for revenue sharing and weatherization programs.

Fairbanks-area projects that survived the cuts include:

-$140,000 Weller Elementary water tanks

-$160,000 North Pole water treatment plant roof

Projects Palin wants moved to the capital budget:

-$500,000 Delta Junction street paving and lighting

-$360,000 J.P. Jones Community Development Center improvements

-$220,000 Tanana Valley Sportsmen’s Association shooting range

-$100,000 Tanana Valley Farmers Market upgrades

-$50,000 Cultural Heritage & Education Institute

-$32,000 Salcha Fair Association playground and fair building

-$25,000 Tanana Valley Sportsmen’s Association facilities

-$20,000 Fairbanks Downtown Association downtown upgrades

-$15,000 Tanana Valley State Fair Association

-$10,000 Fairbanks Youth Facility climbing wall

-$5,000 Fairbanks Soil and Water Conservation District noxious weed project

And The Wind Waits ... And Waits ...

The waiting list for proposed wind energy projects in the state is 612 years. But changes are afoot.

The Star Tribune reports:

To anyone who wants to join the wind energy movement, Ryan Wolf says: Get in line.

Wolf, of Le Sueur, Minn., has been waiting almost two years for the go-ahead to build 27 wind turbines in the southwest part of the state.

It's anyone's guess how much longer he'll be waiting, given a backlog of applications that technically could take more than 600 years to clear at the federal agency that stands between him and the renewable energy marketplace.

"The queue is the biggest problem we're struggling with," agreed Clair Moeller, a vice president at that gatekeeper agency in St. Paul, the Midwest Independent Transmission System (Midwest ISO).

While the national mood has shifted to embrace renewable energy, and states including Minnesota have pledged increased usage, conditions on the ground are not making it easy. Developers point to shortages of the wind turbines, engineers to run them and transmission lines to carry the electricity they produce.

But many say the biggest immediate problem is the bottleneck at the regional agencies of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- Midwest ISO, in 15 Upper Midwest states -- that give projects permission to connect to existing power lines.

And the Midwest is in the worst shape, they say, because its windy plains are prompting more project proposals than anywhere else.

Moeller's staff has adapted new procedures -- one is clustering several proposals into a single study -- so they expect to be able to clear the queue in 50 years instead of 600. And this spring he will ask federal regulators to approve more adaptations to further speed the process.

But every passing year drives up the cost of the projects -- which is passed on to consumers. And the backlog stands in the way of Minnesota's pledge to get 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

"You simply can't get there on time," Moeller said.

Midwest ISO is like a combined roadway planner and traffic cop for the 94,000 miles of power lines within its borders. Moeller runs one of its two central offices out of a one-story, warehouse-type building in a residential St. Paul neighborhood.

Engineers there control the minute-to-minute activity of every utility that sends electricity through the area's power grid.

The agency also vets all the requests by new power projects to connect to the already congested transmission system.

Each request takes about two years to process, because Midwest ISO's obligations include locating any point along the grid that's already maxed out -- even hundreds of miles away. Then it has to put a dollar figure on the work needed at those points -- something similar to adding two lanes to an overloaded four-lane highway -- and then give that bill to the developer.

Federal regulators set up that process as first-come, first-served, in part because everything is so interconnected. Also, by regulation, all requests must be handled one at a time. So, technically, Moeller's staff should spend two years on the project at the top of the list before proceeding to the second one, for two years, and so on. That comes to 612 years for the 306 requests now in the Midwest ISO queue.

The system functioned better when it handled the few, big coal or nuclear power plants that came along. But wind projects are small, and there are many more of them -- three of every four proposals now on the list. And they take about as long to study as do the big projects.

Don't mess with Texas

Texas has found a better way, in the view of Rob Gramlich, policy director at the American Wind Energy Association, a Washington-based industry group.

That state, which is an ISO unto itself, has completely separated grid issues from its vetting process. So, when Texas ISO processes power project applications, all it has to price for them is their "driveways" -- the new power lines to run between them and the grid.

That helped Texas connect three times more wind energy than any other state last year, Gramlich said.

That kind of arrangement works better in a one-state ISO, Moeller said. It's a different proposition to get the legislatures and utilities commissions in 15 states agreed and organized to maintain one another's grids, he said.

Instead, Midwest ISO has gotten permission from federal regulators to consider a "cluster" of several geographically close proposals at once, Moeller said. It also can process several proposals at the same time if they are far enough apart that they will affect different stretches of the grid.

Moeller wants the regulators to approve several more changes to the queuing system. For example, he would like some remedy to this predicament: Now, after their two-year study, project developers have three more years to decide whether to go ahead and build. In the meantime, everybody behind them in line has to wait.

The biggest change Moeller wants is to flip the process from supply-driven to demand-driven. He would like the Midwest ISO states to develop plans for how much and where its future energy needs will be. Then, developers will have to plug any proposals into those plans.

Without that, developers hot on the renewable energy trend are overwhelming Midwest ISO with more proposals than are conceivably possible in the foreseeable future, Moeller said.

For example, even though Midwest ISO's states have announced a collective stretch goal of 12,600 megawatts of renewable energy over the next several years -- half of those are Minnesota's -- Moeller's agency has proposals for 55,000 more.

Another example from Moeller: The transmission system in the Buffalo Ridge area in southern Minnesota now has a customer load capacity of 40 to 50 megawatts. The windy region logically appeals to developers, and several utilities are proposing power line expansions that would add 1,900 megawatts by 2014. But Midwest ISO has proposals in its queue for 55,000 more megawatts for the region.

"That mismatch isn't always so dramatic, but there's a mismatch everywhere," he said.

As time goes by

In the meantime, all this waiting is expensive, Wolf said. He and his 14 partners submitted their proposal for a 27-turbine, 57-megawatt project in March 2006, hoping for approval by 2007, construction of one year, then opening for business this year.

"Those dates all burned by," Wolf said.

In the meantime, they have about $100,000 in expenses tied up with Midwest ISO, as well as other legal fees, permitting fees and land agreements. And they can't commit to a sales contract with a utility until they know what price they'll need to cover the costs -- turbines and transformers, for example -- that are rising between 10 and 30 percent a year.

Industry estimates now put total installation costs at about $1.8 million per megawatt of capacity.

"Those kind of delays are almost certainly going to overrun budgets," Wolf said.

"In our case, we haven't hit the point where we've decided to walk away from the project, but I could see scenarios for others where that would happen."

John Warner Retirement Could Lead to Dem Sweep In Virginia

At RealClearPolitics.com, Reid Wilson writes:

As population moves and ideology shifts, Democrats have found new success in states which have long stymied their progress. Thanks to shifting political fortunes and an influx of new voters into one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the country, Virginia is one of those states. In 2008, Democrats think they have a good chance of picking up a crucial U.S. Senate seat in the Commonwealth, primarily because of what could be the bloodiest primary in the nation.

The rosy scenario hinges on one key proposition: That long-time Virginia Senator John Warner, a moderate Republican seen as an expert on the military and on foreign policy by both parties, hangs up his spikes and leaves public service. The five-term senator, who served as Secretary of the Navy, has faced just two serious challenges in his long career.

In his last race, Warner faced two independents and took home 83% of the vote. If he made a bid for a sixth term, it is unlikely any serious challenger would emerge.

But so far, Warner has shown little interest in raising money, fueling rumors that he may be ready, at age 80, to retire. Warner has raised just $72,414 since the 2006 elections, including a haul of only $500 in the first quarter of this year. He retained $734,000 cash on hand through June 30, though he paid just one employee in 2008, according to FEC data.

Should Warner retire, the stage will be set for a long-anticipated fight between two wings of the Virginia Republican Party. Congressman Tom Davis, a moderate from the Washington suburbs in Northern Virginia, will likely face off against conservative former Governor Jim Gilmore, who dropped out of the presidential race earlier this year but has recently talked openly of running for the Senate.

Neither has said they will run, out of deference to the incumbent, but both are making moves indicating their willingness to jump in at a moment's notice. Two sources said both candidates are making phone calls to supporters, telling them that they will run if the incumbent decides not to, in hopes of starting a campaign on strong footing.

Davis is making what looks suspiciously like a campaign swing through Southern Virginia this week, while Gilmore has done several interviews with Virginia media, answering questions about a possible Senate bid.

The moves come as no surprise to political observers. "The worst-kept secret in Washington is that Tom Davis wants to run statewide," said Craig Shirley, a veteran national Republican strategist with roots in the Virginia GOP. "This guy's been actually running his campaign [for Senate] for months," said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the Cook Political Report. Davis has already stockpiled more than $1 million for an eventual run.

For his part, Gilmore seems to relish the chance to take on Davis in a primary. "Certainly, Congressman Davis would like to be the senator," he told the Charlottesville Daily Progress last week. "We're pretty confident that the message that I have and the record that I have would make me the nominee."

Both candidates have had political success, though their approach could hardly be more divergent. Davis hails from Northern Virginia, where he is often jokingly referred to as R-Orange Line, a reference to his advocacy for residents of Washington and the area's metro system. Supporters say that Davis' moderate stance, coupled with his home base in the north, makes him the perfect candidate to win statewide.

Senator George Allen lost Northern Virginia by about 120,000 votes in 2006, on his way to a narrow loss of less than half of one percent statewide. If Davis, popular in his Fairfax County base, can hold Democrats' margin down, while running up vote totals in the traditionally Republican south, he will be able to keep the seat in Republican hands, strategists say.

For Gilmore, the argument is reversed. Strategists for the governor point out that while Davis has never been elected statewide, Gilmore has twice won election, and remains popular with the GOP base. In calculating where Gilmore could do well, his backers say the governor is much better suited to a general election win than Davis. "The base Republican vote in Virginia is the downstate areas," said Boyd Marcus, a long-time Virginia political operative who will back Gilmore if he runs. "If you can't win the Richmond suburbs and you can't win rural Virginia, it doesn't make any difference what you do in Northern Virginia."

To Marcus, Gilmore's conservative credentials will make him the favorite not only in the primary but also in the general, as he is better able to appeal to the Republican base. "There are several Democrats who are stronger on some issues, like the life issue and gun issues, than Tom Davis."

There is little love lost between the two. Shirley, who is not yet backing a candidate in the race, sums up feelings many observers have: "It'll be a bloodbath," he says.

That bloodbath will play out in one of two ways, because of Virginia party rules: Candidates will compete either in a convention or in a primary, though many disagree on which forum benefits which candidate. A primary might benefit Davis, who would almost certainly have more money than Gilmore to spend on ads and organization. Or a primary could favor Gilmore, who is better known among the GOP base in the state's southern regions.

A convention, made up of party regulars, could help Davis, because those partisans would understand the need to nominate a candidate who can perform well politically. Davis would begin, some say, as the establishment candidate, despite Gilmore's former position as governor and his stint as chairman of the Republican National Committee. "There were a lot of establishment Republicans who were not members of the Jim Gilmore fan club," Shirley said.

Others argue that hyperpartisans likely to attend a convention would naturally back Gilmore, the more conservative of the two, and that Davis' money advantage would be taken away. "Republican conventions in Virginia tend to be intensely conservative," Marcus said. State Republican Assemblyman Terry Kilgore, the Republican caucus chair, hesitates to predict a winner: "You get surprised a lot at conventions," he said.

A larger question, says Duffy, is how Republicans approach the nominating process. "What drives them?" she asked. "Is it ideology or a need to win?" Pragmatic Republicans might choose Davis, thinking him stronger in a general election, while conservatives would be more comfortable with Gilmore.

The problem for the GOP is deeper than just a bloody primary, say many party strategists. "The entire definition of Virginia, the way the exurbs are shifting, is changing," said one Republican, who asked not to be named. "Not only do you have to stop the bleeding, but actually make some inroads."

The state's changing nature is reflected in Northern Virginia's growing prominence. "It's not one state, really. It's three different states at least," said Virginia Tech political scientist Craig Brians. The traditionally Republican Southside and the increasingly liberal Washington suburbs have balanced each other out, while Republicans usually do better around Richmond, in the center of the state.

But that dynamic is changing. Northern Virginia "is growing a whole lot faster," said Brians, while Democrats are doing better around Richmond.

"I don't think Virginia is the red state it used to be," Shirley said. "Certainly Ground Zero in this country for anti-Republican or anti-Bush attitudes is here in Northern Virginia." Duffy sees that anti-Republican area as key to any GOP win. "This might be the kind of year, a presidential year, where [Republicans have] got to be able to win some percentage of the vote in Northern Virginia to carry the state."

Whichever candidate takes the Republican nomination, their path to the Senate is far from certain. Former Democratic Governor Mark Warner, who once contemplated a White House bid himself, will come under intense pressure to run, but only if the incumbent Warner steps down. The two ran against each other in 1996, and though the Democrat outspent the incumbent by more than a 2-1 margin, John Warner prevailed by just 5%. John Warner's campaign, interestingly, was run by John Hishta, a long-time Davis ally who has gone back to work for the Congressman reportedly to prepare a 2008 bid.

Those close to Mark Warner say the former governor grew close to the senator during his term, and that he would not run against John Warner.

If the senator steps down, says Duffy, Mark Warner will have a difficult decision to make. "His head and his heart are having an argument," she said. On one hand, Warner knows that a Senate seat can be a stepping stone to a national platform. On the other, his name has been mentioned as a possible addition to a Democratic ticket in 2008. By running for Senate, "he absolutely shuts the door on the vice presidency." Warner's kitchen cabinet will meet in September, shortly after John Warner announces his future plans, to discuss the scenarios.

Mark Warner remains so popular throughout the Commonwealth that his candidacy would give Democrats a better than even shot of taking a seat they have not held since 1973. But neither Davis nor Gilmore would roll over and play dead. And both could benefit from Senator Hillary Clinton. If she tops the Democratic ticket, said Assemblyman Kilgore, "a lot of voters in [Republican] rural Virginia would have a huge reason to get to the polls."

Whether or not Clinton tops the ticket, if John Warner decides to announce his retirement in early September, Democrats will again target a state that, just a few years ago, gave Republicans both Senate seats and the governor's mansion. If Warner takes the seat, he will join Democratic Governor Tim Kaine and Senator Jim Webb in completing the sweep.

States Decry Children's Insurance Policy

The Guardian reports:

State health officials are decrying new federal guidelines that require many children to be uninsured for a full year before they have access to government-subsidized coverage.

Waiting periods prevent families from dropping private insurance to get cheaper or better coverage for their kids through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.

But the vast majority of states require much shorter waits - typically one month to six months - than the Bush administration will require. Only Alaska has a one-year wait; in 16 states, there is no waiting period.

State officials say the policy could prevent pregnant women from having health coverage during any portion of their pregnancy or it could keep children from obtaining insurance even if a parent has died or lost a job.

``It would actually increase the number of uninsured children,'' said Deborah Bachrach, deputy commissioner in New York's Office of Health Insurance Programs. ``We think it's bad policy.''

New York has applied to expand its program coverage to families with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level - a threshold that many say the program was not intended to serve. Under the New York policy, a family of three earning as much as $68,680 could participate.

In its request to expand eligibility, the state said it would enact a six-month waiting period. Currently, the state has none.

The one-year wait is ``simply unconscionable,'' Bachrach said. ``New York could not agree to that.''

Many of the state Medicaid directors who participated in a conference call Wednesday to discuss the guidelines were upset.

``Not having any coverage for a year flies in the face of the health care reform efforts the states have been undertaking,'' said Martha Roherty, director of the National Association of State Medicaid Directors.

The one-year minimum applies to states that extend program coverage to more moderate-income families - specifically, to families whose income exceeds 250 percent of the federal poverty level, or $43,925 for a family of three.

It is estimated that 18 states and the District of Columbia are in that category or have plans to expand coverage to at least that level.

Dennis Smith, who oversees the Medicaid program at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, spelled out in a letter last week several new requirements the administration planned for those particular states. The new requirements were first reported by The Associated Press.

Smith said states that use the children's insurance program to cover families above 250 percent of the poverty level must make some assurances to prevent the substituting of public insurance for private plans.

The program subsidizes the cost of health insurance for families whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private insurance. Both the Senate and the House passed bills this summer that would increase substantially the spending on the program. Bush has promised to a vet if they reach his desk in their current form.

Several states have lowered their waiting period since the program began a decade ago. Georgia and Florida are the only states to increase theirs. Both states require children to be uninsured for six months before they can enroll.

Connecticut dropped its waiting period from six months to two months. New Jersey has dropped its waiting period twice - it now is three months - and allows for exceptions.

``We think it's very bad public policy to prohibit children from coming onto our program,'' said Ann C. Kohler, deputy commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services. ``There's absolutely no evidence that people are dropping their private coverage to go on SCHIP.''

The Congressional Budget Office said this year the program does result in some substitution of private insurance for public insurance. For every 100 children who enroll, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.

Other states that would be affected by the new guidelines include Maryland and Massachusetts, which have six-month waiting periods. In Minnesota and the state of Washington, children have to be uninsured for four months before they can participate. Vermont has a one-month wait. Rhode Island has none.

Vermont Gov. James Douglas, a Republican, was highly critical of the guidelines.

``I am disappointed and dismayed by the Bush Administration's recent actions regarding SCHIP and by the shortsightedness that seems to continually emanate from Washington,'' said Douglas.

GOP Consultant, Tied To Threatening Call, Ousted

The TimesUnion.com reports:

Senate Republicans ousted controversial political consultant Roger Stone on Wednesday, following allegations he left an obscene, threatening phone message for the elderly father of Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

Democrats want an apology and called for an investigation by a Senate panel, but no apology was offered by Senate Republicans or Stone, who continued to deny any involvement in the message left Aug. 6 for Bernard Spitzer at his office.

Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno said the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, which Bruno controls, was paying Stone $20,000 monthly. He said Stone resigned at Bruno's request.

Bruno said he would not let the episode deter Republicans in their push to find out whether the Democratic governor and his chief of staff knew of efforts to gather damaging information about Bruno's use of state aircraft and State Police drivers.

Political sources said some advisers wanted to keep Stone, and he may end up working for individual senators in the coming months.

But Bruno abruptly cut Stone free after discussions with advisers, and amid calls from Democratic leaders for Stone's ouster.

Since late June, Stone has been advising the Senate majority, conducting conferences with Republican members and campaign committee chairmen and offering ideas on how to attack Spitzer and retain control of the Senate next year. Republicans hold a two-seat majority.

In an interview Tuesday and in a statement released Wednesday, Stone, 55, a veteran of 35 years of political operations, denied wrongdoing for alleged misdeeds and stayed on the offensive.

"The guy who makes threatening phone calls to people is Eliot Spitzer, not Roger Stone," the Miami-based consultant said.

Stone claimed he was at the theater that night, but New York magazine reported that the play he claimed to have attended, Frost/Nixon, was closed that evening.
Bruno said he is unsure if Stone made the threatening call to the governor's father.
Bruno told reporters at an event at Saratoga Race Course that Stone "agreed to resign and end his relationship with us at our request. We are not going to allow this incident to become a distraction or to be used as an excuse to hamper people from getting at the truth."

Bruno, however, did not confirm or dispute Stone's account of the matter.

Someone left an obscenity-laced message for Bernard Spitzer, 83, telling him he would be forced to testify before the Senate Investigations committee, and possibly arrested, in connection with his financial help in his son's 1998 campaign for attorney general.

"I'm not second-guessing anybody," Bruno said. "Roger says he didn't do it; he says somebody got into his apartment ... I did everything in my power I have control of. We asked him to resign."

Bruno called the allegations "serious" and "despicable," but said he doesn't think it's important whether he believes Stone's story -- that someone, likely Spitzer allies, got into his Manhattan apartment and placed the call, somehow imitating his voice.

What's important, Bruno said, is figuring out if Spitzer and his secretary, Richard Baum, abused executive power to go after Bruno. He said the two issues are "totally unrelated."

However, Democratic leaders sought to link the two. Earlier in the day, state Democratic Party Chairwoman June O'Neill and Co-chairman Dave Pollak called on Senate Republicans to fire Stone and apologize for his alleged actions.

And Sen. William Stachowski, D-Buffalo, a member of the Senate Investigations Committee, wrote to Bruno demanding an investigation into the Stone affair. Stachowski said the public should learn who in the Senate majority knew about Stone's actions.

Stone worked most closely with Bruno and key central staff members such as Ed Lurie, executive director of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and Senate communications director John McArdle, according to a person apprised of his business dealings.

Stachowski was later backed by Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, who called for an inquiry into how much Stone was involved in the Senate majority's government business.

Senate Investigations Committee Chairman George Winner said an investigation by his panel is highly unlikely.

"If this wasn't the silliest thing I ever heard of. To what advantage would someone have to harass an 83-year-old man?" said Winner. He said he can't consider Stachowski's letter and Smith's news release on the matter "serious."

"It's a complete smoke screen," he said. "What possible offense was committed here? The only offense was the making of a call."

He said he has no idea if Stone made the call and said he does not know Stone and has never talked with him.

Some former colleagues of Stone say they have little doubt that he made the call.
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck," said John Zogby, a Utica-based polling company operator who worked with Stone on the 2002 gubernatorial campaign of Tom Golisano.

"I was told from the beginning to watch out for Roger Stone, and while I felt that I worked well with him, I did come to see that he would favor tactics that I considered to be problematic," Zogby said. "I don't think I would work with him again."
Stone has worked on dozens of campaigns and public affairs jobs since the 1970s. Republicans have been his speciality, including Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and Connecticut Gov. John Rowland. He was part of George W. Bush's team in Florida in 2000.

He has served wealthy political aspirants like Donald Trump and B. Thomas Golisano.
He's no stranger to controversy. In 1996, news reports highlighted ads for mate-swapping that featured Stone and his wife. He claimed a "sick and disgruntled" person must have posted his picture and ad on Internet sites, even though his credit card was used to pay for the spots.

More recently, he was found by the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying to be part of a conspiracy behind an ad campaign to smear the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, using a front group to place ads portraying the tribe as criminals. An investigation in 2000 ended with $250,000 in civil penalties against various parties including Trump Hotel and Casino Resorts. His penalty was $100,000.

Senator's Number on 'Madam' Phone List

The Washington Post reports:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) apologized last night after his telephone number appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case.

The statement containing Vitter's apology said his telephone number was included on phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates dating from before he ran for the Senate in 2004.

The service's proprietor, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 51, faces federal charges of racketeering for allegedly running a prostitution ring out of homes and hotel rooms in the Washington area. Authorities say the business netted more than $2 million over 13 years beginning in 1993. Palfrey contends that her escort service was a legitimate business.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter, 46, said in a statement, which his spokesman, Joel DiGrado, confirmed to the Associated Press.

"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling," Vitter continued. "Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

Neither Palfrey nor her attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, could be reached for comment last night. Sibley told the Associated Press that his client posted the phone records of her escort service on the Internet yesterday, four days after a federal judge lifted a restraining order preventing their publication. The records were included in a series of files on a Web site devoted to Palfrey's legal defense fund.

"I'm stunned that someone would be apologizing for this already," Sibley said.

Vitter is in his first Senate term after serving six years in the House. During his Senate campaign, Vitter was accused by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee of carrying on a lengthy affair with a prostitute in New Orleans's French Quarter.

In a radio interview, Vitter called the allegation "absolutely and completely untrue" and dismissed it as "just crass Louisiana politics."

Vitter was the first senator to endorse former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and serves as the campaign's Southern regional chairman. A reliable conservative vote in the Senate, Vitter was among a small group of GOP lawmakers who sought to block an immigration overhaul from advancing last month.

Vitter and his wife, Wendy, a former prosecutor, have four children. On his Senate Web site, Vitter says he is committed to "advancing mainstream conservative principles" and notes that he has his wife are lectors at their hometown church.

Vitter attended Harvard University and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. He won a convincing victory in 2004, easily defeating two Democrats with a slim majority of the vote, to succeed John Breaux (D).

Palfrey, 51, titillated national media this spring by threatening to auction her list of clients' phone numbers to the highest bidder. She said she needed the money to pay legal expenses, but in May U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered Palfrey to keep the records to herself.

That move came after Palfrey and Sibley had turned over a sizable portion of the 10,000 phone records to ABC News. One client contacted by ABC reporters was Randall L. Tobias, a deputy secretary of state, who said he used Palfrey's escort service for massages, not for sex.

A day later, on April 27, Tobias resigned from the State Department, reigniting the media firestorm over Palfrey's records. That was seemingly snuffed out by Kessler's temporary restraining order two weeks later, but Kessler vacated her order on Thursday, clearing the way for Palfrey to post the records online.

Pamela Martin and Associates hired college-educated women in their 20s, sending them to male clients in the Washington area who, according to authorities, paid $275 to $300 per sexual encounter. Palfrey said that, so far as she knew, her employees and clients engaged in legal sex play -- such as erotic role-playing.

Shouldn't Americans Be Running U.S. Political Parties?

California State GOP Goes Outside The U.S. To Hire Top Aide

For the San Francisco Chronicle, Carla Marinucci reports:

The California Republican Party has decided no American is qualified to take one of its most crucial positions -- state deputy political director -- and has hired a Canadian for the job through a coveted H-1B visa, a program favored by Silicon Valley tech firms that is under fire for displacing skilled American workers.

Christopher Matthews, 35, a Canadian citizen, has worked for the state GOP as a campaign consultant since 2004. But he recently was hired as full-time deputy political director, with responsibility for handling campaign operations and information technology for the country's largest state Republican Party operation, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring confirmed in a telephone interview this week.

In the nation's most populous state -- which has produced a roster of nationally known veteran political consultants -- "it's insulting but also embarrassing ... to bring people from the outside who don't know the difference between Lodi and Lancaster ... and who can't even vote," said Karen Hanretty, a political commentator and former state GOP party spokeswoman.

U.S. Department of Labor records show the state Republican Party applied for an H-1B visa to fill the job of "political consultant" and was granted a visa labor certification in March 2007. The three-year H-1B visa does not become valid until Oct. 1, 2007, government records show.

Party officials said Matthews has been working in the interim under a "TN" visa -- a renewable one-year special visa for Canadian and Mexican professional workers created under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Matthews was hired by Michael Kamburowski, an Australian citizen who was hired this year as the state GOP's chief operations officer. But neither new official has experience in managing a political campaign in the nation's most populous state -- and as foreign citizens, neither is eligible to vote.

Kamburowski, a former real estate agent who sold property in the Dominican Republic, is a permanent U.S. resident in the process of obtaining American citizenship and does not require a specialized work visa, state GOP officials said.

With just months until the state's Feb. 5 primary and Republicans facing a roster of formidable challenges in California -- a key political fundraising state -- some party insiders are shaking their heads at the hirings.

"There are talented Republicans in California, and the message that (party chair) Ron Nehring is sending is that there's no talent pool here," Hanretty said.

The state party and its 58 county operations face several challenges, Hanretty said, including "redistricting on the ballot, uncertain legislative races ahead of us ... and a number of Republican congressmen who are under federal investigation and are going to be challenged by Democrats."

"Who will help these candidates?" she asked. "A couple of foreign transplants who don't know the political landscape and don't know the history of the complicated politics in California?"

Nehring defended his choices by saying Matthews and Kamburowski are highly qualified political professionals who will be an asset to the party -- and dramatize the GOP ideal of welcoming immigrants.

"Chris (Matthews) was inspired by the recall and by the governor to come to California in 2003 and volunteer for the Republican Party of San Diego," said Nehring, who chaired the San Diego party's organization from 2001 to 2007.

Nehring, a conservative Republican, became state chairman earlier this year, replacing Palo Alto attorney Duf Sundheim.

Nehring said he met Matthews while overseeing a campaign school in Calgary, Alberta, "and when the recall started, Chris said he wanted to come down and be part of it."

Matthews spent a month as a volunteer and in 2004 began work as a paid consultant to the San Diego County Republican Central Committee, party officials said.

As deputy political director, Matthews will be responsible for political campaigning and technology issues because "he has a successful track record of working with the party for the last three years," Nehring said. "He's developed an incredible body of knowledge in those areas. ... He's one of the strongest campaigners I've ever met."

Nehring said he has been inspired that Matthews "has wanted to move to America and become an American citizen ... and we embrace that."

"Our job at the California GOP is to build the most effective campaign organization. ... And the fact that we have two people on staff who want to become Americans ... is a great story that is at the heart of what the Republican Party is all about."

But the party nationally has fought efforts to increase immigration, calling during the recent debate in Congress for much tighter border security and resisting efforts to providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country.

The hiring of two immigrants at top Republican Party posts has handed ammunition to critics who note that many Republicans have spoken critically about the impacts of waves of Mexican immigrants.

"The hypocrisy is disgusting," said longtime Democratic Party activist Gloria Nieto, policy director at San Jose-based Services Immigration Rights and Education Network, or SIREN, an immigrant advocacy nonprofit organization.

Nieto argued that the party has painted Latinos "as the brown menace. ... But it's perfectly OK to hire people from outside the country? What does it say about the Republican Party that they import their hired guns?"

State campaign finance records show that Matthews earned almost $19,000 for work as a campaign consultant in 2005 with the San Diego GOP but has earned little in other years.

While the hiring of Matthews under the H-1B visa for "specialized workers" is legal, it appears to skirt the intention of the program -- which calls for most employers to make a good-faith effort to hire Americans first, according to U.S. Department of Labor regulations.

The H-1B program -- currently limited to 65,000 workers -- is aimed at providing workers for jobs that presumably cannot be filled by American workers, and prospective employers must publicly advertise or post notice of their intentions to hire under such visas, labor guidelines state.

A bill proposed by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would require that all employers seeking such visas be required to pledge they have made such an effort and that the visa holder does not displace an American worker.

The H-1B program's greatest advocates are Silicon Valley technology firms, which have pushed for more visas so they can hire computer specialists from overseas.

Jon Fleischman, Southern California GOP vice chair, said he was not aware of the hiring of Matthews -- but added that hirings are routinely made without consulting party officers. He said he doesn't consider it a problem to hire foreigners if they are the most qualified job applicants.

Nehring and one of his new hires also are connected to one of the nation's most conservative activist groups, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.

Kamburowski was chair of the group's Reagan Legacy project, an effort to name landmarks in all 50 states after the deceased president.

Nehring was a senior consultant to Americans for Tax Reform and has listed Norquist as a client of his own consulting group. State GOP officials insist Matthews has never had any connection -- professional or volunteer -- with Norquist or his organization.

Bush's Fundraising Dinner Raises $15.4 Million

The Washington Post reports:

President Bush says polls don't matter to him, but his slumping popularity appears to be influencing fellow Republicans in a way that hurts _ money.

Bush's yearly fundraising dinner for Republican congressional candidates on Wednesday generated $15.4 million _ no small amount, but almost half as much as the $27 million the event brought in last year. Bush raised $23 million at the same dinners in 2005 and 2004.

The take at this year's annual gala benefiting the national Republican Party also took in much less than usual.

Bush helped raise $10.5 million at the event last month, compared with $17 million last year, $15 million the year before and a record $38.5 million in 2004, when he was running for re-election.

No matter what the numbers, organizers of the President's Dinner on Wednesday were upbeat.

"We are very excited about the success of this event and the enthusiasm we are seeing from our supporters," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Our conference and our supporters are dedicated to reinstating a Republican majority and are working hard to position Republicans for a successful 2008."

The NRCC co-sponsors the dinner with the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The dinner raised $7.9 for House candidates and $7.5 million for Senate candidates.

Democrats seized on the apparent drop in Bush's fundraising prowess.

"Republican Senate candidates have been afraid to be seen in public with the president since last year, but they could at least always count on him to raise unprecedented amounts of money for their campaigns," said Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Now he's not even good for that."

Voters last November put Democrats in control of the House and Senate, weakening Bush's ability to push through legislation in his final two years in office. Both parties are heading into a wide-open election cycle, with control of the House and Senate in play and no incumbent president or vice president seeking office.

Public approval of the job Bush is doing now matches its all-time low, according to an AP-Ipsos poll this month. Only 32 percent said they were satisfied with how Bush is handling his job overall, the same low point AP-Ipsos polling measured last January.

Meanwhile, the Republicans campaigning for Bush's job are doing their best to distance themselves from their party leader.

Democrats Improve Fundraising While GOP Flags

USA Today reports:

This just in from the Federal Election Commission, more hard evidence that Democrats are energized.

Our colleague Fredreka Schouten passes along word that national Republican party committees raised $61.2 million in the first four months of this year while their Democratic counterparts raised $59.4 million.

The figures reflect a 25% decline in receipts for Republicans and a 26% increase for Democrats compared with the same period in 2005.

If you look back to 2003, the last presidential cycle, the trend is even more dramatic. Republicans registered a 21% decrease while Democrats showed a 126% increase.

The new numbers show a shift in where Democrats are putting their money. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported a 45% increase in receipts over the same period in 2005, and the Senate committee posted a 38% increase. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, registered a 6% decrease.

Contributions to all three Republican committees declined.

The committee receipts mirror activity on the presidential front. First quarter reports to the FEC showed Democratic presidential candidates outraising Republicans by about 3-to-2. Candidates in both parties raised an aggregate $133 million during the quarter, not counting money carried over from Senate campaign committees.

Congressman McHenry's Campaign Aide Indicted

CBS News reports:
The CBS News Investigative Unit has learned a man who was a field coordinator in Congressman Patrick McHenry's (R-NC) 2004 campaign has been indicted for voter fraud in North Carolina.
The indictment charges that Michael Aaron Lay, 26, illegally cast his ballot in two 2004 Congressional primary run-offs in which McHenry was a candidate. The charges indicate that Lay voted in a district where it was not legal for him to vote.

At the time Lay was listed as a resident in a home owned by 32-year-old McHenry but campaign records indicate Lay's paychecks were sent to an address in Tennessee. McHenry won the primary by only 86 votes. According to Gaston County, North Carolina District Attorney Locke Bell, Lay was indicted on Monday, May 7 by a local grand jury.

CBS News has learned that these charges were first investigated by the North Carolina State Board of Elections up to two years ago. The results were forwarded to the previous Gaston County District Attorney Mike Lands. In January, Bell was elected the new district attorney for the county and pursued the indictment.

Transcript of Republican Presidential Debate - May 3, 2007

Moderators Chris Matthews, MSNBC, John Harris, Editor-in-Chief of Politico.com, Jim Vandehei, Executive Editor of Politico.com, question Republican candidates:

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Former Gov. James Gilmore, R-Va.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, R-N.Y.C.
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R- Ark.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R- Mass
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Col.
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson, R-Wis.

Transcript:
Moderator: In the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, just 22 percent believe this country is on the right track. Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?

Giuliani: We get back to it with optimism. The same situation that I faced in New York City; when I became mayor of New York City, 65, 70 percent thought New York City was going on the wrong track. And what I did was, I set policies and programs of growth, of moving people toward prosperity, security, safety.

And what we can borrow from Ronald Reagan, since we are in his library, is that great sense of optimism that he had. He led by building on the strengths of America, not running America down.

And we're a country that people love to come to, they want to come to this country with a shining city on the hill. So we should solve our immigration issue, including illegal immigration, from our strengths, not our weaknesses.

We're a country that has the greatest health care system in the world. It's flawed, it needs to be fixed, but we should fix it from our strengths. We shouldn't turn it into socialized medicine.

Those are the things that Ronald Reagan taught us: You lead from optimism. You will lead from hope, and we should never retreat in the face of terrorism. Terrible mistake.

Moderator: Senator McCain, most of the public pessimism today has to do with Iraq. What would you need, as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?

McCain: I would need the support of the American people. I would need to be able to show them some success in Iraq, both on the battlefield as well as with the Maliki government. We have a new general; we have a new strategy. That strategy can succeed.

The young men and women who are serving are the best of America. I believe that if we bring about stability in the neighborhoods in Iraq and have the Maliki government govern, you are going to succeed.

My friends, when the majority leader of the United States Senate says we've lost the war, the men and women that are serving in Iraq reject that notion. And, if we lost, then who win? Did Al Qaida win? When on the floor of the House of Representatives they cheer -- they cheer -- when they pass a withdrawal motion that is a certain date for surrender, what were they cheering? Surrender? Defeat?

We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home.

Moderator: Do you need anything, beyond what the president has now, to win the war?

McCain: Now I think it's on the right track. The war was terribly mismanaged. The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made. Books have been written. But we have a new strategy and a new general. And these young men and women are committed to winning.

Moderator: Governor Thompson, if you're commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?

Thompson: First, you have to support the troops. There's an undying bond in America that, any time an American soldier is in harm's way, we have to protect him.

Beyond that, there are three things that I have laid out. Number one, I believe the al-Maliki government should be required to vote as to whether or not they want America in their country. If they vote yes, it gives us a legitimacy for being there. If they vote no, we should get out.

Secondly, there are 18 territories in Iraq, just like we have 50 states in America. I would require those territories to elect governments, just like we do in our states. And if you do so, the Shiites will elect Shiites. Sunnis will elect Sunnis. Kurds will elect Kurds. And you won't have this internecine civil war.

Third, I would split the oil reserves: one-third to the federal government, one-third to the state governments and one-third to every man, woman and child. If every man, woman and child is getting part of the oil proceeds, they're going to have a vested interest in their country. They will be purchasing goods. They will be investing in small businesses. And they will be building the country on democratic grounds in Iraq.

Moderator: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Yeah, very briefly, Chris, the key to winning in Iraq is standing up the Iraqi military. There are 129 battalions in the Iraqi army. We need to make sure that every one of those battalions moves into an operational setting, gets a three- or four-month military operation in a contentious zone. At that point, they can move into the combat field.

They can start displacing American units. And America's heavy combat units can rotate out. That's the right way to leave Iraq.

Moderator: Governor Romney, in that same NBC-Wall Street Journal poll that Chris mentioned, 55 percent of Americans say victory is just not possible in Iraq. They've made up their minds on this war. Why shouldn't they have a president who will listen?

Romney: Well, if you wanted to have a president that just followed the polls, all we need to do is plug in our TVs and have them run the country. But that's not what America wants. It's not what America needs. We need leadership that's strong and that shows America what we can do to lead the world.

Ronald Reagan was a president of strength. His philosophy was a philosophy of strength: a strong military, a strong economy and strong families.

With regards to Iraq, there are a lot of people that say, let's just get out. I want to get our troops home as soon as I possibly can. But, at the same time, I recognize we don't want to bring them out in such a precipitous way that we cause a circumstance that would require us to come back.

Because if we leave in the wrong way, the Iranians could grab the Shia south, or Al Qaida could play a dominant role among the Sunnis, or you could have the border with Turkey destabilized by the Kurds -- and, as a result, you could have regional conflict develop. But with that occurring, you could have our neighbors get involved, our friends get involved around Iraq, and we could have to come back again.

That's why it's so essential for us at this critical time to support the al-Maliki effort to bring strength and stability to Baghdad, to Al Anbar. Hopefully they're good signs that we're going to see increasing, and we'll be able to bring our troops home safely.

Moderator: Time, Governor.

Let me to go to Senator Brownback with the next question. Recent polls in the Islamic world reveal a sea of hostility toward the United States, feeding what General Petraeus calls the central front of Al Qaida in Iraq. How do we win this war if every dead terrorist is so easily replaced?

Brownback: I think we win the war by standing up for our values and working with those who will work with us.

I think you have to remember that while we're in a war on terrorism, there are a number of people that are with us, that work with us around the world, and also in the Islamic world. We're partnering with a number of moderate Muslim regimes.

And that's something I think we need to convey into the Muslim world as well, that these are groups -- the Al Qaida group, the militant Islamic fascists -- they're trying to unseat moderate Muslim regimes.

And I think we need to engage those regimes -- regimes in Pakistan, regimes in Egypt -- as long as we also confront those regimes, like in Iran, that are the lead -- Iran is the lead sponsor of terrorism around the world. And we've got to be very confrontational and very aggressive there. So it's to engage those that'll work with us, contain and confront those that won't, and convey that to the Muslim world.

Moderator: How do you deal with the problem revealed in a recent Zogby poll that in countries that are mentioned you mentioned, like Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, another Islamic country, 10, 12 percent of the people support us, the rest are angry at us? Doesn't that create a sea of recruitment opportunity for our enemy?

And I'm just asking: Do we have to reduce that temperature of hatred before we win the war, or simply continue to fight the terrorists?

Brownback: Well, I think we have to do both, Chris. I mean, you have to engage in those countries. We have to engage in Jordan, and I think we need to engage with all the tools of state that we have: economic tools, along with foreign relations, diplomatic and military tools as well.

But at the same time, when we do that, you've got to confront. You've got to confront those that are coming after us. And they've been doing this for over a decade -- coming at us -- from before 9/11. We cannot be weak on this whatsoever.

Moderator: Governor Huckabee, I'd like to get your views about how you balance loyalty and accountability. Would you have fired Don Rumsfeld before last November?

Huckabee: I think I would've done that before the election. I certainly wouldn't have said that we are not going to do it and then, right after the election, done so. But that's the president's call.

Clearly there was a real error in judgment, and that primarily had to do with listening to a lot of folks who were civilians in suits and silk ties and not listening enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots and medals on their chest.

Those generals told us, early on, it would take 300,000 troops to successfully go in and stabilize Iraq. Instead we gave them a limited number of troops and a budget and said, you have to do it with this.

I think that's something, now, we understand was a mistake. But rather than simply walking away and leaving the Middle East in a complete disastrous chaos that will spread to the region and to the rest of the world, it's important that we finish the job, that we do it right, rather than have to go back and some day do it over.

Moderator: Why don't we start with Governor Gilmore there, and ask you a general question, as people who are political and know the mood of the country, starting with you -- you've been a military man. You were in Army intelligence.

But on this general question, the Rumsfeld removal was perhaps timed to the election. Do you think a general shake-up in this administration's Cabinet, right now, would be good for the administration?

Gilmore: I think there have been a lot of changes in the administration over the last number of years. We've seen those changes.

But the fundamental point that we have to remember is this has been coming on for quite a long time. Decades this has been coming on. And I think we got distracted at the end of the Cold War, when we were thinking about the end of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, thanks to the president in whose name this library is named. And, instead, we didn't pay attention sufficiently to the entire Middle East.

And I see this Iraq problem as part of an entire Middle East issue, and it's sort of a fundamental problem that we're going to have an honest conversation with the American people about. We're going to have to engage in the Middle East, and we're going to have to do it for an extended and a long period of time.

It isn't just an Iraq issue. This is an issue of the challenges that we're facing between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the challenge between Sunnis and Shiites -- the problem with people on the street not even agreeing with their own regimes.

There is a great deal that has to be done, and the president is going to have to bring the American people forward into a major commitment in many areas -- one is foreign policy -- and there will have to be a new commitment to the Middle East.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?

Paul: That's a very good question. And you might ask the question, why are 70 percent of the American people now wanting us out of there, and why did the Republicans do so poorly last year?

So I would suggest that we should look at foreign policy. I'm suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non- intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy.

Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam.

How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American -- it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.

I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, "Declare war if you want to go to war. Go to war, fight it and win it, but don't get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us.

Moderator: It's time.

This is a question for Senator McCain. It's along those lines of intervention. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson said that Iran has already committed acts of war. Do you agree? And, secondly, as part of that, what's your tripwire for a U.S. strike in Iran?

McCain: Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We all know that. Iran continues their efforts to build nuclear weapons. Iran is now exporting lethal IEDs and jihadists and suicide bombers into Iraq, killing American soldiers.

The Iranians encouraged Hezbollah to attack Israel from Lebanon recent. Iran poses one of the greatest threats to the security of the world, and in the Middle East. I believe the Iranians have got -- we have got to bring greater pressures, diplomatic, economic, political, join with our European allies who still fear greatly the effort of the cutoff of oil from -- into Europe.

We have to work together. If the Russians and the Chinese are not helpful to us, then we had better figure out a way to put additional pressures, encouraging democracy and freedom without Iraq, which is a very cultured -- within Iran, which is a very cultured society. At the end of the day we cannot allow Iran...

Moderator: OK.

McCain: ... to acquire nuclear weapons.

Moderator: Let me follow up a little bit, Senator.

McCain: Sure.

Moderator: What is your trip wire? Is it the building of a nuclear weapon? The threat to use a weapon once built? A delivery system? Is it preemptive or preventive?

McCain: My greatest fear is the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon and give it to a terrorist organization. And there is a real threat of them doing that.

The trip wire is that if they acquire these weapons -- and our intelligence tells us that this is a real threat to the state of Israel, to other states in the region. But I want to emphasize, Chris, there's lots of additional efforts that can be made and must be made before we consider that option. There's lots of things we can do.

That is the, ultimately, final option. And I don't think we can exercise it at this time.

Moderator: OK.

Congressman Tancredo, along those lines, imagine you're president of the United States and this is a likely or possible scenario, certainly plausible: You get a call from the prime minister of Israel -- who's now Ehud Olmert -- saying Israel is about to strike Iran's nuclear sites and he wants U.S. help. What do you say?

Tancredo: I say that, look, when we -- if you look at this issue and stand back for just a second and say, there are two kinds of Irans that we are going to have to deal with here: one headed by a gentleman who believes that he is going to be responsible for the coming of the 12th imam and a guy with a bomb, that should put us in the position of saying that anything we can do to stop that is imperative.

And if Israel is put in that position, and we need to be involved in order to protect both ourselves and the Israelis, then of course we respond in the appropriate fashion.

Moderator: If the prime minister asks you for help, you say you will say yes?

Tancredo: Well, there are conditions, of course, under which we would say yes. But I'm telling you that if they are -- if there is a threat to the existence of Israel, which is, by the way, I think a potential threat to the existence of the United States, then you have to come to that -- the aid of Israel.

Moderator: Mayor Giuliani, on that point?

Giuliani: It really depends on what our intelligence says. I mean, the reality is, the use of military force against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be very provocative. The only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power. It's the worst nightmare of the Cold War; isn't it? The nuclear weapons in the hands of an irrational person, an irrational force. Ahmadinejad is clearly irrational.

He has to understand it's not an option; he cannot have nuclear weapons. And he has to look at an American president and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes, and in two minutes, they released the hostages.

Moderator: Thank you.

Governor Gilmore of Virginia, when speaking about Osama bin Laden last week, Governor Romney said, quote, "It's not worth moving heaven and Earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Senator McCain called that naive. Who's right?

Gilmore: You know, I think -- well, I think we do have to do everything that we can do to get this guy, and the reason is because he is a symbol to the people who believe, as a matter of faith, that they have a right and a duty to destroy Americans and Western civilization. The bigger, however, issue, is this: The Americans have to lead against the sea of hostility that was referred to earlier. This is a serious challenge.

We can't allow a situation where everyone, all the way from Morocco, all the way through the Middle East, all the way to the Philippines, believes that the United States does not have their best interests at heart. During the Cold War -- and I served as...

Moderator: If I would, is President Bush partly responsible for that, in your view?

Gilmore: This is what I think we have to do: What I think we have to do is to use all of our abilities, diplomatic and economic and military, above all things, put ourselves on the moral high ground, and let people across the world know that we are in the same shoes that we were in during the Cold War.

During the Cold War, we represented the aspirations of people everywhere in the world in good faith. And that now must be our policy, so that we in fact do deny those kinds of people and resources to the people who we can't deal with diplomatically. And that, of course, is the Al Qaida type of fundamentalists.

Moderator: Governor Romney, respond to the mentioned reference to you...

Romney: Well, of course, we get...

Moderator: ... by Senator McCain.

Romney: Thank you. Of course we get Osama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go, and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted upon America.

Moderator: Can we move heaven and earth to do it?

Romney: We'll move everything to get him. But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person -- Osama bin Laden -- because after we get him, there's going to be another and another.

This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They ultimately want to bring down the United States of America.

This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die.

Moderator: OK. Thank you, Governor.

We now go to our interactive round of questions that were submitted and voted on by the users of Political.com.

Jim VandeHei will read these questions to the candidates now, who will have 30 seconds to respond. And if a rebuttal is necessary, that will also be 30 seconds.

Thanks, Chris.

Senator McCain, Sara from Arlington, Virginia, wants to know if you would be comfortable with Tom Tancredo, a stanch opponent of illegal immigration, as head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

McCain: In a word, no.

On the subject of Osama bin Laden, he's responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. He's now orchestrating other attacks on the United States of America. We will do whatever is necessary. We will track him down. We will capture him. We will bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the gates of hell.

Moderator: OK. Let me ask you a question regarding immigration. One of our prized guests here today, Governor Schwarzenegger -- looking this man in the eye, answer this question -- I'm going to go down the line, starting with Governor Romney.

Should we change our Constitution, which we believe is divinely inspired to allow men like Mel Martinez, the chairman of your party, born in Cuba, great patriot, the senator from Florida, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, to stand here some night?

Governor Romney?

Romney: Never given that a lot of thought, but with Arnold sitting there, I'll give it some thought, but probably not.

Moderator: No? Whoah!

Romney: No.

Moderator: Yes or no?

Brownback: I love the Governator, but...

Moderator: We got two noes.

Brownback: I think there are other ideas that we should...

Moderator: Governor Gilmore. Two noes. We're moving here.

Gilmore: No, I don't intend to want to amend this Constitution in a variety of different ways, and this would be not a good start to do it that way.

Moderator: So that's a no. Three noes in a row.

Huckabee: After I've served eight years as president, I'd be happy to change the Constitution for Governor Schwarzenegger.

Moderator: Three to one. Congressman?

Hunter: We haven't seen his endorsement yet, Chris.

Moderator: OK. Three to one to no-show?

Hunter: That's a no.

Moderator: OK. Four noes to one. Governor?

Thompson: No.

Moderator: Five to one. Senator?

McCain: Depends on whether he endorses me or not. He and I have many similar attributes, so I have to seriously consider it.

Moderator: OK. We've got an overwhelming vote against you, Governor, in your own house. Congressman?

Paul: I'm a no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent.

Moderator: Oh, God.

OK, Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: When he called me up to endorse him, he got me on the phone, he said, "Will you endorse me?", and I was too afraid to say no.

Moderator: OK.

Congressman Tancredo -- is it no or yes?

Giuliani: I would say yes.

Moderator: Yes.

Tancredo: Intimidating as he might be, I'm saying no.

Moderator: OK. We've got two yeses here.

Mayor Giuliani, Bradley Winters of New York would like to know if there's anything you learned or regret during your time as mayor in your dealings with the African-American community?

Giuliani: There's a great deal that I learned and a great deal that I regret during the time I was mayor, and a great deal I was very, very satisfied with. I tried very, very hard to treat everyone in New York City the same. We reduced crime by 67 percent. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of that would have been in the poorer neighborhoods of New York City, not necessarily the African-American community but a lot of the communities of New York City.

And I worked very, very hard to try to move hundreds of thousands of people out of welfare. We actually followed Tommy Thompson's program, and we had the most successful welfare-to-work program in the country. We moved 660,000 people off welfare. And I think one of the reasons that crime is still down in New York today...

Moderator: That's the time, Mayor.

Giuliani: Thank you.

Moderator: Governor Romney, Daniel Duchovnik (ph) from Walnut Creek, California, wants to know: What do you dislike most about America?

Romney: Gosh. I love America. I'm afraid I'm going to be at a loss for words because America for me is not just our rolling mountains and hills and streams and great cities. It's the American people.

And the American people are the greatest people in the world. What makes America the greatest nation in the world is the heart of the American people: hardworking, innovative, risk-taking, God- loving, family-oriented American people.

It's that optimism we thank Ronald Reagan for. Thank you, Mrs. Reagan, for opening up this place in his memory for us. It is that optimism about this great people that makes this the greatest nation on earth.

Moderator: Governor Huckabee, this question comes from Curtis Waldman (ph) from Boca Raton, Florida.

Thousands of reputable scientists have concluded with almost certainly that human activity is responsible for the warming of the Earth. Do you believe global warming exists?

Huckabee: The most important thing about global warming is this. Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it's all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it.

It's the old boy scout rule of the campsite: You leave the campsite in better shape than you found it.

I believe that even our responsibility to God means that we have to be good stewards of this Earth, be good caretakers of the natural resources that don't belong to us, we just get to use them. We have no right to abuse them.

Moderator: Congressman Tancredo, David Diamond (ph) from Memphis writes in, "Do you have a plan to solve the shortage of organs donated for transplant?"

Tancredo: Well, I don't believe that the government of the United -- that the president of the United States should be putting forth a plan to do such a thing.

The reality is that technology and the advancement of technology in a variety of areas is going at a pace where I believe we can look forward to cures -- we can look forward to a variety of things that will allow us to cure diseases that today we do not have cures for.

But the idea that I think is inherent in this question, that somehow we should be growing these things, somehow we should be cloning people for the purpose of using these kinds of their attributes...

Moderator: That's time, Congressman.

Tancredo: ... is ridiculous. I absolutely would not support it.

Moderator: Congressman Hunter, Maggie from Highland Park, Illinois, wants to know if you consider yourself a compassionate conservative, like President Bush.

Hunter: Answer: Yes. And let me take the rest of my time on Iran. You know, right now, right now, Iran is moving equipment into Iraq that is being used to kill Americans. Iran has crossed the line, and the United States has absolute license at this point to take whatever actions are necessary to stop those deadly instruments from being moved across the line, being used in explosives, roadside bombs, inside Iraq.

And lastly, you know, we don't -- we should not get to the edge of the cliff on this enrichment of uranium. And plutonium to be used for a nuclear weapon in Iran -- the United States needs to move very quickly...

Moderator: Thank you, Congressman. That's time.

Hunter: The United States needs to move very quickly.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, Pete from Rochester Hills, Michigan wants to ask you this. If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?

Paul: Immediately.

Moderator: That's what they call a softball.

Paul: And you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be.

If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, and if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage, you can't (ph) get rid of the IRS; but, if you want to lower taxes and if you want the government to quit printing the money to come up with shortfall and cause all the inflation, you have to change policy.

Moderator: Time.

We now go to the next segment. We're going to talk about values. Let's go down the line on this just like they did with the Democrats last week on some of these trickier calls, but they do have clear answers.

Starting with you, Governor, would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America.

Romney: Absolutely.

Moderator: Senator?

Brownback: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.

Moderator: Governor?

Gilmore: Yes, it was wrongly decided.

Moderator: Governor?

Huckabee: Most certainly.

Moderator: Congressman?

Hunter: Yes.

Moderator: Governor?

Thompson: Yes.

Moderator: Senator?

McCain: A repeal.

Moderator: Mayor?

Giuliani: It would be OK.

Moderator: OK to repeal?

Giuliani: It would be OK to repeal. It would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.

Moderator: Would it be OK if they didn't repeal it?

Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. We're a federalist system of government and states can make their own decisions.

Moderator: Congressman?

Tancredo: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, I would say that that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned.

Moderator: We're looking for nuance here. Governor Gilmore, you have said in the past that you believe in the first eight to 12 weeks of pregnancy that the woman should have the right to have an abortion. Do you still want to stick with that exception?

Gilmore: I do, Chris. My views on this, my beliefs on this are a matter of conviction. And they've always been the same, and they've never changed, the entire time that I've been in public life.

However, my record as governor of Virginia, I think, has been one that the pro-life community, of which I'm a part, would be very proud: passing a 24-hour waiting period, passing informed consent, passing parental notification, signing the partial-birth abortion law in Virginia.

So I think the record is there. But my views -- my views are strongly and fundamentally believed and been held that way.

Moderator: Governor Thompson, do you have any nuance on this? Or are you just happy with the repeal of Roe v. Wade?

Thompson: I believe it should be left up to the states. That was what was originally implied, and the Constitution was changed when the Supreme Court made the decision.

I, like a lot of people up here, have made a record of pro-life for a long time, signing the partial-birth abortion, pre-notification for parents and so on.

I think it's an important imperative that states have the responsibility for making these laws.

Moderator: Governor Romney, in recent months, you've said you were, quote, "always for life," but we've also heard you say you were once, quote, "effectively pro-choice." Which is it?

Romney: Well, I've always been personally pro-life, but for me, it was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I'd protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position.

About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It's a "brave new world" mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind.

I took the same course that Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Hyde took, and I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I'm pro-life. And I'm proud of that, and I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life.

Moderator: Governor, with respect, some people are going to see those changes of mind as awfully politically convenient.

Romney: You know, I told you that I'd studied at great length this issue. When I ran, I -- for the very first time, I told you that I was personally pro-life but that I would protect a woman's right to choose as the law existed. And that stayed the same until two years ago, as I indicated.

And at that time, as a result of the debate we had, the conclusion I reached was that we had gone too far, that cloning and that creating new embryos was wrong, and that we should, therefore, allow our state to become a pro-life state.

I believe states should have the right to make this decision, and that's a position I indicated in an op-ed in the Boston Globe two years ago.

Moderator: Senator Brownback, this is an important issue for you.

Brownback: It is.

Moderator: Could you support a nominee of your party who is not pro-life?

Brownback: I could, because I believe in the Ronald Reagan principle, that somebody that's with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy, that's your friend and that's your ally. And this is a big coalition party. And it's a coalition party that's governed for a number of years in this country.

And it governs because it governs with a coalition of economic and social conservatives, and people that want to be strong for the United States.

But I want to emphasize, I believe life is one of the central issues of our day, and I believe that every human life at every phase is unique, is beautiful, is a child of a loving God, period.

Moderator: That's the time.

Let me go back to Governor -- Mayor Giuliani, because I want to give you a chance on this. You became very well known for standing up against the use of public funds for what many people considered indecent exhibits at the Brooklyn museum and places like that. Why do you support the use of public funds for abortion?

Giuliani: I don't. I support the Hyde amendment. I hate abortion. I wish people didn't have abortions.

Moderator: So you're not for funding at all?

Giuliani: I believe that the Hyde amendment should remain the law. States should make their decision. Some states decide to do it. Most states decide not to do it. And I think that's the appropriate way to have this decided.

Moderator: Should New York, when you were mayor of New York, should they have been paying for -- the state should have been paying for...

Giuliani: That's a decision New York made a long time ago. And New York...

Moderator: And where were you on that?

Giuliani: I supported it in New York, but I think, in other places, people can come to a different decision.

Moderator: Thank you.

Let me go to Senator McCain. We're in the house of Ronald Reagan. Every cab driver in America knew what Ronald Reagan stood for: defeat communism abroad; reduce big government at home. Can you, Senator McCain, restore that kind of unity of purpose?

McCain: I know that I can. I want to be president of the United States to defeat our enemies and to work with our allies. I want to lead this nation.

I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I'm the most prepared. I'm prepared to take on the greatest challenge of our time, and that's the specter and threat of radical Islamic extremism, which threatens our very values and our very life.

I know how the world works. I know the good and evil in it. I've seen it. I know how the military works. I know what the military should do, and what it shouldn't do. And I know what it can do. I know how to make Congress work, work for you and not for their re-election.

My friends, we face enormous challenges, whether it be a burgeoning deficit, out-of-control spending, a need for energy independence. And we need, most of all, to restore faith in our government and confidence in the leadership.

My friends, I don't want to be president of a failed nation. I don't want to be president of a sad nation or one that thinks our best years are behind us. I want to be president of a proud, powerful...

Moderator: OK, we have...

McCain: ... great, bountiful nation. And, as president, I intend to lead it.

Moderator: Senator, two or three gentlemen have asked to respond to that. First Congressman Hunter, and then Governor Huckabee, and then Senator -- those three. Say just quick, each.

Hunter: Chris, thanks very much. John's not the only guy with a defense background. I've been chairman of the Armed Services Committee for the last four years. I've helped to rebuild national defense.

We have worked hard to make sure that our people have enough pay, that they've got the ammunition, that they've got the equipment, while at the same time looking over the horizon to look at the new threat of an emerging China and an Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and a Korea that already has some and is moving to get the means for delivery. So a strong national defense, the trademark of Ronald Reagan is what I would pursue.

Moderator: Governor Huckabee, the question is: How do you unify the country the way Reagan did, a good portion of the country?

Huckabee: I think it's important to remember that what Ronald Reagan did was to give us a vision for this country, a morning in America, a city on a hill. We were reminded that we are a great nation not because government is great; we're a great nation because people are great.

Chris, I want to go back, though, to say why we're a great nation. We are a culture of life. We celebrate, we elevate life. And let me just say, when hikers on Mt. Hood get lost, we move heaven and Earth to go find them. When coal miners in West Virginia are trapped in a mine, we go after them because we celebrate life.

This life issue is not insignificant. It's not small. It separates us from the Islamic fascists who would strap a bomb to the belly of their child and blow them up. We don't do that in this country.

Moderator: OK, let me go to -- Dr. Paul, how do you reconcile this moral, moral leadership kind of role of conservatism with the very libertarian strain of conservatism -- the Barry Goldwater conservatism that you represent? How do you put together what he just said with what you believe in a unified national purpose?

Paul: Well, you do it by understanding of what the goal of government ought to be. If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, you lose liberty. And if the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together; it doesn't divide us.

I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force, and we're getting ready to go to war. But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.

Moderator: I'm sorry, we have to go on. We have to go on.

Governor Thompson, same theme. If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?

Thompson: I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.

Moderator: OK. So the answer's yes.

Thompson: Yes.

Moderator: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny Communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?

Romney: I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want. Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion. And they can do whatever they want in a religion. America doesn't...

Moderator: Do you see that as interference in public life?

Romney: Well, I can't imagine a government telling a church who can have Communion in their church. We have a separation of church and state. It's served us well in this country.

This is a nation, after all, that wants a leader that's a person of faith, but we don't choose our leader based on which church they go to. This is a nation which also comes together -- we unite over faith and over the right of people to worship as they choose.

The people we're fighting, they're the ones who divide over faith and decide matters of this nature in the public forum. This is a place where we celebrate different religions and different faiths.

Moderator: Thank you, Governor.

Governor Huckabee, you've criticized Governor Romney for saying his faith wouldn't get in the way of his public life, his governing. Are you going to back that up tonight?

Huckabee: I've never criticized Governor Romney for that.

Romney: Thank you, Mike.

Huckabee: I said, in general -- and I would say this tonight to any of us -- when a person says, "My faith doesn't affect my decision- making," I would say that the person is saying their faith is not significant to impact their decision process.

I tell people up front, "My faith does affect my decision process." It explains me. No apology for that. My faith says, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you..."

Moderator: But you answered a question that George Stephanopoulos of ABC about this governor, one of your rivals, and you answered it in this way: "I'm not as troubled by a person who has a different faith. I'm troubled by a person who tells me their faith doesn't influence their decisions."

That's in direct response to George Stephanopoulos on February 11th of this year. Why are you changing that point of view now?

Huckabee: Well, I didn't know I was changing the point of view.

Moderator: No, you're changing your quote.

Huckabee: I'm saying that of anyone, whether it's Governor Romney or Governor Gilmore...

Moderator: Well, you answered in direct response to Governor Romney and his Mormonism. Why are you pulling back now?

Huckabee: I don't mean to be pulling back. I want to state very clearly: A person's faith shouldn't qualify or disqualify for public office. It shouldn't do that.

But we ought to be honest and open about it. And I think it does help explain who we are, what our value systems are, what makes us tick, and what our processors are.

Moderator: Governor Romney, do you accept the fact that he wasn't talking about you?

Romney: I didn't hear it. I didn't hear it on George Stephanopoulos. But I can tell you this: Of course everyone who's a person of faith has values that are deeply held in their heart, and they include the value of the relationship they have with their spouse and their children, the value that they place with their country and with their community.

That's what makes America such a powerful land. Look at us. We're a land that's the envy of the entire world. We are the hope of the world, not because of our hearts.

And that comes from being a people of faith, but not people of a particular church or a particular synagogue. Rather, the great values we share are American values.

Moderator: Senator?

Brownback: This is a key point, I think. And I think it's a key point for the country. Because we've had 40 or 50 years, now, of trying to run faith out of the public square.

And we're a nation of faith. As my colleague, Senator Lieberman, a Jew, says, America is a faith-based experiment as a country. We should celebrate and invite faith.

And our motto is, "In God we trust." This isn't something that divides. This is something that pulls together and lifts us up. And it's key, and it's important. We shouldn't be trying to run it out of the public square. We should invite it in and celebrate it.

Moderator: OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Gentleman, let's talk a bit about the future of your party.

Congressman Hunter, Governor Schwarzenegger, who is here tonight, has won the state twice by downplaying partisanship and taking centrist positions on the environment, immigration, abortion. Is that the way to win for Republicans?

Hunter: You know, it's a way to win, but we need to win the right way. And about 100 miles south of here, in my town of San Diego, we build the border fence. When we built that fence, we had a border out of control, and we built that fence. And it's a double fence. It's not that little scraggly fence you see on CNN with everybody getting over it.

We had massive murders on the border, massive illegal immigration, massive importation of drugs. I built that border fence. We brought down the smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90 percent.

I think there's an implication in your immigration statement that the Hispanic community of California wants to have a secure border, and I wrote that law that extends the San Diego fence for 854 miles across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that the president signed in October.

One way to bring down crime in the state of California and every state in the union is to have an enforceable border.

That means let's build that border fence. When people want to come into this country, let's ask them to knock on the front door.

Moderator: Governor Gilmore, you know Karl Rove and you've worked with Karl Rove. Is Karl Rove your friend?

Do you want to keep him in the White House if you get elected president -- the president's chief political operative?

Gilmore: You know, at the end of the day, the responsibility for this government and for its policies rests with the president of the United States. And the president is able to choose the people that he wants to choose in order to implement his policy. The president has chosen Karl Rove.

Moderator: But you, as commander in chief and chief executive, would you employ Karl Rove?

Gilmore: It isn't a matter of Karl Rove. What's important to this nation is not Karl Rove. What's important to this nation and to this party is the acquisition of the philosophy and values that we are as Republicans.

There is a time now for us to reach out and to say that we're spending too much money in government, that it's taking too much of the resources of this nation, that we have got to do something about government spending, create more jobs and a higher revenue and a better opportunity, and thereby to cut taxes for regular people.

I did that as governor. I'm a consistent conservative that keeps his word and does what he says that he's going to do.

Moderator: Thank you. Thank you, Governor.

Congressman Tancredo, that Karl Rove question, do you have an interest in answering that one?

Tancredo: Yeah. Karl Rove would certainly not be in the White House that I inhabited. We have had our differences for quite some time, specifically on the issue of immigration and my criticism thereof. And as a matter of fact, this is as close as I've ever been to Air Force One.

Moderator: Well, by the way, this isn't still the Air Force One...

Tancredo: To the replica...

Moderator: ...You've been that far away from it.

Tancredo: ... of Air Force One. Exactly.

Moderator: All right. Mayor Giuliani, I have to ask you the next question. Has the increased influence of Christian conservatives in your party been good for it?

Giuliani: Sure. The increased influence of large numbers of people are always good for us. I'd like to go back to the earlier question that you asked because I think it really is important that we, you know, define the Republican Party to fit today.

Neither party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. That's just a fallacy that we sometimes fall into. If we're going to win, and we're going to govern after we win, we have to reach out, bring in Democrats, bring in independents.

I ran a city that was five-to-one Democratic, and I was able to -- according to George Will, I ran the most conservative government in the last 50 years in New York City...

Moderator: Time...

Giuliani: ... reduced crime, reduced welfare, balanced the budget, lowered taxes 23 times.

Moderator: Mr. Mayor, it's time.

Giuliani: And I had 45 Democrats and I think six Republicans.

Moderator: OK.

Governor Thompson, same question. Well, actually, you could respond to just about anything at this point.

Thompson: Well, Chris, then I will. I'm the reliable conservative. I vetoed 1,900 things. I reduced taxes by $16.5 billion.

I'm from Wisconsin, a blue state, and I won four consecutive times. I still have a very high popularity appeal. And I'm the one that started welfare reform, reduced the welfare caseload in the United States and the state of Wisconsin by 93 percent. And I believe that kind of a record will attract Democrats and independents, if you stand up and start talking on principles and ideas.

Where I think the Republican Party lost its way is we went to Washington to change Washington -- Washington changed us. We forget to be coming up with new ideas, big ideas like Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan had an optimism and a belief that America could be stronger and better tomorrow than it is today, and he instilled that and inculcated that in every American. That's what we have to do as a party again.

Moderator: Thanks, Governor.

Senator Brownback: Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham in prison for bribes. Just last month, FBI raids of two Republican members of Congress. What's with your party and all this corruption?

Brownback: And there are also Democrat members that there was cash found in refrigerators or deep freezes.

I think you have to look at the overall situation and system and say this people were wrong and they should go to jail, and they are going to jail. And they would go to jail under my administration. But I think you also have to back up and ask, we, as a society, what we can do to bring stronger families and build a stronger culture as well. We need to have laws to enforce these systems and, we, as leaders need to live by those laws as well.

But we need to back up as a society. We need to rebuild the family structure in this country. We've got 36 percent of our children born out of wedlock. We've got a culture that's got things like what Don Imus said going on not only on the radio, now it's in records that are being marketing to teenagers with million dollar ad budgets using the same words that he was fired for. I mean, what I would hope to do is to lead by example, lead ethically, lead in rebuilding the family and in renewing the culture.

Moderator: Congressman Tancredo, you want to respond to that question that John put about these serious problems of ethics violations?

Tancredo: Yes, well, they are not unique to the Republican Party. These are failures by individuals and it's important to understand that, and they should, of course, be dealt with.

Let me also, please, if I -- because I've had enough opportunity -- I shouldn't say enough, but certainly an opportunity to address some of these other issues, especially with regard to whether or not it has to be a centrist who wins the presidency of the United States.

Look, we're standing in a place dedicated to a man who we would not call a centrist, who was able to win this state. He was also able to win the presidency, twice. Why? Because he believed in principles, he articulated them, and he put them into effect. He had heart. We know it. We saw it. The American people saw it, and they respected that. I believe it's not necessarily whether you're a centrist or not.

Moderator: It's time now.

Tancredo: I believe it's whether or not you believe in your heart in the things that you say, and I do.

Moderator: Senator McCain, when you announced last week, you took a couple of shots at incompetence in government. You talked about you wouldn't put up with having police and fire radios on different frequencies. And I somehow got the idea you were talking about New York City.

McCain: No, I was talking about the fact that the special interests have kept the spectrum, which the American people are supposed to have and our first responders are supposed to have -- we gave the broadcasters high definition television.

In return, they were supposed to give a spectrum that was going to be reserved for the first responders. Again, the special interest influence prevailed over the public's interest.

On the issue of why we lost the election in 2006, it's because we did lose our way. We began to value principle (ph) over power, and spending got out of control. Spending lurched completely out of control.

Ronald Reagan used to say, we spend money like a drunken sailor. I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination of the Congress. And by the way, I received an e-mail recently from a guy who said, "As a former drunken sailor, I resent being compared to members of Congress."

Moderator: It's time now for another round of interactive questions. We're going to go to Jim VandeHei right now.

McCain: Can I -- I thought I had a yellow -- I thought I had a yellow light there.

Moderator: It's red now. I'm sorry.

McCain: I'm sorry. The first pork-barrel bill that crosses my desk, I'm going to veto it and make the authors of those pork-barrel items famous all over America. We're going to stop it.

Moderator: Sorry, Senator.

This is actually a great follow to that, Senator McCain. Chris Harris from Manhattan, Kansas, is very concerned about the budget and about deficits. He wants to know, what specific programs would you cut if you were president?

McCain: Line-item veto is the best tool. President Reagan sought it, and we need it very badly.

There are a whole variety of programs that need to be cut, and I would start in cleaning up defense acquisition. The cost overruns associated with the purchase of our weapons systems is completely out of control. There's a $160 million combat ship that is now $400 million.

We've got to get that under control first. Let's stop the pork- barrel spending; then we'll go at programs. Each one of them must justify their existence every year. They will lay out their goals, and then they will have to meet those goals, or they will go out of business.

Moderator: Thank you, sir.

Governor Huckabee, a Politico.com reader wants a letter grade. He wants to know, A through F, how would you rate the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war?

Huckabee: I think it's too early to give them the grade. You don't give a student a grade in the middle of the exam. We're still in the middle of the exam. Let's wait and see how it turns out, then we can give the president a grade.

Moderator: But a teacher will usually give you a heads-up, maybe midway through that semester.

Huckabee: My teachers never did. I don't know where you went to school, but in Arkansas, we didn't get a grade until it was over, and usually we didn't want to take it home.

Moderator: Governor Romney, you said that being a pro-life president entails more than just appointing strict constructionist judges. A Politico.com reader wants to know what you meant by that and whether that was directed specifically at Mayor Giuliani.

It's directed at anybody who's not pro-life. And I have had the opportunity of serving as a governor and finding that while the courts were making decisions that affected abortion, it's really upon the legislature and the governor to have an impact as well.

Romney: And so you can fight, for instance, to make sure that partial-birth abortion is made illegal. You can fight to have information given to women who are thinking about having an abortion. You can fight to make sure that there's opportunities for people to express their views on this topic openly and near abortion clinics.

You can fight for the opportunity to go out and campaign for the rights of those who care about this issue to be heard before Election Day, and the McCain-Feingold law prevents that from happening.

Moderator: It's time, Governor.

Let me ask Mayor Giuliani, do you want to respond to this? Because it seems like across the room here, this strong, unrelenting -- with the exception of Governor Gilmore, an unrelenting pro-life position. You seem to have a nuanced position on this. Many people think you're pro-choice. Could you define it in a couple of seconds?

Giuliani: Sure. This is a very, very difficult issue of conscience for many, many people. In my case, I hate abortion. I would encourage someone to not take that option. When I was mayor of New York City, I encouraged adoptions. Adoptions went up 65, 70 percent. Abortions went down 16 percent. But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman's right to make a different choice.

I support the ban on partial-birth abortion. I support the Hyde amendment. But ultimately, I think when you come down to that choice, you have to respect a woman's right to make that choice differently than my conscience. And I'd like to respond on spending...

Moderator: OK, later. We'll have to kill you now because it's a red light.

Governor Thompson, is racism still a problem in our society, and can a president do anything about it?

Thompson: A president can do a lot of things. A president can set a vision that's going to abrogate as much as possible racism in our society. A president has got to be able to get out and speak and be able to unite.

And the great thing about Ronald Reagan was, he was a uniter, and that's exactly what I tried to do as governor of the state of Wisconsin. I tried to bring people together. And if you do that, you can reduce and abrogate racism to a very great degree, and the president of the United States has got to be the number one person in doing that.

Moderator: Congressman Tancredo, David Kim from here in California wants to know: Beside yourself, who do you think should be the Republican nominee for president of the United States, and why?

Tancredo: Well, of course, if I thought there should be another one, I wouldn't be here. I think that I serve the purpose, and I think we -- good men all here. Don't get me wrong.

But I am telling you this. There are issues that I believe have not been addressed tonight, not in full, and I believe that they do separate us. And I certainly believe the issue of immigration and immigration reform and what's going to happen to this country unless we deal with this forthrightly -- no more platitudes, no more obfuscating with using words like, well, I am not for amnesty, but I am for letting them stay.

That kind of stuff has got to be taken away from the political debate, as far as I'm concerned, so people can understand exactly who is where on this incredibly important issue. And when they see that, I think, frankly, I'm the candidate.

Moderator: OK. Time.

Anyone have a follow-up with that? Anyone disagree with the strong anti-illegal-immigration position, take a strong view? Senator McCain?

McCain: Well, I'm happy to say that we've been working very hard for a couple of months with Democrats and Republicans, led by the president and his Cabinet, to come up with a comprehensive solution and resolution of this terrible problem.

One thing we would all agree on, the status quo is not acceptable. We have to secure our borders. But we also need a temporary worker program, and we have to dispose of the issue of 12 million people who are in this country illegally.

This issue is an important and compelling one, and it begins with national security. But we also need to address it comprehensively. And I'm proud to work with the president of the United States...

Moderator: Time.

McCain: ... on this issue.

Moderator: Time. I've got to go to Jim VandeHei.

VandeHei: Congressman Hunter, Kay Thomas from Honolulu, Hawaii, wants to know if you watched Al Gore's environmental documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Hunter: No, I didn't watch it. But, you know, I think that global warming and the need to be energy-independent gives us a great opportunity.

I think we should bring together all of our colleges, our universities, the private sector, government laboratories, and undertake what, for this next generation, will be a great opportunity and a great challenge to remove energy dependence on the Middle East and, at the same time, help the climate.

I think we can do that. We need to take taxes down to zero for the alternative energy sources. We need to make sure that all the licensing from our laboratories that goes to the private sector goes to the American manufacturing sector for these energy systems.

Moderator: Congressman, that's time.

Hunter: I think we can do it.

Moderator: That's time.

Congressman Paul, Bob Hussay (ph) from Minnesota writes that perhaps the most important skill a good president must have is the ability to make good, sound decisions, often in a crisis situation. Please cite an example when you had to make a decision in crisis.

Paul: I wonder if he's referring to a political decision like running for office, or something like that. I guess, in medicine, I made a lot of critical decisions.

I mean, you're called upon all the time to make critical, life-saving decisions. But I can't think of any one particular event where I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people. But I think all our decisions we make in politics are critical. My major decision, political decision, which was a constitutional decision, was to urge for (inaudible) years that this country not go to war in Iraq.

Moderator: Dr. Paul, that's -- again, is there another question for Jim?

Governor Gilmore, this question comes from Malika (ph) in Washington, D.C.: "Women are the fastest growing prison population. Most are mothers who are non-violent, first-time offenders. What will you do to address the issue of mothers behind bars and the children left behind?

Gilmore: You know, when I was governor of Virginia, I had to deal with a great number of these issues, and I think that we have to insist upon the obedience to the law.

And that means that we have to let the courts and the juries make decisions based upon all of those matters. When I was prosecutor -- I was an elected prosecutor -- I had to address these issues all the time. And the fact is, that we just simply have to have the law apply in an appropriate way.

I would like to answer that question about decision-making. I was governor of the state of Virginia during the 9/11 attack, and I had to act immediately in order to address these issues. And I was also chairman of a national commission on terrorism that addressed these issues as well.

Moderator: We have to go down the line again. It's always fun to ask these questions down the line. We have Mr. Reagan here. The camera will not focus on her, but I will tell you, it will now focus on you.

Mrs. Reagan wants to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Will that progress under your administration, Governor?

Romney: It certainly will. Altered nuclear transfer, I think, is perhaps the best source...

Moderator: Embryonic. Embryonic.

Romney: Altered nuclear transfer creates embryo-like cells that can be used for stem cell research. In my view, that's the most promising source. I have a deep concern about curing disease.

I have a wife that has a serious disease that could be affected by stem cell research and others. But I will not -- I will not create new embryos through cloning or through embryo farming, because that will be creating life for the purpose of destroying it.

Moderator: And you won't take any from these fertility clinics to use either?

Romney: I'm happy to allow that to -- or I shouldn't say happy. It's fine for that to be allowed, to be legal. I won't use our government funds for that. Instead, I want our governments to be used on Dr. Hurlbut's method, which is altered nuclear transfer.

Moderator: The same question, embryonic stem cell research with federal funds, sir.

Brownback: It will not, with all due respect to Mrs. Reagan and her desires here. I've studied this matter a great deal. We are curing and healing people with adult stem cells.

Moderator: OK.

Brownback: It is not necessary to kill a human life for us to heal people. And we're doing it with adult stem cell work, and it's getting done.

Moderator: OK. I'm going to have to go yes or no.

Governor Gilmore, for embryonic stem cell federal funding or not?

Gilmore: We can't create people in order to experiment with people.

Moderator: Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: I would concur. I don't think it's right to create a life to end a life. That's not a good health decision.

Moderator: Congressman?

Hunter: No. I'd like to show Mrs. Reagan the alternatives, which are adult stem cells.

Moderator: Governor Thompson.

Thompson: There's so much research going on, Chris, you cannot answer that question yes or no. There's research currently going on right now at the Weissman Center (ph) in Madison, Wisconsin, that's going to allow for adult stem cells to become pluripotent, which will have the same characteristics of embryonic stem cells, so you do not have to kill an embryo.

Moderator: Senator, embryonic stem cell federal funding.

McCain: I want to thank Mrs. Reagan for the many kindnesses extended to me many -- and my fellow prisoners of war many years ago when we came home to this wonderful state.

I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen.

We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

Moderator: That's a yes. Dr. Paul, yes or no on federal funding?

Paul: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Moderator: OK. That's a no.

Giuliani: As long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning, and we limit it to that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations. So I would support it with those limitations, like Senator Coleman's bill in Congress.

Moderator: Mr. Tancredo?

Tancredo: There are billions of dollars going into this research right now. It does not require me taking money from federal -- from taxpayers in the United States to fund it...

Moderator: OK. Thank you.

Tancredo: ... because it is morally, I think, reprehensible in certain ways.

Moderator: Governor Romney, a year ago, it seemed that you couldn't wait to tell the world about your health-care experiment in Massachusetts. Since then, it's been criticized by conservatives as something Hillary Clinton could've devised. You hardly mention it on your Web site. What's changed?

Romney: I love it. It's a fabulous program. I'm delighted with the fact that we, in our state, worked together across the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, to find a way to get health care for all of our citizens that's affordable and that's portable.

Now, I know there's some people that don't like it, but when it came time to vote, you know, we won 198-2. The Heritage Foundation worked on it with us. We had people on both sides of the aisle.

Now, I know there's some people who wonder about it. Senator Kennedy, at the signing of the bill -- we were all there together -- he said, "You know, if you've got Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy agreeing to the same bill, it means one thing. One of us didn't read it."

But I helped write it and I knew it well, and this is a country that can get all of our people insured with not a government takeover, without Hillary care, without socialized medicine. Instead, get the market to do its job. Let me people have health care that they can afford. Get the market to do its job. Let people have the opportunity to choose policies in the private sector.

We didn't expand government programs. We didn't raise taxes. There was no government takeover. The market can work to solve our health care needs, and that's the great, exciting news. And 27 other states are working on health care reform right now. It's a great program, a great opportunity for the entire country.

Moderator: Senator McCain, some of your colleagues have been hit pretty hard on flip-flops, but you now support extending President Bush's tax cuts. But you originally voted against them. That makes no sense.

McCain: Because in the proposal that I had, there were significant tax cuts. And the thing that bothered me was that there was no provision to start addressing Social Security or a contingency. We had a contingency called the Iraq war. And we had no restrain on spending. And spending got completely out of control.

Yes, these tax cuts needs to be made permanent. Otherwise they will have the effect of a tax increase. But spending is destroying the future of this country. And we've got to get it under control. And as I started to say before, the first pork barrel earmark bill that crosses my desk as president of the United States, I'm going to veto it and I'm going to make the authors of it famous.

Moderator: OK. Let's start with an enjoyable down-the-line, OK? I want each candidate to mention a tax you'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect. Governor?

Romney: I like middle-income Americans to be able to save their money and not have to pay any tax at all on interests, dividends or capital gains. And by the way, we're all talking about...

Moderator: A zero rate on capital.

Romney: A zero rate on capital gains for middle-income Americans. And by the way, we're all talking about how anxious we are to veto overspending. I was a governor. I've done it hundreds of times. I can't wait to get my hands on Washington's budget.

Moderator: Senator?

Brownback: I'd put forward an alternative flat tax and allow people to choose between the current tax code system, which doesn't work, which I'll be taking behind the barn and killing with a dull ax, and an alternate flat tax and let them choose.

Moderator: Governor Gilmore, tax you'd like to cut?

Gilmore: You know, Chris, I've been a governor of Virginia. I ran on a tax cut proposal, and I ran on eliminating the car tax in Virginia. I received terrific opposition to doing that. I kept my word, kept my promise, and we eliminated that car tax. Now, the question is, who is actually going to do what they say they're going to do? Where have you been is where you're going to go, and I have actually lived up to my word. And the answer is, the alternative minimum tax, which is continuing to drive people in the middle class into higher and higher tax brackets (ph).

Moderator: Governor Huckabee.

Huckabee: Well, I cut taxes 94 times as governor, but I realize tinkering with it doesn't work. I'd overhaul it. I would work for the fair tax, which meets the four criteria: flatter, fairer, finite, family friendly. We'd get rid of the IRS. We're get rid of all capital gains, income, corporate. And we'd have a consumption tax. The fair tax proposal, I believe, offers the best opportunity for all levels of Americans.

Moderator: Congressman, your turn.

Hunter: Absolutely. Chris, you know, right now our manufacturers are getting killed. We're seeing manufacturing move offshore because a dumb trade deal that we signed with the rest of the world allows all of our exports to be taxed twice while their exports to us are not taxed at all.

The only way that we can even come close to leveling that playing field is to eliminate manufacturing taxes. So eliminate all taxes on Americans who will stay in the United States and make products and hire American workers.

Moderator: Governor?

Thompson: Thank you very much. I'm excited about this question because I was governor of Wisconsin and vetoed 1,900 items -- 1,900 times -- reduced taxes $16.4 billion. I think the biggest problem we've got in America is the alternative minimum tax that's bringing more middle-income people in. Let's put it in -- let's have the people have a flat tax and have the option of paying whichever is least.

Moderator: Senator McCain?

McCain: I'd give the president of the United States the line- item veto on these bills as well as spending bills. The alternative minimum tax is obviously eating Americans alive, and it's got to be repealed.

Another one -- another one I think is important is a $3,000 tax credit for people to be able to purchase health insurance. So low- income Americans will have access to health care, which is an amazing and difficult problem today. And a simpler, flatter, fair tax so that Americans don't have to spend $140 billion, as they just did last April, to prepare their tax returns.

Moderator: OK. Dr. Paul?

Paul: Well, in my first week, I already got rid of the income tax. In my second week, I would get rid of the inflation tax. It's a tax that nobody talks about.

We live way beyond our means, with a foreign policy we can't afford, and an entitlement system that we have encouraged. We print money for it. The value of the money goes down, and poor people pay higher prices.

That is a tax. That's a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street's doing quite well, but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money.

Moderator: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: We have to adjust the AMT. That has to be reduced. We have to get rid of the death tax, which is going to go to zero in 2010, which is going to create an incentive -- I can't imagine what kind of an incentive it's going to create.

It's going to go to zero in 2010. And then in 2011, it's going to go to 55 percent. And we have to make sure that the tax cuts that went into effect, that that level remains. Otherwise, we're going to have one of the biggest tax increases in history in 2011. And I would look to try to regularize the rates and look for some marginal reduction, even beyond what we're doing right now.

Moderator: Thank you.

Tancredo: For all the reasons mentioned by some of my colleagues, I absolutely support the fair tax. It has to be accompanied, however, with the repeal of the 16th Amendment or we'd end up with a consumption tax and an income tax.

And all this talk about vetoing spending bills and how that's going to solve our problem -- let me tell you, my friends, you can veto all the spending bills you want. You will not touch the deficit until you actually deal with the structural problem in mandatory spending. That's where all the money is. You can veto every one of the bills that come to you as discretionary funding, including the military, if you want.

Moderator: That's time.

Tancredo: It is, in fact, mandatory spending that has to be dealt with, or forget the idea of deficit spending.

Moderator: Senator McCain, you said you plan to appoint a Democrat to a major candidate post. Tell us some of the Democrats you've got in mind. We will give you bonus points if you give us a name other than Senator Lieberman.

McCain: I was going to say, the first three are Joe Lieberman and Joe Lieberman and Joe Lieberman.

Moderator: Keep going. Keep going. There must be some others.

McCain: There are others who are qualified. There are many Americans who are Independents, who are Democrats, who are Republicans -- whatever they are -- who are highly qualified. And I'll tell you what, I'd go to corporate America, I'd go to Silicon Valley and I'd say to John Chambers, who's a billionaire, "You've made your money. Now come. Come and serve. Come and serve this country."

I wouldn't care if these people with this great expertise, this great talent that have made America the leader of the world economically and innovation, I'd go to these people and I'd say, "Now come and serve your country."

And my first priority would be their talents and what they can contribute rather than what their party identification is. We need to come together more. I know how to reach across the aisle to the Democrats and they know how to reach across the aisle to me. I've been doing it for a long, long time.

Moderator: Time for our final interactive segment of the program, in the debate. Jim VandeHei.

Congressman Hunter, Ryan from Los Angeles wants you to name one thing that the federal government does really well, and one thing that it does poorly.

Hunter: Yes. Really well: Precision munitions on Mr. Zarqawi's safe house. Really poorly: Secure the border. Right now, the border is 2,000 miles of a very porous area where hundreds of thousands of people come across on an annual basis, and where last year we had 155,000 folks who came across from Mexico who were from other countries in the world. Some from communist China, some from Iran, some from Korea. We have to secure the border. That's the biggest failure of the federal government.

Moderator: Senator McCain, this comes from a Politico.com reader and was among the top vote getters in our early rounds. They want a yes or a no. Do you believe in evolution?

McCain: Yes.

Moderator: I'm curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?

McCain: May I just add to that?

Moderator: Sure.

McCain: I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

Moderator: Governor Romney, Robert Deitrich (ph) from Towson, Maryland, wants to know, which Cabinet official would be at the top of the list of those you'd like to carry into your administration if you're elected?

Romney: Well, my guess is it will be an entirely new team. My experience is you want to build a group of people who are excited about the prospects for the future. And, for me, what I want to do is see that we strengthen our military, we strengthen our economy, and we strengthen the American family.

I think that's the heart of the Republican Party: the American family. The American family is seeing an explosion in out-of-wedlock births. We've got great single moms doing their very best. But we have to encourage moms and dads, because the best work, the most critical work for the future of America is the work that goes on within the four walls of the American home. We've got to help the American family and get more marriages before babies.

Moderator: Time. That's time.

Mayor Giuliani, this question comes from Eric Taylor from California. He wants to know, what is the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim?

Giuliani: The difference is the descendant of Mohammed. The Sunnis believe that Mohammed -- the caliphate should be selected, and the Shiites believe that it should be by descent. And then of course there was a slaughter of Shiites in the early part of the history of Islam, and it has infected a lot of the history of Islam, which is really very unfortunate.

Moderator: Governor Gilmore, a Politico.com reader says you claim to be the only real conservative in this race. They want you to explain why none of the other candidates deserves the label themselves as the true conservative.

Gilmore: No, I have not tried to say I'm the only real conservative in the race, but I have tried to say that I am a consistent conservative and someone that you can count on, something that isn't going to say one thing one year and another thing another year and flip and flop and change around.

I'm a person who ran as a conservative. I governed as a conservative. I was a alternate delegate for Ronald Reagan to the Kansas City convention back in 1976. So I have been consistent all throughout. And I'm someone that people can count on as a conservative.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, Carrie from Connecticut asks: Do you trust the mainstream media?

Paul: Some of them. But I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet. Even when there's the temptation to put bad things on the Internet, regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.

But, no, there's every reason to believe that we have enough freedom in this country to have freedom of expression. And that's what is important. And whether or not we trust the mainstream or not, I think you pick and choose. There are some friends, and some aren't so friendly.

Moderator: Thank you, Doctor. That's time.

Senator Brownback, a reader wants to know if your personal religious beliefs influence your foreign policy thinking.

Brownback: I think personal beliefs of everybody shape everybody. I think we all have values. And that is taken in and that's taken forward. I've served on the International Relations Committee. I have worked on these issues. I've carried bills concerning Sudan. I've carried bills concerning Congo. I've carried bills concerning North Korea and Iran and Iraq.

I wouldn't say it dominates it, but I would say it influences it as it does for everybody. And I've got a consistent record here of an aggressive, clear, compassionate foreign policy that I think is key. It's going to be key for a future president.

Moderator: That's the time.

Brownback: And my presidency will have a very strong, aggressive foreign policy.

Moderator: Mayor Giuliani, Jesse from Madison wants to know: "What do you consider to be your most significant weakness as a candidate for the president of the United States?"

Giuliani: The fact that they're not all endorsing me. I don't know. I mean, I think my strengths outweigh my weaknesses. I have plenty of weaknesses and I kind of work on them, but I think that I'm a person who's an optimist. I try to look at the half-full glass rather than a half-empty glass.

The only way I could turn around a city like New York, that was considered the crime capital of America and turn it into the safest large city in America, is to kind of inculcate some of that Ronald Reagan optimism and look to try to create results that people thought were impossible, and we did.

Moderator: Senator Brownback, do you find any faults in Mayor Giuliani? I saw you looking attentively, waiting for him to say something.

Brownback: No, I don't. And I think the crowd will see and I think the audience will see as well that's watching this, these are a set of quality candidates. And that's why I love about this, is we've got a chance to debate ideas.

And we win as a party when we run on ideas, big ideas and principles. And you're seeing these articulated here, and that's why we're going to win in 2008. It's going to be on principles and ideas and big ideas, how we lead.

Moderator: Thank you.

Governor Huckabee, this question comes from a reader in New York: "In light of the scandals plaguing the current administration and its allies, involving corruption and cronyism, which mistakes have you learned not to repeat?"

Huckabee: The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who, for 20 and 30 years, have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension.

That's criminal. It's wrong. And if Republicans don't stop it, we don't deserve to win in 2008.

Moderator: Congressman Tancredo, this reader requests a yes or no answer: "Will you work to protect women's rights, as in fair wages and reproductive choice?"

Tancredo: I will work to protect women's rights. The reproductive choice part of that, if I heard you correctly, is a reference to abortion. The right to kill another person is not a right that I would agree with and support.

Moderator: Governor Thompson, Joanie from California wants to know how many American soldiers have lost their lives in the Iraq war, and how many have been injured, to date?

Thompson: There's been over 3,000 that have been lost and several thousand that have been injured. And the truth of the matter is, is that we have to do everything we possibly can to give our troops the necessary dollars, the resources, the weaponry and the armed forces, in order to be able to protect themselves.

It's a bond that every American has with our armed forces. Any time an American soldier's in harm's way, we have to do everything, as our country, to protect them.

Moderator: We're at the last round. It's going to be 30-second responses. I want to start with Mayor Giuliani.

Something you've come out for, I believe -- I want you to explain it and defend it: a national tamper-proof ID card.

Giuliani: I think that's critical to having immigration security. Every single person in this country who comes in from a foreign country should be identified, should be in a database. It should be a tamper-proof card. I probably have the most experience in dealing with security. I had to take a city that had an outlandish amount of crime and reduce it.

So the very, very best way to sensibly create security is to have a tamper-proof card, a database, and then kind of back up from that -- well, how do we get there? That would allow for a fence, a technological fence, border patrol, having people come forward. People who are paying taxes or who want to pay taxes...

Moderator: That's the time.

Giuliani: ... God bless them. Let them pay taxes.

Moderator: Governor Romney, I think -- are you with him on that, a tamper-proof ID card?

Romney: Absolutely. I had the occasion, as you know, following the great disaster on 9/11, to help organize the Olympic Winter Games, bring people from all over the world together in Salt Lake City, organize the first national special security event following that tragedy, and brought together law enforcement from all over the country, coordinated them in a way that we could communicate with each other.

There's no question as we deal with the issue of immigration, having a national special card that indicates a person's name, date, birth date, biographic information, and an indication of their work status will allow us to know who's here legally, who's not, who can work and who cannot.

Moderator: Is someone against this on libertarian grounds, the idea of a national ID card? Senator Brownback?

Brownback: I don't think this is the way to go, and I don't think we need to go this way. And I've been serving on the Judiciary Committee and working on these immigration issues.

What we need to do is secure the border with a fence, and then interior-wise, we need to make sure that that Social Security number means something. We already have a Social Security number.

Moderator: How's that different from a national ID card if it works?

Brownback: Because we don't need a new system, and we don't need a new ID. We need Social Security integrated with INS.

Moderator: Senator McCain, Senator McCain, are you for a national, tamper-proof ID card?

McCain: That's one of the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. And absolutely, if someone wants to work, they have to have a document that's tamper-proof. And any employer who employs someone else with any other document like a bogus Social Security card or birth certificate should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Moderator: Dr. Paul.

Paul: I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card.

Moderator: Mr. Tancredo, do you agree with the need for a national tamper-proof ID card?

Tancredo: We do not need a national -- I do not think we need a national ID card, much for the reasons that Dr. Paul said. We absolutely need a verifiable Social Security card. They are two separate things. I believe that we can accomplish the former without jeopardizing individuals liberties...

Moderator: But you say legally you have to be who you say you are?

Tancredo: Pardon me?

Moderator: You have to be the person on that card.

Tancredo: That is absolutely what I'm saying. It's got to be verifiable, absolutely.

Moderator: OK, let me go to a question that's more ephemeral and it is passing and it will decided in the next several months. We'll go down the line again. This isn't as much fun as cutting taxes. Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned. Governor?

Romney: I don't think somebody who is running for president, let alone someone who is president, should make that decision until the judicial process is complete. I can tell you that I think it was outrageous for the prosecutor, knowing that Scooter Libby was not the source of the leak, to go ahead and begin interviewing him, gathering information, setting up a case against him.

I think it was prosecutorial indiscretion. And by the way, the national ID card -- that's for aliens, not for citizens.

Moderator: Oh, you don't want a national ID card, Governor?

Romney: No, it's for those that come here outside the country.

Moderator: Mayor Giuliani, you want it for everyone, right?

Giuliani: No, no, I'm talking about it for people who come into the United States, foreigners, people who come in as immigrants into the United States.

Moderator: OK, that will be tested...

Giuliani: The only way in which you know who they are.

Moderator: That will be interesting how that's tested. Let me got to senator. Do you think Scooter Libby should be...

Brownback: Let the legal process move forward, and I'd leave that up to President Bush. And I think he could go either way on that.

Moderator: The judge is going to rule on that case next month and decide whether he will be in prison during his appeal. Would you let it go, let him be imprisoned?

Brownback: At this point in time, I would leave that up to the president, if at the end of the term, he decides to let him out.

Moderator: You don't encourage him to repeal, to...

Brownback: I would see willingness to go either way on that, because the underlying facts of this case are ones where there was not a law that was violated. So what they're saying is: OK, you didn't remember right, and that's what you're being prosecuted, and that was what you were guilty for. And, my goodness...

Moderator: Two noes. Two no pardons so far.

Gilmore: First, Chris, I think that, like...

Moderator: Not yet.

Gilmore: Not yet. Like others, I think that we have to deal with these papers, with respect to illegal immigrants, not with respect to all Americans. We should not have a national ID card. We should have that more diffused across the states.

With respect to Scooter Libby, I actually was an elected prosecutor. I handled many cases myself, and I also managed many other cases. The law has to apply within the discretion of the prosecutor.

Now, if the president is going to exercise -- which I have, by the way, done myself, as a chief executive -- pardons or clemency, in this particular case, as high-profile as it is, you have to go to the American people and make your case as to why that kind of discretion ought to be applied. And if he can't make that case, then he shouldn't do it.

Moderator: So we don't want another Marc Rich.

Gilmore: Pardon?

Moderator: Never mind.

Gilmore: No, that's right.

Moderator: Does anybody want to -- I want to save time here. Does any gentleman want to raise his hand and say, "Pardon him"?

Tancredo: Yes. Yes.

Moderator: OK, Congressman Tancredo wants to pardon him.

Tancredo: I'd say pardon him. But right after or before you pardon him, Ramos and Compean -- two people who are presently serving prison time for actually doing their job on the border...

Moderator: OK. Dr. Paul, do you want to pardon them?

Paul: No. He doesn't need a pardon. But he doesn't need it because he was instrumental in the misinformation that led the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in.

Moderator: OK. Let me ask you a question which has grabbed a lot of Americans personally, the Terri Schiavo case.

Again, it was a question whether the United States, the U.S. Congress should have intervened and passed a law to advise the appellate court whether to act or not in this case -- the district court, it was.

Terri Schiavo: Should Congress have acted or let the family make the decision, the husband?

Romney: I think we should generally make the family make a decision of this nature.

Moderator: The husband should have decided?

Romney: Generally, we should make that decision. In the case here, the courts decided what they thought was the right thing to do. And then I think Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature did the right thing by saying, we've got a concern. They looked over the shoulder of the court. But I think the decision of Congress to get involved was a mistake.

Moderator: OK.

Romney: I think the Congress's job is to make sure that laws are respecting the sanctity of life. But to actually adjudicate a case like this, better done at the state level by the governor...

Moderator: Senator Brownback, should Congress...

Romney: ...the legislature and the court.

Moderator: ... have gotten involved in a personal case?

Brownback: Yes, it should have. And it gave her the right, and the family the right to take that appeal to the court. That's what the Congress did.

And her life is sacred. Even if it's in that difficult moment that she's in at that point in time, that life is sacred, and we should stand for life in all its circumstances.

Moderator: Senator McCain, was Congress right in intervening in that case?

McCain: It was a very difficult issue. All of us were deeply moved by the pictures and the depiction of this terrible, tragic case. In retrospect, we should have taken some more time, looked at it more carefully, and probably we acted too hastily.

Moderator: Mayor Giuliani, was that a good thing for Congress to do to get involved that weekend?

Giuliani: The family was in dispute. That's what we have courts for. And the better place to decide that in a much more -- I think in a much fairer and even in a deeper way is in front of a court.

Moderator: I want to ask you a question almost as much fun. I want to get to the next question. I'm sorry, because you can expand on your thought as part of this answer.

I asked about raising taxes. It was almost like the Reagan round here. Everybody wanted to do that. I'm sure he was listening to that good thought. But let me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously.

Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?

Romney: You have got to be kidding.

Moderator: No, I'm not. His wife's running, haven't you heard?

Romney: The only thing I can think of that'd be as bad as that would be to have the gang of three running the war on terror: Pelosi, Reid and Hillary Clinton. So I have to be honest with you, I think it'd be an awful thing for a lot of reasons.

Moderator: Senator Brownback?

Brownback: I think it'd be bad because it would mean that Hillary Clinton would be elected, not because of who she is, but because of the policies that she stands for of raising taxes, of not standing up for life, for marriage. I mean, those are what would be bad for the country.

Moderator: Governor, Bill Clinton back in the White House?

Gilmore: You know, no, because that would mean that Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States, and where you have been is where you're going to go. And Hillary Clinton tried to socialize medicine in this country -- a very bad idea. You need to keep that in the private sector. And yet she said in this debate...

Moderator: Well, we have a razorback ready to talk to you, the razorback from Arkansas. Should the Clintons come back to the White House, especially big Bill?

Huckabee: No one on this stage probably knows Hillary Clinton better than I do and I will tell you that it's probably not a good idea to put either of them back in the White House.

Moderator: OK. Congressman, Bill Clinton back home?

Hunter: You know, Bill Clinton cut the U.S. Army by almost 50 percent. In this war against terror, he's the wrong guy to have in there. And incidentally, on the Schiavo case, you know, Ronald Reagan said, on the question of life, "When there's a question, err on the side of life." I think Congress did the right thing.

Moderator: Governor, should Bill Clinton be back in the White House? Is it good for America? I mean, it is a possibility here.

Thompson: A bad possibility. No national I.D. And the Terri Schiavo case should be left up to the states. And Bill Clinton should not be in the White House. And we certainly should not elect any Democrat to the White House. One of us here should be the next president.

Moderator: Good clean-up, good clean-up hitting there. Senator?

McCain: No, because it obviously would mean that Senator Clinton is the president of the United States, and we don't want that.

Most importantly, it would mean that the appointment of Supreme Court justices and other judges would be -- take a very sharp turn to the left. One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges.

I'm proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I'm very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen.

Moderator: OK. Dr. Paul?

Paul: I am known for sticking to principle and not flip- flopping. I voted to impeach him, so...

Moderator: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: It would mean that we were back on defense against terrorism, given Senator Clinton's recent positions. And the reality is, in the 1990s, we were on defense in dealing with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

When you had this debate last week and all the Democrats were up here, I never remember the words "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" being spoken by any of them. And I heard it a lot tonight.

Moderator: Mr. Tancredo, last thought?

Tancredo: I know that he is presently measuring the drapes over in the Oval Office...but, no, it's a lousy idea.

Moderator: You really think he's measuring the drapes, huh?

Let me start with a question. In all seriousness, if you want to pass, please pass it. We don't have much time.

Every president, if you look back to Ike, was elected to fill the problem of the previous president. We are, of course, correcting all the time in this country; it's how democracy works. How will you be different, in any way, from President George W. Bush?

Romney: I think we're each our own person. We have our own values. I respect the president's character, his passion, his love for this country. I believe everything he does in this war against terror flows from a desire to protect the American people and to make our future secure.

But I will go to work not only to win the war on terror as it relates to Iraq and Afghanistan, but on a global basis, not only with a strong military -- we need at least 100,000 more troops, more military spending.

But at the same time, we have to strengthen our economy and make sure that somebody who has been in the private sector all his life can protect American jobs. And finally, strengthen the American family. That's what we've got to do.

Moderator: OK. I've got to go to Senator McCain.

McCain: I would not have mismanaged the war. It was badly mismanaged for four years. Now we have a new strategy that I think and pray every night will succeed. And I would have vetoed spending bill after spending bill after pork-barrel project after pork-barrel project, in the tradition of President Reagan.

Moderator: Mr. Gilmore?

Gilmore: You know, Chris, this campaign is about the national security of the United States. And there are at least four things that need to be done.

We need to be vigorous on the war on terror, and we need to draw other people across the world to us as we address it. Homeland security has got to become an entire effort of an entire community of the United States. And we have not yet achieved that.

Moderator: OK. Mr. Huckabee? We have to move. I'm sorry.

Gilmore: And we have to energy independence.

Moderator: I want to give everybody a shot. Mr. Huckabee, Governor?

Huckabee: I want to make sure that we went to a place where the states had more power and not centralized in the federal government.

That's been a mistake of this administration, I think an honest and sincere one, but a huge mistake. And instead, we need to honor the Tenth Amendment, we need to remember that we are a nation of strong states and weak federal government, not strong federal centralized government and weak states.

Moderator: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: You know, we won World War II, World War I and the Cold War with a major industrial base. We're losing our industrial base through bad trade policy right now. China is cheating on trade. I would enforce trade laws. That's something that the president is not doing.

Moderator: Senator Brownback?

Brownback: I'd push more a political solution along with a military solution in Iraq, and here I would push a three-state, one- country solution in Iraq, with a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, a Shia state, with Baghdad as the federal city.

I think we've got to push a political solution, along with the military, to get to a stable situation in Iraq, which is our key political issue of the day.

Moderator: Mr. Tancredo.

Tancredo: The president has done many good things, and I'm proud of him for -- he's a good man, but I'm telling you, on a number of issues, especially No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription bill, these things -- these things were overarching and overreaching for the federal government.

Also in terms of Iraq, it is time. You know, Benjamin Franklin said in 1727 -- 1787 that he wanted to...

Moderator: Governor? Out of time. Governor Thompson then.

Tancredo: Could I please...

Moderator: Governor Thompson please?

Thompson: Many different areas. One, I would transform the health care system, a lot different than the president's talking about. I would set up a peaceful way to settle the situation in Iraq by allowing the Iraqis to elect their own leaders in the states and being able to split the oil revenues. I would set up medical diplomacy as well as educational diplomacy in order to expand our foreign relations.

Moderator: Mr. Giuliani?

Giuliani: I think we should remind ourselves, because I remember it every day, that on September 11th, 2001, we thought we were going to be attacked many, many times between then and now.

We haven't been. I believe we had a president who made the right decision at the right time on September 20th, 2001, to put us on offense against terrorists. I think history will remember him for that. And I think we as Republicans should remind people of that.

Moderator: Dr. Paul?

Paul: I certainly would continue on my earlier theme that foreign policy needs to be changed -- Mr. Republican, Robert Taft, we have a statue of him in Washington. He advocated the same foreign policy that I advocate.

I would work very hard to protect the privacy of American citizens, being very, very cautious about warrantless searches. And I would guarantee that I would never abuse habeas corpus.

Moderator: This is hardly the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, or even the beginning of the end. But it is, to quote Winston Churchill, "at least the end of the beginning."

This debate airs again tonight on MSNBC at 11 Eastern time. And in just a moment, I'll join Keith Olbermann on MSNBC for a complete debate analysis and coverage as the campaign heads to the spin room.

I want to thank everyone here.