Transcript: I think that 9/11 probably, for a few good reasons, made the government more secretive so that we wouldn’t betray some of our sources and methods to the enemy. But I do believe that on the signing statement issue where the president has basically made a statement when he signs a bill into law saying that he either will not obey it, or will not implement it, or will only partially implement it, it’s a terrible turn of events. I think it’s a fundamental assault on the balance of powers. I will never as President of the United States issue a signing statement that has anything to do other than how I will implement the law to its fullest degree. On the other aspect of the issue about sources, and methods, and phone records and all that kind of stuff, that’s another manifestation of the gridlock we hear . . . we have here. Why shouldn’t the relevant committees, the intelligence committees and the Executive branch sit down and work out the best way to track down people who want to destroy America, and at the same time preserve individual liberties? And all of that is complicated by the dramatic changes in telecommunications capabilities as we see almost on a daily basis. But we should be able to adjust to that, and in a balanced and bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately we’re not. I’d call over the intelligence committee members, and I’d sit down with them and I’d say, “What’s your problem?” I would try to point out to them what our national security interests are. And I also would tell them that I respect their role. There is a role for Congress in the formulation of these policies, and I will respect it. And I will appeal to their angels . . . better angels of their nature because this is an issue of national security. It should not spill over into national partisanship.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: Well I think I would implement more effectively the No Child Left Behind Act so that we can have much better performance out of K through 12. I think that it was a good beginning. Many people say they just wanna scrap it. Well those who wanna do that, I say, “Well do you want us back to where we were before we passed that law?” But it needs to be fixed and I think we can fix it. I think we need more student loan programs. We need to reduce the interest rate as we recently did.

I think also we have to think about incentivizing math, science and engineering students, because that’s the need for the future economy of this country and we have a real shortage of ‘em. I’d like to make education affordable and available to every single American. I’m not saying that they’d have to receive that education; but at least it would be available and affordable, and we’re a ways from that. But it would start with telling math, science and engineering students that we’re gonna do everything we can to make sure they receive an education in those specialties, and then broaden it out into every other.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Question: Why do the terrorists hate us?

Transcript: I’m sure that we may have had something to do with it by some action of ours, but I think fundamentally we ought to understand that this is a perverted adaptation of an honorable religion in which people want to destroy everything we stand for and believe in. They wanna destroy our ideals, our principles, our Bill of Rights – our fundamental principles that have permeated our thought, and action, and governing bodies not only in America, but in other places in the world. And they wanna destroy it, and they hate it. And that’s very hard for us to understand; but we better understand they’re making very good use of cyberspace.

It’s a hatred. It’s an irrational hatred of us. It’s a belief that their religion is telling them to destroy us, and that . . . that their fundamental faith and reward . . . rewards are based on a destruction of all western beliefs and ideals. And it’s hard if not impossible for us to understand, but we better appreciate that it’s there; it’s unrelenting; it has many . . . takes many forms ranging from doctors in Glasgow to Denmark to Germany; to efforts to establish Al Qaeda cells in the United States of America.

We need a strong military intelligence and diplomatic capability; but we also better understand that it’s gonna be an ideological battle at the end of the day just as the Cold War was. And we’re not doing nearly enough in the area of cyberspace and winning the ideological struggle as we need to. And it’s gonna be a long, hard struggle. It’s gonna be a long war.

Question: How do we win?

We will win because we are superior in every way. This is a struggle between good and evil. We will prevail in a long . . . In many ways, as I said, military and diplomatic intelligence. But it will be our ideals, and our beliefs, and the common values that all of us are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. That will be the way we prevail. And there’s many aspects of it which would take you and I a long, long time – such as economic developments; such as opportunities for women, etc., etc. But it is a great force for evil. We are a force for good. I have the fundamental belief and faith that we are right and we will never surrender, and eventually they will.

Better use of cyberspace. Bin Laden was able to get a message out to billions of people from some obscure place in Pakistan or Afghanistan very recently. We’ve got to make better use of the Internet. We have to set up radio and television the way we did during the Cold War. We have to provide educational opportunities. We have to be advocates for human rights and democracy, particularly in the Middle East – that they show progress there so that people have an opportunity. And all of those kind of things that you and I would be standardized approaches. But we also have to understand there are gonna be some wealthy people who are doctors in Glasgow, Scotland who are motivated to wanna become suicide bombers and destroy the airport there. So it’s not a simple approach

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: I think the big difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that after we lost and withdrew from Vietnam, they didn’t wanna follow us home. I think it’s very clear if you read Bin Laden’s, __________, or __________, these other people, they wanna follow us home. They view Iraq as a stepping stone to America. So the dimensions of the conflict have changed dramatically. It’s eerie in a way. Some of the comparisons of the early stages of the Vietnam War and the strategy that was used in the Rumsfeld strategy, they were both failed strategies and they were very similar. And so on the ground that’s a little but eerie.

It was called “Search and Destroy”. In Vietnam they went out and killed bad guys and came back to base. That was what Rumsfeld was . . . strategy was doing before. Then we got General Abrams as the head of the military in Vietnam. And they went out and they . . . went out and they secured areas, and they stayed, and they allowed the normal life to begin. That’s the same thing that happened . . . that __________ strategy in Vietnam under . . . in Iraq under General Petraeus. We go out, and we secure an area, and we patrol all the time with Iraqi military and we don’t leave. It caused an upsurge in casualties. They are now coming way back down because the strategy is succeeding. That happened with General Abrams too. In the Vietnam War, the people ran out of patience and demanded that we do nothing else, even though our troops had already withdrawn from Vietnam. In this war, the question is, “Will the Baghdad clock and the Washington clock be the same?” And that’s not clear to me, although we had beaten back the Democrats’ efforts to set the date for withdrawal a short a time ago as last week.

I think the other part, though, that is most heartening to me is America is very divided about this war; but none of us are divided in our support of the men and women who are serving in uniform. And unfortunately in the Vietnam War, it wasn’t like that. So I’m proud not only of these young men and woman who are serving because of the best of America; but I’m proud of America in that we are supporting these young men and women no matter how we feel about the war and whether it’s right or wrong. And I think it’s . . . It’s something that is very, very important, and one that I can’t tell you how much I appreciate.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Question: If you don’t win, why will that be?

Transcript: Because I didn’t do a good enough job.

Question: Will it have been worth it?

Transcript: Oh yeah. It’s been . . . This has been a great honor and a privilege for a person who stood fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. If my old company officer Marine captain were here today, he would say, “In America, anything is possible.”

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Question: Who really has the power in Washington?

Transcript: I’m sorry to tell you that there’s too much power in the hands of the special interests. There’s too much power by people who are lobbyists, and campaign contributors, and members of Congress who are beholden to the special interests, which has given us the iron triangle, and given us a situation that Dwight David Eisenhower warned us about many years ago in his farewell speech. And that is the military industrial complex and their influence and control over policies as well as the use of taxpayers’ dollars. So I would have to say that the special interests have too much influence.

The real power still will reside in the President of the United States if that president can maintain the approval of the American people. If that president can do that, that president can be the most powerful person in Washington and in the world.

Question: If you were president, how would address this?

Transcript: Well I would expose every pork barrel bill that came across my desk. I would make the authors of it famous. I would point out who the special interests are, and I would hammer them on a daily basis. And I would break their grip, and I would start acting in the interests of the American people who don’t have paid lobbyists here in Washington, or the influence that . . . that some special interests have. And finally I would restore trust and confidence in government so the people would believe me when I could tell them what wasteful, and unnecessary, and even corrupt spending is.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: There are constant threats to our privacy. We’ve seen that in China as far as the violation of the rights of the people in China. Because we have to have a very active congressional oversight and balance of power government. We cannot allow the president to violate laws unless he is willing to take the responsibility for that. We cannot have them issue signing statements that basically say that he or she won’t . . . won’t obey a law. We’ve got to have better cooperation between various agencies, particularly the intelligence committees and other agencies of government in preserving individuals’ rights, and at the same time preserving our nation’s security. And that’s a careful balance, and it changes all the time with advances and changes in telecommunications technology. But it’s gotta be a spirit of cooperation, not a spirit of partisanship and anger.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: It’ll be remembered as the age of revolution; of the information technology revolution; which is only comparable to the industrial revolution; which changed the nature of the globe, not just America. Worldwide, instantaneous communication. A flow of information and knowledge in an incredible fashion. And the impact that all of this information and flow of information and ideas is having in the world is not really for us to . . . that I can accurately predict to you except you’re gonna have a better informed world, a better educated world, a cleaner . . . a better world as far as the spread of democracy and freedom is concerned. And you’re going to have a world that is . . . whose economy is basically global in nature.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: I think that’s gonna depend to a large degree on the outcome of the war in Iraq, because many historians judge presidents by the conduct of national security policy. I think he’ll be judged harshly on the issue of spending – failure to get spending under control. I think he will be not judged favorably by not engaging more in the issue of climate change and trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But I also think that he will be remembered as a good and decent man who loved his country, and that tried very hard to fix some of the problems, including Social Security, that are important to the future of the nation.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: Well a president should lead. You know you can’t have individual states and individual movements deciding issues affecting the country. A president has to set a tone. And when it comes to abortion, I believe that . . . in a woman’s right to choose. But as president, I would do everything I can to stop unwanted pregnancies – to push for adoption, and sex education, and family planning. But at the same time, when it comes to gay rights, I think we should be a country that honors the fact that we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation. As a governor in a red state, as I say, which is a conservative state, I had fought . . . I have fought against those that want to discriminate against gays. And I have got the most gay . . . pro-gay, lesbian record in the country. Not because it’s politically popular – actually it’s a very conservative state – but because it’s the right thing to do. I would try to lead in those areas as President. Not impose my will, but take strong moral stands. Those are value stands. You know we should be a nation of values. And values are not just religious values. Other values that we should emphasize is the right to have healthcare; the right for a child to be able to go to school; the right for anybody to pursue the American dream. So I would expand the definition of what constitutes a value.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Question: What will a world in which the U.S. is not the sole superpower look like?

Transcript: I think the U.S. may not be the only superpower, but I believe we will still be in every measure the strongest nation in the world – whether it be economically, politically, militarily, including morally. I believe that we will still remain a shining city on a hill; but I think that there is no doubt that India and China are emerging powers. India, it’s pretty clear that their emergence will be economically. In the case of China, I do worry. I worry about their treatment of Taiwan. I worry about their treatment of human rights. And I’m worried about their environmental damage that they continue to inflict. I’m worried about their military buildup. If I had to bet, I would say it’s more likely that China will enter the world stage peacefully. But I think it’s important we maintain our military presence in Asia. I think we maintain pressure for human rights. And I think we have to do more to respect their violations of intellectual property rights and a number of other aspects. But . . . and make alliances with their neighbors in the region. We’re also concerned about their emergence, and one of those countries is Japan.

Question: Are Americans ready for a geopolitical shift?

Transcript: I don’t know if the world is. This is a historic shift of power from Europe to Asia. And whenever in history these kinds of enormous shifts in power go from one part of the world to the other, there are many consequences – many of them unanticipated. But it’s a reality; so our job, I think, is to prepare for it rather than assume that it’s not gonna happen or we can block it. But I wanna emphasize – America will remain the strongest nation in the world by any measure for a long, long time.

Question: What do we do to prepare for it?

Transcript: I think we have to adopt policies that encourage more peaceful participation in the world; to make sure that they abide by the international rules that they’ve agreed to according . . . including the WTO. I think we should strengthen all of our ties with Japan, Korea, Indonesia, other countries in the region. I think that we should be more forceful in our advocacy for human rights. We should be more forceful in some of the high tech corporations that are doing business in China to observe human rights as well. So there’s a lot of things that we can do as a major influence; but it is still not a certainty that China will enter the world stage peacefully. And we have to do everything we can to make sure that happens.

Question: What can America learn from the rest of the world?

Transcript: I think from a lot of the world, America – particularly Europeans – is a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that we can prevent this in this incredible damage that is being inflicted on our planet due to the emission of greenhouse gases and what we know as global warming or climate change. I think we can learn something from some of the other countries in that respect.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: I think it depends on individual experiences in Iraq; but I think that the citizens of Baghdad that used to be subjected to arbitrary killing and imprisonment, especially brutal to young women by Saddam Hussein’s sons – I think if you were democratically inclined, that you’re very happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. But I think there’s also frustration because of our four years of failure – failed policy in Iraq, and I understand that. But I think you’re now seeing where the reverse flow of refugees in a more secure environment – Iraqis beginning to probably say, “I’m glad that the Americans are here doing the right thing.” But I also think the Iraqis want more and more to take over the responsibilities, and I hope that the military is capable of doing that. I believe the military is capable of doing it; but I come around again to my initial answer to you. They’ve got to have a functioning central government effectively.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: Well I think by that time that we will have a much smaller presence in Iraq . . . a smaller presence in Iraq, and the military of Iraq taking over their responsibilities that are presently being carried out by American troops. But I think the key to all of this now is not the military success, which we have achieved. It’s the government of Iraq – the Maliki government or whatever government it is functioning effectively; and the rebuilding of the infrastructure in Iraq so that people can lead better lives economically.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript:  From Senator Clinton, I think it’s dangerous to have government mandates that all Americans are required to have health insurance.  I think that’s very dangerous because of the impact it’ll have on the highest quality healthcare in America.  I think that by far, the most dangerous is that espoused by all the Democratic candidates and congressman Ron Paul that we set a date for withdrawal from Iraq.  I believe that’s a date for surrender.  I believe if we do it then there will be chaos and genocide in the region and we will be back.  So if they say we have to set a date for immediate withdrawal, in my view that it should be dictated by events on the ground, not by an artificial deadline.

And I finally might add if the Democrats are gonna run the war in Iraq, and it’s anything like the way they’re running Congress, we’re in deep trouble.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Question: What aspect of the Democratic party platform do you most disagree with?

Transcript: Well I disagree that the Democratic party should be a party of litmus test. And in the past we were. In the past we said the litmus tests are you can’t be against gun control; that you had to be pro-choice. Now I’m pro-choice, but I’m also somebody that respects the Second Amendment. And . . . and the Democratic party used to have other litmus tests that tended to favor a party dominated in the Northeast and the far west. And in between – the Iowas, the New Mexicos, the Southwest, the Floridas, the Ohios – they were kinda left out. And so right now I believe the Democratic party is in a good, healthy state. But one of the main points I’ve been making to candidates that are running in the Democratic primary is let’s have full debates on the issues – on policy differences – not on personal attacks, not on tearing each other down. And I believe the Democratic electorate likes that because there is such an overwhelming view that we need to win the next election.

Question: What aspect then of the Republican party platform do you most agree with?

Transcript: Well I disagree with almost everything. I mean the fact that they are so wedded to the past. On the war, they each wanna trumpet how great the surge is working. They’re intolerant on immigration. They don’t wanna change the healthcare system in this country.

I guess what I like about the Republican party, I like the people that represented it in the past. I am a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt who were, at the time, conservationists. And I believe that if you’re gonna be an environmental president, you have to build bipartisan support. And Teddy Roosevelt was able to do that. Lincoln, you know, he was the man that ended slavery. He was a Republican. So I believe that it’s important that we develop bipartisan solutions. What I would do as President is I’ll have a bipartisan candidate – Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. I won’t overdo all the Republicans, but . . . That’s supposed to be funny. But what I’m saying is I think we need a new way of governing that signals to the American people that we need to bring everybody together.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: I think two parties are enough; but I can tell you that the dramatic increase in independent voter registration indicates that both parties are not satisfying a whole lot of Americans. For many, many years you were either Republican or Democrat, and the Independents were very small. Now we’re seeing a dramatic increase in Independent voter registration. So my prediction is that if neither party reasserts its influence and attraction to a majority of voters, you will probably see a third party emergence in America. That’s only logical.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: I think ethanol is very viable. I do not think ___________ $10 a barrel. I think it’s very important. I think it contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And I am very pleased to see the ethanol plants springing up all over the state of Iowa and other places in America. But I have to tell you I’m also for switch grass, sugar cane based, all other ethanol as well. And I do not support ethanol subsidies. The ethanol manufacturers are doing very well, and I don’t support tariffs on imported ethanol. I think it’s a high quality product that should be able to compete anywhere. I know that’s not a very popular position in Iowa, but I have to do what I think and take the position that I think is best for America, and best for the agricultural interests in Iowa.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: I know NAFTA was a good idea. It’s created millions of jobs, and it has helped the economies of all three of these nations. All you have to do is go to Detroit and see the thousands of trucks lined up there every day. Or go to our Southern border. There have been winners and losers, and that’s the problem. But free trade is something I think that’s vital to the future of America.

As a free trader, I will open up every market in the world to Iowa agricultural products. Have people lost jobs? Yes they have, and they’re gonna lose jobs; although the overall gain in jobs has been pretty impressive. But we can’t leave anybody behind. We cannot leave people behind because of being displaced workers, and I am committed to implementing training and education programs that works through our community colleges, which are very strong in Iowa; and tailor and implement training and education programs for the local needs so that we can have people fill jobs and not be left behind at a very early stage of their life, including . . . of their life including, if necessary, someone who had a high paying job that’s required to take a much lower paying job to have a . . . a level of compensation so that they wouldn’t experience that dramatic change in their income.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: Absolutely. In 2000 when Delaware wanted to go ahead of New Hampshire, I said that I would even pull down the shades on Amtrak as I passed through Delaware. Look, Iowa caucuses are important; New Hampshire and I think South Carolina as well. New Hampshire has a unique role. The citizens of New Hampshire know that unique role. They examine the candidates. There’s no way you can buy New Hampshire with media. You can only retail politic it. You can only have the town hall meetings. You can stop at the cafes and the stores and shake hands with people. And that’s . . . that’s the unique aspect and beauty of the American political scene in New Hampshire.

Recorded on: 11/20/07

Transcript: I do believe it sends a message that there’s a monarchy (Chuckles); that somehow it’s either the Bushes or the Clintons. I think it’d be healthy that others that may not be part of the Washington establishment such as myself with a minority background, a governor from the Southwest, get a chance. I do believe it sends a message that somehow there is a succession in American politics – that we make decisions based on political pedigree and not on background, and qualifications and experience.

Recorded on: 11/20/07