The Romney Victory Party was brimming with Campaign and GOP stars. I had the opportunity to interview three heavy weights: Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden.

Saul Anuzis:

Congressman Hoekstra:

Kevin Madden

KWN: I thought we could start off by talking about your reactions to the results of the Iowa Caucuses.

Michael DuHaime: Well, we would like to extend our congratulations to Gov. Huckabee. It was a very good win for him. He withstood an awful lot of negative campaigning. This was a very solid win for him. So first of all, we certainly congratulate him and his team

Secondly, we have always taken a long-term approach to this process. We take an approach that looks at the number of delegates at stake. We have never had a nominating process with so many states, large and small, involved in the nominating process. Our strategy has always been that we are going to get the most delegates, understanding that you can’t play in every single state and that the cost would be too great. Absent the ability to self-fund, the cost is too great for any of the candidates. You keep every race in perspective. We haven’t built our campaign around winning any one single state. So we looked at Iowa, knowing that there are not delegates at stake in Iowa at this point. we decided to look further down the road to look where we can pick up delegates. So many of the states that moved up, whether it be Florida or some of the February 5th states that have large delegate quantities like California, like Illinois, and obviously New York and New Jersey, that are winner-take-all states. Or other states Other like Georgia, Missouri, we have had a long-term approach to that.

We are trying to keep the results of any individual race in perspective. I know that the media is going to pay huge amount of attention on the early states, as they deserve to be. But we have looked at this from a long-term approach and we will continue to do that as we go forward. There have already been more absentee ballots requested by Republicans in Florida than there were voters in the Iowa caucuses. So I think we need to keep in perspective, that-how many voters there were. I mean there 114,000 voters less than what you would get in a normal Congressional election. I think Karl Rove had some interesting comments yesterday about the size of the electorate. Eight out of ten Republicans, or more than that, did not vote in the Iowa Causes. So keep the results in perspective.

KWN: What are your expectations for New Hampshire on Tuesday?

Michael DuHaime: It’s going to be interesting to watch between Gov. Romney and Sen. McCain. Gov. Romney predicated his campaign on winning the first two states. Obviously he has already hit a bump in Iowa, and is locked in a tight race here.

We have always had a very good perspective on New Hampshire. Look, Gov. Romney was the Governor of a neighboring state. Eighty-five percent of the residents of New Hampshire live in the Boston television market, so they saw his four years as Governor. He has spent millions upon millions of dollars here. Similar to Iowa, he has been outspending everyone dramatically. He has a vacation home in the state. So he came into here with some real institutional advantages that we were aware of.

Obviously, Sen. McCain came in here with a tremendous amount of goodwill from 2000, he won the state by almost 20 points in 2000. So we have always had a perspective and understanding that there are two very, very strong candidates in New Hampshire. We’ve felt that there was an opportunity to do well here. But again, we look at this from a long-term approach and looking at the number of delegates at stake here and in other states and tried to keep all the efforts proportional and in perspective.

KWN: Some critics in the MSM and the Blogosphere are skeptical that Mayor Giuliani will be able to win Florida if he does not win a primary or caucus up until that point. How confident are you that he will win Florida?

Michael DuHaime: We have taken a lot of criticism for having a bit of an unconventional approach. But The Mayor has never listened to conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom a year ago said that he would not even be a serious candidate past the spring or summer. They said that he would never be able to last in the race. Not only did he last but he lead in the race and is certainly one of the top-tier candidates here as we go forward. If he had listened to conventional wisdom, he probably wouldn’t have ran for Mayor of New York, right? Five-to-one Democrat, how could a Republican win? He probably would have never said, I can cut crime in New York. He would never had been able to reduce the welfare rolls as he did because the conventional wisdom and the pundits said he couldn’t do it. But he has never listened to that. He has always said that we have to do what we believe is right, and we are going to stick to that.

That is what we are doing with this plan as well. There are a lot of folks who say you have to do it this way. Well, Rudy has never said that. Rudy has never said that you have to live by the old rules.

We’ll see. Let’s give it some time. We will see where we all stand a month from now. We have never had so many states-there are 21 states on February 5th. We have never had a primary election like that before. It’s so accelerated. Strategies change necessarily by changing circumstances.

Not only that, you have five double-digits candidates in the race. In some states you have six double-digit candidates. Nobody has ever been in a race with that many serious candidates. Nobody has ever been in a race with this many states in such a short period of time time.

So we are comfortable with our strategy. We think its very good. I am very confident about Florida. First, Rudy has a base in Florida that is better than anyone else’s. He is very familiar with Florida going all the way back to his days in the Reagan Justice Department. We have a great operation down there. Great endorsements and a great field team. Great grassroots volunteers. We have a base of support that is very familiar with The Mayor from folks that have moved down to Florida in recent years that are familiar with The Mayor’s record.

That doesn’t mean it won’t be a very tight and close race throughout-that is understood.

KWN: But hasn’t there been too little discussion of the other coalitions he has been able to build within the state? Hizzoner is extremely popular among the Florida Cuban and Puerto Rican Communities…

Michael DuHaime: Undoubtedly. The Mayor has spent a lot of time in Florida this year. He is not just another candidate that has spent a lot of time in Iowa and New Hampshire. We spent a lot of time in Florida, in California, Illinois, and other states that many others have ignored. You are right, we have very, very strong support in the Cuban Community, and really up-and-down the state he has very good support. I feel good about that. He does have many different types of coalitions than the other candidates, and that has come from a lot of very hard work.

Beyond the hard work, it came from many years of service all the way back in the Reagan Justice Department and as U.S. Attorney in New York. People in Florida are well aware of the good work that he has done and the knowledge that he brings to issues. Both national and Florida-specific issues where he has gained perspective and knowledge.

KWN: It appears that Barack Obama may now have the inside track to the Democratic nomination. How do you see Mayor Giuliani matching up with Senator Obama. How would guess such a race would shake out?

Michael DuHaime: I think he has clearly struck a chord with Independent voters and did well in Iowa. It remains to be seen. I don’t want to prejudge the Democratic contest. I have a hard enough time handicapping our own contest (laughs). I think the important thing here, is that Rudy is the best candidate to take on -whether it be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama- whoever is able to pull off the nomination. I think Rudy is the best candidate to take either one of them on. There is a very large ideological difference between Rudy and Barack Obama.

Barack Obama wants change, but remember change for the worse is not that good. Not all change is good. The change he wants calls for higher taxes. Obviously going backwards and [going] on defense on Terrorism. That [tendency] towards weakness is not good change. I give him that-it’s change. But I think Rudy go for the type of change that people want; and that is staying on offense in the terrorists war on us, having a very tough and strong foreign policy, peace through overwhelming strength. And domestically, not only Barack Obama, but any of the Democrats, they really want to raise taxes by an awful lot. The put it in the code of withdrawing the Bush Tax Cuts. But most people understand that that is an enormous tax increase. The want to vote for greater, more centralized government, where Rudy has called for much more choice in everything from education to health care. There are coming to be stark ideological differences between Rudy and Sen. Obama.

I also think, that from an electoral college point of view, Rudy is the only one who can take advantage of that match-up, because I think you have a real significant advantage for Rudy in states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut. States that are in Rudy’s geographic base that are traditionally Democrat-leaning states that Rudy could take because they are folks that are real familiar with Rudy’s record of leadership there. So I do think that we would get an advantage we would get in that match-up that would be very beneficial to the Republican Party.

KWN: You are one of the youngest people in American History to manage a presidential campaign. Does that distinction add in any pressure you may have already felt?

Michael DuHaime: I don’t think so. I don’t feel any more pressure. I feel pressure because I know that Rudy is the best candidate to win, and I know that this is a great opportunity for me to have a say in the future of our country. Folks that get involved as political operatives in both parties have a real sense of idealism. Most of us, I think, have a real sense of idealism in terms of what we do helps our country. We may not agree with each other. We may pick different candidates. But we do this, I hope, for the right reasons. I got involved with this campaign is because I know that Rudy would be a great President. So the pressure that I get-the pressure I put on myself- is knowing that I want to do my best to make that happen. I don’t want to fall short because I would feel that I would not only be letting Rudy down, but in many ways I would be letting the country down because our country deserves a leader like him.

KWN: Do you feel that, being a younger person yourself, you have a unique ability to craft a message that could reach out to younger voters that other campaign managers do not?

Michael DuHaime: I hope so. I feel in many ways we have taken a bit of an unconventional approach here. Maybe my relative youth makes me more open to that. Maybe more open to saying that you do not always have to do things the way that they were done 20, 30, 40 years ago. You are more open to change. So I hope that indicates that I do probably have a perspective on 18-29 year-0lds, or folks in their thirties, or folks with young families, I hope that from personal experience I have a good perspective on them.

More importantly, I think that Rudy, more than any other Republican, really attracts young voters . I have seen it first hand, types of crowds he attracts at colleges when he speaks. A lot of young people in their 20’s obviously remember very well September 11th and his performance thereafter. It is one of those memories that all of us have, But I suppose if you are younger that its one of your first memories of a terrible thing happening. Seeing someone that has both the toughness and the compassion to unite the country and express our grief and also help us to move on and move forward. That kind of leadership-young people really respond to that. I think they have seen it in Rudy.

There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about who could be a leader, who could unite the country, and it’s all speculation as to whether someone could with one exception-and that is Rudy. Rudy is the only person that has already united this country in a great time of crisis. People have already seen him. Not only young people, but I think especially the young people, have seen his leadership firsthand. It wasn’t a campaign… It wasn’t rhetoric… It wasn’t a TV commercial… It was real-and I think young people really respect that.

KWN: What are your thoughts on the race so far?

Danny Diaz: Well, I think it’s important when you look at the results [Iowa Democratic Caucuses], what is striking is the similarities. All of the the candidates are remarkably similar. Their solutions to most problems is to tax middle class families and to punish those who are working hard trying to fund their children’s education and pay their bills. In almost every case, their solution to any problem is some big government scheme. I don’t think you need to look any farther than health care. All of those guys: Obama, Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, are offering plans that expand government and that cost hundreds of billions of dollars-and they are not offering an adequate explanation as to how they plan to pay for it. All of them believe in some form of a weakened national security that defunds our troops, that calls for retreat, and calls for taking away important tools that are protecting us from terrorist attacks.

KWN: How good of a job are the Republican candidates doing of drawing a distinction between the Republican vision for the future and the Democratic vision?

Danny Diaz: Well, I think that obviously our candidates are engaged in a competitive primary. Obviously, their candidates are engaged in a competitive primary. Here at the RNC, our job is to prepare for the general [election] and to kind of lay out the distinctions between the two parties. Hopefully I’m doing that successfully (laughs). But at the end of the day, when we have a nominee, there are going to be very clear differences. One is in the vision for America. I think that we have an optimistic vision. One that believes that people should keep their hard-earned dollars. That they should chose how to invest that money, not the government. They earned it, they should keep their tax dollars as much as possible. We believe that bureaucracy is not the answer to every problem. I think that we believe that we need to spend the people’s money wisely. We do not believe that we need to withdraw from the world’s stage. I think that when you look at the differences between the parties, they are very real. It seems to me that the Democrats have a very negative view of our place in the world. They almost universally believe in a failed America. The economy, in Barack Obama’s, John Edwards’, and Hillary Clinton’s eyes isn’t doing enough. Our health care system is not good enough. We are not achieving enough success in the war on terror. I think we believe that we have an incredibly resilient economy. Sure there are challenges out there. But hurting middle class families by taking more of their money is not a solution. I think we believe we are achieving incredible success in Iraq. Pulling out Iraq and defunding the troops is not an appropriate response.

There are very real differences between the two parties, and my job is to communicate them.

KWN: The new apparent Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, seems to have been able to craft a centrist or moderate image that has the potential to have a great amount of appeal to Independents, despite the fact of having a very liberal voting record himself. Do you feel he has been getting a free pass from the media so far?

Danny Diaz: High-flying rhetoric is one thing… But how does that match someone’s record? I think that is what you are alluding to. The reality is that when you look at Barack Obama, you have to consider that he voted for the largest tax increase in American History. You have to look at the fact that he is someone who said we should play chicken with our troops. MoveOn.org comes out and says that all Democratic candidates should come right out and say that they will not fund the troops-and he comes out and does exactly that. You need to look at the fact that he is someone who does not believe we should be listening in to phone calls coming in to the United States that plot and plan to kill our children. On a whole host of issues, Barack Obama has the wrong positions. He believes in giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants because he believes it’s a public safety issue. Our confidence increases by the day. We feel this Their candidate’s stances on the issues are simply contrary to what the American people believe.

I think that once we have an electorate that is informed and makes a decisions based on the facts, the candidates, and their ideas, we are going to be in an incredibly strong position to maintain control of the White House. So I agree with you, [Obama] has taken positions that are very liberal, and they are way out of the mainstream. Whether it was in the Illinois Senate, or whether it’s his position on the Death Penalty, or it’s his anti-gun position. Those are stances, those are votes, that he will need to answer for should he be the nominee. We will hold Hillary Clinton accountable as well should she be the nominee. They will be judged on their record, not their rhetoric.

Sarah Huckabee was kind enough to take a few moments from her hectic schedule on the campaign trail to speak with me at the Des Moines Blogger’s Bash. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the interview cannot be presented here as the file was corrupted in the download. But here is Ms. Huckabee discussing her thoughts as the race for Iowa draws to a close:

Every campaign has these, and it’s a testament to the US political process.

It was interrupted and stopped in the middle of the interview, but will forgive the offender.

Race 4 2008 is pleased to present the following interview with former Congressman Bill Paxon.

Rep. Paxon was elected to the House of Representatives as a Republican in 1988, serving New York’s 31st Congressional District. He served as Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee in 1992.

After leaving Congress in 1999, he served as a key advisor to George W. Bush’s 2000 Presidential Campaign, and eventually as chairman of the Bush-Cheney Transition Advisory Team.

Rep. Paxon was gracious to take time with me to discuss this evening’s GOP presidential debate.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

KWN: What are your thoughts on the debates that we’ve had so far? Have you been pleased with the level of discourse regarding the important issues in the race?

Rep. Bill Paxon: Well, I’ve been honored to attend several of the debates with Mayor Giuliani, in Michigan and in Iowa, and I will be attending the one in St. Petersburg Of course I have been following them all. I am very gratified by the debates. I think the Republican base, in particular, has afforded our party’s voters with a clear choice in the race for President. I think that right from the beginning of this race back in January, Mayor Giuliani has lead in all the polls because and he’s lead because of what we’ve seen on the campaign trail and in the debates-a leader who clearly expresses the philosophical direction of what our party wants and our country needs.

Giuliani is the only Republican candidate for President that had the honor of working under President Reagan. Two very high level and important positions in his administration. Mayor Giuliani, in my view, is the linear successor to Ronald Reagan. He is an optimistic, forward thinking, visionary leader. I think that’s come across in the debates. I believe strongly that is the reason why Mayor Giuliani is leading.

In terms of the debates themselves, they brought out the candidates, all of the candidates in our party’s true positions and feelings and stands on the issues. I think that is the reason why he is leading, because he represents, for Republican voters, a clear choice and a clear distinction between our party and the Hillary Clinton Democrats.

And that’s the reason why I believe, ultimately, Rudy Giuliani will be elected President.

KWN: Leading up to the Michigan debate, the main point of contention among the candidates was economics. For this debate, crime seems to be the focus. As someone who lived in close proximity to New York City, can you talk about what you observed of Mayor Giuliani’s war on crime?

Rep. Bill Paxon: I am from the opposite end of New York State-Buffalo, New York. But as Upstate New Yorkers in the 70’s and 80’s we watched as New York City descended into total lawlessness [and] lack of order. Not just law and order & crime, but quality of life and economic disorder. It was dragging the whole state down. Literally at the eleventh-hour and fifty-ninth minute of the history of New York, when things were the darkest and the most despondent. Rudy Giuliani walked in and he took over and took charge of the streets and in a matter of almost no time had the city back on track. Crime plummeting, the economy blossoming . Everybody in the world saw it. There were articles in newspapers and magazines in every corner of the globe talking about this miraculous turnaround in New York City.

In terms of crime, it didn’t start when he was mayor. When he was U.S. Attorney, he took on the untouchables [and] the fact that it was impossible to control organized crime. Well, Rudy Giuliani proved that wrong. As U.S. Attorney, he took them on, and he beat them. He was a formidable enemy. The Mob took out contracts on Rudy Giuliani, and it didn’t stop him-he didn’t back down. His record on crime is clear. There was an almost 60% reduction in the overall crime rate according to the FBI (violent crime) while he was Mayor. Murder was down 66%, burglary-68%, robberies-67%. And I think that stands in stark contrast to the record of most other candidates.

Most of the other candidates who are running for President are legislators who had very little to do with crime and fighting crime in the streets. Mitt Romney has chosen for months to attack Rudy Giuliani on issues. We have not responded. We have tried to follow Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment to not attack a fellow Republican. But when it gets to the point of Gov. Romney misrepresenting the Mayor’s record in these areas, it’s time to respond. And we’ve pointed out this week that under Mayor Giuliani crime rate went down overall 56%. But under Mitt Romney, in Massachusetts, crime was up 8%, 7.5% up in murders, almost 6% in burglaries, [and] 12% up in robberies. If he’s going to attack Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney needs to start by looking at his own record and the woefully inadequate job that was done of controlling crime in Massachusetts under his watch.

KWN: I think its difficult for people who did not live there, or that have not studied it extensively, to understand the utter sense of hopelessness that gripped the city before Mayor Giuliani took over…

Rep. Bill Paxon: Well, I lived briefly in New York when I was going to college. In the 70’s, you couldn’t walk down the street. There were many parts of the city that the police were afraid to go into because of the utter lack of control. The lawlessness was just legendary. I can remember, as state legislator in the 80’s, often times staying in a hotel and at 8:30 walking outside with a couple of other state legislators and being accosted in the streets to the point that we had to walk down the middle of Broadway just to escape the people on the sidewalks who were literally holding you up.

It wasn’t too long ago that my wife and I took our two young daughters to the city, and at 10 o’clock at night, along with tens of thousands of others, walk through Times Square. Rudy Giuliani was able to turn this city around to the point where people from around the world can take their youngest children there and feel comfortable and feel safe.

It kind of counter-intuitive. A lot of people would say, if you are going to bring down the murder rate, you gotta start with murders. Rudy Giuliani did that. But he also decided that you couldn’t have law and order when people didn’t feel comfortable driving their cars down the streets getting accosted by squeegee men. They’d stand out there, and if you didn’t pay them to wash your windows, you know, they’d smash your window. He started with panhandlers. He started with pornographers in Times Square. Every element of lawlessness in the city was addressed because he saw this as a seamless whole. You couldn’t have one part of the city, one area not controlled, or one area where crime is not controlled, if you are going to control crime across the board.

KWN: Towards the end of Dinkins’ term, entire classes of crime were, in reality, decriminalized. Property Crime was basically legalized, with flags of surrender on some cars declaring, “radio already stolen”…

Rep. Bill Paxon: Right! Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. That’s exactly what it was like. It was frightening. It was frightening for the people who lived there. It was frightening for tourists who came to the city. It was frightening for people who tried to do business in New York City. But Rudy Giuliani took them on and turned it around. He’s fearless. As I said, it takes a lot to get a Mob contract on your head when you are a public official. But they saw him as someone who is destroying their franchise to loot and pillage the city. He took them on and brought them down. That’s kind of guy I want, that’s the kind of person I want as a President of the United States. Someone who is not afraid to attack these kind of problems. Because he proved it not just in crime and turning around the city’s economy, but he also did it by restoring the kind of value sets we want as a government leader.

I think he is going to be a remarkable President.

Race 4 2008 is pleased to present the following interview with Gov. Mitt Romney.

Gov. Romney was gracious in taking time from his hectic schedule on the campaign trail in Connecticut to speak with myself and all of Race42008’s “Mitt Guys”-Jason, Matt, and Justin.

In this interview, Gov. Romney discusses his plan for defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis, reforming the federal government from the top down, providing relief to the African Continent, and how his national health care plan differs from that which was enacted in Massachusetts.
____________________________________________

Kavon W. Nikrad: It seems that in dealing with the Iranian nuclear crisis, the U.S. is forced to choose between different degrees of loss; or perhaps instead, we are in search of the choice in which we lose the least. On one hand, do nothing and the mullahs gain nuclear weapons; act militarily and we at minimum risk enraging a generation of young Iranians that may have overthrown the current regime eventually; and at worse start WWIII. Do you feel there is a scenario where the U.S. can “win”?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well, I was in Israel early this year and spoke at the Herzliya Conference in Tel Aviv and laid out a seven-point strategy to convince Iran to abandon nuclear ambition and to instead pursue a path towards prosperity and peace. And that plan has at its heart much tougher economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran during a time when its pursuing nuclear technology. I also believe that we should market democracy much more clearly to the people of Iran and we should make them painfully aware of the tragic course that a nuclear nation is pursuing.

Specifically, becoming a nuclear nation puts them very much at risk. Because as a nuclear nation, there is risk that fissile material that they develop would fall into the hands of terrorists, or others who would use it; and the civilized world will respond not just against the nation or the entity that uses that weapon, but also to the nation that supplies that fissile material. So I believe that it is very much in our interest to communicate these things and to show the world’s displeasure at Iran’s nuclear ambition.

And finally, of course, our military option must be one that we hold ready and that we are willing to take.

Justin Hart: Governor, you’ve spoken on numerous occasions about performing a top to bottom review of the government, an audit as you put it. What will that process look like, what will you be looking for as you conduct the audit, and what do you think you will find?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well, first of all the people that I would bring together would not be a group of government bureaucrats but instead individuals from outside government who would take review of a particular agency or department or program area and look at all of the spending which we do in that area, all of the agencies that participate in that area, the programs that are focused upon it and we would evaluate the effectiveness of each of those programs, the effectiveness of the dollars spent, determine if there is some unintended by-product either good or bad that are coming from the agency or from the program. And on that basis we would rank/order those programs that should be eliminated, those that out to be expanded, and those that ought to be consolidated into others.

Right now, for instance, in an area like economic development there are some 342 different programs. We really don’t need that many. We ought to find a way to streamline and simplify, eliminate overhead, eliminate bureaucracy and make Washington more responsive to the needs of the people.

Matt C.: You stated a couple weeks ago that you represented the “Republican Wing of the Republican Party”, echoing Howard Dean’s statements in 2004. Could you first explain what you mean by that, and secondly, in hindsight, do you have any regrets saying that seeing the storm of attacks it brought you from Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and others?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well, actually the quote’s not quite accurate – which is, I said that I believe we do need to represent the Republican heartland or Republican base vote and that’s not just me, but it’s all of those that are running for office. I’m certainly not the only one that represents, if you will, the Reagan coalition but I’m one of those that does. And I do believe that to win the White House it is essential that we bring together the three branches of conservatism that Ronald Reagan assembled for his great victory – and that is social conservatives, economic conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives. I think if we are missing one of those three branches, we will not be successful in winning the White House.

So, like the others who are fighting for the nomination and establishing our bona fides, I think it’s essential to bring that group together, and I intend to speak on those topics and to try and build my support – I know the other fellows are doing the same thing – and ultimately the people will have their choice as to who they think is best able to represent those values of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives.

Jason Bonham: A lot of America’s foreign policy focus is based on the War on Terror and European relationships. You have also specifically highlighted a need to take China more seriously. The U.S. and the UN have a past of ignoring serious problems in Africa including genocide. What are your views on the importance of African concerns to our foreign policy and what specifically would you do address these as president?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well you make a very good point, which is that we as a public tend to focus on one hot spot at a time. And perhaps even our politicians do the same. A president and a nation must focus on all the areas of the world and understand how those areas are developing in ways that might encourage peace and stability or ways which might distract from them.

In my view it’s important for us to consider Africa on the basis of many issues. One of course is the tragic human condition of many in Africa who are subject to diseases such as AIDS, Malaria and others. A second aspect of our concern in Africa has to relate to the genocide occurring in Sudan, and then another area of concern would certainly be the spread of radical Jihadism. Whether it’s in Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, throughout Africa there are efforts on the part of radical jihadists to overthrow moderate modern governments. So we as a nation must join together with other civilized nations to help strengthen Africa so that it can reject the extreme and so that it can overcome the profound humanitarian crises which are upon it.

It is unfortunate that the United Nations has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its mission. The United Nations has not been able to stop genocide, has not stopped war, has not stopped the spread of diseases like AIDS. And so I believe it’s gonna’ take free nations coming together, working together on a global basis -and particularly with regards to a place like Africa- to help support moderate people so they can reject the extreme within them and so that we can combine to stop the spread of radical-violent-Jihadism.

Kavon W. Nikrad: Perhaps the signature accomplishment of your time as Governor of Massachusetts was enacting Massachusetts health care reform. However, while campaigning for President you have stressed that the solution that was right for Massachusetts would not necessarily be the correct one for the nation as a whole. Can you talk about the differences between the plan that was implemented in Massachusetts and the one you would champion as President?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well I like what we did in Massachusetts and it may well be ideal for other states. But, of course, my view is that you don’t have the federal government put in place a one-size-fits-all plan for every single state. And that’s because of the differences between our state’s populations and their needs. In Massachusetts for instance, 7% of our population was uninsured. But in Texas, 25% of the population is uninsured. And therefore the plan that works in one state may not work perfectly in another. Likewise in California, a single individual can buy a good health care policy for $2000 a year. But in New Jersey, the cost is $6000 a year. So there’s going to be a needed reform of the health insurance market in New Jersey in order to provide the kind of quality insurance options that exist in places like California.

My view is this therefore-I want to get everybody in our country insured. But I do not want the government to mandate to states how they do it. Instead, I’d like the federal government to provide the flexibility to states just like they did to us in Massachusetts so that we could each craft our own plan to get our citizens insured.

Secondly, I don’t want our citizens to all get Medicare or Medicaid. In other words, I don’t think that government insurance is the right course for the uninsured. Rather, I believe that market-based, private insurance is the best course helping people who are uninsured become insured.

And finally, I do not believe that we should spend more money or require additional taxes to pay for these programs. We should, instead, redirect money that is already being used to help the poor.

So on a number of basis I take a very different course than Hillary Clinton’s. Her view is a one-size-fits-all plan. I say no, let it be done by states. Her plan is to give everybody that is uninsured government insurance. I say no, give them free market based insurance. And then her plan calls for an extra $110 billion a year in spending and in new taxes. I say no, use the money we are already spending and no new taxes.

R4′08 Bonus: Sorry to butt in on your thread here Jason. But after viewing this video, click here to read our interview with Gov. Cellucci from earlier this year.-KWN

Race 4 2008 is proud to present the following interview with Sen. John McCain.

The conclusion of Sen. McCain’s “No Surrender Tour” has seen a surge in his poll numbers in the critical early primary state of New Hampshire as well as an upswing in his national polling.

Although his third quarter fundraising trails the other top-tier candidates of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, the McCain campaign is confident that victories in the early primary states that know him well can propel him to the nomination.

Sen. McCain graciously took time out from his busy schedule campaigning in South Carolina for this interview where we discussed the “Petraeus Effect” on the Democratic top-tier, how he felt as he heard the general vindicate the very strategy he had advocated for years, as well as his response to certain Evangelical leaders threatening to leave the GOP if they do not find the eventual nominee acceptable.
____________________________________________________

KWN: As the Senate passed a bill which authorized an additional $150 billion dollars for the Iraqi conflict, a poll was released that showed 70% of Americans opposing the continued funding of the war. Why does it appear that there been little to no progress made in the court of public opinion even after the Petraeus Report and the news that casualties have decreased by 50%?

Sen. John McCain: You know, polls are interesting Kavon, and I’m not trying to disparage this one because I don’t like it.

If you and I were polled and it said, “You want to get out of Iraq?”, both you and I would say “Hell yes!” “You think we ought to spend one more dime on it? Hell no!” So all I’m saying I think that so much of it depends on the way the question is asked. If I asked, “Do you want to stop funding the war? And by the way, we are going to have chaos in the region in the opinion of almost every respected nation security analyst from Henry Kissinger to Gen. Zinni to Brent Scrowcroft, etc…” then I think [they would say], “Well wait a minute!”

And I am also convinced, in all due respect to my Democrat friends, that if Petraeus’ performance had not been so effective you wouldn’t have seen all the Democratic candidates saying we would be there until 2013. Before his appearance they were all falling all over each other [to say], “Get out now!”

Look, I understand (and you do too) the frustration, and the anger, and the sorrow of the American People. It’s just there and it should be there. For nearly four-years we pursued a failed policy and we piled on that by saying a few dead-enders stuff happens, “last throes”, etc… So Americans were clearly disillusioned and disappointed after nearly four-years. What I think Petraeus did was make Americans think, “Well, we really don’t want to fail unless its the only option. This guy makes a convincing case not just that we just will have our declared allegiance to the cause, but we will give it more time to see if it can succeed.”

I think that a lot of the American Public over those two-days of saturation media saw that he has had a beneficial affect. I know that’s a long answer, but I think that the Democrats frankly are taking a more nuanced pose, otherwise they would have won that vote. And I know for a fact that a month before Petraeus showed up that Harry Reid was pretty sure that he had the votes for the Webb Amendment.

KWN: Yesterday you went after Hillary Clinton pretty hard for triangulating on this issue (full quote here). It does seem like they are trying to have it both ways now.

Sen. John McCain: Oh it does… And there’s another thing that is very aggravating [which] is that after you have the debate and its made clear that Congress is not going to have the votes to force withdrawal, then you vote against the funding! When Sen. Clinton voted against the funding, basically what she was saying is that I support the troops, but I am not going to fund the mission that they’re on. And I don’t think that’s good frankly for the men and women who are serving in the military.

KWN: Can you describe how you felt as you watched Gen. Petraeus give his report to Congress and heard him vindicate a strategy that you have championed for years?

Sen. John McCain: I felt that this man is someone who makes me feel proud to be an American. It makes me proud that our military academies produce this kind of person who would devote 35 years of their life to the service of this country.

I was over there over the 4th of July, Lindsey Graham and I, and he was kind enough to ask me to say a few words at the reenlistment of 688 brave young Americans, and I was honored. I can tell you these young troops were very polite in their applause, and they said thank you. But when he spoke, I’m telling you, you could see the affection, as well as the respect and admiration in the eyes and the voices of those young people. It was quite a thrill.

KWN: Would the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq result in genocide for Iraq’s Sunni Muslims?

Sen. John McCain: Yes. But [people] people may not take my word for it. You know, “He’s just a politician”, or something like that. Ask Gen. Zinni who opposed going [in] there in the first place. Ask Brent Scrowcroft who opposed going in in the first place. Ask Henry Kissinger who is not a renowned Hawk anymore. Ask a broad array of national security experts, except those on the far liberal-Left, and they will tell you the same thing. Absolutely I believe there will be chaos and genocide.

And again, don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the President of Iran who said less than two-weeks ago that when the U.S. leaves Iraq we will fill it. You don’t need any more than that.

KWN: It seems that in dealing with the Iranian nuclear crisis, the U.S. is forced to choose between different degrees of loss; or perhaps instead, we are in search of the choice in which we lose the least. On one hand, do nothing and the mullahs gain nuclear weapons; act militarily and we at minimum risk enraging a generation of young Iranians that may have overthrown the current regime eventually; and at worse start WWIII. Do you feel there is a scenario where the U.S. can “win”?

Sen. John McCain: Sure I do, and one of them is if we could get our European allies [engaged], and I’m very encouraged by Sarkozy’s comments, as they have been excellent. And by the way, I am also encouraged that the Foreign Minister of France would fly to Baghdad.

But I think, and I proposed this a long time ago, that we get together a league of democracies. Not only for Iran, but for Darfur, for North Korea, for Burma; where we have nations that share common values, common ideals, common goals, and we work together. And it has to be outside the [U.N] Security Council because we know that China and Russia will continue to block progress.

But fortunately, a tremendous amount of the economic power in the world is concentrated amongst these countries and we could make it very meaningful and very harsh on the Iranians if we impose draconian sanctions on them.

You know that there are European financial institutions today that are extending unlimited lines of credit to the Iranians who have a shaky economy. So I believe that would be an effective method.

But I would also point out to you that we cannot afford to have Iran possess a nuclear weapon, and am reminded back in January of 1981 when on the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President of the United States, our hostages miraculously came home who had been kept in Tehran for 400 days. So my view is that there are a number of things that the United States is capable of, and I certainly wouldn’t telegraph any of our punches.

KWN: One of the themes you seemed to stress the most during your “No Surrender Tour” was your qualifications to step in immediately as our next Commander-in-Chief. How would you state your case to your fellow Republicans as to why they should choose you to lead the GWOT over say Gov. Romney or Mayor Giuliani?

Sen. John McCain: Well, I really don’t criticize the others who are running. But I think that my qualifications deserve the consideration of the voters. I have spent my entire life involved in one way or another with national security and the military. I have served on the Armed Services Committee for 20 years… Military service… I have engaged in international forums. I have been engaged as a member of the Armed Services Committee in the United States Senate during various crises, whether they be Bosnia, Kosovo, the first Gulf War, etc… So I have spent really my adult life involved in these issues in one way or another. I am prepared to lead. I am prepared to address these challenges.

I’d like to give you the latest example. When Rumsfeld’s strategy, and it became clear to me very soon-as early as November of 2003 when I gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations condemning this strategy saying that it was failed and advocating the strategy that we are using now; and I was heavily criticized by Republicans for “being disloyal.”

So I was right. And I am the only one of the candidates who took those positions and had the foresight because of my knowledge and background and experience as to what was the right strategy in Iraq. I hope that my qualifications will lead people to believe what I believe, and that is that I do not need any on-the-job training. I can hit the ground running. And my friend, these are dangerous times.

KWN: Much has been made this week about certain Evangelical leaders finding particular candidates in the Republican field unacceptable. As someone who has received ratings of zero from both NARAL and PFAW, do you just have to shake your head at the fact that they are still looking for a candidate?

Sen. John McCain: I have developed good relationships with so many in the Evangelical community. Pastor John Hagee joined us on the “No Surrender Tour” as you know. I have developed a relationship with Dr. Richard Land and others, and I am proud to say that I had an excellent relationship with Rev. Falwell before he passed away. So I will continue to work with the Religious Right of our party.

But I would also say, and people are free to vote for who they want to and organize for who they want to; but I have always believed that we should be loyal Republicans to the extent that we should support the nominee of out party. And that is an admonition that Ronald Reagan made to us. So I hope that all people who are Republicans can engage in this spirited contest, and if it is fair and honest and open, support the nominee of our party which is determined by a process we all have confidence in.

KWN: Can you give us some straight talk on the abortion issue? Where do you feel it should rank now in the hierarchy of issues in which conservatives wish to enact change?

Sen. John McCain: As you know, I have had a consistent record. It’s really based on my adherence to the magnificent words of us all being created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights-and first among these is life! Those words apply to the born as well as the unborn.

I have fought for human rights around the world, the latest being Burma where I have advocated for that bravest of all world’s citizens, Aung San Suu Kyi. But I believe that the unborn have the God-given right to life as well. That’s the way I deal with this issue and it has been consistent.

Race 4 2008 is pleased to present the following interview with Steve Forbes.

Mr. Forbes is the editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine Forbes as well as president and chief executive officer of Forbes Inc.

Forbes was a candidate for the Republican nomination in both 1996 and 2000. He enjoyed particular success in the 2000 cycle, coming in a strong 2nd place in the Ames Straw Poll (losing to George W. Bush approximately 7,500 to 5,000 votes) as well as eventually coming in 2nd place in the Iowa Caucus itself with 30% of the vote (which was a full 16 pts. ahead of the third place finisher.)

In March 2007, Forbes was named National Co-Chair and Senior Advisor of Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign.

Mr. Forbes graciously took time out from hectic schedule campaigning for Mayor Giuliani in Iowa for this interview on Saturday afternoon.

_______________________________________________________

KWN: You had quite a bit of success in Iowa in 2000, coming in a strong second place in both the Ames Straw Poll and the Caucus itself. Tell us some of the lessons you learned about campaigning in Iowa.

Steve Forbes: The key to campaigning in Iowa is spending time in the state, working at the grassroots, and putting organizations together county by county. The Mayor is coming out here for the debate on Sunday morning, but he is also spending an extra couple of days here as well. So is is putting in the time needed to make a showing in the caucus come January.

KWN: You had your pick of candidates to endorse in this cycle. Why did you choose to back Mayor Giuliani?

Steve Forbes: Of all the candidates, I think he has had the most experience in making big things happen. I saw firsthand in New York City how he turned around that city. When he took office as you know, crime was very high, the economy was in shambles, and the budget was in serious deficit. When he took office, everyone was telling him to raise taxes. He took those tax increase proposals and just tossed them aside and said we are going to exercise spending restraint; he put in real restraints so that spending grew less than inflation. He cut taxes 23 times, which is unheard of in New York City. So for the first time citizens of New York face a lower tax burden from the city rather than a higher one. He did amazing things on fighting crime, which was a huge problem 15 years ago. He put in major police reforms. Murder went down almost 70%. He also slashed welfare rolls which was also unheard of in New York-he cut those by almost 60%. And of course on 9/11 we saw that he could handle unprecedented crisis. So given what we need on national security and given what I think we need for the future of the national economy, Rudy Giuliani has proven that he can translate words into reality.

KWN: The main criticism coming from rival campaigns concerning Mayor Giuliani’s economic record as Mayor is increased debt during his tenure. Are these concerns valid when taken in context with the overall record?

Steve Forbes: I think that the city was put on a very sound financial footing. So one, you could get a much lower interest rate and deal with some of the infrastructure problems in New York. Going back to the 1970’s when the city almost went bankrupt, a lot of the infrastructure in New York was put aside or not dealt with effectively. So debt was used for capital purposes rather than the past when it too often was used to cover budget deficits. So he kept control of spending, reduced the size of city bureaucracy, and capital money was actually spent on capital instead of budget shenanigans.

KWN: These criticisms seem reminiscent of liberal attacks on Ronald Reagan’s economic record. Both had to contend with Democratically controlled legislative bodies…

Steve Forbes: Well, I think Rudy had even more success than Ronald Reagan had in controlling the growth of spending. But even with the challenges Ronald Reagan had, he was able to restore the military and win the Cold War. And the wealth of the nation during his tenure in office increased almost 17 trillion dollars. So even though the national debt went up during Reagan’s time in office the wealth of the nation went up 10 times faster.

You saw something of the same phenomenon in New York City. 400,000 new private sector jobs were added, the economy came back to life, and New York City became a tourist mecca again.

KWN: Mayor Giuliani has unveiled an aggressive plan for reducing the size of the federal workforce. Can anyone can reduce the federal civilian workforce by over 20%?

Steve Forbes: I think that by starting with his own cabinet officers and giving them the mandate to find ways to reduce the spending, and finding ways to provide services in a more efficient way which he did in New York City, and by not replacing everyone who retires-that’s the key thing. A lot of people are going to be retiring in the next 8-10 years and if you make it policy that you are not going to replace everyone you can start to make real progress. And I think that as President, Rudy Giuliani won’t hesitate to wield the veto if he feels that spending bills have gotten out of line. And once Capitol Hill realizes that there is a veto out there, and you’ll have public opinion behind him, then you can get together with budget deals that will be quite different than what you’ve had in recent years in Washington.

KWN: The campaign has yet to formally reveal the tax reform portion of Rudy’s 12 Commitments to the American People. Could you perhaps give us a little preview as to what we can expect in this area?

Steve Forbes: Well, I thing you have already gotten a little of a forerunner of what’s he going to do on the tax side. He’s already proposed reducing marginal tax rates, he wants to simplify the tax code, and reduce business taxes as well. So I think it’s going to be very much in line with the philosophy of simplification and reducing tax burdens. And he’s demonstrated in New York that this won’t be just rhetoric, he will deliver.

Race 4 2008 is pleased to present the following interview with Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Like many of his Republican competitors, Rep. Tancredo is spending a great deal of time campaigning in Iowa in the run-up to the Ames Straw Poll on August 11th.

I was fortunate to be able to sit down for a few minutes with Rep. Tancredo between events in Ankeny, Iowa, where we discussed his physical and ideological resemblance to prominent Iowa politicians, the (perhaps) exciting voyage of his ancestors on their journey across Iowa to Colorado, and minor issues like our nation’s immigration crisis. _______________________________________________________________________________________

KWN: Have you been mistaken for Congressman King while on the campaign trail here in Iowa?

Rep. Tancredo: Constantly! Yes, it happens all the time. It happens more often in Congress than it does here. Not too long ago, I walked into the Speaker’s lobby and was confronted by someone from the press who asked me if they could do an interview, and I started to do it, and halfway through it realized that they thought they were talking to Steve King. So I told him that I could do a lot of damage to him if I wanted to. Of course, he could do the same to me.

KWN: But there is a strong resemblance, not just in appearance, but in ideology as well isn’t there?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: Yes. It’s really amazing. I joke about the fact that my grandfather came through here, between [the ages of] 9 or 10 years-old on the way to Colorado. So he may have stopped here for longer than we thought! (laughter)

KWN: Are you bothered that perhaps more than any other candidate in either party, you are associated with a single issue?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: I like the idea that at least people know I have one. Give me one other candidate and tell me an issue with which they are connected? They’re just people running for office. They want to be President. That’s nice… They look nice in suits and things like that. They’re smart and competent and accomplished and have done many things, but are they committed to anything? Anything? Do we know any of them that actually have a set of principles or ideas to which they are truly committed? I think people know that about me, and I am happy.

KWN: With perceptions being that the Republican Party is intent on pleasing business demands for inexpensive labor and the Democratic Party in securing a new voting bloc, is there any chance of meaningful Immigration reform?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: It’s going to be tough. It really is. It will take a President. I have been doing this now for 9 years, fighting this battle in Congress, and I can tell you that what you’ve outlined- the Republican demand for cheap labor and the Democratic demand for cheap votes- has been the major stumbling block. But the people are so uptight about it, that they shut down the Senate office switchboard the other day when that Senate bill came up. People are really in to it, and they know the issue and they are on my side. It’s going to take a President to do something about it.

KWN: What is the way to overcome the intransigence of both parties? Is there a concensus on any of the fundamentals on which to build?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: The People… The American People want an answer to this and they do not want amnesty. It takes a President to lead. The only reason we had a bill in the Senate, the only reason, is that we had the President pushing it along with the Democrats. That’s the only reason. There would have been no bill. So we are going to have [to get] a different President who will push another bill and use his power to secure the border and force the Justice Department and ICE to go after employers. There are things the President can do to solve this problem even without the Congress.

KWN: Have you perceived any movement on the immigration issue among your Republican competitors since the campaign began?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: Oh my God it’s incredible! It is absolutely incredible. Last night I went into an event, I was waiting for Tommy Thompson to get done, and when he saw me come in he broke off right in the middle of his discussion about health care and said, “I’ve been against amnesty my whole life!” (laughs)… It was completely out of context. It had nothing to do with anything! He saw me walk in the door and he wanted to assure everyone. And “all his life”, he said, he has been against amnesty (hearty laughter)… It’s great! I love it!

KWN: How do you respond to your critics that accuse you of being anti-legal immigration or anti-immigrant?

Rep. Tancredo: They’re simply untrue. I do want a time out on even legal immigration. Except for people whose immediate family are still outside of the country, and also for refugees. Other than that, I would like a timeout that would reduce legal immigration to about 300,000 per year. And I would like to do that for a few years while we assimilate the people who have come here over the past 40 years of unbridled assimilation. The country has always had that. It’s a cyclical thing. We’ve had periods of high, followed by periods of low immigration-and we’ve taken the periods of low to actually assimilate people. We are not assimilating anymore, and that’s the problem.

KWN: As the Ames Straw Poll approaches, it seems as if the rhetoric from the individual campaign intensifies here in Iowa daily. You have recently been the subject of an attack regarding your Pro-Life record, and you have gone on the offensive against one of your opponents on his immigration record. Is it difficult to not take the criticism of you Pro-Life record personally?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: You know what the most difficult part was? Sam Brownback attacking me on the life issue. I have always thought of him as a man of great integrity. We don’t agree on Immigration [and] we have had many discussions. He believes totally in amnesty [and] he believes in giving social security to illegal immigrant labor. But nonetheless, I have always thought of him as a man of great integrity [with] the religious zeal that he has sort of exemplified. But the reality is when something like that happens, when he attacks me on [being] Pro-life, he knows better. That is the most disconcerting thing. Sam Brownback knows me.

It would be like me saying that Sam Brownback wasn’t Pro-Life because he only came to it 15 years ago. Now, that happens to be true, but it doesn’t matter. I know he’s Pro-Life. So I would never say anything like that. I know it’s not true. He knows when he attacks me on Life, that’s it’s simply not true.

He can attack me for just what you’ve said. That we should reduce legal immigration? Yeah, I’ve said it. Things I do, things I say-attack me for. But don’t make these things up out of whole cloth.

When I attack him on his position on Immigration, it’s a factual statement. We have all of the data. We have all of the votes. We know what we are talking about. When he attacks me on life it’s this concocted thing because somebody who gave me money earlier gave money to Planned Parenthood. It’s ridiculous. My Pro-Life record is 100% and has been for longer than Sam’s.

KWN: How critical is your showing in the Ames Straw Poll in making a decision regarding the future of your campaign?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: It’s very critical. It really is. It’s going to determine whether this thing gets legs or not. I don’t have to win it, but I have to do well. And If I can’t-then yeah, it pretty much comes to an end. If I do, it’s off to the races.

Race 4 2008 is please to present the following interview with Giuliani Judicial Advisory Committee member Ron Cass.

Mr. Cass served as the Dean of Boston University School of Law and is the Former Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission. Mr. Cass is currently President of Cass & Associates, PC. It was announced last week that he will serve on Rudy Giuliani’s Judicial Advisory Committee.

In this interview, Mr. Cass discusses his own judicial philosophy, the proper role of judging and the courts in our system, and why Rudy Giuliani is the right choice for Republicans who are concerned about the future of the American judicial system.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

KWN: Could we begin by hearing a little bit about your own judicial philosophy and your view of the proper role of judges in our system?

Ron Cass: Let me start with the goal for judging. Because what judges do effects people in a way that is very special in our system. Most of the time when you’re dealing with pronouncements-Congress passes a law; the President makes an executive decision-usually that affects people in the future. You get a chance to see what the law is going to be and you get to adjust your behavior to take account of it. Courts make decisions that are retrospective, so they have the effect that you go to court and they tell you if what you did was right or wrong. That’s a special power in government, and it’s one to be especially careful with because you can’t adapt backwards. But you can in the future look what courts have done and make adjustments. But the people who are in front of the court are affected immediately and they don’t have a chance to adjust their behavior. So we have adapted rules over time for how courts ought to operate that are different than the rules we have for the political branch.

They are insulated from politics. They are insulated in terms of who can talk to them and about what. The take their time, read material, think about it. What is most important about courts is that their conduct be predictable, and that we can be able to predict their behavior from material that is already accessible to us and that it’s the same for everybody. That is what the Rule of Law is all about. You need judges who are doing things in a predictable way based on the materials available without regard to which judge you happen to get or what person is in front of a judge. So I don’t need to figure out that if I get caught doing a particular something that a particular judge in a particular court will treat it one way, a different judge in a different court will treat it another way; one judge will treat redheads one way this way and brunettes another way. I don’t need to know any of that to know what my conduct has to be to fit within the law. That means necessarily that what judges ought to be doing is to be making decisions based on exactly the sort of legal material that other people have access to.

What [did it] mean to the people who wrote and adopted and ratified the law? What it would be understood to mean by the people at the time it was written and how we can carry forward that understanding in ways that other can predict and adapt to. So when you talk about a law written by Congress, you look at the text of the law, you look at the context, and you look at the meaning. You try to be as clear as possible about what it was that Congress passed, not what they might have passed, not what somebody in Congress said they thought they were going to do, not what somebody hoped to do, but what they actually did.

Same with the Constitution. You want to look at the actual words in the Constitution; at the structure, at the context of the Constitution. What this means in the context of the document that we have. What was the understood meaning of those words was, is, has-been. And you also want to look at the court’s precedent that interprets the provision. Because those are also things that people will look at to try to predict how the court will understand and apply the Constitution. I don’t know whether any simple label like Strict Construction can adequately capture that. But that is what I think judges ought to be doing.

A lot of times when people use the term Strict Construction or Texturalism they mean exactly the same thing I just described. A different approach to the Constitution would be something, let me give an example-Ronald Dworkin, a famous legal philosopher says that the Constitution, and Constitutional decision making, is like writing a novel with different people contributing different parts. And what you ought to be doing is asking, given the materials at hand, “how do you make this the best possible novel? How do you make the Constitution the most moral, the most advanced, the most thoughtful document it can be?” I think that is exactly the wrong set of questions to ask. You don’t want to have judges make the law what they think it should be. You want to ask judges to interpret the law as predictably, as clearly, as honestly as they can according to it means to those who have gone before and written the materials thereupon. That’s what I think the job of judging, properly understood, is. And that’s what I think we ought to ask our judges to do.

KWN: How did you come to the decision that Mayor Giuliani is the best person to choose the kind of judges that would promote your conception of the proper role of the judiciary?

Ron Cass: Mayor Giuliani is a lawyer. He has been involved with the law for a long time. He has a great respect for the law. He has served in a variety of capacities as Associate Attorney General, as a U.S. Attorney, as a Mayor. He has shown that he cares a great deal about the law. He has a passion for trying to make the country better. As a political official, he has an agenda that he wants to do. But he understands that that agenda is pursued through the popular vote and through legislation and through the appointment of people in the executive branch. It’s not done through using the courts to advance an agenda. It’s done through using the courts to be predictable and honest and to have the sort of integrity that judging ought to have.

When he was a prosecutor; what prosecutors need to have is courts that understand and apply the law. When he was Mayor he needed to have a court system that operated in a predictable and understandable way. People can pick and choose anything they want to say, “well, I particularly agree or disagree with this one decision or this one comment.” But he has through his career been somebody who has clearly evidenced a devotion to the law and an understanding of the importance of the law. My strong sense of him is that he is somebody who is going to pick judges who have exactly the same understanding of their job that I have.

He was involved as Associate Attorney General in helping to advise Ronald Reagan which people to pick for judges. And I think that Ronald Reagan picked a lot of excellent judges for the courts.

KWN: Mayor Giuliani’s statement that a Strict Constructionist Judge could either overturn Roe or view it as precedent has been cause for alarm among some conservative court watchers. How would you address the concerns of people who cannot fathom how a judge in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito could view Roe as rightly decided?

Ron Cass: Let me give three different responses with apologies because this will take some time.

First of all, whenever you’re appointing a judge you want to avoid anything that looks like a litmus test. I have said over the past many, many years that it is wrong for the Senate to be asking judges essentially to take an oath that they’ll uphold Roe v. Wade or any other decision. It’s wrong for people to ask judges to predict in advance what votes they will cast on particular decisions. The whole point of what we want judges to do is to deliberate outside the legal process, outside of legal pressures, to look at the material themselves. Not answer how a President or Senator really wants them to give in order to get past the appointment/confirmation hurdle. We want judges to be careful, dispassionate guardians of the law; to make their decision according to the text and precedent, and not according to politics. So whether it’s Mayor Giuliani, or President Bush, or President Reagan nobody’s whose President should be asking people to satisfy a particular litmus test one way of the other. Whether it’s pro-Roe or anti-Roe, or pro or anti any particular position. So I think people who focus too much on this and are asking a candidate to get assurances that a candidate perhaps on the Democratic side that perhaps favor Roe and on the Republican side oppose Roe; I think on both the Left and the Right people who ask this of a presidential candidate are making a mistake.

Second part of the answer… When you look at what courts do, how they proceed, it is important to understand what materials they have in front of them and what weight those materials get. When Roe was decided, the materials in front of them included very few precedents that in any way supported the Roe decision. You have the Griswold case which sort of came out of nowhere in terms of its construction of the Constitution. Justice Douglas, who wrote the case, couldn’t find a particular provision to say supported his conclusion. He said that there were emanations from penumbra of a variety of provisions of the Constitution. That’s a clear way of saying that, “I’m making this up.” And Roe is following directly in the footsteps of Griswold in creating a constitutional right that you have to strain mightily, to torture the text in a way that will produce that right.

One can say there are rights to be left alone and you can go back to certain Constitutional text and can hang you hat on that. But to say that there is a right to be free from certain types of regulations in this trimester and others in that trimester and others in the third trimester. The framework Roe created, the rights they articulated, it’s very difficult to defend this as principled constitutional construction.

Rudy Giuliani understands that and has said very clearly he believes that Roe was wrongly decided. He has had different things to say about what he thinks the right policy is in terms of abortion policy. But he understands the difficulty with that decision when it was rendered, and he understands the difficulty with the approach to constitutional decision making embodied in Roe v. Wade.

Third part of the answer… When you ask somebody if Roe was rightly decided, that’s a very different question than asking them thirty years later what should the Court do today? After Roe, some of them give a different basis for the decision that was given in Roe, even if they claim to be affirming Roe v. Wade. Some of them clearly cut back on the rationale that underpins Roe. When you ask people today how you should decide cases involving the government’s ability to regulate abortions. They’re not writing on a clean slate in the same way that they were when Roe was decided. And I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say that you want courts now considering the precedent as well as the text and context. I’m somebody who gives enormous weight to the text itself. I give enormous weight to the text and construction of the Constitution over pretty much anything else. But when people look at some fields of law, they very readily overlook the weight we give to precedent, and let me just give you an example. There are First Amendment cases that come up before the Court, freedom of speech cases. When the document was written protecting the freedom of speech, it was understood at the time to be an incredibly narrow protection. But we have built up a body of precedent, particularly over the past 60-70 years, it would be a real jar to have courts say suddenly we are throwing out 60 or 70 or 80 years of precedent and we are going to begin to making decisions without regard to what we have been deciding during that time. It would make the law less predictable, not more predi