A: I think it is important to have very thorough surveillance capabilities, but they also need to be monitored by Congress. With technology being what it is today, we have new tools that have never been available before, things that our founding fathers never envisioned when the Bill of Rights was crafted. And so it is uncharted territory. Two things we need to remember--one, the first job of the president is to keep this country safe. He should use everything at his disposal to do so. But it is also the job of Congress to make sure that the executive branch does not overstep its boundaries in terms of power. That is why we have the balance of power. And I think there is a healthy tension that was designed into our system.
A: No, I’m really not thinking about what’s going to happen in four, eight or years beyond. I’m thinking about what’s going to happen to this country. And I’m very concerne about it. I’m concerned that we are going to see our taxes go up. That will kill small business. It will kill free enterprise. It will create even more of a trade imbalance. Look, we need some big ideas when it comes to the economy. There are a lot of Americans struggling, and they are not going to get better, with the kind of tax system that punishes people for working and punishes them for their productivity. That’s got to stop, or we are going to just send this nation’s economy into a spiral.
A: I think the key issues are: that I support the human life amendment; that I don’t support human embryonic stem cell research; that I didn’t agree with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act; and immigration. We have differences of opinion on how we ought to handle that. Those are the fundamental differences. And I think there are other, maybe, nuances. But you know, one of the things that I find interesting, the two most civil campaigns of the Republican primary are the ones still on their feet. And I do think that that says something about both the senator’s campaign and ours. It looks like Republicans really are responding to a more message-driven and positive campaign. I think that’s good for our party. I’d like to say I think it’s good for America.
A: Maybe Mitt Romney’s highway department didn’t do what the other highway departments across America do, and that is, they have these projects already ready. The engineering is done. The eminent domain is already done. Environmental impact studies have been done. The only thing that we lack--you ask any governor--is funding. If we had the funding, we’ve got projects we’re ready to pull the trigger on tomorrow
A: Well, I supported the president’s tax cuts then. I support them now. I think anytime you can cut taxes, it is a good thing. And I don’t believe that those tax cuts only affected those at the top. But certainly, good tax policy ought to even things out for everybody. It’s the reason I support the FairTax, which is a whole lot better than just cutting a few taxes here and there and making winners and losers. It’s the reason that a completely new tax approach is really preferable because it empowers everyone in the economy, those from the top to the bottom. But the people at the bottom actually end up getting the best deal out of the fair tax. So I hope more people will start looking at it and realizing that’s the direction we really need to go.
We’re neglecting our infrastructure. If you look at what’s happening to--the fact that our sewer systems, water systems, roads, they were built 50, 60, sometimes 80 and 100 years ago, and they simply are not able to keep up with the growth.
And as a result, we’re not just having trouble today, but look at the problems that we’re passing on to the next generation on top of a $9 trillion national debt. Now we’re going to give them an infrastructure that is falling apart and the cost of rebuilding that and fixing it is four times the money we’re putting into it to actually keep up with it.
A: The problem I have is that taxpayers will spend their $150 billion in rebates to buy imports from China. So whose economy is being stimulated? What I suggested was, we have a nation whose infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, bridges, airports clogged up. Texas A&M did a study, found that the average American in an urban setting loses 38 hours a year--that’s a full work week--stuck in traffic because of clogged traffic patterns. Now, $150 billion would expand the interstate by two lanes, I-95, from Bangor, Maine, to Miami. There are places all over America where our infrastructure is choked. Every billion dollars we spend on infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. And we do it with American labor, American cement, American steel. That’s why I’m saying that that’s a real long-term stimulus package. But it does more than just stimulate the economy, it actually stimulates jobs for Americans for a change.
A: That question is impossible to answer because you are saying, is it worth it in light of what we know but what we didn’t know then. And that’s the whole issue of making tough decisions. As a governor, I often made tough decisions based on the information that I had. Later, when the information was clearer, you know, maybe you would have made a different decision. If we had it to do all over again, would we do it differently? We probably would. But you’re never going to elect somebody to make perfect decisions. But to second guess the president now, I think, is really not a very prudent thing to do. It doesn’t mak us feel any better. And what we’ve got to do is to say, let’s make the best of what we have in Iraq. Let’s make sure that we don’t make a bigger mistake by a premature pullout that does leave Iraq vulnerable to an Al Qaida long-term training facility.
A: I’m not sure that there’s a big difference on what we would do going into the future. There is a big difference on how we looked at it in the past. I supported the surge. He had questions about it. There were times when he believed that there should be a timed withdrawal. He denied that last night [in the televised debate] and said that he had never taken that position.
Q: Here’s a clip of what he said:
ROMNEY: My policy is, I have never talked about a timed withdrawal with a date certain for us to leave. That’s not the case. Simply wrong.
Q: So he’s flatly denying what you and other news organizations are now insisting is true.
A: Well, I’m just reporting what two different credible news sources, ABC News and The Hill, clearly reported and quoting him. And I will let him try to explain why what he is saying now isn’t what he said then.
A: I actually carried out the death penalty 16 times more than any governor in my state’s history, and the crime rate in my state went down. If you look at the background of some of these, it meant that people who are 40 years old who had done a joyride or written a hot check when they were 18 had never been to prison. This wasn’t like I stood there with a key at the prison door and let people out. Background checks kept them from even so much as getting a job emptying the bedpans in a nursing home. And often the pardons were in order to let them get in the work force.
A: I have a number of people from whom I get policy: Frank Gaffney & Richard Haas; I talk to a number of military people, some of whom I can’t name because they’re active in the military. They probably wouldn’t appreciate being outed. I’ve got conversations coming up with John Bolton. I try to get views from as many people as possible. I believe that a Colin Powell & Norman Schwarzkopf concept of dealing with foreign aggression is the best one.
The above quotations are from CNN "Late Edition" with Wolf Blitzer Interviews of presidential candidates, throughout 2008. Click here for main summary page. Click here for a profile of Mike Huckabee. Click here for Mike Huckabee on all issues.
Mike Huckabee on other issues: |
Abortion
|
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade
Govt. Reform
| Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform Technology/Infrastructure War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) |