John McCain in Fox News Sunday, "Choosing the President" interviews

On Homeland Security: Hiding torture is wrong, and harms US credibility abroad

A: I do not know. But the actions were absolutely wrong. I’m glad that the attorney general is going to investigate it. This harms the credibility and the moral standing of America in the world, again. There will be skepticism and cynicism all over the world about how we treat prisoners and whether we practice torture or not.

Q: The CIA director says the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of the officers involved in the interrogation. Do you buy that?

A: We certainly want to do everything we can to protect the identities of those in the CIA. But he was advised not to [destroy the tapes] b several people, including high-ranking members of the administration. We’re also setting up a false argument here between torture & moral high ground. That doesn’t have to be. We have to keep the moral high ground. We can do it without torturing people.

On War & Peace: Keep military option open against Iran, even if no nukes

A: The military option is always the ultimate last option, but I don’t believe that it’s “off the table.” I would remind you that enrichment is a longer process. Weaponization can be done rather rapidly. Iran remains a nation dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. Iran continues to export the most lethal explosive devices into Iraq, killing Americans. They continue to be a state sponsor of terror in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah. And they continue to seek to exert influence throughout the entire region and the age-old ambition of Persian hegemony, including their increasing influence in the Basra area in southern Iraq. So I think they remain a significant threat and challenge, and so, no, I wouldn’t take the option “off the table.”

On War & Peace: No direct talk with Iran; talk is over-rated

A: The most over-rated aspect of our dialogue about international relations is direct face-to-face talks. BlackBerries work. Emissaries work. There’s many thousands of ways to communicate. The question is are you going to have direct talks, and does that enhance the prestige of the president of Iran, who has said all these things about us, and has announced his country’s continued distinction to the extinction of the state of Israel, or does it reach a successful conclusion? That’s the question you have to ask when you talk about “face-to-face talks. ”I’d remind you that when we stopped the bombing in Vietnam, we were going to talk in Paris. It took 2.5 years because of the shape of the table. Bombing started of Hanoi. And guess what? Negotiations started again.

On Government Reform: 527s are clearly illegal; reform intended for small donors

A: We’ve strengthened the parties. There’s millions more small donors. We have taken soft money, which was rampant in Washington, out of the game. The 527s are a violation of the 1974 law. The 527s are clearly illegal. It’s not a problem with law. It’s a problem with the FEC who will not enforce the law. So, yeah, we made significant progress, absolutely, and I’m proud of a lot of the results of this. I lived in the environment where a powerful committee chairman would call and say, “I need a check for seven figures from you, and by the way, your bill is up before my committee next week.” That was routine operation in Washington, and we’re still seeing manifestations of this kind of corruption.

On Homeland Security: Close Guantanamo Bay prison; announce no-torture policy

A: I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone. I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we’ve got some image problems in the world. Clearly, in the area of “propaganda,” in the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning--well, in some ways we are behind. Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in my view--may sometimes do a better job than we are. At the end of the day, it’s how people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values, our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.

On Homeland Security: Torture has never worked throughout history

A: If you torture someone, they’re going to tell you anything they think you want to know. It is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in. Every retired military officer, everybody who’s been in war doesn’t want to torture people and think that it’s the wrong thing to do. And history shows that. We cannot torture people & maintain our moral superiority in the world.

Q: But George Tenet says...

A: I don’t care what George Tenet says. I know what’s right. I know what’s morally right as far as America’s behavior.

Q: But Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...

A: I don’t accept that fundamental thesis, because it’s never worked throughout history. That’s just a fundamental fact. We’ve gotten a huge amount of misinformation from these techniques

On Immigration: Comprehensive reform must include border security first

A: I support many of the concepts in it. It didn’t pass. The legislation didn’t pass. So we’ve been sitting down and doing intensive negotiations with the president, with other conservative Republicans and Senator Kennedy to come up with something that will. It certainly is going to be a comprehensive proposal. And it certainly will be border enforcement as the first and foremost priority.

Q: Border enforcement before the other parts of the package?

A: Not before, but certainly there has to be the assurance that all necessary measures are being taken in order to secure our border. Americans deserve that. Americans deserve border security, and we can’t ignore that aspect of it. Our borders are broken. I think we all know that.

On Principles & Values: Reform gov’t, fight Islamic extremism; & restore integrity

A: Reform government, fight this Islamic extremist element--that is a threat that challenges the world--and restore integrity to government.

On Principles & Values: I am here to serve, but not necessarily as president

A: No. I do feel that--and I hope I say this adequately--I think that I am here to serve. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it means serve as president. I’ve been blessed to be able to serve for many, many years both in the military and in public office. But it doesn’t mean that I was meant to be president. It just means that whatever time I have left, I would be of service to the country.

On Principles & Values: Looks to Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, & Eisenhower as models

A: Obviously, I would look at the Reagan style. I would look at Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower was a good example of having a good structured staff--but at the same time get input from outside your own circle of advisers, rely on people that I’ve relied on for many years to give me advice and counsel on a broad range of issues, and they don’t necessarily happen to be people who either work for you or are in your inner circle. I think when presidencies become beleaguered, they have a tendency to circle the wagons. That’s a natural tendency. I think we need to get advice and counsel from a lot of smart people all over the country and the world.

On Principles & Values: Loyalty is important, but performance should come first

A: There’s an old Navy saying, that loyalty up breeds loyalty down. In other words, you’ve got to have people who are loyal to you as well as you being loyal to them. But it can’t be the most important quality. It’s a very important quality, but you also have to expect a certain level of performance that’s neither embarrassing to you, embarrassing to the American people and, most importantly, a betrayal of the standards that we expect of public servants.

On Principles & Values: If I lose capacity for anger, I lose capacity to serve

A: You know, that routine was tried very hard in 2000. It’s simply not true. I mean, do I get angry at corruption when I see it? Sure. Do I get angry when I see this pork barrel spending? Of course. Do I get angry when I see people not acting up to standards that the American people expect us to do? Of course. Do I have “temper tantrums?” No, I don’t. And yet if I lose my capacity for anger, then I’ve lost my capacity to serve.

On Social Security: Save benefits by bipartisan agreement; but without new tax

A: Before we get into any of those specifics, you have to know that anyone who gets out front on this issue without sitting down and negotiating with everything on the table will get nowhere. And so I will do what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. I will sit down with the Democrats. We will look at the options on the table. We’ll call in the smartest people that we can find, and we’ll reach an agreement.

Q: Back in 2005, you said you could support an increase in Social Security taxes as part of a compromise. Do you stand by that?

A: As part of a compromise, if you come up with a benefit, I can accept almost anything, but it’s got to be part of a compromise. Am I for raising anybody’s taxes? No, I am not. I am unalterably opposed to doing so. I will not support a tax increase; it’s off the table, certainly, now.

On Tax Reform: Bush tax cuts fiscally reckless & favored rich;but keep them

A: No, because it would have the effect of a tax increase, and I don’t support tax increases. The fact is that in 2000 I had a proposal that restrained spending. I voted against those tax cuts because there was no restraint of spending, and spending lurched out of control completely.

Q: President McCain, no new taxes?

A: Of course not. I’ve never supported tax increases. I don’t support them now.

Q: And that’s a pledge that you would make over your four years?

A: I don’t take pledges. The fact is my record is very clear of opposition to tax increases. I oppose tax increases. I don’t take pledges.