Mitt Romney recently did a phone interview with Mitch and Ed from Captain’s Quarters that covered a wide variety of topics – including, for those who noted his NRI speech didn’t include these – Iraq and immigration. Listen to it by clicking on the link above, or check below the fold for the transcripted portions of the interview. All in all, I think it was another solid interview. Some of the questions were pretty big softballs, and I would have preferred some follow-up questions to some of them, but it was another positive interview for Mitt and showed he isn’t averse to tackling the tough issues of the day.

Where do you see yourself on the war in Iraq?

Well, as long as there is a reasonable probability that there is a pathway to success in Iraq, and I believe that pathway does exist and it is reasonably probable, then we should pursue that effort. Because allowing Iraq to divide into three different nations has a great deal of risk associated with it. That’s something that a lot of people are suggesting we do, but recognize there’s a lot of risk – Iran can reach across the border and try and grab the Shia portion of Iraq, al Qaeda can be much more involved in the Sunni portion of Iraq, the Kurds could get extensively involved with the Turks and cause difficulties there. So the potential of regional conflict is high.

So, as the next step – the right step – is to add additional brigades into Baghdad, to pursue with the Iraqi government stability in Baghdad, to set a timetable and a series of milestones – not for public consumption, but for our own military and for our political leadership – and if we make progress along that timetable and milestones, terrific. If we don’t, then we have other options.”

How do you see yourself dealing with life as a minority President should you win in 2008?

“You know, I’ve had a lot of experience being in an executive position where I have a very Democratic legislature. My legislature was 85% Democrat. And you know, I found that we were able to find some common ground – not all the time, there were some things, like the death penalty, where I fought for it and they said no way. But there were other issues where we agreed. I said I didn’t want to raise taxes, I didn’t want to borrow more money, and they said, ‘Okay, let’s see what kind of budget you can come up with, Governor.’ And I cut the spending, and in fact they passed something very close to my budget. We didn’t raise taxes. You can get things done with the opposition party.

I did find that I had to put aside the attacks. I never made – that I can recall – personal attacks, vindictive forays into the leadership of the Democratic PArty. instead I focused on issues. If we disagreed on issues, I pointed those things out. But you have to build a relationship of respect even with the opposition, even if you disagree vehemently with them.”

“How do you see reaching some sort of concord with people who are so very, very opposite from you and I on this issue [the War on Terror]?”

“Well, first of all, I go back to what Senator Vandenberg said – old Senator from MI years ago – he said, ‘Politics ends at the waters’ edge.’ And I think we’re going to have to sit down with Democrats – and by the way, with some Republicans – on this issue and say, ‘Let’s talk about what we agree on and what we disagree on.’ I think there is a basic misunderstanding as to who the jihadists are, what they want to do, and what Iraq’s role is in this. Because Iraq is only one front in a major campaign against us by jihadists.

Iran is at the heart of this, when I talk about this jihadist effort. A nuclear Iran would completely change the dynamics. We’re going to have to sit down with our leaders on both sides of the aisle – and instead of just looking for political gain for a month, or a week, a year or a couple of years, get to look at what’s in the long-term interest of the United states of America. And in my view, as long as there’s a window of success that’s available to us in Iraq, that’s something we should pursue. If it closes, why then we have to go on to plan B. But the idea of just cutting – coming home, and assuming everything’s going to be fine… don’t forget, they attacked us on 9/11. We hadn’t done anything. They’re not going away. And they’re going to get worse – particularly if Iran were ever able to develop nuclear weaponry.”

How are you going to handle non-discretionary spending? Are you going to try to reduce government or at least reign in that spending?

“Well you can look at my record as governor of MA to get a sense of that. When I came in our budget was $3 billion out of balance, and I cut spending. I cut it in a whole series of areas – not in education, by the way, that’s not where I cut it, and I didn’t cut it for the homeless, because those are folks who don’t have any other choices. But I cut spending in a number of areas.

Interestingly, four years later, our state government has substantially expanded the state police – it’s the largest state police force our state has ever had, but our overall state government employment is down some 600 jobs. We haven’t grown, we have shrunk government. And that’s what you have to do at the federal government level as well.

Now the real challenge, of course, is not just in the pork barrel spending and earmarks and so forth – the real challenge is in the entitlements. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest will soon make up over 2/3 of federal spending. And we fundamentally have to reform those programs so that we can honor our promises to our seniors and at the same time, keep our nation from becoming financially in distress.”

What is your take on the previous Senate’s version of CIR? Is that the kind of direction you’re going to be going in, or are you taking a different line on that?

“Well, I was not enthusiastic about the Senate’s bill. The McCain-Kennedy bill proposed what seemed an awful lot like a form of amnesty, there were also social security benefits that ultimately became provided to people who arrived here illegally. There’s a number of things that I found not to be in America’s best interest. In my view, there are several principles that need to be part of our immigration plan.

First is to secure the border. Number two: have an employment verification system. This would be a card, a biometric card that people who are not citizens would have, and before an employer hires a non-citizen, they would have to look at the card, type in the number on a computer, get verification from the federal government that this person is eligible for work in the US. If they hire someone not eligible, that company would be fined, just like not paying their taxes. Those are two elements we have to put in place.

The third is, I would like our immigration policies to welcome people who bring skills here. Education, work experience that’s needed in this country. We love immigration – immigrants add a great deal to our country – but we want legal immigration, we do not want illegal immigration. I don’t want to cut back on legal immigration – I want to expand it. But I also want to focus our legal immigration on those who can speak English, who have skills we need, who have education we need. Let’s have an immigration policy that strengthens America rather than one that causes additional burdens to be placed upon our taxpayers.”

What is your position on Campaign Finance Reform – the BCRA?

“McCain-Feingold I think was a real step backwards, for a lot of reasons. One, it’s hurt our party enormously, but number two, it has not reduced the amount of money that’s gone into politics – it’s just made it less under the control of candidates and the parties. So CFR has been a real bust.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download