text:
Editor's note: This is part one of the transcript for the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate. To see the transcript of part two, click here.
Eight GOP presidential candidates meet in St. Petersburg, Florida, for the CNN/YouTube debate.
ST. PETERSBURG, Florida (CNN) -- The eight candidates vying to be the Republican nominee for president in the 2008 elections answered questions submitted by CNN and YouTube users in a debate Wednesday night. Here is a full transcript of the event:
Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer: Welcome to tonight's presidential debate, co-sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida. It is my pleasure tonight to introduce the man who has brought new ideas to state government, and whose leadership has been embraced by the voters of Florida, and who has become the nation's most popular governor.
Ladies and gentlemen, Governor Charlie Crist.
Charlie Crist: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And welcome to the Sunshine State. It's great to have this debate in Florida, in my home town of St. Petersburg.
It's an important evening. We're going to hear from some great candidates, great Republicans. And we should have fun with it. The questions come from the people, as Anderson said. This is truly the people's debate.
But it's also important to understand what we're talking about: the future of America; about integrity; about honor; about duty; and about loyalty. That's what America always has stood for and always will.
So let's meet some of these great candidates. First, Congressman Duncan Hunter. Congressman Ron Paul. Senator John McCain. Senator Fred Thompson. Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Governor Mitt Romney. Governor Mike Huckabee. And Congressman Tom Tancredo.
Anderson Cooper: OK, John King is standing by, as well as Gloria Borger.
Gloria, a lot of elbows being thrown on the campaign trail the last couple of days. What are you expecting tonight?
Gloria Borger: Well, I think tonight you might see a lot of elbows being thrown at Mitt Romney. He's really the guy to beat out there. He's been ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's looking in his rearview mirror now. He sees Mike Huckabee moving up on him in Iowa, and every other candidate has a shot in New Hampshire, so he's the target.
Cooper: John King, this Rasmussen poll shows Mike Huckabee right now in the lead in Iowa.
John King: He is moving up in Iowa, Anderson. And that is part of the debate, about which Republican Party -- what will the Republican Party look like when it picks its new leader?
Mike Huckabee is someone who is running on the anti-abortion agenda, as are so many of the other candidates tonight. But the national frontrunner is Rudy Giuliani, who favors abortion rights. Not since Ronald Reagan won in 1980 has the Republican Party even brokered the notion of having a nominee who supported abortion rights.
You also have a Republican president at this moment and one of the candidates on stage, Senator McCain, who were behind that big so- called comprehensive immigration reform that would give legal status to 12 million or more illegal immigrants in the United States. Well, now opposition to that legislation is one of the defining debates in the Republican Party.
So, from a personality standpoint and a substantive standpoint, this is a fascinating time as the Republican Party decides who its leader will be and what its agenda will be after George W. Bush passes from the stage, Anderson.
Cooper: Gloria, the clock is ticking toward Iowa.
Borger: Absolutely. And they know that right now, starting with this debate, they've really got to define themselves, differentiate themselves, because the voters in Iowa still pretty much are undecided. So, it's anyone's game right now.
The holidays are coming up. And this is one opportunity for each of these candidates to tell the voters who he is and why he's different from the other guy.
Cooper: We are just watching the traveling press pool leave the auditorium. We'll get started in just a moment.
Welcome, candidates. Good to have you all on the stage. Thanks for being here.
Now, as there was last time with the Democratic candidates, there's been some concern among the campaigns about what kind of questions are going to be asked tonight.
And with 5,000 questions to choose from, we certainly had a lot of options.
Take a look.
(Begin videotape)
Cooper (voice over): Many groups tried to organize submissions. Will Dick Armey's question be seen tonight?
Dick Armey: I will put that together as a YouTube...
Snowman cartoon character: And this is a question for Mitt Romney...
Cooper: How about the much maligned snowman? Will he rear his frozen head here in sunny Saint Pete?
UFO cartoon character: So he wants to know what you would do about me and other kids like me -- the unwitting children of illegal -- well, you know.
Cooper: Dennis Kucinich may have seen a UFO, but we'll have no little green men here in Florida.
Actor as "The Ghost of Richard Nixon": I am the ghost of Richard Nixon!
We won't be seeing Richard Nixon, or little kids used to make adult points.
Though, there is one question where kids may make an appearance. And don't worry, we tried to keep out of most of the Abe Lincolns and Ben Franklins, and all the animals, both stuffed...
Sparky: My name is Sparky.
Cooper: ... and real.
Schmoopsy: Schmoopsy here with a question for the Republican candidate.
(End videotape)
Cooper: Sadly, Schmoopsy will not be heard from tonight.
The candidates will have 90 seconds to answer the YouTube questions, the questions that are asked direct to them, 30 seconds for any follow-up questions that I may ask.
There are no lights, no bells, no buzzers, no electric shocks. We prefer the honor system here. We'll warn the candidates when they need to wrap things up.
We also will insist that candidates stay on the question that was being asked and not stray off to an earlier or another topic. Americans put a lot of time into submitting these questions. We think they deserve direct answers.
Finally, tonight we are not in the business of discouraging applause from our audience here, or passion, but please, if it gets out of control, we will ask the crowd here to keep it down just a little bit.
All right, let's begin.
(The governor introduced the candidates.)
Cooper: He did a very good job of it, but one Republican wanted to do that also, and he does it in a way that reminds us this is definitely a new kind of a debate.
Here is Chris Nandor from Snohomish, Washington.
Chris Nandor (singing): The grand old party's looking for somebody who can lead, someone who is electable and adheres to our creed.
Some say the group is not diverse; they're white, they're men, but wait. The Dems have just one candidate, Republicans have eight.
Rudy's leading all the polls, but can he win the base?
Mitt changed on abortion; history he can't erase.
Ron Paul would end the FDA and that is just a start.
Fred has just begun to run, but sure does look the part.
Hunter tells us what to do in foreign policy debates.
Huckabee's compassionate and lost a lot of weight.
Tancredo says let's build a fence across the whole Southwest.
McCain is loved by many and hated by the rest.
We don't know who we're voting for; we don't know who will win. That's why we use YouTube to ask our questions of these men.
Time is short, we're voting soon, and I just thought I'd mention. If we don't reach consensus, then we'll decide at convention.
Cooper: All right, enough of the singing, enough of the snowmen. Let's begin the debate.
From one tough-talking New Yorker, a question to another tough- talking New Yorker.
Ernie Nardi: This is Ernie Nardi from Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, New York, with a question for the ex-Mayor Giuliani.
Under your administration, as well as others, New York City was operated as a sanctuary city, aiding and abetting illegal aliens.
I would like to know, if you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: Ernie, that was a very good question. And the reality is that New York City was not a sanctuary city. (OFF-MIKE) single illegal immigrant that New York City could find that either committed a crime or was suspected of a crime. That was in the executive order originally done by Ed Koch, continued by David Dinkins and then done by me.
The reason for the confusion is, there were three areas in which New York City made an exception. New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn't allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week.
The other two exceptions related to care -- emergency care in the hospital and being able to report crimes. If we didn't allow illegals to report crimes, a lot of criminals would have gone free because they're the ones who had the information.
But, most important point is, we reported thousands and thousands and thousands of names of illegal immigrants who committed crimes to the immigration service. They did not deport them. And what we did, the policies that we had, were necessary because the federal policies weren't working.
The federal policies weren't working, stopping people coming into the United States. If I were president of the United States, I could do something about that by deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence, by having a BorderStat system like my COMSTAT system that brought down crime in New York, and just stopping people from coming in, and then having a tamper-proof ID card.
Cooper: Time.
Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?
Romney: Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.
And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime -- how about the fact that the people who are here illegally have violated the law? They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally.
And this happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on this stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally.
But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.
That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the -- worst record.
For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.
There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.
Cooper: All right. I have to allow Governor Romney to respond...
Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.
Giuliani: No ...
Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all ...
Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?
Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.
If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."
Is that what you're suggesting?
Giuliani: What I'm suggesting is, if you ...
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...
Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...
Romney: I'm not perfect.
Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.
And ...
Romney: I ask the mayor again. Are you suggesting, Mayor, that if you have a company that you hired who provide a service, that you now are responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that might look different or don't have an accent like yours, and ask for their papers -- I don't think that's American, number one.
Number two ...
Cooper: We got to move on.
Romney: Let me tell you what I did as governor. I said no to driver's licenses for illegals.
I said, number two, we're going to make sure that those that come here don't get a tuition break in our schools, which I disagree with other folks on that one.
Number three, I applied to have our state police enforce the immigration laws in May, seven months before I was out of office.
It took the federal government a long time to get the approvals and we enforced the law. And Massachusetts is not a sanctuary state, and the policies of the mayor of pursuing a sanctuary nation or pursuing a sanctuary city...
Cooper: We've got a number ...
Romney: ... are, frankly, wrong.
Cooper: We've got a number of questions from our viewers on this topic, so we have a lot more to talk about on this. You will have another chance to respond.
Giuliani: And it's really hard -- it's really hard to have employer sanctions...
(Audience booing)
Cooper: All right. Let's play this next video from the same topic.
(Begin video clip)
Michael Weitz: Good evening. There are thousands of people in Canada and Mexico waiting to come to America legally. They want to become American citizens. They want to be part of the American dream. Yet, there are those in the Senate that want to grant amnesty for those that come here illegally.
Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally?
Thank you.
Cooper: Senator Thompson?
Thompson: Yes, I pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair...
We have -- we have thousands of people standing in line at embassies around the world to become United States American citizens, to come here to get a green card, to come here and to assimilate and be a part of our culture. They are part of what has made our country great. Some of our better citizens. We all know them and love them.
Now, it's our country together -- their's and ours, now together. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home.
And to place somebody above them or in front of them in line is the wrong thing to do.
We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers -- employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, if you continue this, we're going to cut off federal funding for you, you're not going to do it with federal money.
Now, there are parts of what both of these gentlemen have just said that I would like to associate myself with.
First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the Bush immigration plan until a short time ago. Now he's taken another position, surprisingly.
As far as Mayor Giuliani is concerned, I am a little surprised the mayor says, you know, everybody's responsible for everybody that they hire, but we'll have to address that a little bit further later. I think we've all had people probably that we have hired that in retrospect probably is a bad decision.
He did have a sanctuary city. In 1996, I helped pass a bill outlawing sanctuary cities. The mayor went to court to overturn it. So, if it wasn't a sanctuary city, I'd call that a frivolous lawsuit.
Cooper: All right, because this was a direct...
Cooper: Because this was a direct mention of Mayor Giuliani, we have to allow you to respond. Thirty seconds, please.
Giuliani: New York City was not a sanctuary city. New York City did three exceptions. The three exceptions were to allow children to go to school, to allow those illegal immigrants who were the victims of crime to report the person who assaulted them, beat them up, mugged them.
And third, to allow emergency care in the hospitals, which we were required to do by federal law. We had a policy of reporting every single illegal immigrant other than those three who commit any kind of crime or were suspected of crime, and we reported thousands of them to immigration service. Few of them were deported.
Cooper: Senator McCain, let me bring you back to the question that was asked by the YouTube user. Would you willing to veto any immigration bill that involved amnesty for those who have come here illegally?
McCain: Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty. But you know, this whole debate...
Cooper: Come on, please. Let him answer.
McCain: You know, this whole debate saddens me a little bit because we do have a serious situation in America. In 1986, we passed a law that said we would enforce our borders, and gave amnesty to a couple of million people. We gave the amnesty. Now we have 12 million people and still borders that are not enforced.
I came to the Senate not to do the easy things, but to do the hard things. Mel Martinez and I knew this was going to be a tough issue, but we thought the status quo was unacceptable: broken borders; 12 million people here illegally; a need for a temporary worker program, certainly in my state in the agricultural section, certainly in this state of Florida.
And we tried to get something done. We said we'd enforce the borders. The American people didn't believe us. They don't believe us because of our failure in Katrina, our failure in Iraq, our failures in reining in corruption and out of control spending.
So we tried and we failed. And I appreciate the president's efforts. He comes from a border state too. And what we've learned is that the American people want the borders enforced. We must enforce the -- secure the borders first.
But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. And we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well.
And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion.
Cooper: Thank you, Senator.
McCain: And I want to assure you that I'll enforce the borders first, that as president of the United States, we'll solve this immigration problem. And we won't demagogue it. And we won't have sanctuary cities.
Cooper: OK.
McCain: And we won't have all this other rhetoric that unfortunately contributes nothing to the national dialogue.
Cooper: Thank you, senator.
Michael Weitz who actually asked that question is here in the audience.
Michael, do you feel you got an answer?
Weitz: Am I happy with the answer?
Cooper: Yes.
Weitz: One yes, one no and one sort of.
Cooper: All right.
Well, let's -- Congressman Tancredo?
Tancredo: Yes.
Well, I tell you, this has been wonderful. Senator McCain may not be happy with the spirit of this debate. For a guy who usually stands on the bookend here, aside, and just listens all the time, that's kind of frustrating, you know, in other debates. I have to tell you, so far, it's been wonderful.
Because all I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo.
It is great. I am so happy to hear it. It is a wonderful thing. It's a good message, yes. We want to secure the borders.
Cooper: Our next question is actually directly to you, so let's bring it up.
Tancredo: Let me go ahead and answer that next question.
Jack Brooks: Hammered by competition with imports, our family- owned business struggles each year to find seasonal workers. We've been working with a seasonal guest-worker program, the H2B program, bringing in and sending home workers every year.
But with Congress failing to enact a comprehensive immigration and guest worker bill, I want to know whether I'll have a job next year. What are you going to do to keep these guest workers coming to the U.S. to save our business?
Cooper: Congressman Tancredo?
Tancredo: OK, the gist of the question, as I understand it, is, what I'm going to do stop guest workers from coming in here?
Cooper: No, no, to help. This small business needs guest workers.
Tancredo: I'm sorry. I could not hear that. I'm sorry. Well, I'll tell you, I'm not going to aid any more immigration into this country, because in fact, immigration...
... massive immigration into the country, massive immigration, both legal and illegal, does a couple of things.
One of it is, makes it difficult for us to assimilate. The other thing is that it does take jobs.
I reject the idea -- I reject the idea, categorically, that there are jobs that, quote, "No American will take." I reject it.
Now, what they will do...
... what you can say -- what you absolutely can say to these people is that there are no -- there are some jobs Americans won't take for what I can get any illegal immigrant to do that job for. Yes, that's true.
But am I going to feel sorry if a business has to increase its wages in order for somebody in this country to make a good living? No, I don't feel sorry about that and I won't apologize for it for a moment. And there are plenty of Americans who will do those jobs.
Cooper: Congressman Hunter?
Hunter: Yes. Cooper, a great debate. It's nice to listen to lots of statements about what the other candidates will do with respect to the borders.
I built that border fence in San Diego and it does work. It's a ...
You know, we built a double fence. We had the number one smuggler's corridor in America with most of the illegal aliens and most of the drugs that came into the entire country coming in through that number one corridor between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California.
We built the double-border fence with a road in between, and we reduced the smuggling of people and drugs by more than 90 percent. And as a result of that, the crime rate...
... the crime rate in the city of San Diego went down by 53 percent by FBI statistic. And as a result of that, I wrote the law that the president signed last October 26, incidentally, passed the Senate 80-19, that mandates 854 miles of double-border fence across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Now, the administration has $800 million on hand right now, cash on hand. They haven't built a linear inch of that fence in Texas.
As president of the United States, I would bill the double-border fence, all 854 miles, in six months.
Cooper: Next question is ...
Hunter: That is my commitment.
Cooper: ... on immigration as well is going to go to Governor Huckabee.
Ashley: Governor Huckabee, while governor of Arkansas, you gave a illegal aliens a discount for college in Arkansas by allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates. However, we have thousands of military members currently serving our country in Iraq with children at home. If these children chose to move to Arkansas to attend college, they would have to pay three times the tuition rate that illegal aliens pay.
Would you support a federal law which would require any state that gives these tuition rates to illegal aliens to give the same rates to the children of our military members?
Cooper: Governor Huckabee, you have 90 seconds.
Huckabee: Thank you very much.
Ashley, first of all, let me just express that you're a little misinformed. We never passed a bill that gave special privileges to the children of illegals to go to college.
Now, let me tell you what I did do. I supported the bill that would've allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms.
They couldn't just move in in their senior year and go to college. It wasn't about out of state tuition. It was an academic, meritorious scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship.
Now, let me tell you a couple of provisions of it. And, by the way, it didn't pass. It passed the House but got in the Senate and got caught up in the same kind of controversy that this country is caught up in.
And here's what happened. This bill would've said that if you came here, not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime.
That's not what we typically do in this country.
It said that if you'd sat in our schools from the time you're five or six-years old and you had become an A-plus student, you'd completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student, and you also had to be drug and alcohol-free -- and the other provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.
It accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do, and that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status.
And the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not tax- takers. And that's what that provision did.
And finally, would we give that provision to the children of veterans, personally? What we've done with not just the children of veterans, but most importantly, veterans is disgraceful in this country.
And that's why I proposed a veterans bill of rights that, if anything, would give our veterans the most exceptional privileges of all, because they are the ones who have earned all of our freedom -- every single one of them.
Cooper: Governor, you called Governor Huckabee a liberal on immigration.
Romney: Well, you know, I like Mike. And I heard what he just said. But he basically said that he fought for giving scholarships to illegal aliens. And he had -- he had a great reason for doing so.
It reminds me of what it's like talking to liberals in Massachusetts, all right? They have great reasons for taking taxpayer money and using it for things they think are the right thing to do.
Mike, that's not your money. That's the taxpayers' money.
And the right thing here is to say to people that are here legally as citizens or legal aliens, we're going to help you. But if you're here illegally, then you ought to be able to return home or get in line with everybody else. But illegals are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks that are better than our own citizens, those that come from other states or those that come from your state.
Cooper: You have 30 seconds to respond.
Huckabee: Well, but they didn't get something better. They had to earn it.
And, you know something, I worked my way through college. I started work when I was 14 and I had to pay my own way through.
I know how hard it was to get that degree. I am standing here tonight on this stage because I got an education. If I hadn't had the education, I wouldn't be standing on this stage. I might be picking lettuce. I might be a person who needed government support, rather than who was giving so much money in taxes I want to get rid of the tax code that we've got and make it really different.
Romney: Well ...
Huckabee: Mitt, let me finish. Let me finish, Mitt.
In all due respect, we are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that.
Cooper: Another question -- we have one more question for...
Romney: I get a chance to just respond to that. We are not punishing children for what their parents did. I respect the fact that you worked your way through college. That's the way you are. That's wonderful. A lot of people in this country do tremendous things to get their education. But the question is, are we going to give taxpayer-funded benefits to kids that are here illegally and put them ahead of kids that are here legally?
There is only so much money to go around, and ...
Huckabee: No, there is ...
Romney: Let me finish, too.
Huckabee: Well, but let's just be factual.
Cooper: You've got 30 seconds. Your time is up.
Romney: There's only so much money. Are we going to say that kids that are here illegally are going to get a special deal? Are they going to get a deal better than other kids? Do they get benefits by virtue of coming here illegally? And the answer is no.
Huckabee: Because they're earning it. That was the difference. They had to earn it by their...
Cooper: We've got another question from a YouTube watcher. Let's watch, please.
YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul.
I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.
These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?
Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.
Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.
And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.
And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.
So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N.
You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that.
But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.
Cooper: Congressman Paul, thank you.
Cooper: We've got a question -- moving on to another topic, the economy, money. Next question.
Sarah Lederach: My name is Sarah Lederach. I'm 18 years old. I'm from Scarsdale, Pennsylvania. And I'm a student at Penn State University.
Often, I've heard both politicians and voters express their concern with providing a better future for their children. A concern of my generation is the trillions of dollars of national debt and what kind of responsibility we will have for that in the future.
My question for you all is, if elected, what measures will you take to tackle the national debt and control spending?
Cooper: Senator McCain, have Republicans forgotten how to control spending?
McCain: Absolutely. Absolutely.
When we came to power in 1994, the government ...
... changed government and the government changed us.
We let spending lurch completely out of control. We spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana -- I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue.
We presided over a great expansion of government, the latest being the SCHIP, which was going to be paid for, supposedly, with a dollar-a-pack in increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes.
So, we're going to help children with their health insurance and hope that they continue to smoke.
So, I have the record of fighting against wasteful spending. I have a clear record of winning. I saved the taxpayers $2 billion on a bogus Air Force Boeing tanker deal, where people went to jail.
I led in the Abramoff hearings in the -- in the obscure Indian Affairs Committee, for which people are still testifying and going to jail.
As president of the United States, I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my death. I'd make the authors famous.
And we've got to stop it and stop it now. And I can do it. And I've done it. And I've got the record.
And I know how Washington works. And I look forward to it.
Cooper: Governor Romney, what would you do to the pork spending?
Romney: Well, the senator is absolutely right. Every bill that comes forward that's got pork in it and earmarks that are unnecessary, we've got to veto them and send them back. And that's a -- that's a lesson that's going to have to be done.
But it's gotta be broader than that. We're going to have to see fundamental change in the way Washington works. We're just -- we're just not going to get out-of-the-box thinking with inside-the-Beltway politics.
And we're going to have to fundamentally go at something like our entitlements and say we've got to reform those. I took on a major issue, which was health care, found a way to get people health insurance without having to expand government, without having to raise taxes.
We are going to have to after entitlements. We are going to have to set a cap, as I have proposed, on all nonmilitary discretionary spending, and inflation less 1 percent. Anything above that, we veto it.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: I think you have to across-the-board spending cuts the way Ronald Reagan did, a 5, 10 percent per civilian agency should be done right now, actually. President Bush should do it to strengthen the dollar. We should commit not to rehire half of the civilian employees that will retire in the next 10 years. That is 42 percent of the federal workforce that will retire in the next 10 years. Don't rehire half of them. Use technology, one person doing the job of two or three.
Every businses has done it. The government has to do it. And we should look at those programs. There are about 3 percent of programs that OMB finds every year are failing. They should be zeroed out. Twenty-two pecent are found to be not able to be evaluated. They should be looked at. We need that kind of approach.
Cooper: The next question is going to go to Senator Thompson, as well as Ron Paul.
Emily: Hi, I am Emily and I am from Los Angeles.
The Republican Party once stood for limited government, which meant reduced federal spending because we tax less and we spent less.
However, over the past decade, real discretionary federal spending has in fact increased 40 percent, more than half of which has been non-defense related.
So my question is: What are the names of the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease...
Cooper: Senator Thompson?
Thompson: Well, it's a target-rich environment, there's no question about it. What most of these gentlemen have said absolutely correct. The difficulty is, most of the programs that we talk about, most of the ones get the headlines, would not begin to solve the problem.
Mitt's right when he mentions entitlement. That's why I have laid out a program to not attack entitlements, but to save Social Security. Everybody talks about wanting to do something about it. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are the ones that we're really going to have to reform if we're going to make any headway into spending.
Cooper: So of the top three you would say Social Security?
Thompson: No. I didn't say that. There is -- the OMB has come out with a list of over 100 programs. I would take all 100 of them, the ones that are full of waste, fraud and duplication. I filed a report in 2001, when I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and identified billions of dollars that we should be saving.
But my point is that we're going to have to reform Social Security, we're going to have to reform Medicare. I've laid out a detailed plan that will give individual retirement accounts for people, matched by the government, and also re-index the way benefits are calculated initially when a person retires. And together, that program has been said by the experts already -- to say that -- have said that it would, after 75 years, make Social Security actuarily sound.
I've got the only program out there that really addresses specifically one of the programs that's going to have to be reformed.
Cooper: Congressman Paul, the question was three programs.
Can you name three?
Paul: Yes, and I would like to state that, to the statement earlier made that we all went to Washington to change Washington and Washington changed us, I don't think that applies to me; Washington did not change me.
I would like to change Washington, and we could by cutting three programs, such as the Department of Education -- Ronald Reagan used to talk about that -- Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security is the biggest bureaucracy we ever had.
And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars, and we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home.
Cooper: Governor Huckabee, 30 seconds, three programs.
Huckabee: Anderson, the first thing that I would get rid of would be the Internal Revenue Service.
We'd have a complete -- getting rid of a $10-billion-a-year industry.
I'm not being facetious. If we enacted the fair tax, one of the most researched ways to revive our economic future ...
... we will get rid of the IRS. Secondly, I agree we need to revamp homeland security. It's a mess, and we have a real problem with the way that it's currently structured. And the third...
Cooper: Thirty seconds is up.
Huckabee: What's that?
Cooper: Thirty seconds is up.
Huckabee: Oh, OK. Get rid of the IRS, and that would account for most of the problems. Most people in this country are more afraid of an audit than they are of a mugging, and there's a reason why.
Cooper: We've got more questions on this topic.
Cooper: This next question is for Senator McCain.
Ronald Lanham: My name is Ronald Lanham from Mobile, Alabama. And I want you to tell me, do you support the elimination of the federal income tax in favor of a national retail sales tax, also known as the fair tax? Thank you.
Cooper: Governor Huckabee supports it. Do you?
McCain: I do not, and I think we should look very carefully at it. And I think we should look very carefully at some of the provisions, which according to The Wall Street Journal would increase an individual's tax rate up into the 30s.
Obviously, we need a simpler, fairer tax code. Everybody knows that. We need to have a commission that reports out a credible proposal. And then we do what we do with the base closing commissions. Congress can't fool around, they either vote yes or no.
If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.
I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.
And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...
We allowed ...
(Audience booing)
Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.
McCain: We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.
(Audience booing)
And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us...
Cooper: We will -- please. We will get to Iraq...
All right. Let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to -- the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.
Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?
What John is saying is just totally distorted.
(Protester shouts off-mike)
Paul: He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.
Cooper: All right. We will have a lot more on Iraq coming up. It is obviously a very heated topic. Sticking on the economy, though, a familiar face asking a very simple question.
Governor Norquist: President Bush made a commitment when he ran for president in 2000 an 2004 that he would oppose and veto any tax increase that Congress sent him. My question to each of the candidates is: Would you promise to the people watching this right now, that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?
Cooper: I doubt you can do it, but very short answers. Congressman Tancredo?
Tancredo: Yes, I can. I have the highest rating, by the way, from the American Conservative Union of anybody on this stage, and yes to Grover because he knows I have the highest rating from the Americans for Tax Reform.
Tancredo: Thank you very much, Grover. Appreciate it.
Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
Huckabee: I would, Anderson. In fact, I signed a pledge to that effect and would keep that pledge.
Cooper: Governor Romney?
Romney: I've signed Grover's pledge as well. I believe I was the first person on this stage to do so.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: Yes, I would. I did it as mayor. I would do it as the president. I had one of the best records in the country for lowering taxes while I was mayor. I expect to have a great record as president.
Cooper: Senator Thompson?
Thompson: Cut -- tax cuts for eight years when I was in the United States Senate. Never met a tax I liked. I've got a tax-cut bill on the table. But I don't do pledges to anybody but the American people.
Audience: Go, Fred, go.
Cooper: Senator McCain?
McCain: I have a 24-year record of opposing tax increases and supporting tax reductions. And, no, I'm like Fred. My pledge and my record is up to the American people, not up to any other organization.
Cooper: Congressman Paul?
Paul: I have never voted for a tax increase; never will. But the tax issue is only one-half of it.
You can easily pledge not to raise taxes, but you have to cut spending.
Cooper: Congressman Hunter?
Hunter: You know, I came in with Ronald Reagan in 1980 to cut taxes, and I probably voted for more tax cuts than anybody here.
But you could have an emergency, a time of war, and I think it would be wrong to say, "Absolutely, I would pledge to Grover Norquist that I would never raise taxes." Could have a national emergency.
Cooper: All right, next question.
Ted Faturos: Hi, I'm Ted Faturos from Manhattan Beach, California.
Mmmmmm, nothing says delicious like cheap corn subsidized by the American taxpayer. For a lot of Americans, however, a bitter taste is left in their mouth when they learned about how the U.S. taxpayer bankrolls billions of dollars in farm subsidies that mostly go to large item business interests.
I'm curious which candidate could label themselves fiscally responsiblee, will endorse the elimination of farm subsidies if they are elected president in 2008.
Cooper: Governor Romney, a lot of folks in Iowa interested in this answer.
So I hear.
Romney: Not to mention Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and so forth. We don't want to find ourselves, with regards to our food supply, in the same kind of position we're in with regards to our energy supply. And so it's important for us to make sure that our farmers are able to stay on the farm and raise the crops that we need to have a secure source of food. And so I believe in supports that will allow us to do that.
And the same time, I recognize that we're also investing in new technologies to get ourselves energy independent. And I happen to believe that some of the best sources for having renewable energy come from the farm. And so we're investing with subsidies in those areas to create new technology that otherwise wouldn't be ready for the market yet. So I support these programs.
And finally, I'd say this. We have, in our nation, about one out of three acres that are planted are for sale overseas.
We send products around the world. We're competing with European and Brazilian and other farmers, and we're competing in a marketplace where they are heavily subsidized, at great disadvantage for our farmers. And so, if we're going to change our support structure, we want to make sure that they change their support structure.
And we do this together, as opposed to unilaterally saying: We're going to put our farmers in a tough position and have the farmers in the rest of the world continue to be subsidized.
So, open markets, let our goods go around the world and secure our source of food.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani, 30 seconds.
Giuliani: The governor's right. It isn't a level playing field. The subsidies in Europe are far higher than they are in the United States. We could reduce subsidies here if they would do it there. But we shouldn't do it on our own.
And also, we have to be very aware of the fact that we have to have our own supply of food. We can't be dependent on foreign countries for our food.
So, both of those reasons would say that although simplistically, it might seem like you'd want to get rid of all the subsidies, you've got to do this very carefully, and you have to do it in concert with these free-trade agreements and other agreements you're making so that European countries reduce their much heavier subsidies.
Cooper: Since we're on fiscal matters, I would be remiss if I didn't ask this question, since it did just break a couple hours ago. This is to Mayor Giuliani. Politico broke a story a few hours ago questioning your accounting of taxpayer dollars as mayor.
They say that as mayor, the report says you took trips to the Hamptons and expensed the cost of your police detail to obscure city offices.
One, is that true? And, if so, was it appropriate?
Giuliani: First of all, it's not true. I had 24-hour security for the eight years that I was mayor. They followed me everyplace I went. It was because there were, you know, threats, threats that I don't generally talk about. Some have become public recently; most of them haven't.
And they took care of me, and they put in their records, and they handled them in the way they handled them. I had nothing to do with the handling of their records, and they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately.
Cooper: We have asked all the campaigns, we should point out, to submit 30-second or so campaign-style videos, YouTube-style videos. It was open to them to do it in any format they wanted.
Our first video -- and we're going to be playing them throughout the night, some of them out of commercials, some of them during the program -- is from Congressman Tancredo.
(Begin videotape)
Tancredo: This issue of immigration is one of the most serious public policy issues we face.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: What do we do now?
Tancredo: We have got to actually begin the process of assimilating people.
Clinton: They may not talk to you if they think you are also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.
Tancredo: We are obfuscating and using words like: Well, I am not for amnesty, but I am for letting them stay.
Clinton: Well, I don't have enough time to tell you all the mistakes I have made.
Tancredo: The Republicans can stop this.
(End videotape)
Cooper: All right, let's have our next question from a YouTube viewer.
LeeAnn Anderson: My name is LeeAnn Anderson and I am from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and these are my kids Evan and May. Maya is from China and we adopted him to give her a better life. We never dreamed that she would that she'd be exposed to lead after leaving China, and now we find trains like this that are covered with lead in our home.
My question for the candidates are, what are you going to do to make sure that these kind of toys don't make their way into our homes and that we have safe toys that are made in America again and we keep jobs in America?
Cooper: Congressman Tancredo, you have 90 seconds.
Tancredo: It is illegal to import that kind of thing. The problem is, of course, no one really pays a lot of attention to a lot of our laws, with regard to immigration of both people and, now in this case, of course, items, goods and services.
I voted against permanent normalized trade relations with China -- this is one reason why. It wasn't -- that was never devised simply to be a place for us to sell our products; it was devised to be a place where we could get cheap labor to then import products to the United States.
So, one of the things you'd have to do, and I certainly would intend to do, is to change our trade arrangement entirely -- with China, by the way, in particular, but with other countries, as well, that violate those agreements.
Cooper: Congressman Hunter, you have 30 seconds.
Hunter: China is cheating on trade, and they're using that $200 billion trade deficit over the United States to buy ships, planes and missiles. They are clearly arming.
And it's in the interest of the United States...
... to stop China's cheating. My bill, incidentally, that's up right now would do that.
But what we all ought to do in this Christmas season, with about a month to go before Christmas is buy American.
That might hire the young person. That'll result in a...
You know, that just might keep your neighbor from losing his job, and it might help that young person coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan in uniform to have a job when they get back.
Let's buy American this Christmas season.
Cooper: All right. We're going to have three commercial breaks throughout this entire debate. This is the first one. And as we go to it, we go to another campaign-style video, this one from Senator Fred Thompson.
(Begin videotape)
Romney: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it.
Huckabee: Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax. That's acceptable. I'm fine with that. Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax. That's fine.
(End videotape)
Cooper: Actually, given the nature of that video, we're not going to go to break right now.
I think it's something we should talk about.
Senator Thompson, what's up with that?
Thompson: I just wanted to give my buddies here a little extra airtime.
Listen, I mean, what do you mean what's up with it? These are their words.
Cooper: OK. I should allow time to respond.
Governor Romney?
Romney: I'm not sure who that young guy was at the beginning of that film, but I can tell you this, which is, I don't know how many times I can tell it. I was wrong. All right. I was effectively pro- choice when I ran for office.
If people in this country are looking for someone who's never made a mistake on a policy issue and is not willing to admit they're ever wrong, why then they're going to have to find somebody else, because on abortion I was wrong.
And I changed my mind as the governor. This didn't just happen the last couple of weeks or the last year. This happened when I was governor the first time a bill came to my desk that related to life. I could not sign a bill that would take away human life. I came down on the side of life every single instance as governor of Massachusetts. I was awarded by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life with their leadership award for my record.
I'm proud to be pro-life, and I'm not going to be apologizing for people for becoming pro-life.
Cooper: Governor Huckabee, 30 seconds to respond.
Huckabee: Well, I was governor nearly 11 years, and in that time I cut 90 taxes. Over that period of time, the income tax remained exactly what it was. The sales tax is one penny higher.
But I did do a number of tax cuts that helped a lot of people all over the place, like eliminating the marriage penalty, doubling the child care tax credit, getting rid of capital gains on the sale of a home, cutting capital gains on other things.
I have a great record on fiscal conservativism. But one thing I've learned, you know, when you get attacked, it's not always bad. It's like my old pastor used to tell me, when they're kicking you in the rear, it's just proving you're still out front.
Cooper: I'm sure there's some campaign chair who might want to change their videos that they've given us after seeing Senator Thompson's, but it's too late to do that. We're going to take a short break. We'll be right back.
(Commercial break)
Jay Fox: I'm Jay Fox, lifetime member of the NRA. Now, I am from a small town and as in any small time, we like our big guns. My question to you is: What is your opinion of gun control? And don't worry, you can answer however you like.
Cooper: Congressman Hunter? You have 90 seconds.
Hunter: Well, first I've got to inform Jay that as a guy who got his first hunting license at the age of 10 and really believes in the right to keep and bear arms, and used them in the military, as my son did in Fallujah, you should never throw a gun to a person. He should have taken that gun handed-off from his fellow hunter. So you have to be safe with guns, Jay.
But the right to keep and bear arms is an important element of community security, home security, and national security. I think it is a tradition of the American soldier.
From Bunker Hill to New Orleans to the rooftops of Fallujah, the right to keep and bear arms and use them effectively is an important part of America's security. And I will strongly enforce the Second Amendment as president of the United States.
Cooper: All right. On the same topic, another question. Let's watch.
Andrew Fink: Hello. My name is Andrew Fink, and I have a question for Rudy Giuliani.
Mr. Giuliani, at a recent NRA convention, you stated that it's every American's right to be secure. Yet, on March 21 of the year 2000, The Boston Globe quoted you as saying, "Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam."
Considering the Constitution grants us the right to bear arms as a means of protection, why do you believe that citizens should be required to pass an exam in order to exercise their right to protect themselves and their families?
Thank you.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani, 90 seconds.
Giuliani: Andrew, what I believe is that we have to be very aggressive about enforcing the gun laws that exist. I had a city in which, when I took over, there were 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week. And I enforced the gun laws very aggressively.
I enforced all laws very aggressively. And that's the reason we reduced shootings by 74 percent. We reduced homicide by 67 percent. And we went from being one of the most dangerous cities in the country to being one of the safest.
As far as that's concerned, what I believe is, the Second Amendment gives people an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Government can impose reasonable regulations. Generally, those reasonable regulations would be about...
(Audience booing)
Cooper: Let him answer.
Giuliani: Let me finish. Generally, those reasonable regulations would be about criminal background, background of mental instability, basically the ones that are outlined in the opinion of the judge who wrote the Parker decision, Judge Silverman. And if those regulations go beyond that, then those are unconstitutional.
I think states can have a little bit of leeway. New York could have a somewhat stricter rule than, let's say, Kentucky. Texas might have different rules than Ohio. But generally, you've got to comply with this rule.
Now, the Supreme Court's going to decide this. The Supreme Court's going to decide this, probably within the next six months. The Parker (ph) case has been taken to the Supreme Court. They're going to decide whether it's a right that pertains to the militia -- which I don't believe it is -- or is it a right that is a personal right. I believe that it is.
And I will live by that. And people will be allowed to have guns. I'm not going to interfere with that. Generally, decisions are going to be made on a state basis. And they're going to have to comply with the Constitution.
Cooper: Senator Thompson, last week you said that you don't think Mayor Giuliani's ever been a supporter of the Second Amendment. Why did you say that -- 30 seconds.
Thompson: Well, the mayor has supported a wide array of gun control laws. I'm not sure there's ever one that didn't come up for consideration in terms of legislation that he didn't support -- signing ceremonies with people from President Clinton's Cabinet and that sort of thing when they came up.
The Second Amendment is not a choice thing. I mean, it's in the Constitution of the United States -- that's the protection that the people have against...
The case that the mayor refers to is the Washington D.C. case, and they were taking the same position, basically, the mayor took, as far as the city of New York is concerned.
They said, "You know, it will make a safer city if we outlaw law- abiding citizens having the right to posses a firearm." It didn't make them a safer city.
The D.C. Court of Appeals held that it was a violation of their Second Amendment rights and, hopefully, the Supreme Court will uphold the D.C. court.
Cooper: Mayor?
Giuliani: I agree with the senator that it didn't make it a safer city. And some of these gun laws do not make a city a safer city.
The things we did in New York, indisputably, made New York City a much safer city. And the law in the District of Columbia and the law in New York are different.
The law in the District of Columbia made it impossible for you to have a firearm. And if New York City went that far, it should also be declared unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment clearly gives you the right to carry and to bear arms. In my reading of it, it's an individual right, and I believe the Supreme Court will declare that. And that protection comes from the Constitution, not just a president.
Cooper: Staying on the topic, another question from a viewer.
Eric Bentson: Hi there. I'm Eric Bentson from Phoenix, Arizona. Got a quick question for all you candidates.
Any of you all want to tell us about your gun collection, roughly how many you own, what your favorite make, model and caliber is, if any of them require a tax stamp?
Cooper: (Off-mike) if you have a machine gun or a silencer.
Senator Thompson?
Thompson: I own a couple of guns, but I'm not going to tell you what they are or where they are.
Cooper: Senator McCain?
McCain: For a long time I used a lot of guns, including carrying a .45 as a pilot flying in combat over Vietnam.
I know how to use guns. I don't own one now.
Cooper: Congressman Hunter?
Hunter: I have an old 20-gauge L.C. Smith that is just like the gun that my dad used to carry when I would walk behind him as a 9- year-old kid and pick up the shells when he was hunting quail. I finally got a chance to buy one of those a few years ago, the same gun that he had had and given to me when I was nine or ten year old when I bought my first hunting license.
The right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment is a large part protection. It is also a large part family tradition.
Cooper: Is there anyone here besides Senator McCain who does not own a gun? Mayor Giuliani? Governor Romney?
Romney: I have two guns in my home. They are owned by my son Josh.
Cooper: All right, there you have it.
We have another question on a similar topic.
Romney: He buys expensive things for me.
YouTube question: Hi, this is me and my son Prentiss. We're from Atlanta. I want to ask you guys a question (inaudible) every year. But what about the war going on in our country, black on black crime? Two hundred to 400 black men die yearly in one city alone. What are you going to do about that war? It feels like the (inaudible) is right outside.
Cooper: He's talking about black-on-black crime, crime in the inner cities.
Governor Romney?
Romney: Well, first of all, Printes is pretty fortunate because he's got a dad standing next to him that apparently loves him by all appearances there, and that's probably the best thing you can do for a kid is to have a mom and a dad.
And it's time in this country that we go back to the kind of values that allow kid to have moms and dads. In the African-American community today, 68 percent of kids born are born out of wedlock. And so we're going to try and once again reinculcate in this country the try of values that have made us so strong: family values.
Secondly ...
Cooper: The question is, what are you going to do about the war in the inner city?
Romney: Well, one, about the war in the inner city -- number one is to get more moms and dads. That's number one. And thank heavens Bill Cosby said it like it was. That's where the root of crime starts.
Number two, we've got to have better education in our schools.
I think that the civil rights issue of our time is the failure of inner-city schools to prepare kids in the inner city for the jobs of tomorrow. And number three, of course, you have to do a better job with our policing. And I was very proud that I added one state police class after another.
We had the largest state police in the history of our state during my term. We put in place tough laws related to drunk driving. Sex offenders, they have their pictures now posted on the Internet. We took actions to be tough on crime. And I was pleased that violent crime in my state during my term reduced by 7 percent.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani, your campaign manager week called Governor Romney a mediocre one-term governor. On the issue of fighting crime, is he a crime fighter?
Giuliani: The governor has a mixed record in fighting crime. For example, murder went up by 7.5 percent. Burglary went up. One other category of violent crime went up. Some categories of violent crime went down. So, it would be fair to say it's a mixed record.
The reality is, I had a very strong record in doing precisely what the young man was asking about. And that is reducing crime in specifically neighborhoods that would be regarded as poor neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that had the most crime.
For example, in Harlem, we reduced crime by about 80 percent. We reduced shootings, overall in the city, by 74 percent.
The city of New York was one of the most dangerous cities in America, and particularly in the neighborhoods this young man is worried about, they were really dangerous.
They are not that way anymore and we made the changes with the CompStat program, the broken windows theory and with very, very good leadership.
Cooper: Governor Romney, I have to allow you 30 seconds to respond.
Romney: I think we all recognize that the mayor did a wonderful job at reducing crime in the City of New York.
I'm not a mayor, I'm not running for a mayor's job; I didn't have a police commissioner. But I did take the actions that I could, as a state governor, to improve our state police, to strengthen our state police, to be able to put in place the DNA laboratory -- we more than tripled the size of our DNA laboratory -- and did the things we could to improve crime -- our crime enforcement.
And I'm proud of the fact that we were able to reduce crime during my tenure.
Cooper: The next topic is abortion.
Next question?
Journey: Hi. My name is Journey. I'm from Texas. And this question is for all (inaudible) pro-life candidates.
In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?
Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.
Paul: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it's illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.
But for the ...
Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?
Paul: Pardon me?
Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?
Paul: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.
But so I think it certainly is a crime. But I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist.
Cooper: So you're saying a doctor should be punished.
What sort of punishment should they get?
Paul: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not in the state -- I'm not running for governor. And I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all 50 states the same way. So, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide that.
Cooper: Senator Thompson?
Thompson: Yes. The young lady's question is...
... the young lady's question is premised on if abortion becomes illegal. That presumes Roe v. Wade is overturned, which I think should be our number one focus right now. And that has to do with the kind of Supreme Court justices we put on the bench.
I'm getting there. I'm getting there.
That would mean that it goes back to the states, and then the states would have to outlaw it at an earlier stage than they outlaw it now. Then the question would be, who gets penalized and what should the penalty be.
I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws pertain and prohibit abortion after viability. It goes to the doctor performing the abortion, not the girl, or the young girl, or her parents, whoever it might be. I think that same pattern needs to be followed. It could just be moved up earlier, or much earlier in the process if the state so determined.
Cooper: Another question.
Questioner: Hello, my name is AJ. I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would all of the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: If Congress passed a ban on all abortions throughout the United States?
Cooper: If Roe v. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?
Giuliani: I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision.
I think that that -- the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the states. If Roe against Wade were overturned because it was poorly decided, if the justices decide that, it would them go back to the states, and it would seem to me that that would be the answer.
The answer is that each state would make a different decision. I don't believe, in the circumstance that you asked before, that it should be criminalized. I think that would be a mistake unless we're talking about partial birth abortion or late-term abortion.
I think you should have parental consent. I think we should have access to adoptions instead of abortion. But, ultimately, I think these decisions should be made on a state-by-state basis.
Cooper: Governor Romney?
Romney: I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states.
I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted.
Cooper: The question is: Would you sign that bill?
Romney: Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.
Cooper: All right. The next question is for Governor Huckabee. Let's listen.
Tyler Overman: Hi. This is Tyler Overman from Memphis, Tennessee. And I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty, what would Jesus do?
Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
Huckabee: You know, one of the toughest challenges that I ever faced as a governor was carrying out the death penalty. I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state. As I look on this stage, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person on this stage that's ever had to actually do it.
Let me tell you, it was the toughest decision I ever made as a human-being. I read every page of every document of every case that ever came before me, because it was the one decision that came to my desk that, once I made it, was irrevocable.
Every other decision, somebody else could go back and overturn, could fix if it was a mistake. That was one that was irrevocable.
I believe there is a place for a death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix.
Now, having said that, there are those who say, "How can you be pro-life and believe in the death penalty?"
Because there's a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist.
Cooper: Governor?
Huckabee: That's the fundamental difference.
Cooper: I do have to though press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer was? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?
Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.
Cooper: Congressman Tancredo, 30 seconds.
Tancredo: The question is: What would Jesus do? Well, I'll tell you this. I would pray to him for the wisdom and the courage to do the right thing. And I believe that with prayer, he would give it to me.
And I believe that justice was done in the situations that the governor has explained. And, as I say, I look to him for guidance in all those kinds of situations.
Cooper: Time. A similar question. Let's watch.
Joseph: I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?
Cooper: I think we've got a question.
Mayor Giuliani?
Huckabee: Do I need to help you out, Mayor, on this one?
Giuliani: Wait a second, you're the minister. You're going to help me out on this one.
Huckabee: I'm trying to help you out.
Giuliani: OK. The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it's necessarily literally true in every single respect. E-mail to a friend


text:
Needless to say, the last few months haven't been so kind to Marist head baseball coach and school athletic director Ron Hayward.
Last October, Hayward was planning to take a trip to Maryland to watch his son play in an elite youth baseball tournament.
"I felt tired all the time," Hayward recalled. "I felt fatigued. I went to the doctor and he told me that I had to go to the emergency room right away, but I wanted to see my son played. So I hung up the phone and went to Maryland with my son."
Once Hayward's son was finished with the tourney on Sunday, Hayward went to Christ Hospital. On Monday, he was prepped for emergency surgery for glomerulosclerosis, which is the hardening and scarring of the kidney's tiny blood vessels that filter urine from the blood.
Hayward had to endure three surgeries, including the installation of a stent in his stomach so he could endure dialysis.
"I knew I had kidney problems since I was 21," Hayward said. "But I lived with it. It really hit me the last two years. I started falling asleep a lot and started feeling sick. The first few years, it didn't bother me. But it did now."
Hayward didn't know whether the illness was going to prevent him from coaching.
"It makes you appreciate life more," Hayward said. "I knew that this was not going to be the way I was going to end my life."
The 33-year-old Hayward had to endure grueling dialysis treatments at the DaVita Healthcare Treatment Center in North Bergen, but in order to be at Marist in time to start the school day, Hayward would have to start his dialysis treatments before 5 a.m. three times a week.
"It was tough," Hayward said. "I did alright with it at the start, but I knew I couldn't live like that forever. I had great doctors who didn't want me to stop doing what I do. They did what was best for me and I was going to do what they asked me to do. They didn't want me to stop, but if I didn't take care of it, my body might just stop."
A month after Hayward's final surgery, another obstacle ensued. A freshman football player named Kylin Polhill tragically died at the age of 14 after playing basketball near his home in Newark. Polhill's death cast a pall on the entire Marist community.
Before that, Hayward had to replace both of his popular basketball coaches, which caused more controversy.
Through it all, Hayward kept pointing toward the spring, toward the baseball season, one that Hayward anticipated like a toddler waits for Santa Claus.
"I knew this season was big," Hayward said. "I played seven freshmen last year because I knew that this was the season we built for. We would come back this year with a little experience, with our seniors helping the younger guys. That was the plan. I had to come back."
So Hayward had to endure the early morning dialysis and the troubles at school. Eventually, he got a program that enabled him to do the dialysis while sleeping at home.
Things were looking up. Hayward just needed the baseball season to begin.
There was a bit of a rocky start, as the Royal Knights lost three in a row after four straight wins to start the year.
"We knew we had a good team," said junior outfielder Tyler Cruz. "We weren't working as a unit. We just had to stick together and come together as a team."
It helped that the Royal Knights had a three-headed pitching monster in seniors Matt Littrell and Josh Witherspoon and sophomore A.J. Candelario. Littrell (Monmouth) and Witherspoon (South Florida) were already NCAA Division I signees. Candelario was a rising star. No other Hudson County team could match the Royal Knights' pitching.
The Royal Knights got on a major roll and advanced to the Ed "Faa" Ford Memorial Hudson County Tournament title game against defending champion St. Peter's Prep.
The Royal Knights trailed, 2-1, in the bottom of the fifth inning, when Cruz stepped up with a runner on first.
Hayward called time out from the third base coaching box to offer Cruz some advice.
"I tried to get him mad," Hayward said. "I told him that he was horrible the first two at-bats. Tyler is the kind of kid who can take what I said, get angry and prove me wrong."
Cruz hit a low liner to left-center field that looked at first that it might get run down by Prep's speedy centerfielder Corey Caddle.
"I knew I hit it hard, but I didn't even look," Cruz said.
"Once he hit it, I knew it had a chance to get the gap," Hayward said. "But it wasn't high enough. Once he hit it, I knew what I said worked. I wasn't stopping him, because I knew if we didn't score there, we might not score again."
Cruz motored around the bases for an inside-the-park homer, giving the Royal Knights a 3-2 lead.
"I saw it hit the gap and I just kept going," Cruz said. "I'm the kind of guy who just wants to do whatever I can to help the team. I picked up Coach [Hayward] and he was jumping up and down, so I knew I had to hustle. I have been working on my speed. With my adrenaline pumping, I just ran hard."
With the lead, the lanky lefty Witherspoon shut the door on the Marauders, pitching the final 2 2/3 innings without allowing a single hit.
"Josh was fired up because I didn't start him," Hayward said. "I knew he wanted the ball. A.J. went as far as he could, then we went to Josh."
And the Royal Knights had their second county title in the last three years. It had been almost 20 years since Marist had won a county championship and now they have two in three years.
It makes a very tough year into one to remember for the coach who had to endure his fair share of adversity.
"It's amazing, but I'm not shocked," Hayward said. "I really thought it could happen and it did."
And one of the littlest Royal Knights, all 5-foot-8 and 150 pounds of him, was the hero.
"It definitely is a dream come true," Cruz said. "It means everything to me, to be on the varsity level, to bat leadoff and help this team with a county title. It feels great."
And with many of the Royal Knights returning in 2015, there might be another title run.
"We all have the same mindset," Cruz said.
At least the head coach will be healthy and ready for another go at a county title. This was a tough one to go through.
Jim Hague can be reached at email@example.com. You can also read Jim's blog at www.jimhaguesports.blogspot.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Students learn the significance of the family-child-school relationship, the role of parents and other caregivers, and how to work effectively with diverse families and within diverse communities. Particular emphasis will be paid to cultural, ethnic, linguistic and economic diversity; nontraditional families; and families and communities faced with special challenges such as poverty. Involvement of parents and/or other primary caregivers in children's schooling is discussed at length, including various types of informal and formal home-school communications, home visits, home-school meetings and conferences. Students learn how to develop partnerships with families, including those with children who have special developmental needs, and study the legal rights of the child, special housing concerns and social service agency support.


text:
Microsoft recently announced that Internet Explorer 9, will support the standard, which sends a message to Web sites that you would like to opt out of tracking. Combine that with Do Not Track support in Firefox 4 and Chrome and it seems like opting-out is the new hot browser feature of the year. But how does Do Not Track work and what value does it bring to users?
While several solutions to the online tracking problem have been proposed (such as users blocking tracking code or using cookies to opt-out), Do Not Track is a relatively simple solution that adds an html header to every piece of information you send out to Web sites indicating that you don't want to be tracked. This header can this be read by sites that will, in theory, then opt you out of their tracking.
At the moment, however, that header doesn't have any effect on tracking. The standard depends on each tracking site honoring the do not track header and so far no tracking service complies with the standard - or has even said it plans to. For now Do Not Track is more the promise of a solution than an actual escape from online tracking.
A second problem is a lack of nuance in the standard itself. Chrome and Firefox treat Do Not Track as a simple binary, you either allow tracking or you don't. While this is probably good for most users, I have to wonder: Don't we WANT to be tracked sometimes? I can't say I'd cry myself to sleep if random Web sites stopped showing me targeted ads, but when Amazon suggests products to me, based on tracking my recent purchases and the pages I've viewed on the site, those recommendations are actually fairly useful. Sometimes the fact that the Internet knows a freakishly large amount about me is actually helpful.
Of course, this binary state of affairs isn't likely to last forever. In fact, IE9 will give you more control over Do Not Track technology by allowing for exceptions for certain sites, such as Amazon, that you might feel produce something you value by tracking you.


text:
There's a number of devices out there that extend HDMI over IP. You connect a video source to the transmitter, a display to the receiver, and link the two with a CAT5/5e/6 cable. These cables are much cheaper than HDMI cables, and can run longer distances.
[Daniel] didn't care about extending HDMI, instead he wanted a low cost HDMI input for his PC. Capture cards are a bit expensive, so he decided to reverse engineer an IP HDMI extender.
After connecting a DVD player and TV, he fired up Wireshark and started sniffing the packets. The device was using IP multicast on two ports. One of these ports had a high bitrate, and contained JPEG headers. It looked like the video stream was raw MJPEG data.
The next step was to write a listener that could sniff the packets and spit the data into a JPEG file. After dealing with some quirks, JPEG images could be saved from the remote device. Some more code was needed to have the computer initiate the streaming, and to extract audio from the second port.
In the end, video capture with the low cost device was possible. [Daniel] also provided a bonus teardown of the device in his writeup.


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
The smoking ban is required to be included in lease and rental agreement provisions. The provisions must inform existing and prospective tenants and owners that smoking is prohibited in the unit, including exclusive-use unenclosed areas such as decks and balconies, and common areas that are not designated as a smoking area.
The regulation allows for a private right of enforcement (civil action), meaning that a neighbor or other concerned party can file a civil action in a court of law if they believe the ordinance is being violated. The ban is also subject to enforcement by the City of Concord.
Show All Answers
Existing Units:
January 1, 2021
New Units/New Construction:
February 6, 2020
A multiunit residence includes any property containing two or more residences or any attached residence, or a residence sharing a common wall. It also applies to the following unit types and circumstances:
Mobile homes
Manufactured homes (typically known as RV parks and mobile home parks)
Dwelling areas in residential facilities such as group homes
Residential care facilities
Permanent supportive housing
Transitional housing
Assisted living facilities
Emergency and homeless shelters
Single-family detached homes
Accessory dwelling units
20% of motel or hotel rooms
An outdoor designated smoking area may be established by the property owner if it meets certain criteria, such as being at least 25 feet away from an area used by children.
The ban on smoking in and around multiunit developments applies to the interior areas of housing units, as well as private exclusive-use unenclosed space (e.g. patios, balconies, decks, or porches, etc.). However, designated outdoor smoking areas based on specific criteria may be permitted.
Smoking in a unit or a common area that is not designated as a smoking area would be a violation of apartment/HOA regulations. Contact your property manager first. In addition, occupants may enforce these provisions by filing a civil action in a court of law.
Additional information on legal options.
Smoking, including the use of electronic smoking devices (vaping) containing, any tobacco, nicotine, vaping aerosol, or cannabis product are prohibited by this ordinance.
Every landlord should deliver the following on or before July 1, 2020 to each existing unit and shall provide prospective tenants with:
A written notice clearly stating:
All units are designated as nonsmoking units. Smoking is illegal in a unit, including any associated exclusive-use area or unenclosed area, such as a private balcony, porch, deck, or patio as of January 1, 2021; and
Smoking in all common areas is illegal, unless an outdoor space is designated as a smoking area.
Every lease or rental agreement entered into, renewed, or continued month-to-month after January 1, 2021 shall include the following provisions:
A clause expressly conveying that it is a material breach of the agreement to knowingly or intentionally allow, or engage in, smoking in the unit and exclusive-use areas such as balconies, porches, or patios, or common areas, other than a designated smoking area.
A clause expressly conveying that it is a material breach of the agreement for the tenant to violate any law regulating smoking while on the property or to knowingly and intentionally allow any other person subject to control of the tenant to engage in such behavior.
Clear and unambiguous "No Smoking/Vaping" signs in sufficient numbers and locations are required in common areas where smoking is prohibited. The signs shall be maintained by the person(s) with legal control over of the common area. Signage is not required inside units or on doorways.
The smoking ban will remain in effect at all multiunit properties regardless of whether signage has been posted.
Code Enforcement
(925) 671-3075


text:
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows citizens of participating countries* to travel to the United States without a visa for stays of 90 days or less, when they meet all requirements.
Alerts and Messages for U.S. visitors to Togo.
U.S. Citizens with emergencies, please call 22 61 54 70
Outside of Office Hours, contact: 22 61 54 70 ext0
Outside of Togo: +228 22 61 54 70
Learn more about quality higher-education opportunities in the U.S. that you will not find anywhere else in the world.
Find the closest American Space in Togo where you can connect with the U.S.
Boulevard Eyadema
B.P. 852, Lomé
Phone: (+228) 2261 5470
Fax: (+228) 2261 5501
ME Plan Template Instructions
Footer Disclaimer


text:
One can make a decent argument that the financial crisis has bottomed out in the advanced countries (with the real-economy consequences still to come of course). But it is barely starting in the emerging markets, and it could get much, much worse.
Some of these economies are hurt by (now) declining commodity prices; others by large existing current account deficits; and if you do not have a problem on either account, you are (like China) dependent on export markets in the advanced countries that are about to dry up. These fundamentals are greatly magnified by risk assessments in financial markets. Now that advanced countries have bailed out and guaranteed vast portions of their financial systems, there is a much greater demarcation between "safe" and "risky" assets, with emerging markets in the second category. The flight to safety is already taking a huge toll on them. And the worst is likely to come when domestic residents join en masse in the capital flight.
All of this means that governments in these economies will be under pressure to mimic the public guarantees and bailouts that we have seen in the U.S. and the EU. But there is a big difference. Emerging markets for the most part have weak and fragile fiscal systems, and the magnitude of the potential run is huge relative even to the large mountains of reserves that many of them have built up. Socialization of private liabilities may enhance confidence in the rich countries; it will likely magnify the run in emerging markets. So we are talking about economic collapses that could be significantly bigger than what the rich countries will experience. And this time developing countries can legitimately say: it wasn't our fault!
Which is why external support is absolutely necessary. This is the time, if there was any, for the IMF to act as a true global lender of last resort--massively, and without many preconditions. Credit lines should open up to emerging markets before panic gets worse. The most that the IMF has lent in any one year in previous crises is in the tens of billion dollars. What will be required now is more of the order of hundreds of billion dollars. The IMF has the resources; if need be, it can issue new SDRs.
Up to now governments have been behind the curve. Let's not repeat this experience in the next phase of the crisis, which is now unfolding in the developing world.
UPDATE: There are encouraging signs that the IMF may be willing to play a role along the lines sketched out above.


text:
Common Lisp the Language, 2nd Edition
primary interface to operations for dynamically determining the
arrangement of output is provided through the functions above. However, an
additional interface is provided via a set of format directives
because, as shown by the examples in this section and the
next, format strings are typically a much more compact way to specify
pretty printing. In addition, without such an interface, one would have to
abandon the use of format when interacting with the pretty printer.
~W provides automatic support for circularity detection. If *print-circle* (and possibly also *print-shared*) is not nil and ~W is applied to an argument that is a circular (or shared) reference, an appropriate ``#n#'' marker is inserted in the output instead of printing the argument.
The format string portion enclosed by ~<...~:> can be divided into segments ~<prefix~;body~;suffix~:> by ~; directives. If the first section is terminated by ~@;, it specifies a per-line prefix rather than a simple prefix. The prefix and suffix cannot contain format directives. An error is signaled if either the prefix or suffix fails to be a constant string or if the enclosed portion is divided into more than three segments.
If the enclosed portion is divided into only two segments, the suffix defaults to the null string. If the enclosed portion consists of only a single segment, both the prefix and the suffix default to the null string. If the colon modifier is used (that is, ~:<...~:>), the prefix and suffix default to "(" and ")", respectively, instead of the null string.
The body segment can be any arbitrary format control string. This format control string is applied to the elements of the list corresponding to the ~<...~:> directive as a whole. Elements are extracted from this list using pprint-pop, thereby providing automatic support for malformed lists and the detection of circularity, sharing, and length abbreviation. Within the body segment, ~^ acts like pprint-exit-if-list-exhausted.
~<...~:> supports a feature not supported by pprint-logical-block. If ~:@> is used to terminate the directive (that is, ~<...~:@>), then a fill-style conditional newline is automatically inserted after each group of blanks immediately contained in the body (except for blanks after a ~<newline> directive). This makes it easy to achieve the equivalent of paragraph filling.
If the atsign modifier is used with ~<...~:>, the entire remaining argument list is passed to the directive as its argument. All of the remaining arguments are always consumed by ~@<...~:>, even if they are not all used by the format string nested in the directive. Other than the difference in its argument, ~@<...~:> is exactly the same as ~<...~:>, except that circularity (and sharing) detection is not applied if the ~@<...~:> is at top level in a format string. This ensures that circularity detection is applied only to data lists and not to format argument lists.
To a considerable extent, the basic form of the directive ~<...~> is incompatible with the dynamic control of the arrangement of output by ~W, ~_, ~<...~:>, ~I, and ~:T. As a result, an error is signaled if any of these directives is nested within ~<...~>. Beyond this, an error is also signaled if the ~<...~:;...~> form of ~<...~> is used in the same format string with ~W, ~_, ~<...~:>, ~I, or ~:T.
When a ~/name/ directive is encountered, the indicated function is called with four or more arguments. The first four arguments are the output stream, the format argument corresponding to the directive, the value t if the colon modifier was used (nil otherwise), and the value t if the atsign modifier was used (nil otherwise). The remaining arguments consist of any parameters specified with the directive. The function should print the argument appropriately. Any values returned by the function are ignored.
The three functions pprint-linear, pprint-fill, and pprint-tabular are designed so that they can be called by ~/.../ (that is, ~/pprint-linear/, ~/pprint-fill/, and ~/pprint-tabular/. In particular they take colon and atsign arguments.
As examples of the convenience of specifying pretty printing with format strings, consider the functions pprint-defun and pprint-let used as examples in the last section. They can be more compactly defined as follows. The function pprint-vector cannot be defined using format, because the data structure it traverses is not a list. The function pprint-tabular is inconvenient to define using format, because of the need to pass its tabsize argument through to a ~:T directive nested within an iteration over a list.
(defun pprint-defun (list) (format t "~:<~W ~@_~:I~W ~:_~W~1I ~_~W~:>" list)) (defun pprint-let (list) (format t "~:<~W~^ ~:<~@{~:<~@{~W~^ ~_~}~:>~^ ~:_~}~:>~1I~ ~@{~^ ~_~W~}~:>" list))