Exclusive Interview With Gov. Jim Gilmore — Part II

"If the conservatives don’t decide that they’re going to get behind a candidate this is going to be a lost four years. Either way, it doesn’t matter who gets nominated in which party, this is going to be a lost four years," said former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore during an interview with HUMAN EVENTS editors last week. "That’s my clarion call."

Addressing issues ranging from campaign fundraising to environment to national security to emergency preparedness, Gilmore explained to HE why he's running for the President and why believes he is uniquely qualified for the job. The following is part two of two reports of the edited interview. (Click here to read Part I.)

Jim Gilmore: The war, I think has to be viewed in a very large context. As far back as my studies at University of Virginia, back in the late ‘60s, I’ve understand that in the post-World War II era, international relations have been very unstable…The Cold War stabilized it. (I was actually an army veteran, served in Germany as an intelligence noncommissioned officer over there.) That provided some stability but the whole time there’s been a bubbling, rising anger really worldwide that I think offers a big picture explanation of everything that’s been going on.

You will notice that the unrest in the world today doesn’t just lie in Iraq or even in the Middle East alone but worldwide and I think that as time goes on we have to be much more expansive in our thinking about how we want to live in the world in this post colonial and post Cold War period period.  

With that preliminary, I will say that over the years, I have been distressed about the handling of the war and the way that people have pronounced on the war. But I think we have arrived in March 2007 and have to look at ourselves and ask ourselves what are we doing and why are we doing it and what is the best course we have available to us.

I think the Democrats are wrong. I have concluded that they are wrong. In an assertion that we should be pulling out and on a timetable and that debate is going on as we speak. We just saw in the [Washington] Post in the last couple days that they are actually trying to buy votes with pork barrel in order to get a timetable for a pullout which means people are prepared to put sewer pipes and that kind of a thing ahead of the national interest of the United States which I think is awful.

Democrats are wrong, if we pull out on a timetable, number one, I don’t know how you tell young men and women in uniform in a combat zone that they are to go out today and patrol and try to do something productive with this and then to tell them at the same time, “But don’t worry, as of a date certain, we’re all pulling out of here - which means that your duty today is meaningless.” I think we can’t send that message. I think it’s the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, in a larger global scheme, it also means that if we in fact do pull out on that type of timetable, they [will] wait us out [to the] point [that] we will create a very chaotic situation that probably will spread beyond the borders of Iraq.

We’ve already seen the implications in Lebanon, in South Lebanon, the issues in Israel, the issues in the West Bank, issues in Gaza, the things that are going in Syria, the whole business going on in Iran really trying to increase their sphere of influence and turn Iraq into an economic and military type of colony. Then you have the big picture of Iran and how to deal with that, which is maybe a separate issue. So I think that Democrats are actually creating a recipe for further, greater chaos.

What will be the result? The very same people asking us to pull out today on a timetable will be demanding that we go back. [They will] be demanding that we stop the ethnic cleansing, that we bring stability. They will say that we were the ones who started this war, and therefore we Americans have an obligation to go back in and correct the situation that will be created by the pull out. Unless, of course, we decide simply to wash our hands totally of the Middle East and all of the potential natural resources issues and just withdraw into ourselves completely. I do believe the United States can play a central part in the war and I don’t believe it has to be exclusively military.

The second thing I would say is I think it has been a mistake to stand pat as long as we have. To recognize over a period of time the chaos that has been created and simply try to keep doing things the exact same way - I think it was a mistake to do it as long as we did it. And it created great unrest in the United States - a sense of frustration that there was no path forward to be defined and looking ahead and people became angry. They wanted to send a message in the last election that they wanted to see some sense of direction and forward motion in this. And they weren’t getting it and they wanted to tell us that they disapprove of that.

When I become President I will make sure that I do know the information that I need to know to set the correct direction. But I believe that the President is adding resources and asking for more resources and trying to be more creative about getting control of that situation so that we don’t end up with the logical and predictable and foreseeable result that the Democrats will put us into. And I support that. I’m prepared to support the President in that regard. And I have given you a short speech here because I want everyone around the table to know how my mind is working and it is much bigger than just, are we going to send another 5,000 soldiers today or not? I think it is much larger issue we have to address in terms of foreign policy.

Let me ask you about that… in other words, you say its part of a larger picture…it seems to me that there are many kinds of threats that we are fighting. Al Qaeda is one threat, al Qaeda is in Anbar [Province in Iraq], but the fact is, as you pointed out before, you have the pro-Iranians and the Shiites who are also in Iraq and they’re supported. And the point is that you have an Iranian terrorism and al Qaeda terrorism, you have China to worry about. In other words, you have to address these issues separately also and I’m curious of your thoughts on that.

Gilmore: I think the Chinese issue may be separate from the Middle East issue because they’re two different motivations. It’s clear there is a sense of change in the world. If the U.S. intends to play the central role, we have to understand the concept that we are dealing with. As far as those two pieces, I concur that what we are seeing at this point is a desire to push Western influence out of [the] Middle East and what the implications would be to that but it is fair to say that we do have to recognize that we have an al Qaeda group that has decided to use terrorism as a tactic…[But yes], certainly we have to recognize that, you have all different kinds of people at this time using terrorism against each other and against us.

There are separate individual threats to us, some of them big some of them small. My concern in Iraq is - say the Shiites win and we get rid of al Qaeda? We are in danger of creating an adjunct of Iran - and I don’t know the answer to all these puzzles. You’re running for President and I was just curious whether you are thinking about this or whether you have any advisors, or you’re saying I trust this fellow’s judgment and he’s on my team…?

Gilmore: We’ll have a series of advisors as the year goes on and we enter the presidency. But I’m not inclined to delegate my own thinking to someone else. I mean I haven’t actually spent a lot of time thinking about this or if I have I might have been wrong. The main focus is I do believe you can look at this tactically. And we have to address it tactically with al Qaeda and the Shiites and the Sunnis and so on.

But I also believe there is no substitute for big picture strategic thinking. On this issue that is a worldwide sense of unrest. So what is the policy of the U.S.? The policy of the U.S. has to be to align ourselves with the aspirations and goals of people of the world so that even if we’re not trying to create some worldwide welfare state where we are going to make everyone rich and happy we are going to let people understand that we are the beacon of opportunity because of our political system and our economic system like in the same way we did in the Cold War. In the Cold War, people knew who the good guys were - there was us. And they knew who the bad guys were - the Russians. Today I think it’s much more fuzzed up in the absence of the Russians. The political sense that we are getting out of all these people is that the U.S. are the bad guys - they are imperialist, they are trying to take away our ability to elect our own people, whether it’s a theocracy or it’s a democracy or whatever it is. And it makes us an easy target to people around the world but tactically I certainly concur and that’s why I support the President in his efforts right now in some of these issues tactically.

One of the things that strikes me that needs to be clear is: what is the goal? The President has essentially stated, for lack of a better term, a neo-con goal of establishing democracy in Iraq. Is that what your goal would be or do you see it in defeating terrorism or some other way? What’s the objective?

Gilmore: I think the objective there is to create some stability and stability should be as a result of the people of every country including what we are dealing with, including Iraq - that we are in line with their capacity to determine their own future - self determination of their own future. I think what has the U.S. really concerned is that they are not certain that following that type of policy would result in friendly people in charge of the natural resources which are essential to the Western world and they are frightened to take the gamble on this. But I think that unless we have a long-term plan to make ourselves once again the beacon of liberty in the world, then we are doomed to a military conflict with a large portion of the third world for generations and I’d like to try and avoid that if we can. But that does not mean that I’m arguing we should be soft on terrorists. To the contrary, my reputation and experience is dealing with issues with of homeland security and the War on Terror. And I believe when you have people grown out of this environment that is in the world today, that have determined either through religious or political reasons that they want to kill our citizens, that you can’t argue with those people, that you have to kill them or deal with them appropriately in every way that you can. I would like to see a rule of law applied to the greatest extent possible and for these people to be put aside from a civil society and to be condemned as being outside of a civil society all across the Middle East.

When I interviewed Gov. Huckabee, one of your rivals for the nomination, he said that in contrast to the current President, he would have talks with Iran and Syria. And he strongly suggested that in contrast to Pres. Bush, he would have met with [President] Ahmadinejad when he came to the UN. Your thoughts on Iran and Syria?

Gilmore: I have a couple of responses to that. Number one: we have to place ourselves in a position where we can negotiate successfully. Meeting alone is not the answer. You can open up some lines of communications so you can see where people are on the chess board. But let’s not be wrong about this - simply meeting is not going to be the answer. You have to put yourself in a position where you can negotiate successfully in terms of American national interest. I believe that the U.S. has to be in this for American national interest. I believe that we should use all the elements of national power in order to support the national interest of the U.S. That is military, economic, diplomatic, and frankly, the moral high ground - which I think is the most important of the four. Make sure that everyone in the world understands what we are trying to do and the goals we are trying to reach and that we share the goals of trying to increase the value of people’s lives, the quality of people’s lives and their success across the world as they try to move themselves up out of a condition they have been in since the post-war period. We can align ourselves with the aspirations of people and people will know we are on their side. Put very specifically: we should deny to these bad people, who are our true enemies, the resources of the rest of the Middle East. And I’m talking about the Arab street. If the Arab street becomes convinced those folks are right and we’re wrong, we’re in for a serious problem and a lot of blood and treasure for a long time. We have to make sure that people from all across the Arab street, from Morocco to the Philippines understand that we can align ourselves with their aspirations - that they need not turn to al Qaeda or religious zealots who conduct themselves in a way that we simply can’t accept and therefore will have to be militarily in opposition to.

One of the things I think is going to be awfully hot in the next couple months is going to be the illegal immigration mess again. The President has been comprehensively wrong on the issue. I think also we are going to see the “McKennedy” bill come out and it’s going to make what little hair I have left start to fall out - where are you, how do you solve it, what’s the problem? What is the Jim Gilmore version of this issue and how do you fix it?

Gilmore: Let me start with the general and then go to your specific. We are talking about [this issue] right now as we go out into the country, and we’ve talked to opinion makers and conservative leaders across the country. We talk about two things, number one: domestic policy must be to control government spending and therefore to be in a position to control or reduce taxation so that you can deliver the message to people that they have the opportunity to create more independence of their own instead of being thrown into programs and welfare state dependency. That is the one essential point. That is why I’m so assertive about it with you here today because it’s so essential to the campaign.

Number two: national security is the other issue. We have to address the issues of national security - all the way from Iraq all the down through immigration and all the way down through energy independence. And Iraq and the War on Terror and homeland security is one piece and the second piece is immigration and the third piece is energy independence.

I think national security is a key issue in this campaign. I am best able to address it and I will explain why, of course, at the appropriate time. I’m a veteran of the U.S. Army and the Army Intelligence. Among other things, I’m also a graduate in foreign policy, I’ve done military service, the Intelligence Corps, traveled to 12 countries as governor, three continents. Most importantly, I chaired the National Commission on Terrorism for WMDs for the U.S. Congress for 5 years and I was governor of Virginia during the September 11 attacks. I’ve actually been on the firing line when my state was under attack at the Pentagon. I know how to deal with these kinds of issues and I have devoted a great deal of my life to thinking about foreign policy issues. With all that being said, immigration is an economic issue to be sure, [as well as] a security issue. Here’s my policy: I think we have to get control of the borders. I don’t want to wed myself to a particular method at this point - I would like to avoid a fence but I believe it is an element that is on the table if it would be helpful. But I believe the additional personnel and technology…whatever we have to do, we have to control the border. We cannot address the illegal immigration issue unless we control the border. Nothing else works unless you do that, that’s the North[ern] and Southern border. And boy, the Northern border’s a challenge…

They all speak French, it’s worse…

Gilmore: That too. The second point is…you have to address the issue of the estimated 12 million people that are here. They are not undocumented workers, they are illegal aliens, that’s what they are and they came here illegally. My sense of things is what has Americans so mad - and they are mad about this - what has them so mad is that they understand is that they have to play by the rules and live by the law. In a civil society, which I, by the way, would aspire to in international setting as well - not just a military conflict - but a civil society where you set up standards and morals where you understand what it is to obey the law and not obey the law and you condemn people who set up explosive weapons on the side of a road as being criminals not just military combatants fighting for their own cause….What do we have here? We have got a real problem that we’ve let get out of hand and what do you do? I believe we have to find them.

We have to afford a time frame for people to come in and register and at least be here and we know where they are and who they are and what their role is here in the U.S. But I reject an amnesty - that would not guarantee that we will take any particular course of action by way of an amnesty. I reject that idea that there is an automatic path to citizenship. I see no reason from that. We have Americans working all over the world as its patriots and they don’t become Frenchman, or Germans or Chinese. To the extent that they are here, they are citizens of whatever country they came from, whether it’s Canada, El Salvador, Mexico…but we have to know where they are, it’s a matter of national security. People who don’t come in and register by the appropriate time are subject to deportation. I think that is a fair thing that we can do in order to begin to deal with this other issue that we’ve allowed to get out of control over so many years…

So you’re saying the 12 million are all subject to deportation then?

Gilmore: Unless they come in and register and get themselves under American law….  Thirdly, we can have an immigration reform up the road, we can address that issue but we have had no national discussion with the American people about what an appropriate immigration reform would be so why in the world do we think we’re going to pass it in the Congress over here in two weeks? We have no consensus on this in the U.S. of America today, no discussion that’s gone on the build any political consensus on this and we can do that up the road but right now we have to control the border, we have to identify where people are. The warning to them is that unless they do that they are in fact subject to deportation and then we can address the issue of how we want to handle it - but it is not an automatic path to citizenship and it is not an amnesty. And that is my view.

Is it a question for the government to answer or is this something that businesses should share responsibility?

Gilmore: Thank you for reminding me. Another element of that, of course, is that we should require employers to participate exactly in this national program: that they cannot hire illegal aliens and they should be subject to severe criminal penalties if they do. Meanwhile, we can address the issue of what component they might play in this registration - if somebody comes in and registers and says, “Yeah but I work for Mr. Jones up the street doing construction” - I think that’d probably be a valid thing for us to know.

Just before we leave that on the deportation issue, in his last question at his last televised news conference - President Bush, when he made his pitch for his comprehensive guest-worker program, he said, “We can’t deport all 12 million of these people who are all here - some say we should but we can’t do it” - it’s almost a verbatim quote.

Gilmore: I understand...look, I understand the practical problems of that. I would hate to see the United States of America putting 12 million people on a Greyhound bus. I would like to find a better way than that to deal with it.

Many people say that if you enforce the law with the businesses that these illegals will deport themselves, do you agree with that?

Gilmore: Well I know this, let me preface by saying, this policy I believe is a good policy but I am not intending to send a message of dislike or hatred to any ethnic group -Hispanics or anyone else. I’ve had a long history or being able to draw people into my governance programs and my politics - from the African American community to the Hispanic community and other places as well - people of the Middle East - and I want to send a message that we have to find a way that we can draw people into the life of the country. But not at the expense of a program that says that we are going to allow people to break the law and that all is forgiven. That is not the right tradeoff on this.

Do I believe that they will self-deport? I don’t know but I know this: my conversations with Hispanic leaders in California convinced me that they consider it entirely an economic issue. They were very specific about it. They represent that in Mexico many of these folks make $6 a day - in the United States of America they make $6 an hour - and they work 10-12 hours a day and they are now multiplying by large numbers their income and that’s what’s driving people. We have an obligation to make sure employers employ people who are legally within our laws and that is what we have to do. Beyond that, this program might afford them an opportunity - as we as a society choose too - to create some outlet for them to be able to work. I’m not sure I want to call it a guest-worker program. So therefore, if they can’t earn money here, they may very well go home.

If they do come in and register as you had suggested in your plan, would there be any sort of punishment - a fine? You had said they had a time period to register, would there be a fine?

Gilmore: At this point I’m not prepared to say…that as an excuse for an amnesty we put on some sort of superficial penalties. I want to get control of the situation. I don’t want to punish people. I want to get people in the law and under the control of the law the same way all American citizens are. I mean, I think as a practical matter if we in fact were going to incorporate people into this country and legalize people…then it makes sense to talk about school and education and language and all that type of thing but right now I want to get control of the situation.

When you say get control, and you say you’re opposed to the fence which it seems to me worked very well in San Diego - and Duncan Hunter can tell you about that - and they passed a bill to build another fence and it seems to me that that is what the American people even would like. What I don’t hear from you exactly is how you’re actually going to control the border. I hear you talk about a guest-worker program - having them register, stay here and all this sort of thing…

Gilmore: No - I’m not talking about a guest-worker program.

Well, whatever you want to call it. The point is that we’re going to have them register and then we’re going to decide what to do with them but we’re not going to deport them…So therefore, what I don’t see is that, even though you say you’re really for border control, I don’t see it when I see the Congress pass a - they want a fence - and a lot of people talk about National Guard down there and all this and I don’t hear you talk about those kinds of things - how else are you going to control the border?

Gilmore: Actually, what you said is a complicated question…it is not necessarily the case that if we get people registered here that it is going to be a guest-worker program. We can have a national discussion about that in the Congress and in the street about exactly what the appropriate method is. But a registration and determination of where these people are is an essential first step. The second part of your question is how are you going to control the border? I wouldn’t rule out a fence but I just have a lot of experience with fences. I’ve seen the Berlin Wall and I’ve been trained to do illegal border crossings. And furthermore, I was trained in Ft. Huachuca, Arizona and I understand what that territory is like down there. And it is not going to be that easy to do. So I think we are going to have to use the entire panoply of all methods and if a fence can be demonstrated as a successful method, I would not rule that out. We certainly want to have some type of barriers either by personnel, technology, sensors, or maybe a fence. But we have to have a national program to do that. And by the way, they started one and I know because I participated in it on behalf of one of the companies that was trying to implement it. And there are a lot of things you can do to try to control the border.

Do you find the fence offensive to Hispanics, is that your reason…?

Gilmore: I find it offensive to me. I’ve seen the Berlin Wall with my own eyes and now of course, they were keeping people in and we are keeping people out so -

It’s a different fence. I just sort of wondered why you had sort of a gut reaction against a fence.

Gilmore: I have two reactions. Number one, a fence is not a good image for the United States of America - for the rest of the world - in the larger picture that I was trying to talk about but that’s not the main point. The main point is how effective it is.

But it did work in San Diego -

Gilmore: Oh, I don’t know how well it worked in San Diego. Who told you it worked great in San Diego?

A lot of people, including Duncan [Hunter].

Gilmore: Well that’s great but the fact is that you can get around a fence on the Southern border unless you seal it with an entire fence and even then you’ve got a lot of space over there to dig a lot of holes under a lot of fences.

Have you officially announced for President yet?

Gilmore: No we’re in exploratory committee at this present time. We’ll probably do a more formal announcement at a later time.

What about financial - will you be able to raise enough money to run a campaign?

Gilmore: We think so. We are assessing that right now. We’re not assessing whether or not we’re going to run. We expect to run but the challenge is: how do you fund what we are doing and how do you reach people appropriately? And we’ve got a strategy that we’re following, which we’re not going to put in HUMAN EVENTS, but we think we can do it.

Fred Thompson now says that even though he voted for and spoke for all on the constraints that are in McCain-Feingold, he favors lifting all limits, having no limits on donations - do you agree with that?

Gilmore: I’m going to state a principle first and then I’m going to answer your question. It really would be nice if we nominated a candidate the American people could rely on. That kept their word, that did what they said they would do, and that they have a long track record of being reliable and that’s me and maybe only me in this race.

With that general statement being said, the Virginia program is that we have always allowed unlimited contributions and strict disclosure and I have no doubt that is the best thing for the American political system and that is what I would favor. The $2,300 right now it has a good side in that no big hitter some place can control you. On the other hand, you’re going to tell the people of the U.S. that he controls you anyway. I mean, not controls you, but…you’re going to say that he contributed and then the press is going to inquire about all that - under the more enlightened system of complete fundraising. But, you know $2,300…it’s just very difficult to do.

I could give you a talk on what I think is needed - the real problems with the American political system today - the direct point is, it really skews it to people who are either extremely rich or people who have been chosen by the press to be mainstream very high profile and/or - mostly rich people or people who start years in advance and tell people they want to run for President and begin to build big organizations and even that’s dubious under that law.

Or have their husband in the White House first.

Gilmore: That too. The limitation of finances is closing the system, I think, to a lot of people. [But] we still think we can do it.

As a student of history, I know you are the first former Virginia governor in 75 years to seek a major party nomination for President since Harry Byrd - who actually turned down overtures to be FDR’s running mate in order to wrap up the nomination then a year later won an open Senate seat - and that leads me to you: would you accept the vice presidential nomination and would you consider running for the Senate if John Warner retired?

Gilmore: My intention is to run for the presidency.

Governor, I know a few weeks back when you met with bloggers, they were excited when you said you would be the first President to blog. Do you plan on blogging beforehand, during your campaign?

Gilmore: We are starting to communicate with bloggers now and it will be my pleasure to blog.

Making your staff extremely nervous...letting him loose to blog….

Gilmore: We will because we actually understand there’s a new form of communication. Everybody’s aware that I chaired the Congressional Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce. The reason I was appointed to that was because I had led on many of these issues in Virginia. When I got there I thought Virginia should be a forward-looking state and wanted to really focus on technology and the Internet and those kinds of technology issues so with that reputation I was appointed to the Congressional Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce and while it was very controversial and one of the hardest political things I’ve ever done in my entire life (we should report and we should not be putting extensive taxation on the Internet) I have come to understand that it is a new form of political communication. I’m certainly respectful of traditional means of communication - that’s why I’m in this interview - but the truth is there’s going to be a lot of direct communication from this point on in American politics and I want to take advantage of that because maybe just maybe this is a way for a candidate that comes in relatively late - that other high profile people who have been raising money and creating those systems for years and years - that this is a way we can go over the heads of some of the network news channels and speak to people and then at that point maybe just maybe, instead of the system going off the rails which it appears to be doing to do today, with this move up in the primaries - maybe there’s a new way of communicating directly with the American people and salvaging this republic that we’ve got and I’m optimistic about it.

Where do you stand on environmental issues - energy and environment?

Gilmore: Which part?

Well both, everything from global warming to nuclear power.

Gilmore: Right and they are obviously linked. First of all, I believe it is a matter of national security that we could gain some energy independence in this country. We have to have a conversation with the American people about energy independence and we have not done that. American people are reacting to gas at the pump. And that’s it. We get very excited about gas at the pump. Why? It’s very understandable. It’s because of the other theme I’ve talked about. They can’t make ends meet anymore because all their money’s being taxed away. So when all the sudden something extra happens, like a rise at the pump, they get very excited. And that’s what’s going on in terms of energy discussion this day. We’re going to have to have a conversation with the American people about energy independence and explain to them that which they really inherently understand - which is that the nation is in jeopardy as long as we are subject to people in foreign countries who don’t have the national interest of the United States at heart. We are going to have to really get the American people behind a program that actually might call for a little sacrifice every now and then. But we’re going to have to do something to get people behind this idea of energy independence. That means we have to use all the resources available to us. I’m not going to try to set a program today. I think as the year goes on we’ll be able to be clearer about that. I know this, we’re going to have to do more drilling, drilling in places we control, if that means ANWAR (The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) so be it. We’re going to have to have biomass. We’re going have to have ethanol. We’re going to have to use nuclear power and move forward on nuclear power - it’s a great way to really increase the capacity of energy in this country. We should use liquid natural gas. We should find ways to use coal in an appropriate way, which is a good resource for us.

And we’re going to have to have an honest discussion with American people about usage also and I’m not sure that anybody yet has explained how conservation solves the national challenges of the United States so I’m not going to talk about that yet. But I do think that we ought to talk about exactly what the status is and I don’t think we’ve had that education for the American people yet and I would like to do that.

You put all that together and you can begin to layout a concepts behind a national program of some sense of independence for the national security of this country - not just pocketbook issues.  Now as far as the environment goes, my track record in Virginia was pretty good. I think most environmentalists would think - of course they judge from the point of view of a conservative not a liberal, therefore they’d likely be considering I’m a conservative - but my track record was pretty good on this. I tried to find ways we could advance the environment. And I think we can find ways to make these goals consistent and I would like to try to do that.

You said you support greater nuclear power. One of the things that has been a problem for implementing the nuclear power program is that people have opposed building nuclear facilities because of fears and the waste repository in Yucca Mountain. Would you be putting greater effort behind getting Yucca Mountain ready to go for nuclear power or do you have another solution for that?

Gilmore: I think we have to find the best and safest possible solution for the storage of nuclear waste. I’m not prepared today to say that’s Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain has to be on the table together with all other options. We have to address the storage issue in the appropriate way or whatever that best way or whatever mountain that is.

One other thing, you were mentioning the pocketbook issues of gasoline - there was a big discussion about repealing the gas tax - would you support repealing the gas tax, the federal gas tax, 18 and a half cents a gallon?

Gilmore: I support the limitation of taxation every opportunity I can. I’m not prepared today to say if that’s the program I want to push forward but I’ll know soon. To the extent that I could put more money back in the pockets of people, it is a core element of the way I have lived, the way I have run, and the way I have governed.

In order to become energy independent, would you have to put a tax on imports?

Gilmore: That is a method I not be prepared to adopt today…but it is a method that has to go into the mix of real world program that we examine but you have to be careful about taking money back out again to achieve one policy goal while at the same time your core policy goal is to try to enable people…

What other strengths do you think qualify you to be President?

Gilmore: The chief executive of a major state is very significant. It gives you the array of experience you need to be a governor, an array of the skills and challenges you have to face. Probably the best work that I’ve done has been as chairman of the terrorism commission (Congressional Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction) of the advisory panel on homeland security. It was established by law, by statute in 1999. They came to me - the Clinton Administration actually - and asked me if I would chair the commission. They said they wanted a governor to chair the commission. They put on police, fire, rescue, emergency services, intelligence people, general officers, epidemiologists, healthcare people, and we did real serious work, which you can read today all over the Internet. In 1999 we assessed the threat, we warned that an attack was quite likely and what the nature of it would be. In the year 2000, we said you’ve got to have a national strategy, here are the correct parameters that will allow you to protect the country and protect our civil freedoms at the same time. The third year, in 2001, we said look you still don’t have a national strategy, nothing’s still going on on this, you got to do something, time is running against us and here’s what you do.

Number one: how do you fold in the state and local people and make them part of a true homeland security national strategy?

Number two: what do you do about healthcare? Particularly in the event of biological attack or even a natural occurring event.

Number three: what do you do about the border and the fact that it’s completely porous? It’s an ongoing issue that we’ve got to address.

And number four: we dealt with the use of the military in the homeland, which we think is one of five of the most significant issues facing homeland security today because of the inherent danger of using the regular military in the homeland.

Posse Comitatus?
 
Gilmore: Yes, well no, not exactly - Posse comitatus being a prohibition against using the regular military in the homeland which we have found all kinds of ways to get around. But frankly, the more serious problem of a national catastrophe which would lead the President to throw away all the traditions including posse comitatus and go into a state of martial law. And the inherent dangers of that and trying to avoid that and getting the country read in other ways so the President isn’t forced into something like that.

And finally, cyber security. And that’s when the attack happened. Within a week that we finished the report, the attack happened. I won’t dwell on the attack. You all know what I did at that time. Well, I’ll tell ya. I was there in the governor’s mansion; I saw the attack occurring in New York. I picked up the phone that instant. I activated the Emergency Operations Center. I called the state police and warned them if there was any evidence of gun play anywhere in Virginia that the central headquarters had to be notified. I then called the National Guard and put them on alert. I went across the street to the governor’s office and found out the Pentagon had been struck. And I talked to the press every hour. They were really hysterical.

Let me stop you there for just a second. You said you did that the minute you found out. How long did it take you - you made a couple of phone calls. I mean, you did literally what a military commander would do.

Gilmore: It took me 10 minutes. It took me 10 minutes to do those things. I actually had to chase the right person at the Emergency Operations Center. As it turns out, the director of emergency operations for the state of Virginia was in one of the Northeastern states like Montana or one of the Dakotas at a national conference of all the homeland directors. They were all stuck one place.

I hear what you’re saying about blending the national with the local and it strikes a very special chord for me. One of my college roommates is a retired Air Force colonel who is the head of emergency services in a county in Pennsylvania. And I hear from him, he calls me up to blast my eardrums about once every other week saying, “You wouldn’t believe what FEMA’s doing and Chertoff’s not doing this.” He still finds out about alert status from Fox News.

Gilmore: I will say there was year 4 and year 5 which address the issues of intelligence, communications, interoperability and if you look at the fifth year, you will see that it is an attempt to be visionary - and to project what the country should look like years hence after we’ve actually done the job. But you’ll find a heavy emphasis on the freedoms and civil liberties of the American people, you will find that. In one of my introductory letters - I actually said in the letter, if we give that up because of this whole turmoil that we’re in, we’ve given up the whole game.

What are the two or three things we should do most urgently right now on that issue that haven’t been done?

Gilmore: This is the essential point. You absolutely have to set up a national strategy that includes federal, state, local, private sector, community leadership. I formed a nonprofit called The National Council on Readiness & Preparedness some years ago in order to promote this out of office, even though I was out of office, and it’s been pretty successful. We’ve raised a lot of money, done a lot of conferences around the country. It’s based on a core value: you can get the country ready - and I’ll give you the policy point after that - you can get this country ready. You can do it by understanding the appropriate roles and understanding what I actually saw on 9/11 which was when the Pentagon was struck, who responded? Not the federal government. Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax fire, police, rescue - that’s who responded. That’s who responded. And then later on Montgomery County, and later on people around the East Coast, that’s who responded. Thank God they did such a terrific job.

And then they’re supported and backed by the state government Emergency Operations Center that begins to pour in resources and advice and counsel and work and additional people and so on like that, usually with FEMA standing by as a federal partner. That’s the way that that normally works.

And at a national level, I think there’s a key role from the federal government in preparing the entire nation for homeland security but you got to have the local businesses engaged in this. They have to understand what their role is in an appropriate response so they are not just putting water on buses and sending it down to be wasted some place for Katrina. They have to understand what they really do, and who the chief is and what the cell phone number is and what they are supposed to do. You cannot make it up as you go along in the time of catastrophe.

And finally, civic leadership...there’s really a big opportunity right now for civic virtue. So that’s really what we have to do. But the big policy point is that if we do this, then you can get the country ready and communicate to the American people that it is ready, as ready as you can reasonably be. You can’t issue any guarantees and even that is useful to say to the American people in a real way: “If something goes wrong, you’ve got to roll with this. But have confidence that we have set these things in the way we have set them up and we’re going be okay.” And then you can move on to other agenda items…you can move on to all the other stuff we’ve talked about around the table today without impinging upon the essentials of national preparedness and the freedoms that go along with it.

We may have other questions but I wanted to make sure we gave you a chance to say the other points that you want to communicate to us.

Gilmore: Well, I’ll say this: I’ve been explicit with you in this conversation about where I think the three so-called frontrunners are. And who they are. Gov. Romney, I think, has put himself in the position to become a media player in the mainstream media but he has not yet cracked 10 %, I don’t believe. So I don’t know how you define the big three or you don’t define the big three - you know some people are in, some people are out and so on like that. But I’m satisfied that there is a need for a mainstream Reagan conservative that can go forward and draw in people from the entire array of the Republican party. And can reach into the Hispanic and into the African American communities and draw people together into something that’s forward-looking for this country….

But I will say this: this move up in the primaries is only the last major change in American politics that we have seen all the way from McCain-Feingold which limits the capacity for people to raise money to run in a giant costly society to all the other challenges that are going on. Worst of all, the parties are being reduced to annuity in the United States. Really, there was a day when Republicans met together with like-minded people, could talk about philosophies and ideas, and choose candidates and choose delegates to go for candidates. Those days are gone. The primary system emerged. I understand what its motivation was but it has a downside and has taken away the capacity of the parties to really control their own philosophy and their own future. Now you got everybody doing a primary. Then, in addition to all that, you got everybody doing it all at the same time. That’s on February 5. I think that makes it extremely unpredictable.

But I say this and this is my message to your readers: the conservatives in this country - wherever they are, whatever they read, or whatever part of the conservative part of this country they are in - had better coalesce behind a candidate - or they’re not going to play this year.

One of the things conservatives need in order to coalesce are a few basic issues around which they can -

Gilmore: No, I think they need to coalesce behind a candidate…I have demonstrated that I am that candidate over my lifetime, and I believe that we can do this. But, and by the way, I wouldn’t avoid your question, the direct answer is the tax and economic issues that I think that draw the common interest of the American people and the Republican Party together as well as the other issues that you have completely illuminated in this interview today. But the point I’m making is that conservatives better decide soon that they are actually going to support a conservative candidate in this race. If they dither with this another four or five months, then with the environment being addressed the way it this, with California moving up - even Georgia yesterday talking about moving up. -conservatives may not be able to participate in this election at all…because the three guys that right now the mainstream media have anointed - one of whom is personally wealthy of course - are not running this race on principle and philosophy or track record - they’re running it on flash and, hopefully from their point of view, cash if they can get it. That’s what they’re trying to do. And their not conservatives. Their just not.

If the conservatives don’t decide that they’re going to get behind a candidate this is going to be a lost four years. Either way, it doesn’t matter who gets nominated in which party, this is going to be a lost four years. That’s my clarion call. I’ve thought about it a lot for a whole year, and after I’ve said I was going to run and filed a committee and looked at the whole thing - it’s stunning to me how tentative conservatives are about the future of this country. They seem to be very excited about their issues but beyond that, they’ve got to make a decision that they’re going to participate in the future of this country. And while there was a time when they could wait and think and fret and worry and look for the perfect till everyone agreed with them all the time on all issues - this move up to the primaries may eliminate that luxury and that’s my message.