During his visit to Claremont on April 15, Governor Mitt Romney sat down with the Forum for an exclusive interview. Romney was a guest of the Res Publica Society, speaking in Orange County to the college community over lunch before coming to campus in preparation for his speech at the Athenaeum.

Below is the full transcript of our interview with the former presidential candidate.

Michael Wilner: As you may know, Claremont McKenna has some of the strongest government and economics departments in the country. These two fields have come to shape the college, and your career alike.

When you were CEO of Bain, you were creating jobs across the nation and around the world. Many students here aspire to such a position of power and influence. How did you come to the conclusion that being governor of Massachusetts would do you more good?

Michael Wilner interviewed Mitt Romney in the residence of the Athenaeum during his visit to Claremont in April.

Mitt Romney: Actually, I participated in my career in the business world because I enjoyed it, but also because it made a living for me and for my family, and it turned out to be far more financially rewarding than I would’ve ever imagined. And when I had been successful in that endeavor, I was approached by the governor of Utah asking if I would come help organize the Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake… they were in deep difficulty. The experience I had learned in the private sector to turn around troubled industries – or companies, rather – had given me some skills to be helpful there. And my view was I’ve reached a point where I could afford to leave my business, and the earnings of a private-sector job, and I could go serve. And really, running the Olympics, and then running for governor, and becoming elected – those things were about service, rather than about furthering a career interest of mine or something of that nature.

Wilner: The last week of March, President Obama called you the “now presidential candidate” for 2012. Having traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire quite recently, do you see why he, and others, would suspect that you’re running?

Romney: Actually, I’ve traveled to 19 states as part of my book tour, and it is not surprising that would include states where I am relatively well known, like Iowa and New Hampshire. The other 17 states were not mentioned by those who follow politics, for obvious reasons. But I’m keeping the option open, as a number of people are doing. There are probably ten folks who might be considered as potential candidates for the Republican nomination. My guess is that some of the ten will run, and some of us won’t.  And that’s a decision you make at the moment you need to, which is probably after the November elections, and not before. But whether or not I’ll get in is a decision which my family and I haven’t made yet, but we’re keeping the door open.

Wilner: But yes or no – do you want to be president? I guess that’s a different question than whether you’ll run.

I don’t feel the same way he does. I feel differently than that. But I thought his was an amusing response. I think people who really want to be president, and want the trappings and benefits of president will perhaps best be disqualified, and that, instead, people who believe they have a contribution that would be critical at an essential time in American history would be the ones that you’d hope would actually run. I think that probably tends to be the case. And in my case, I’m not someone who’s pining after being president. The decision I made last time to run was based upon my belief that my backgrounds and skills in the private sector were very much in need in government. But that was then, and who knows what it’s going to feel like two or three years from now.

Wilner: Do you believe the GOP should try to completely embrace the Tea Party Movement, or try to keep its distance?

Romney: I think the Tea Party Movement is a citizen’s movement, focused on eliminating excessive taxation and reducing the interest of this government. That’s very similar to the message of my party – when it’s abiding by its principles. So it is different than the Republican Party, but it is consistent with our philosophy. And I think it augurs well for our prospects. So I embrace the fact that the silent majority is silent no more, and the tea partiers are expressing their views on issues that America cares very deeply about. I think it is a positive development and good for the country, and may well be good for our party.

Wilner: What would you say is the defining difference – the defining difference, if there were one – between your Massachusetts healthcare bill and Mr. Obama’s bill?

The former governor of Massachusetts told the Forum he expects to make a decision on whether to run for president after the November midterm elections.

Romney: Ours was a state solution to state problem, and his was a federal intrusion on the rights of states. His is a federal, one-size-fits-all plan. Ours was tailored to the needs of our citizens. And because ours was a state plan, we didn’t have to raise taxes. We didn’t have to cut benefits to seniors. We didn’t have to put in price controls. His plan does all those things, because it’s a federal plan, and that was the wrong way to approach an issue like healthcare.

Wilner: How would you have approached it otherwise?

Romney: My view, when I ran for office and since, has been that the federal government should let states receive the federal moneys they have been receiving that allow states to care for their poor – but to use those moneys to help people buy insurance so that you reduce the roles of the uninsured, letting each state craft their own plan, but receiving flexibility from the federal government in the use of federal funds.

Wilner: How would you fix California?

Romney: By electing Meg Whitman!

(Laughs)

I think she has the private sector experience to know what the right answers would be, and the backbone, and conviction, to actually do what’s necessary to get the job done. I happen to believe that California’s people are going to need to be part of this process – that it’s not something that even a great governor alone can accomplish. It’s going to need the people letting their legislators know what’s the right thing to do, maybe even voting for ballot initiatives that are necessary to get the state back on track. But frankly, California is teetering over the edge financially, and this is going to take a very effective leader who can communicate with the citizens of California how she and they, together, need to restructure California’s finances.

Wilner: But do you think there’s validity to the worry of many Californians that she was apolitical before? That she hadn’t registered before she decided to run?

Romney: I think it’s a testament to the fact that she’s not a politician. If Californians want a politician who has spent his entire life in politics, well that’s Jerry Brown. And if you think what we really need in California are more politicians running things then he’s your person. But if, instead, you think you want somebody who is not a politician, who has not been involved in politics, who has been leading in business, then Meg is your person.

Wilner: More than anything else, what did you learn from your run in 2008?

Romney: That it’s more fun to win than to lose?

(Laughs)

But also that it’s important to define your message rather than letting the media, and your opposition, define who you are. And that means making sure that you focus your remarks on those issues you care most about. In my case, it’s about strengthening the foundation of America’s economy so that we can not only be prosperous, but we can protect our freedom.

Wilner: I’m going to ask – who is your favorite Democrat alive today?

Romney, Wilner, and Laura Sucheski, managing editor for news and opinion, after the interview. Photo credit: Carl Peaslee.

Romney: Who is my favorite Democrat? Let’s see – I just signed a book the other day to someone who I said, ‘you’re my favorite Democrat.’ You know, I have a number of Democrats who were supportive of me in my campaign, so I’m going to be hard-pressed to pick out a favorite Democrat. I’ve got a lot of Democrats who support me. I had during my administration as governor a number of Democrats who served – Doug Foy, who was my secretary of economic matters; Bob Pozen, who was another cabinet secretary of mine, he’s a Democrat. I have a number of Democratic friends who I consider good friends. But I’m not going to pick a current elected official, because – at this stage – I’m not going to endorse someone. It’s like the kiss of death.

Wilner: Fair enough. And how do you think Hillary Clinton is doing at the State Department?

Romney: I don’t know how much she is responsible for in terms of our new foreign policy, but I think our new foreign policy is badly misguided, and that the administration is making mistakes everywhere from Latin America to the Middle East. And I believe that the consequences of these mistakes are very severe. I don’t know if that’s Secretary Clinton’s responsibility or whether it’s been the president’s direction. My guess is, when the books are written and history unfolds, we’ll know where she stood and where he stood on these matters.

Wilner: Sarah Palin – I know you’ve addressed this a lot. She said she’d be happy to sit on the ticket with you, if you were to run. Would you be comfortable with such a ticket?

Romney: She’s a terrific powerhouse in the Republican Party. It would be presumptive of me to start talking about even my running, but I think the world of her and have respect for what she’s been able to do to help to generate enthusiasm and passion in our party.

Wilner: Would you say it’s presumptive of her to be talking about it?

Romney: I – I welcome, with some delight, her generous comments about me, and I feel the same way about her.

Wilner: Well governor, thank you so much for coming to Claremont. Welcome.

Romney: It’s great to be here, Michael.

For more information on this interview and Governor Romney’s visit, e-mail forum@ascmc.org.

President Obama, like President Clinton, decided to focus on providing medical care to all Americans early in the first term of his presidency. Both had sympathetic majorities in the House and Senate. They each faced immediate criticism from conservatives who argued that any plan would impede the patient’s right to choose. Nonetheless, President Obama believes he has learned from President Clinton’s mistakes. This is why he has made sure that pharmaceutical companies are on board with reform. This strategy does not, however, guarantee success. As in 1993, the Democratic Party is not marching in lockstep. Perhaps this is a result of the Democratic leadership deciding to back moderate candidates in the last two elections. This partly explains the slow progress being made by Democrats despite such overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. Even with these setbacks, I don’t think health care reform is doomed and a Republican takeover of Congress in 2010  is not inevitable.

The current state of the Republican Party is quite different from 1993-94. For one thing, they do not have the momentum that the Contract with America gave the GOP before the 1994 midterm election. Some believe the so-called “Purity Test” idea being floated around is similar, but there are important differences. While the “Purity Test,” officially titled “Reagan’s Unity Principal for Support of Candidates,” does point to general statements made by every conservative politician (e.g. smaller government), the Contract with America gave specific actions the Republicans would take if elected, such as hiring an outside firm to audit the federal government for waste and fraud. Also, of the ten items placed on the Purity Test, seven are promises to oppose specific legislation by the Democrats, stating opposition to health care reform twice. The Contract with America, on the other hand, outlined eight specific actions the new Congress would take on its first day, along with ten other “Acts” the Republican Party would strive to make law.

Given the difficulty of predicting the political future, I will make my estimate a conservative one. It is likely that, even after the “Miracle in Massachusetts” (the election of Scott Brown), the Democrats will be able to pass some form of health care reform. The fact that the Democrats still have a strong majority in both legislative houses will favor them, but now Republicans should have enough votes to exert more influence in shaping the legislation (that means you can kiss any dream of a public option goodbye). Ultimately, though, I don’t believe they have enough power to kill all health care reform. Furthermore, I do not believe a Republican seizure of power is inevitable. Although there is a very good chance that the Republicans will tear away a few seats from the Democrats (they did win a Senate election in Massachusetts after all). It’s possible they may even take back the House, but we may very well see legislative power remain with the left for at least a few more years.

“Being a conservative columnist at the New York Times is like being Chief Rabbi at Mecca,” joked Brooks about working for a newspaper that many believe to have liberal-leaning ideologies.

A young boy with his parents at a “be-in” in Central Park (“where hippies could go to Central Park and just ‘be’”), Brooks saw a man burn his five dollar bill and throw it down, so instinctively Brooks picked it up. He jested that the step to pick up the bill was his “first step to the right.”

“Good journalists tend to be aloof and emotionally detached,” said Brooks, who was both witty and personable in his speech. “They say what they think and they don’t have trouble being honestly critical of even the people they like.”

Brooks, who grew up in the highly liberal Greenwich Village neighborhood of NYC, related the influences thoughout his life that affected his political views. A former liberal himself, Brooks admitted to having been deeply inspired into the ideology of conservatism by William Frank Buckley, Jr., who passed away the same morning of this speech. Brooks spent a good portion of his talk on Buckley’s illustrious career and amiable personality.

A common conviction among conservatives is a “distrust in government,” alleged Brooks, who expressed his view that the world is too complicated for the government to fully understand and successfully fix with legislation. He addressed the state of conservatism and the Republican Party, whose base has been rapidly eroding and many of its followers dissipating into both the liberal and independent camps. Unlike the confidence in conservatism that Buckley was able to inspire, Brooks expressed the unfortunate truth that the modern conservative movement has “too many sleezeballs rather than eyeballs” (think Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter). The growing consensus among conservatives, according to Brooks, is that Republican leaders are not genuinely representing the ideology of their own party.

Brooks went on to address the political culture of our time, as well as a range of social issues and current events – such as health care, global warming, the occupation of Iraq, and the ongoing 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. He expressed his skepticism for “Obamamania,” but did not stop short of praising Senator Barack Obama for his many admirable qualities. He seemed certain that Senator Hillary Clinton has effectively lost the race for the Democratic nomination. Brooks also conveyed his “love” for Senator John McCain, who he believes is deeply motivated by a sense of honor.

According to Brooks, the general election will be a contest between the nonpartisan left-winger, Obama, and a nonpartisan right-winger, McCain.

The honesty, eloquence and comical nature of Brooks’ speech offered a fresh perspective which, even as a non-conservative, I believe was worth hearing.

In my opinion, one of the best things about CMC is the political culture. It is still amazing to eat breakfast at Collins and see people reading the Los Angeles Times, eager to discuss world events and politics. And, while the student body is divided on political leanings, there are two campus publications representing each end of the spectrum, operated by and written for by students.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the upcoming 2008 presidential election is sending the campus into a whirlwind. The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be the most discussed political topic on campus, and, unsurprisingly considering the demographic, most of the enthusiasm is aimed at Senator Obama.

I can live with that. He has a strong message, charisma, and a sexy voice. If he is elected in November, I will enjoy listening to his deep, baritone voice read the State of the Union.

What I cannot understand is the fervent hatred of Hillary Clinton. I find such vehement opposition to her existence that it takes me off guard sometimes. What did Hillary Clinton do to anger CMCers so much?

I suppose I could play the gender card and blame it on misogyny, but 1) I know that approach will be met with much criticism, and 2) I am not 100% sure that hatred of her truly does stem from sexism.

I suppose I am annoyed that everyone claims she “doesn’t sound genuine” in her speeches. Honestly, the woman must be so scared of messing up and coming off as “too feminine” to wage war yet “not feminine enough” to care about women’s issues like education and healthcare. With all the pressure, it is no wonder she comes across as insincere. Ms. Clinton is probably afraid to speak the truth sometimes for fear of ridicule!

But I will get off my feminist soapbox and return to more modest musings, for the prime reason for my supporting Hillary Clinton is not gender. I think Hillary is better equipped to handle this country’s mess than Obama. Some say the role of First Lady is not “job experience,” but I disagree. It is not easy to renovate the health care system while performing the socially expected obligations of the First Lady while facing attacks and criticism from all sides. When one of us does that, we can talk about “experience.”

I really am getting off my box now.

After a recent discussion with two of my closest friends about whether Hillary or Obama would serve as a better symbol of achievement for America (Hillary breaking the gender boundary and Obama crossing the race line), either way, I have concluded, there will be someone different representing change. I suppose the deal on campus, though, is that Obama is better at verbalizing that change better. CMCers are apparently just like the rest of our idealistic generation who want to see change. Who knew?

I guess this means I have been humbled. I was feeling out of place a few months ago at CMC when I realized that my goal in life was not to find the most lucrative job. I was not an Econ/Gov major (as much as I tried to be) who was stereotypically chasing “get rich quick” schemes. Yes, I know CMC students care about politics, but I did not think that they would seriously latch onto the ideals and notions of “change” that Obama works so hard to portray.

So while I believe Hillary might be better prepared to deal with the current issues plaguing America, maybe we need that excitement and ardor Obama can stir up, this “change”he speaks of. If Obama is the candidate better suited to unite the country, and if that is what we need at this point, then by all means, give the people what they want.

Do not misunderstand me. I refuse to abandon my girl, but if she loses, I will move on. I just hope that others come to realize that they too will not drop dead if she manages to ride that political bandwagon all the way up to the steps of the White House.