WALLACE: Senator McCain, if I may -- Senator McCain, you didn't like it much when Governor Romney said recently that he spoke for the Republican wing of the Republican party.
Who's more conservative: you or Mitt Romney?
MCCAIN: I think it's pretty obvious that that statement was a paraphrase of Howard Dean's statement about the Democrat party…
Is that obvious? Howard dean was less "moderate" than some democrats. Romney is less "moderate" than McCain. Is this fact somehow bad for Romney to point out, because Howard Dean also pointed out that he, like Romney, was less of a moderate?
…The fact is, I'm running on my record as a reliable conservative of 24 years. And the indicators of that, obviously, is that I've fought wasteful spending, I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism…
Robert Byrd has been in the Senate almost as long as John McCain. Does that qualify Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy to be president? What exactly does it mean to "have a long relationship on national security". Who has he had this relationship with? Why does he keep using the word obviously? If it was so obvious that John McCain was from the republican wing of the republican party, why did he stick a fork in evangelicals eyes, why did he spit on republicans with McCain Fiengold, McCain Kennedy (immigration), and the gang of 13 or 11 or whatever it was?
…I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training.
No Senator, you do. You would need on the job training. You're a great guy, but a Senator votes Yes or No. They hang around. They give speeches. They write books, they argue. Very few senators make a good transition to being president. Presidents make decisions. Presidents make appointments. Presidents run an organization. It is obvious from McCain's lack of organization in his campaign, that he would need organization. He hired people, and fired people left and right. He was unable to set a culture of excellence, and steer a group of people in one direction. Of all the candidates running for president, you would need the most training, most of all because you are so arrogant, and think that just because you were a senator, you can do anything. As you are very angrily finding out (and lashing out at others) the skills necisary to be a senator, do not translate very well to running things.
…I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time…
That's exactly my point. You have never done anything. You have never been the person in charge. You have never had a staff. You sat around and argued for the last 20 years…
…For 20-some years, including leading the largest squadron in the United States Navy, I led. I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism.
Once again, John Kerry was much more of a War Hero than George Bush, but that does not mean that he would have made a better president. John Murtha received the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. That does not mean he makes a good president. Sure if you were to look at careers that would probably lead to being a better president, I would probably pick an anonymous war hero over an anonymous ex-CEO of a business consulting firm. But we are not dealing with anonymous people we are comparing Mitt Romney to John McCain and asking ourselves who would make a better president. John McCain needs to make specific logical arguments that hold water. Not kindergarten type "I come from this profession, and so therefore I am more qualified" or "I have lived in Washington longer than you, and so therefore I am therefore more qualified." You can score political points with stupid people with this type of argument, but intelligent people want to know specific things that McCain thinks he will do better than Romney, not just that he and John Murtha have been in Washington Longer than Romney, and are better war heroes than Romney, and therefore… bla-bla-bla.
Am I weird to want the winner of a debate to be someone of substance, who made logical arguments, or now that we live in the days of Opera, does the winner have to "tug on your heart strings" or "be the guy you want to have a beer with".
Does the fact that we even have to ask these questions depress you about the future of our country?
Now compare how classless and Childish McCain was to Romney.
WALLACE: Governor Romney, Senator McCain suggests that you're conning people -- he has used that phrase -- with your conversions on a number of issues during this campaign.
Why is Senator McCain wrong?
ROMNEY: Well, Senator McCain is an American hero, and I respect his service. I respect his service in government as well.
(APPLAUSE)
And we have some differences on some issues. But when I ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, I knew that was going to be a big uphill climb. But let me tell you, I was fighting for issues like making sure that we would have the death penalty in our state, fighting to keep our taxes down. I fought, as well, to secure our borders. I fought to keep the welfare bills from the 1960s that have created such a havoc in our nation, to try and get those changed.
So I was fighting against the liberal lion in perhaps the toughest state in America. And I'm pretty proud of what I was able to accomplish in that race, but nothing compares to the pride I have with the work that I was able to do as a governor.
I served for four years. My legislature was 85 percent Democrat. I fought to get English in our schools, to make sure we had English immersion. I fought to make sure we kept our taxes down. I fought for pro-growth strategies. I cut taxes.
All of us on the stage are Republican. But the question is, who will be able to build the house that Ronald Reagan built -- who will be able to strengthen that house, because that's the house that's going to build the house that Clinton, Hillary, wants to build.
WALLACE: Senator McCain, you didn't think much of the answer of Governor Romney in the last debate, when he said that he would ask his lawyers whether he needed congressional authorization to use military force against Iran. Why not?
MCCAIN: Because I don't think that's the time to call in the lawyers, when we're in a national security crisis. Those are the last people I'd call in…
So, according to John McCain, you don't need to follow the constitution? The question was whether or not the president would need congress's approval to use military force in Iran. The Reason why Romney said he would gather his people together to figure it out is because ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, congress declares war. That is why the president had to get authorization (as Romney discusses later) to go to war with Iraq. Very few people know even the basics of military law, and so McCain was able to pound his chest, and pretend he would go to war with the whole world at a drop of a hat, just because he is in a bad mood, but he would IN FACT be walking a delicate separation of powers issue going into Iran.
…The people I'd call in, I'd call in my wisdom, my knowledge, my background, my experience, and my ability to lead this nation…
Would these be the same people who advised you on the immigration debate, the gang of 13, and McCain Feingold? No. If president McCain needed to know if he had authority to go into Iran, or if he needed to get another authorization from congress, HE WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWER!
…Governor Romney, you've been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record. You can't – I don't want you to start fooling them about mine. I stand on my record…
McCain stands on his record? Now let's have a little straight-talk.
McCain used to dismiss Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," but he changed his mind.
McCain, until recently, was pushing for a reform law that would require conservative groups to reveal their financial donors. But, after fielding protests from evangelical Christians and antiabortion activists, McCain decided to strip out the provision.
McCain in 2000 assailed Bush's proposed tax cuts as a sop to the rich, and a year later, with Bush in office, he voted against those cuts, declaring that "the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans." But a year ago, he switched sides and voted to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.
McCain in 1999 said that, "even in the long term," he would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade because "thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations." But last November he said that he now favored repeal because "I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."
McCain in 2000 was incensed when a pair of Texas businessmen, Sam and Charley Wyly, bankrolled some Bush-friendly TV ads that distorted McCain's record. McCain declared at the time that their "dirty money" did not belong in national politics. But last year, McCain decided that their dirty money belonged in his campaign; he took $20,000 and allowed them to chair a McCain fund-raiser. (McCain later had to give back the money, because, it turns out, his new friends are reportedly under federal investigation.)
McCain, who has long deplored negative politics, defended John Kerry in 2004 when the Democratic candidate's war record was being impugned by the Swift Boaters. But today, one of McCain 's top advisers is GOP hardball specialist Terry Nelson, who has worked as a consultant with one of the principal Swift Boaters. Nelson also produced the notorious '06 TV ad that implied, in the Tennessee Senate race, that the black Democratic candidate cavorted with white women.
McCain has voted against a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but last fall, regarding his own state, he supported an Arizona referendum that would have banned gay marriage.
McCain in 2006 suggested that creationism was not a fit topic for the schoolroom: "I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not." But he suggested the opposite in 2005 ("all points of view should be presented"), and Friday he is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at a confab sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a prominent creationism advocacy group.
…I stand on my record of a conservative – of a conservative, and I don't think you can fool the American people. I think the first thing you need is their respect, and I intend to earn their respect because they may not agree with me on a couple of issues, but they'll know I'm telling the truth, and what I believe and my steadfast positions on these issues for more than 20 years, and I know that the transcendent challenge I have the qualifications to lead, to grapple with and to emerge victorious.
I have those qualifications and I'm proud of them.
(APPLAUSE)
So basically McCain just called Mitt a liar. When McCain says, "but they'll know I'm telling the truth" is he talking about the McCain that promised he would never back down on Jerry Falwell? Is that a promise he kept? McCain says that he is not going to change his position, that he is a straight talker, but in this very debate he hinted that he was wrong on Immigration. Well welcome to the team John, but why can you change your mind, but Mitt cannot? And Mitt never changed his mind on abortion. He always said he was personally pro-choice, but that he promised he would not change the laws in Massachusetts. He kept that promise, and made no "pro-choice" pledge for president…
WALLACE: Senator Romney -- Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Don't demote me. I want to make one thing very, very clear, and that is if there were ever a question of a security threat to this country, I would act immediately to protect the interests of America and our citizens. No question about that.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me also note, the question is -- you properly asked it, Chris -- was: What involvement would Congress have to have? Every president from the beginning of time who has had that issue has of course met with White House counsel and the attorney general and they have written opinions about the involvement of Congress. I can imagine every person on this stage would likewise apprise themselves of Congress' perspective -- excuse me, of Congress' role with those individuals.
But the decision to take our men and women to war is the most grave decision and I would do that on a very deliberate and careful basis, not a half-cocked basis. This president went to Congress.
ROMNEY: Hillary Clinton is trying to rewrite history, that somehow he did this all by himself, going to Iraq. He went to Congress and got their support. Let's not forget that.
(APPLAUSE)
And from the last debate:
Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?
Mr. Romney: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...
Mr. Matthews: Did he need it?
Mr. Romney: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.
Mr. Romney: But the key thing here is to make sure we don't have to use military action against Iran. That's what you hope to be able to do and that's why we're going to put a lot tougher sanctions on Iran -- economic sanctions, credit sanctions.
We're also going to have to get serious about treating Ahmadinejad like the rogue and bafoon that he is. And it was outrageous for the United Nations to invite him to come to this country. It was outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak at their university.
This is a person denied the Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means to carry it out. And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have the control of launching a nuclear weapon.
And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening.
And I think each person on the stage, certainly in my case, I would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
Susan Estrich, a liberal feminist, who sometimes fills in for Alan Colmes, is offended that Mitt Romney used the word intern when describing Hillary Clinton’s lack of leadership experience.
Another Man From Hope 
This is the best news I've heard all day! I just hope his early state momentum theory will prove to be correct by the time the primaries roll around.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill