John McCain HARDtalk

to end the bloodshed. Those are the headlines, now it is

time for HARDtalk. Can the Republican Party find a

presidential candidate capable of turfing Barack Obama out of office?

The battle to win the Republican nomination is proving to be

protracted and brutal, and right now the main beneficiary appears to

be the man currently occupying the White House. I speak to Senator

John McCain, the Republican candidate who ran against Obama and

lost four years ago. Is the struggle to find a convincing

presidential nominee indicative of a Republican party that has lost

Senator John McCain, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you, I am happy to

be here, and our relationship goes all the way back to the year 2000.

You haven't aged a bit. (LAUGHTER). That is the first untruth you have

told. To quote the esteemed political science professor, the

Republican Party is making its nomination progress a big mess. Do

you agree? I do, to a significant degree. I think we have had too

many debates. The purpose of debates is for the candidates to

give their views on the issues and their positions. If they differ,

then there would be a conversation. There were exceptions to that, but

generally speaking it was about issues. Now it is about who can

launch the toughest attack on the other. That is not educational or

informational, but it also drives up the unfavourable image of all of

them. Let's talk about the man who you have endorsed for the

nomination, Mitt Romney. I learned that he has already spent more on

attack ads than you did in the whole of your presidential campaign

in 2008. Why is that? I think one reason is, thanks to the worst

decision in history by the United States Supreme Court, they have

unleashed a tidal wave of money, special interest money in this

campaign - you may have seen... Shaw, that he has the choice of

being positive or negative, but Mitt Romney, he thinks he can only

win the Republican nomination by being extremely brutal and negative.

Because the sad truth of American politics is that negative ads add

at numbers. That is the reality of American politics. The day that

they don't move numbers will be the day that politicians stop using

them. I have learned a new acronym, that his baby I - anyone but Mitt

Romney. ABI - anyone but Romney. Why is he not connecting with

Republican voters? I think he is connecting, he got 50% of the vote

in Florida, the first really diverse, heavily populated state.

He did extremely well in New Hampshire. He did very badly in

some places, his performance was worse than when he ran against you

in 2008. I think as far as percentage of the vote, it is much

higher than it was in 2008. All I can tell you is that I know that is

a certain segment of the Republican Party, not a large segment, but a

segment of the Republican Party, that does not believe he is

"conservative" enough. The thing that is entertaining about that is

that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum engaged in this obscene

practice of earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars - according to

my colleagues, that is a gateway to corruption, and they are calling

him Conservative? But this use of political money, that is a problem.

Mitt Romney has more political money in his campaign than anyone

else, he is the only candidate who is a real-time millionaire who only

pays 13% tax. Earmarking is the taxpayer's money. This is his own

money. Sure, but if you are making the money argument in support of

Mitt Romney It seems to me you have to address this issue that the

American public has scene that this is a man who it is unbelievably

wealthy, but he stores a lot on his own cash in the Cayman Islands and

Switzerland. Some of the investments that he has made did

put the money there, but he has never done that directly. The fact

is that this is the background of the human who is going to lead the

country, that is why I endorsed him. Looking back at your own experience,

do believe that it is very difficult to actually win the

Republican nomination and maintained policies, policy

positions, that can appeal to the wider, general American electorate?

I will have to take a trip down memory lane, but George W Bush was

able to do it twice. He is a conservative and he was elected and

re-elected for the presidency. Ronald Reagan was elected. Today is

changing, changing fast. It is becoming more dominated by the

social Conservatives. I don't think so, I think Mitt Romney proved in

Florida there is a very large number of Republicans her art

centrist to Conservative -- who are. He is in favour of lower taxes,

less government, less regulation... You said of Mitt Romney, you

clearly and adamantly said, this gite is "a phoney and a thief".

(LAUGHTER). You know, if you look back at President Reagan and then

George Bush and their campaigns, tough things are said. Sure, but

you called him a phoney. Many Republicans think he is a phoney

now. Frankly, that is the rhetoric of a heated campaign. 99% of the

dialogue we had was respectful. Nobody worked harder for me then

Mitt Romney during my nomination. What we are seeing right now, and

I'm thinking of the recent success of Rick Santorum that these "values

issues" are rising to the top of the debate. Issues concerning gay

marriage, abortion, issues where, again, Mitt Romney appears to be

neutral. Those issues stay in the debate, but please do not be under

the illusion of what American people care about, they care about

the job when the economy. For there may be discussions about those

issues which may attract a certain Electric, but in poll after poll,

90% of the American people say the number one issue is jobs in the

economy. That is why I think Mitt Romney has the best opportunity to

be our nominee. Do you now regret making Sarah Palin your vice

presidential running mate? Did it open the doors to a whole bunch of

social Conservatives and who now appear to be influential in your

party? Let me just say that facts are stubborn things. The fact is

that before I picked Sarah Palin we were running behind. After she gave

her speech we were ahead. We stayed ahead until the day the stock

market went down 700 points. We went from three points up-7 points

down. Sarah Palin gave us a momentum thamentum tha person could

have achieved. She has been trashed by the media, she has been

assaulted, continuously, by the media. She defeated Joe by done, a

United States senator in the still very much admired and

appreciated by our party. I feel the passion in that answer, but it

didn't directly address my question. Do you regret? Of course not, of

course not. I don't know why you should. You appear to be out of

sync with Sarah Palin's brand of republicanism. She says that the

Republican establishment, to use her phrase, is trying to "crush"

Newt Gingrich. After all, she is her own person. I believe that she

stands up for the things she believes in. On almost everything

we agree, but sometimes we disagree, that's all. You know, the myth is

being conveyed out there that somehow she was harmful to our

chances of winning the 2008 election. That is not substantiated

by the facts. Let's talk about the economy because you said that is

what Americans really want to talk about. Yes, yes. What Americans

have seen in the last few weeks is, at last, some real signs of good

news. In January they almost 250,000 new jobs created,

unemployment down to 8.3%. Good news, and is it not the case that

this could help Barack Obama and make the Republican case much more

difficult? It depends on the trends, obviously. When you talk about the

economy, I don't care who is elected. I think we will make the

argument that this has been the longest and the weakest recovery in

the history since the Great Depression. If we passed a stimulus

package... We are now five trillion dollars more in debt than we were

when he came into office. We have fundamental differences of opinion.

He believes that government creates jobs, we believe business creates

jobs. One real specific difference now is on tax, the Democrats are

pushing to extend the payroll tax deductions, the Republicans say

that can't happen unless there are some cuts in entitlement at the

same time to square the Budget. The Republicans also seem to be the

party that is determined to maintain tax cuts for the richest

Americans. It seems a difficult place for your party to be.

Opposing tax cuts for the working class and the middle class,

favouring them for the rich. Yes, I think that is conventional wisdom

that you articulated, but the facts are that we would like to pay for

these tax cuts. We think the government is big enough of

reducing the size of government, not entitlements, but government so

that we are not increasing the national debt and we are not taking

money out of the social security trust fund. Otherwise that money

would be going into that trust fund, which everyone knows is going broke.

The most basic question about overseas is this - you know Mitt

Romney can win the White House. If the Republican Party does not

select him, and one can only suspect they might be a surprise

new candidate, there ye, there y the Republicans cannot win?

believe it will be much harder. Mitt Romney I that ties, or is

slightly behind, depended on what poll you look at... I have to

believe the polling data. Are you saying they can't win? No, I am

saying it would be much more difficult according to the polling

data, which is well known. It is much more difficult, but not

impossible. Would you support Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum? Shaw, I

would support the nominee of my party. Let's move on to national

security issues. You have been very critical of Obama in recent months

on a host of national security challenges facing the United States.

It seems to me from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya, Barack has

pursued strategies that have the support of a clear majority of the

American people. And I am clear that there are other times in this

country's history and your country's history when people have

stood up for what they know is right, even though it is not

happening. The American people are glad we are out of Iraq. We had a

president once called Harry Truman, everybody wanted out of Korea, but

we stayed and the world is a better place for having made that

sacrifice and the stubbornness on the part of Harry Truman. The fact

is that the President said in his campaign that he would get out of

Iraq. We are out of Iraq. Do you know what the situation is there?

It is unravelling. Everybody knows we should have left a residual

force of some 20,000 and that is what Connolly's a Rice said that we

had contemplated. I know that from being there that the Iraqi people

would have agreed to that. I know that because I was there.

Afghanistan, for example, you have clearly been deeply critical of the

Defence Secretary... Are you suggesting that if combat forces

stay there indefinitely that somehow Afghanistan's problems

The President overruled his military advisers when he

accelerated the withdrawal. He overruled his advisers when he sent

30,000 in the initial build up. He is over rolling his military

advisers when he is making the decision to come out in 2013. These

are the people that the President a point. He has no knowledge or

experience on these issues. He is has blamed this on a regular basis.

The its talk about Syria. As we speak, more people are dying in

Syria. The UN Secretary General has talked about the brutality that has

been inflicted on the people by the Assad regime. You have suggested

the US should be looking at different options in response. You

have alluded to the bombing of Syrian have rebels. Do you think

that would help resolve this situation? Do you know what the

Iranians are doing? They are bringing up weapons and artillery

that are killing serious but the Iranians themselves have come into

Syria while the bloodshed is going on. What is the US during?

should be examining all of the options, with other coh other co

including Turkey, on how we can help these people stop this

massacre. The US arms to be sent... That is an option that cannot be

taken off the table. There is no UN sanction on going into Syria like

there was with Libya. It is China and Russia that have vetoed this.

Shall we let China and Russia determined whether we will allow

the massacre of innocent women and children? The Arab League is taking

a stance. Turkey is important. We need to have a coalition of the

willing. Our Secretary of State has suggested that. We need to give

them technical help. There is many things we can do. The fundamental

answer is - the US is not a nation that stands by and watches the

massacre of innocent people. understand but it seems to me that

on a range of points you are envisaging another round of US

intervention. Let's ta. Let's taran. You say they may be doing things

inside Syria. The US President faces a difficult and big decision

on Iran, which may have to be taken this year. Is it your few the time

has come for the US to take military action in Iran? No. I

agree with the President who says that and Iran with nuclear weapons

is unacceptable. This brings us back to the Republican race. All of

the candidates have suggested that President Obama has not been strong

enough in his language and its approach to Iran. Of course. When

Rick Santorum said the other day... Let me finish. In 2009, in June,

there was an election in Tehran. 500,000 people were demonstrating

in the streets. Men and women were bleeding to death in the streets.

The people were asking, President Obama, are you with us? He did not

give them a word of encouragement. I do not think he would agree with

that. It is a fact. You know full well that the White House denies

that. They do not deny that. The fact is they did not. The point is,

what would the world expect from a Republican administration. These

are the words of Rick Santorum. He said, we have to take their nuclear

facility out. To prevent a wider war. Is that the sort of mine said

we should expect? That is one impression. President Obama has

said it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Then when the

EU reach a point when decisions have to be made? Will those

decisions be made by the government itself and the Israelis for us and

the Israelis? The censures have hurt them but not deterred them on

the course they are on -- the sanctions. A final thought which

wraps up the debate about this international challenge. You have

made a stand against the Obama administration's plan to cut

military spending by half a trillion dollars. You have said

that will endanger US interest. Is it not also dangerous to go on

spending on the military in a way that stacks up a completely

unaffordable debt for your grandchildren? They are saving

efficiencies that can be activated. I have proposed many of those. We

are working to the just some of the reductions that the previous

secretary of defence ordered, which we are an acting. You have

suggested some changes but the significant changes that President

Obama has proposed, losing 100,000 ground troops, freezing a whole

bunch of warships, closing some of the military bases, these are seen

to be a recognition that the world is changing and the threats have

changed. The US military has to change as well. There was a line

about the lessons of history. After the World War II we were never

going to have another war. Then the Korean War. Then the Vietnam War.

We were never going to have to commit two wars. Then we had Desert

Storm. Every time we have believed that we have paid the price for not

having military capabilities. I am not ready for the renewed emphasis

on the Asia-Pacific region, which is very expensive. If we are truly

interested in a strengthening our position in Asia and the Pacific,

we have an expensive force. I will tell you now I have travelled the

world. I have talked two leaders around the world and in the Middle

East. They say they believe America it is weakening. That is their view.

I do not think that is necessarily the case but leading from behind is

not something the US should ever do. Who is going to lead from in front?

It is interesting you put it that way. I do not think that few of

America is necessarily the case. You have had a long career, with

the ups and downs. You have tried to be at the centre of debates on

how America should behave in the world. When the EU look at the US

today, do you except America has to change -- when you look. If this

means we would withdraw the Fortress America, I do not agree.

Every time we have tried that one, as we did before World War II, we

paid a heavy price. Maybe it means not trying to police the world.

think what the US has to recognise in the 21st century is we have seen

the rise of China and India as other superpowers. China especially.

We will no longer be the dominant world power that we were for a long

time following World War II. That does not mean isolationism, and by

the where there is a strong amounts of that in my own party, and it

does not mean withdrawal. It means the use of military power but also

understanding that we have a relationship in the world which is