MKH: Thanks, Gov. Romney, for taking some time to hang out with us at Townhall today. I’m in D.C. Where are you today?

MR: I’m in Iowa City, IA, which is the home of the University of Iowa, and I just met with 3 or 400 people who were interested in what I’m up to, so it’s a pretty exciting time.

MKH: Let me jump right into this with the Va Tech tragedy, which is of course, what’s on everyone’s minds this week. A lot of our readers are upset that NBC went ahead and showed the Cho video. Should they have taken that step?

MR: Well, I hope that at some point there’s a level of care and responsibility that’s gonna be shown by the members of the mainstream media not to in any way encourage copycat-type activity. And, the attention being given Mr. Cho is, I think, beyond any reasonable level. I certainly wish we could have been far more discreet in what we decide to show the world and keep these copycats from popping up all over the country.

I’d rather show a lot more coverage of people like Liviu Librescu, the fellow who barred the door to keep the gunman from getting to his students. These are the kind of stories we should be hearing.

MKH: Now, one of your claims to fame is that you came into the Utah Olympics and turned around the security situation. Lots of folks are talking about security changes that need to happen on college campuses in light of this. Do you have any thoughts on what those might be and what, if any, role the federal government should be playing in making them happen?

MR: Well, every time something bad happens in the country, there are some folks who say, ‘OK, there oughtta be a federal law put in place to change it.’ And, I’d rather start by saying let’s let individual states and communities decide what they think is best.

In some cases, federal laws help, but I don’t think at this stage it makes sense for us to come up with some federal law to somehow change all this. I do believe the governor of Virginia is right by gathering a group of experts, including Tom Ridge, to take a full review of the law-enforcement response and the decisions made at Virginia Tech, and, I think that’ll be instructive to other universities and other law enforcement agencies around the country. And, we’ll learn from this experience, but I’m not sure if a federal law is called for. Time will tell.

MKH: We’ve already dived head-long, here in Washington, into the inevitable and tacky gun-control debate. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has already introduced a bill. What’s your take on the battle lawmakers are gearing up for and just how fast they’re gearing up for it?

MR: I realize people will always take the occasion of a major news event to push their agenda. There are people in this country who fundamentally believe that people in our country should not be allowed to have guns. They’re wrong. The Second Amendment protects the rights of individual citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, and I will defend the Second Amendment. I think efforts to politicize this tragedy are mistaken and misdirected.

MKH: Now, you supported an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. This tragedy is being used to push the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. What would your stance be if that comes up again?

MR: Well, you know, the weapon used here was not an assault weapon, so I’m not sure what the relevance is. And, that’s what we have to recognize. The people who want to remove Second Amendment rights will look for everything they can. You know, if there’s a weapon that puts our police at risk, like machine guns, of course, then that’s something I would, of course, consider. But, look, we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that.

MKH: One of the quotes of the week, which doesn’t even really need attribution at this point is, “The war is lost.” Your thoughts and what you’re hearing on the trail about that?

MR: Well, first of all it shows a remarkable lack of understanding by Harry Reid. The first phase of the war, the war to knock down Saddam Hussein was won by the United States, solidly, handily, decidedly, and Harry Reid is simply wrong. We won the war to take down Saddam Hussein, and to remove a sponsor of terror.

We’re now in a stage of conflict, which is to help the Iraqi people rebuild their own country. That’s a long process. The jury is out on that. But for him to come out and say we lost the war shows a lack of understanding of the fact that we won taking out Saddam Hussein.

And, secondly, it shows that he just doesn’t understand the nature of the conflict, which we currently are engaged in. And, I go back and think about George Washington. Can you imagine how different our nation would have been if, when the troops were having a tough time at Valley Forge, he just said, “well, we’ve lost.” Or, if Winston Churchill, when the British citizens were hiding in subway tubes, if he said, “Well, we’ve lost.” That is not the American way.

I’m afraid there are some Democrats who can’t get the word victory or success out of their lips. They see loss behind every corner, and instead of looking for our successes and our achievements, they’re always looking for the losses.

Shame on Harry Reid for saying something which will be dispiriting for our troops, and used as propaganda and rallying cries for jihadists around the world.

MKH: What are you hearing from Iowans about it?

The response I’ve had as I’ve made my comments about Harry Reid’s comments today in the three venues where I spoke, was overwhelmingly positive. The largest applause I received was talking about the misguided words that he used to say that America has lost. Did he not remember that we did knock down Saddam Hussein’s government? Has he forgotten that? It’s really a remarkable lack of understanding.

MKH: Speaking of Harry Reid, he and the Dems are also cooking up abortion legislation this week in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the partial-birth abortion ban.

MR: I was pleased with the decision, of course, to permit states to outlaw partial birth abortion. But it underscored something else. Four justices disagreed with the majority. And that means that if the next president were to be a Democrat like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and they appoint more judges like the four who were in the minority, they would say, in effect, that there’s a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion. Late-term, very late term abortion, which is simply a very offensive practice, and it simply underscores the importance of electing a conservative Republican to be the next president.

MKH: When it comes to winning, you’ve got one of the keys going strong for you—fundraising. But there’s a discrepancy with your poll numbers. Now, I’ve read and heard from folks that this is the way a Romney campaign works, building cred over a long period, so that eventually the numbers will catch up with the money. But in this accelerated election cycle, how does that work for you? Continued...