is welcome to saint an sell college. the first republican debate. behind me on the stage, the republican candidates for president appearing together on the same stage for the first time tonight. and tonight's debate will be different than any presidential debate you've ever seen.

over the course of the next two hours in addition to questions from myself and journalist from our partners, wmur and the new hampshire union leader the candidates will take questions directly from voters right here in manchester as well as voters at town meetings taking place across new hampshire. let's get to it and meet the candidates. we asked for no opening statements but we'll continue a tradition from our past new hampshire debates to ask each candidate in one short sentence, hopefully, five or six or seven seconds, to introduce themselves to the voters of new hampshire and the united states of america. i'm john king with cnn and honored to be your moderator and thrilled to be back in red sox nation. let's start at the end of the stage with senator rick santorum. >> hello, new hampshire. i'm rick santorum. ied 12 years representing pennsylvania and the united states senate but i also have substantial executive experience making the tough decisions of balancing budgets and cutting

spending. karen and i the parents of seven children. >> congresswoman? >> hi, i'm michele bachmann. i'm a former federal tax litigation attorney. i'm a businesswoman. we started our own successful company. i'm also a member of the united states congress. i'm a wife of 33 years. i've had five children and we are the proud foster parents of 23 great children and it's a thrill to be here tonight in the "live free or die" state. thank you. >> i'm newt gingrich, former speaker of the house. and when 14 million americans are out of work we need a new president to end the obama depression. >> governor? >> i'm mitt romney and it's an honor to be back at st. anselm.

appreciate being here and i have five sons, five daughters in law, 16 grandkids and the most important thing in my life is to make sure their future is bright and america is always known as "the hope of the earth." thank you. >> i am congressman ron paul. i've been elected to congress 12 times from texas. before i went to the congress i delivered babies for a living. i delivered 4,000 babies. now i'd like to be known and defend the title that i'm the champion of liberty and i defend the constitution. thank you. >> governor? >> good evening. i'm tim pawlenty. husband and my wife mary and i have been married for 23 years. the father of two beautiful daughters, anna and mara, a neighbor and i'm running for the president of the united states because i love america. and like you i'm concerned about

its future. i have the experience, leadership and results to lead it to a better place. >> mr. cain? >> hello. i'm herman cain. i'm not a politician. i am a problem-solver with over 40 years of business and executive experience. father of two, grandfather of three and i'm here tonight because it's not about us. it's about those grandkids. happy to be here in new hampshire. >> our thanks to the candidates. you'll get to know them better as the night goes on. each candidate will be given one minute to answer our leadoff questions at my discretion i may ask other candidates to weigh in on each topic. candidates get about 30 seconds to answer those follow-up questions. i say about 30 seconds because

we're on the honor systems. no bells s wills or whistles. we've asked the candidates to answer the questions that they're asked rather than the question they might have wished to be asked. that's enough, uh-huh. that's enough for me tonight. let's get straight to the people of new hampshire. our first question comes from a vote her plymouth. also there is the new hampshire union leader tom fahy. tom? >> thank you, john. i'm here with mr. serling. a retired from if he sore from plymouth state uflt and he has a question about jobs. >> yes. mr. gingrich said that 14 million people unemployed. my question is this. the democrats say that the republicans don't have any plans

to create jobs and jobs in the private sector, not in government jobs. i like to know what are those plans. >> mr. cain let me start with you tonight. be as specific as you can. i hope i don't have to repeat this throughout the night. what would you do as president of the united states to create jobs? >> the thing we need to do is get this economy boosted. this economy is stalled. like a train on the tracks with no engine. and the administration has simply been putting all of this money in the caboose. we need an engine called the private sector. that means lower taxes, lower the capital gains tax to zero, suspend taxes on repatriate prod fits and then make them permanent. uncertainty is killing the economy. this is the only way to get the economy moving and that's to put the right fuel in the engine which is the private sector. >> let me come down to this. senator is

senator santorum. some economists said he had unrealistic expectations. he said you could grow the economy 5% a year and 5% a year and 5% a year. do you think that's possible or it's too optimistic? >> i think we need a president that's optimistic and has a pro-growth agenda. i can't comment on 5% or 4%. we need an unshackled economy. what's happened is this administration has passed oppressive patchy fog si and oppressive regulation after obama care being first and foremost. the oppressiveness of that bill on businesses, anybody that wants to invest to get any return, when you see the regulations that are going to be put on businesses and the taxation, throw on top of that what this president has done done -- against any kind of exploration offshore or alaska and that's depressing. we need to drill and create energy jobs like we're doing, by the way, in pennsylvania where

we're drilling 3,000 wells this year for gas. natural gas prices are down as a result. >> trying to ask you the keep your answers to 30 seconds. governor pawlenty, answer the critics. 5% is unrealistic. as you do so. where's the proof that just cutting taxes will create jobs? if that were true, why, during the bush years, after the tax cuts were where were the jobs? >> my plan is a whole plan, not just cutting taxes, reduce regulation, speed up the pace of government. and to make sure that we have a pro-growth agenda. this president is a declinist. he views america of one of equals around the world. we're not the same as portugal or argentina and this idea that we can't have 5% growth in america is hog wash, that's a defeatist attitude. i don't accept this notion that we're going to be average or anemic. so my proposal has a 5% growth

target. it cuts taxes but it also dramatically cuts spending. fix regulation and have a pro-american energy policy and fix health care policy and if you do those things as i propose including cut spending you'll get the economy moving and shrink. >> i don't want to do much but i have to interrupt you if you go on too long. governor romney, is 5% overly optimistic? is it fair to compare the united states economy, to the chinese economy. >> tim has the right instincts. he rizzss that what this president has done has slowed the economy. he didn't create the recession but he made it worse and longer and now we have more chronic long-term employment than this country has ever seen before. 20 million people out of work. stop looking for work or in parttime jobs that need full time jobs. we have housing prices continuing to decline. and we have foreclosures at record levels. this president has failed. and he's failed at a time when the american people counted on

him to create jobs and get the economy going. and instead of doing that, he delegated the stimulus to nancy pelosi and harry reid and then he did what he wanted to do. card check, cap and trade, obama care, re-regulation. i spent my life in the private sector, 25 years, as i went around the world -- president obama is doing it wrong and the idea as time described, those are in the right wheel house. >> if you look at poll in the bose globe the other day, 54% of voters in this state said they're will to have higher taxes on the wealthy to help bring down the deficit. are they wrong? >> the question is would it increase jobs or kill jobs. the reagan recovery, which i participated in, in seven years created the equivalent of new jobs and raised the revenue by $8 billion a year and clearly world. that's a historic fact.

the obama administration is anti-jobs, anti-business, anti-american energy, destructive force and we shouldn't talk about what we do in 2013. the congress this year, next week, ought to repeal the dodd/frank bill and the sarbanes-oxley bill and create jobs now for those 14 million americans, this is a depression now. >> so the speaker just said congresswoman repeal dodd/frank. answer the american who said i don't like the details but after what happened in 2007 and 2008, i don't want wall street to not have somebody looking at them and watching what they're doing. >> i introduced the repeal bill to repeal dodd/frank because it's an over the top bill that will lead to more job loss rather than job creation. before i fully answer that i want to make an announcement for you john on cnn tonight. i filed today, my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the united states today. and i'll very soon be making

minor malannouncement so i wanted you to be the first to know. >> appreciate that. >> if you're out there and don't get the distinction coming into the night, congressman bachmann had explored i'm sure they welcome you. let's continue the conversation. i want to come to congressman paul. you're all here saying president of the united states is making the economy worse. has he done one thing, one thing wri right when it comes to the economy in this country? >> boy, that's a tough question. >> nothing wrong with setting a goal of 5 or 10 or 15% if you have a free-market economy. we're trying to unwide a ken

seeian bubble. you have to have sound money and recognize how we got into trouble. we got into trouble because we had a financial trouble caused by the federal reserve. you don't look at monetary policy we'll continue the trend of the last decade. we haven't developed any new jobs in the last decade. as a matter of fact, we've had 30 million new people and no new jobs. that's because people don't understand monetary policy and central economic planting. free market also give you 10 or 15% growth but you won't have to turn it off because you think it's going to cause inflation. it doesn't work that way. >> i'm going to ask one more time politely. we want to get as many voters as we can so try to shorten your answer. here's tom in plymouth with another voter question. >> thank you, john. i'm 450er with sylvia smith from littleton. she's a freelance journalist who has written about the health care industry and she has a question about health care. >> as a journalist who's written

frequently about health care and medicine for both newspapers and corporate publications, i'm very concerned about the overreach of the massive health care legislation that was passed last year. my question is -- what would each candidate do, what three steps would they take to defund obama care and repeal it as soon as possible? thank you. >> congresswoman bachmann let's start with you. >> thank you john. vil via, thank you for that great question. i was the very first member of congress to introduce the full-scale repeal of obama care. and i'll make a promise to everyone watching tonight. as president of the united states, i will not rest until i repeal obama care. it's a promise. take it to the bank. cash the check i'll make sure that happens. this is the symbol and 60s issue of president obama during his entire tenure and this is a job killer, sylvia, the cb 06789,

the congressional budget office says obama care will kill 800,000 jobs. what could the president go thinking passing a bill like this though knowing full well it will kill 800,000 jobs? senior citizens get this more than any other segment of our population because they know in obama care, the president of the united states took away $500 billion, a half trillion dollars out of medicare, shifted it to obama care to pay for younger people and the senior citizens who have the most to lose in obama care. >> governor romney, yesterday governor pawlenty, to your left on the stage, called your massachusetts plan, which you know has become a focal point of criticism in this campaign, obamany care. is that a fair comparison. >> let me say a couple things. first, if i'm elected president i will repeal obama care just as michelle indicated and also on my first day in office if i'm

lucky enough to have that office i will grant a waiver to all 50 states from obama care. now, there's some similarities and big differences. obama care spends a trillion dollars. if it were perfect and it's not perfect, it's terrible, we can't afford more federal spending. secondly, it raises $500 billion in taxes. third, obama care takes $500 billion from medicare and funds obama care. we, of course, didn't do that. and finally, ours was a state plan, a state solution. if people don't like it in our state they can change it. that's why states are the right place for this type of responsibility. that's why i introduced the plan to repeal obama care and replace it with the state-center program. >> governor, you heard the governor rebutt your characterization, obamany care, why? >> let me say to sylvia, she has put her finger on one of the most 30r7b9 issues facing the

country. president obama stood before the nation and said he promised to do health care reform focused on cost containment along with republicans and he'd do it on a bipartisan -- >> the question was why, obamany care. >> i'll get to that. >> you have 30 seconds. >> this is another example of him breaking his promise and he has to be accountable. in order to prosecute the case you have to show you have a better plan and a different plan. we took a different approach in minnesota. we didn't use top-down government mandates and individual requirements from government. we created market alternatives and empowered consumers. i think that's the way to fix it. >> you don't want to address why you call governor romney's obamany care. >> the issue raised were what are the similarities between the two and i cited president obama's own words that he looked to massachusetts as a blueprint or a guide when he designed obama care. >> you said you were asked the question. you those chose words, my

question is, why would you choose the words maybe in the comfort of a sunday show studio when your value is standing right there. it was obamany care on sunday, why is it not with him standing there. >> president obama is the person i quoted saying he looked to massachusetts for designing his program. he's the one that said it's a blueprint and he merged the two programs so using the term "obamany care" was a resflex of the president's comments that he did signed obama care on the massachusetts health plan. >> governor do you want to respond? >> no. just to say this is that my guess is can the president will eat those words and wish he hadn't put them out there and i can't wait to debate him and say, mr. president, if, in fact, you looked at what we did in massachusetts, why didn't you give me a call and asked what worked and what didn't? i would have told you, mr. president, what you're doing will not work. it's a huge power grab by the federal government and going to be massively expensive raising taxes and cutting medicare, it's wrong for america and that's

where there's an outpouring across the nation to say "no" to obama care. i'm delighted to debate on that. >> mr. speaker, you have at times said, maybe you have to consider a mandate. you've been opened to the individual mandate and it has become welcome it seems, at the moment, a litmus test in this republican primary. should it be? >> yes. if you explore the mandate, the fact is when you get into a mandate it not only ends up with unconstitutional powers it allows the government to define virtually everything and if you can do it for health care you can do it for everything in your life and therefore, we should not have a mandate. but i want to answer sylvia at a different level. this campaign cannot be only about the presidency. we need to pick up at least 12 seats in the u.s. senate and 30 or 40 more seats in the house because if you were serious about repealing obama care you have to be serious about building a big enough majority in the legislative branch that you could actually in the first

90 days to pass the legislation. it's not about what one person in america does. it's about what the american people do and that requires a senatorial majority as well as the presidency. >> let's get to jennifer von who has a question for the voter. >>is terri. what is your question. >> i've been a active republican for years from a town committee republican chairman and vice chairman all the way up to 2004 delegate for president bush. my question is -- how will you convince myself -- i'm not a libertarian republican. i'm not a tea party republican. just a mainstream republican and we need both tin dependents and mainstream republicans to win in november. how can you convince me and assure me you'll bring a balance and you won't be torn to one side or the other from any faction within the party? you have to have a blanged

approach to governing to solve our serious problems? >> senator santorum? >> i accomplished a lot. take for example, welfare reform. under the direction of newt gingrich i was on the wags and means committee. that extreme measure we ended up winning elections and getting those seats and that was now the starting point. and i managed that bill in the united states senate because i cared about the dignity of every person. i didn't believe poverty was the ultimate disability. i believed people could work and succeed and we brought people together. i got 70 votes to end a federal entitlement which was what paul ryan proposed for medicaid and food stamps and other welfare programs. we did it. we set the template and i led and got bipartisan support to do it. >> can i ask you a quickly, that wasn't all the question. are you concerned at all about

the influence of the tea party? >> not at all. i think it's a great backstop for america. i love it when they hold up the kons taugs and say we have to live by what our founders laid out for this country. it's absolutely essential that we have that backbone to the republican party. >> i know you agree congresswoman. help the gentleman. address his concerns that the influence of the tea party somehow pushes him out? >> what i've seen in the tea party and i'm chairman of the tea party caucus in the house of re79ives, unlike how the media has tried to wrongly portray the tea party, it's really made up of disaffected democrats. independents, people who have never been political a day in their life. libertarians, republicans. it's a wide part of america coming together. i think that's why the left fears it so much because there's people that want to take the country back. they want the country to work again. i think there's no question, that this election will be about economics. it will be about how will we

create jobs? how will we turn the economy around? how will we have a pro-growth economy? that's a great story for republicans to tell. president obama cannot tell that story. his report card right now has a big failing grade on it. but republicans have an awesome story to tell. we need every one of us in a three-legged stool. the peace through republicans, the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives and we need everybody to come together because we're going to win. just make no mistake it. i'll announce it, president obama is a one-term president. we'll win! >> i'm being polite so far but i want to remind everybody about the time. mr. cain, sblb no election experience. if you were to become the nominee of this party and you associate yourself with the pea party, politicians about math and coalition building. a candidate who loses a mainstream republican as he describes himself, might not win

this state in november. might not win a big state like pennsylvania. address the concern of the gentleman that thinks some people in the tea party, maybe in their dissatisfaction or their anger at the president are too negative or too critical? >> they're not too negative and they're not too critical. as a businessman one of the first things you do which has allowed me to be successful throughout my career is make sure you work on the right problem. we make sure we're working on the right problem i'll surround myself with the right people and we'll put together the right plans that i'm going to take it to the people. i would be a president to do what's right, not why is politically right. and so if the other party disagrees but the american people embrace those common-sense solutions that's how we get things done. so those experiences in the business world managing large organizations, with a very diverse constituency are the same skills that can help to get the people involved and not exclude the people like this administration has done. >> i want to remind the

candidates, and people in the audience, cnn is hosting a tea party debate september 12th. watch how this plays out. we'll see how much the influence is in 2012. let's continue our conversation with the voters of new hampshire. we're in hancock with a voter and a question. jean? >> thanks very much. i'm here with mike. he's a small business owner from harrisville, new hampshire. what is your question? >> for the candidates, how do you plan to return manufacturing jobs to the united states? >> congressman powell, why don't you start with that one. >> pretty important because everything we've done the last 20 or 30 years we've exported our jobs. when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it you export money that becomes the main export so it goes with the money. you have to invite capital. you have to have a strong currency not a weak currency. today it's the deliberate job of the federal reserve to weaken

our currency. we should invite capital back. first thing, we have trillions or at least aover a trillion dollars of u.s. money made overseas. it stay there is because if they bring it home they get taxed. we need to get the fed to quit printing the money and if you want capital you have to entice those individuals to repatriate their money and set up a financial system deregulate and detax, to invite people to go back to work again. but as long as we run a program of deliberately weakening our currency, our jobs will go overseas and that's what's happened for a good many years, especially in the last decade. >> governor pawlenty, does the congressman have the right? >> there's the number of things we need to do to restore manufacturing in this company. i grew up in a manufacturing town, a meat-packing company. i was in the union for six or seven years. i understand what it's like to see the blue-collar communities and the struggles they've had.

we have to have fair trade. and what's going on right now is not fair. i'm for fair and opened trade but not for being stupid or being a chump. we have individuals and organizations in countries around this world who are not following the rules when it comes to fair trade. we need a stronger president and somebody who will take on those issues. number two, make the costs and burdens of manufacturing in this country lower. we're asking them to climb the mountain with a big back sac full of rocks on their back. we have to take the rocks out. one of them is obama care. i met somebody in arizona that's moving his whole company out of the country because of obama care. the taxes are too high. the regulations are too heavy. the permitting is too slow and the message around this country from business leaders large and small including manufacturing, is get the government off my back. as president, i will. >> how object to help workers get ready for the new jobs in manufacturing. should the federal government be helping community colleges with vocational training programs and things like that?

>> the united states federal government and states have done numerous job-training programs over the year with mixed results. this is what we need to do to turn job creation around and bring manufacturing back to the united states. what we need to do is today, united states has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. i'm a former federal tax lawyer. i've seen the devastation. we have to bring the tax rate down substantially so we're among the lowest in the industrialized world. here's to the thing. every time the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill, a big spending projects. what we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it's the repeal bill that will get a job-killing regulations. and i would begin with the epa. there is no other agency like the epa. it should really be renamed the job-killing organization of america. >> i'll get you in one second. i want to show people. we're asking people watching at home to tell us on facebook and twitter what concerns them. watch up here and look.

three most important issues this election season, regardless of parties, jobs, the jobless and whether you want a job. senator rick santorum, pennsylvania, a big state that's struggled. >> we still make things here and we i represented the steel valley of pittsburgh and why learned from growing up in butler, pennsylvania, was that the broad middle of america was a broad middle of america when we had lots of manufacturing here. that's how the wealth and those that create those jobs get down and we've been outsourcing the jobs. and one other thing i'm specifically proposing. cut the capital gains tax in half. for manufacturers within a five-year window where we cut it to zero. we want to encourage people to set up jobs in america. take the r&d credit and make it permanent and invest that money to create that broad middle of america and have that wealth really trickle down. >> let's stay on jobs and the economy. here's josh with a question

related to this. >> good evening, candidates. governor pawlenty, the possibility exists that new hampshire could be the 23rd state to pass the right to work legislation. unions don't like it because they think making membership voluntary weakens it. my question is, where do you feel on right to work and would you support a federal right to work law? >> we live in the united states of america. and people shouldn't be forced to belong or be a member of any organization and the government has no business telling people what group you have to be a member of or not. i support strongly right to work legislation. for much of his life my dad was a teamster truck driver. my brothers and sisters, i was in a union. we grew up in a blue collar town. my family were reagan democrats. most of them now listen to rush limbaugh, actually. but the point is i understand these issues. we don't have a government tell us what organizations or

associations we should be in. we tell the government what to do. >> mr. speaker, i assume you agree. one of the criticisms, you tell me whether it's fair or not. the criticism is as you watch the governors deal with this issue across the country, some people say there's a tone about it. they seem to be demonizing union workers. >> that's a totally different question. the question was right to work. one thing congress should do immediately is defund the national labor relation's board which has gone into south carolina to punish boeing which wants to put 8,000 jobs in american jobs in south carolina by eliminating the right to work. that's a real immediate threat for the obama administration to eliminate the right to work and i think that it's fundamentally the wrong direction. i hope new hampshire does adopt this. i keep it at the state level because as each new state becomes right to work they send a signal to the remaining states. why would you want to be at

california's unemployment level? if you believe in the tenth amendment let the states learn from each other and the right to work states are creating a lot more jobs today than the other states. >> mr. cain, i'm let you in quickly. as a businessman who says your strength is someone who created jobs, right toe work? >> yes. i believe the states should have the right to work. i hope new hampshire is able to get it passed and i agree with the speak irand others that believe if the federal government continues to do the kinds of things that this administration is trying to do through the backdoor, through national labor relation's board, that's killing our free market system. and the free market system is what made this economy great. and we have to keep the free market system strong. >> a lot more ground to cover with our candidates. we're about to take our first break. we'll have several. a lot more domestic and foreign policy. we want to see who you might want to see your next

commander-in-chief. one of the other things we want to do is learn more about the candidates and their personality so i'll borrow something from my sports fan experience. every time we go to break or i'll ask them a this or that question. i give them a choice. it's just to show the personal side. senator rick santorum, i'll start with you, leno or conan? >> neither, probably leno. i don't watch, sorry. >> that's all right. the answer is the answer. for those of you watching at home, facebook, twitter. later we'll give you a chance for exclusive content. get your smartphone ready. we'll be right back from saint

ansell college in just a moment. was an archer drawing his bow. ♪ could that have also inspired its 556 horsepower supercharged engine? ♪ the all-new cadillac cts-v coupe. we don't just make luxury cars, we make cadillacs.

you noticed! these clothes are too big, so i'm donating them. how'd you do it? eating right, whole grain. [ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't. multigrain cheerios... five whole grains, 110 calories.

welcome back to our debate. one of the things we're eager to do is involve you at home and use technology and innovation. if you have a smartphone look at your screen. you see an electronic code on your screen and you can snap a picture of the code and you'll get some behind the scene video

and analysis and content. we'll do it throughout the debate and campaign. now back to the questioning. before the break we did something called "this or that." senator santorum he said he would pick leno over conan. president bachmann, elvis or johnny cash. >> that's really tough. both. both. >> yeah? >> yeah. >> both? >> i have christmas with elvis on my ipod. >> all right. now we know what's on the congresswoman's ipod. >> we have a question. >> congressman paul, this is for you. the federal government now assists many industries, green jobs, the auto industry, research and development, all good subsidies. given the current state of the economy, what standards do you ha have, if any, to government assistance to private

enterprise. >> there shouldn't be any government assistance to private enterprise. it's not morally correct. it's not legal. it's bad complexes. it's not part of the constitution. if you allow an economy to thrive they'll de decide where r&d works. when the politicians get in and direct things, they do the dumb things they might build too many houses and they might not direct their research to the right places. so, no, it's a fallacy to think that government and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to manage the economy. so it shouldn't happen. >> all right. these are the republicans, the conservative candidates. every time you applaud i know you're happy but you're taking time away. we'd expect to get an answer, less government is better. when do you reach that extraordinary moment when the government might want to do something. mr. cain, i'll ask you. you're a businessman that supported the t.a.r.p. program. we've become a trending topic on you said, quote, we needed to do something drastic because we were facing a very drastic

situation. >> i studied the financial meltdown and concluded on my own that we needed to do something drastic, yes. when the concept of t.a.r.p. was first presented to the public, i was willing to go along with it. but then when the administration started to implement it on a discretionary basis, picking winners and losers and also, directing funds to general motors and others that had nothing to do with the financial system, that's where i totally disagreed. the government should not be selecting winners and losers and i don't believe in this concept of too big to fail. if they fail, the free market will figure out who's going to pick up the pieces. >> let's stay on this topic. t tom fahy has a question. >> thank you, john. i wanted to ask governor romney about the auto industry. general motors and chrysler have rebounded since the obama administration bailed them out. bankruptcy is no longer a

threat. would you say the bailout program was a success? >> the bailout program was not a success because the bailout program wasted a lot of money. about $17 billion was used unnecessarily. when the ceos of the auto companies went to washington and asked for money from washington, i wrote a op ed and said, the right process for necessary companies is not a bailout, not a big check from washington, but instead, letting these enterprises go through bankruptcy, ree-emerge and that would be the preferred way for them to get on their feet again. instead, the bush administration, and the obama administration wrote checks to the auto industry, ultimately, they went to the very bankruptcy process i suggested from the beginning. the big difference was $17 billion with you wasted and then president obama given that money put his hands on the scales of justice and gave give the company to the uaw. there's a perception in the country that government knows

better than the private sector. washington and president obama have a better view for how and industry ought to be run. they're wrong. the right way for america to create jobs is to keep government in its place and to allow the private sector and the energy and passion of the american people to created a brighter future for our kids and ourselves. >> let me read you a little bit of an op ed piece you wrote in november of 2008. if general motors, ford and chrysler get the bailout you can kiss the american automotive industry good-bye. from a profit stand point they are doing well. on that point "kiss the industry good-bye." were you wrong? >> no. because if you read the rest it says what they need to do is go through a bankruptcy process to shed unnecessary costs. if they just get paid checks after checks in the federal government, they're going to be locked in with high uaw costs, legacy costs they'll never be able to get on their feet. they have to go through bankruptcy and it turned out that's finally what they did and the head of the uaw wrote a op

ed piece saying romney is wrong. the government has to step in. that's the wrong way to go. use the process of law. use the process of american ingenuity. don't have government try to guide the economy. >> anyone here given that pro13ek9 that president bush started that program, anyone here who would have stepped in and said i don't want to do this, but this is the backbone of american manufacturing i'll do something? >> absolutely. we shouldn't have had t.a.r.p. we shouldn't have had the auto bailout. they could have gone through a bankruptcy. they gave unions the company. if they went through the orderly bankruptcy process and a structured bankruptcy they would have come out in the same place but we would have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government getting its fingers into it. >> i was in the middle of this debate. i was behind closed doors with secretary paulson when he made the extraordinary never-before-made request to congress, give us a $700 billion

blank check with no strings attached. and i fought behind closed doors, against my own party on t.a.r.p. it was a wrong vote then. it's continued to be a wrong vote since then. sometimes that's what you have to do. take principle over your party. >> let's continue the conversation. we'll come back to this if we have to. let's go to jean with a question. >> thanks, john. this questions goes out to speaker gingrich. next month the space shuttle program is scheduled to retire after 30 years. last year, president obama effectively killed government-run spaceflight to the international space shuttle and wants to turn it over to private companies. in the meantime u.s. astronauts would ride russian spacecraft at a cost or 50 to $63 million a seat. what role should the government play in future space exploration? >> well, sadly, and i say this sadly because i'm a big fan of going into space and actually

worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point. nasa has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can't innovate. if you take all the money we've spent at nasa since we landed on the moon and you apply that money for incentives to the private sector, we would, today, probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles and, instead, what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure. i think it's a tragedy because younger americans ought to have the excitement of thinking that they, too, could be part of reaching out to a new frontier. you asked earlier, john about this idea of limits because we're a developed country. we're not a developed country. the scientific future will open up and we're at the beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities and unfortunately, nasa is standing in the way of it when nasa ought to be getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.

>> any cad will step in and say this is vital to america's identity and innovation. i want the government to take the lead? >> i think the space program has played a vital role for the united states of america. in the context. >> going forward. >> in the context of our budget challenges it cobb refocused and reprioritized. i don't think we should cut it. we could scale it back but i don't think we should eliminate the space program. >> john, you mischaracterized me. i didn't say end the space program. we built the transcontinental railroads without a national department of railroads. i said you could get into space faster were better, more effectively and creatively if you decentral ietds it and got out of washington and cut out the bur ross si. it's not about getting rid of the program, it's getting to a real space program that works. >> i think fundamentally there are some people, mostly democrats but not all, who believe that the government

really knows how to do things better than the private sector and they happen to be wrong. >> we'll continue, josh? >> governor pawlenty, housing. there's about a million homes in the hands of banks and lenders. millions of more homeowners are upside down owing more than their home is worth. what would you or your administration do to try to rite the housing ship? >> get the government out of crony capitalism. we have this alliance between big government, big unioned and certain big bailout businesses and as congressman palm said, we had politicians and congress trying to micromanage the housing market and they created a bubble and the mess. now we have all these innocent bystanders, the good people of the united states of america, many middle-income and modest income people who have been devastated by this. so the market is going to have to adjust. the program that president obama has put forward haven't really worked. they've been a failure and slow. they haven't really solved the problem. but the best thing that we can

do is get the economy moving again. it's not going to happen by growing government. his way failed. we've got to get the vat sector going. we have to have people starting businesses and growing businesses and building things and starting places of employment. this is how we're going to get money back in people's pockets and get them financially stable. >> so congressman, don't make it just about foreclosures. this is an interesting topic of discussion especially when money is scarce and you have to cut. it's a question of priorities. what should the government be doing? and what should by the doing? talk about foreclosures and tell me something. if you were president and you were dealing with it in your first few weeks and you said, i might like to do this but i can't afford it. be as specific as you can. >> i would want to be much less sooner. government shouldn't be involved. we've been propping up the bankruptcies. we had the federal reserve buy all the bad assets and people that made the money when the

bubble was blown up, they got bailed out. you want the correction. corrections are good. the malinvestment and bubbles caused by the federal reserve and government and we keep propping it up and that's why -- it was predictable it would come and it's predictable that it lasted three years and as long as we do what we're doing in washington it will last another ten years. we're doing what the japanese have done. you need to get the prices of houses down to clear the market but they're trying to keep the prices up and they have programs in washington stimulating housing? you need to clear the market and then we can all go back to work. what we're doing now is absolutely wrong. >> here's another topic the people say the federal government is too involved. that's food safety. you worked in business. you see the e-coli scare going on in europe. you're trying to cut money. the fda and other agencies getting involved in front of you. what do you do? >> you look inside the fda and determine whether or not it needs to be streamlined and maybe it does. >> the federal government, should they be doing food safety

inspections? >> yes. but i want to go back to what we need to do to help the housing market. we have a crisis of the three es. the economy, entitlement spending and energy. we've got the simultaneously work on all those so we can put 13 to 14 million people back to work. that's what we've got to do. it's not just a single issue 37 it is the multiplicity and the compounding effect of those three critical problems. >> what else, governor romney. you've been a chief executive of state. i was in joplin and i've been to louisiana and mississippi and tennessee, whether its the tornados or flooding. fema is about to run out of money. some people say do it on a case-by-case basis. some say maybe we're learning a lesson. how do you deal with that? >> every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. you can go even further and send it back to the vat sector, that's even better.

instead of thinking in the federal budget what we should cut, we should asks the opposite question. who should we keep? we should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say what are the things we're doing we don't have to do? those things we have to stop doing. we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. we cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. it's simply immoral in my view for us to continue to wrack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well, we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. makes no sense. >> another break. i know all the candidates want to get in on these issues and others. as we go to break, at home, if you have a question on facebook sintd to us or twitter, send it to us. you can use your smartphone. here's our "this or." conan or leno, elvis or johnny

cash. mr. gingrich, "american idol" or "dancing with the stars"? >> "american idol." >> we continue our debate. stay with us. >> announcer: this past year alone there's been a 67% spike in companies embracing the cloud-- big clouds, small ones, public, private, even hybrid. your data and apps must move easily and securely to reach many clouds, not just one. that's why the network that connects, protects, and lets your data move fearlessly through the clouds means more than ever.

[ male announcer ] the inspiration for its shape was an archer drawing his bow. ♪ could that have also inspired its 556 horsepower supercharged engine? ♪ the all-new cadillac cts-v coupe. we don't just make luxury cars, we make cadillacs. a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities... committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪

welcome back to our republican debate here in the first nation primary state of new hampshire. seven candidates on stage as they try to impress the voters of new hampshire and the voters of the country. ladies and gentlemen look up there and we'll get to these questions because they're good questions. all good suggestion from concerned citizens across the country watching this debate unfold. before we go and out of every break we're doing an exercise called "this or that" to learn more. the speaker had no hesitation, "american idol" over dancing with the stars. congressman paul, blackberry or iphone? >> blackberry. >> blackberry it is. >> well continue our conversation. an important issue that all of you want to weigh in. the debate about entitlements.

mr. cain mentioned those with specifically, health care. josh has a question. >> i have dr. paul collins, you've been running a family practice in manchester for how long? >> 27 years. >> not surprise your question is related to health care. >> yes, sir. as a member of the baby boomer generation, i've been contributing to medicare through payroll taxes for over 30 years. how do you propose to keep medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond? >> let's start with dr. paul on this one? >> under these conditions it's not solvent and it won't be solvent. if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. and in your lifetime you will take out more than three times that much. so a little bit of arithmetics you it doesn't work. it has to change and we have to

have more competition in medicine and i think if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many and become so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition you have to cut a lot of money and that's why i argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare and corporate welfare and military industrial complex. then we might have enough money to tide people over. some revamping has to occur. what we need is competition. we need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. talk about opting out of obama care? why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves. >> let's continue. governor pawlenty, congress paul said opt out. congressman ryan said squeeze the savings across the federal budget including a lot from medicare to turn night -- he doesn't like the word -- into a voucher program. the government would give you money and you go out to the

marketplace and shop. is that the right way to do it. >> let me address the doctor. doctor you said in your question you paid in your whole life and we respect that. people have made plans, people on the program or close to eligibility, we should keep our word to people we made promises to. under my proposal if you're on the program or near the program we'll keep our word but we have to recognize what congressman paul said. there was a recent report that the presume yums for medicare and payroll withholdingings are only paying about half the program. it's not financially solvent. i'll have my own plan that will feature some difference from congressman's ryan's plan. it will have performance pay. it will allow medicare to continue as an option but be priced against various other options that we'll offer. i also said if it was a choice between barack obama's plan of doing nothing we have a president of the united states got one of the worst crisis

financial situations in this country and you can't find him on this issue. he's missing. i'll lead on this issue. >> governor, i want to get it right. your initial reaction to the ryan plan was a radical, right wing, social engineering and then you backtrack, why? >> that was a very narrow question which said, should republicans impose an unpopular bill on the american people? i supported the ryan budget as a general proposal. i wrote a news letter supporting the ryan budget. those words were taken totally out of context. i'm happy to repeat them if you're dealing with something as big as medicare and you can't have a conversation with the country where the country thinks you're doing the right thing. you better slow down. we got mad add obama because he land over us when we said "don't do it." the republicans ought to follow the same ground rules. if you can't krn convince the american people it's a good idea maybe it's not a good idea. there's things i would do

different on made care. i agree strongly on medicare. congressman, there's a very good bill to allow private contracting so those that want to voluntarily contract with their doctor or hospital in addition to medicare and it would be outside the current system and it would relieve the pricing pressure on the current system. we did a study called "stop paying the crooks" and we think you can save $70 to $120 billion in medicare and medicaid annually. >> senator, should the republicans slow down? >> no. we have a $1.4 trillion deficit and it isn't getting better any time soon. we have to deal with this problem now and what paul ryan is suggested which i wholeheartedly support, is to use a program that is identical to what seniors already have. it's called "medicare part d." they have a program right now which seniors like. it is a program that's called a

"premium support program." we give seniors, depending on income, a certain amount of money so they can go out and purchase health care that them that helps them and this is the key, john -- we need the include seniors in controlling costs. what president obama -- let me finish. what president obama has done he put in the obama care bill, the independent payment advisory board. ladies and gentlemen, seniors, medicare is going to be cut starting in 2014 by the federal government and it's going to be rationing care from the top down. what paul ryan and rick santorum which is not radical and take programs with, medicare prescription drugs, 41% under budget because seniors are involved in controlling costs and apply it to medicare it's the right approach. >> the speaker's point, mr. cain, was that if you lost the american people, if they're not following you you have to slow down until you can get them with you. is that a fair point? >> we don't need to slow down. i hate to be the bad one to get the bad news, you're not going

to get most of the money you put in if we don't restructure it. the reason we're in the situation we are today with medicare and social security is because the problem hadn't solved. we can no longer rearrange it. we have to restructure the programs and the paul ryan approach i you know this commercial with medicare and having it tossed off the bridge, it if decent fix that problem, it will be our grandkids thrown off the bridge. we have to fix the problem. >> let's continue the conversation on entitlements. >> thank you, john. mr. cain back to you. while you're fired up there, let's turn to social security. can you be specific regarding ages and income levels. everyone talks about reform. what is your specific social security reform plan in regards

to raising the retirement age, at what ages cut be benefits means testing kicking in. >> let's fix the problem i support a personal retirement account option in order to phase out the current system. we know this works. it worked in the small country of chile when they did it 30 yergsz. that payroll tax got up to 27% for every dollar that the worker made. i believe we can do the same thing. that break point would approximately 40e years of age. young people are have to contribute to the current system for people on social security. >> are you going to raise the retirement age as president of the united states? >> i don't have to raise the retirement age, because that won't solve the problem. if congress decides to do that, that's a different matter. here's another example where this approach has worked. the city of galveston opted out of the social security system in

the '70s, and now they retire with a whole locality more money. why? they have their act with their money on it. we have to restructure the program using a personal retirement account option in order to eventually make it solvent. >> we'll keep the conversation move. people want to weigh in. let's move to jennifer on the floor with a question. >> john, thank you very much. governor romney, i'd like to ask this to you first, please. the treasury department says the united states will hit its credit limit on august 2nd. do you believe we will ultimately have to raise the debt ceiling? >> i believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president finally, finally is willing to be a leader on issues that the american people care about. the number one issue that relates to that debt ceiling is whether the government is going to keep on spending money they don't have. the american people and congress and every person elected in washington has to understand we want to see a president finally lay out plans for reigning in

the excesses of government. you've heard on here a whole series of ideas about entitlements. that's about 60% of federal spends. that's a big piece, ideas from all the people up here. where are the president's ideas. we have different ideas here. we can try different ideas in different states and different programs at the federal level, but why isn't the president leading? is he isn't leading on balancing the budget and on jobs. he's faileded american people, and that's why he's not going to be relaektsed. >> governor, what happens if you don't raise it? is it okay not to? >> what happens if we continue to spend time and time again, year and year again? more money than we take in? what we say to america is, at some point you hit a wall. at some point people around the world say i won't keep loaning money to america because america can't pay them back and the dollar is not worth in this case anymore. in that circumstance we saddled the future of our kids in a that

is unacceptable. you'll see republicans stand up and say, mr. president, lay down plans to balance this budget. if he does so, if we gets democrats to come at that time table and deal with the challenges we have and with the jobs issues and say we can't afford another trillion dollars of obamacare. if he's honest about things, you'll see the progress you'd hope to see. >> congresswoman bachmann, you get a vote on this issue. if you can't get that on the short term and those negotiations are continuing, what is your price tag in at least a first wave of cuts? if you don't get it, would you say to the house republicans, no, let the government go into default? that's where we need to stand. >> i've already voted no on raising the debt ceiling in the past. unless there are serious cuts, i can't. i want to speak to someone that's far more eloquent than i.

someone who said just dealing with the issue of raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership. that person was then senator barack obama. he refused to raise debt ceiling because he said president bush had failed in leadership. clearly president obama has failed in leadership. under his watch in two and a half years, we've increased the federal debt 35% just in that amount of time. what we need to do both from the congress and president, he needs to direct his treasury secretary, pay the interest on the debt first, then we won't have a failure of our full faith and credit from their prioritized spending. we have to have serious spending cuts. >> i want to ask the candidates a little shorter on answers to keep the voters involved. >> mr. kennedy runs a juvenile correctional institute in massachusetts. >> i wonder what your definition

of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making. >> governor pawlenty, take that one first. >> the protections were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith. this is a country that in our founding documents says we're a nation that's founded under god, and the privileges and blessings at that we have are from our creator, they're not from our member of congress or county commissioner. 39 of the 50 states have until the early phrases of constitution languages like minnesota has. it says we the people of minnesota, grateful to god for our civil and religious liberties, and so the founding fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation xom from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. i embrace that. let's spend a little time talking. >> let's spent time talking about it. senator, let's start with you.

what role does faith play in your political life? are there certain issues where you meet with my advisers and others where you have a moment of private prayer? >> i believe that you approach issues using faith and reason. if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they'll end up in the same place. the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country, madison called it the perfect remedy, which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square. to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out. because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. just the opposite. we get along because we know that we all -- aum of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. that makes america work. >> congressman paul, is it a personal issue?

>> i think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. we shouldn't expect us to try to change mother ralt. you can't teach people how to be moral, but the constitution addresses this by saying -- it says no theocracy but doesn't talk about church and state. the most important thing is first amendment. congress shall write no laws, which means it should never prohibit the expression of your faith in a public place. >> let's go down and continue the conversation. >> thank you. >> while we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question to mr. cain. you recently said you would not appoint a muslim to your cabinet and said you would want to know if they're committed to the constitution. you expressed concern that a lot of muslims are not totally dedicated to this country,

american muslims as a group less committed than christian or jews? >> first, the statement was would i be comfortable with a muslim in my administration, not that i wouldn't appoint one. that's the exact transcript, and i would not be comfortable because you have peaceful muslims and then you have militant muslims. those that are trying to kill us. when i said i wouldn't be comfortable, i was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one. secondly, yes, i do not believe in sharia law in american courts. i believe in american laws in american courts, period. there have been instances -- [ applause ] there have been instances in new jersey, there was an instance in oklahoma where muslims did try to influence court decisions with sharia law. i was simply saying very emphatically american laws in american courts. >> on that point, governor

romney let me come to you on this. mr. cain said he would have a purity test or a loyalty test, ask a muslim a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a christian or jew. >> you are restating something i did not say, if i may? >> let's make it clear. >> when you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one on one personal interview. during that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you know how committed they are to the constitution and the mission of the organization. >> i asked this question the other night, you said you want want to a muslim those questions but wouldn't have to answer those questions to a christian or jew? >> i would ask certain questions, john. it's not a litmus test. it's making sure we have people committed to the constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration. >> should one segment of

americans, should one segment singled out and treated differently? >> first of all, of course, we're not going to have sharia law applied in u.s. courts. that's not going to happen. we have a constitution and we follow the law. no, i think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country, our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. that's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect for five times with their religious persuasion. anybody who comes into my administration is someone i knew, who i was comfortable with and who i believed would honor as their highest oath to defend the constitution of the united states. >> i want to comment for a second. the pakistani who emigrated to the u.s., became a citizen, not blt a car bomb that luckily failed to go off in times square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he swore on oath to the united

states, and he looked at the judge and said, you're my enemy. i lied. now, i want to go out on a limb here. i'm in favor of saying to people if you're not prepared to be loyal to the united states, ultimate not serve in my administration, period. we did this in dealing with the nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists and it was controversial both times and both times we discovered there were bad people that would like to infiltrate the country. we have to stand up and say no. >> we have to work fwh another break. you can help us at home on facebook and twitter. please send in suggestions. in and out of every break we ask a candidate a personal question. mr. cain, deep dish or thin crust? >> deep dish. >> deep dish it is. our seven candidates for the

republican presidential nomination will be right back. a] this...is the network. a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities... committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪ [ male announcer ] the inspiration for its shape was an archer drawing his bow. ♪ could that have also inspired

its 556 horsepower supercharged engine? ♪ the all-new cadillac cts-v coupe. we don't just make luxury cars, we make cadillacs. and all we need to do is change the way we're thinking about them. a couple decades ago, we didn't even realize just how much natural gas was trapped in rocks thousands of feet below us. technology has made it possible to safely unlock this cleanly burning natural gas. this deposits can provide us with fuel for a hundred years, providing energy security and economic growth all across this country. it just takes somebody having the idea, and that's where the discovery comes from. host: could switching to geico 15% or more on car insurance? host: what, do you live under a rock?

man: no way! man: hey rick check this out! anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save 15% or more on car insurance. has twice the calcium of the leading yogurt. that's 50% of the daily value. pass on the news and make sure you and everyone you know is getting the calcium they need. ♪

seven republican candidates for president here on the campus of st. anselm college in manchester, new hampshire. let's continue the conversation. deep dish from mr. cain before the break. governor romney to you now. maybe it's new hampshire or south carolina ordering some wings. spicy or mild? >> oh, spicy. absolutely. by the way, bruins are up 4-0. >> all right. all right. there you go. there you go. i think that's an audience pleaser. let's continue the questions and get down to the floor. >> thank you, john. congresswoman bachmann, let's turn to a serious subtle. new hampshire is one of five states where individuals who happen to be gay can marry legally. this is a question of conflicting interest. i know you're opposed to same-sex marriage. as president would you try to

overturn -- what influence would you use from the white house to overturn state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances. >> i do believe in the 10th amendment and self-determination for the states. i believe it's between a man and woman. i carried that legislation when i was a senator in minnesota, and i believe for children the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life. now, i didn't come from a perfect background. my parents were divorced, and i was raised by a single mother. there's a lot of single families and families with troubled situations. that's why my husband and i have broken hearts for at-risk kids and why we took 23 foster children into our home. >> what would you do to initiate a repeal law on the state level? would you come into the state of

new hampshire, for instance, and campaign on behalf of a repeal law? >> i'm running for the presidency of the united states. i don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws. >> on that point to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let's go through it. let's start at this end and go through. i'll describe it this way. are you a george w. bush republican meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage or dick cheney who said this should be made -- this decision should be a state's decision? >> state's decision. >> i support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. i was the co-author. >> the federal government should not be involved. i wouldn't support an amendment. one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. we know what marriage is all

about, but get the government out of it. why doesn't it go to the church or the individuals? i don't think government should give us a license to get married. >> constitutional. >> mr. speaker, i helped author the defensive marriage act, which the obama administration should be frankly protecting in court. if that fails, at that point you have no choice but a constitutional amendment. >> the constitutional amendment includes the states. three quarter counties of the states have to ratify it. the states should be involved in this process. we should have one law with respect to marriage. there needs to be consistency. >> john, i do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and woman, but i would not be going into the states to overturn their state law. >> the obama administration is in the process and leon panetta will implement the repeal of don't ask don't tell. gays are allowed to serve openly in the military.

if you become president of the united states, now gays are allowed to serve openly mountain military, would you leave that policy in place or try to change it, go back to don't ask don't tell or something else? >> i would have never overturned don't ask don't tell in the first place. now that they have changed it, i wouldn't create a distraction to turn it over as president. they have too many other things to be concerned about rather than deal with that distraction. >> leave it in place if you inherit the new policy or try to overturn it? >> we're in a nation in two wars. we need to listen tom kol bat tant commanders and how this faekts the military going forward. i know they expressed concerns when this was originally repealed by the obama administration. >> i would not work to overthrow it. we have to remember rights don't come in groups. we shouldn't have gay rights. rights come as individuals.

it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group. >> leave it in place, what you inherit from the obama administration or overturn it? >> we ought to fwauk the economy and jobs. i believe it should have been kept in place until conflict was over. >> i think it's very powerful that both the army and the marines overwhelmingly opposed changes it. their recommendation was against changing it, and if as president i've met with them and they said, you know, it isn't working and is dangerous and we should go back, i would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women they're trying to protect. >> congresswoman. >> i would keep the don't ask don't tell policy. >> wlaefr the administration does now, you would try to go back? >> i would after following what the speaker just said, i want want to confer with our commanders in chief and the joint chiefs of staff because i want to know how it's being

implemented and if it had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that come. >> the job of the united states military is to protect and defend the people of this country. it is not for social experimentation. it should be repealed, and the commanders should have a system of discipline in place as ron paul said that punishes bad behavior. >> let's go back down to the floor here. jennifer vaughn has a question. >> senator santorum, you are staunchly pro-life. governor romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position a few years ago. do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? should this be an issue in in primary campaign? >> i think an issue should be in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and their record over time. that's a faktdor that should be determined. you can look at my record. i've been consistently pro-life,

but i've not just taken the pledge but the bullets to fight for this and lead on those issues. i think that's a factor that people should consider when you look. what is this president going to do when he comes to office? a lot of folks run for pro-life, and thash uis shoved to the back burner. the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth but on the issue of abortion but with respect to to the entire life, welfare reform and dignity of people at the end of life, those issues are top priority issues for me to make sure all life is respected and held with dignity. >> governor romney, take 20 or 30 seconds, if there is a republican who questions your authenticity on the issue? >> people have looked at my record and look what i said through the last campaign. i believe people understand i'm firmly pro-life and will support justice who is believe in following the constitution and not legislating from the bench. i believe in the sanctity of life from the beginning to end.

>> is there anybody that believes that's an issue in the campaign, or case closed? >> case closed. >> case closed it is. tom forman standing by in rochester. >> hi, john. representative bachmann, i have a question for you. governor pawlenty opposed abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at stake. do you have any problem with that position, and if so, why? >> i am 100% pro-life. i've given birth to five babies and taken 23 foster children into my home. i believe the dignity of life from conception until natural death and ipgible in the sanctity of human life. the most eloquent words written were in the declaration of independence that said a creator endowed us with rights given to you from government sxnt from government. the but dpee is government cannot take those rights away, only god can give and only god can take. the first of those rights is

life. i stand for that right. i stand for the right to life. the very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases. yet, they get all the attention. all the firepower is and where the real battle is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. i stand for life from conception until natural death. >> governor pawlenty, it was your position brought into the question. we'll give you a few seconds. >> this is a great example where we can look at our records. the national review online said based on results i was the most pro-life candidate in the race. as governor of the state of minnesota, i appointed for the supreme court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. we passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state which i proposed including women's right to know, including

positive alternatives to abortion and many others. i'm solidly pro-life. the main pro-life organization in minnesota gives me high marks. i haven't just talked about these things. i've done it it. >> let's go to plymouth, new hampshire. thomas fahy is standing by with a voter with a question. >> i'm here with lydia, and she is a naturalized citizen who moved to new hampshire several years ago from minnesota of all places. she has has a question about emigration. >> as a naturalized american citizen who came here legally, i would like to know how you, as president, plan to prevent illegal immigrants from using our health care, education, or welfare systems? >> senator santorum, why don't you lead off on that one. >> i'm the son of a legal

immigrant in this country and believe in legal immigration. that is a great well spring of strength for our country. we cannot continue to provide -- the federal government should not require states to provide government services, and i have consistently voted against that and believe that we are unfortunately my grandfather came to this country in summer set county. he sdint come here because he was guaranteed a government benefit. he came here because he wanted freedom. most people want it because they want the opportunities of this country, and that's what we should offer. we shouldn't offer to peopletic already lay those that broke the law to come here, we shouldn't offer government benefits. >> dr. paul, on this one, the question comes up once they're in the country illegally, compassion bumps up against enforcing the law and state budget crises. a 5-year-old child of an illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room. does the child get care?

>> we shouldn't have the mandated. we bankrupted the hospitals and schools in texas and other states. we should think about protecting our borders rather than the borders between iraq and afghanistan. that doesn't make any sense to me. there was a time when we didn't depend on government for everything. there was a time when the catholic church looked after them. >> should taxpayers have to pay for that care? >> no, she thoont be forced to. we wouldn't penalize the catholic church. some of the the anti-imt grants want to come down on hard on the catholic church, and that's wrong. this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. when we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn't work, and people flowed over here getting jobs. so there is an economic issue here as well. but no, if you have an

understanding and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before. you don't have to say you won't have care and everybody will starve to death and die on the streets without medical care. that's the implication of the question. that's not true, and you shouldn't accept it. >> mr. cain, another issue in recent years as this debate has bubbled up is the whole question of birth right citizenship. in two adults came in here illegally and have a child, should that child be considered a citizen of the united states? >> i don't believe so. let's look at solving the real problem. immigration is full of problems. not one. we keep kicking the can down the road. get serious about securing the borders, and enforce the laws already there. number three, promote the path to citizenship like this lady did by getting cleaning up the bureaucracy. here's how we deal with the illegals here. empower the states to do what

the federal government hasn't done and won't do and can't do. then we won't get into the problem that was raised. we are a compassionate nation. of course they get care. >> to empower the states, do you support arizona's version, parts of it enforcement law are up held. alabama has a new bill. would you want to be president of the united states in which each state can decide what it does, or would you make the point, this is a federal purview period? >> a strong supporter of state rights, but if the federal government won't do its job, protectsing and securing the border, let the states do it. and they will. when president bush asked governors to volunteer their national goord to go to the border to reinforce through operation jump start our border, i was one of the few governors that did it. i sent minnesota national guard there to reinforce the border, and that works. this birthright citizenship

brings up the importance of appointing conservative justices. that result is because a u.s. supreme court determined that right exists, notwithstanding language in the constitution. i'm the only one up here who's appointed solidly, reliably to the court. >> i want to do one more on this issue. president bush and senator mccain spent a lot of time on this. there are an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. if you rounded them all up and kick them up, they broke the law, they shouldn't be here. i don't know where the money would come from this environment. is that what the federal government should spend money and resources on? or like president bush and like senator mccain, should we have some path to status for those willing to step up and admit where they are and come out of the shadows? >> one of the reasons this country is in so much trouble is

that we are determined among our political elites to draw up catastrophic alternatives. you either have to ship 20 people out of america or legalize all of them. that's nonsense. we're never going to pass a comprehensive bill. obama couldn't get a comprehensive bill through with nancy pelosi and harry reid, and he didn't try because he knew he couldn't do this. you break this down. herman cain is essentially rilt. first of all, you control the border. we ask the national guard to go to iraq and kuwait and afghanistan. somehow we would have done more more american security if we had had the national guard on the border. if you don't want to use the national guard -- one last example. if you don't want to use the national guard, take half of the current department of homeland security bureaucracy in washington, transplant it to texas, arizona and new mexico. you'll have more than enough people to control the border. >> all right. >> let me finish, john.

no serious citizen who is concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in xh you're for totally selling out america or totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way. they are humane, practical steps to solve this problem if we get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly. >> john has a question on the floor. >> congressman paul, this is for you. john, if you don't mind i'd like to hear from governor romney and a couple candidates because it relates to a specific new hampshire issue with a national question. here in new hampshire there is a popular bill that is being considered by our state legislature that would restrict the state's power to seize private land to build a power plant or a transmission facility. should governments at any level be able to use eminent domain for major projects that will reduce america's dependence on foreign oil?

>> no. we shouldn't have that power given to the government where they can take private land and transfer it to a private industry. the eminent domain laws vary in different states, but we have the national eminent domain laws. it was never meant to take it from some people, private owners, and then take it and give it to a corporation because it will help in that locality. this goes back to the basic understanding of property rights. property and free society should be owned by the people and shouldn't be regulated to death by the governments, whether it's washington, d.c. or local governments. right now we don't own the land. we pay rent on the lands. the courts should not have this right to take land from individuals to provide privileges for another group. >> governor romney, you're a property owner in new hampshire. you are a new hampshire property owner. you also are for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. there are a lot of people in the state that are concerned about

this project, but they also want to have energy independence. how do you feel about that? >> i don't believe that land should be taken by the power of government to give to a private corporation, and so the right of eminent domain which is a right used to foster a public purpose and public ownership for a road, highways, and so forth. my view is if land is taken for purposes of a private enterprise, that's the wrong way to go. the right answer for us to have energy independence is to start developing our own energy in this country, and we're not doing this. we have a huge find with natural gas, 100 years of new natural gas has been found. more drilling for oil, natural gas, clean coal. we have coal in great abundance and nuclear power ultimately. it's time for a president who caring about getting america on track for energy security. >> let's stay on this issue because it's important. josh down to the floor. >> timely issue and question for senator santorum. the senate tomorrow is voting on possibly abolishing the ethanol

tax effective july 1st. it will have a major impact on our friends in iowa. they grow corn. this is a move that would basically remove tax credits worth $6 billion. my question to you is, do you support abolishing? >> i actually proposed that we can phase out the ethanol subsidy, which is the blender's credit, over a five-year period of time. i proposed as part of helping nem in that transition. i also phased out the tariff on ethanol coming into the country over the five-year period of time. one of the issues for ethanol industry is distribution networks. i would take half the credit every year, four and a half cents, and use it to help expand distribution for e-85 in other areas of the country. that all would be shut down in five years. i say that because i voted against ethanol subsidies my entire time in congress. the ethanol industry has matured greatly, and i think they're capable of surviving and doing

quite well going forward under that plan. >> all right. we'll work in one more break before we go. believe it or not, we're running out of time here. into and out of every break we've have an experiment this or that. governor pawlenty to you, coke or pepsi? >> coke. >> coke it is. a good swift answer there. before we go to break, we were asking you on twitter to show us what you think. what are the candidates' opinions to withdraw troops from afghanistan? that and more questions when we return here in manchester new hampshire. seven republicans who want to be your next president debating. stay right here.

membership rewards points from american express. the social currency.

welcome back. seven republican candidates for president debating on the campus of st. anselm college in beautiful manchester, new hampshire. we'll turn to foreign policy now. jean has a question. >> reporter: i'm here with john brown from new hampshire. he's retired from the u.s. navy, 25 years of service. right now he has three sons serving in the navy. so you can imagine he has an important question. what would you like to ask tonight, john. >> osama bin laden is dead. we've been in afghanistan for

ten years. isn't it time to bring our combat troops home from afghanistan? >> governor romney, take the lead on that one. >> it's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the government over in the way the afghan military to defend themselves from the taliban. that's an important distinction. i want to say first of all, thank you to you for the sacrifice of your family and your sons in defending the liberty that we have and our friends around the world. thank you for what you've done. >> congressman paul -- >> let me -- let me continue. that is i think we've learned some important lessons in our experience in afghanistan. i want those troops to come home based upon the not politics or economics but based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals. i think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence

for another nation. only the afghanees can win independence from the taliban. thank you. >> congressman paul, do you agree with that decision? >> not quite. i served five years in the military and spent a little time over in pakistan/afghanistan area as well as iran. i wouldn't wait for my generals. i'm the commander in chief. i make the decisions. i tell the generals what to do. i'd bring them home as quickly as possible and get them out of iraq as well and i wouldn't start a war in libya, i'd quit bombing yemen and pakistan. i'd start to take care of people at home. our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. we have no purpose there. we should learn the lessons of history. the longer we're there, the worse things are and the more danger we're in as well because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you.

>> governor pawlenty, a growing number of republicans are more skeptical of these foreign involvements. take what congressman paul said there. he said no bombing in yemen. the strikes in yemen have been targeted at al qaeda leaders and the president of the united states views as serious threats against this nation. do you agree with congressman paul or president obama or the strikes? >> let me say to john thank you for your family's commitment to our nation, to your service, to the sacrifices you made and to the burdens you bear. i speak for everyone in this room when we say we're grateful to you. we wouldn't have the country without people lie you and your sons. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> i start with this perspective. on september 11th, 2001, individuals and groups killed 3,000 or so of our fellow americans. they would have killed 30,000 or

300,000 or 30 million if they could have. if they had the capability to do that in their hands, and as soon as they get it, they'll try. the first duty of the president of the united states as the leader of this nation and commander in chief is to make sure the nation is safe. you bet. if there are individuals i have intelligence on in yemen that present a threat to the security of our region or the united states of america, they will hear from me and we'll continue the bombings. >> let's stay on foreign policy. tom forman in rochester. tom. we lost him. >> all right. we're not -- >> here we go. >> i'd like to know your opinion on your involvement with libya. >> congresswoman bachmann, should the president have supported and jointed more u.s. presence with a nato operation? is that the right thing to do for the united states of neshg? >> no, i don't believe so it is. that isn't just my opinion. that was the opinion of our

defense secretary gates when he came before the united states congress. he could not identify a vital national american interest in libya. our policy in libya is substantially flawed. it's interesting. president obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. the united states doesn't lead from behind. as commander in chief, i would not lead from behind. we are the head. we are not the tail. the president was wrong. all we have to know is the president deferred leadership in libya to france. that's all we need to know. the president was not leading when it came to libya. first of all, we were not attacked. we were not threatened with attack. there was no vital national interest. i sit on the house select committee on intelligence. we deal with the nation's vital classified secrets. we to this day don't yet know who the rebel forces are that we're helping. there are some reports that they

may contain al qaeda of north africa. what possible vital american interests could we have to empower al qaeda of north africa and libya? the president was absolutely wrong in his decision on libya. >> mr. speaker, address the same question. was it in the vital national interest of the united states? as you do so, i had a conversation with a soon-to-be candidate governor huntsman said he didn't think when it came to vital national interest and said we can't afford it right now. should the price tag r the factor when you're the commander in chief of the united states? >> sure. the price tag is always a factor, because generalize hour pointed out and lincoln and washington understood, that's part of the decision. what congresswoman bachmann said should sober everybody. ten years after 9/11 our intelligence is so inadequate we have no idea what percent of the libyan rebels are, in fact, al qaeda. libya was the secondest largest

producer of people that wanted to kill americans in iraq. we need to think fundamentally about reassessing our entire strategy in the region. we should say to the generals we would like to figure out to get out as rapid as possible with the safety of the troops involved and we better find new and different strategies because this is too big a problem for us to deal with with the american ground forces in direct combat. we need a totally new strategy for the region, because we don't today have the kind of intelligence we need to know what we're doing. >> mr. cain, take 30 seconds, please. people say he's a businessman with no experience in government. how would you look at juror responsibilities add commander in chief? >> it starts with making sure we understand the problem, which i don't think we did. we didn't have the intelligence. number two, is it in the vital interest of the united states of america? if the answer is no, then we don't go any further. if it's not in the interest of

america. to paraphrase my grandmother with the situation in libya and many of these other situations, they're not simple situations. it's a mess. it's just an absolute mess, and there's more that we don't know that we do know, so it's difficult to know exactly what we do until like others have said we learn from the commanders in the field. >> let's stay on how you would focus as a commander in chief. jennifer has a voter with a question. >> greg, what's your question tonight for the kndzs? >> well, i support the u.s. military. frankly we're in debt up to our eyeballs. we have nation building going on around the world where the world's police force, world war ii is over, the korean war is over but we have military bases all over europe and asia. we have 900 military bases all over the world. i want to know if there's a

candidate on the stage that is willing to shut down bases not vital to the national security and take the money to pay off our national debt? we have of the year of leadership on this administration's part to put together a strategy where we can confront our enemies and our enemies are asymmetric threats. terrorism, that means that they're not just positioned in the middle east and around a world. that means we have to have the ability to be able to confront those threats from a world which means we need basing around the world. number one, we need that to be able to be nimble and attacker we are attacked because it is not just a threat. we don't need to build bases in germany for a threat from soviet team. it is a much broader threat. we have to engage our allies and our allies know that we have the back. the president has not done that. he has done everything he can

whether it is israel or honduras or whether it is columbia or, he has turned his back on american allies and he has embraced our enemies. our enemies no longer respect is. our friends don't trust us and we have a foreign-policy that unfortunately we will need more of a presence because we have created such a vacuum, thus all the contingency operations we have seen as a result of america's recklessness in dealing with the threats it confronts. >> we have to take our last prepared a lot of things to say. we will get to more issues. take a look and you see the conversation on facebook and twitter. would you have released the photos? good questions for our viewers. we are here on the campus in manchester new hampshire. seven cannister president. we will be right back.

[ male announcer ] the inspiration for its shape was an archer drawing his bow. ♪ could that have also inspired its 556 horsepower supercharged engine? ♪ the all-new cadillac cts-v coupe. we don't just make luxury cars, we make cadillacs. this past year alone there was a 93% increase in cyber attacks. in financial transactions... on devices... in social interactions... and applications in the cloud. some companies are worried. some, not so much. thanks to a network that secures it all and knows what to keep in, and what to keep out. outsmart the threats. see how at cisco.com

cisco. her morning begins with arthritis pain. that's a coffee and two pills. the afternoon tour begins with more pain and more pills. the evening guests arrive. back to sore knees. back to more pills. the day is done but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. just 2 pills can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lara who chose 2 aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. aflac! oh, i've just got major medical... major medical. ...but it helps pay the doctors. pays the doctors, boyyy! [ quack ] oh yeah? what about your family? ♪ we added aflac, so we get cash! it's like our safety net... ♪ to help with the mortgage or whatever we need! so my family doesn't feel the pain too. ha! [ male announcer ] help protect your family at aflac.com.

[ pigeons ] heyyy! hooo!!! [ male announcer ] help protect your family at aflac.com. right now, go to priceline for a sneak peek at recent winning and better than ever! hotel bids to find where you n save up to 60% on hotels. * we'll even email you other people's winning bids, so you'll know what price to name. *á with new hotel bid alerts, from priceline. [ female announcer ] wake up to sweetness with honey nut cheerios cereal. kissed with real honey. and the 100% natural whole grain oats can help lower your cholesterol. you are so sweet to me. bee happy. bee healthy. we are in the closing

moments of the republican presidential debate here in manchester. time flies when you're having fun. let's kick off by going down on the floor. thank you. this is for you, mr. kantor public opinion polls consistently result of low approval ratings for congress as a whole. early polls show lack of enthusiasm for this film of candidates. most of you will feel that you don't watch polls bush and to pay attention to public sentiment and aren't these polls a direct reflection of what voters are and are not looking for? >> yes, i happen to believe that the polls represented a barometer because it is way too early. a lot of the people don't know as yet because it is still early in the process. as people get to know us more and more, i think they will find that this really is a good deal of candidates, at least in my opinion. the people that know the most out everybody up here, they don't see this as a weak field and neither do i.

>> it is likely that the republican nominee for president is standing on the stage tonight. if you win the nomination you'll have to make a choice and that is picking a running mate. look back on 2008, and the process, president obama made a pact and senator mccain may pick. made the best choice? >> senator biden has been wrong about every major strategic decision in the modern history of the international conflict of military. look at his judgment about partitioning. we have a shining example of success in the middle east. if he would have had his way, we would have had a partition and more mayhem in the middle east. i think governor palin as a remarkable leader. i think she is qualified to be president of the united states. i think she is equally as qualified or more and would have been a strong president as joe

biden. he is wrong on everything. >> ahead, governor. >> john, and one of the people on the stage would be a better president than president obama. he has failed in job moore which was to get this economy going. he failed in job two which was to restrain the growth of government. he failed to have a coherent foreign policy. we have had presidents in the past with that form policies. this is the first time we have had a president without a for policy and is hit or miss approach has made a couple of successes but a lot of misses and that is why any one of these people who gets better known by the american people will serve as a president with distinction of the future. >> get that issue, if there is a president bachmann and you are allowed to hire only one of the candidates on this stage, which would it be and why? >> well, maybe we will have to

have an "american idol" contest and go from there. to let the audience decide. >> congressman paul, if you were president and you could. one of these gentlemen and lady to join their ministers, who would be a while? >> join the administration? i would think everybody would qualify. temecula get to. one. >> i have to. one. let me look them over. i would have to do more quizzing. they haven't even told me how they feel about the federal reserve yet. they haven't told me about foreign-policy. >> we are down to our last minute. i want to get to everybody. what have you learned in the last two hours? >> i think what herman said. a great deal of candidates. i was very impressed. i hope everybody else was. these are folks that answer the questions asked of them. >> in the last two hours i have learned more about the goodness

of the american people from the question from john, his three sons that are serving in the navy, his wonderful service. everyone u.s. to question this evening. >> i don't mean to interrupt. >> new hampshire has proven why it is first in the nation to have a primary, the first in the spring. >> governor? >> and new hampshire is proving that the issue people care most about is getting this economy growing again so that we can have rising housing prices and people will have incomes they deserve. they don't have to wonder whether the future is part of the past. people in hampshire love the future. >> i have learned with the group here that disagrees on some issues we can talk about any civil to each other. >> governor? >> i learned that if you trust the people our future is bright and i learned a boston bruins have more heart than the vancouver canucks. >> what i have learned is that