this tuesday is the new hampshire primary. front-runner milt romney had a narrow victory against rick santorum in iowa in the iowa caucuses and he is leading the pack in new hampshire according to the polls this weekend. the candidates had a chance to make their case to voters not only in new hampshire but across at the abc news debate. and cnn will bring you an encore presentation of it and it starts right now.

>> tonight, all eyes on new hampshire. after just eight votes in iowa, separated him -- >> on to new hampshire. >> game on. >> we will win this election. >> the game has changed. >> i have decided to stand aside. now, everything is different. >> what do we need to do as a country. >> can anyone overtake mitt romney as he tries to close in and seal the nomination? can rick santorum build on his success, is time running out for these candidates to catch the front-runner. save their campaigns. >> we have tough decisions to make. >> we will take america back. >> this is going to continue the voting has begun and stakes couldn't be higher, tonight we put them all to the test. live in manchester and st

st. anselm college in partner sh ship, this is the abc republican debate. your voice, your vote. now reporting, diane sawyer, george stephanopoulos and wmur, political director josh mckelvin. >> good evening to all of you. welcome to st. anselm college and first debate of the year, voting is under way. they voted us that every hour counts. >> the candidates. former governor jon huntsman, contribution teenageman ron paul, former governor of massachusetts, mitt romney, rick santorum, the former speaker of the house and texas governor rick perry. >> time to remind everyone again of the rules, they were

negotiated and agreed to by the candidates themselves. so let's take you through them. one minute response with 30 seconds for rebuttal and showing everybody at home the candidates will see green and then when there's 15 seconds left yellow and red. >> our audience was chosen by wmur ch wmur. do download it and pitch in during the debate. we saw 200,000 new jobs created last month. this is the senate. are you with those optimists? >> i certainly hope it turns around. we have millions suffering too

long. 25 million out of work. stopped looking for work. and also a lot of people who have got part-time jobs and need full time employment. very good news. i hope we continue to see good news but it's not thanks to president obama. his polls made the recession deeper and recovery more tepid. as a result of everything from obama care to dodd frank to a stimulus plan not effective, he's made it harder for small entrepreneurs and big businesses to invest in america soy the president is going to try to take responsibility for things getting better. like the rooster taking responsible for the sunrise. he made things harder. >> senator santorum, you said we don't need a ceo or a manager as president. what did you peen by that? >> we need a leader.

someone to paint a positive decision for the country and has the experience to be the commander in chief. i've experienced eight years on the armed services committee and managed major pieces of legislation and iran -- the most pressing welcome back we're dealing with today, it's iran there's no one who has more experience. we need someone and let our allies know they can trust us. if they cross us, they should fear us. >> you were talking about governor romney, were you. >> as the manager part? >> the manager part. >> of course, i was talking about governor romney who brings to the table. he says i'm going to be -- i

have business experience. that doesn't match up with being the commander in chief of the country. the commander in chief isn't a seo but has to lead and also being the president is not a ceo. you can't direct members of congress and members of the senate as to how you do things. you have to lead and inspire. that's what i think the people here in iowa and new hampshire were looking for. someone who can inspire and paint a positive vision for this country and i've been the one that's been able to do it. that's the reason why i think we're doing well in the polls. >> your response? >> i think people who spend their life in washington don't understand what happens in the company. people start as entrepreneurs and start as the ground up and hire people, those are leaders. the chance to lead and free enterprise is critical to being to lead a state and lead the

olympics. my experience is in leadership, the people making this country stronger and hiring people are not successful because they're managers but because they're leaders. i wish people in washington had the experience before they went there and understand the real lessons. groups supporting you have put out a scathing attack on governor romney on his tenure as the ceo of that investment firm bain capital and calls it a story of greed saying they made profits by stripping american businesses of assets and selling everything to the highest bidder and often killing jobs for big financial rewards. do you agree with that characterization? >> i haven't seen the film but reflects one particular company and people should decide.

if it's accurate, it raises questions, i'm very much for free intenterprise, provide leadership, not nearly as enamored where you can flip companies and go in and have leveraged buyouts and take out all the money leaving behind the workers. is that the bane model? it's legitimate to say, okay, on balance where people better off or worse off for this style of investment. >> back in december you said that governor romney made money at bain by laying off employees. >> that was the "new york times" time story two days ago. they walked through in detail and showed what they bought it for, how much they took out of it and the 1700 people they left unemployed.

that's check "the new york times" story. >> your response? >> well, i'm not surprised that "the new york times" tried to put free enterprise on trial. i'm not surprised to have the obama administration do it either. it's surprising my colleagues on this stage. we understand that in the free economy and private sector that sometimes investments don't work and you're not successful. it always pains you if you have to be in a situation of downsizing a business to turn it around and try to grow it again. i'm proud of the fact that the two enterprises i led were kwies successful and olympics were successful and my state was, the state of massachusetts but in the business i had, we invested in over 100 different businesses and net/net taking out the ones that lost jobs and added, those businesses have now added over 100,000 jobs. >> there have been questions about that calculation of the 100,000 jobs. if you could explain more, i read some analysts who say

you're counting the jobs created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. is that accurate? >> no, it's not accurate. it includes the net of both. i have to make sure i have both of them. there is a steel company called steel dynamics. thousands of jobs there. bright horizons. 15,000 there. sports authority, staples alone, 90,000 employed, a business we help to start from the ground up. >> created after you left? >> oh, yes sh, they continue to grow. we were investors to help get them going but in some cases they shrunk. sometimes successfully. sometimes not. this is a free enterprise system. we don't need government to come in and tell us how to work but need people with passion and help turn things around and where that works you create jobs.

>> supporters have taken aim at governor romney's tenure at bain and democrats are preparing to do it, as well. should republicans worry about this attack? is it a weakness or strength. >> part of his record and going to be talked about. i think it's fair for the people of the nation to have a conversation and i have private sector experience and combine a little of what rick santorum talked about and what governor romney has. i come from manufacturing. people will find something in my record but it's important for the people to look at our records because everybody up here has a record that ought to be scrutinize. it goes beyond the government sector. or public sector. take a look at what we did as governor. i think that is probably more

telling in terms of what i would do or what mitt would do as president of the united states. i put both proposals forward. i took my state to number one in job creation with all due respect to what peck perry said. we reformed health care without a mandate and took our state to number one as the most busily friendly. in a time when we need jobs, i think that will be a material part of the discussion. >> 30 seconds. >> i congratulate him on the success in his governorship to make it more attractive. that's got to happen but what -- i actually think it's helpful to have people who had a job in the private sector if you want to create them. we've had a lot of presidents who have wonderful experience and have people whose backgrounds are in the governmental sector. i think now given what america

is facing globally and given an economy that's changed its dynamics dramatically over the last ten years, you need someone who understands how that works at a close level if we're going to be able to post up against president obama and establish a report that says this is different than a president who does not understand job creation. >> congressman paul, let's stay on the issue of records. you have a new ad taking direct aim as north santorum. call him a corporate lobby iist. senator santorum is standing right here. >> it was a quote. somebody did make a survey and he came out as one of the top corrupt because he took so much from the lobbyists. there it goes again. >> they caught you not telling the truth, ron.

what coups is his record. he preaches the fact that he wanted the balance budget so he is a big government person. we know right to work. he supported -- voted against right to world. he voted against no left mind to double the size of the department of education and voted for prescription drug program so he's a big government person along with him being very associated with the lobbyists and taking a lot of funds and also where did he make his living afterwards? he became a high-powered lobbyist in washington, d.c. and he's done quite well. we checked out newt on his income. i think we ought to find how much he made from the lobbyists, as well. >> do i have 0 minutes to answer? >> take your time. >> the corruption issue. the group that called me corrupt

was called crew. if you haven't been sued by crew you're not a conservative. crew is a left wing organization that puts out a list every election of the top republicans who dr. tough races and calls them all corrupt because they take contributions from pacs. it's a ridiculous charge and you should know better than to cite george soros-type organizations. ron, i'm a conservative. i'm not a libertarian. i believe in some government. i do believe that government has -- that as a senator from pennsylvania, that i had a responsibility to go out there and represent the interests of my state. and that's what i did to make sure that pennsylvania was able and formulas and other things to get its fair share of money back. i don't apologize for that any more than you did and earmarked things when you were a congressman in texas. as far as the money that i received, you know, i think i'm known in this race and i was known in washington, d.c. as a

cause guy. i am a cause guy. i cared deeply about this country and about the causes that make me -- that i think are at the core of this country. when i left the united states senate, i got involved in causes that i believe in i. went and worked at the ethics and public policy center and wrote and lectured all over this country and got involved with a health care company. why? i was afraid of what was going to happen and i was asked by a health care can be to be on their board of directors. i don't know whether you think board of directors are lobbyists. they're not. that's the private sector experience that i'm sure mitt would approve of. i worked for a coal company. as i mentioned the other day my grandfather was a coal miner and when i left the senate one of the big issues on the table was cap and trade, global warming and wanted to stay involved in the fray and contacted a local coal company and said i want to join you in that fight and work

together with you and help you in any way i can to make sure we detweet cap and trade and engaged in that battle and i'm proud to have engaged this that battle. >> congressman -- >> it is true. i believe congress should designate how the money should be spent. i agree. but the big difference between the way i voted and the way the senator voted. i always voted against the spending and all the spending. only been a couple appropriations bills i voted for in the past, what, 24, 26 years i've been in washington so you're a big spender. that's all there is to it. a big government conservative and you don't vote for, you know, right to work and these very important things and that's what weakens the economy. somebody has to point out your record. >> i think i have an opportunity to respond. i convinced a lot of people because of it because my record is actually pretty darned good. i supported and voted for a balanced budget amendment, the

line item veto. i used to keep track of all the democratic amendments and all amendments that increased spending. i put on the board something called a spendometer and take all the, quote, spending groups i was rated at the top or near the top every single year. i go back to the point. i am not a libertarian. you vote against everything. i don't vote against everything. i do vote for some spending. particularly in defense. >> first i wanted to bring in governor perry. we'll stay on the subject. >> i'll let you back in here, ron. i think you've seen a great example of why i got in the race because i happen to think i'm the only outsider with the possible exception of jon huntsman who hasn't been part of the problem in washington, d.c. much the insiders in washington, d.c. we have to mom nail someone

who can beat barack obama and get the tea party behind them and go to washington, d.c. and stop the corrupt spending that's been going on it doesn't matter you're from washington, d.c. or dc, that is what americans rightfully see as the real problem in america today. they want swung with executive governing experience. i have been the governor of a tate that created a million net new jobs. that is a record that american people are looking for. that is what americans are looking for and outsider that is not corrupted by the process. >> governor, you're saying congressman paul is an insider? >> i'm telling you, anybody that has had as many -- here's what frustrates me. you get the earmarks and vote against the bill. i don't know what they call that in other plays but congress pane paul in it can, we call that

hypocrisy. >> i call it being a constitutionalist because i believe we should earmark or designation every penny. you designate weapon systems and money to spend a billion dollars on an embassy in iraq. that's an earmark too. i say congress has more responsibility. but this thing back to senator santorum. he ducks behind this -- for this balanced budget amendment but voted five times to increase the national debt but trillions of dollars. this is what the whole tea party movement is about. quit. government is track likely stopped at increasing the national debt. you did it five times. so what's your excuse for that. that's trillions of dollars. you kept this going and didn't do very much to slow it up when you had a chance. >> as i matter of fact i did. i was the author of the only bill that repealed a federal entitlement, welfare reform. i actually promoted and talked and tried to pass social

security reform. i worked on medicare and medicaid. i was one of the only guys out there in a time when we were running surpluses out there talking about the need for lo long-term entitlement reform which is where the real problem s when the government runs up a tab and have the money no longer to pay you have to increase the debt ceiling but every time we tried to tie it with reducing spending. we're in a point where we've blown the doors out of it and as you know back in the last go around i said no, we shouldn't increase the debt ceiling because we've gone too far. routine debt ceiling increases happen throughout the course of the country for 200 years. >> i'd like to pivot and go to another topic which is the issue of commander in chief and national security. governor huntsman, you said that the iranians have made the decision to go nuclear. you think they want a nuclear weapon. tell us why you would be better as commander in chief than the other candidates on this stage?

>> because being commander in chief is less about having the discussions that we've just heard a moment ago, a lot of insider gobbledygook. it's about leading organizations and people and creating a investigate and i've done that my entire career. di that as governor. i took my state to the best managed tate in america. as compared and contrasted with massachusetts which was number 47 during a time when i think leadership matters to the american people. but more than anything else, i believe that this nation is looking for not only leadership but leadership that can be trusted. because let's face it, we have a serious trust deficit. the american people no longer trust our institutions of power and no longer trust our elected officials and i'm here to tell you we must find not just a commander in chief, not just a president, not just a visionary

but we've got to find somebody who can reform congress and do what needs to be done with leading the charge on term limbs. everybody knows we need that. everybody knows we've got to close the revolving door that's corrupted washington and everybody knows, as well that we've got to have someone ho can deliver trust back to wall street which has also lost the american people's trust. >> do you want to speak specifically about anyone on the stage. >> they can all speak for themselves but having served as governor successfully, the only person on this stage, as well, to have lived overseas four times. and run two american embassies, the united states embassy in china, i think understand better than anyone on the stage the complex national security implications that we will face going forward with what is, we all know, the most complex and challenging relationship of the 21st century of china. >> governor romney? >> you have a question or should

i just -- >> my question is the governor just said he can speak better than anybody else. >> he can do better than barack obama, let's put it that way. we had a president who had experience in leadership. never led a business. never led a city. never led a state. and as a result he learned on the job being president of the united states and he has made one error after another related to foreign policy. the most serious of which relates to iran. we have a face intend on becoming nuclear and iran pursued their ambition without sanctions against them and the president was silent when over a million voices took to the streets in iran and should have said we're supporting you and failed to put together a plan to show iran we have the capacity to remove them militarily. this is a failed presidency and the issue in dealing with the responsibility of commander in chief is the issue of saying who has the capacity to lead? who is someone who has demonstrated leadership capacity

who has character, shown that character over their career, who has integrity and i hope each of these people -- i don't want to be critical of the people on the stage. any one of these people would do a better job than our president and i will endorse our nominee, i believe in the principles that made america such a great nation. this is a time when we're faced with not just a nation that is extraordinarily secure and a very, very calm world but facing a danger world and we have a president now who unbelievably has decided to shrink the size of the military. who unbelievably said for the first time since fdr we'll no longer have the capacity to fight two wars at a time. this president must be replaced. >> i want to bring in josh. >> i want to stay on the topic of commander in chief and put you in charge of the most powerful forces in the world. dr. paul was a flight surgeon, governor perry a pilot. there are 25 million veterans in the country. 3 million currently serving active duty so this is relevant

to a large number of voters. governor perry, do you believe having worn a uniform, it better prepares you for commander in chief than those who haven't served. >> i think it brings a very clear knowledge about what it requires for those that are on the front lines but also having been the governor of the state of texas and been the commander in chief for 11 years and 20,000 plus troops we deployed to multiple theaters of operation but i want to go back to the issue we brought up earlier when we talked about one of the biggest problems facing the country. iran is a big problem, senator, without a doubt but let me tell you what this president is doing with our military budget is going to put our country's freedom in jeopardy. you cannot cut $1 trillion from the department of defense budget and expect that america's freedoms are not going to be jeopardized. that to me is the biggest problem that america faces is a president that doesn't

understand the military and a president who is allowing the reduction of the d.o.d. budget so he can spend money in other places and it will put america's freedom in jeopardy. >> talk about the understanding of the military and let's go to you, speaker gingrich. recently dr. paul referred to you as a chicken hawk because you didn't serve given what you just heard governor perry -- >> dr. paul makes a lot of comments. it's part of his style. my father served 27 years in the army in world war ii, korea and vietnam. i grew up up in a military family moving around the world, since 1979 i spent 32 years working with the training and doctrine command, longest server teacher in the military for 23 years and served on the defense policy board but let me say something about veterans. as an army brat, i feel for veterans. we had a great meeting today with veterans and i made a

commitment in new hampshire that we would re-open the hospital in manchester, we would develop a new clinic in the north country using telecommunications and we would provide a system where veterans to go to their local doctor or local hospital. the idea that a veteran in the north country and midwinter has to go all the way to boston is absolutely totally fundamentally wrong and i would say as an army brat who watched his mother, sisters and brothers for 27 years i have a pretty good sense of what military families and veteran families need. >> would you use that phrase again. >> yeah, i think people who don't serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments aren't -- they have no right to send our kids off to war and not be even against the wars that we have. i'm trying to stop the wars but at least, you know, i went when they called me up but, you know, the veterans, the veterans problem is a big one.

we have then hundreds of thousands coming back from the wars that were undeclared. unnecessary, haven't been won. they're unwinnable. we have hundreds of thousands looking for care and we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. so many have -- i mean if you add up all of the contractors and all the wars gone on in afghanistan and in iraq, we've lost 8,500 americans and severe injuries over 40,000 and these are undeclared war. so rick keeps saying you don't want this libertarian stuff but what i'm talking about, i don't bring up the word. you do but i talk about the constitution. constitution has rules and i don't like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars and when those individuals didn't go themselves and then come up and when they're asked they say, oh, i don't think one person could have made a difference. i have a pet peeve. that annoys me to a great deal because when i see these young men coming back, my heart weeps for them. >> speaker gingrich.

>> dr. paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. the fact is i never asked for deferment. i was parried with a child. it was never a question. my father was, in fact, serving in vietnam in the mekong delta at the time he's referring to. i think i have a pretty good idea of what it's like as a family to worry about your father getting killed and i personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with. >> i need one quick follow-up. when i was drafting, i was married and had two kids and i went. >> i wasn't eligible for the draft. i wasn't eligible for the draft. [ applause ] >> congressman paul, while on the subject, the speaker said you have a history of inaccurate statements. there's quite a bit of controversy over the newsletter. a number of comments that were perceived as racist as

inaccurate, you said that even though they were written under your name that you're not necessarily -- thaw didn't know they were written. you don't necessarily stand by them. can you take the time now and explain what happened there? how it was possible those kind of comments went out under your name without you knowing about it. >> it's been explain the every time and there were things written 20 years ago approximately that i did not write so concentrating on something that was written 20 years ago that i didn't write, you know, is diverting the attention from most of the important issues but the interns is obvious that and you even bring up the word racial overtones. pore importantly you ought to ask my relationship is for racial relationships and one of my heroes is martin luther king because he practiced the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience as did rosa parks did. but also i'm the only one up here and the only one in the democratic party that understands true racism in this country in the judicial system

that has to do with enforcing drug laws. look at the percentage. the percentage of people who use drugs is about the same with blacks and whites and yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately and imprisoned way disproportionately and get the death penalty way dispr disproportionate disproportionately. how many types have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution, but poor minorities have an injustice and have an injustice in war, as well. because the minorities suffer more. even with a draft, with a draft they suffer definitely more and without a draft they're suffering disproportionately. if we truly want to be concerned about racism you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws which are being so unfairly enforced. >> we want to thank you for the first round of this debate and we want to take a break right now and when we come back

there's so many family issues, issues of gay rights that have been front and center in this campaign. we'd love to address some of those. s. [ male announcer ] what if we told you that cadillac borrowed technology from ferrari to develop its suspension system? or what if we told you that ferrari borrowed technology from cadillac to develop its suspension system? magnetic ride control -- pioneered by cadillac, perfected in the 556-horsepower cts-v. we don't just make luxury cars. we make cadillacs.

an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, if your car is totaled, we give you the money for a car one model year newer. liberty mutual auto insurance. and they make my life just perfect. we were having too much fun, we weren't thinking about a will at that time. we were in denial. that's right. [ laughter ] we like our freedoms, but at the same time we have responsibilities to the kids and ourselves. we're the vargos and we created our wills on legalzoom. finally. [ laughter ] [ shapiro ] we created legalzoom to help you take care of the ones you love. go to legalzoom.com today and complete your will in minutes. at legalzoom.com, we put the law on your side. and more. if you replace 3 tablespoons of sugar a day with splenda®,

you'll save 100 calories a day. that could help you lose up to 10 pounds in a year. and now get even more with splenda® essentials, the only line of sweeteners with a small boost of fiber, or antioxidants, or b vitamins in every packet. just another reason why you get more... when you sweeten with splenda®. ♪

when will be giving awaylenda®. passafree copies of the alcoholism & addiction cure. to get yours, go to ssagesmalibubook.com. you've got a new ad up in south carolina you've got a new ad up in t south carolina taking direct aim at senator santorum. you call him a corrupt -- a corporate lobbyist, a washington insider with a record of betrayal. you also call him corrupt in that ad. senator santorum is standing right here. are you willing to stand by those charges and explain them? >> well, it was a quote. somebody did make a survey, and i think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists. but really what the whole -- there it goes again. >> it caught you not telling the truth, ron. >> but really -- what really counts is his record. i mean, he's a big government,

big spending individual. >> the group that called me corrupt was a group called crew. if you haven't been sued by crew, you're not a conservative. it's a ridiculous charge. and you should know better.

live from st. anselm college in new hampshire. once again, diane sawyer, george stephanopoulos and wmur-tv's josh mcelveen. >> back in manchester, governor, back to you. senator santorum has been clear in his belief the supreme court was wrong when it decided a right to privacy was embedded in the constitution. he believes states have the right to ban contraception. i should add that he said he's not recommending that states do that -- >> i want to be clear. >> absolutely. giving you your due -- >> tenth amendment -- >> i want to get to that core question. governor romney,

do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy? >> george, this is an unusual topic that you're raising. states have a right to ban contraception? i can't imagine a state banning contraception. i can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so -- >> supreme court had to rule -- >> or a legislator of a state, i would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. so you're asking -- given the fact there's no state that wants to do so and i don't know of any candidate that wants to do so, you're asking could it constitutionally be done? we can ask our constitutionalist here -- [ laughter and applause ] >> i'm sure congressman paul -- >> okay, come on back -- >> but i'm asking you. do you believe states have that right or not? >> george, i don't know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. no state wants to. the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do and

asking me whether they could do it or not is a silly thing. [ applause ] >> hold on a second. governor, you went to harvard law school. you know very well -- >> has the supreme court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? >> yes, they have. 1965, griswold v. connecticut. >> i believe that the law of the land is as spoken by the supreme court and if we disagree with the supreme court and occasionally i do, then we have a process under the constitution to change that decision, and it's known as the amendment process. and where we have, for instance, right now we're having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. my view is we should have a federal amendment to the constitution defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. but i know of no reason to talk about contraception in this regard. >> you accept the supreme court decision defining the right to privacy in the constitution. >> i don't believe they decided that correctly. in my view, roe v. wade was improperly decided. it was based upon that same

principle and in my view if we had justices like roberts, alito, thomas and scalia and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it's in the federal constitution. and, by the way, if the people say it should be in the federal constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there when it's not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through amendment and add it to the constitution. this idea that -- >> should that be done in this case? >> pardon? >> should that be done in this case? >> this case to allow states to ban contraception? no. states don't want to ban contraception. so why would we try to put it in the constitution? with regards to gay marriage, i told you that's when i would amend the constitution. contraception, it's working joust fine, just leave it alone. [ applause ] >> i understand that, but you've given two answers to the question. do you believe that the supreme

court should overturn it or not? do i believe the supreme court should overturn roe v. wade? yes, i do. >> he mentioned my name. >> go ahead. >> i didn't know whether i got time when it was favorable or not. but thank you. no, i think the fourth amendment is very clear. it's explicit in our privacy. you can't go into anybody's house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant. this is why the patriot act is wrong, because you have a right to privacy by the fourth amendment. as far as selling contraceptives, the interstate commerce clause protects this because the interstate commerce clause was written not to impede trade between states but written to facilitate trade between states. so if it's not illegal to import birth controls from one state to the next it would be legal to pass out birth control pills in that state. >> senator santorum. >> what's the question? >> the question -- the right to privacy and the response to congressman paul. >> well, congressman paul's

talking about privacy up the fourth amendment which i agree with him. i don't necessarily agree that the patriot act violates that. obviously we have a right to privacy under that fourth amendment. that's not what the griswald decision nor the roe v. wade decision were about. they created through rights a new right to privacy that was not in the constitution. and what i -- that's, again, i sort of agree with romney's assessment, legal assessment, it created a right through boot strapping through creating something that wasn't there. i believe it should be overturned. i am for overturning roe versus wade. i do not believe we have a right in this country, in the constitution, to take a human life. i don't think that's -- i don't think our founders envisioned that. i don't think the writing of the constitution anywhere enables that. >> i want to turn now, if i can, from the constitution, elevated here, to something closer to home and to maybe families sitting in their living rooms all across this country.

yahoo! sends us questions, as you know. we have them from real viewers. and i'd like to post one because it is about gay marriage but at the level -- i would really love to be able to ask you what you would say personally sitting in your living rooms to the people who ask questions like this. this is from phil in virginia. "given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? what is your solution?" and speaker gingrich. >> well, i think what i would say is we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur. for example, you're in a hospital. if there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay. there ought to be ways to designate that. you want to have somebody in your will. there ought to be ways to designate that. but it is a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we're, therefore,

going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis. the sacrament of marriage was based on a man and woman. has been for 3,000 years. is at the core of our civil days. it's something worth protecting and upholding. and i think protecting and upholding that doesn't mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies everywhere and it's just a civil right. it's not. it is a part of how we define ourselves. and i think that a marriage between a man and a woman is part that have definition. >> governor huntsman, you've talked about civil unions. how do you disagree with the others on this stage? >> well, personally i think civil unions are fair. i support them. i think there's such a thing as equality under the law. i'm a married man. i've been married for 28 years. i have seven kids. glad we're off the contraception discussion.

15 minutes worth, by the way. and i don't feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. on marriage, i'm a traditionalist. i think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman. but i believe that civil unions are fair. and i think it brings a level of dignity to relationships and i believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. i think they should be part of civil unions, as well. and states ought to be able to talk about this. i think it's absolutely appropriate. >> i'd like to go to senator santorum with a similar topic. we're in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry. 1,800 couples have married since it became law in new hampshire. they're starting families, some of them. your position on same-sex adoption. obviously you are in favor of traditional families. but are you going to tell someone they belong in -- as a ward of the state or in foster care rather than have two parents who want them?

>> well, this isn't a federal issue. it's a state issue, number one. the states can make that determination in new hampshire. my feeling is this is an issue that should be -- i believe the issue of marriage itself is a federal issue. that we can't have different laws with respect to marriage. we have to have one law. marriage is, as newt said, a foundation of our country and we have to a singular law with respect to that. we can't have somebody married in one state and not married in another. once we -- if we were successful in establishing that, then this issue becomes moot. if we don't have a federal law, i'm certainly not going to have a federal law that bans adoption for gay couples when there are only gay couples in certain states. so this is a state issue, not a federal issue. >> let me ask you to follow up on that if you don't mind, senator. with those 1,800 -- we have a federal constitution al amendment banning same-sex marriage, what happens to the 1,800 families

who have marriages? are their marriages basically illegitimate at this point? >> if with have -- if the constitution says marriage is between a man and woman, then marriage is between a man and a woman and, therefore, that's what marriage is and would be in this country. and those who are not men and women who are married would not be married. that's what the constitution would say. >> if i can come back to the living room question again, governor romney. would you weigh in on the yahoo! question about what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say we simply want to have the right to, as the person who wrote the e-mail said, we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships. in human term, what would you say to them? >> the answer is that's a wonderful thing to do. and there's every right for people in this country to form long-term, committed relationships with one another. that doesn't mean they have to call it marriage or they have to receive the approval of the state and a marriage license and so forth for that to occur. there can be domestic partnership benefits or a contractual relationship

between two people which would include as speaker gingrich indicated hospital visitation visits and the like. we can decide what kind of benefits we might associate with people would form those kind of relationships state by state. but to say that marriage is something other than the relationship between a man is -- a an and a woman i think is a mitts take. and the reason for that is not that we want to discriminate against people or to suggest that the gay couples are not just as loving and can't also raise children well. well, but it's instead a recognition that for society as a whole, that the nation presumably will be better off if children are raised in a setting where there's a male and a female. and there are many cases where that's not possible, divorce, death, single parents, gay parents and so forth. but for society to say, we want to encourage through the benefits that we associate with marriage people that form partnerships between men and women and then raise children, which we think that will be the ideal setting for them to be raised.

>> speaker gingrich -- >> i just want to raise -- since we spent this much time on these issues, i just want to raise the point about the news media bias. you don't hear the opposite question asked. should the catholic church be forced to close its adoption services in massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples which is exactly what the state has done. should the catholic church be driven out of providing charitable services in the district of columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry? should the catholic church find itself discriminated against by the obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and bigotry of the administration? the bigotry question goes both ways. there's a lot more anti-christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. none of it gets covered by the news media. [ applause ] >> as you can tell, the people in this room feel that speaker gingrich is absolutely right and i do too. i was in a state where the supreme court stepped in and said marriage is a relationship required under the constitution

for people of the same sex to be able to marry. and john adams who wrote the constitution would be surprised. and it did exactly as speaker gingrich indicated. what happened was catholic charities that placed almost half of the adoptive children of our state was forced to being able to provide adoptive services and the state tried to find other places to help children. we have to recognize this decision about what we call marriage has consequence which goes far beyond a loving couple wanting to form a long-term relationship. that they can do within the law now. calling it marriage creates a whole host of problems for the families, for the law, for the practice of religion, education. let me share this, 3,000 years of human history shouldn't be discarded so quickly. >> congressman paul, let me bring this to you. you're running here in the republican primary but you haven't promised to support the party's nominee in november. and you refuse to rule out running as a third party

candidate if you fail to get the nomination. why not rule that out? >> well, i essentially have. it's just that i don't like absolutes like i will never do something but no -- >> -- for a debt ceiling -- >> please don't interrupt me. so i have said this the last go-around. they asked me that about 30 times. i think maybe you've asked me four or five already. and the answer's always the same. you know, no, i have no plans to do it. i don't intend to do it. and somebody pushed me a little bit harder and say, why don't you plan to do it and i say i don't want to. i have no intention. i don't know why a person can't reserve judgment and see how things turn out. in many ways, i see the other candidates as very honorable people, but i sometimes disagree with their approach to government. and i'd like to see some changes. i want to see changes. where they're talking about a little bit of a difference in foreign policy.

an interest in the federal reserve. a change in the monetary policy. we haven't heard one minute of talk about cutting any spending. we've talked previously about cutting the military spending. that's cutting proposed increases. this is why i have proposed we cut a whole trillion dollars that first year. if we're serious as republicans and conservatives, we have to cut. so i want to put as much pressure on them as i can. but beside, i'm doing pretty well, you know. third wasn't too bad, wasn't too far behind. doing pretty well. catching up on mitt every single day. [ laughter and applause ] governor perry, do you think everyone on this stage should rule out third party candidacy? >> i think anyone on this stage is better than what we've got in place. let me just address this issue of gay marriage just very quickly. and it's a bigger issue, frankly. i am for a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between a man and a

woman at the federal level. but this administration's war on religion is what bothers me greatly. when we see an administration that will not defend the defense of marriage act, that gives their justice department clear instructions to go take the ministerial exception away from our churches where that's never happened before, when we see this administration not giving money to catholic charities for sexually trafficked individuals because they don't agree with the catholic church on abortion, that is a war against religion and it's going to stop under a perry administration. [ applause ] >> i would like to turn now if i can back to foreign policy and governor huntsman, afghanistan, 90,000 troops tonight, and we salute them all, serving in afghanistan. what is the earliest you think they should be brought home? >> you know, we've been at the war on terror for ten years now. we've been in afghanistan.

and i say we've got a lot to show for our efforts. and i as president would like to square with the american people on what we have to show for it. the taliban is no longer in power. we've run out al qaeda. they're now in sanctuaries. we've had free elections. osama bin laden is no longer around. we have strengthened civil society. we've helped the military. we've helped the police. i believe it's time to come home. and i would say within the first year of my administration, which is to say the end of 2013, i would want to draw them down. i want to recognize afghanistan for what it is. it is not a counterinsurgency. i don't want to be nation building in southwest asia when this nation is in such need of repair. but we do have a counterterror mission in southwest asia, and that would suppose leaving behind maybe 10,000 troops. for intelligence gathering, for special forces rapid response capability and training. >> governor romney, time to come home? >> well, we want to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can.

and governor huntsman says the end of 2013, the present and the president and the commanders are saying they think 2014 is a better date. we'll get a chance to see what happens over the coming year. we want to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can. and i will -- if i'm president, i will inform myself based upon the experience of the people on the ground, i want to make sure we hand off the responsibility to an afghan security force that is capable of maintaining the sovereignty of their nation from the taliban. but i can tell you this, i don't want to do something that would put in jeopardy much of the hard-earned success which we've had there, and i would bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can. of course based upon my own experience there, going there, informing myself of what's happening there and listening to the commanders on the ground. >> governor huntsman, you have a disagreement? >> yeah, i would have to tell mitt the president of the united states is the commander in chief. of course you get input and advice from a lot of different corners of washington, including

the commanders on the ground. but we also defer to the commanders on the ground about 1967 during the vietnam war, and we didn't get very good advice then. here's what i think is around the corner in afghanistan. i think civil war is around the corner in afghanistan. and i don't want to be the president who invests another penny in a civil war. i don't want to be the president who sends another man or woman to harm's way that we don't -- we're not able to bring back alive. i say we've got something to show for our mission. let's recognize that and let's move on. >> speaker gingrich, do you have any quarrel with that? [ applause ] >> well, i think -- look, i think we're asking the wrong questions. afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mess that is very dangerous. pakistan is unstable and they probably have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. iran is actively try to get nuclear weapons. they go out and practice closing the straits of hormuz where 1

out of every 6 barrels of oil goes through every day. if they close the straits of hormuz, you have the muslim brotherhood winning the elections in egypt. the truth is we don't know who's in charge in libya. you have a regionwide crisis. which we have been mismanaging and underestimating which is not primarily a military problem. we're not going to go in and solve pakistan militarily. we're not going to go in and solve all these other things. look at the right at which iraq is decaying. i mean they began decaying within 24 hours of our last troops leaving, and i think we need a fundamentally new strategy for the region comparable to what we developed to fight the cold war and i think it's a very big, hard, long-term problem. but it's not primarily a military problem. >> senator santorum, would you send troops back into iraq right now? >> well, i wouldn't right now -- >> if you were president -- >> what i would say is newt's right, we need someone who has a strong vision for the region and we have not had that with this president. he has been making mistakes at