can get the data or information. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> next, the debate for colorado's seventh district seat between representative ed perlman and his republican challenger, joe coors. this debate focusing on jobs and the economy was hosted by cbs 4 and colorado is 25 minutes. >> good evening. this is colorado's state of mind. tonight in our series of programs on the next colorado congressional delegation we come district seven, one of the metro area districts where the population is almost 98% urban.

that density is contained in a relatively small area. the seventh district is on the east side of the pink area, and it includes lakewood, aurora and the changing not per september tibble on the map but the people represent thread were previously in district two. democratic congressmen ed perlmutter has held the seat for six years and is a lifelong resident of jefferson county and an attorney. this year, business man joe coors is the republican challenger. he retired of coors tech. every race this year it's about the economy. let's talk first about the fiscal cliff, a combination of tax hikes and huge across the board spending cuts which will

take effect in january unless some kind of compromise is reached. the tax implications are stark. a family with indianapolis the 110 to $140,000 range will see an increase in their tax bill of about $6,000. mr. kouz, even if you would win you would not be in place before any deals that might be made by the end of the year, but if you will, please, talk about the specific compromises you would be willing to make and you'd like to see made to avoid the fiscal cliff. >> thank you, sin thea. first to start off with, as i walk around the district and talk to small businesses, they're absolutely scared to death of what's going to happen on jap 1st -- january 1st if something isn't done. if the kurt rates are ahowed to expire, one million small business owners will be faced with an incredible tax increase. and it's statemented by ernst

and young and by the national federation of independent businesses, that up to 700,000 to a million and a half jobs would be lost as a result of this, because who is going to pay for the extra taxes that fall upon the one million voters. one million owners. so my idea of a compromise would be to extend the current tax rates. nobody gets hurt in a deal like that. and everybody wins. to me it's a win-win deal, and i'd be willing to compromise back to five years, if that would be necessary, and i think, even given five years, that congress might be able to do something. >> part of the robe congress put this in place, this cliff, was to -- because there is certainly feeling the bush tax cuts should not be continued. you are going to be involved in the fray on this, congressman. what do you see?

is it possible to leave things just as they are? >> i think we got to understand how we got here, and so at the end of the clinton administration, we had a surplus, revenues exceeded expenses. and then under george bush we had two major tax cuts. that cost the country $2 trillion. we had two wars that we didn't pay for. they're on a credit card. that's a couple trillion dollars and then a deregulated wall street that ran amok and has cost the country, but three and a half trillion dollars. so half of the nation's debt comes from those three things. it doesn't come from nih grants or education, doesn't come from transportation, and it doesn't come from pbs or big bird and sesame street. but what we face is a major debt that we have to figure out how to pay. and i'm part of a bipartisan group, democrats democrats and

republicans, had have come up with a simpson-bowles legislation, that says for businesses and families and in the nation you have to have revenue and expense. so you need to have revenue and manage expenses in this particular instance, so that we can in a businesslike way, over a ten-year period, reduce the nation's debt, and so i believe, and i hope that after this election, there will be in the lame duck period a bipartisan group, both in the senate and the house, that will get together and come up with something like simpson-bowles, which doesn't take us off a fiscal cliff on january 1st january 1st but provides us with a bipartisan ten-year business plan that reduces the nation's deficit by $4 trillion. >> i think that group you're referring to that you're part of now is 38 people. it would have to grow. >> yeah. we're called the brave 38, by

u.s.a. today, and the post -- we have to do this in a bipartisan fashion. if we dent work together, democrats and republicans, woe went get to this done. and there's a lot at stake and you mentioned nat your opening. >> the simpson-bowles commission was the commission on the deficit which had ban ban people running it and bipartisan support but never came before the congress. are you in fav of simpson-bowles, the thing is it calls for to settle this problem? >> no. >> none of it? >> there's some things. i would like to point out that simple sole bowls was not adopted by even the float united states, was not deposit by the senate, and they brave 38 were left holding the bag. the biggest reason i'm not in favor of simpson-bowles is because it embraces obamacare. i think obamacare is a horrible

disaster financially to this country. >> i'd like to respond. i think one of the -- the main reason that joe doesn't embrace simpson-bowles is because it recognizes we need additional revenue in this country, not just cutting different programs, whether it's big bird and sesame street or some transportation projects or those kinds of things. you have to have both sides of the ledger. you have to look at both things. the revenue and the expense. if we want to make a dent in our debt. and it's just wishful thinking on his part to say, let's just keep these tax cuts that generally benefit the wealthiest people in the country, without -- and just keep those going forever and let just start cutting things. that's not -- we need the services that we have, whether it's fire grants or education, building schools, transportation, those kindses of things improve think we need a businesslike plan that takes us out ten years that really takes

us away from the fiscal cliff and does this in a moderated sort of way, where nothing is sacred. everything is on the table. both on the revenue side as well as the expense side. >> is there a formula in your mind for much -- three dollars in spending cuts and one dollar in revenue, something like that, that will put is on the right path? >> well, for me, it's, let's see how the deals develop, but i think it's probably -- i think simpson-bowles was, for every dollar in revenue, it was two and a half to three dollars in expense cuts. and looking at all kinds of things from defense to health care to interior department. so everything is on the table. i think that's how we have to look at this. even though most of those things didn't create this major debt that the country has incurred over the last ten years, we are where we are and just have to

get busy and get on it. >> do you disagree about the fact that more revenue is going to be necessary to straighten this out? >> the source of the revenue. the united states is the strongest economic power in the world because of small business and the backbone of this country is small business, operating in a free enterprise environment if we can get the government out of the way. put certainty back in the taxes, we'll accomplish that hasn't been accomplished for the last four years that gives the small business sector of the united states, from growing ahead ammunition to really ignite this country's economy. >> why do you think small business has not performed in terms of job creation for the past four years? is it strictly the recession? >> well, yeah. we had a major recession,

something we hadn't faced since the 30s. and so those companies are beginning to grow now. beginning to see unemployment drop today. we heard -- recently we heard that unemployment has dropped to 7.8%, and so we are making inroads and small businesseses are starting up see. in colorado construction is up. home prices are coming back up. so we're on the right track and small businesses will start forming and continue to form and will really put a lot of people back to work, and that's my goal, too. i think we both share that same bowl, but at the same time, we need -- we don't want to go off this fiscal cliff, and we need to have a reasonable business plan that understands that it's both revenue and expense. you can't just cut your way out of this situation. >> since you brought up obamacare, last week in the first presidential debate, mitt

romney talked about obamacare as well. there are certainly plenty of parts of it that he seems to embrace. is it necessary to repeal the whole thing? don't you lose a lot you have to put back in place? >> i'll start with obamacare in its entirety. it's going to add $1.7 trillion to the cost of government over the next ten years. it creates 158 new agencies and programs. creates independent -- advisory board which is going tell wharf they can do and what kind of services they can get and those things are wrong. now, the part i would extend -- my whole platform would be -- i call it tip. we need tort reform because malpractice insurance is some of the biggest costses for private practice, health care private practice. we need to interstate

competition. we need portability. you got be able to take one plan with you. and we need to protect the preexisting conditions. >> congressman, let me ask you to react. >> the two points he just brought up are already in obamacare. there's a pilot project on tort reform. the opportunity to take things across interstate lines, but really, the purpose and the main reason i support the affordable care act, or obamacare, is i it does away with discrimination of people who have prior illnesses or prior health conditions from injuries or the like, and that's huge so that insurance -- an insurance company can't deny you because you have been sick before. and that's a huge step forward in terms of civil rights for this country. seldly, -- secondly, it allows young people to stay on their parent's policy since 26 and that's important for lots and

lots of families. a couple million families. it helps close the doughnut hole that george bush created in his medicare approach. so it helps close that doughnut hole. and one of the most important things is it expand women's health choices. and so i think i'd like to see obamacare maintained. there are always ways to refine and improve anything. >> can you give me one example? what's something you would change or refine? >> one of the things we already worked on there was a additional charge to small businesses over $600, and we modified that early on so that the whole bill would be improved. i think the -- we want to take a look at some of the delivery services, because what this is all about is the cost of health care generally. and so a part of what we want to

do is make sure that administrative costs are reasonable across the board and we want to continue to do that through the affordable care act. >> can i add one more thing? >> sure. >> that is that the obamacare takes $716 billion out of medicare, puts it into obamacare, leaving seniors with less than they've been promised, and we need to protect -- >> a figure everyone knows is out there. >> we need to set the record straight on that one. the $716 billion of savings is over a ten-year period, and that savings is placed back into the medicare system so that the medicare system is prolonged. and so there aren't any benefits cut. there's nothing like that. and so when joe says that, it's just in error. >> i know we could go on and on with that in terms of what president obama and mitt romney have said about it as well. let me switch to something that we aren't seeing talked about everywhere in congressional races and that is gun violence.

our own experience in july with the aurora theater shootings, and then several subsequent mass shootings in wisconsin and minnesota and elsewhere. there really is a cry out there on the part of some people saying, congress should do more than offer condolences. it should be making some actual changes in how and what people can access in this country. what is it that you would get behind in that way? >> well, july 20th was a very sad day for our country and certainly for our city, and the metropolitan area. aurora will never be the same after that mass killing, and i've had a chance to meet with the families of some of the -- some of those who were killed. i've met with others who have been wounded. i met with the medical teams and law enforcement. for me this is very personal issue, and so on one side of the

district you have columbine, where you had a terrible tragedy 13 or so years ago, and then a couple months ago, three months ago in aurora. so, for me, the subject of crowd control, public health, coming from these mass shootings, is something that we just have to deal with, and the most common-sense approaches that can be taken to avoid some of these mass killings, and -- >> banning assault weapons? >> well, you look at the old assault weapons act that expired a couple years ago. that needs to be reviewed. two, that i'm part of now, one is to require -- so right now if you want to buy a firearm, you have to buy it from a licensed firearm dealer, face-to-face, but you can buy ammunition over the internet or through mail order. so one bill i'm cosponsoring requires you have to buy ammunition from a licensed

firearm dealer. you have to do it face-to-face. and another is the weapons this guy holmes had, had extend magazines, 100 round drum on his assault rifle. extended magazines on hand guns, and so another bill is to reduce and not have these extended magazines because it allows it to become like a submachine gun, and rammedly get off lots of rounds of ammunition. so somebody who wants to defend their person or wants to hunt doesn't need these 100 round magazines. >> and so that is exactly what i was about to say to you, that certainly in these mass shooting cases they may be individual cases but without the kind of ammunition and certain weapons that were available, they might not have happened. you support, if i understand correctly, no changes? >> no changes. we need to enforce the laws already on the books better. i go back to -- i can't imagine

the grief of the people, all the people affect by this incredible, heinous act by a mad man. i also believe that you can't do anything to ban enough -- to create enough laws to keep criminals from getting the weapons to carry out these heinous deeds. >> does it make sense to not be able to purchase something online without a face-to-fairs contact? could you get hip that? that you have to buy your weapon and ammunitions from a licensed dealer? >> i support what the governor said. there are not enough laws to keep people from doing things they do. if they want to get them illegally, they will get them illegally. >> joe mentioned the mental health aspects and that's something i think we need to continue to investigate to make

sure that people who do have weapons, really are of sound mind, and so i think that's a place where there would be some common ground. >> is that part of -- >> certainly are looking at different kinds of mental health approaches to who has weapons and the like. so, make sure that if somebody has mental health insures, that information is available to dealers so why know who is buying weapons or ammunition from them. >> i want to get a comment from each of you on the ad you're running, and each of you have called the other's ad dishonest or baseless. i'm going to start with you, mr. coors, could you quickly describe the ad you have which tries to connect congressman perlmutter to solyndra? >> well, solyndra, as you know, has been a horrible example of

government picking winners and losers at the expense of taxpayers. but we'll start at the beginning. congressman perlmutter, did go to washington, dc. this then-wife was a lobbiest for solyndra who got paid $145,000. >> but at that time she was no longer married to congressman perlmatter. >> congressman made a clear promise he would not allow his wife, or to allow either his office or the u.s. house of representatives, and within three months that promise was broken. >> will you give us your reaction to that criticism? >> yes, i will. >> do you have one that came in the newspaper? >> right. what i have here is the editorial response by the denver post to joe's ads. and it's a shame our families

have known each other for a long time, but this ad was over the top in the denver post describes it as despicable, deceitful, and desperate. and it's a shame that they're running that ad, and as the post said, he should be embarrassed. >> the coors campaign is attacking the one you're running in which you imply there was outsourcing of jobs from coorss and there's a korean man who is a star in the ad who is actually a longtime employee here in district seven. what are you trying to accomplish there? >> well, what occurred is coors tech outshoressed jobs to korea, to south korea, and also to mexico, and i believe we want to be making things here in america-not outsourcing jobs. we want to employ folks here in

our country and not elsewhere, and so the picture is one that came from the coors tech web site about their facility in south korea, and there has been -- i know that joe has complained about it, but just from their own investor statements, our facility in korea, quote, allows us to manufacture low-cost product in asia for our u.s. customers and in order to enhance profits the company is transferring certain labor intensative, high volume component manufacturing to sore sew know a, mexico, and finallily his brother said we're pleased with our record third quarter, we're benefiting from the outsourcing trend. so these are statements being made to his investors, and i believe if we make things here

in america, we should be encouraging things like the production tax credit, the wind, energy production tax credit, which then brings manufacturers to america and to our area. >> short answer. tell me why you object to these statements that are made? there? >> congressman doesn't understand what it takes to run a business globally. i can sit here and tell you face-to-face that absolutely no jobs were lost in america because of our decision to open up an operation in south korea in order to serve the markets in asia. in international global business you have to be there sometimes at the request of the customers in order to serve those customers. about but absolutely no jobs were lost as a result of this decision to expand in south korea. >> i wish we could go on but we have come the time when i want to give each of you a chance to

wrap this up with a statement as you would like to make. congressman, will you begin? >> yes. i've now served in this position for six years, and i've grown up in jefferson county, this denver area, and what you learn is if you listen, you're accessible and you work together with others, whether they're democrats or republicans. you can get a lot of things done. whether it's the getting the new v.a. hospital under construction, or helping expand the national renewable energy law so that it can continue its mission of finding new ways to power our nation. you can get a lot of things done. and i'm proud that the denver post has called me the most bipartisan, most centrist member of the colorado delegation, and i think that i can continue to get things done so that the people of the seventh congressional district. my name is ed perlmatter, i'm

running for re-election and i ask for your vote. >> mr. coors. >> i'm honored to take on this assignment, and i've gotten an awful lot of support. i am -- take exception to his his -- most everything he did was rubber stamp for president obama or nancy pelosi. i tend to be a problem solvers. i'm a proven job creator. i can bring some hope to 23 million people in this country who are either underemployed or out of work. >> thank you very mump, both of you. that's colorado state of mind for this week. we thank the candidates for their discussion tonight. congressman, ed perlmatter, the democrat, and joe coarse, the republican. there are two more choices, doug

campbell, and buck bailey. there will be an online library of conversations by going to rmpbs.org/pan ram ha and then look for the colorado colorado state of mind congressional page.

... >> and there's $50,000 in total prizes available. c-span's student cam video competition is open to students grades 6-12. for complete details and rules, go online to studentcam.org. >> we're live at the last 2012 presidential debate between president obama and mitt romney held at lynn university in boca raton, florida. this debate will focus on foreign policy. the moderator is bob schieffer of cbs news. he just finished giving instructions to the audience asking them to be quiet during the debate. waiting for him to introduce the

candidates and ask the first question. [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and good evening, we are live at lynn university in boca raton, florida, the debate will start -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> moderator: good evening from the campus of lynn university here in boca raton,

florida. this is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign brought to you by the commission on presidential debates. this one's on foreign policy, i'm bob schieffer of cbs news. the questions are mine, and i have not shared them with the candidates or their aides. the audience has taken a vow of silence, no applause, no reaction of any kind except right now when we welcome president barack obama and governor mitt romney: [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> moderator: gentlemen, your

campaigns have agreed to certain rules, and they are simple. they've asked me to divide the evening into segments, i'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. you will each have two minutes to respond, and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment. tonight's debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that president kennedy told the world that the soviet union had installed nuclear missiles in cuba, perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. and it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. so let's begin. the first segment is the challenge of a changing middle east and the new face of terrorism. i'm going to put this into two segments, so you'll have two topic questions within this one segment on the subject. the first question, and it

concerns libya, the controversy over what happened there continues. four americans are dead including an american ambassador. questions remain; what happened, what caused it, was it spontaneous, was it an intelligence failure, was it a policy failure, was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? governor romney, you said this was an example of an american policy in the middle east that is unraveling before our very eyes. i'd like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. governor romney, you won the toss, you go first. romney: thank you, bob, and thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. thank you to lynn university for welcoming us here and, mr. president, it's good to be with you again. we were together at a humorous event a little earlier, and can it's nice to maybe be funny this time not on purpose. we'll see what happens. this is, obviously, an area of great concern to the entire

world and to america in particular, which is to see a complete change in the structure and the environment in the middle east. with the arab spring, came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, an opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life and in economic life in the middle east. but instead we've seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events. of course, we see in syria 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there, we see in libya an attack apparently by -- i think we know now -- by terrorists of some kind against our people there. four people there. our hearts and minds go to them. mali has been taken over by al-qaeda-type individuals. we have in egypt a muslim brotherhood president, so we're seeing a pretty dramatic

reversal in the hopes we had for that region. the greatest threat of all is iran four years closer to a nuclear weapon. and we have to recognize that we have to do as the president's done. i congratulate him on taking out osama bin laden and going after the leadership in al-qaeda. but we can't kill our way out of this mess. we're going to have to put in place a comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of islam and other parts of the world reject this radical, violent extremism which is certainly not on the run, it's not hiding. this is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to america long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extreme 'em. extremism. >> moderator: mr. president? obama: well, my first job as commander in chief is to keep the american people safe. and that's what we've done over the last four years. we ended the war in iraq,

refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. and as a consequence, al-qaeda's core leadership has been decimated. in addition, we're now able to transition out of afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that afghans take responsible for their own security. and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. now, with respect to libya, as i indicated in the last debate when we received that phone call, i immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those americans who were still in harm's way. number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened, and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed americans, and we would bring them to justice. and that's exactly what we're going to do. but i think it's important to step back and think about what happened in libya. keep in mind that i and

americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to -- without putting troops on the ground, the cost of less than what we spent in less than two weeks in the iraq -- liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years. and as a consequence despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of libyans after the events in benghazi marching and saying america's our friend. we stand with them. now, that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. and, you know, governor romney, i'm glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al-qaeda. but i have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the middle east. romney: well, my strategy's

pretty straightforward which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to kill them, to take them out of the picture. but my strategy is broader than that. that's important, of course. but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a pathway to get the muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. we don't want another iraq, we don't want another afghanistan. that's not the right course for us. the right course is to make sure we go after people who are the leaders or these various anti-american groups and these jihadists, but also help the muslim world, and how do we do that? a group of arab scholars came together organized by the u.n. to look at how we can help the world reject these terrorists, and the answer they came up with was this: one more economic development. we should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure we push back andtive them more economic development. number two, better education.

number three, gender equality. number four, the rule of law. we have to help these nations create civil societies. but what's been happening over the last couple of years as we've watched this tumult in the middle east, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see al-qaeda rushing in, you see other jihadist groups rushing in. and they're throughout many nations in the middle east. it's wonderful that libya seems to be making some progress despite this terrible tragedy. but next door, of course, we have egypt, libya's six million population, egypt 80 million population. we want to make sure that we're seeing progress throughout the middle east with mali now having north mali taken over by al-qaeda, with syria having assad continuing to kill, murder his own people. this is a region in tumult and, of course, iran on the path to a nuclear weapon. we've got -- >> moderator: we'll get to that, but let's give the president a chance. obama: governor romney, i'm glad you recognize al-qaeda's a

threat because a few months ago you said russia was the biggest geopolitical threat. and the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the cold war's been over for 20 years. but, governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. you say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in iraq right now. and the challenge we have -- i know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. you said we should have gone into iraq despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. you said that we should still have troops in the iraq to this day. you indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with

russia, despite the fact that 71 senators, democrats and republicans, voted for i. -- voted for it. you've said that, first, we should not have a timeline in afghanistan, then you said we should. now you say maybe or it depends. which means not only were you wrong, but you're also confusing ask sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies. so what we need to do with respect to the middle east is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. and, unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for american strength or keeping america safe -- >> moderator: i'm going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond. romney: well, of course i don't concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that i've said. they don't happen to be accurate. i can say this, that we're talking about the middle east and how to help the middle east

reject the terrorism and the rising tide of tumult and confusion. and attacking me is not an agenda. attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the middle east and take advantage of the opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. but i'll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. first of all, russia, i indicated, is a geopolitical foe. excuse me. it's a geopolitical foe, and in the same paragraph i said and iran is the greatest national security threat we face. russia does continue to battle us in the u.n. time and time again. i have clear eyes on this. i'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to russia or mr. putin, and i'm certainly not going to say to him, i'll give you more flexibility after the election. after the election he'll get more backbone. number two, with regards to iraq, you and i agreed, i believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. obama: that's not true. romney: oh, you didn't want a -- obama: no, what i would not have

done is leaf 10,000 troops in iraq that would tie us down. romney: i'm sorry, you actually -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and i concurred and said we should have some number of troops -- obama: governor -- romney: that was my posture as well. i think there should have been more troops, but the answer was -- obama: this is just a few weeks ago that you indicated we should still have troops in iraq. romney: i'm sorry, that's -- obama: you made a speech. romney: i indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that -- obama: golf, here's one thing -- governor, here's one thing i've learned as commander in chief. you've got to be clear both to our allies and our enemies about where you stand. and what you mean. now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in iraq. that is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenge of the

middle east. now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. so what i've done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts. number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in israel's security because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region. number three, we do have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population -- not just half of it -- is developing. number four, we do have to develop their economic, their economic capabilities. but number five, the other ting that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do nation building in these regions. part of american leadership is making sure we're doing nation building here at home. that will help us maintain the kind of american leadership that we need. >> moderator: let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the middle

east and so on, and that is you both mentioned, alluded to this, and it is a syria. the war in syria's now spilled over into lebanon. we have, what, more than 100 people that were killed there in a woman. there in a bomb. there were demonstrations there, eight people dead. mr. president, it's been more than a year since you told assad he had to go. since then 30,000 syrians have died. we've had 300,000 refugees, the war goes on, he's still there. should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there, or is that even possible, and you go first, sir. obama: what we've done is organize the international community saying assad has to go. we've mobilized sanctions against that government. we have made sure that they are isolated. we have provided humanitarian assistance, and we are helping the opposition organize, and we're particularly interested in

making sure that we're mobilizing the moderate forces inside of syria. but ultimately, syrians are going to have to determine their own future. and so everything we're doing, we're doing in this consultation with our partners in the region, including israel which, obviously, has a huge interest in seeing what happens in syria. coordinating with turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. now, what we're seeing taking place in syria is heartbreaking, and that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. but we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in syria is a serious step. and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping, that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or our allies in the region. and i am confident that assad's days are numbered. but what we can't do is to

simply suggest that, as governor romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term. >> moderator: governor? romney: well, let's step back and talk about what's happening in syria and how important it is. first of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. secondly, syria's an opportunity for us because syria plays an important role in the middle east, particularly right now. syria is iran's only ally in the arab world. it's their route to the sea. it's the route for them to arm hezbollah in lebanon which threatens, of course, our ally, israel. so seeing syria remove assad is a very high priority for us. number two, seeing a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. and finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. we don't want to get drawn into a military conflict. so the right course for us is working through our partners and with our own resources to

identify responsible parties within syria, organize them, bring them together in a form of if not government, a form of counsel that can take the lead in syria and then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. we do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the wrong hands. those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. we need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies and particularly with israel. but the saudis and the qatari and the turks are all very concerned about this. they're willing to work with us. we need to have a very effective leadership effort in syria making sure that the insurgents there are armed and that the insurgents that become armed are people who will be the responsible parties. recognize that i believe assad must go. i believe he will go. but i believe we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people that take his place such that in the years to come we see syria as a friend and

syria as a responsible party in the middle east. this is a critical opportunity for america, and what i'm afraid of is that we've watched over the past year or so, first, the president saying, well, we'll let the u.n. deal with it and assad -- excuse me, kofi annan came in and said we're going to have a ceasefire. that didn't work. then it looked to the russians and said see if you can do something. we should be playing the leadership role there. not on the ground with military. >> moderator: all right. obama: we are playing the leadership role. we organized the friends of syria, we are mobilizing humanitarian support and support for the opposition. and we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term. but, you know, going back to libya because this is an example of how we make choices. you know, when we went into libya and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize,

we also had to make sure that moammar moammar gadhafi didn't stay there. and to the governor's credit, you supported us going into libya and the coalition we organized. but when it came time to making sure that gadhafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle. imagine if we had pulled out at that point. you know, moammar gadhafi had more american blood on his hands than any individual other than osama bin laden. so we were going to make sure that we finished the job. that's part of the reason why the libyans stand with us. but we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with, and we had to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to syria. that's exactly what we're doing. >> moderator: governor, can i

just ask you, would you go beyond what the administration would do, like for example, would you put in no-fly zones over syria? romney: i don't want to have our military involved in syria. i don't think there's a necessity to put our military in syria at this stage, and i don't anticipate that in the future. as i indicated, our objectives are to replace assad and to have in place a new government which is friendly to us, a responsible government if possible, and i want to make sure they get armed. and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but also to remove, to remove assad. but i do not want to see a military involvement on the part of our troops. and this isn't, this isn't going to be necessary. we have with our partners in the region we have sufficient resources to support those groups. but, look, this has been going on for a year. this is a time -- this should have been a time for american leadership. we should have taken a leading role -- not militarily -- but a leading role organizationally, governmentally to bring together the parties there to find responsible parties.

as you hear from intelligence sources even today, the insurgents are highly disparate, they haven't come together, they haven't formed a unity group, a counsel of some kind. that needs to happen. america can help that happen. and we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role which is getting rid of assad. >> moderator: can we get a quick response, mr. presq/mv

take responsible for protecting religious minorities, and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that. to recognize the rights of women which is critical throughout the region. these countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need. they have to abide by their treaty with israel. that is a red line for us. because not only is israel's security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels. they have to make sure they're cooperating when it comes to counterterrorism, and we will

help them with respect to developing their own economy because, ultimately, what's going to make the egyptian revolution successful for the people of egypt but also for the world is if those young people who gather there are seeing opportunities. their aspirations are similar to young people's here. they want jobs, they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school, they want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future. ask so one of the things that we've been doing is, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these egyptians to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that's noncorrupt, that's transparent. but what is also important for us to understand is that for america to be successful in this region there are some things that we're going to have to do here at home as well. you know, one of the challenges over the last decade as we've done experiments in nation

building in places like iraq and afghanistan, we've neglected our own economy, energy sectors, education system, and it's very hard to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do -- >> moderator: governor romney, i want to hear your response to that, but i would just ask you, would you have stuck with mubarak? romney: no. i believe as the president indicated and said at the time that i supported his action there. i felt that i wish we'd have had a better vision of the future. i wish that looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way it did. but once it exploded, i felt the same that the president did which is these freedom voices in the streets of egypt were the people who were speaking of our

principles and president mubarak had done things which were unimaginable. and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support. let me step back and talk about what i think our mission has to be in the middle east and even more broadly. because our purpose is to make sure the world is more, the peaceful. we want a peaceful planet. we want people to end joy their lives and -- enjoy their lives and not be at war. the mantle of leadership has fallen to america. we didn't ask for it, but it's an honor that we have it. but for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong. and that begins with a strong economy here at home and, unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. when the -- the president of iraq, excuse me, of iran, ahmadinejad, says that our debt makes us not a great country. that's a frightening thing. former chief of the -- joint chiefs of staff said that, admiral mullen, said our debt is the biggest national security

threat we face. we have weakened our economy. we need a strong economy. we need to have, as well, a strong military. our military's second to none in the world. we're blessed with terrific soldiers and extraordinary technology and intelligence. but the idea of a trillion dollars in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would change that. we need to have strong allies. our association and connection with our allies is essential to america's strength. we're the great nation that has allies. 42 allies and friends around the world. and finally, we have to stand by our principles. and if we're strong in each of those things, american influence will grow. but unfortunately, in nowhere in the world is america's influence greater today than it was four years ago -- >> moderator: you're going to get a chance to respond to that because that's a perfect segway into our next segment, and that is what is america's role in the world, and that is the question. what do each of you see as our role in the world, and i

believe, governor romney, it's your turn to go first. romney: well, i absolutely believe that america has a responsibility and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that make the world more peaceful. and those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections. because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. they don't vote for war. so we want to promote those principles around the world. we recognize that there are places of conflict in the world. we want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. but in order to be able to full fill our role in the world, america must be strong. america must lead. and for that to happen, we have to strengthen our economy here at home. you can't have 23 million people struggling to get a job. you can't have an economy that over the last three years keeps slowing down its growth rate. you can't have kids coming out of college, half of whom can't

find a job today or a job that's commensurate with their college degree. we have to get our economy going. and our military, we've got to strengthen our military long term. we don't know what the world is going to throw at us down the road. we make decisions today in the military that we'll confront challenges we can't imagine n. the 2000 debates, there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. and a year later 9/11 happened. so we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty, and that means a strong military. i will not cut our military budget. we have to also stand by our allies. i think the tension that existed between israel and the united states was very unfortunate. i think, also, that pulling our missile defense program out of poland in the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of, if you will, disrupting the relationship in some ways that existed between us. and then, of course, with regards to standing for our principles, when the students took to the streets in tehran and the people there protested, the green revolution occurred,

for the president to be silent, i thought, was an enormous mistake. we have to stand for our principles, stand for our allies, stand for a strong military and stand for a stronger economy. >> moderator: mr. president? obama: america remains the one indispensable nation, and the world needs a strong america, and it is stronger now than when i came into office. because we ended the war in iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat, but also beginning a transition process in afghanistan. it also allowed us to refocus on alliances, relationships that had been neglected for a decade. and, governor romney, our alliances have never been stronger in asia, in europe, in africa, with israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation including dealing with the iranian threat. but what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding america.

and can that's what my plan -- and that's what my plan does. making sure we're bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we're creating jobs here as we've done with the auto industry, not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas. making sure that we've got the best education system in the world including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. doing everything we can to control our own energy. we've cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades. because we've developed oil and natural gas, but we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports this half by 2020. that's the kind of leadership that we need to show. and we've got to make sure that we reduce our deficit. unfortunately, governor romney's plan doesn't do it. we've got to do it in a responsible way by cutting out spending we don't need, but also asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that way we can invest in the research and technology that's always kept us at a cutting edge.

now, governor romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. you know, both at home and abroad he has proposed wrong and reckless policies. he has praised george bush as a good economic steward and dick cheney as somebody who shows great wisdom and judgment, and taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century. >> moderator: governor romney, wrong and reckless policies? [laughter] romney: i've got a policy for the future and an agenda for the future. and when it comes to our economy here at home, i know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take home pay. and what we've seen over the last four years is something i don't want to see over the next four years. the president said by now we'd be at 5.4% unemployment. we're nine million jobs short of that. i will get america working again and see rising take home pay, and i'll do it with phi simple -- five simple steps. number one, we are going to have north american energy independence by taking full

advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables. number two, we're going to increase our trade. trade grows about 12% per year and doubles every fife or so years -- five or so years. we can do better than that, particularly in latin america. we have just not taken advantage of the opportunities fully. latin america's economy is almost as big as china. we're all focused on china. latin america's a huge opportunity for us. time zone, language opportunities. number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our workers and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first and the teachers' unions going to have to go behind. and then we're going to have to get to a balanced budget. we can't expect entrepreneurs and businesses large and small to take their life savings or their company's money and invest in america if they think we're headed to the road to greece. and that's what -- where we're going unless we get off this spending and borrowing binge.

and finally, number five, we've got to champion small business. small business is where jobs come from. two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. new business formation is down at the lowest level in 30 years under this administration. i want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take home pay. obama: let's talk about what we need to compete. first of all, governor romney talks about small businesses, but, governor, when you were in massachusetts, small business development ranked about 48th, i think, out of 50 states in massachusetts. because the policies you're promoting don't actually help small businesses, and the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top. they include you and me. that's not the kind of small business promotion we need. but let's take an example we know is going to make a difference in the 21st century, and that's our education policy. we didn't have a lot of chance to talk about this in the last debate. now, under my leadership what we've done is reformed education working with governors, 46

states. we've seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time, and they're starting to finally make progress. and what i now want to do is to hire more teachers, especially in math and science because we know that we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science. and those teachers can make a difference. now, governor romney, when you were asked by teachers whether or not this would help the economy grow, you said this isn't going to help the economy grow. when you were asked about reduced class sizes, you said class sizes don't make a difference. but i tell you, if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference. and if we've got math teachers who are able to provide the kind of support that they need for our kids, that's what's going to determine whether or not the new businesses are created here, companies are going to locate here depending on whether we've got the most highly-skilled work force and the kinds of budget proposals that you've put forward when we don't ask either you or me to pay a dime more in terms of reducing the deficit,

but instead we slash support for education, that's undermining our long-term competitiveness. that is not good for america's position in the world. and the world notices. >> moderator: let me get back to foreign policy. can i just get back to -- romney: well, i need to speak a moment if you'll let me, bob, just about education -- >> moderator: okay. romney: i'm so proud of the state that i had the chance to be governor of. we have every two years tests that look at how well our kids are doing. fourth graders and eighth graders are tested in english and math. i was proud that our fourth graders came out number one in all 50 states in english and also in math. and our eighth graders number one in english and in math. first time one state had been number one in both measures. republicans and democrats came together on a bipartisan but a sis -- basis that focused on having great teachers in the classroom. that allowed us to become the number one --

obama: that was ten years ago before you took office, and then you cut education when you came into office. romney: and our state is still number one today. and the principles we put in place, we at gave kids not just a graduation exam that determined whether they were up to the skills they needed to compete, but if they graduated in the top quarter of their class, they got a four-year tuition-free ride at any massachusetts public institution of -- obama: that happened before you came into office. romney: that was actually mine, mr. president. >> moderator: i want to try to shift it, because we have heard some of this in the other debates. governor, you say you want a bigger military, you want a bigger navy. you don't want to cut defense spending. what i want to ask you, we're talking about the -- [inaudible] in this country, where are you going to get the money? romney: let's talk about the military all the way through. first of all, i'm going through from the very beginning, we're going to cut about 5% of the discretionary budget excluding military. that's number one --

>> moderator: get through this without -- romney: the good news is i'll be happy to have you take a lookment come on our web site, you'll look at how we get to a balanced budget in 8-10 years. by the way, number one i'd get rid of is obamacare. there are a number of things that sound good, but frankly, we just can't afford them. and that one doesn't sound good, and it's not affordable. so i'd get rid of that one from day one. to the extent humanly possible, we'd take that out. program after program that we don't absolutely have to have, and we get rid of them. number two, we take some programs that we are going to keep like medicaid which is a program for the poor, we take that health care program for the poor, and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently. as a governor, i thought, please, give me this program. >> moderator: can he do that? romney: states are proving it. states like arizona, rhode island, have taken these medicaid dollars, have shown

they can run these programs more cost effectively. obama. obama: bob? romney: let's come back to the military. >> moderator: that's what i want to come back to. obama: you should have answered the first question. look, governor romney's called for $5 trillion of tax cuts that he says he's going to pay for by closing deductions. now, the math doesn't work, but he continues to claim he's going to do it. he then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for. now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that i've been in office. we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined; china, russia, france, the united kingdom, you name it. next ten. and what i did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that

we are safe. and that's the budget that we've put forward. but what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military's not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts. you say that you're going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions without naming what those loopholes and can deductions are, and then somehow you're also going to deal with the deficit that we've already got. the math simply doesn't work. but when it comes to our military, what we have to think about is not, you know, just budgets, we've got to think about capabilities. we need to be thinking about cybersecurity. we need to be thinking about space. that's exactly what our budget does, but it's driven by strategy. it's not driven by politics, it's not driven by members of congress and what they would like to see. it's driven by what are we going the need to keep the american people safe. that's exactly what our budget does, and it also then allows us to reduce our deficit which is a

significant national security concern. because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas. romney: bob, i'm pleased that i balance budgets. i was in the world of business for 25 years. if you didn't balance your budget, you went out of business. i went to to olympics, and we got it on balance and made it a success. i had a chance to be governor of a state. four years in a row democrats and republicans balanced the budget. we cut taxes 19 times, balanced our budget. the president hasn't balanced a budget yet. i expect to have the opportunity to do so myself. i'm going to be able to balance the budget. let's talk about military spend, and that's in the -- >> moderator: 30 seconds. romney: excuse me. our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. the navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. we're now to 285. we're headed down to the low 200s if we go through she

she -- sequestration. our air force is older and smaller at any time since it was founded in 1947. we've changed for the first time since fdr, since fdr we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. now we're changing to one conflict. this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the president of the united states which is to maintain the safety of the american people, andly not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars which is the combination of the budget cuts that the president has as well as the sequestration cuts. that, in my view, is making our future less certain and less secure. obama: bob, i have comments on this. first of all, the sequester's not something that i proposed, it's something that congress has proposed, it will not happen. the budget that we're talking about is not reducing our military spending, it's maintaining it. but i think governor romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you mentioned the navy, for

example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. we have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. we have ships that go under water, nuclear submarines. and so the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's what are our capabilities. and so when i sit down with the secretary of the navy and the joint chiefs of staff, we determine how are we going to be best able the meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. and can that is not reflected -- and that is not reflected in the kind of budget you're putting forward because it just doesn't work. >> moderator: all right. obama: we visited the web site quite a bit, and it still doesn't work. [laughter] >> moderator: a lot to cover. i'd like to move to the next segment. red lines, israel and iran.

would either of you, and you'll have two minutes, and president obama, you have the first go at this one. would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on israel is an attack on the united states? which, of course, is the same promise that we give to our close allies like japan. and if you made such a declaration, would not that deter iran? it's certainly deterred the soviet union for a long, long time when we made that, when we made that promise to our allies. mr. president? obama: first of all, israel is a true friend, it is our greatest ally in the region, and if israel is attacked, america will stand with israel. i've made that clear throughout my presidency. >> moderator: so you're saying you've already made that declaration? obama: i will stand with israel if they are attacked. and this is the reason why working with israel we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation

between our two countries in history. in fact, this week we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with israel in history. this very week. but to the issue of iran, you know, as long as i'm president of the united states, iran will not get a nuclear weapon. i've made that clear when i came into office. we then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. their currency has dropped 80%. their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with iraq 20 years ago. so their economy is in a shambles. and the reason we did this is because a nuclear iran is a threat to our national security, and it's a threat to israel's national security. we cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. iran's a state sponsor of terrorism, and for them to be able to provide nuclear

technology to nonstate actors, that's unacceptable. and they have said that they want to see israel wiped off the map. so the work that we've done with respect to sanctions now offers iran a choice. they can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program, or they will have to face a united world and a united states president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table. the disagreement i have with governor romney is that during the course of this campaign he's often talked as if we should take premature military action. i think that would be a mistake because when i've sent young men and women into harm's way, i always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort. >> moderator: two minutes. romney: well, first of all, i want to underscore the same point the president made which is that if i'm president of the united states, when i'm president of the united states, we will stand with israel. and if israel is attacked, we

have their back. not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. that's number one. number two, with regards to iran and the threat of iran, there's no question but the nuclear iran and nuclear-capable iran is unacceptable to america. it presents a threat not only to our friends, but ultimately a threat to us to have iran have nuclear material, nuclear weapons that could be used against us or to be threatening to us. it's also essential for us to understand what our mission is in iran, and that is to dissuade iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means. and crippling sanctions was something i called for seven years ago, number one. and they do work. you're seeing it right now in the economy. it's absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. i'd have put them in place earlier, but it's good that we have them. number two, something i would add today is i would tighten those sanctions. i would say that ships that carry iranian oil can't come

into our ports. i imagine the e.u. would agree with us as well. not only ships couldn't, i'd say companies that are moving their oil can't, people who are trading in their oil can't, i would tighten those sanctions further. secondly, i'd take on diplomatic isolation efforts. i'd make sure that ahmadinejad is indicted under the genocide conventions. i would indict him for it. i would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world, the same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of south africa. we need to increase pressure time and time again on iran because anything other than the solution to this which says, which stops this nuclear folly of theirs is unacceptable to america. and, of course, a military action is the last resort. it is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues have been tried to their full extent. >> moderator: let me ask both of you, as you know, there are

reports that iran and the united states is part of an international group have agreed in principle to talks about iran's nuclear program. what is the deal if there are such talks, what is the deal that you would accept, mr. president? obama: well, first of all, those are reports in the newspaper. they are not true. but our goal is to get iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the u.n. resolutions that have been in place because they had the opportunity to reenter the community of nations. and we would welcome that. there are people in iran who have the same aspirations as people all around the world for a better life. and we hope that their leadership takes the right decision. but the deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program. it's very straightforward. and, you know, i'm glad that governor romney agrees with the steps that we're taking.

you know, there have been times, governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did, but you'd say 'em louder, and somehow that would make a difference. and it turns out that the work involved in the setting up these crippling sanctions is pain staking. it's meticulous. we started from the day we got into office, and the reason it was so important -- and this is a testament to how we've restored american credibility and strength around the world -- is we had to make sure that all the countries participated, even countries like russia and china. because if it's just us that are imposing sanctions, we've had sanctions in place for a long time. it's because we got everybody to agree that iran is seeing so much pressure. and we've got to maintain that pressure. there is a deal to be had, and that is that they abide by the rules that have already been established, they convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program.

there are inspections that are very intrusive, but over time what they can do is regain credibility. in the meantime, though, we're not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that takes place, and one last thing just to make this point, the clock is ticking. you know, we're not going to allow iran to perpetally engage in negotiations that lead nowhere, and i've been very clear to them, you know, because of the intelligence coordination that we do with a range of countries including israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program. and that clock is ticking. and we're going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon. >> moderator: governor? romney: i think from the very beginning one of the challenges we've had with iran is they have

looked at this administration and felt the administration was not as strong as it needed to be. i think they saw weakness where they had expected to find american strength. and i say that because from the very beginning the president and his campaign said he'd meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year, he'd sit down with chavez and kim jung-il, with castro and with president ahmadinejad of iran. and i think they looked and thought, well, that's an unusual honor to receive from the president of the united states. and then the president began what i've called an apology tour of going to various nations in the middle east and criticizing america. i think they looked at that and saw weakness. then when there were disdents in the streets of day ran, a green -- tehran, a green revolution holding signs saying, is america with us, the president was silent. i think they noticed that as well. and i think when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and israel, that they noted that as well. all of these things suggested, i

think, to the iranian mullahs that, hey, we can keep on pushing along here. we can keep talks going on, but we're just going to keep on spinning centrifuges. now there's some 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium, preparing a nuclear threat to the united states and to the world. that's unacceptable for us, and it's essential for a president to show strength from the very beginning. to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable, and an iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. they must not develop nuclear capability. and the way to make sure they understand that is by having from the very beginning the tightest sanctions possible. they need to be tightened, our diplomatic isolation needs to be tougher. we need to indict ahmadinejad, we need to put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can because if we do that, we won't have to take the military action. obama: bob, let me just respond. nothing governor romney just said is true. starting with this notion of me apologizing. this has been probably the

biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign. and every fact checker and every reporter who's looked at it, governor, has said this is not true. and when it comes to tightening sanctions, look, as i said before, we've put in the toughest, most crippling sanctions ever. and the fact is while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with the iranian oil sector. so i'll let the american people decide, judge who's going to be more effective and more credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. and with respect to our attitude about the iranian revolution, i was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place, and that was contrary to international law and everything that civilized people stand for. and so the strength that we have shown in iran is shown by the

fact that we've been able to mobilize the world. when i came into office, the world was divided. iran was resurgent. iran is at its weakest point economically, strategically, militarily than since, than in many years. and we are going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon. that's in america's national interests, and that will be the case so long as i'm president. rock. romney: we're four years closer to a nuclear iran, and we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get this much closer. number two, the reason i call it an apology tour is because you went to the middle east, and you flew to egypt and to saudi arabia and to turkey and iraq, and -- by the way, you skipped israel, our closest friend in the region. but you went to the other nations. and by the way, they noticed

that you skipped israel. and then in those nations and on arabic tv you said america had been dismissive and derisive. you said that on occasion america had dictated to other nations. mr. president, america has not dictated to other nations, we have freed other nations from dictators. obama: bob, let me respond. you know, if we're going to talk about trips that we've taken, you know, when i was a candidate for office, first trip i took was to visit our troops. and when i went to israel as a candidate, i didn't take donors, i didn't attend fundraisers. i went to the holocaust museum there to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with israel will be unbreakable. and then i went down to the border towns which had experienced missiles raining down from hamas, and i saw

families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms, and i was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids. which is why as president we funded an iron dome program to stop those missiles. so that's how i've used my travels. when i travel to israel and when i travel to the region. and the central question at this point is going to be who's going to be credible to all parties involved. and can they can look at my track record whether it's iran sanctions, whether it's dealing with counterterrorism, whether it's supporting democracy, whether it's supporting women's rights, whether it's supporting religious minorities, and they can say that the president of the united states and the united states of america has stood on the right side of history. and that kind of credibility is precisely why we've been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right

now. >> moderator: what if, what if the prime minister of israel called you on the phone and said our bombers are on the way, we're going to bomb iran. what do you -- romney: let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature. our relationship with israel, my relationship with the prime minister of israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way. this is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of -- >> moderator: so you're saying it just wouldn't happen. okay, let's see what -- [inaudible conversations] romney: let's go back to what the president was speaking about which is what's happening in the world, and the president's statement that things are going so well. look, i look at what's happening around the world, and i see iran four years closer to a bomb, i see the middle east with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult. i see jihadists continuing to spread whether they're rising or just about the same level, hard

to precisely measure, but it's clear they're there. they're very strong. i see syria with 30,000 civilians dead, assad still in power. i see our trade deficit with china larger than it's -- growing larger every year, as a matter of fact. i look around the world, and i don't feel that -- you see north korea continuing to export their nuclear technology, russia's said they're not going to follow nunn-lugar anymore, back away from nuclear proliferation treaty that we had with them. i look around the world, i don't see our influence growing, i see our influence receding in part because of the failure of the president to deal with our economic challenges at home, in part because of our withdrawal from our commitment to our military in the way i think it ought to be, in this part because of the turmoil with israel. i mean, the president received a letter from 38 democrat senators saying that tensions with israel were a real problem. they asked, please, repair the

tension. democrat senators. please, repair the damage in his own party. obama: all right. governor, the problem is that on a whole range offish hues whether it's -- issues whether it's the middle east, whether it's afghanistan, whether it's iraq, whether it's now iran, you've been all over the map. i mean, i'm pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the iranians to end their nuclear program. but just a few years ago you said that's something you'd never do. in the same way that you initially opposed a timetable in afghanistan. now you're for it, although it depends. in the same way that you say you would have ended the war in iraq but recently gave a speech saying that we should have 20,000 more folks in there. the same way that you said that

it was mission creep to go after gadhafi. when it comes to going after osama bin laden, you said, well, any president would make that call. but when you were a candidate in 2008 -- as i was -- and i said if i got bin laden in our sights, i would take that shot, you said we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man, and you said we should ask pakistan for permission. and if we had asked pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten him. and it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. you know, after we killed bin laden, i was at ground zero for a memorial and talked to a young woman who was 4 years old when 9/11 happened, and the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers saying, peyton, i love you, and i will always watch over you. and for the next decade she was haunted by that conversation, and she said to me, you know, by

finally getting bin laden that brought some closure to me. and when we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that a sends a message to the world, and it tells payton that we did not forget her father. and i make that point because that's the kind of clarity of leadership and those decisions are not always popular. those decisions generally are not poll tested. and even some in my own party, including my current vice president, had the same critique as you did. but what the american people understand is that i look at what we need to get done to keep the american people safe and to move our interests forward, and i make those decisions. >> moderator: all right. let's go, and that leads us, this takes us right to the next segment, governor, america's longest war, afghanistan and pakistan -- romney: bob. you can't have the president just lay out a whole series of

of -- without -- romney: without respect, sir, you had laid out quite a program. we'll catch up. >> moderator: united states is scheduled to turn over security to the afghan government in 2014. at that point we will withdraw our combat troops, leave a smaller force of americans if i understand our policy in afghanistan for training purposes. it seems to me the key question here is, what do you do if the deadline arrives, and it is obvious the afghans are unable to handle their security? do we still leave? and, i believe, governor romney, you go first. romney: well, we're going to be finished by 2014, and when i'm president, we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. the commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. we've seen progress over the past several years. the surge has been successful, and the training program is

proceeding at pace. there are now a large number of afghan security forces, 350,000, that are redd a to step this to -- ready to step in, and is we're going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014, so our troops will come home at that point. i can tell you at the same time that we will make sure that we look at what's happening in pakistan and recognize that what's happening in pakistan is going to have a major impact on the success in afghanistan. and i say that because i know a lot of people just feel like we should just brush our hands and walk away, and i don't mean you, mr. president, but some people in our nation feel that pakistan is being nice to us and that we should just walk away from them. but pakistan is important to the region, to the world and to us. because pakistan has 100 nuclear warheads, and they're rushing to build a lot more. they'll have more than great britain sometime in the relatively near future. they also have the haqqani network and the taliban existent

within their country. and so a pakistan that falls apart becomes a failed state would be of extraordinary danger to afghanistan and to us us. and so we're going to have to remain helpful and encouraging pakistan to move towards a more stable government and rebuild a relationship with us, and that means that our aid that we provide to pakistan is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met m so if for me, i look at this as both a need to help move pakistan in the right direction and, also, to get afghanistan to be ready, and they will be ready by the end of 2014. >> moderator: mr. president. obama: you know, when i came into office, we were still bogged down in iraq, and afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. we ended the war in iraq, refocused our attention on afghanistan. and we did deliver a surge of troops. that was facilitated in part because we had ended the war in iraq. and we are now in a position

where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place. part of what had happened is we'd forgotten why we'd gone. we went because there were people who were responsible for 3,000 american deaths. and so we decimated al-qaeda's core leadership in the border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. we then started to build up afghan forces, and we're now in a position where we can transition out. because there's no reason why americans should die when afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country. now, that transition has to take place in a responsible fashion. we've been there a long time, and we've got to make sure that we and our coalition partners are pulling out responsibly and giving afghans the capabilities that they need. but what i think the american people recognize is after a decade of war, it's time to do some nation building here at home. and what we can now do is free

up some resources to, for example, put americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools. making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, making sure that the certificateifications -- certifications that they need for good jobs for the future are in place. you know, i was having lunch with some, a veteran in minnesota who had been a medic dealing with the most extreme circumstances. when he came home and he wanted to become a nurse, he had to start from scratch. and what we have said is let's change those certifications. the first lady's done great work with an organization called joining forces, putting our veterans back to work. and as a consequence, veteran unemployment is now lower than the general population. it was higher when i came into office. so those are the kinds of things that we can now do because we're making that transition in

afghanistan. >> moderator: all right. let me go to governor romney. because you talked about pakistan and what needs to be done there. general allen, our commander in afghanistan, says that americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by pakistan. we know that pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch obama's -- bin laden. it still provides safe haven for terrorists, yet we continue to give pakistan billions of dollars. is it time for us to divorce pakistan? romney: no, it's not time to divorce a nation on earth that has 100 nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point. a nation that has serious threats from terrorist groups within its nation, as i indicated before, the taliban, haqqani network. it's a nation that's not like others, and it does not have a

civilian leadership that is calling the shots there. you've got the isi, their intelligence organization is probably the most powerful of the three branches there, then you have the military and you have the civilian government. this is a nation which, if it falls apart, if it becomes a failed state, there are nuclear weapons there. and you've got terrorists there who can grab their hands on those nuclear weapons. this is an important part of the world for us. pakistan is technically an ally, and they're not acting very much like an ally right now, but we have some work to do. and i don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with pakistan is strained. we had to go into pakistan. we had to go in there to get osama bin laden. that was the right thing to do, and that upset them, but there was, obviously, a great deal of anger even before that. but we're going to have to work with the people in pakistan to try and help them move to a more responsible course than the one that they're on, and it's important for them, it's important for the nuclear

weapons, it's important for the success of afghanistan. because inside pakistan you have a large group of pashtuns that are taliban. they're going to come rushing back into afghanistan when we go. and that's one of the reasons the afghan security forces have so much work to do to be able to fight against that. but it's important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from pakistan. but we do need to make sure as we, as we send support for them that this is tied to them making progress on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society. >> moderator: let me ask you, governor, because we know president obama's position on this, what is your position on the use of drones? romney: well, i believe that we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. and it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and i support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that

we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends. let me also note that as i said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and killing bad guys. important as that is. we're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and islamic extremism. we haven't done that yet. we talk a lot about these things, but you look at the record, you look at the record of the last four years and say is iran closer to a bomb? yes. is the middle east in tumult? yes. is al-qaeda on the run? on its heels? no. is, are israel and the palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement? no. they haven't had talks in two years. we have not seen the progress we need to have, and i'm convinced that with strong leadership and an effort to build a strategy based upon helping these nations reject extremism, we can see the kind of peace and prosperity the

world demands. obama: well, keep in mind our strategy wasn't just going after bin laden. we've created partnerships throughout the region to deal with extremism in somalia, in yemen, in pakistan. and what we've also done is engage these governments in the kind of reforms that are actually going to make a difference in people's lives day-to-day. to make sure that their governments aren't corrupt, to make sure that they are treating women with the kind of respect and dignity that every nation that succeeds has shown. and to make sure that they've got a free market system that works. so across the board we are engaging them in building capacity in these countries, and we have stood on the side of democracy. one thing i think americans should be proud of, when tunisians began to protest, this nation -- me, my administration -- stood with them earlier than just about any

other country. in egypt we stood on the side of democracy. in libya we stood on the side of the people. and as a consequence, there is no doubt that attitudes about americans have changed. but there are always going to be elements in these countries that potentially threaten the united states, and we want the shrink those groups and is those networks, and we can do that. but we're always also going to have to maintain vigilance when it comes to terrorist activities. the truth is that al-qaeda is much weaker than it was when i came into office, and they don't have the same capacities to attack the u.s. homeland and our allies as they did four years ago. >> moderator: let's go to the next segment, because it's a very important one. it is the rise of china and future challenges for america. i want to just begin this by asking both of you and, mr. president, you go first this time, what do you believe is the

greatest future threat to the national security of this country? obama: well, i think it will continue to be terrorist networks. we have to remain vigilant, as i just said. but with respect to china, china's both an adversary but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules. so my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that china plays by the same rules as everybody else. and i know americans have seen jobs being shipped overseas, businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade, and that's the reason why i set up a trade task force to go after cheaters when it came to international trade. that's the reason why we have brought more cases against china for violating trade rules than the other, the previous

administration had done in two terms. and we've won just about every case that we've filed that has been decided. in fact, just recently steel workers in ohio and throughout the midwest, pennsylvania, are in a position now to sell steel to china because we won that case. we had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires, or cheap chinese tires, and we put a stop to it. and as a consequence, saved job throughout america. i have to say that governor romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case. said this wouldn't be good for american workers and that it would be protectionist. but i tell you, those workers don't feel that way. they feel as if they had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously. over the long term in order for us to compete with china, we've also got to make sure, though, that we're taking care of business here at home. if we don't have the best education system in the world, if we don't continue to put

money into research and technology that will allow us to create great businesseses here in the united states -- businesses here in the united states, that's how we lose the competition and, unfortunately, governor romney's budget and his proposals would not allow us to make those investments. >> moderator: all right. governor? romney: well, first of all, it's not government that makes business successful, it's not government investments that make businesses grow and hire people. let me also note that the greatest threat that the world faces, the greatest national security threat is a nuclear iran. let's talk about can china. china has an interest that's very much like ours in one respect, and that is they want a stable world. they don't want war, they don't want to see protectionism, they don't want to see the world break out into various forms of chaos because they have to, they have to manufacture goods and put people to work, and they have about 20,000 -- 20 million, rather, people coming out of the farms every year coming into the cities needing jobs. so they want the economy to work and the world to be free and

open. and so we can be a partner with china. we don't have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form. we can work with them, we can collaborate with them if they're willing to be responsible. now, they look at us and say is it a good idea to be with america? how strong are we going to be? how strong is our economy? they look at the fact that we owe them a trillion dollars and owe other people 16 trillion in total, including them. they look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities, a trillion dollars. the secretary of defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. it's not my term, it's the president's own secretary of defense called them devastating. they look at america's commitments around the world, and they see what's happening, and they say, well, okay, is america going to be strong? and the answer is, yes. if i'm president, america will be very strong. we'll also make sure that we have trade relations with china that work for us. i've watched year in and year out as companies have shut down

and people have lost their jobs because china has not played by the same rules, in part by holding down artificially the value of their currency. it holds down the prices of their goods. it means our goods aren't as competitive, and we lose jobs. that's got to end. they're making some progress. they need to make more. that's why on day one i will label them a currency manipulator which allows us to apply tariffs where they're taking jobs. they're stealing our intellectual property, our at patents, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods. they have to understand we want to trade with them, we want a world that's stable, we like free enterprise, but you've got to play by the rule. >> moderator: well, governor, let me just ask you, if you declare them a currency manipulator on day one, some people are saying you're just going to start a trade war with china on day one. is that, isn't there a risk that that could happen? romney: well, they sell us about this much stuff every year, and

we sell them about this much stuff every year. so it's pretty clear who doesn't want a trade war. and there's one going on right now which we don't know about. it's a silent one, and they're winning. we have an enormous trade imbalance with china, and it's worse this year than last year, and it's worse last year than the year before. and so we have to understand that we can't just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out, we have to say to our friends in china, look, you guys are playing aggressively, we understand it, but this can't keep on going. you can't keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellectual property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world even to the united states. i was with one company that makes valves, and they said, look, we were having some valves coming in that were broken, and we had to repair them under warranty, and we looked them up, and they had our serial number on them, and then we noticed there was more than one with that same serial number. there were counterfeit products being made overseas with the

same serial number as the u.s. company, the same packaging. these were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the u.s. competitor. this can't go on. i want a great relationship with china. china can be our partner. but that doesn't mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis. obama: well, governor romney's right. you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas, and, you know, that's your right. that's how our free market works. but i've made a different bet on american workers, you know? if we had taken your advice, governor romney, about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from china instead of selling cars to china. if we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax code so that companies who earn profits overseas don't pay taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes, that's estimated to create 800,000 jobs

in places like china. and if we're not making investments in education and basic research which is not something that the private sector is doing at a sufficient pace right now and has never done, then we will lose the lead in tings like -- things like clean energy technology. now, with respect to what we've done with china already, u.s. exports have doubled. since i came into office, to china. and, actually, currencies are at their most advantageous point for u.s. exporters since 1993. we absolutely have to make more progress, and that's why we're going to keep on pressing. and when it comes to our military and chinese security, part of the reason that we were able to pivot to the asia-pacific region after having ended the war in iraq and transitioning out of afghanistan is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. and we believe china can be a partner, but we're also sending

a very clear signal that america is a pacific power, that we are going to have a presence there. we are working with countries in the region to make sure, for example, that ships can pass through, that commerce continues. and we're organizing trade relations with countries other than china so that china starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards. that's the kind of leadership we've shown in the region, that that's the kind of leadership that we'll continue to show. romney: i just want to take one of those points, again, attacking me is not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country. but the president mentioned the auto industry and that somehow i would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. nothing could be further from the truth. i'm a son of detroit. i was born in this detroit. my dad was head of a car company. i like american cars. and i would do nothing to hurt the u.s. auto industry. my plan to get the industry on

its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. it was president bush that wrote the first checks. i disagreed with that. i said these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy, and in that process they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess costs and the debt burden they'd built up. and fortunately -- obama: governor romney, that's not what you said. romney: you can take a lock at the op-ed. obama: you did not say that you would provide government help. romney: i said we would provide guarantees to enable these companies to go through bankruptcy, come out of bankruptcy. under no circumstances would i do anything than to help this industry get on it feet, and the idea it's been suggested that i would liquidate the industry, of course not. of course not. obama: let's check the record. romney: [inaudible]

[inaudible conversations] romney: that's why i have the kind of commitment to make sure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. we in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world, and we're going to. we're going to have to have a president, however, that doesn't think that somehow the government investing in the car companies like tesla and fission kerr, making electric battery cars, this is not research, mr. president. these are -- the government investing in companies, investing in solyndra. this is a company -- this isn't basic research. i want to invest in research. research is great. providing funding to universities and think tanks, great. but investing in companies? absolutely not. obama: governor, the fact of the matter -- romney: i'm speaking. [laughter] i want to make sure we make america more competitive. obama: yeah. romney: and we make america the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators. but your investing in companies doesn't do that, in fact, it makes it less likely for them to come here -- obama: governor, i'm happy to

respond to you. you've held the floor for a while. the -- look, i think anybody out there can check the record. governor romney, you keep on trying to, you know, air brush history here. you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the u.s. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. you said they could get it in the private marketplace. that wasn't true. they would have gone through a -- romney: you're wrong. obama: no, i am not wrong. romney: people will look it up, you're right. obama: people will look it up. but more importantly, in order for us to be more competitive, we're going to have to make some smart choices right now. cutting our education budget, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. cutting our investments in research and technology, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us complete with china. bringing down our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts

and military spending that our military's not asking for before we even get to the debt that e currently have -- that we currently have, that is not going to make us more competitive. those are the kinds of choices that the american people face right now, having a tax code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the united states. that will not make us more competitive. and the one thing that i'm absolutely clear about is that after a decade in which we saw drift, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing american workers and american businesses, we've now begun to make some real progress. what we can't do is go back to the same policies that got us into such difficulty in the first place. that's why we have to move forward and not go back. romney: i couldn't agree more about going forward, but i certainly don't want to go back to the policies of the last four years. the policies of the last four years has seen incomes in

america decline every year for middle income families, now down $4,300 during your term. 23 million americans still struggling to find a good job. when you came to office, 32 million people on food stamps, today 47 million people on food stamps. when you came to office, just over $10 trillion in the debt, now $16 trillion in debt. it hasn't worked. you said by now we'd be at 5.4% unemployment. we're nine million jobs short of that. i've met some of those people. i've met them in appleton, wisconsin. i met a young woman in philadelphia who's coming out of college, can't find work. i've been -- ann was with someone just the other day just weeping about not being able to get work. it's just a tragedy in a nation so prosperous as ours that these last four years have been so hard. and that's why it's so critical that we make america once again the most attractive place in the world to start businesses, to build jobs, to grow the economy. and that's not going to happen

by just hiring teachers. look, i love teachers, and i'm happy to have states and communities that want to hire teachers do that. by the way, i don't like to have the federal government start pushing its way deeper and deeper into our schools. let the states and localities do that. i was a governor, the federal government didn't hire our teachers. i love teachers, but i want to get our private sector growing, and i know how to do it. >> moderator: i think we all love teachers. [laughter] gentlemen, thank you so much for a very vigorous debate. we have come to the end. it is time for closing statements. i believe you're first, mr. president. obama: well, thank you very much, bob, governor romney, and to lynn university. you've now heard three debates, months of campaigning and way too many tv commercials. [laughter] and now you've got a choice. you know, over the last four years, we've made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits and the worst

economic crisis since the great depression. and governor romney wants to take us back to those policies. a foreign policy that's wrong and reckless, economic policies that won't create jobs, won't reduce our deficit but will make sure that folks at the very top don't have to play by the same rules that you do. and i've got a different vision for america. i want to build on our strengths. and i've put forward a plan to make sure that we're bringing manufacturing jobs back to our shores. by rewarding companies and small businesses that are investing here, not overseas. i want to make sure we've got the best education system in the world, and we're retaining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. i want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas, but also the energy sources of the future. yes, i want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending we don't need, but also by asking the wealthy to do a little bit more so we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st

century economy. as commander in chief, i will maintain the strongest military in the world, keep faith with our troops and go after those who would do us harm, but after a decade of war i think we all recognize we've got to do some nation building here at home rebuilding our roads, our bridges and, especially, caring for our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our freedom. we've been through tough times, but we always bounce back because of our character, because we pull together. and if i have the privilege of being your president for another four years, i promise you, i will always listen to your voices, i will fight for your families, and i will work every single day to make sure that america continues to be the greatest nation on earth. thank you. >> moderator: governor. romney: thank you. bob, mr. president, folks at lynn university, good to be with you. i'm optimistic about the future. i'm excited about our prospects as a nation. i want to see peace. i want to see growing peace in

this country. it's our objective. we have an opportunity to have real leadership. america's going to have that kind of leadership and continue to promote principles of peace that will make the world a safer place and make people in the country more confident that their future is secure. i also want to make sure that we get this economy going, and there are two very different paths the country can take. one is a path represented by the president which at the end of four years would mean we'd have $20 trillion in debt, heading towards greece. i'll get us on track to a balanced budget. the president's path will mean continuing declining in take home pay. i want to make sure our take home pay turns around and starts to grow. the president's path means 20 million people out of work struggling for a good job. i'll get people back to work with 12 million new jobs. i'm going to make sure we get people off of food stamps not by cutting the program, but by getting them good jobs. america's going to come back, and for that to happen we're going to have to have a

president who can work across the aisle. i was in a state where my legislature was 87% democrat. i learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle. we've got to do that in washington. washington is broken. i know what it takes to get this country back, and we'll work with good democrats and good republicans to do that. this nation is the hope of the earth. we've been blessed by having a nation that's free and prosperous thanks to the contributions of the greatest generation. they've held a torch for the world to see, a torch of freedom and hope and opportunity. now it's our turn to take that torch. i'm convinced we'll do it. we need strong leadership. i'd like to be that leader with your support. i'll work with you. i'll lead you in an open and honest way. and i ask for your vote. i'd like to be the next president of the united states to support and help this great nation and to make sure that we all together maintain america as the hope of the earth. thank you so much. >> moderator: gentlemen, thank you both so much. that brings an end to this year's debates, and we want to

thank lynn university and its students for having us. as i always do at the end of these debates, i leave you with the words of my mom who said, go vote. it makes you feel big and strong. obama: that's great. >> moderator: good night. obama: thank you, bob. romney: thank you. [applause] ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> our live coverage of the final 2012 presidential debate continues with analysis from reporters and editors at politico. ♪ >> welcome to political life. i am here with mike allen and john harris, editor-in-chief of politico. welcome to the futures and news channel eight, politico.com and c-span. if you didn't watch the debate and you are turning in, save your time. basically you can take it into words, they agreed. never have two candidates agree on so much in a 90 minute period

in a presidential debate. yet, despite the agreement, the stylistic differences to me were fascinating. mitt romney clearly came into this debate well-prepared, trying to appeal to undecided voters particularly women trying not to engage in any fights with president obama, trying to appear presidential. he clearly did his homework. he was throwing out staff and names. >> molly, twice, [inaudible mols a strong glock. he came off doing what he wanted to do which was he wanted to appear extremely strong and extremely presidential and be able to say how could you critique me when you agree with me? >> i felt that in a number of times when the president was making his point so aggressively. what was communicated in those exchanges was not strength and confidence but what was communicated was a kind of, sort of vague nitpicking strategy of

diminishing the president which is the fact he is already commander in chief. >> where you come down on that i feel that the post-game analysis -- >> to reflect on what were all ready. >> it's john's point, he's aggressive. he said a lot of things that to me, stephanie, his adviser that likes to fight in politics would love but i wonder if an independent voter who is sitting there in ohio or wisconsin or iowa, whether they found that strong and presidential or round of the to whether they found if like john like why it seems like you were being defensive. >> mitt romney won that battle of the moment when he learned his lesson about tangling with the moderator last time coming and he tried to call on bob schieffer and he called him back and said that's probably true and he conceded the point. that is what people were looking for, someone who could get it, who had that kind of confidence.

the president's starkiness has gotten a lot of - play. people on each side think that there by one but people say that the e-mail that i got from the favorite banker said that he was treating mitt romney not as a former governor but as if he worked at mcdonald's, he tried to explain to him what an aircraft carrier was. a very slight. and then the horses and bayonets comment on twitter, hash tag horses and bayonets isn't going to play out wv with a make ships and was obama really talking down. >> let's take a look at the clip where we put together those comments we think there will be a lot of commentary on overnight. >> general romney, i am glad that you were elected because when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical threat facing american you said russia. not al qaeda. musette russia. and the 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy

back because the cold war has been over for 20 years. but, governor, when it comes to seem to want to import just like the social politics of the 1950's and the economic policies of the 1920's. >> first of all it isn't something i proposed. it's something congress proposed. will not happen. the budget we are talking about is not reducing our military spending. it's maintaining it. but i think governor romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you mentioned the navy for example and we have fewer ships than 1916. well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of the military has changed. we have things called aircraft carriers where planes land on men and ships that goes through water, nuclear submarines. and so the question is not a game of battleship or counting ships. when i went to israel as a

candidate i didn't take donors, i didn't attend fund-raisers. i went to the holocaust museum to remind myself the nature of evil, and why our bond with israel will be unbreakable. and the fact is while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure the sanctions were effected, and you were still invested in a chinese state oil company there was doing business with the irony in the oil sector. >> the replay when you see the exchange about the aircraft carrier it's like the way that i might talk to my son or my daughter. >> it was horribly condescending. but what struck me out of that succession of the court is that much of the time president obama felt like he was arguing with mitt romney as opposed to communicating with the public at large. to me it is the same thing that mitt romney did in the second debate treating it as a debate rather than the leadership stage. it seems that obama is the one

that probably erred in that direction at this time. >> he was more right than wrong about what he was saying about the although bailout plan. but he fell into the trap that you're talking about, when mitt romney said check the facts and the president was like well, people will check back to the it's like we're just wanting to get the last -- >> i'm pretty sure we are checking. >> that is the amazing thing is we talked to these guys before they go into the debate and we know that mitt romney went in with a much different mentality and posture and also lessons learned from the debate like obama wins a lot of lessons from the debate number one and two performance, and they know that they are close to closing the deal. they feel like if we can just get those undecided swing voters and we think it's about five to 6% of the voters in the top states they believe they need to pass that plausible the threshold, and with his performance tonight there is no way that you can look at mitt romney and say he is not qualified to be president.

he certainly sounded presidential. he looked presidential. you could say it isn't much of a change because they almost have exactly the same policy on every issue, which i found remarkable. >> i can tell you that for the first time in two years, people were sending e-mails that say we are going to win because they came out of this with their surge still going on, not taking it back at all. mitt romney was able to make his point. one of the big clumps that will be played again and again from this is attacking me is not an agenda. he says it a couple times. the president tried to see the same thing to romney telling him that he was trying to change the fact and be right history. >> you both said it would be very difficult for mitt romney to win a debate on foreign policy. do you think that he one? you have the occasion after the debate to really get the story and a fundamental judgment? >> what we see for the first time in the four debates, we've been treating e-mails on this.

both sides say that there guy is strong and closed strong. but the tashi goes to romney on this because he had the momentum going in, and this was going to be for the reasons that we talked about in that story, this was harder for him. the president tried to play the cards. he said at a point what i learned as commander-in-chief, and -- >> let's take a look at the moment when mitt romney really did try to flex his muscles and give a sharp critique of president obama. >> the president began with what i would call an apology tour of going to various nations in the middle east and criticizing america. then when there were dissidents in the streets of tehran, the revolution holding signs saying is america with us? the president was silent and i think they noticed that as well. when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and israel they

noticed that as well. all of these things suggested i think to be iranian mullahs we can keep the talks going on. we are going to keep spending centrifuges. now there are some 10,000 centrifuges spending uranium, preparing to create a nuclear threat to the united states at the world. that's unacceptable for us, and it's essential for a president to show strength. from the very beginning to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable, and an iranian program is not acceptable to us. they must not develop nuclear capabilities. and the way to make sure they understand that is by having from the very beginning that tightest sanctions possible. we need to be tightened. our diplomatic isolation needs to be tougher. we need to invite mahmoud ahmadinejad and put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can. because if we do that, we won't have to take them a better reaction. >> let me just respond. nothing that governor romney

just said is true starting with the notion of me apologizing. this has been probably the biggest water that has been told during the course of this campaign. every fact checker and reporter has looked at it and the governor said this is not true and when it comes to tightening sanctions, look, as i said before, we put it being the toughest most crippling sanctions ever, and the fact is while we were coordinating international coalition to make sure the sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with the iranian sector. >> going back to the question of who won the debate, we have written overnight that would be the romney camp almost impossible to win because there aren't big distinctions. obviously barack obama was at his best when he's talking about his success in getting the timetable for getting out of afghanistan for having success in fighting terrorism, for expanding the program to

assassinate terrorists. and so, in that context did mitt romney win? i think he might have won, i think he might have pulled out a slight decrease because he's going for the independent voters and he's going for the voters that are not watching the chicago bears and lions game, not watching major league baseball playoff action and he tried to connect with them and say i am a plausible if not better alternative to barack obama. and he definitely did his homework, came across as experienced comic and across as ready, and again i would love to see a focus group which is 5%. we say it is for every state. we are not the focus group. >> i totally agree with that. we are going to see pulling probably over 72 hours, 96 hours before we have a clear sense of whether the third debate matter at all. typically they don't, right? the diminishing impact. >> because the early voting. set the stage for the viewers that are just turning in to take a pause from the debate to talk

about where we are at in the campaign. it literally is a tossup coming in. probably a tossup coming out. both of the obama camp and the romney camp giving the slight edge to obama largely because of his performance in ohio and audio and wisconsin, where they feel he is up in each one of the states but only by nearly. there is momentum in florida, colorado. >> "the wall street journal" using the word surge as they reported the poll for the president today. and part of it is that tightening, but also the fact that he's in proving as you dig into the polls he's improving among the women and how he would handle the economy. amazingly, the "washington post" and abc was out tonight with a poll showing the race tied for ninth period 48. that's a wash. but also showing them almost tied and how they handle terrorism. how they would handle foreign affairs. for the commander in chief in the eyes of the voters to be on the same as mitt romney it is quite remarkable.

>> do we believe that ohio -- if you are sitting at home trying to figure out how why watch the rest of the campaign? there's two weeks left and i am increasingly interested in the election ohio is it, right? >> i think it's it. there's just very few ways for me to get to 270 without it and they think a question for me is is ohio insulated from national trend? clearly giving romney he has gained ground. ohio's unemployment rate on the national average, the although bailout, popular in some key parts of the state. so does obama come as ohio follow the nation, is one of those questions we haven't seen the answer. >> i got an e-mail from a top person. there's only five seats you have to watch ohio leaves obamacare honest about that. wisconsin. still leaning republican due to governor scott walker's turnout

operation number three come on pilat, a mystery. number four, nevada leads ohio, very honest and they are now saying hampshire leans towards romney, which is a change. new hampshire had been gone. >> we can't forget about wisconsin. >> i would be surprised if the polling is showing that he is up or -- my theory on wisconsin is is winnable and if anything close it goes to republicans. people are overestimating the conservative organizations that came together because the scott walker recall in that state i think that wisconsin even without drawing on the ticket would have been more winnable. it's a high of it is a part of the question i have my -- part time getting my head around it. ohio, more so than any of the state could perhaps the exception of michigan benefited tremendously. from the although bailout. >> and jonathan florent said something before. he said romney people were being honest about the fact and being candid they couldn't win without

ohio. they've been talking about others. that's pretty honest and they are admitting here they are behind in ohio. >> was fascinating how much the candidates wanted this debate not to be about foreign policy and given the similarities just about foreign policy. but they kept trying to bring it back to the economy and in those moments that they did you think either candidate stood out more, did they distinguish themselves? >> on the part when they went to the economy it seemed like they were replaying almost word for word what they need in the previous debates. >> the strategy was pete got to get back to this, we've got to get back to talking about it. >> he did a decent job in the variables being able to link the u.s. authority and the u.s. power in the world to the economy when we have a big debt and a weakened economy because it gives less strength in the negotiating with china trying to protect our values when our own could be suspect because we are not letting them at home i thought he was okay.

>> when he keep up those points and the president can protect them all he wants and say they are not true all he wants, but when he landed the punches and that is what these people were looking for -- republicans for the first time said. >> look, one final point before i go, the third debate probably matters less than the last few minutes at least of all. i do think that romney had by far the presidential closing statement. >> let's go to james who is in boca raton and one of several reporters we have on the ground. he's in the spin room where both parties have top officials trying to explain how we should interpret the results. what are you hearing? >> i think people kind of think it is a neutral the date and no one is going to come out much stronger or weaker as a result. neither side seems that energetic that the one. it does seem like an inconsequential debate. >> was their anything interesting that you heard? you watched the debate but did

anybody come out with and emphasized specific point or try to point out a weakness on the other side that he might not have captured in watching the debate? >> we were talking a lot about china. i've been chatting with the surrogates from both sides and they are trying to push the china message because they know it is something that can actually build the swing state voters in ohio which as you have been saying the campaign is really a critical state for romney to make up ground. james, we will try to get back to you before the end of the show. mike, you are getting a lot from both campaigns trying to spin this and clearly both are saying it's kind of a push. was the most interesting thing that you're hearing from the camp obama? >> saying he was strong and they are saying that he got romney fast. a takeoff from the changing his positions, being vague, all over the map literally in the case of the foreign policy experience.

but the problem is that's depending on fact checkers and people to parse what is said. what matters is somebody that sitting and watching it, taking it in -- we talked about the winning with the sound down test. mitt romney one that test because he looked the most presidential. some people disagree. i got an obama e-mail but said he looked like nixon only sweatier but he didn't fall when the last track he did. the president's snarky mess isn't going to play well with that audience. >> let's take the audience inside of the reporting. i will do romney and you can do obama and we can flip on with the view is two weeks out after the debate. from their romney view is we are slightly behind but much better position than we dreamed of being a month ago. we love the fact that we have more money than democrats have to spend in the final weeks of the campaign. we like the trend lines in places like florida. we like what's happening in

colorado that the numbers look better than they anticipated early on. they think they can win virginia. they believe that there is a possibility to organizations and through some last minute momentum they can win ohio but if they don't win ohio they might be able to run the table by taking places like iowa, wisconsin, new hampshire, even pennsylvania is a very, very long shot. and redirecting the map that we think of. so they are not super confident we more confident than they were a month ago. team obama? >> they've put this very brilliantly today. they put it as momentum verses the map. so you were talking about momentum and we were talking about mitt romney being on the offense. i've got the map. i am on defense, but i have ohio, which might be all that i need, and the great analogy that was in that story was put it this is similar to the spring in 2008? mitt romney's primary contest when hillary clinton was having late momentum, but as they put

it in the story, she ran into the cold hard electoral math and a superior obama organization. and obama is going to say that in ohio and some of these other crucial states to have a better organization. >> i tell you, i will take a bombing and you can take the romney camp, the scene that worries me right now coming and you can do the what worries you for romney. if you or obama you got to be worried. you're very worried about the momentum. you don't think it is as strong as the polls suggest that you have seen the momentum going before. >> you are wondering what is that all about. you were a little bit that all of this money that used in the end of this time trying to vitre mitt romney is this evil dark capitalist that flip-flops' has suddenly been eroded a little bit by the debate performances which they can see at least very plausible as a possible presidential candidate and you wonder those people that haven't broken one way or the other after the debates they look at them and say i'm ready for change and and that he is at a

plausibly better alternative than barack obama and we talked about this on the show for months that it's always been the quest of the romney folks. we are never going to be emphatically the choice of people. we are never going to be the trees of the people of barack obama. we have to be plausibly the choice. >> if i am romney i'm worried about the fact i can have all the momentum i want and the poll numbers i want but if i can't know how you and i am worried about virginia, it doesn't matter. those are the way the rules of the game or set up. and they are still real signs of cancer for romney. he should be doing much better in the ballett than he is. high unemployment, high foreclosures, lots of mormons. he hasn't closed the deal in florida. he still had to spend money in north carolina. they can't be sure about virginia. all those are big problems. >> we are two weeks out and neither candidate, they say the same thing, the cat out lined with would actually do if elected president in the second term and given there are two weeks left, we have now officially given up any hope that that is ever going to

happen so you are just going to have to sort of look at what they said in the the date and read between the lines and get a general understanding of what their political philosophies are and some of the stuff they've done in the past to get an indicator. >> the one we talked about all the time is it's more important to look at their character any way. and the sure sign of this is back in 2008 when we had hillary and obama going after each other the huge difference in their health care plans. we spend months covering it. the president gets into office and he basically passes the hillary health care plan. so it's more important to think about 3 a.m. phone call question. >> we are bringing in lowest it has been with us at all of the dates and here watching some of them with the editors. what was your take on the debate? did you see a clear winner? how do you think this will play out in the next 24 hours as people interpret what happened tonight? >> i think we need to see, as you were saying earlier, whether some of obama's comments in the playing a little badly. but i was watching a focus group

and didn't play badly on the focus group. people were laughing quite a bit. i think republicans believe that he embraced the president a little too much. he was talking to close to him because he didn't want to be snarky and be too aggressive as last time to read so the question is was it a little bit too much? did he not differentiate enough for people to see the alternative. >> he made the calculation. let's bring rachel, one of the dozen reporters that we have that the debate. you are in the spin room. what are you hearing from both camps other than it seems like both sides are saying we won. but other than that cut through it, what is the sharpest argument you are hearing from both sides? >> sure. that is the argument. it was interesting in terms of the object the romney people came in with their big red signs before the date was over i would say a good ten minutes before the debate ended.