of money on benefits. doesn't it show our welfare system is broken and will the redouble its efforts to reform it? >> my honorable friend is absolutely right. the people who send us here want us to sort out the welfare stem. they want it to be there for people who genuinely need help but they also want to make sure that if you can work and you're offered a life, you shouldn't be allowed to go on welfare. there's legislation and we voted about it and when the crutch come they didn't have the cuts to back it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. most people know that rushdale is the home of cooperation. next year is the united nations year of cooperations and will they have mutualism and the 20% trick? >> i note the excellent record of prime minister's visiting and what can happen when they get

there. [laughter] >>o i will -- i'll certainly put it in the diary. i'm a strong supporterf cooperatives and also in the public services and we'll be making some announcements about that maybe in the months to come. >> paul? >> thank you mr. speaker. earlier this year the prime minister demonstrated a strength of character to talk about the issue of multiculturalism. in view of the fact that i have a christian first seek and a sek surname i want my indian values with my core british values can we learn a lot from our indian partners in this effect many of who define their nationality regardless of their ethnic and religious backgrounds? >> i absolutely pay tribute to my honorable friend and the work he doesn this issue. i think it's absolutely vital as a country that we build a stronger national identity and people clearly feel that yes, of course, you can have all sorts of different religious

identities and indeed cultural identities but it's very important we build a strong british identity and he's living proof of that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow the european parliament will decide whether to increase the e.u.'s carbon reduction target to 30% by 2020. this is a commitment made in the coalition agreemt. according to reports, the vote will be very close, but it won't pass because just one conservative n.e.p. out of 25 will vote for the 30% target. will the prime minister guarantee that all his n.e.p.'s will honor the coalition agreement and vote for the 13% target tomorrow? >> let me be absolutely clear we are committed to the target and nothing will change. but i'll do a deal with the honorable lady i will work on mine if she promises to work on hers who on recent months who have voted for a higher e.u. budget, new e.u. target. they even voted against scrapping first class air travel

for thm. so perhaps she would like to gi them a fly one and give them a talking to. >> mr. robert buckland. >> with the national audit office estimating the cost of crinal re-offending economy to 10 billion pounds a year, does my right herbal agree the need to the re-offending levels from the high rates from the government must be the priority of the policy? >> i completely agree with my honorable friend who has considerable experience because of his career before coming to do this place. the point is we inherited a system where each prison place costs 45,000 pounds. where half the prisoners re-offend within a year of getting out, half of prisoners are on drugs and over 10% of them are foreigners who shouldn't be in this country in any event. the key we have >> each week the house of

commons is in session, we air prime minister's questions live on c-span 2 at 7:00 a.m. eastern, and again on c-span at 9:00 p.m. eastern. you can find more on our website. next, an interview with republican presidential candidate, texas congressman ron paul. then they looked at the 2012 republican presidential candidates. after that, a joint hearing on the future of u.s. manufacturing. >> today, a book tv and american history tv looked at literary life in savannah georgia, with a literary events on c-span to. this includes a conversation with plenary -- a conversation about flannery o'connor, "midnight in the garden of good and evil," and a tour of civil

war sites in savannah, georgia. trouble with us as we visit the site of a plantation, and explore it antebellum with a historian. >> this week on "road to the white house," our series of interviews with gop presidential candidates continues with texas republican ron paul. he talks about his previous presidential bids, monetary policy, the federal reserve, abortion, and the republican party. he assesses the obama administration and his strategy for winning the gop nomination. this is 45 minutes.

>> this is your third presidential bid. what did you learn from the first to? >> the first one was in 1980 in the libertarian party, and i learned that our system of government is not very conducted for a competition within the two parties. let's go around, i learned we were much further along in the freedom of defending our personal liberties, everything i have been talking about. i assumed it would be a long time before we would get grassroots america talking about what i had been talking about, believing it takes a long time

to change people's attitudes and intellectual approaches to government. but i think we have made tremendous progress. people do talk about the federal reserve now. we are talking about bringing troops home and not expanding the war. they finally are seriously talking about what we are going to do with this deficit. there was a run back in the 70's. we were on track getting ourselves into trouble. i think the country has moved in the direction of saying maybe our constitution is not that bad. i would argue if we follow the constitution our government would be much smaller. >> why do think it is so difficult for third parties to break through? would you think our founding

fathers would think? >> they would not be pleased. it cuts off so many people. ross perot did well, but he had a lot of money. people with an average amount of money are generally excluded. i got on enough ballots to feel like we could win but did not get into the debate. but you are not given the credibility. it is the perception and the media that helps keep the third party, alternative parties, out of the discussion. the other thing is the two parties run on state law. the laws are biased against getting into ballots. in '88, i had to spend half my money to try to get on ballots. in some states it is easier than others. in some states, you need 50 signatures. in others, you might need 25,000 signatures. it is very difficult. those rules are really designed not to allow competition, you

know, with the major parties. new york is a good state. they incorrect people to file on two parties. you can file as republican and a conservative or democrat and a liberal, and you can add them up. that gives a little bit of credibility to that. if you could do that in other states, i think it would help get more attention for these alternative choices. >> are you in this race to win the nomination or to send a message? >> i am in to win it. when i first started in congress, people ask me the same thing. even when i ran originally, i thought how could i convince a whole congressional district of the problems we face when they were less interested back in the 70's. i was a bit surprised that i did so well. this is the 12th time i have won a congressional seat, always

saying the same thing and arguing the case were strictly limited government. the goal is to win the election. >> if you are from pittsburg but represent a south texas congressional district, walk us through the 60's. you went through medical school and became a surgeon and ended up in the air force, and in texas. >> i received a draft notice. the draft notice said i had been drafted as a private in the army. if i wanted to volunteer, i could be a doctor and could pick the service of wanted to be in. i volunteered. but under the pressure of being drafted, i went into the army and got to practice medicine. i became a flight surgeon. i actually stayed in longer than

i had thought. my obligation was to years. with my reserve duty, i stayed for five years. i was based out of san antonio, texas. i finished medical training in the university of pittsburgh, but my wife liked texas, and thought it was a nice climate. there was a medical practice not far from houston. we took that opportunity and moved out there. >> why did you decide to become a doctor? >> it is interesting. i think for many years i wanted to be but would not admit it. you do not like to fail. in high school and college, i never said i was going to be a doctor. i wanted to make sure i could do it. i always had respect for physicians. it was really wonderful that you could do something like what i got to do for many years --

deliver babies. to me, it was fascinating, and being able to do surgery. the whole thing is there was one other element that influenced me. i am old enough to remember world war two and korea. one of our teachers was drafted and was killed over there and that had a big impact on me. i often thought i did not think i could shoot anybody. but i would probably get drafted some day. i would much rather take care of people and be in the medical corps then have to be in the infantry. it just seemed so abhorrent to me. i think it was my nature that i became anti-war and wanted to be a position. it is probably not just a coincidence that i ended up delivering babies, which is a wonderful part of medicine. >> can you explain the

transition between being a doctor and being a politician? >> i never thought of it is a transition. i still think of myself as a physician that happens to be in washington. the transition occurred through an interest i developed in the 1960's, as i was finishing medical school. that was a fascination with trying to understand economics from a viewpoint that i discovered which was called the austrian school of economics, which is the opposite of keynesian as some or socialism -- which is the opposite of keynesian or socialism. actually, keynesian is in the middle. i was told you need government to regulate and print money and these many things that were done that i thought were harmful. so i became totally convinced they were on the right track. when their prediction came true that the bretton woods monetary

system broke down, august 15, 1971 -- i remember the date precisely because it was dramatic. it ushered in a new age. it was that governments could spend endlessly and print money when they needed it. it predicted that would lead to a lot of trouble. i started talking about economic to get it off of my chest. my wife said, "why do you want to do that? it is a wonderful medical practice. you could end up getting elected." i assured her it was not possible because this was a strong philosophical position. she predicted i would be successful because people would want to hear the truth of the matters we were dealing with. that is how i got involved. it was more a way to get things off my chest and talk about policies we should have. it worked out because i could continue to practice medicine. i did up until coming into

congress this last time. i was actually doing some teaching for the first couple of years. i came back in 97. two or three years, my daughter was studying ob/gyn at the university of texas in houston. so i was teaching and at a clinic there. but i got too busy. i am basically a physician that accidentally got into politics. >> you are a fierce critic of the federal reserve. what is your argument against the fed and what do you want to see changed? >> i ultimately think we should get rid of it. i am a critic because it is economic planning. most conservatives understand central economic planning, wage and price controls, it is anathema to conservatives. yet that is what a central bank is. their job is to maintain stable

prices and full employment. prices are not stable and there is no full employment. they have done a lousy job. because they are incapable of knowing what the best interest rate is where the money supply should be. they are incapable of knowing how to manipulate the economy so there is full employment. everything they do depends on creation of money, which evaluates the currency. they create bubbles, recessions, and depressions. they are way too much involved. we do not have the authority to have a central bank. hamilton and jefferson fought over that. they did have national banks in our early history. jefferson got rid of one and jackson got rid of the other one. we spent most of the time up to 1913 without a central bank. the valuation of currency should be considered a crime. that is a deliberate policy that came into existence in 1913.

a dollar was 1/20 of an ounce of gold. that means the currency has divided 98% since then. people were cheated. if you are a saver, you saved $10,000 and it has devalued 50%. you get back only $5,000. it is a way to treat people. when you destroy currency, you transfer wealth out of the middle class to the wealthy. we are witnessing that all the time today when the ballots come. if they have to pay higher prices for gasoline, it does not hurt them. the person who lost their jobs because of the recession did not get the bailout, and now that are getting hit with higher cost of living. it is a terrible system. it is built on a mystical belief that if you'd just print money is going to have value.

it has never worked. it worked for a while. our fiat currency has been since 1971. it worked relatively well, but it taught us to borrow money to finance an empire we should not have and cannot afford. we have pretended we could finance forever our entitlement system. now we know that medicare, medicaid, and social security are in trouble. that is a consequence of not understanding monetary systems. you have someone who served in the bush administration saying the bailout of the wall street banks saved us from economic collapse. the obama administration argues that its bailout of chrysler and gm save jobs in detroit. >> in a way, they are right, but at whose expense? at the expense of people who lost their houses and lost their jobs and are suffering? they saved depression and suffering on wall street.

but the banks needed to go bankrupt. the companies that were broke should go into bankruptcy. their assets should be bought out instead of dumped on to taxpayers. these banks that were making money off of derivatives -- we ended up owning those. they have been bought out by the federal reserve for trillions of dollars, which devalued money. they created money out of thin air. wall street, the big banks, never got hurt. they were saved. the car companies -- they predicted the labor funds more than the regular investors. people who had invested in the company lost everything because of the way the administration devised it. it is always special interests, either big labor or big

corporations, at the expense of the average person, who is still suffering. even today, on the statistics we are reading, the economy keeps getting weaker. they act like they are surprised. if they admit we got into this trouble by spending too much, taxing too much, and printing too much, trying to get out of it by doing exactly the same -- low interest rates by greenspan got us into this trouble. what are they doing? luring them further. inflation is at 4% or 5%. we have inflation. that is not a solution. it perpetuates the problems. that is why the predictions by austrian economists say what you are doing is wrong. you are going to prolong the agony. now we are going on three years. the economy is getting weaker. we are working on trying to compete with the depression of

the 1930's with the way we are operating. >> what is your current assessment? >> if you are a money manager, he manages the money like all other central bankers would. but if you are somebody who believes nobody can do it -- he is an average central banker. but he is a lot more determined than some. i would say his approach and determination to inflate regardless -- he said he would drop the money out of helicopters if needed. compared to paul volcker, 1979, we have high inflation rates and he said we have to save the dollar. he took interest rates up to 20%. he was forced to restrain. his approach was different. i tried very hard, even in criticizing the various central bankers -- i criticize the system more than anything. they are trying to manage an

unmanageable system. the flaw is that they trust in the system. they are not capable of doing anything. they just do not have the information. only the market knows what the interest rate should be. the banks benefit if someone is elderly and trying to save money. the market rate of the cd should be 6% or 7%. they get 1% or 2%. they get cheated. it is a very unfair system. no matter how well intended they are, they cannot manage it. it is a deeply flawed system. >> should we go back to the gold standard? >> i do not use those words. but the constitution says we can only use gold and silver as legal tender and that has not been repealed. much of what i have written about it -- i do not think we need it. but the transition should be

more gradual. i am not foreclosing the fed down as much as allowing competition, legalizing the competition in the currency. that is to allow people to use gold and silver, as in the constitution. then if the fed fails there will be a currency in place. but there were flaws in the gold standard in the 19th century. we can learn from it. i like to think about going forward to a commodity standard of money with competition. this is something the austrian economists talk. >> "liberty defined" is your latest book. how many have you written? >> there were a lot of little pamphlets. i would say books of that size may be five. >> take one or two freedoms from this book you think are essential to the u.s.

>> personal liberty. i talk about that a lot. not repealing the fourth amendment. not allowing the patriot -- the patriot act out of a sense of not wanting to give up my personal privacy. to protect liberties, you have to keep the government's fall. one of the greatest incentives for the growth of government is a military operation. when you are constantly at war, the government gets bigger and people are more likely to sacrifice their liberties. i also talked a lot about the monetary issue as well. it is the rejection -- when you talk about liberty, i recognize our life and liberty come to us in a natural way, not from our government. but "we have to do in order to believe that is to reject any personal or governmental use of force. the government cannot come in

and use force because we think we know how to make you behave better, or we think we should teach you how to raise your children. never use force. individuals cannot use force. governments cannot use force. in our day and age, we recognize people cannot hurt other people and you cannot steal from other people, but we say the government can redistribute wealth and it is ok. it is this entitlement system. that becomes what people believe it is freedom. they have a right to entitlements. that is completely wrong if you believe in a free society. it is the opposite. no coercion. we are always telling other countries what to do it and if they do not do what we say we bomb them. that is the kind of thing we would like to stop. >> you do not like labels, but you have been described as a libertarian -- a libertarian, a republican, a conservative.

how would you describe yourself? >> if people use one of those terms of would have no objection. i am a republican. i am very conservative in my social beliefs. i want to conserve the basic thrust of our constitution. but the founders were very libertarian. the way the constitution is written is the government does not have much authority. it is written to restrain the federal government. that is a very libertarian idea. the founders did not believe in interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. they believe in free trade. that is very libertarian. if somebody said what is the word you would use, i would probably say a constitutionalist, because that is the oath of office i take. there are some things in the constitution i would write differently. we have the right to amend the competition. it does not mean you are overly

rigid. but you do taking note to obey it, which means if you want to change if you should do it not by ignoring it are not allowing the executive branch -- we allowed the executive branch to go to war improperly. if we do it, we should change the constitution the u.s. department of education -- where does it get the authority in the constitution? if the country wants the department of education, they should give this authority in the constitution. so i call myself a strict constitutionalist, but i would be open to clarifying some provisions. people have overstepped their bounds and misinterpreted much of what was written in the document. >> abortion -- what is your view? >> i am pro-life. i think once the fetus is there is human. it is alive. it has legal rights, inheritance

rights. if that the this is aborted, it is homicide. i think it is a life. it is a life biologically. legally it is a life. government is very limited, but it should protect life. to deliberately take that life is an act of aggression. but i do not believe it is the role of the federal government to be involved. there are all kinds of acts of violence where every state does it slightly differently. you have first and second-degree murder and homicide. there are four or five different categories that you can put in. but the state should serve this out, the courts and juries. i do not advocate a federal approach to dealing with a very tough problem. that is the uniqueness and greatness of our country.

sometimes states will do it differently. but when the courts do it nationally and monolithic by and apply to all the states, like they do with rover's is weighed, i object to that because they should not have been dealing with that. texas had a lot. they had a right to do it. it may not have been perfect. how can the courts strike one law and rewrite the laws of the whole country? the founders would be very, very bewildered by how we have allowed our courts to legislate as they do. >> in your years as a doctor, have you ever had to counsel a woman who was thinking about having a -- an abortion? >> many times. when i was in practice first, the subject rarely came up. i came to congress for four terms and went back to practice. that was in the late 70's. by the time i went back, culturally things had changed. abortions were done routinely.

it bewilders me. we would come in and they would ask for an abortion like they were asking for a penicillin shot. i did my best to counsel them. but what happened was in 1984 the ultrasound became more prevalent. it is a great medical instrument. the ultrasound serves a purpose to show a young woman, or anybody, what is there in the first or second or third week even. a lot of them would have second thoughts. in the 1960's, bernard nathanson, who got a lot change -- he was doing abortions illegally, he got an ultrasound and became a pro-life. he started seeing the heart beat

and the fingers and the toes and the sucking the fingers at an early age. all of a sudden, he could not do it anymore. he was an atheist and converted to christianity and became part of the right-to-life movement. he passed away recently. he is an interesting person because he was such a strong supporter of abortion, but ultrasound changed it. i think that was part of what was happening in my medical practice. when you showed somebody what is there, they may have second thoughts. >> foreign policy. is there a ron paul dr. and when it comes to u.s. foreign policy? >> i do not think i would call it a ron paul doctrine, but i would call it an american doctor and that was advised to us by our founders and granted to us by our constitution. we have no authority to go in and nation-building. we have no authority to get

involved in internal affairs of other nations. we have a right to a strong national defense, but i would say there has been nothing we have done militarily since 1945 that had anything to do with defending this country. it has made our defense workers and has bankrupted our country. but i think that is part of what our traditions were. the founders strongly wished to stay out of entangling alliances. george bush ran on humble foreign policy and the nation- building. what happened? obama was the peace candid that the last time around. he sent a lot of groups to afghanistan. when is he going to bring them back? the couple this week, a couple next week. i call it a pro-american constitutional foreign policy. >> the state of the country

today is -- >> in dire straits, because there is a very poor understanding and determination that people want to be free and assume responsibility for themselves. they think too often government can take care of themselves -- care of them. we are in a transition. people realize government is failing. these entitlements might not come forever. we are in the middle of this transition. i think it is healthy and we are making progress. >> how do we bring back jobs? how do we jump-start the economy? >> we have to understand what caused it. if you do not understand that, all this other stuff is mischief. we got into this through too much spending, and especially the distortions caused by easy credit, low interest rates sending the wrong messages. you have to eliminate that.

you have to liquidate the debt. you have to eliminate bad investments. that means get rid of it. 1921 we did that. it was not a depression except for one year. in the 30's, we refused to keep our hands of. it lasted for 50 years. if you want jobs back, you have to get taxes and spending down. every time we get in a crisis, we add more regulations. but we are in this problem because there should of been more regulations. but the regulations should have been on the federal reserve. but if you just accept free- market principles, and provide freedom to the people and their right to keep what they earn, i think within a year we would be very wealthy again. the younger generation i talked to understand this, because all

they see is the burden of financing these wars. they cannot get jobs. how do you pay all the people receiving entitlements? the freer the society, the more prosperous it is. >> when we talk politics, your name often comes up. you have become in some big -- some circles a cult figure. >> i worry a bit about using that term. i think i explained very clearly what is important are ideas. right now, the tea party movement has a lot to do with changing attitudes in washington. i think the reason they are starting to talk about troops coming home is enough people are saying they are tired of it. i think ideas move the world in many ways. i challenge the whole concept of keynesian economics and try to get people to study free-market

economics. i do not think i would ever want to use the word cult. >> why did the tea party begin? what role did you play? >> indirectly i played a role, but not directly. we had a campaign going on in 2007. on the anniversary of the original tea party, december 16, the grass-roots supporters i had does said let's celebrate the boston tea party by having these events around the country. that was the day they raised $6 million. the campaign did its service spontaneously. but it was done on a celebration of the boston tea party. that was the breakout on that. it morphed into something much bigger and became much broader. there were other people that joined that did not have exactly the same views.

but mostly they came together because government was too big and they were worried about the deficit. >> what is it like to have a son in the u.s. senate? >> it is pretty fascinating. rand has always been interested in politics. he is a physician. it is pretty fascinating and it makes my wife and i very proud. >> it is the first time in history that the sun has been in the senate and the father in the house of representatives. >> some of the others said that while the was being sworn in, like it was a challenge. if he is in the senate and as a very good job, someday he might even get to serve in the house of representatives. >> when did you first meet your wife? >> in high school. as a matter of fact, she was going on a leap year, on the very 29, so i only had to buy

presents every four years. she does not let me get away with that, but a pretend. the first day was when she was 16. >> if there was someone in american history would like to sit down and have a conversation with, who would that be? >> i guess it would be several. i would like to pick the brain of these people who i think were very smart on economics. but there are a couple, when it comes to presidents. i think it would be neat to talk to jefferson, but also grover cleveland. he was sort of the last of the true constitutionalists, a hard money person. he did not like foreign adventures. he was a democrat. i think he would be fascinating.

he believed in vetoing bills when he did not like them. >> what can you offer as president? >> i can offer something that has not been offered in a long time that we desperately need -- a restoration of belief and conviction that freedom is more important -- ironically, people want to be president because they know how to manage foreign policy and what is best for you, and i know how to run the economy, but ironically i do not want to do any of those things. i think i could do a great job by diminishing the authoritarianism of the president and getting rid of the idea of the president being moved in the direction of the dictator. i don't want to police the world. i want to defend this country. i don't want to tell you how to live your life. i just want to protect you from people who might hurt you.

no individual can run the economy. you need a free economy. my desire to be president is to set the course of this president -- of this country in a different direction. we were more free, more prosperous. we were the lender. now we are the bar were. we are the biggest car were in the history of the world, about $3 trillion. i would like to change all that. fortunately for that goal, it is not like i have invented something new. it is nothing like that. it is saying why don't we pick up, refine, and improve on what we had in the past? freedom is a young idea, tested just a few hundred years. we need to continue to do that. the gold standard can be a better gold standard.

one cannot go back. we need to improve it. but we do not have enough confidence in ourselves. we believe we have to give up liberty in order to be safe and secure economically or physically. that is why we are less free. >> politics and the campaign -- how do you get the nomination? what is your strategy? >> my strategy is to do the same thing i have done for so long and talk about the issues. campaign organizations also have people that work very hard at locating, identifying, and getting people to the polls, understanding the laws and the rules, the difference between new hampshire and iowa and which one comes first. that is very important. that, especially for me, is usually left to other people who are interested in managing and working in a campaign. it is getting the votes.

i hope that i am the one that can provide a policy forum which will excite people not only to work hard, but send money as well. >> so your opponents, beginning with mitt romney? >> i cannot do that individually because a put them all in one lump. i think they represent mostly the status quo. i see them as a group, with variations. mitt romney is going to be different than michelle bachman , but the whole group want to promote, in many ways, the status quo. they are not calling for all the troops to come home. they are not calling for a new monetary system. they are not calling for the repeal of all laws the executive-branch rights. i want a significant change and a restoration of these freedom

principles. although they may very one to the other, they are really just a variation of the status quo, because they just see -- my supporters are seeking too much at one time. but they are moving in that direction, which i find interesting. >> what about the republican party? >> my comments about the candidates? i think the republican party has not been strong. i think richard nixon said it the best. we are all keynesian now. we believe in this stuff. we believe in big government and welfare. the parties have been very much the same over these years. republicans will talk about free markets, but they are being regulators. sarbanes oxley was a reaction

to and run. they are big regulators overseas and at home. they wanted the bailouts. that cannot go. this last decade, republicans ran up a lot of debt. that is why that status quo attitude involves both republicans and democrats. it has to change if we really want to preserve our liberties and our prosperity again. >> if michelle bachman are mitt romney becomes the republican nominee, would you support them? would you run as a third party? >> i could not support mccain last time because i thought the foreign policy was so bad. of course, he still has the same foreign policy. if a candidate endorses a foreign policy like that, i could not support them. >> would you run as a third party?

>> i am not even thinking about that. >> conversely, if you become the republican nominee, how do you win the general election? what is your message against the president? >> the general election might be easier than the primary. the republican primary voters tend to be more likely to endorse war, and i am against the wars. but that does not mean we are not making progress. sometimes, personal liberty -- some of the primary voters consider this licensed and people should not be allowed to make up their own minds. the independents is where i get strong support. we have a lot of them coming into the republican party to help out in our campaign. a lot of liberal democrats are very unhappy with obama, his foreign policy. they thought he was going to be

much more of a peace can did it. they are turned off. also, he has not been any good at all at civil liberties. he was anxious to make the patriot act permanent. he is not backing off on privacy issues at all. i want to restore the fourth amendment. i want people not to be able to get into your computer, your telephone, or any of your records without a search warrant. a lot of democrats are unhappy with that. i think in the general, it would be a lot easier getting enough people converted in the -- then the republican party. but being right to life and conservative socially, arguing a state's rights position, and the growing concern about spending overseas in foreign policy -- i think that is why we are doing

better in republican primaries now. >> how would you personally assess the president? do you want to give him a raise or a review? what would you say? >> he is average, like presidents have been for so many decades. he is plodding along, not changing anything. the policy stays the same. we keep spending money. deficits get bigger. we keep pursuing wars and flaunting the congress by going to war without even asking. it is just plodding along. he gets a poor grade, but it has been a long time since we have had a president -- grover cleveland was a great president. in recent decades, we have not had anybody who shrunk the size of government. i want to be the first president that ever made the federal register smaller, you know?

it depends on the size of the print, but there are 60 or 70,000 pages. but the executive branch is not even allowed to write laws. that is what they are doing. i want to shrink fat. that would invite businesses, may become a back into this country. they do not face the same complications. a country like china is more conducive to business right now. they are our banker. they loaned us money. they are investing in places like afghanistan. they are investing in minerals and other things. we are fighting and killing each other and spending money and bankrupting our country. we need to change that. we need to get back to investing that money here. >> are you optimistic about the future of america? >> i am very concerned, especially in the short run. i am optimistic in the long run,

mainly because i spend a lot of time with the current young generation. they are very concerned about what is happening. i am optimistic about answers. they are looking at the federal reserve and doing the things the caesarian. the young people that support me understand the need to assume responsibility for themselves. but the transition is what is rough. looked at what is going on in greece. there is nothing that guarantees we will not have those riots in our streets. there is no money in the bank. there are a lot of people in this country that believe they have the right, the government must take care of me. that could be very dangerous. on the monetary issue, most people understand the dollar will not be maintained as the reserve currency. the imf and the world bank are

trying to issue a new world currency. that is the opposite of what i would like to do. >> you have run for the house. you have run for the senate. you have run for president three times. you learn a lot about yourself. have you learned who you are through this process? >> hopefully so. what i work on is trying to make what some people think are difficult issues to understand, like economic policy. make it as simplistic as possible so people can understand it. most importantly, making these views culpable that it is in their best interest. i am not going to cut you off from all your welfare programs. if you realize what is good to coming and you were going to lose it anyway, i want people to understand it is in their best interest. i have worked on that and learned a bit to try to explain to people why it is in their

best interest. if they don't think a free society is in their best interest, they will choose to be slaves. we have been moving into that direction. we had such great wealth and they were able to do that. but now the wealth is dissipated. the jobs are gone. the debt is rising. we are on autopilot on the spending. this is a wonderful opportunity for the freedom message to get out. >> what do your wife and family think about this? about your race for the white house? >> the have probably encouraged me more than i expected or maybe i needed. they have been very, very encouraging. my wife always encouraged me to do this. >> thank you for being on c- span. we appreciate it. >> a demint register poll of iowa republican and independent voters showed michelle bachman in a close race with mitt romney.

mr. romney was the top choice of 23% of the voters. representative bachman that 22%. herman cain is in third place. tied for fourth, ron paul and newt gingrich. representative bachman will make her official campaign announcement tomorrow in waterloo, iowa. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c- span radio. >> c-span has launched a new website for politics in the 2012 presidential race, with the latest events from the campaign trail, biographies of the candidates, twitter feeds, facebook updates, and links to media partners in the early caucus states. visit us at c-span.org/ campaign2012. >> next, a look at the

republican candidates and possible candidates from today's "washington journal." this is 40 minutes. we now go it the elephant stampede the lay he is story you have been working on, five reasons the republican race is so unsettled. give us one or two. guest: one reason is that the republican field is very large and the front-runner, who is a very recent front-runner happens to be somebody that is the most energetic part of the party, the conservative tea party wing of the party, isn't happy with so they are struggling with what to do about there. do you go with the republicans have a history of going with next in line but next in line is mitt romy who is relatively moderate. so, typically the republicans have had a clear frontrunner in february of the year before

elections. this time that didn't happen until the end of may, beginning of june. another element is iowa. romney has already signaled he won't play hard in iowa so we may have a situation where iowa isn'as important as it has been in the past. it could end up being more sort of a part of t bracket of the race which is the outsider, more conservative, more tea party friendly part of the party playing out its side of the race and to see who will be battling mitt romney. host: if you look on to the "des moines register" website a new poll shows romney among republicans 23%, michelle bachmann, who announces tomorrowetomorro tomorrow, at 22%. herman kane is third. the others including former governor tim pawlenty who spent a lot of time in iowa, in single digits. guest: exactly. i was inestranged traoepbtraoe

inestranged by the poll and romney has done relatively well. although 23% is not formidable and it may than that is as high as he goes in iowa. i don't know if it means he should rethink thin his strateg. he tried very hard there four years ago and didn't win. mike huckabee won and that created sort of a loser image for romney. who then went to new hampshire and was second in the new hampshire primary. mccain came in fourth in iowa four years ago. yet he won the nomination. so the iowa caucuses are rarely predictive for the republicans. host: he is indicating he won't anticipate in the straw poll in august. he won it in 2007. based on the poll numbers does that put him in a tough position?

guest: i think it might give him pause about that. but i think really the straw poll is an important -- the first bite of the apple in iowa. not predictive since romney didn't win iowa but mike huckabee caughtire and won. but i think that it is smart for romney noto really fight that hard in iowa and then make new his primary contest. d he has to win new hampshire or he is through. host: another candidate w entered last week in new jersey with the statue of liberty as the backdrop is the bahc piece with jon huntsman. john weaver longtime aid to john mccain has been instrumental in getting huntsman in the race. when he announced he would be ambassador to china he said i won't tell you what i told

huntsman but last september and october as ambassador to china he began to give cakeses -- began it give indications he was going to run for president. is this huntsman's bid for the white house? gues jon huntsman has all t pieces in place to run a credible presidential campaign except one thing, voters. he has a good fund-raising apparatus, top tier advisors including john weaver, a pol pollster. he is intelligent. he has a foreign policy portfolio that none of the other candidates has. but nobody -- most americans n't know who he is and haven't really heard of him. a lot of people are just tuning in to the race. so there is a lot of excitement

maybe inside the beltway thinking that he may have a lot of potential but it is completely unproven. there is also a theory this is a dry run for 2016, that huntsman in many ways doesn't fit this cycle. one of his top campaign mantras is to preach simplity, yet we have a lot of energy on the right that would not say that. that you need to be aggressive going after barack obama. so, the idea is that maybe he is hedging a little bit and might not make it this time but he is introducing himself to the country such that in four years if president obama wins re-election huntsman can make credible run. host: our line for republi there. give us a call. the lines are ope now.

you can e-mail at journal@c-span.org or twitter.co twitter.com/c-sp twitter.com/cspanwj. politico has two pieces on huntsman. guest: hupblntsman had two termf governor of utah. ambassador to china. so, on the face of it good-looking guy, attractive fami family. you think he could have a lot of potentialment it is too early to write anybody off or say this is the guy, somebody who is polling in low single digits. so within those two pieces you have the colonel -- kernel of

the huntsman debate. host: why is herman kane third? guest: he did well in south carolina. a frank luntz poll had him the winner. he speaks in clear assertive seences. he is milking his outsider status and he very popular among tea party activists. if sarah palin doesn't run and tim pawlenty never catches on iowa could be a battle between michelle bachmann and herman cain. host: sarah palin back in iowa. guest: sarah palin kinds of fades from view. don't forget her but we don't pay as much attention and she comes roaring back right in the thick of things and she seems to

have a little push-pull going with michelle bachmann. host: george joins us from mount pleasant, texas, republican line. good morning, george. host: good morning. i want to know why we don't hear more about gary johnson. i think that is his name. from new mexico. host: we sat down with him about a month ago for a c-span "road to the white house" interview on our websites. what about him? guest: he didn't qualify to take part in the most recent debate on cnn. he was in the first debate and really didn't do very well. that is not why he was not invited back. there are a list of criteria that determine whether somebody is invited to take part. he ian interesting candidate.

he has a strong libertarian streak opposed to the war on drugs. but he was not a governor at all recently and has really not caught on in any significant way. so, a lot of -- some of the candidates have a kind of vicious cycle they are battling, which is nobody has herds of them or knows who they are so they don get a lot of buzz and don't make a lot of mon in fund-raising so they can't get their name out. if you don't have any money and no personal wealth to tap into it is hard to get your name out there and make that initial buzz. host: and this is a busy fund-raising week for all the candidates leading up to the end of the month. guest: exactly. they have all been busy raising money. there is talk mitt romney could lap the field and es up taking in more than all the others combined. which is a confirmation that he

is the early front-runner. but again you don't have to match mitt romney to be a competitive candidate. you just have to have enough to get your name out and bui some buzz. host: mike on e democrat align. lacrosse, wisconsin. caller: good morning. has to do with theplit between the tea party and basic g.o.p. how do you think that will affect the general election when we get to that point? not the general election but the promotional candidates for the g.o.p. at the convention? how do you think that would affect things? guest: that's a very important question. i just read a story about that that will come out tomorrow in the issue of the weekly christian science monitor. what it really i centering on who ends up being the nominee. if it is mitt romney, who is relatively moderate and is not

popular among tea party because of the massachusetts healthcare reform, you will have somebody who maybe has a shot in the general election but won't have the huge enthusiasm of an important part of the republican base. and it could hurt. i talk to tea party activists about this, some who are active in local republican politics and they will say as chairman of my local party i will have to support the nominee whoever that is. but they are not sure the members of their tea party group will be enthiastic. they may vote for governor romney but they are not necessarily going to be out there pounding on doors and really helping get out the vote. it actually makes the selection, if romney, way too early to suggest that is definitely the ca case, but his choice of running mate could be critical.

if he selects somebody that is popular with the tea party that could help. host: let me share this headline the boston sunday globe. roey care. a revolution that basically worked. the reporting of brian mooney says tt the former governor's health plan is a policy pinata among rivals but a review finds the overhaul achieved the main goals without devastating state finances. the remaining worry is fort expenses. guest: that is a fascinating part of the race. you have a front-runner who is a republican, former republican of a highly democratic state who achieved a significant legislative victory in healthcare reform achieving almost aoufrpb virile healthcare coverage -- universal healthcare but he is not disavowing it but

not touting it as a significant achievement. if life were different he could really use this. it is really an example of how somebody who in many case is a technocrat. he has a background in business and analyzing institutions, whether business or the olympics, which he turned around in utah, and taking it apart and putting it back together in a way that works. but he is not apologizing for this but he is trying very hard to draw the distinction between the federal healthcare resolve and statewide reform. but it is something he will have to address bakley in every speech going forward and he's not going to flip-flop on it. he won't disavow it but it is not going to help him at all. its a negative for him in the race for the nomination. host: we have a caller from iowa. bill joins us from dubuque.

good morning. caller: good morning. host: first of all, will you participate in the caucuses next year? caller: yes, i will. i have already registered. host: do you have a favorite so far? caller: i do, actually. but i didn't want to taint my qution. host: it with. i was curious if you have made up your mind this early. caller: yes, my favorite happens to be ron paul, which was part of my question. out here in iowa we have a little more of our thumb on the pulse here and he is the only one consistently drawing crowds of hundreds. weust had a rally in dubuque about two weeks ago and we had over 200 show up. my question kinds of revolves around that. he has quite a ground swell going here and i hear very little of it from the mainstream. i wanted to ask linda about this because she's more on the

beltway and sees what is going on. why does there seem to be a big disconnect between what is happening in iowa? because i think you will be surprised when caucus time comes. everybody is talking about romney or bachmann or everything like that and it won't be as predictive as maybe the ones in the past used to be. i'm the co-chairman for ron's campaign here in th first district and i have seen this for a while and i was wondering, is there a big disconnect between what happens out there as opposed to what goes on here? as a christian science monitor i know you take a somewhat neutral stance to get the christian stance across and i'm glad you do. host: we have an interview with ron paul and we will show an excerpt but that is 1kwr9:30 ean

tonight. guest: that is an excellent question. ron paul is a phenomenon. he has very passionate support. people such as yourself are willing to not only tell a pollster they would support him in their primary caucus but will show up at rallies and raise money for him. he does these onday fund-raisers and he can snap his fingers and bring in a million dollars. the issue with ron paul is that it is really -- he is not being seen as the ability to go much beyond 10%. if gets 20% in the iowa caucuses, that would be amazing and it would be notorthy and i thinkeople would take another look at him. but he is an unusual character. efrls not a at this point -- he is not a typical republican, libertarian leaning, some views that are against republican orthodoxy. totally in favor of getting out of our wars.

the party really isn't going to support the idea of a paul candidacy. he himself doesn't think he can get the nomination. he will say that openly. he is really out there t get his point of view across. obviously he has lot of passionate and young suppoers. he will get some attention. but somebody who is not seen as electable doesn't get the most attention. host: one thing he said abo republican field in the but is there tonight 9:30 eastern on c-span. >> size up the field. beginning with mitt romney. >> i can't do that individually because i put them all in one lump. because i think that they represent mostly the status quo so i see them as a group with variations. mitt romney will be different than michelle, you know, bachmann. but they still -- thehole

group want to promote in many ways the status quo. they are not calling for all the troops to come home. they are not calling for a new monetary system. they are not calling for the repeal of all laws that the executive branch likes. i want a significant change and a restoration of these freedom principleless. although they may vary one to the other, they are really just a variation of the status quo. host: your response? guest: it is interesting he won't differentiate. i guess if you are ron paul and you have these interesting views such as the desire to end the fed, you are going to see the others in the race with the exception of gary johnson as all in one big lump. but he is right about the sort of the establishment, that there are ceain ways in which you

can take yourself out of the establishment yet still have a support but not really ever get the kinds of attention or seriousness that you would to have. host: so many candidates, so many dissatisfactions, so much dissatfaction. elephant stampede is the topic. linda feldmann. john on thendependent line. caller: good morning. anks for taking my call. i'm grateful for c-span. i was calling to say that it seems to me that the executive decisiveness of mr. cain and thoughtfulness of newt gingrich might go well tether to possibly satisfy the thirst for

fiscal sustainability embodied by the tea party movement. and i would be very happy to see either one of them proceed in a thoughtful ongoing getting out of the herd. host: appreciate the call. guest: herman cain had a bit of a buzz after the first debate. he is scoring well in polls relative to some other candidates who are more conventional. but the view on him, because he never held elective office and he is not completely conversant on all the issues yet that he really is a long lost all of his senior staff and most recently has fundraisers quit. if you like his views, they are

not much -- there is not much there there anymore. in the iowa poll, he kept my headf tim pawlenti very that must be very ahead -- very distressing for tim pawlenti who worked very hard and done all the right things in terms of organizing and visiting iowa all the time and yet he is not registering in a serious way. host: in 2007, in the summer, barack obama was behind significantly against hillary clinton. his campaign really did not begin to catch fire until ptember and october. guest: at right, all of this task to have a big caveat which is that it is way too early. you can see the seeds of potential there. you can already see the charisma and the attention he was getting from people. when he announced for president,

in springfield, ill., he had a huge crowd of people who owed up to e him. he was a phenomenon and people still tried to figure out what he was about and who this guy was. he had not been in the senate that long and before he was a state legislator iillinois. in the case of people now in single digits, anybody could catch on. in the case of tim pawlenti, he does not have a very charismatic presentation or personality. in the debate we had on cnn, he punted when given the opportunity to go after romney and he now says that was a mistake. he needs to show passion and aggression in a nice way. he needs to show he is willing to go after people in power whether it is the front runner in the gop primary for

presidenobama. host: our next call is from florida, democrats line. caller: good morning. my idea about mr. romney having been a former massachusetts resident is that this man will stay in the front runner position as long as the media keephim there. however, if you don't go to these caucuses and let the people decide, the media will keep him there. he still has to live with being the initiator of obama care and things like th. also, mr. romney has an ego as wide as a football field. if the republicans put him up there as a presidential runner, they are welcome to him. in 2012, het win

will bear a bit -- he will be there in 2016 and 2020. he is for mitt romney. he is not for the american people. host: you might have been a native of boston are massachusetts. caller: yes, i was in the boston area. i have been down here quite a few years. host: romneycare -- what is your reaction? caller: people up there don't care for it. this, you willve be fine. we will leave it at that. i will hang up and listen to your comments. host: let me share with you what tim pawlenti said about the issue of health care and mitt

romney. this is the latest web ad for tim pawlenti. >> many candidates will come to iowa and say the same thing. have they done it? i reduced spending in real terms for the first time. i took on the government union and one. i appointed a conservative supreme court and passed health care reform the right way. no takeovers. if i can do it in minnesota, we can do it in washington. i am tim pawlenti and i approved this message. host: the focus is on the former massachusetts governor. guest: this issue of blaming the media for making it run made the front runner, i reject that. he has shown he is a tough competitor. he can raise money which is

critical. mitt romney has done this before. he ran for president four years ago. he is showing he learned some lessons and can really mount a credible campaign. i don'think it is the media doing this. as for ego, they all have big egos. you have to have a big ego to run for president. just because somebody believes in themselves and is willing to workery hard to become president es not mean they are in it for themselves or for the money, for heaven's sake. mr. romney does not make -- need the money. they have faith in themselves and they believe they can really do something for the country. i guess that's all i have. tweet --re is a tweed

guest: mitt romney as a problem with his personal presentation. tim pawlenti gets a rapport being less than exciting and mitt romney has the same problem. he has never seen completely comfortable on the stump. four years ago, his hair was perfectly in place and he wore a suit and tie and look like a classic businessman. he looked like the guy who fired your father, some said. he has backed off a little bit. sometimes his hair is a little out of place and sometimes she shows up in srtsleeves. he has a cornball sense of humor which even his own sons sometimes roll their eyes. this is a problem for him. he cannot much president obama and charisma. i don't think that necessarily disqualifies him from winning the nomination. with the economy in the straits it is in, people a looking for

somebody who has pair record. he has a solid business background. he has more than john mccain who got the nomination four years ago. there is a lot that goes into mounting a campaign. if you don't have charisma, it does not mean that you are out of the running. host: we're talking to lynn feldman of the christian science monitor. republican line is next, from texas, good morning. caller: i would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. i have known rick perry for a number of years, not personal, but being a member of the state. also, make romney and herman cain, all those seem to be man of integrity.

hard work got done to where they are at today. my question is -- in previous elections in 2008, the republicans did not ask for a recount or anything like that when they have proven that the acorn fraud happened. the black panthers stood outside the voting booth and they said they were talking about the white babies. most rectly, the week before last, lewis r. kent said white people -- louis farrakhan was talking is the republican party going to stand up and start asking for recounts? faults y point out the fals

where obama said he would bring the troops on but put them in different countries and different wars. employment what -- the unemployment went up, food costs, everything. yet he wastes money by going to the netherlands, trying to get the olympics brought here. that was something it did not need to be happening. host: it s actually copenhagen, denmark for the olympics. guest: president obama -- the issue of the voter fraud was examined read after the election and decor no longer exists anymore -- and acorn no longer exist anymore. obama won by such a wide margin. this was not critical to the outcome of the election. and the election as ssy aspects to it. anybody who runs elections, praise is not close and don't

have to look too closely as to how every vote is cast. host: is governor rick perry running? guest: we have no idea. if he does, it could be a game changer. he has been governor of texas for 10.5 years. he is popular with tea party people. that could set up a perry0- bachmann showdown in iowa. i understand he has people setting up the apparatus for a poteial campaign. he will then decide whatt wants to do. would be like haley barbour. we thought the governor of mississippi was going to run and lo and behold, he looked into his heart and decided he did not have the fire there to do it. with rick perry, i say who knows and we will have to wait and see what he decides. host: this is from our twitter page --

guest: that's right, he does not step away from it. he does not touted as an achievement. it is an albatross around his neck. you have to explain the difference bween statewide reform and federal reform. the run eight reform at an individual mandate to purchase insurance which is in the obama reform. there's no getting around that fact. he is hoping that with his record as a businessman and a former governor that he can overcome that problem. host: governor harry is in and he will win. let me share with you the latest ed campaign from the romney campaign. his target is a president obama. >> we democrats have a very

different measure of what constitutes progress in this country. the measure progress by how many people can find a job to pay the mortgage. they can put a little extra money away city could see your child receive a college diploma. >> frustration is the big board. anything i'm qualified for, that people are looking for, they also want experience. because of the economy and the way it is, there are so my people that are looking for jobs but my hands are tied. how can i get experien of no one will hire me? i was born and raised in michan. a graduate college with my bachelor's degree in business administration. i'm struggling right now, absolutely. i by bologna and bread because it's cheap. that is what i eat. right now, probably have about

$3 to my name before i get my paycheck tomorrow. it gets rough. what is wrong with me is -- host: that is the story of one michigan resident where mitt romney grew up. the message is that he has tried to put forth in this campaign. guest: mitt romney is pushing hard on the economy. he is really downplaying all the social issues that g him in trouble last time he is to favor abortion rights r example. he was viewed as a social moderate but this tim he flip- flop last time and this time he will not use that as a central theme in his campaign. economy is the issue of this campaign. romney has the background to make that essential in his campaign. i don't see any other argument for him to make. host: wisconsin, good morning. caller: very enjoyable show.

i am really impressed with the knowledge of linda feldman. on the reader ship of "the christian science monitor," are they democrat or republican? does your paper take in any editorial view on afghanistan and iraq? i look forward to your answer. guest: our readership runs the gamut. we tried hard to not show bias in either direction. we have some readers or very conservative and some or very liberal. i hear from all of them. i would like to think that means we are doing a good job. in terms of our editorial positions on iraq and afghanistan, we have not taken

any kind of get out now kind of position. i think they are calling for prudence. they say listen to the generals and pay attentn to public opinion which is imported. importanc and take the was passed on this. host: former senator rick santorum is among the republican candidates. he took part in the debe that took place earlier this month he has been going after john hulsman. -- john huntsman. >> ♪ ♪ ♪