we want to give you a couple moments, where you are with the campaign. we will start asking you questions right after that. >> my campaign has been going on for a long time. campaigning in the early 70's for liberty. i want the rule of law and the constitution. i got involved in politics inadvertently because it was a place where i could express myself. the on those issues have been very important to me and there has been a tremendous change in the country, and in the interests of what i have been doing since the 1970's. the financial crisis we're suffering from now, it is very appropriate that i continue this effort, and especially in this campaign because the whole country is looking for a new direction. not only is it different from

the 1970's, it is a difference -- is different from 1994. the big change in attitude that reflects upon how our campaign has been the financial crisis which has been recognized now by just about everybody from 2008, the collapse of the financial system that we are in the middle of. it is very serious. i think the people in washington that i know, whether is the administration and congress are just frown -- the floundering. is the administration and congress are just frown -- the floundering. the views i expressed aren't actually the most popular in washington, but the last four years, the interest has just exploded. take, for instance, the subject of monetary policy.

we who have fallen -- and follow the austrian school of economics, as far back as 1912, writing about this and why you have booms and busts, it has been totally ignored for another school of thought. we believe that is what is happening right now. thatas been around, and now a lot of people are looking because the usual answer is, you have a little recession, you spend re money, you print more money, you borrow that more money, congress spends a little bit mo money and you can snap back to a degree not realizing all you have done is passed the leak in the bubble. and delayed the inevitable. the inevitable is now here. there is no patching up the bubble. the so-called success of those that believe differently than we do allow the bubble to get

bigger than ever. we have a worldwide bubble better than the history of the world, and now we are facing in. this has allowed the popularity of the views i have been working on to be much more acceptable because of the failure. when i leave washington, when i come to iowa and go to the university campuses and talk to young people, and the last couple visits, and they have been slightly different. in the middle of the day, rightly so, we have a lot of people at retirement age. when they are very open to what i am talking about. it is sort of the condition of the country, the need for change and the open message that people have now from different viewpoints. with our foreign policy, civil

liberties, and economic problems. in that sense, i am very encouraged and it reflects on our campaign. it is easy to raise money and get supporters. our advertisements have been fantastic. we are getting a lot of attention, and the volunteers are there. what we have done is something that i don't watch from day to day. and to get people, give them a little incentive and a little explanation of what our goals are. for that reason, i have become very optimistic in the political sense of what we are doing. i also know that if we continue to do what we do in washington and we don't change our ways, i am very much a pessimist. long tm, i think we will turn this around the country will be better off for it.

>> we will talk about the economy and getting the economic house back in order. you introduced a bill in 1973 -- in 2001 to repeal the 1973 war powers resolution to president clinton for some of his contacts during because of a war. you voted against the iraqi war resolution. he supported the withdrawal of the united nations and nato, are u.s. isolationist? >> note. >> talk a bit about your foreign policy. gosh people that tend to be a more isolationt and me are the people that criticize me for being isolationist. they tend to think more internationalist deck. if you are involved in nato and the un and we need a presence in 150 countries and 900 bases, they are the ones that of the

most anxious to put on tariffs and restrict trade and do what isolationists do. they become mercantile lists. they're the ones that promotes trade barriers on cuba. how long do we have to have trade barriers on cuba? i want to make use of our 12,000 and diplomats, talk to people, try to work out problems, and be more engagedn the world. and use military force and violence as a last resort, and do it properly under the constitution and notllow a president to do it on his own or to do it under authority from the united nations or nato. i see myself as the phrase trader in the congress, and i am an internationalist in the sense that it will be voluntary. you have much more diplomacy

with people. it follows the constitution, it follows the strong advice of our founding fathers, that we shouldn't be engaged in nation building. as a matter of fact, it was really george bush's policy of the year 2000 when he said that we should not be arrogant, they will not like us if we are air again. he was criticizing the democrats. too often, both sides say that they are for less war. and yet, they end up doing more. as far as being isolationist, i think an isolationist is somebody that wants to wove themselves off. u can hear it in the own -- in ou own campaigns on this side. blame china for everything, nish china. i don't want to do that. i am not the isolationist.

they are the isolationists. i think they are making a lot of mistakes. >> you support wars with clear missions. the wars that we have been engagedn, what about -- >> world war two. the japanese bombed us and it is a goodxample of how it works. the president didn't go to war without coming to congress, the people knew about it, we made the declaration of war and everybody got behind it. in four years, we won. today, because it is nebulous anwe don't know who the enemy is, we go to war not against the government's, but we go to war against a group of people that are causing trouble, and we go into nation-building, and we go to war with false information, some people call lies.

in iraq, no al qaeda there or weapons of mass destruction. if you add men lost, we lost 8500 people during these wars. we have not had any real viories. 40,000 people comeack seriously wounded the filling of the veterans' hospitals. we have hundreds of thousands begging for help, there is an epidemic of suicide from people who have returned. a young veteran told me that he was so upset because he was upset to see his buddies killed over there and he figured out, what am i doing over here. i see some of my friends committing suicide because their mind is all twisted up.

to me, this makes no sense whatsoever and is completely different from declaring war when someone attacks us. >> have there been any examples since world war two? >> absolutely not. it was botched, it was wrong, we are stilluffering the consequences. $4 trillion was added to the national debt for this. no, they were off zero unconstitutional, which is why address at the war powers resolution. it was a reaction to vietnam and was meant, the intention was to restrain the president from doing this. so often what happens in washington, when you see an opportunity, there is a problem. what they do make things worse. it legalized war for 90 days,

and once you are in war for 90 days, it is pretty hard to come back out of it. get permission before you go win. the president's dislike it because they think they are restrained too much. but we object to it because we think they get too much license and we believe the constitution is quite adequate on going to war. >> rooselt had to do some fudging early in world war two before congress -- >> that type of maneuvering. >> would you have opposed what he did? >> absolutely. if the polies are not well informed and they cause trouble, it is difficult. i mentioned that the foreign policy stimulates the hatred toward us.

once 9/11 occurs, you can s, people in the past messed up so we don't care about this. you can't do that. but if you don't learn a lesson from it and change the policy -- as a matter of fact, to great examples of where ronald wyden as well as robin -- robert mcnamara. it was sort of the confession about mistakes and he wasn't feeling good. he was getting pretty old and he was asked by a rorter, does that mean you want to apologize for vietnam? he said, what good as an apology? if you don't learn something from this and change your policy, it means nothing. ronald reagan did something very similar when he sent the marines to lebanon on. i was in congress and spoke out strongly against that. reagan said, i will never tn tail and leave, tough.

he goes in there, we occupy, it stimulates the incentive to use a suicide terrorism. the israelis were there, the french were there, and three others. suicide terrorism was going on. he lost 241 marines, and the marines came home. he did exactly what he said he wouldn't do. is that i know i said that, but i changed my mind because i didn't realize our rational the politics was of that region. we should have been more utral. if we have followed a position of neutrality, those marines would be alive today. those are powerful messages that we should pay attention to. these are people that pushed these policies. we have to learn o lessons from this. so, yes, some of the things that

we did prior to world war two, history shows it wasn't the best thing for us. we were motivated and gave incentive for people to attack us, it is probably more true with japan than with germany, but once you are at war, you have to win. and then, it is a lot harder. have an deent during world war two like you had that vietnam. today it is not so bad, but does a lot of anti-war sentiment. people want to get home from afghanistan. we are not winning the war, and there is no end in sight. we are expanding these wars. that is really a strong issue going on. when i talk to the elderly people, i have a plan where i

can take care of the elderly that have become dependent by cutting spending massively elsewhere. if we do nothing, you will get nothing because you'll get inted money and it won't be worth anything. i say cut this money overseas and they are with me on that. the military is with me, the young people are with me, the majority of americans are with me. the policies are one party, it is the same thing over and over again and no matter what they talk about. presence around the world continues and expands. it is done in a moralistic way. we have the imperative to spread goodness around the wod, and we have this obligation to do it. consider that a very serious mistake. if you want to be an exceptional nation, i think what we should do is set a good standard, have

peace and prosperity, of the that everybody around the world. and what fled for more than 10 years, killing between a million vietnamese, and we have peace and they are westernize. we didn't have to fight the soviets or the chinese. we worked out a deal at the height of the cold war when they had missiles in cuba. the month i was drafted, i remember it well. this idea that we can't talk to people, think of the ridicule heaped on an indidual like myself for saying, maybe we ought to talk to people before we start bombing them. and that is what we should do. and people say no, you can't talk to them. if you can talk, we as a country can talk to the murdering communists of china and the soviets that killed hundreds of

millions of people at work out a deal, can't we talk to somebody who doesn't even have a nuclear weapon? and try to work it out? why should we be so anxious to resort to war and the secret prisons and torture and assassinations? it makes me rather sad to see this being accepted as a good american and patriotic. i have a strong disagreement with those sentiments. >> and bring the troops home will not be enough to solve the financial problems, what do we need to do beyond what the super committee is deadlocked over? >> of the cold war and did --

and then the military more streamlined. you want to cut spending -- almost everything goes back to 2006 budget. there are a lot of cuts, overseas spending, we call of foreign expenditures. foreign-aidtself as a small part of that. it is a different attitude. foreign expenditures is a couple hundred billion, and that -- >> does it include military spenng? >> there is a lot in the

military. that is where the dilemma is in washington. republicans are known, they would be hysterical if you cut a nickel. but the democrats and not willing to cut it either. obama once more money. the secretary wants more money for this stuff. who did that? [laughter] i am wanting to bring the troops home. the president is putting troops in australia because he is afraid china is going to attack us. it doesn't make any sense. we don't have any money. if we want to preserve enough funding to take care of the children that are dependent and the elderly dependent on medicare and social security, a narrow group of people i want to protect, because we condition them to be so dependent, everything is up for grabs.

a budget sometimes can be thousands ofages long. ours is more generalized. >> if you preserved those programs to protect those groups, the elderly, then you haven't got $1 trillion out of the budget. >> i do. we do cut enough. it wasn't easy. i wanted to balance the budget in one year, and i think your concerns or your point is that this was really tough. it was tou for me to do it, and we have some transition accounts for educational programs and some of these medical programs, something like if you get rid of the department of energy and the controlled nuclear power. we do, with $1 trillion.

there is the reduction back to the 2006 budget. >> what about projected deficits? >> of the only thing that counts is the first year. we go three years, because by our projections, we would be at a balanced budget that would take carof the other 600. we don't push this, but the truth is, if we gave reassurance and did everything right, business would boom. we would have low taxes, less regulations, we bring capital back into this country. we wouldn't be putting money into bonds, there wouldn't be an increase in the standard of living. it would be very encouraging because there be a lot of the regulations, and the businessman might decide to come back here and spend money here. there is noncentive right now. business people can do it easier in china than they can hear.

i have one businessmen tell me that it took him three weeks in china and would have taken him three years here to get the permits taken care of. >> and do you want to turn the united states and to china where you read about the quality of the era and this of the urban areas there, the pollution? part of the lack of regulatory involvement in china is that we don't care. >> it is true, is not getting worse. they are doing some, but it is still a big problem. you don't want to, but if you have a free-market economy, it is not going happen. nobody has the right to pollute. they will have the right to

pollute and they would have to not to pollute the air. i would say that we can do it, we can be competitive, but if we don't do it and we allow all the jobs to overseas, it will be devastating. that is what has happened. somebody makes money overseas and we charge them 35% corporate tax and. their job is to be productive. that is what they are and business for. to make money. it is what markets are for. if we change the conditions, you don't have to give up on environmental controls and it will be done differently. the understanding of property rights ha, again, it was the partnership of big government

and big business. i lived in pittsburgh. the sooners were put into rivers and the air was permitted -- polluted by permission of the court. to divert to clean up without the epa. it is not like a 10,000 bureaucrats from washington to come out of pittsburgh and tell them what to do. they decided it was filthy and they cleaned up their act. >> to an earlier point, if you support diplomacy, why do you oppose membership in the united nations? >> because it is a loss of sovereignty. the first thing that the united nations did was put us into a war that was undeclared. it went in under un resolution, congress didn't vote for it and the people didn't care about it. we went in and 40,000 americans were killed.

declare that war. >> it was a un resolution. they gave us the authority to go there and the truman accepted it. it didn't come fm congress. i would say it is the loss of sovereignty. the president of wanted it and did not come to congress. he said that we are going, made of give us the resolution. we went to afghanistan under nato. it is giving up national sovereignty. we need to pay more and arrests and it is not a good investment. the money should be spending here at home. and >> the model of an international peace organization that you would support? >> the organization is this there for somebody to get control over it and they fight over control. to be controlling the organization? so far, we have a lot of control

because we have a lot of the money. but orchestrating it doesn't give us more peace, it just means that they become tools of the foreign policy. if you don't have another government player, it doesn't mean that you don't want to use diplomacy and talked to people. it wasn't the un that saved us from the nuclear clash in october 1962. it had to do with common sense between two leaders that did not want to blow up the world, and fortunately, it worked out. >> you criticize using moral imperative as a rationale for going to war. is there any reason whatsoever that you would, and the condition under which he would use a moral imperative for going to war, or would you go to war only if the united states were attacked.

>> of the constitution is very clear. the moral responsibility of defending people of this country and to obey the law. the moral imperative is not that somebody needs us and you can draft somebody else's ks, take your money, and say that we are going to make it a better place. that was the motivation -- they had this moral imperative that was well-intentioned, but it ended badly. world war one was a moral imperative, making the world safe for democracy. but the world is not a greater democracy. the moral imperative is to give them a democratic government. at the same time, we're the best of friends with the dictators of saudi arabia and the other dictators we supported, like we used to support saddam hussein. our children die and we go broke on that.

what about democracy in this country? if you ever came to the conclusion that the parties are similar, which they are, above and doors of the federal reserve and that both endorsed the ownership system. so where does somebody go? where do they go? you can't go into a third party. it is not available. the laws are written by the republicans and the democrats. who controls the debates with next november. even if you had, it is not likely used to be wn the league of women voters did it. the part's control it. what right do we have to assume that we can have the moral imperative that we can impose goodness on them. the equivalent of a

holocaust? >> it depends on what the status is. we were involved in world war two. the people that committed the holocaust and declared war against us, to see the issue. >> if germany were not at war. >> our government doesn't have it. if there was a compulsion and public sentiment for it, believing it was a threat to our national security, i wouldn't be the decision maker, that is the u.s. congress. i don't think that is necessary. i don't think -- people have the right to do whatever they want, but i don't have the moral authority to compel you to go over and settle a dispute. think of many other episodes, how many times has that happen in africa? they are killing millions of people.

nobody pays any attention to those. there has to be a moral imperative there. you would have to get involved in to every single thing. it is endless, and that is more or less where we are. in is inconsistent and hypocritical, because at e same time, we prop up the dictators. we brought of the kings that practice their own lot in saudi arabia. and we pretend that we are going to get rid of the dictator that he did the iranians and he the al qaeda. we throw him out and when we take over iraq, we get rid of the christians and the al qaeda comes in. i don't believe i will persuade

the majority of american people from the moral argument. the majority of the american people are with me right now because half of them understand exactly what i am saying and the other half know we are broke and can't afford it. and the other group that does exactly what i am doing other military people. they want to come home, they see no fute in this, and that is why they give me support overwhelmingly. >> are you ruling out a third- party run? why? >> i don't want to. >> why shouldn't there be a third party? >> because it is a losing venture. you probably wouldn't have me in here. you wouldn't be talking to me. >> a lot of republicans say that you don't uphold a lot of republican viewpoints. >> it ishe funniest thing in

the world. take a look at the republican platform, personal liberty, a strong local government, free markets. i have the best of all of those. i voted against all the spending. i care about personal liberty and all the things they talk about and they say am not a republican? anybody bison to that, they are not listening. i am closer to the republican platform that any of the others. >> there are republicans in name only? >> they don't follow the platform or what republicans profess to believe in as i do, and they should be called on its. >> you will be participating in a debate later today, which is basically a test of the christian social conservatives. where do you say you fall in the spectrum of candidates on that issue, social conservatism?

>> i am very conservative on social issues. i strongly believe that life is precious and a gift from our creator, and if you don't believe that protect life, you can't protect the liberty. if you don't understand the essence of life, you cannot protect liberty. >> women should not have the right to choose abortion? >> somebody has to speak for the fetus. i have seen babies eight and nine months of pregnancy has pretty much a human being. who speaks for them? who speaks for a one-minute old baby? how does a 1 minute old baby ve that right? what if there is no mother. do you throw it in the garbage and kill it nobody speaks for the 1-minute old baby. who speaks for the fetus before birth? why does the fetus get excluded? is this not a human being? what is it?

who speaks for it? >> we have no moral imperative of for a holocaust, but we have a moral imperative for a fetus. is that what you're saying? >> i'd see the connection at all. we're not going on the china to say that you suldn't abort female fetuses. that would be a description of a moral imperative. does the state of viyella have the right to protect a fetus and that before birth because it deserves protection and has freedom of choice to live? under our constitution, it permits i was to have a law that prevents that? it is not alive, it is not human, it is not an act of violence to destroy the unborn?

the federal government has no authority whatsoever to tell i was to decide what they should do with what they construe as violent acts. the be like saying that you are allowed to prosecute people for first-degree murder, but not for manslaughter. these are difficult subjects. the founders were geniuses, not having one monolithic solution for the whole country because different states will do it in different ways. there is a very strong argument. i am very much aware of it. if the mother comes to my office and i give the wrong drug, what if i damage or hurt or ll the fetus? i am in big trouble. if you are in a car accident and the mother doesn't get hurt, but the fetus dies, you are in big trouble because you have committed an act of violence. if you want to deal with the legality of when it gets legal

rights, it is at conception. e inheritance rightsre determined by the date of conception. it would be determined by the father. there is every president in the world that there is a legal being there that has qualified for protection, but you can't just say that is of pay, it is illegal here. if a mother makes her argument, it becomes difficult. believe me, i have been in the business for a long time. i of the difficult situations and that is why i don't want one answer for all. i don't want amendments to the constitution. i don't think it is the prerogative of the federal government to be involved. >> would you select the supreme court justices opposed to abortion?

>> i would select the supreme court justices on their understanding of the constitution. if they describe what i just described, their personal position would not be quite as important. but i want to know what they think about the first amendment, how they reflect on all the bill of rights, property rights, the general welfare clause. i want them to know about this, i know what they think about the necessary and proper clause. their whole issue of abortion would be less important because their proper position would have been on roe vs wade and the states can make their own decisions. >> [inaudible] you have readhe document and it doesn't specify very much. would you agree that most laws

on the bugs don't have a constitutional basis? >> it is true, and all the regulations and the legislation done by executive order. we do not have the rule of law. we have the government now that is known that we have endorsed torture, we have rejected defense of habeas corpus, we have endorsed assassination by our president, one person deciding which americans can be assassinated. however. even when they kill a 16-year- old boy that happens to be the son of a guy that wasn't very nice and was nev tried, no charges made. we should be outraged over this. if we accept this without saying anything, we are in big trouble. that is why the rule of law is

so important. to me, that is very discouraging. but i can go out and i talk like this to older groups, and i talked to them about bringing our troops home, and the reception is very good. >> if you were in the white house during the pt three years, would you have had a different strategy has related to saddam hussein. >> no, i voted for that. we voted for the authority of going after the individuals responsible for 9/11. we had him more or less traffic. i have an image in my mind, but they have essentially trapped, forgot about them and we have to go after a raft. iraq had nothing to do with it. it is just horrible.

i lament the fact that it took 10 years. we will try to prevent them from going into this war. you can literally hire people to go out. it wasn't the government that was attacking us on the high seas. they were pirates. we would hire people. this was legally recognized internationally. and even though that you have this authority, the authority was very limited to go after certain people. i wanted them to do that, and remember how ross perot and killed with as hostages. he hired her ex military special forces and he went over there. he got his people out.

when we attempted to do it, it ended in disaster. a letter of reprisal, just think of what $500 milliowould have meant in saving the lives of how many americans? how many that are casualties now, and how many innocent iraqis. close to 1 million iraqis died. that is when you live within the confines of the constitution, always trying to hold back on the military rather than saying that we e powerful, we are going to do it. weapons themselves do not bring peace unless you know how to use them. that is what i think the letter was a great idea.

if we are arrested and gave trials of people, it could have been above -- [unintelligible] you know, we give trials of people -- israel gave them a trial. we gave trials to all the nasty war criminals. with the war criminals that participated in the holocaust, we gave them trials. >> if it was declared -- >> you supported the auorization, you're talking about after 9/11. >> it does not give authority for the drum strikes?

docile they are not bombing everybody -- >> we declared war on terrorism. >> where? i would like to see the document. kerr -- at terrorism as a tactic. they want you to understand that you're out or out of fear, they can violate your civil liberties. when war is going on, they can undermine your liberties at home. i think it is dangerous. that is just returned to generate enough fear to get the people at the coness to capitulate. if you don't agree with it, you are american. your week one, national defense because you want to defend the constitution.

i think it is wrong. theow do you reconcile interests in a marriage with the liberty, pursuit of happiness. what is the role of government there? >> not at all? >> that is my idea, just to but out. a lot of the importance of marriage, a lot of the dictionary, too. i don't want this -- i didn't vote for the marriage amendments. to me, the finding a word, if you want to define one way and it be another way, that sounds like a first amendment issue. why ould i try to convince you of my definition?

why what someone oppose their ideas on me? i want the government out. if you are going to have government under the constitution. the states have a lot more authority than the federal government has. i would rather see a the outside of government. and then we would not be arguing about this. >> of the state of marriage under tax laws, etc., conveys certain privileges that don't go to those that are unmarried. >> probably change the tax cut and get rid of it, that would be a solution. dodge get government out of the business of authorizing marriage? >> i would. if you go back in history and find that tradition of going to the bible and following it

back, people married and their churches, to me it seems like such a wonderful solution. you ca have your definition, i'll have mine, i want to tell you what to believe, you don't tell me, i don't force my views on you. i think it is wonderful. >> isn't that what the iowa supreme court did? in >> and not familiar enough to know exactly what they did. >> mistakes can grasp the rights under this definition -- >> in the states won't necessarily agree. i am giving my personal opinion of what i think should be done. under the constitution, the government should not have saiy. the states will still have the authority. >> is there a federal role in

sort of -- kind of bringing a sense of equality across the country? so a person that lives in texas andt left with fewer rights liberties that the person who lives in iowa? there are some staettes where there would be a sense of -- we don't think blacks are the same as whites. it was the government that did it. >> the government was at fault with the slave issue and discrimination. national laws, the fourteenth amendment applied. we can't take a group of people and deny them certain rights.

the biggest discrimination occurs now in the judicial system. have you looked at the people that end up getting the death penalty? it doesn't seem to be fair and balanced. but the number of people in prison for drug usage. 12% or so or black, 37% are arrested. 50% are arrested. the people that don't get the death penalty for rest of our people that e wealthy and tend to be whites. that is still where there is a lot of discrimination or the federal government would have helped. they could have an influence on that because you're not allowed to discriminate. you can't have a discriminatory laws and treat black people a certain way. >> you define yourself as a free market person, why shouldn't that apply to emigration as

well? >> there is a pretty good idea for that. that is the ideal. and away, that is what the founders argued and that is why they give us the interstate commerce clause. it is mostly distorted and is used now to regulate rather than the regulate. i would argue in the sense and that's conditionsoday are really tough. for economic reasons, because we have people that come over the borders, and i deliver a newborn baby, the baby becomes an automatic citizen and the next day the hospital nee money so they signed him up for a welfare program and they get charged a lot of money in the process continues. the welfare state interferes with it. if you had a free market healthy economy, i believe we should have a much more generous

approach to immigration on the work force. i would not say that just walking in and out under tod's circumstances would be a good idea. >> if the market calls for a certain number of workers -- >> that is whathat we shod really work for. even with the problems today, i have people come to my office looking for wkers. there are jobs out there, they just have to be trained. but the system of education coming out of college, all they have to show for it is that. that can't take these technological jobs. they say, get me somebody from japan or india. we have messed up our economy so badly, just bringing more people in that will bring their families over compounds the problem.

but as the problem that hit california and texas, literally because there is no control at all, the hospitals have had the clothes and school districts going bankrupt. a free and prosperous economy would be very generous for emigration. even though we were very generous in our early history, we never had a free emigration. everybody came man and what to do some ritual. back then, it was health reasons. >> what about decisions where this -- what about the states where the decisions to regulate beyond constitutional restrictions might be the result of national consensus, a democratic process, people choose not to contest it because it is so important that it can be a national standard for something. would you make allowances for that? >> yes, if you did it properly.

you can say the consensus of the country is that we love the federal government controlling our education. i was doesn't know how to do it. if you want national laws, you have to chae the constitution. if you do it without change the constitution, you diminish the importce of the rule of law. that is why you write the regulations, make them national, who once national regulation the most? the corporate industries. and consumers never asked for it. never is too strong, but the left in the congress mocked the republicans because they are opposed to some of the state rights issues, republicans tend to support nationalizing regulations. they want more regulations because of big businesses want this and they don't want more stringent regulations by the state. you should modify it in the

constitution. otherwise, there is not much left to its. everything is going to be so out of control. privacy is gone, the patriot and controls, the gsa malls us and we don't care. it will go on and on. if you want federal regulations, you have to change the constitution. >> how you desire the balance for tree -- balance the desire for free trade against american business interests? >> a free trade is good for american businesses. i don't think it is a cliche or a method that if you don't have free trade, if you have free trade it hurts us. and we have to manipulate inrest rates. if you don't have free trade, you go to protectionism. that is why currencies worldwide

is a detriment. we scream at them, it leaves to trade war and there are these tariffs. right now, that is the argument. china is unfair. one candidate wants to go to the wto and its sanctions put on. it is a myth. it might help for a couple weeks or months, but the prices adjust and the prices go up. business people say that you don't improve e free markets, but somebody can produce something cheaper than us, that is good. we are getting a better deal. we have to take tse resources and improve the produivity the that we compete. we were the great producers. if we can produce the steel, cars, everything else. but we can't compete because we

have undermined the whole concept of a market economy. >> what is the government does a responsibility supporting people in poverty? >> and the government house irresponsibility? the responsibility to the poor is to provide the maximum of prosperity and the maximum and jobs for people so that there are very few poor. but if you are indicating that maybe this would invite the force of government to come and extract funds from one group and give to another, that is very bad. it ends up like the housing program did. that was the principal based on the housing program. print money, have affirmative- action programs, and everybody gets a house. it gets out of control. the mortgage companies run us off, the banks make billions, and they get into derivatives

and the housing bubble bursts. they got the bailout, what happens to the people that you wanted to help? it doesn't work. >> there are an estimated 15% of americans living in poverty right now. should they n be entitled to welfare? >> all my cuts are cut from the big industry, the corporate welfare, the overseas spending, and what i'd do is the only way you can protect these people is doing what i am talking about. it doesn't mean i endorse this forever. if we continue to do this, everybody will suffer because there will be less wealth, more poverty, and i preserve taking care of those that are indigent and the need of medical care. the elderlynd the medical care, social security. but it won't hapn if people don't endorsed a change in foreign policy.

but the president to send 15,000 troops to australia and never asked any question and stir up a fight with china. you can't do it. the poor people will become more numerous. coming from overseas, you can help save and work. you have to change the monetary system, the tax cut, to get production back. you can't borrow forever. we have been led to believe that we can get away with this guy just printing more money because the world has accepted our money because it is the reserve currencyf the rld. and now we interest rates are go up, and prices are going up. urt.s who gets he

poor people. they are the onewho suffer the most, so if anyone cares, i think it is important to see how important monetary policy is. >> talk to me about the ramifications. >> i am against the committee. they will not admit we are now bankrupt. even if they fail and there is an automatic cut, there

is no actual cut. there is a coalition of democrats and republicans that will exempt military expenditures and make sure nothing gets caught. -- cut. i do not think it is going to work. it depends on how productive and we are. productivity is unpredictable,

but if it was favorable, it might not be five or 10 years before you have to change a page and benefits, but the problem is the benefits are going down automatically because the value of the dollar is going down. it depends on how well the economy recovers. >> you have got about six weeks before our caucus. i wonder if you have any final comments about whether a iowa caucus goers should support yoou. >> if they care about freedom and prosperity and peace, they will be their common and and there is a large nber that will be there. he said, one thing we know is he has a lot of supporters.

one thing we know is that if on january 3 it is 10 below zero and 10 inches of snow, and ron paul supporters will be there, so that made me feel good. >> thank you. good to chat with you. >> seeing more videos of the candidates at c-span's website for campaign 2012. read comments from candidates and political reporters. see the c-span be a partner, iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. >> now a discussion with the

publisher of the new hampshire union leader, who endorsed newt gingrich in the republican presidential primary. this is about half an hour. host: joseph mcquaid is with us. all along did it take you to endorse newt gingrich? guest: we have watched newt

gingrich for a long time. we have watched all of the so- called debates. in the 1990's, he brought the republicans to power in the first time in 40 years. his inspiration was the contract with america. his ability to work with a democratic president in bill clinton managed to get a balanced budget. they did away with the deficit. host: you write in your editorial that readers know that you do not back candidates based

on popularity polls. you look for conservatism's of courage and conviction, who are independent minded, grounded and with a core beliefs about this nation and are best equipped for the job. what exactly did he say that led to become rich of conviction, independent-minded? take us through some of the details and the compensations and interactions you have had. guest: he is not afraid to speak his mind, as your your bangs know. -- viewers know. he spoke on the issue of longtime illegal immigrant -- long time immigrants bursas newly over the fence. if we have to look at history and shape a new term for the country both here and abroad -- i am one of those skeptics who always think, when they say it

is about the economy stupid and domestic affairs, i am always looking over it spends to see where they stand on foreign affairs. there, too, newt gingrich has a wealth of knowledge and not a hair trigger. he would know how to process the information. host: the manchester union leader has made its endorsement of newt gingrich. joseph mcquaid is publisher of the manchester union leader. give us a sense of what the voters in new hampshire are feeling about the candidates. guest: the polls show romney maintains a lead, which is understandable in do hampshire.

he has a place in new hampshire and he was the governor of massachusetts not so long ago there is also a tremendous amount of indecision. we thought part of that is what has been the national media focus on the republican campaign, which has been to magnify every little mistake every one of them makes and not concentrate on the broader issues. the last poll from the university of new hampshire and the local abc affiliate shows 16% of the voters were committed to their candidate. 17 weeks left before the primary. -- seven weeks left before the primary. host: explain the process you

undertake in the coming up with the endorsement. you said newt gingrich was among the most visible to you if not the most visible. how did you get to the point you got to this morning? guest: i have two grandson's. onut two candidates' names one and one on the other. i throw the two kids up in the air. which ever kid comes down with that name on it, that is the candidate. i don't mean to be glib. there are two people who write the editorials. drew has been in with all of the meetings -- in on all of the meetings with the candidates. we talked about it. we came to the conclusion a few weeks ago that it really came

down to two or three candidates. and who was going to best grab the moment and not be a manager if he got into office. being rich sometimes goes off and people say, what is he talking about? at least they are asking, what is he talking about? he is providing ideas. he has done so much work in terms of medical health costs and social security systems. it was not that difficult for the two a bus and other people i respect in the committee to say -- for the two of us and other people i respect in the community to say he is being one. host: people say new hampshire is a must win or mitt romney.

what is your perspective on the endorsement and mitt romney's campaign? guest: he is pretty much the favorite son. this is always a game of expectations. the expectations are going to be a little lower as a result of the conservative newspaper weighing in . he has to win by a solid margin. the three that will mix it up will be romney, gingrich, and ron paul. ost: let's get to calls for joseph mcquaid. he is the publisher of manchester union leader. caller: hi. i was wondering why the media

has so much perceived power. why is everyone allowing the media to voted our us? i have nothing against mr. gingrich. i do not think mr. romney should be the guy. i do not understand why all of this value is being given to the media and taking the vote away from individuals such as myself. i am supposed to believe that gingrich's demands for me because some newspaper up in new hampshire, some guy -- i would rather you through the kids up in the air. it would be better. whoever you guys cut your deals with, host: we lost him, but we got

the point talking about perceived power. he can make his own decision. what do you make up the general thrust of his comments? guest: i did throw the kids up in the air and gingrich came down the winner. i thought i made that clear. people can set a course based on what we have said. they know us and they know where we come from. they either agree or disagree. they say okay, the union leader says this. it has been a strong conservative voice. it has not always pick winners by any stretch of the imagination. we did last time with mccain. in 2000, we picked steve forbes. he did not go on to be president. it is merely a matter of union leader reporters talking to

these folks. i have talked to him since 1976. we do not go along with the big shots either. we do not consider ourselves a big shot. we are staking want as arbiter of voice. -- we are stating one conservative voice. host: newt gingrich, the union leader writes, is not a perfect candidate. unattainablean ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. he is worthy of your support on january 10. our next call from the international line. it is matthew from wales in the

u.k. you are on the air with the publisher of the union leader. caller: i just wanted bit of education. we have several different policies here in the u.k. there are 500 million americans, of which 400 million are potential votes. why do you only have two political parties? it is strange that for a large population, you don't have any alternatives. it seems that they would be outgunned somehow. can you help me please? host: how about a political lesson? guest: you touch upon it when you said finances. these two organizations,

republican and democratic parties are quite powerful. they raise a considerable amount of money. they have shunted aside any independent third choice. c-span.org followers know that to start an independent online third party for president there the bushleman from administration who has some backing. he is going to try to get a name on 50 state ballots. i think that will be difficult to do. the process has already started. there are independents. the crop up every four or 8 years. many were upset with ralph nader in 2000 -- in 2004. they think he took votes away from john kerry and before that

al gore. we had ross perot, who was an independent businessman who got a few votes. the history of this country is of the thirdk surge party was in 1912 when teddy roosevelt challenged william howard taft. all it did was pave the way for a democrat to get in. that is what some people fear, too. the tea party is a strong voice in the republican party. some people in that group have said, if we do not like the republican candidate, we will have a third one. republicans, including gingrich, argue that if you have three choices and you go for the third party, you are really electing president obama. third parties do not happen because it takes too much money. i think it is a shame.

host: we have some comments from newt gingrich during an interview with the union leader. it happened on november 18. he talks about his prospects for beating president obama. we will show that and come back for some comments. >> i can vote to beat obama or i can voted to the left obama. there would be less tendency to have a third party this year than at any time in the third times because of the desperate desire to beat obama. if you say to people, who would you like to see debate obama, overwhelmingly day st. me. to do that, i would have to be the nominee. host: newt gingrich on the prospects for beating obama.

what did you hear in that, the conviction you talked about? guest: he is a great student of history and america's core values. he has really grown up. he has been a shooter from the hip. he does not suffer fools gladly. sometimes he does not shop for -- suffer friends gladly. he has learned to bite his tongue. you can see in the republican debates -- i hate to call them that because there is not much of a back and forth. the moderator gave people time to get their answers out. gingrich was head and shoulders above his rivals in the that the date format, answering -- that

debate format, just going after the answers and not trying to score points with a memorable short answer, but saying what he really felt. i thought his put down of ron paul in the last debate when they were talking national security and the patriot act and paul was saying you have to protect the rights of bad guys intent on blowing up american cities. gingrich said that was not a good enough reason. ron paul said, we have tended day. gingrich said -- ron paul said, we got tim mcveigh. gingrich said we got him after

he murdered all of those people. he said we have to stop islamic extremist before they get a dirty bomb into an american city. host: we have lots of calls coming up for our guest. among the candidates in new hampshire, whose ground game is the strongest? guest: dean risch does not have much of a ground game at all -- gingrich does not have much of the ground game at all. he is going to have to spend considerable time here. rick santorum has a sharp guy who worked on the buchanan campaign years ago. he has put together some strong ground work. beyond that, governor huntsman is here a lot. he has not attracted much attention and much support.

ron paul is a magnetic force by himself and draws good crowds where he goes. everybody has a different strategy. governor terry is not to be counted out. -- governor perry is not to be counted out. he has a lot of money. host: one person we have not talked about is herman cain. he has rescheduled his interview or later this week. what do you hope to hear from herman cain? guest: just businessman ca show off his positions. he is the anti-government businessman. he has not held public office. i hope he still comes in just

because we have endorsed a candidate does not mean we do not want for ourselves, our readers and for the c-span audience to hear what the guy has to say. we have met herman cain before. he can in the earlier this year for a short chat. i found him to be quite an engaging guy who has a lot of interesting ideas. host: susan in michigan on the independent line. caller: i have a quick comment. during the first election, i vote for obama. now i am looking to the right. gingrich was the most intelligent and the most articulate. my problem with him is the trust factor. during the clinton years, he had his past indiscretions. what would make me want to trust them now?

it is business as usual. one of the old guys. i like huntsman. ron paul is the most honest one to me. host: joseph mcquaid, the trust factor? guest: that is a negative for newt gingrich. he was in office quite a while ago. on the matter of personal indiscretions, everybody has them in the background. gingrich also has been magnified and distorted to a -great to- degree -- gingrich's have been magnified to a distorted degree. we got him and his daughter to talk about this urban legend that he visited his dying wife in the hospital to serve her

divorce papers. it is the kind of thing that if you are a political junkie, you want to believe its bank. you want tot -- believe it. there is not a grain of truth in it. her mother is still alive and well. her mother asked for the divorce, not mr. gingrich. mr. gingrich took his two daughters to drop them off to see their mother and decided to go up himself. he and his wife got into a heated argument. so what? people who go through divorces tend to do that. people who are not getting divorced tend to do that. everything about being rich is going to be back in the fight. -- everything about being rich g going to be magnified --

ingrich is going to be magnified. guest: newt is the man. his philosophy is largely based on the fact that he is a historian. i should remind people that 15 years ago, he almost got us a balanced budget amendment. we would not have these problems right now if he had gotten us back -- gotten us that. we cannot throw money at the economy. it is too big for the government to throw money at. the only thing we can do is stop hurting its as much. the only way we will get out of this is to grow the economy.

in order to do that, we have to make our environment and attractive environment for corporations to stay here or come here. we have no control over the cost of labor in china. the only thing our government has control over is how much we tax corporations and how much we regulate corporations. host: thank you. what else did newt gingrich say to you on the economic front that you appreciate it? guest: i was thinking back to some of the flaws the first lady mentioned. there are some interesting things gingrich has done on his web site. he has come up with his own attack on himself. everything you can possibly hear about him, he has put up on his web site and he has answered it. a lot of it has to do with

finances. he has made money off of an advisory contact with freddie mac. that is a horrible thing because he is a businessman and freddie mac went into the tank. on economics, the other caller is correct. gingrich wants to get the capital gains tax down. he wants the corporate tax down. he understands the levers of government that get in the way and which, if we moved our lessons, can do a better job at letting the economy grow. the country is at a crossroads. domestically, it is on the great national debt and the economic malaise we remain in the. host: mr. gingrich spoke about social security in the miti had with you. let's -- in the meeting he had

with you. let's listen in. >> everyone can choose a personal social security account. the easiest model is that you are allowed to put your half of the social security check into your own social security savings account. it turns out that half of the amount of social security built up over your working life time is two or three times -- host: that is something he has said before in the debate about social security. guest: herman cain has been big on the social security change, too. he mentions the same model being

ridge mountains, which is chi -- the same model that gingrich mentioned, which is chile and galveston, texas. he mentioned fraud and waste and savings that could be made. he talked to american express about having them be in charge of making payments rather than the federal government. it was quite a substantial figure that he identified that could be saved. it is that kind of thing that is outside the box. >> tomorrow on washington journal, a look at the legal future of the affordable health care act. and a talk about defense authorizations delay with

disaster response. and because of operating the guantanamo bay detention center. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the newly designed c-span website has 11 video traces making it easy for you to watch today's events. it is also easy for you to get our schedule. you can quickly scrolled through all of the programs and recede and e-mail alert when your program is scheduled to air. -- the scenes -- receive e-mails when your program is scheduled to air. you can find out where to watch out or 3 c-span networks at the all new