me the nomination. >> you haven't spent as much time in the state of the other candidates. why is that? >> actually retract number of days for other candidates and their sound like rick santorum that are focusing entirely on ioannis and a lot of time here. but as we look person-to-person, were pretty competitive. newt gingrich and rick santorum have had more days in iowa tonight. but i'm also campaigning in new hampshire and south carolina and florida and nevada. i want to do well in the early primary states, but i also want delegates to win the nomination. and so for me this is not trying to surprise people by doing it are then expected at restates. i want to do well in all the states and get delegates. this is about getting the nomination and for me that men spend time in the various state. and also, whether this is a wise

strategy or not i don't know, but we spent a lot of time raising money. and so rephrased by so i can go out with advertised and get my message to people across iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and that's something other candidates haven't done. that frees up a lot more time to go around the state and say we want make sure we have the resources, not just to do well once or twice, but he can to go through the process and get the nomination. >> it's not that you feel iowa if social conservatives who dominate the republican party will support you? >> you know, i realize i have an uphill climb to get the nod, the number one spot in iowa. i'd like to get a spot. but if i don't get that spot, i'll be happy if i do well. i'd like to do well. again, i had delegates. a lot of the early states are going to award delegates on a proportional basis. i want to get my fair share of

that proportion from the very beginning and then take a larger, larger share as time goes on. >> is this campaign different for you in iowa than it was four years ago? had to change now and forever in the way we do this process in this country? >> you know, it seems to change every cycle. i don't know that i can tell you what the next cycle will be like. my guess is that will be different than this. but this cycle for me -- i have met people throughout iowa and therefore had folks who supported me before client to do it again. and so the last time i had no one. so i decide a lot of time getting to meet all and send them out to be part of the team and hoping they'd be with me and straw poll the caucuses. and this time i start with a bit of a base for change in how must time. it's allowed me to spend time in other states as well and

generate support for folks who don't really know who i am. i do think also one of the things that just changes the importance of debates. the audiences were to base a much larger than they were last time around. last time rudy giuliani, movie star fred thompson -- he would've thought there would've been -- [laughter] tv stars, tv personality. i mean, these are famous. and i was out 1% or 2% starting off last hindsight to just go up issue leather and get no and this time in better known for good or evil as the case may be. but that's allowed me to make sure that i can hopefully be successful here getting support, but also get support in other states on the road.

>> you talk about debates and tv personalities and immediately think about donald trump. tell me why he decided not to participate in the defeat. >> in the month of december we had requests for x, 810 debates and we all met inside how we can work her schedule? where will i be campaigning and they said we can do to debates in december and keep up with their fundraising and campaigning. and we picked to debates and well after we announced those, the folks at the trump today said would like to host one, too. we said we are befuddled our calendar. i respect donald trump and the organizers at newsnight. they're obviously a very important conservative organ and i've nothing against their debater against the other debates that were proposed. but we can only do so many. and i joke that i think the time is coming soon where people are going to call their local station and say please return to the regularly scheduled

programming. i don't know how many debates. someone said the other night huckabay said we have 14 or semi-debates and forums. i mean, i think we've heard he had more debates and forums than we had last time through the whole process. so there does come a point where people feel it's okay, i assorted seen it enough. there's also a concern that if you had that many debates that the questioners began to ask more and more arcane questions that are really the questions that are front and center in people's minds. and that may not be the right process. so for us december made sense. you're be one of them. [inaudible] >> exactly right. and in january, maybe two again. maybe three. time will tell. >> some of the candidates for the republican nomination

positive sense that the weight to what this country's problems is going basically with the wrecking ball into washington d.c. and to destroy the federal courts and congress and the presidency as it's been managed under the current president. what is your take on that approach? and what is your philosophy of governing that the federal level? >> well, heated rhetoric generates a lot of support on a temporary basis, but we've got to fix the country. there is no question, that there are needs for reorganization will eliminate programs. i combined 15 different agencies insider health and human services health and human services department about the mandatory grouping. but that doesn't mean i eliminate all the things they take. i just found a way to work

together. congress has been a difficult body to get to act on key measures. but in my view, that is because of lack of leadership in the white house. we've had the same structure of government for a long, long time. a certain various times in the past. right now when a crisis crisis and economically. and with the right leadership they think we can make it work. do we need to change washington and the nature of the discourse in washington? absolutely. and this president, despite the rhetoric has been missing in action. they came off in the first weeks in office. and they put together a stimulus package which they sign with the ovonic kare health care plan, which is also something that was devised and worked out without

as much traction from him that i might expect it. three years then, we know the president has said medicare and social security are fiscally unsustainable. but three years then he has made no proposals to make unsustainable. i find it a very unusual presidency that where the white house that has not reached across the aisle, work towards republican leaders, battled it out in private, refrained from attack and there might've been able to lead. the country -- i mean, i hope you will recognize. >> what would you do differently? >> i will tell you specifically. but i remember the beginning with a stimulus. he said look i want to work with republicans on a stimulus. i want their input. the republican leader cantor called me among others to come

testify before a group of republicans in congress and later views about what we should do for the economy. make what may now headed hp was also there. we testify together. on the day we were there testifying, nancy pelosi introduced the democratic plan. it's like we are here and it's clear that no interest whatsoever. obamacare came along. in every way possible, the american people said we do not want obamacare. they elected scott brown in massachusetts, a republican in the most liberal state -- among the most liberal state in the nation. they did not want obamacare. they wanted no input from republicans. there were plans for bipartisan plans. whenever senator bennett and senator wyden put together a bipartisan plan pushed aside. from akin tell, this white house has stood aside and let nancy pelosi and harry reid ran the show. how would i do it differently? i was lucky enough to be lucky

and quotes where the state is 85% democrat. but time is some lessons. they figured out from day one of going to get nothing done if they attack these guys on a personal basis. the speaker of the house in the senate president have to have respect for me and i for them. he went and met them in their offices. we established a case of needing every monday and one of our offices. we rotated. i didn't say i'd the governor come to my office. beside each other, got to know each other and talked about challenges going on in the state every week, all of the records. none of it never leaked. they didn't like it, i never leaked it. we let her hair down. i remember on one occasion, one of the leader said to me, look, this bill we are pushing is what i know wild about, but you've got to give your cover so i can stop it. he's got to fight a second push back against my constituency. we had that kind of open discourse upon another.

i never attacked them. we talked about differences on issues, but there was no attack. and the results of all of that was we had enough respect for one another that we did a lot of things that were quite successful. we balanced the budget every year for four years. we didn't raise taxes. we built a rainy day fund of over a billion dollars by the time i left despite a $3 billion budget shortfall in my first year. we held the line in education. there were some people who said, do not implement this requirement is you can't graduate from massachusetts high school unless you pass the graduation exam. i said no, i'm going to hold firm to that. and they stood by me on that. issue after issue were able to work together. >> you think you could at the same influence that the republican leadership in u.s. senate and in the house? >> and the democratic leadership i presume you mean.

>> they're pretty independent. >> people are very independent. i can assure the leaders in the massachusetts state senate and house of representatives are quite independent people. there are places we disagreed, places i was unsuccessful. but we had enough respect for each other and i worked hard enough on a personal basis that we were able to make progress on very important measures, including for instance her health care plan. this was done against long odds that we could accomplish something of that nature. no other state in america has been able to do what we did. her education system is now number one in the nation. this is republicans and democrats working together. i can't guarantee that everything i want to do in washington will get done. but i can guarantee that i will focus on getting that job done rather than getting reelected or pursuing a partisan agenda.

i am not a lifelong political figure, as you know. i've run for others of us before. i like winning better. my career was in the air. and i administration takes the country and get on track again because i'm very concerned that if we stay in the track we're on, we will be italy or greece. and 56 years we will face the same trauma that they're facing right now. and the consequence of an america in distress is virtually impossible to calculate. no one can bail us out. and i'm concerned about the trauma that so many families feel today that are out of work. i'm concerned the catastrophe that would exist if we fell in two the italy, europe, ireland to stress. and i'm concerned about protection of freedom long-term

good >> he talked about programs he would eliminate and specifically what those ian howells he would, you know, reduce the federal deficit. >> yeah, yeah, there are two parts of the federal government that i think we have to address. one is the income statement and the other is the balance sheet. as their business terms you're familiar with. but the income statement may come at the annual budget is what we had to cut spending in my view. there are three parts of that. one is to eliminate programs. and the easiest to get rid of are the ones who don't like like obamacare and that takes about $95 billion a year by the fourth year of the next president's first term. hopefully that's me. and then there's other programs. the national endowment for the arts, humanities, and track, the public broadcasting. as a long list of programs many people like. some of those i like myself. but the test for me is, is this program so critical that it's

worth her weight money from china to pay for a? right now a lot of things we are doing we are funding by borrowing money from other people who will demand interest in payback at some point. and so for me this is a very important test. is this program critical? i will eliminate a lot of programs, even those i like because of that test. number two, there are programs we need to keep in place, but they could be read far more efficiently if returned to the states rather than rent for the federal level. one of those is medicaid, the health care program for the poor, worry take medicaid dollars, for instance iowa received in the past. implant with a cpi plus 1% say iowa come you craft your own program for caring for your own poor. we're not going to mandate you covered how you cover them. new structure that in the way you think i scared you of decay time to organize for granted that nature. and by the way, just that i

medicaid -- making the change in medicaid but cpi plus 1% is a hundred billion dollars a year for years now. the other programs, training programs. there's 47 different workforce training programs that have been put in place in the federal government to report to the different agencies. gao did an evaluation of those programs. they did not find any of them to be affect this. these are billions of dollars of training programs. i would take all that money, bundle it and send it to the states and say you craft your own programs to train your own work for us for the jobs that exist in your state as opposed to having the federal government tell you how to read this programs. i would look at other programs related to helping the poor and candidates but also could be returned to know whether that's housing vouchers, food stands, other programs where we can return these to the states because it's different being

poor in ios than massachusetts and michigan and mississippi and let states be the home for this kind of programs. >> with health care reform, how you will you ensure millions of americans? >> item onto which is the way because in my statist list is craft their own programs. but stays cracked a program that works for their own state and return medicaid dollars to iowa. iowa will then have resources to care for the uninsured and poor. that is -- iowa solution look different than what we did in massachusetts and learn from each other in the laboratories of the u.k. then called will provide models for us to help people become insured. there's also things that can be done at the federal level. so i replaced at the federal level with a couple of things. one, i allow individuals to purchase health insurance on their own on the same tax

advantage basis that exist now for corporations. we discriminate against individuals who want their own health insurance. you folks probably get your insurance through this corporation. if you want to buy it on your out en masse by the way the tax advantage. the deduction to the company to be altered by insurance. see you get a tax, if you will come a tax subsidy by getting insurance from your company. if on the other hand are a sole proprietor running a business out of your home, you have to pay for health insurance in after-tax dollars. i want to change that. i want to level the playing field and make it easier for people to other insurance. people might say i'd rather buy me a chair and then had to register by it for me. and that's a choice you can make. that's one change on the rebels want to make sure we provide for the concerned of preexisting conditions. people shouldn't have to worry they will lose their insurance if they change jobs or if they become ill or they are laid off

or whatever. so you have to cover those things. those things i would insist that the federal level. let me go on. i'm mentioned fixing the income statement. the other side of the balance sheet. our balance sheet problems, $62 trillion of unfunded promises as medicare and medicaid -- excuse me, medicare and social security and other entitlements including medicaid. social security is relatively easy analytically to make balanced -- fiscally balanced. medicare is a tougher one. and with regards to social security, i would for the next generation, not the current generation, for them things stay the same. but for the next generation was slowly increase retirement age and also lowered the growth rate of benefits for higher income social security was the pants. for middle and low-income social security represents, that has to

do with the weight index to say the same. higher income people have higher growth rate. that balance is social security. then there's medicare. [inaudible] >> but i do in that regard is this. in my tax plan i eliminate for anyone making $200,000 a year or less. i eliminate any tax on interest dividends or capital gains. so in effect people create their own effect because there'll be no tax on their statements for middle income americans. over to medicare, we had a program for some tendency no cosmetic. vantage, where people have a choice of traditional fee-for-service medicare or private insurance. and that is the choice that they have. that exists already. which, by the way, when it was

being discussed it and people said this is privatization of medicare. no, people have a choice of a private plan, but they also keep traditional medicare. my plan takes that idea and says we are now going to provide that for the next generation. we're going to give people a premium subsidy and they can purchase whichever product they want, either the private plan for the traditional medicare fee-for-service plan. and that takes advantage of a few of the concept of money. vantage, which exists right now and by virtue congress adopting a plan to grow those premium support payments over time that a controlled rate, were able to make medicare cost effective and not break the bank and make sure to sustain long-term. so you asked a simple question and giving you a long answer. getting america's fiscal house in order is not a quick soundbite answer. it's other things to do to get her income statement in mind

when we finally balanced the budget and several things we have to do to get our balance sheet, meeting our long-term obligations in line. and the plan i laid out does that. >> are there any cuts in military spending in your balancing the budget? >> yeah, there are a number of inefficiencies of government itself that will have to be addressed. and i will -- does exist in the military as in other agencies. i will go after those, capture those. there are defense programs that i think are insisted upon by various congresspeople who have a favorite project of some of those programs that should be eliminated. in some cases various weapons systems. i anticipate that money however will not go to paying down the budget deficit, but the money will be used to update our navy, updater for us, bring in an additional 100,000 active-duty personnel and provide the

benefits for veterans they deserve. >> nonet cuts to the defense? >> i anticipate nonet cuts. we are at 3.8% gdp for the military. and i think we have to keep at approximately 4% of the gdp for the near-term. for the military. by the way, let me give you the overall numbers. federal spending as a percentage of gdp is about 20 cypress. and the bass department of defense budget is about 3.8% of that 25. vendors also wartime costs. and i should clearly communicate that as their conflicts in afghanistan and iraq way down, there will be savings in those areas and that will be reduced. >> are you okay with the timetable we are using to why nosedown? >> the final date in afghanistan as it might view the appropriate day to set as a target.

which is 2014. the 2012 pulled out of the surge troops i think has been accelerated by three months for political purposes. and i think that's a mistake. i think the pull out of our surge troops in afghanistan should have been in december as the commanders requested. [inaudible] i was talking about afghanistan there. i hope that got that right. the surge troops in december 2012, not september 2012. they think the september date is the political date and it puts our troops and a withdrawn though during the fighting season, which i think is dangerous. with regards to iraq on the course we follow the bush timeline with one exception. that is president bush and i believe others anticipated we would have an ongoing force the summer between 10, 20 and 30,000 to help in the transition.

president obama secretary of defense suggested that would be the case and they were unable to negotiate a status of forces agreement to out of 10, 20 to 30,000 troops remain which is a failure in the. does the wind down in iraq appropriate? yes. and the money from those things, which is quite substantial, funny from afghanistan and iraq, that nea do not keep in the military. that in fact does disappear. >> opposing same-sex marriage, what is the basis of your opposition about what you do about it as president? >> the basis of opposition is i.t. that the ideal setting for reason a child is right there is a male evolve. i believe marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman and i support the concept. the action that i take as president depends in part upon the state of play in washington. the people there and what options it is. certainly i defend the defense

of marriage act, which the current president has refused to defend. i believe the defense of marriage act was well constructed and should be maintained. i would like to see a national amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. but that was tried maybe three or four years ago. i don't think that likely to receive the necessary support, at least in the near-term. >> how do you feel about serving openly in the military? >> srd occurred. i'm not planning on reversing at this stage. >> but you're comfortable with? >> i was not comfortable with making the change during conflict by complicating features of a program in the middle of two wars going on. but those were sir brady down and moving in that direction at this stage that the longer presents that problem. >> sensitive to our time together, let me ask you a quick

question. but at the differences between you and speaker of the house gingrich? weirded termer numbers are surging and there's an awful lot of undecided voters. primarily differences between the two of you. >> well, let me step back and say, what is that you're looking for when choosing a president? and you have to think about that every four years as you think about someone to endorse. in one part is what are their ideas and views on issues? that's an important part. i like my ideas better. and then issues, he and i disagree and i like my position better than his position. i'll tell you of some of those sorry. that is one measure. the other measures tell me about the person's capacity to the period has the person ventilator before? what kind of job they do? what do the people around and about that job? what is the enterprise that they let? how did they do under their

leadership? i've had four occasions to be a leader. i grew up in a home with a dad who is a leader. i learned by watching him. within a fast run a to run a company that comment to distress. was able to help turn it around. then i started my own company and made it one of the most successful of its kind in the world. then i says to go out and run the olympics in salt lake city when i got in trouble and that became a success. in each of these cases. you don't do these things by yourself as a leader bergson other people to help make it successful. i came to massachusetts at a time of difficulty the state. were able to turn the seat around to make it more successful. i've had those experiences. i hope it you and others look at the candidates say how did he leave? what do people learn and think about that experience? what are the measures of whether he is successful in that role? pilot back in our presidents and think what made ronald reagan a great president? what made jfk a great president?

what made dwight eisenhower, one of my friends favorite presidents, doesn't get enough credit. teddy roosevelt and john adams and went and washed them. what made these people presidents? is not necessarily they have the best answers and issues. although they are pretty good in those things. but they were leaders and they confronted challenges that america faced with sobriety and wisdom and judgment. there were men of her, vision that were trusted by others and had the capacity to lead. that i believe is an area where you will be able to look at the various candidates and say who has been a leader and who would be the best leader in a time of challenge? there are other differences. i've had the leadership experience. i've also spent my life in the air. speaker gingrich has spent the last 30, 40 years in washington. nothing wrong with that. it's just different.

i think that having spent time in the tour in understanding how come and go and buy businesses grew or why they shrink in how you compete globally. i think that experience is essential at a time when the battles -- i put in quotes, the battle we face are not military so much as they are economic as i look over the coming century. our hope our military is so superior no one even thinks of testing again. arbat also be economic. i understand how economy works at the level of job creators. i think that's a factor that's important. and then of course there's the issues and policy position, with regards to medicare. i agree with "the wall street journal." the romney plan is better than the gingrich plan. that's a pretty big distinction. i disagree with the speaker thinking we should eliminate some parts of child labor laws so kids could clean schools. i don't think that's a great idea. i saw the speaker had a measure

that i read about, which was to put a permanent colony on the moon tonight where materials presented. i think we've got some other parodies before we do that. even talked about a series of mirrors we could put in space to later highways at night. i've got some better ideas for resources. so we have differences on issues and ideas and i respect the speaker is a bright and capable guy. who are very different people. and my background is we follow very different paths. i happen to think at a time like this summit is spent their career in the dirt and who is lead time and time again in the area and also in the governmental sector has by far the best chance at defeating the president and fixing the country at a critical time. and i said this at the outset, but i'm really concerned the

president believes there's something wrong with the way america works in the sky to transform and change it and turn it into what i call an entitlement society. i'm afraid that that is the wrong way to go. we have to be a mirror of society. and if their places of unfairness and there surely must be, the mutts fix those. those are the differences. i'll mention one more. i think everybody who has an adopted the idea there should be no tax and interest in digital games. my own calculation isn't that what the case, for anybody, and i would've paid no taxes for last 10 years. because all my income is from interest dividends and capital gains are neither would locate or warren buffet and so forth. my view is the place we need tax relief is for middle income americans. that is why my capital gains, interest and dividends tax reductions for middle income

americans. and that is where i think the hope is needed most. >> excuse me, governor. i've been accused around here being a conservative. and occasionally -- i'm not so sure you're going to say that. some i talk to, my friends don't dislike you, but they look at your record and they don't trust you to be a reliable conservative. how do you convince them? to have a couple weeks to do that. >> they will get a chance to read my book. they should remember is the guy that ran four years ago as a conservative alternative to john mccain. mike huckabee and i were both really not as conservative folks, but my opponents try and characterize me in ways that are obviously an advantage and i do the same to them. i'm not going to cry about the nature of politics. but four years ago i was seen as the conservative candidate. nothing has changed my position.

and just as conservative today as it was four years ago. >> how can you convince them? is not taking. >> is issue four issue. her hats pointing out that newt gingrich said the popeye and plan was a right-wing social engineering and i said is a big step forward and ran the same page. hopefully that will convince them. newt gingrich on global warming and something about climate will change he supported cap-and-trade. i oppose cap-and-trade. on immigration. he and i have previous there. my view is more conservative than his view. so far we've had a pretty good feel. i would've been ranting and contrasting myself self-determined caner at kerry or michele bachmann. and now it is newt gingrich. so we will finally talk about contrast they are and hopefully people will take a close look and say gosh, mitt romney has been the guy who has been out there fighting for conservative

ideals for some time. >> sort of a questioning of your position comes maybe from how your positions have either changed or evolved over time. and the question might be, how do we know that mitt romney we have today is going to be the one that's going to be in the white house? and when i change again? >> the issue abnormally confronted with his abortion. sometimes by the way people at other issues. others that i haven't changed on. for instance, we continuously say you change your position on. no i didn't. i pat the same position since the beginning of my political career. i am in favor of providing for gay people and discrimination based on orientation. i said from the beginning i oppose same-sex. a civil union if it's virtually identical to same-sex marriage. and they said zero you change your position.

no, that's the nature of politics. but i did change my view on abortion and you change the first time that governor the legislation really raise this issue because i thought i could see things the way they were. look up on governor won't change anything related to abortion. and then a piece of legislation came to my desk they were going to redefine when life begins as opposed to be in that conception and number two, we'll allow the creation of embryos for purpose of experimentation and destruction of the embryos. and i could not find a piece of legislation like that. that was not leaving things the way they were. so i vetoed pieces of legislation and read an article in "the boston globe." how many years ago? four, five years ago. 2005? six, seven years ago. i said look, i am pro-life. i face this issue. and adamantly pro-life and as

governor of massachusetts, every issue that came to my desk that related to abortion i can clearly on the side of life. i was awarded by the massachusetts citizens for life. their award. and so, i have a record. it's not something that happened just before the election. i have a record. >> is there any abortion you would accept? >> yes, in the case of, and test a risk to the life of the mother. i believe in the circumstances that abortion should be legal. >> that is the only thing you changed your mind on click >> i can imagine over 20 years with hundreds or thousands of issues are not something i didn't learn that i was wrong on that i changed my view on. in the business world, you don't admit you're wrong. >> would not be a better response to the accusation you're a flip flopper? as they have changed their mind.

>> there's no question. for instance on abortion, i thought i had the right position until it actually confronted me and said now that i see this in the light of creating new life to destroy it, i can't go along with it. and that led me to a change in position. i'm sure there's other places a virtue of experience i concluded i was wrong. >> if you had to do it over again, what you do with the health care plan exactly the way it is in massachusetts? >> it never was exactly the way he wanted it in massachusetts. i vetoed measures in the health care plan overturned by the legislature and actually the way was implemented. it was different that we had implemented if i was governor. but what i've done in massachusetts plan that got everyone insured without raising taxes? yes. it was the right step forward. not perfect.

things i wish i could do differently, things i wish the legislature would do differently they are. but the plan they're his favorite three to one by the people in this state. it cost the state about 1.5% of the state budget, the plan we had there. it was supposed to cause no additional money at all but the plan i oppose. they added features that made it more expensive. i would have done that. if i could go back and be governor i pull it out. elections have consequences and new appeal to choose people who hopefully do the right thing there. >> to your support the concept of an individual mandate and part of the health reform? >> i support the concept of states being able to calm but first it's rather than the federal government impose a one-size-fits-all it takes away the rights of state to craft programs for their roommates. we didn't massachusetts included to mandate something we thought would work well for state and

its out with the 8% of people who were uninsured. for 92% of residents, nothing changed. their health care options and so forth, nothing changed. only the 8%. but obamacare, health care changes for 100% of the people. not only that, the issue of taxes than half a trillion dollars they get added. medicare gets cut by 500 billion. this is something the president is going to hear about because the only person i know of to ever cut medicare as president to bomb about $500 billion to fund obamacare. and republicans are talking about how to preserve medicare and make sure it is an option for people down the road and make it fiscally sustainable. i don't know any among republicans is talking about cutting it. the only person this has cut medicare for recipients as president obama.

and so this is an issue i am looking forward to debating with the president, with them by the way if he doesn't like my plan is saying you're going to have a choice. you can choose a private plan or traditional medicare. it's your choice, whichever which one you want. which execs now for people in medicare advantage. you're going to have that choice. and mr. president under that plan, were able to keep medicare financially sustainable. what is your plan, mr. president? you've been in office for three years so far. what are you planning on doing to make sure that medicare survives and is fiscally solvent? and i just find it amazing that we have a president with an issue that big, seeing what is happening around the world with nations that can induce fiscal distress not proposing plans that actually solve our needs in medicare, social security, medicaid and the overall economy. >> sorry to push the point, but the medicare advantage plan, the gao and others cost more than

traditional medicare. how does that save money to encourage people to get private medicare? >> the premium support payments will be set by congress and there's a number of ways of doing that. you cannot grow by a set percentage. to come you could have competition among various entities and choose a rate base on what you're seeing in competition. as the brookings institution heritage foundation, liberals and conservatives came together and say we need congress to set a budget for how much is spent on medicare. in the same thing with other entitlement programs. that the last of a premium support amount. again, higher for poor people, laura for wealthy people and they can then choose which plan works best for them. >> should religion or faith or spirituality play a role in all in this whole process? we had governor perry and recently -- a little bit ago

exactly, talking about the president waging a war of religion. obviously we've had a lot of conversations about social and spiritual issues. does religion and spirituality play a role in the selection process for you? >> well, i think people want to have a president who they believe it is a conviction that there's a creator and looks to providence for guidance. that may change someday, but i think that is generally a perspective of many people in this country. i certainly feel that myself. i don't think the particular faith that the individual should become an issue in a campaign. again, it affected the people to decide what they want to do on their own. i think campaigns would be unwise to make a particular faith an issue in a campaign. but i believe that by and large we are a people that believe in a creator who would like to have a president who would be of a similar view.

that isn't to say that people who don't believe in a creator to make contributions to the country. but i think -- i think wakely at our next president will be a person of religious grounding. >> anybody else? >> well, in your most recent campaign ad made something of the fact you've been married to the same woman for her -- >> 42 years. >> is that a direct shot at newt gingrich has had three marriages? >> now, those actually question the debate and to visit with what i've done in prior campaigns. when i began prior campaigns they run an ad that talks about my family, just picture my kids, wife and me so people get to know us on a personal basis. sometimes in a campaign all they see is a person debating. you get the impression that they are just -- i don't know, a technocrat or does she person or

debater. i want people to know that i am a dad, husband, that i am in this because i care deeply about my kids in the next generation. >> should people consider the fact that newt gingrich has been married three times? >> i'm not making that an issue in the side of that not found in i've raised in the debates. again, i don't give people a counsel to they consider and races. i hope that they look at in this space as i respect his ideas for the country and our capacity to lead based upon our experiences of leadership and our background that we would come from the terms of this type jerzy been engaged in. >> in your book come you read a lot about the dangers by islamic jihad. what do you do differently as president if you don't think the current president is doing to protect national security? >> that is a long list. probably the greatest single threat from a radical violent

jihad is some as a nuclear iran because i feel it will find its way into the hands of hezbollah, hamas or other surrogates. and in that case, if they were used, it would be catastrophic. and i think the president's management of your ram has been woefully inadequate. he has taken way too long to impose tough sanctions. i would've impose crippling sanctions long ago. one of the areas that i think was most disappointing was when the president decided to give rush at their number one foreign policy objective, which was removal of our missile defense sites in poland. he did not -- an exchange kiwanis and the part of russia to join into crippling sanctions for marion. had he done so i palooka could've pulled chime in. i don't think the chinese want to be the only nation in the

world blocking sanctions against iran. sweet deal to put in place crippling sanctions. secondly when dissidents took to the streets when i put in the shadow stole the election there he had nothing to say. he said i don't want to interfere with iranian politics. it's like really? and then, i think finally that we should end -- we should have gone after the iranian diplomats and some of their senior leaders, including ahmadinejad and turn them into the pariahs they are on the global stage. i think ahmadinejad should have been a vacation for genocide. we should put pressure on them like we put on south africa. during apartheid. this should have been just front and center, hammering day in and day out. and finally i would've hoped we would have created a perception and reality we have developed military options.

i don't think there's anyone who thinks that america has prepared military options at this president would be willing to take to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear powered nation. and i think we should have those options available. i can't describe precisely what they would be because i have not had discussions with the three leadership at this point. i think for a rant to be dissuaded from nuclear folly requires sanctions, pain around the world as there are people trying to travel and a recognition that the united states may well take military action to stop their nuclear plants. you asked about jihads. i was was the centerpiece, which is a rant. go admire bradley, jihad is, nigeria for instance, will go after a certain part of the country and begin to expand. i would have what i call special

partnership forces, were retake very small footprint military advisers and writers with intelligence officers and special forces officers and personnel and provide them to nations like nigeria if they were going to help your own troops and military root out these radical violent jihad is and keep you from being overrun by these folks. that happened in the philippines some years ago. we put just a few hundred of these special intelligence and special forces personnel into the philippines, working with their military and really routed to jihad its efforts there. the strikeouts in and now i think they're up to one or 200 years so it does have an impact. i would rather be -- let me tell you this. a decision to employ canonic military power is a decision one would take with great

trepidation and caution and turn. putting america's men and women in harms way is a very weighty matter. and so taken action to try and prevent a circumstance where we had to act in that feature is my view is very high priority. though helping nations on their own. i look at the record. i spoke with former secretary schultz. he said in the reagan and, we send advisors and helped other nations deal with the ram issues and battle these problems before they became conflicts that required the world's involvement. and that is something i try to do with the special partnership forces, which is to be will to provide hall. the president, for instance, something i agree with. he said men and women to help battle words resistance army. that's not exactly the same as she hot his son, but it is still

a virulent and malevolent force. i support that. i support the idea of a small number of people who have significant impact to present something, which can be very much opposed to the interest of america as was the interest of the civilized world. >> governor, why do you suppose americans have never chosen as president someone whose main qualification was executive experience? what you think is different this time? >> i would -- i would if we have a broader definition of executive experience than people -- than people like eisenhower would fall in that category, you know, we've chosen people whose primary experience has been in the private sector. that may not have been the feature that was being communicated at the time of their campaign, but ronald

reagan's experiences in the private sector far longer than government and the same is true for others. i think right now there is a recognition that what we face is a world which has been changed by a globalization of our economy and that america's economy is have to become competitive to continue to lead the world. after the second world war, we were so far ahead of the rest of the world. germany had been decimated, japan had been decimated. we were the center of the world and had them for a long, long time. and now we say gosh, we are in a plane filled with other tough competitors. china being among them. its elite in this country to a position where once again we are highly dead and most productive in the most competitive and we are adding jobs as opposed to see a job sleep, that can happen and i think the american people recognize we need someone to understand the economy. what we are going through right

now is the most of your economic distress we have seen since the great depression and having someone who understands the economy, both for the short-term stress and for the long-term need to compete in a world where the global integration of our economies is underway as i ain't in the mind of the american voter a more relevant issue for qualification than it has been in the past. i think most people feel -- if they don't come i hope they wake up to it, but a lifetime in washington is not necessarily the right answer to get our economy going forward -- i think the president is a nice guy. i think he's in over his head. i'll think he understands how the economy works and how it is america's economy has outperformed any other in the world. i think he thinks if he makes us more like europe with the government taking more of our economy it will make us stronger. it will make us weaker. we don't want to become your

eye. europe is that working there. so i think someone who has the kind of back when i do is actually what america needs right now are the be doing this. >> gray. sensitive to the time, really kinetic calendar, sir. your three and half more weeks before caucus goers had next january night. we are kind of taking a look to candidates and position. kind of a closing statement. tell us why should you earn our endorsement and why should caucus goers show you their support on january 3rd? . ..

and capacity. i believe that background is essential in our president, and sometimes we don't agree with someone based on our issues. i look at past presidents and i disaggrieve with them on issues but i see them as leaders, and rarely-the issues we talk about in the campaign the issues that really define the presidency. we're talking about issues -- they end up getting swept aside by something that's completely unexpected, and you want a person who has demonstrated the capacity to deal with difficult circumstances, to lead in those circumstances, and has been able to create success where failure was a realistic option, and i

believe i have demonstrated that. had i led and failed, i wouldn't be doing this. i wouldn't be asking for your support. but i've learned the lessons. i haven't succeeded at everything i've done. i've lost twice in campaigns. you learn from failure, too. not every business i invested in -- bank capital, the business i started, there was some businesses we invested in, i worked hard to make them successful and they didn't. i've learned from failure as well as success. but the businesses i've led myself and run myself have all -- the enterprises i have run myself or helped run, have all been successful, in part because of the experiences i have had. succeeding and failing. so i would appreciate greatly your endorsement, your help. this is -- i can't guarantee i'm going to win in iowa. i'm pretty darn sure i'm going win the entire battle, because

there will be enough time for my message to get through, for the distinguishing features my ground -- background and -- to be understand by the american people. i can't promise you can take that to the bank but i sure am. >> thank you very much, governor. >> thank you. >> very excited. [inaudible conversations] >> backing away from -- >> oh, no, no, i fully support john sununu and everybody says things in their open ways. amount i'm focusing on the distinction between newt gingrich position with regard to medicare. that's what i'm focusing on. i'm very pleased and honored to

have john sununu's support and his outspoken effort in my behalf. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> the newspaper has invited all the major presidential candidates to the board. they plan to make an endorsement in the presidential race two weeks before the iowa caucuses. >> throughout my military career, i pride myself on being not as tough as i thought. the work you can do to let a senior leader head down the wrong road, if you're thinking, you know, you really need to take another look at this.

we need to look at this from this perspective, because people's lives are at stake, or we have an obligation and duty to be good stewards of the resources that the public in process with. -- interests us with. heads are going up and down and you say, i think have a different perspective. >> marsha anderson on her career as the highest ranking african- american female in the american army. sunday night. .