be in support of us. >> i appreciate it. > thank you for coming. it is enjoyable. >> it is a pleasure to have a listening ear. thank you for giving one. >> bringing manufacturing back here in the united states, what are some of the plans to do that? are you planning on taxing some of these big companies who are shipping work overseas? >> corps.'s welfare. sometimes companies are disincentivized to engage in bad behavior, and i think that all needs to go, and i want to lower the rate, and i want to flatten the rage, and i want to simplify, and i want to pay for it based on closing the

loopholes, the same thing i did in our state, and i know it is doable, and it would be the first step as a signal to the marketplace that this country is ready to get do business again, and if you can couple that with the president who can use the bully pulpit and sit down with and manufacturing c.e.o.'s say, "it is time to get back to work and do job training and development," the capital expenditures, "i want you to do it right here," and i will do my best on my side to improve the climate to work towards greater energy independence and to improve the regulatory environment. i do not think he will have a whole lot of c.e.o.'s that would say, "no, mr. president. i want to go somewhere else." we just have not had that clarion call from the bully

pulpit and the white house. nor have we talked about growth for a long time, so we have forgotten about it. >> we need to bring it back. >> we need to do it as americans, pulling together. everybody of course as their party and their own alleyway that they parked their lives in, but in the end, we have to pull together as americans, because the big issues, we are not going to be able to resolve them unless we pull together. we may disagree on the journey, but we can all agree on what we are giving the next generation is bad, and we have to improve. i think every american can agree to that. >> good. good luck. >> it is a pleasure to see you. thanks for your listening. >> how are you doing? >> good. how are you? here is this pen here. >> how old are you?

>> 17. the fact that you are already following politics says a lot about you. >> thanks. >> because the issues we are talking about are all about your generation. when you become of voting age and begin to produce a bit more actively, and i will sit we have got to do everything we can for your generation to make sure we pass on is a worthy exchange. right now, it is not. >> great message. >> thank you. >> see you. >> bye-bye. >> can i speak to you, please?

>> jon huntsman wrapping up two of these, and we have more live coverage coming for you at 7:00 p.m. eastern. rick santorum will be holding a town hall meeting in new hampshire. that will be live here on c- span. despite a fit place finish in last night's iowa caucus, texas governor rick perry has decided to stay in the race. he returned to texas after a speech in iowa, where he said he would determine what to do, but the governor said he was still in the race, and there were a number of reports saying that rick perry will stay in the rays, not dropping out, and it was reported that he will participate in saturday's debate. the texas governor also called the iowa primary a quirky place in an attempt to downplay the

results, finishing fifth out of six candidates. >> and a reminder, this month at c-span, it is facebook farce. we have facebook only exclusive, behind-the-scenes exclusives leading up to the primary, plus the video clip of the day. you can vote in our facebook poll question. here is a result of our earlier poll so far. will the campaign leading up to the election be positive? >> sg may have just seen in that town hall meeting in manchester, tom ridge has endorsed the former utah governor. he was a guest with us this morning on "washington journal." the conversation is about 35

minutes. >> one of the candidates who decided to focus on in hampshire is jon huntsman, and we will be seeing how he performs in the next week. new hampshire has the primary. one of the supporters. tom ridge. he served as the secretary of the department of homeland security. good morning, governor. here. huntsman? guest: the list is long. i do not know how much time you have. he has the most consistent conservative position. he has the best economic plan, the most foreign policy experience.

i think if you talk to some of the democrats in the formidable president obama electoral machine, i think he is the one who keeps them up that night. i do not mean just dealing with military issues but the economics of international trade and the globally connected world. if you put all this together, i think he is the most qualified to be president of the united states on nine -- among a group of very able republican candidates. host: why did the put so much effort into new hampshire? guest: we have been added for -- been at it for about six months. i think he was ninth in the polling in new hampshire six months ago. i think he decided to focus on the first primary state. and that is exactly what he had done. meeting last night. there is a lot of enthusiasm for jon huntsman.

if you take a look at what transpired in iowa, that is a caucus state in iowa. only about 25% of the republicans showed up for the caucuses. it was a nominal win for governor romney in a terrific second place for senator santorum, butat the end of the day, you have two men each getting 25% of the 25% that showed up. the doors are wide open here in new hampshire. we're going to welcome our from republicans in new hampshire and get it our right here in the first primary state. host: governor hunt's man agrees -- governor john huntsman agrees with you on that, quoted in the associated press telling cbs -- what are you reading from the results in iowa?

guest: there are many conclusions that can be drawn. if i am governor romney, a 'w' is a 'w'. whether it is by eight votes or 80,000 votes. iowa. he did show up on top. if you take a look at the shoe leather that senator rick santorum used, you have to give him credit for that. ron paul has worked hard and has attracted some very enthusiastic supporters. at the end of the day, the three individuals getting about 25% of the vote but only 25% of the people demonstrated enough interest to go out to the caucus and register their support. i think the field is still wide open. i think that is the message coming out of a caucus state like iowa. we like our chances here in the first primary state. clearly, governor romney is

going to win new hampshire. you bafta get 56% of the vote. -- you have to get 56% of the vote. he has a vacation home here. he has established support with a lot of friends here. he is the governor of a neighboring state. we understand that. we also know that there are some libertarian streaks that run very close here. i want people to pay attention to jon huntsman and to the debates and listened carefully to the economic plan and understand the principles around how he would project america's interest militarily and economically in the world of foreign affairs. there is no hyperbole. he is not inclined to do anything other than to tell it like it is. i think people have been waiting for an alternative, a consistent conservative with a proven track record.

i think people are looking for a leader they can trust. they can find that in jon huntsman. host: how well does he have to perform in new hampshire for his campaign to feel like it was a success? you just said yourself that governor romney is in the lead. guest: no question about it. i think he will get 50% or 60% of the vote. i mean, this is a favored state for him, as it should be. it is a neighboring favored state for him. he has a home here. you accept that reality. we have already exceeded our expectations. as i said earlier, 9% a couple of months ago. he is third now. so do we have a shot at second place? i do not know. ron paul is rather formidable. you have got rick santorum. i like our chances here. i think we are going to do far

better here than people realize. much like rick santorum surprised everybody in iowa. at the end of the day, you are probably going to leave this state not with eight or nine candidates. there has been a narrowing. there has been a whistling down as we have seen over the past couple of months. jon huntsman is going to be in that top tier of candidates. i feel very comfortable about sharing that with you. because i truly believe it. the conversation with tom ridge, the former governor of pennsylvania, here are the numbers to call. democrats -- republicans -- independence -- indepentents -- let's hear from shirley, a pennsylvania. good morning. shirley. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. governor ridge, i have carried another governor. i thought you were one of our best governors. you did a fine job. a balanced budget, a balance when you left. it was wonderful. i am hoping that jon huntsman will be the same. my problem is i am for rick he has a lot of moral values. he is 100% conservative and fits the bill for what our country needs right now. we need christian people in office. i am so upset that you are not backing him. guest: thank you for your kind words. i love being a governor. i had six years before i got the call from president bush, so

thank you for those kind words. for rick santorum. the most consistent conservative in this race is jon huntsman. they share a lot of the same ideas and the same views on much of the policies and bank they -- and they probably differ on an issue or two, but at the end of the day, i favor governors. i favor men and women who have had to make critical, executive decisions. i favor governors becauseat the end of the day, they have to build an agenda, articulate and agenda, and then build consensus around an agenda. with respect to senators and congressmen, it is a far different political environment to vote on a bill or give speeches than it is for the responsibility to send a statewide agenda, make promises, and then be held accountable.

i start out being governor- centric. i do not start out being anti- rick. he has worked hard and is a very good send a there. he did demonstrate some strength in iowa. but i am still a governor- centric individual. i like jon huntsman. as i take a look at accomplishments as governor, rolling back taxes, regulatory reform, leading the country in job growth, you take a look at his economic plan, i am not sure rick has one, but jon huntsman according to "the wall street journal" has the best economic plan to put this country on a path for prosperity. push this economy forward, competing your way to prosperity. you reduced the rates and get some deep regulatory reform. you compete your way to prosperity. and then be foreign-policy experience. absolutely critical.

when you have worked in the u.s. trade office, you are an ambassador. to china. you put those things together along with experience, i think he trumps senator santorum. host: we will be talking about the economic policies coming up later on "washington journal." let me ask you this. do you think jon huntsman has hurt his chances being an ambassador to china? is it a strike against him? among republican voters? guest:i was in new hampshire -- guest: i certainly hope not. i was in new hampshire a couple of months ago. he had several slogans in the campaign. i think when you're president

calls, you answer. the first president who called me was richard nixon. i answered. the second president who called me was it george bush. i answered. in this instance, a democrat who asked a very able, committed, experienced public servants like jon huntsman to take on probably the most important diplomatic assignment within the state department's, being an ambassador to china, and he has been in china several times before, you speak mandarin, the 21st century opportunities and frankly the challenges are in that part of the world and you put someone in place to deal with china, india, japan, north korea, vietnam, thailand, cambodia, and those places, you say yes. i think it ought to be a plus rather than a minus.

for those who have a distorted view about what country first means, i would respectfully say to them you have to rethink it. the present called with the most important diplomatic assignment -- the president called with the most important diplomatic assignment and he picked you to take on that responsibility. frankly, i think it fits him well to take on president obama in the general election. host: the independent line, welcome. bruce from lansing, michigan. caller: the comment i have is you have the homeland security -- i am all for jon huntsman, but the homeland security issue is we have people coming across mexico and you guys can not even stop that. and then, you know, how are we going to make money, companies here in the united states, having incentives to keep people working here in the united states? we have people coming from all over the country here. you guys are degrading america.

the wages are dropping. thank you. guest: i appreciate your support of governor jon huntsman. if you have some relatives in new hampshire, i hope you pick up the telephone and encourage them to vote. it is a great primary. i think the governor is going to do very well with independents. i think the republican nominee has to do very well in the primary. -- general election. a lot of independent thinking democrats. as governor of pennsylvania, i could not have one without the independent thinking democrats. i think governor huttman -- huntsman appeals to them a better than any other. with regard to your concern

facts speak in the bill bit differently. i will never -- i am never willing to have a completely impenetrable border. i must tell you when president bush began assigning more personnel for that region, i think the numbers are up since my time as secretary. we did not have the wherewithal. we caught a lot of people and released them. now they are catching them and sending them back. the enforcement at the border -- it is viewed as meager at times. frankly without some of the support of the states in arizona and texas, we probably would not be doing as well. they deserve more credit than they are getting publicly for the capability they have been brought to the border. and the enhanced enforcement at the border. at the end of the day, we promised them a couple billion dollars more in support for training and equipment. i think we are building a mature and sophisticated relationship with our friends in mexico and the federal police. we still have a lot of work to do. the intelligence sharing is

better. there is far more success there then you hear with all the criticism. let's celebrate the successes, but we still have more work to do. host: let's look at a new hampshire presidential poll, putting mitt romney at 43% of the vote. ron paul, 17% of support. this is recalling. and then, your candidate, jon huntsman at 9%. newt gingrich with 8%. this is from two days ago. the poll showsmitt romney may be gaining momentum. another 7% was gained by rick santorum and rick perry. and michele bachmann. 15% remain undecided. you mentioned there is a likelihood in your opinion that mitt romney and perhaps ron paul could beat jon huntsman. but can it you are supporting. -- the candidate you are supporting. talk to us about what you think of for the jon huntsman strategy outside of new hampshire.

guest: let's be really candid about the expectations. first of all, i think that is a great question. does anybody think that mitt romney could lose new hampshire? absolutely not. again, 56% of the vote is something he -- 50%, 60% of the vote is something he should get. there is that strong libertarian streak. if you really want to make sure you have a new leader in washington, d.c., you have to think in terms of its electability. in spite of his strong beliefs and your support, the thing that keeps the obama machine awake at night is governor mitt romney. -- governor john huntsman. -- jon huntsman. but we have staff in new hampshire and a very significant support. for the past two decades, the individual who has been endorsed has been the republican nominee. he endorses jon huntsman.

a state party chairman. he turned the party from a democrat majority to a democrat who became the minority. the republicans are in ascendancy. he is supporting jon huntsman. carol campbell went on to become the most popular governors in state history. i had the privilege to serve with him. his wife, his son, they are supporting jon huntsman. alan wilson, the incumbent attorney general, the one who put the lead on obamacare, who has fought the administration with regard to the resistance in south carolina and 8 tea party -- a tea party favre. they are all endorsing jon huntsman. i think we are very positioned positioned in new hampshire to take that momentum into south carolina and continue the momentum we are building up.

here in new hampshire. host: let's go to the republican caller in san diego. good morning. caller: good morning. and good morning, sir. guest: you are up early. caller: i am a retired navy but i still work. one concern i have with you endorsing jon huntsman, it makes me concerned. i am a more of a libertarian republican. you were the director of homeland security and while you were under the bush administration, i saw an erosion of our constitutional rights. when you are promoting a person, that makes me think that person is just like you. and that you willto step on our constitution and ripped it apart with the patriot at, why would i vote for him and not ron paul who is for our constitution and people like you who have spent money on these needless wars, the whole bush administration, why would i vote for jon huntsman?

what is going to do to strengthen the constitution? guest: your categorization of my own experience with the constitution flies in the face of reality, but this election is not about me. sir, the reason you vote forjon huntsman is the most consistent conservative in the race. he is a principled leader who you can trust. take a look at his record. in utah. take a look at this foreign- policy experience. you have to conclude that he is interested in seeing a change in the white house. as a republican, i certainly hope you are. one of the challenges we had, sir, within the republican party, there are some folks who may be interested in political victories. i do not want to win the battle. i want to win the war. i think it is very unfair for you to categorize or reject jon huntsman because of my endorsement.

the only person i know that i have ever had any coattails' in my political life was my father. my endorsement of jon huntsman is as public and aggressive as it can be because he is a principal conservative that you can trust. he will run a campaign against president obama, and you can trust him every day to be true to and consistent with the values, with the constitution. you talked about the constitutional rights but you did not refer to 1. anytime you want to talk about the patriot act and the capabilities that it gave to law enforcement similar to those given to law enforcement to deal with drug dealers and organized crime, i would be happy to have the conversation with you. the patriot act is consistent with the constitution and it was subject to review. the challenge we have in this

country, in andi understand your concern. we never surrender our constitutional freedoms and liberties. we need congressional oversight from congress. in the executive branch. at the end of the day, jon huntsman, a strong defender of the constitution, consistent conservative, he is your best choice to the president obama in -- to defeat president obama in november 2012, notwithstanding my support troubling you. host: we have a comment coming in on twitter. some issues have been contentious between jon huntsman and the other candidates. guest: i am in support of jon huntsman because at the end of the day when a group of scientists get together and draw some conclusions, he does not dismiss it. as bad science. as he said last night, he has

been involved in building a cancer institute. if you have a group of cancer experts, say 100 of them, and 99 say that in order to deal with cancer you have to make some changes in either procedures or whenever it is, wouldn't you -- whatever it is, would you not normally take that consensus of 99 out of 100 doctors or scientists and change your conduct? i think jon feels the same way about global warming. when scientists have something to say about global warming, you better listen. a lot of people have ignored the second part of the conversation. if you believe global warming is a problem, and you cannot get the rest of the world which is also contributing to the phenomenon, then your approach has to be different. you cannot jeopardize your economy or put your

competitors, workers, or companies at an economic disadvantage by imposing harsh, regulatory and expensive regulations. but the sensitivity to science, i think, is very important. the fact of the matter remains that the national science foundation and most environmental scientists -- i say to a lot of folks out there who may not know one thing about the issue. may not have a science degree. do you think on an annual basis that pouring millions and millions, tons of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide into the atmosphere is a good thing? you do not have to be a scientist to say to yourself in the long run, everyone including the global community, that it might be better to reduce those emissions. jon is sensitive to the fact that we cannot act unilaterally and put our employers at a

disadvantage. 8 is a very important message. -- it is a very important message. host: our guest in tom ridge, a former governor of pennsylvania who served from 1995 until 2001 and secretary of the department of homeland security. that happened under the george w. bush administration. if you are a new hampshire resident, you can give us a call this morning. right now, let's go to tennessee, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, ma'am. i want to ask your guest. let's face it. we all know that we went to iraq. false pretenses. over there with the assumption that they had weapons of mass destruction. that kind of disturbs me. you were homeland security, osama was found.

and what was equivalent to our west point, one of the biggest compounds around. are we going to sit there and say nobody knew -- do we not know who gets around at this point here? a mean, if it was the biggest house, and military-type installation, would we not know who is in that compound? and then the of the thing is, i do not totally disagree with everything with what the republicans want to do, and i do not totally disagree with everything the democrats want to do, but when we go to vote, a lot of people vote democrat down the line. i like ron paul. running as a democrat, i would vote for him in a minute.

guest: i did not understand the first question because it was an little garbled, and i would be happy to answer it. that is certainly a prerogative. on the whole issue of, i do not think voting in america is a privilege. i think it is a responsibility. 40% and 50% turnout. when i was in the white house working again with president bush, we had some reports. afghanistan, people lining up for hours and hours to get to vote, subject to more rounds. flashing around them. the registered to vote, and there were reports that some devoted had those fingers amputated. they were there to choose their leaders.

you want to vote straight democrat, that is your right. i just hope you vote. it is a responsibility of citizens to vote, and you are still interested in politics and are watching the show, good for you. host: let's go to mary. caller: figuring out a way to get the women's vote, as an independent woman, i think we will not even have access to birth control. their stance, especially santorum, and here in ohio, they are going to try to put that person good thing on the ballot again, which means a change in the language a little bit to say that only genuine breath

control will be tolerated. well, what is "genuine birth control"? i would like to hear your comments on that, please. guest: it is pretty clear that the republican party is a pro- life party. that is certainly where the governor is. i do not think you're going to see a republican nominee, at least in this session and maybe not in the future. it is a fundamental issue within the party. it is not a point of view that i share with the governor, but he is not judgmental about that. candidly, i think that is the reality that within the republican party that is an issue. we have been pro-life and will be. if your vote is based upon that single issue, which i hope it is not, there are so many other issues that relate themselves to

supporting governor huntsman. and i hope you look at his whole record. if you want to deal with the 21st century world and deal with the burgeoning opportunities as well as the vulnerability is with china, a foreign policy that is based on basically a try effective, dealing with the geopolitical, military, and economic issues, then jon huntsman, but the party has been and for all intents will be in the future a pro-life party. every nominee in this party supports with variations on that particular theme. that is the way it has been for quite some time, and i suspect that is the way it will be in the future.

host: good morning. caller: i think you have done a good job. the job you are asked to do with homeland security. i am a little bit nervous. the thing about jon huntsman, i commend you for your recommendation of him, but a lot of the front runners are worried about the fact that barack obama has got $1 billion in campaign money. and the american public does not sit there and say, "my gosh, the democratic party has not performed for us in four years. we of people out of work and losing their jobs," and when they have $1 billion to go up against a man like huntsman, and

i commend you once again for being as strong american, and you could have made a lot of money were done a lot of things. you are working to help him be president, and i believe in that, and i have got my choices, and i will make my decision at the end of the day, and i commend you. thank you. guest: let's talk a little bit about president obama. maybe things would change a little bit here in new hampshire, but the fact of the matter is that they are bragging that they are going to have $1 billion, which is pretty and rages when you think about it, pretty outrageous. president obama blew the top, bottoms, and sides out of public financing. and there was hardly an utterance from those who worry about campaign finance, and the

fact of the matter is, he is a fund-raising machine. he has been raising money for the past three plus years. actually, it has been a continuous campaign, but i think at the end of the day, you have to look at a record. this is why i support jon huntsman. looking at having a handle the responsibilities they have been assigned, you have a pretty good idea of what they are going to do. you have a very capable speaker, a great convincing speech run for president and get elected. you cannot take it away from him. he got elected. there is a great rhetorical connect when people are anxious about a lot of things, but at the end of the day, what we hope for has not been realized, and the change that i think most people want has not occurred. you talk about president obama talking about america being

divided, disillusioned, not bringing anyone to gather. it is even more divided years later. why? a lot of the challenges we have had the first couple of years, the economy, jobs, jobs, jobs, the economy, it was the obama care health care proposal, congress did not read it, the president did not read it, nobody knows the consequences. it is not a bipartisan effort. he batted $1 trillion package of borrowed money. it is borrowed money. there is a debt service. but on a point was going to go down thanks to that. no, it has not. it is hovering between 8% and 9%. he kicked his own commission down the road. it was a nice 2010 diversion

with the commission and they -- the bowles-simpson. he lectured the supreme court because he did not like a decision so much with the federation separation of powers. iran is stronger. everytime we threaten sanctions, the bill a couple more centrifuges. foreign policy based on getting rid of the bad guys, said there is really no foreign-policy, no energy policy, no innovation policy, no debt reduction policy. a lot of hopes but no change. i think jon huntsman will change things, and that is why i support him.

host: one person told the huffington post that it took a whack at the ties of mitt romney to the financial-services industry. here is what huntsman said: now, the story goes on to say that he is not necessarily ideal messenger for economic populism. with a low-key demeanor along with the fact that he is benefiting from supertax bennett, and a former ceo is a prominent supporter. these issues, governor? guest: make no mistake about it.

there are a couple of very important differences. i think it is very unlikely the supreme court will change its view with regard to contributions to the campaign or the super pacs, but we believe there ought to be transparency. as long as someone has a campaign or zero or $500,000, it ought to be on the internet the next day so everybody can judge who is supporting her room and you cannot hide behind this. having said that, this is a notion of too big to fail, and i think governor jon huntsman believes there will be no institution too big to fail, and when you take a look at five or six of the institutions in this country, the bank has about two- thirds, the equivalent of two- thirds of the assets, a phenomenal figure. capitalism means that if you exercised poor judgment, you

should not look to the taxpayers to bail out the directors andhe shareholders. so i think the reference to governor romney in that regard is more issue-centric. jon does not think there should be any too big to fail. this is not the first time. this is a defining difference between governor jon huntsman and governor mitt romney. host: matching donations, does that hurt or help him? guest: could you please repeat the first part of your question? host: he said he was going to

match the contributions until midnight. guest: i have a certain empathy with that, certainly on a much smaller measure. i remember going way back, i said to myself, if i am unwilling to invest in myself, how can i expect anyone else to invest in may? he has asked his donors to contribute more as he surges forward in the new hampshire primary, i am sure he is going to match their contributions dollar for dollar. i think it is a very good fund- raising approach. >> we will bring in the town hall meeting of rick santorum this evening here on c-span. >> and a reminder, this month at

c-span, it is facebook first. coverage from the campaign trail with facebook only exclusives, behind-the-scenes pictures leading up to the new hampshire primary, plus a video clip of the day. at your comments and vote in our facebook poll question. here is the result of today's polls so far. today's question, will be campaigns leading up to the primary be positive or negative? what in. >> our road to the white house coverage continues. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: we are taking a look at the economic plans. joining us is an economic reporter. good morning. guest: good morning.

host: thank you for being with us. looking at the candidates, you look at them and give us a breakdown on where they stand on things, so looking at mitt romney, reducing deductions, lar -- deductions over time. take us from there on what else mitt romney would do? >> -- guest: he has an interesting idea of also exempting capital gains from taxation, just for people with incomes below $200,000. those are the people he calls the most hurt by the obama economy, or you could say just by the recession, so on that front, where a lot of other republican candidates would cut taxes in ways that made especially benefit the rich, he is saying he is going to go for an additional tax break on the

middle and upper middle class, so that is one key difference with him. like a lot of the other republican candidates, he would repeal the state tax and lower other rates. host: you say he would immediately cut not discretionary spending by 5%, and he would pursue a balanced budget amendment. how does that fall in line with the other candidates? guest: pretty similar. all of the republicans want to cut spending in general to try to get to a balanced budget. most of them would support the idea of a balanced budget amendment. i think mitt romney is not quite as aggressive in the cost- cutting as some of the candidates. ron paul is an example, who would go even further on the cuts. and yet, mitt romney is aggressive enough.

he is wanting to cut spending from about 24 percentage points of gdp for the federal government under obama recently down to 20% by the end of his first term. that is a pretty aggressive target. host: mark trumbull with " christian science monitor." take us through what he would do to create jobs in the country. guest: he emphasizes that as someone from the private sector, he knows how job creation works and that he would lead on that front. he emphasizes free trade, promoting free trade, but he says that china has not been playing by the rules and needs to be confronted more assertively by the united states, so it would be interesting to see how that plays out.

some of his rivals warned that that could result in a trade war with china, and he says that will not happen. he just wants to take a tougher line and get more exports for the united states. he also wants to reduce regulation. again, that is something shared by other republican candidates and to promote more domestic energy production. host: the mitt romney campaign put out a press release yesterday saying that mitt romney created more jobs in massachusetts than obama has done in the entire country. can you fact check that one for us? guest: i can. i have looked into the a little bit. i do not know if mitt romney was looking at creating 100,000 jobs as his term as governor or

including a broader career. i think he talked about his quote former lives. i have not had a chance to look at what he might claim during his years at a capital group, but in his term as governor, from what i've found on the bureau of labor statistics website, it does not look like massachusetts gained more than 50,000 jobs during the years from january 2003 to and january 2007, which i think is the mitt romney term. so on that front, he seems to fall a little short in his claim, but in another important way, i think it is dubious, and that is as newt gingrich and others have pointed out during the campaign, it is not really politicians to create jobs in the first place. job creation can be affected by

public policy, and chief executive can affect the whole flavor of the economy, and so that does play into job creation, but it is far from the only factor, and a president or governor of the state is very dependent on just the ark of the economy when they happen to be in office, so his whole premise i think is flawed. obama took office at a time when the economy was already in a nosedive, and he emphasizes this a lot in his own defense. jobs were disappearing at a very rapid clip said that, for instance, the claim by mitt romney technically might be viewed as if you start from the exact moment when obama took office. but if you wait just a couple of

moments when those cuts were over, from that point, the obama administration has seen jobs rising, albeit modestly, so it is a very interesting question. >> -- host: another hallmark from mitt romney is that he likes to keep social security sound. it should not include tax hikes but could raise eligibility age or change indexing of benefits towards inflation for the high- income retirees. where are the big differences? guest: well, i think one key difference, at and in general, rick santorum is a lot more conservative than mitt romney, and he is playing that up, that is true, on social issues and foreign policy. i think it is also true on the

economy. and i am saying that partly based on that santorum has put out a specific tax reform plan, at least fairly specific, and this is borrowing. i embarking on work done by a group called the tax policies center in washington, which is a non-partisan kind of watchdog group about tax policy, and they say the santorum plan would be to cut, simplify the income tax down to just two brackets, a 10% rate and then a 28% rate at the high end, so mitt romney i think has not put out such a bold or detailed tax reform plan. and then santorum would likely repealed the estate tax. rick santorum would also set the

tax rate on capital gains and dividends at 12%, and he does not have any income threshold for that, that would benefit the rich and others, and he would cut the corporate tax rate in half for virtually any corporation but all of the way to 0% for manufacturing companies, so he has a very particular emphasis on trying to rebuild the american manufacturing base. host: we are talking to an economic reporter for "christian science monitor," and let's get to the funds and hear from a republican caller from chattanooga. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. host: go ahead. caller: i want to congratulate him for doing so well. no other candidate has gone through that. but as far as your guest, ron paul plans to bring troops home, and go after the irs and allow people to keep their wages. what was your view on his plan approved this, that, and the other, i think if people could keep their money and spend their money, and manufacturing coming back, it cannot come back unless people are purchasing. we need to bring manufacturing back from china and mexico. what do you think of that?

guest: first of all, i am going to try for the most part on some of these issues just to stay neutral personally on the candidates and my view of their positions. i will try to answer in a sense about what i believe many economists would say, adjusting viewing -- just viewing people who are trained to look at the economy, and they have a wide range of views, so i will try to express that. economists are not all of one mind on how the economy would be best served right now, but ron paul has definitely got economic views that from that libertarian perspective, if you can free the economy up, let people keep more

of their money, let people decide how to use their money, have a much smaller government, that the economy would prosper from that, and i think in general, a lot of economists would agree with that premise and support to that general trends, that idea of moving in that direction. i think there would be a lot of disagreement about how far to move in that direction. where ron paul and his libertarian fans and peers say that would have very great, positive effects on gdp growth, you know, i think there are some economists that would say you have to balance the gains that might happen on gdp growth with other concerns that voters and

others have about maybe maintaining, for instance, you mentioned military spending. a lot of people say if america pulls back sharply from its presence as a military power around the world that could destabilize global security, that can have harmful effects on the economy. others would say if you dramatically downsize the federal government, in the short run, that might have a contractionary effect on the economy. if you cut spending dramatically, that is kind of taking, in effect, the biggest consumer in the economy and pulling them down a big notch in terms of their activity. that might not be quickly offset by a rebound in the private sector.

so ron paul, for instance, has talked about cutting $1 trillion from federal spending in the first year. that would be a huge, much more dramatic cuts in federal spending than the other candidates. host: let's look at some of the details of the ron paul plan with our guest. a flat tax or a fair tax on consumption after repealing the amendment which legalizes the income tax. he would repeal the estate tax and cut the corporate tax rate to 15%, allowing tax-free repatriation. as mark mentioned, he would like to cut spending by $1 trillion in the first year, faster than any other candidate in the running right now. he would veto things pertaining to the budget, get rid of a lot of departments, including

energy, housing, and commerce. he would cut regulations and union dues, and when it comes to social security, he would allow the young to opt about a social security. he calls it a federal welfare plan and cause an unconstitutional. let's hear from the independent line in long beach, california. am i pronounced in your name right? caller: yet they have never to this day taken responsibility for their leadership under to bush terms. i have not heard any republican candidates say anything different except a continuation

of the bush policy. in the one debate they had, they have all of the same neoconservatism's sitting there asking questions which told me those same people backing bush are sitting there waiting, hoping mitt romney or rick santorum, one of those people can get into office so they can go back to business as usual. host: give us a sense of were the republican candidate's stand compared to george w. bush. guest: many of the candidates would extend the bush tax cuts, for one thing. that is central to bush's tax plan at home. it is logical that the debate between obama and the republicans would center around

those tax rates that were set under bush because that is where we started before the recession. it is interesting. the caller is right. or stand now is very much shaped by the bush -- where we stand now is very much shaped by the bush era. the republicans are generally saying, let's keep them in place for the very rich. i guess the public, by the way, in polls, people are saying they do not want to see taxes go up. many people when pushed to make a tough choice say if we have to get our house in order physically, let's do it through

a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes -- fiscally. people are much more likely to say let's raise taxes a bit on the rich or the more well-off in society rather than across the board. and then just going back -- i will leave it at that for now. host: we have a comment on twitter. take us through some of the highlights the president has done. guest: he has tried to do a lot off the bat. he did the stimulus program, $787 billion, a mix of tax cuts and spending on infrastructure and aid to state governments that were facing big budget cuts and layoffs.

that whole plan has gone a lot of mixed reviews with republicans saying it did not work, obama saying it did, some democrats saying it did work but it was not big enough and that we should have done even more. obama has won two major pieces of legislation that i can think of. one on banking and before that, the health-care reforms, the affordable care act. on that front, you could argue that obama focused too much on health care reform. that was a campaign issue, a big important initiative for

the country. it came at a time when the economy was still not doing well. the job recovered didn't kick in. we were in a deep hole and jobs were a top party for voters. some people say there was a strategic mistake -- a top priority for voters. what the cost will be for them, what the impact on the ark of the recovery will be. even if you say that the stimulus did help a little bit to get the economy going again and that obama successfully managed to tamp down the members of the financial crisis

back in 2009, he still had some failures. he has been focused on job creation and getting the economy moving again. host: mark trumbull is an economic reporter at the "christian science monitor." he has a peace or not that rates -- he has a piece out right now that rates the candidates on the economy. here's what he wrote -- writes, rather --

host: you say that economists are not agreed on what would work. there is consensus in one area, setting a course for sound fiscal management is a priority. how so? guest: well, i think that is an important point. even if we get the federal government more fiscally stable position, that is necessary but not by itself the only key to a strong economy. if we did not improve the fiscal position of the federal

government, i think we risked the future of slower economic growth and that just means poor job opportunities and slower income growth for americans. it is important to find a way to move toward if not balanced budgets, at least lower deficits to the point where federal debts stop growing as a share of gdp and hopefully even comes down substantially. that is very important. a healthy economy involves having a good regulatory environments, having a strong education system, taking other steps to promote solid trade

relations with the rest of the world, and perhaps other policies as well. if i think of more of them, i will mention them as we go. host: robert from delaware on the democrat line. caller: good morning. host: right ahead. -- go right ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. guest: good to talk with you. caller: i am a democrat and i have been looking at the republican debate. i'm wondering -- what do they have to offer? all i hear is they are protecting the rich. host: we will leave it there. robert brings up the question

about protecting the rich. how are the candidates weighing in when it comes to taxing the rich? guest: the primary process is focused on the candidates appealing to their own party base. i think in that sense the candidates have not had to face this question very much even though it is probably a big one in the minds of millions of voters out there. when it comes to one candidate being nominated, it will come up a lot more and that candidate will have to someone pivot and talk about that issue. i think in the primary process, i have not done exhaustive research.

what i have done, it is interesting that one of the only comments i ran across that addresses this issue is mitt romney worries says that his plan to eliminate caplet gains and dividend taxes would be just for those people with household incomes below $250,000. it is those people of middle and lower incomes who have been hit the hardest in this economy with the weak job recovery. in a sense, one interviewer asked him if he is conceding the point that it is importance to have a progressive tax code. he sort of dodged that a little bit. he is defending himself with

his own party based on that front. it is interest-rate going back to what he says about capital gains and dividends. a lot of people out there do not have a capital gains and dividends. their income comes from wages and social security. that one plan would not benefit a broad spectrum of americans. host: judy is a republican caller. caller: i have to laugh. i am 68 years old and a republican now. i say a pox on both their houses. they need to look at the insider trading of nancy pelosi and john boehner. there are so corrupted by the loss that -- by the laws that they create.

as far as taxes are concerned, i think you're wrong. the normal person sees spending millions of dollars to research the derriere of a firefly -- the ceo's that of walked off with some much money that the normal person cannot even fathom it in one year. then they say that seniors are greedy and the middle class needs to pay. we have paid. my retirement plan has been completely changed by what the big boys did when they knew what was happening in places like the real estate market,

when the put nafta in. host: how was is affecting how you are going to vote? caller: i have to make some horrible choices. if mitt romney is what they are giving me -- the big boys, karl rove, bush, i do not know what i'm going to do. if mitt romney is it, he is a multimillionaire. "i will bet you $10,000." i don't think either party is given us too much. mr. obama is putting things in place that has almost destroyed certain industries in this country.

when we have the oil spill, we have the moratorium. we gave $2 billion to brazil. mr. obama offer them to bring the oil back into the country. host: let's hear from our guest. judy is not happy with either party. it sounds like she's saying that is because of the influence of big business and environmental policy. guest: yeah. that brings a useful perspective to the show. she is not the only one who feels that way. the bad economy has been turned so sour in part through

policies that were put in place in some cases in the bush administration and sometimes in the clinton administration and sometimes years before. there's a lot of people who do feel that these mistakes are based in part on the influence of lobbyists and big corporations. one candidate among the republicans who has taken up this perspective and try to run with it at least in one important segment is jon huntsman, who did not compete in the iowa caucus but is hoping to do well in new hampshire and maybe catch a little headwind -- or tailwind that could revive his hopes for the nomination. host: tell us more about his plan. what is he calling for?

guest: he has talked about trying to confront the banking industry and ratchet down, put a cap on the size of financial firms. that would be in his you a direct response to the financial crisis and trying to say if these firms got too big to fail and were bailed out the last time, that could just happen again unless we forced them to become smaller in size. there are some economists who are experts in finance who say that is a good idea and would make our banking system safer. others would say that by itself is not necessarily enough or the approach to take, even though they might agree there's a risk that our financial sector

could get into a crisis again and need bailing out again. they might argue the other tactics are needed to bring the risk in the banking sector. jon huntsman is sort of talking about taking on some very big corporations and doing something that they would not like. that is an interesting point for him. he is viewed as the furthest to the left, the most moderate of all of the republican candidates that have been attending the debates -- or competing right now. he has an aggressive tax reform plan that would cut corporate tax rates down to 25% from 35%. it would simplify the income tax rate to having just three brackets, 8%, 14%, and 23%. he also favors reducing

regulations, promoting free trade, and so forth. host: louise honor democrat's line from florida. caller: good morning. i am almost 70 years old. i believe the republicans goal is to privatize social security and medicare. this is the plan of religious reconstructionist, like rick santorum. the one to replace the government would save based groups. this was started by giving our tax dollars to religious groups. if anyone believes that religious groups can run our country better than government, good luck.

guest: thanks for the comment. it will be interesting. rick santorum it seems to have become at least for now the prominent conservative in the race -- all the republicans what paul flight as conservative, but he would beat the one that can appeal to the conservative wing of the party, including evangelical christians and others who might favor a stronger faith-based element and a shift of, say, privatizing certain government programs. it may be helping rick santorum

to have been the survivor in iowa from that conservative wing of the party, he may become a serious contender for the nomination. i do not know. that could hurt him should become the nominee. people are saying mitt romney is the more electable of the two. host: ted is on our independent line. caller: thank you. i have a couple of comments. manufacturing went to japan, all over the world. they took our jobs over there because they don't like to pay taxes and decent wages. all these people are sitting

over here unemployed, and these people are sending garbage over here for us to buy. we need to put a moratorium on those folks. taxes and wages keep this country running. host: you say that mitt romney or mightn't name china a currency manipulator. talk to us what other countries are going. keeping jobs in the country. guest: yeah. a lot of the candidates talk about the idea of trying to encourage companies to repatriate profits either through temporary incentives or maybe overhauling the business tax code to try to make it more encouraging for companies to take profits that they might earn overseas and invest it back home in creating new factory jobs here.

i am not sure any of the candidates other than rick santorum perhaps are making that a huge priority. rick santorum is emphasizing encouraging a revival of manufactured by having a zero corporate tax rate for companies. he would allow tax-free repatriation of overseas profits if those are used to invest in u.s. plants and equipment. but i think beyond those policies, there is a big question of how in a globally competitive environment, how we can get more companies to invest back home. i think in part that happens

over time if the u.s. market remains one of the most attractive places for any company to try to sell their goods, whether they are a u.s. company or a foreign-based company. i think we can help whether it is u.s. companies are ones from europe or china or elsewhere that there will be some continuing inflows of investment into creating jobs in the u.s. and the more that manufacturing becomes automated, that makes it a field -- the bad news is you need fewer workers to do it, but you can do just about anywhere. host: we have a comment on twitter. that is one opinion on twitter. our guest is mark trumbull

"christian science monitor -- from "christian science monitor." you write about what you like to do going foward. host: talk to us about what else he wants to do regarding jobs and growth. guest: which candidate? host: president obama. guest: obama. his plan right now -- he has hinged a lot of his hopes, hitched to the idea of

continuing tempered incentives for the economy, temporary tax cuts, trying to pass additional aids to states and additional infrastructure spending. he is on the more -- people would say that may help, but we also need permanent fixes for these things. on that front, he has struggled to either articulate a plan of his own that can begin to gather public support and put pressure on the republicans or to find a way to bring the republicans to the bargaining table. it has been perhaps an unfortunate case where neither side may be feels a strong urgency of coming together and

negotiating or seeking compromise. so, i guess it sets the stage for an election year fight where obama casts himself in his words perhaps fighting for the middle class, trying to make the rich pay a little more to bring down a federal deficits while also acknowledging the need for spending cuts if we're going to get the fiscal house in order. host: mark trumbull is an economic reporter for the "christian science monitor." you can find it in this edition of "christian science monitor." thank you so much for joining us. guest: great to be here. >> coming up and about one hour,

former senator rick santorum is holding what he calls a faith, family and freedom town hall. we'll have that live here on c- span and c-span radio and c- span.org. >> c-span's wrote to the white house continues live every morning with "washington journal" talking to political guests taking your phone calls. see the latest videos of the candidates and read what they are saying from the campaign trail at c-span.org. >> president obama announced a recess appointment today to head the consumer protection bureau. the president also talked about the economy. this is 45 minutes.

[applause] >> hello, ohio. [applause] it is good to be back in ohio. it is good to be back in shaker heights. [applause] home of the red raiders.

i love you back and i'm glad to be back. i want to thank your mayor for hosting us today. your superintendent, mark freeman. the principle here, mike griffith. i'm pretty sure we've got a couple of congress people here, but i don't see them. [applause] then is to savage.

outstanding members of congress doing the right thing every day. by and understand the folks here at this school have a pretty good basketball team. [applause] boys and girls. unfortunately, i have no eligibility left. i want to wish everybody a happy new year. 2012 is going to be a good year. [applause] going to be a good year. one of my new year's resolutions is to make sure that

i get out of washington and spend time with folks like you. [applause] because folks here in ohio and all across the country, i want you to know -- you are the reason why i ran for this office in the first place. you remind me what we are still fighting for. you inspire me. ok. you do. [laughter] you remind me that this country is all about folks who work hard and where responsibility pays off. an america where anybody puts in the effort and plays by the

rules can get ahead. that is the america you deserve. that is the america we are working to build. [applause] that is why i told congress before the new year they could not leave for vacation until we made sure 160 million working americans wouldn't get hit with a tax hike on january 1. [applause] this was not easy. it should have been easy. but it was not. in that and, we got members of both parties to come together and make sure you could keep more money in your paychecks each month. you are keeping that extra $40 a your paycheck because we are making sure we did not stunt the economy.

that means more security for your families and a boost for our economy at a time when we have to do everything we can to keep it growing. more money spent by more americans make -- means more americans hiring more workers. when congress returns, i'm going to urge them to extend this tax cut all the way through 2012 with no drama, no delays, do the right thing. it's a no-brainer. [applause] let's get it done and let's pass these tax cuts. we still have more to do. today, we are taking another important step, one that will bring us closer to the economy that we need. an economy where everybody plays by the same rules. to help us do that, i enjoyed by some that you might recognize, richard cordray.

some of ohio. [applause] -- son of ohio. today, i am -- i am appointing richard as america's consumer watchdog. [applause] that means he's going to be in charge of one thing -- looking out for the best interest of american consumers. looking out for you. [applause] his job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. his job will be to make sure you got all the information you need to make important financial decisions. right away, he will start working to make sure millions of americans are trading -- treated fairly by mortgage brokers,

paydays lenders and debt collectors. just this week, his agency is opening a simple 1800 number that you can call to make sure you are getting a fair deal on your mortgage and hold banks and brokers accountable if you are not. [applause] i nominated richard for this job last summer. you may be wondering why am i appointing him today. it would be a good question. for almost half a year, republicans in the senate hasn't blocked richard's confirmation. they refused to even give him an up or down vote. this is not because he is not qualified. there is no question that

richard is the right person for the job. he's got the report -- the support of democrats and republicans around the country. a majority of attorney general's, richard is a former attorney general, attorney generals from both parties across the country have called for richard to be confirmed. your local members of congress support him. he has the support of a majority in the senate. everyone agrees richard is more than qualified. so what's the problem you might ask? the only reason republicans in the senate have blocked richard is because they do not agree with plaza that it -- with the law that set up a consumer watchdog in the first place. they want to weaken the law and water it down. a lot of folks in they financial industry have poured in millions

of dollars to try to water it down. that makes no sense. does anybody make -- does anybody think the reason we got in such a financial mess, the worst financial crisis since the great depression, the worst economic crisis in a generation, that the reason was because of too much oversight of the financial industry? of course not. we should not be weakening oversight and accountability. we should be strengthening it. especially when it comes to looking out for families like yours. [applause] the financial firms have armies of lobbyists in washington looking out for their interests. you need someone looking out for your interest and fighting for you. that is richard cordray. [applause]

i have to say richard is a really nice guy. you look at him and think this guy is not somebody is going around picking fights. and yet this fight on behalf of consumers is something richard has been waging here in ohio for the better part of two decades. [applause] as your attorney general, he helped recover billions of dollars in things like pension funds on behalf of retirees. he protected consumers from dishonest lending practices. before that, he was the state treasurer where he earned a reputation working with folks across the spectrum, democrats, republicans, bankers, consumer advocates and had a great

reputation across the board. you have seen the difference richard can make for consumers. that's why i one richard to keep standing up for you, not just here in ohio but consumers across the country. everyday richard waited to be confirmed -- and we were pretty patient. we kept saying to richmond -- to mitch mcconnell, go ahead and confirm him. why isn't he being called love? every day was another day when millions of americans were left unprotected. without a director in place, the consumer watchdog agency we have set up doesn't have all the tools it needs to protect consumers against dishonest mortgage brokers or paid a lenders. and debt collectors taking advantage of consumers, and that is inexcusable. it is wrong. i refuse to take no for answer.

[applause] i have said before that i want to look for every possible opportunity to work with congress to move this country forward and create jobs. i'm going to look for every opportunity to try to bridge the partisan divide and get things done. that is what the american people need right now. that means putting construction workers back on the job preparing our roads and bridges. that means keeping our teachers in the classrooms. [applause] that means keeping our cops and firefighters doing what they do -- protecting us every day. [applause] that means helping small businesses get ahead. [applause]

that means serving our veterans as well as they have served us, like this young man up here in front. we are grateful to him for his service. [applause] these are ideas that have support from democrats, support from republicans and independents around the country. i want to work with congress to get them done. but, when congress refuses to act, and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, that i have an obligation as president to do what i can without them. [applause] i've got an obligation to act on behalf of the american people, and i am not going to stand by while a minority in the senate

puts party ideology ahead of the people we were elected to serve, not with so much at stake, not at this make or break moment for middle-class america. we are not going to let that happen. [applause] for way too long, we have had a financial system stacked against ordinary americans. banks on wall street played by different rules and different -- and businesses on main street. they played for rules that a lot of community banks doing the right thing across the country. hidden fees, friends -- fine friends that led them to make financial decisions they did not understand. richard had the opportunity to visit with a wonderful elderly couple and one of them is a

former marine that served in the korean war. his wife makes a really good sweet potato pie. i'm going to eat it after. i did not want to get a sleepy having a big piece of pie. their story is the story of all lot of folks in this region where a mortgage broker came to them and said they could do some home repair for a few thousand dollars. they end up getting scant. the loans got flipped, they end up owing $80,000, almost losing their home, and the repairs were never made. you know, those kinds of practices, that is not who we are. we cannot allow people to be

taken advantage of. because it's bad for those individuals, all that risky behavior help to contribute to the economic crisis we are still digging ourselves out of. all of those subprime loans, all of those foreclosures, all of the problems in the housing market, those have contributed to an economy that is not moving as fast as we wanted. that is why we put in place new rules of the road to make sure a few bad apples in the financial sector cannot break the law, cannot cheat consumers, cannot put our entire economy in danger. many of these provisions are already starting to make a difference. for the first time in history, we put into place a consumer watchdog, someone whose only job is to look out for the interest of everyday americans. we're so fortunate to have someone like richard was willing

to do it despite great sacrifices to his family, he is the right person for the job. [applause] if you are a student, i see some young people out here -- [applause] his job will be to protect you from dishonest lending practices and make sure you have the information you need on student loans. [applause] he has already started up that initiative called know before you owe. that's a good slogan. you don't want to owe and then know.

if you're a veteran, he will make sure you are not taken advantage of when you come back to your country. veterans are susceptible to these financial abuses. if you are a senior, he will help you make sure you don't lose your home or retirement because someone saw you as an easy target. that is what happened to this couple. 91 years old -- [applause] as i mentioned, her husband is a former marine and former boxer. so don't mess with him. i want to repeat, they were

approached by a broker, he made everything sound easy, they agreed, the broker and a disappearing and they are left with $80,000 in debt, almost lose their home. they did not lose it because of the intervention of some terrific not for profits that richard, when he was treasurer here, helped to support. [applause] they are good people. they are what america is all about. they worked hard and served their country. they saved their money. they did not live high on the hog. it's a modest house. they earned the right to retire with dignity and respect and they should not have to worry about being tricked by someone

who is out to make a quick buck. they need somebody is going to stand up for them. millions of americans need someone who is going to stand up and look out for their interests, and that person is richard cordray. [applause] we know what would happen if republicans in congress were allowed to keep holding his nominations hostage. more of our loved ones would be tricked into making bad financial decisions. more dishonest lenders could take advantage of some of the most vulnerable families. the firms that do the right thing would be undercut by those who don't. most people in the financial- services industry do the right thing. but they are at a disadvantage as nobody is enforcing the rules. we cannot let that happen. now is not the time to pay -- to

play politics when people slightly heads are at stake. now was the time to do everything to protect consumers and that starts with letting richard to his job. let me just close by saying this -- i know you are hearing a lot of promises from all of politicians. today, you only hear one for me. as long as i have the privilege serving as your president, i promise to do everything i can every day, every minute and every second to make sure this is a country where hard work and responsibility mean something and everyone can get ahead. not just those at the very top and those who know how to work the system, but everybody. that's what america has always been about. that's what america will be about today and tomorrow and 10 years from now and 20 years from

now and with the help of people like richard cordray, that is the country we will always be. thank you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

>> president obama today naming richard kore -- cordray to head the consumer protection bureau. he was nominated in july 2011, but his confirmation was blocked by the senate. shortly after the announcement, we spoke to the capitol hill reporter about the news. >> steven dennis, the white house correspondent from "roll call" joins us. the house and senate have been meeting in pro-forma sessions every two or three days to prevent the president from making a recess appointment. but he went ahead with it.

why did he do it? prevent the president from making a recess appointment. but he went ahead with it. why did he do it? >> short of a kick in the eye to republicans and red meat to his base. a lot have bee calling for the president to do this for months. it is interesting that he did it today when there is some constitutional question about the legality of the appointment today, instead of yesterday, when there was a general sense he could have done it, once last ye's legislative session ended and the next one started. but i don't think the white house cares about that. i think they are happy to see republicans fighting this issue on a process basis, whether or not he has the authority to do this, or they get to go to ohio and have a b campaign-style rally and make it an issue about who is standing up for the middle -- little guy.

so, i think the white house was more than happy to make this fight and have the republicans walking. >> what have you heard from republican leaders so far after the announcement? >> mitch mcconnell was sharply critical. he said that the senate is not in recess. we are having these pro-forma sessions. he says this is legally questionable. speaker boehner went a step further and says he expects the court to rule that this appointment was illegitimate. other republicans expecting court challges, expecting the nomination to be thrown out. but in the meantime, you know, there is a question of whether this sort of hurts obam's ability to g things done with the republicans because they are

clearly incensed by it. but if you are the white house, you are not really expecting that much cooperation, you do not feel you've got that much from republicans anyway. in the meantime, this is something that shows your base that you are fighting and that you are taking action. where ere is so much frustration that so little is getting done, the president sort of putting a capstone on his "we can't wait" campaign on executive actions. while he waits for congress to do somhing significant on the economy. he has a big jobs package he proposed last year and all they got in the end was a two-month extension of existing policies. he did not get really anything he talked about today like construction workers, road projects, teachers. he mentioned all of those things today. those are all of the things he

proposed a month ago and have gone nowhere. you know, there really does not seem to be much downside for the president here. in that, he was not getting what he wanted from congress anyway so why not take the step. the other thing is republicans really picked the fight. they of the ones who said we do not care how qualified the guy is for the job, at unless you change to the job and basically turned into a much weaker position -- >> you mentioned a possible court fight but what about the news report that says he may take the office as early as friday. are republicans likely to try to prevent that, and how could they do that? >> i do not think he will try to prevent it. there is also a question of who will have standing to go to court. it could be a situation where he would have to take some administrative action against two lenders, forcing them to

comply with regulations and then the payday lenders could go to court to say that this nomination was not kosher. and so, it might be a very long, drawn-out process, before you can get to that point. and, you know, in the meantime, i think the white house thinks this is going to be a political win for them and the more the republicans fight i i think the white house is happy to have that fight and have it over whether or not we should be having tighter regulations of wall street and the financial industry. that is a fight they felt confiden, even more confident on this than, say, health care reform, which is much less cost bid -- popular i >> the road to the white house continues from new hampshire, for coverage of tuesday's

primary. every morning, "washington journal" talks with political guests. through the day, campaign events with zero -- with new hampshire voters. hear what they are saying from the campaign trail at c- span.org. this month, it is facebook first. go to our facebook page for coverage from the campaign trail, with exclusive behind the scenes pictures leading up to the new hampshire primary, plus the video clip of the day. add your comments, and vote in our poll question. here the results of an earlier poll. today's question -- will the campaign be positive or negative? read now at facebook. >> more like new hampshire coverage coming up at 7:30 eastern, a town hall meeting with rick santorum.

jonathan martin tweets that santorum has raised over $1 million since last night, in less than 24 hours since the caucuses began. we will have live coverage on c- span, on radio, and on line. until then, a look at the latest polls and standings in new hampshire, from this morning's "washington journal." host: this is the director of new hampshire politics. guest: greetings from the granite state. morning, greetings from the granite state. host: the caucuses in iowa is a different system -- but why is new hampshire important? guest: it is important because since 1916 we held in the first in the nation primary. it is the first primary, so it is not a caucus, as you mentioned. we have independents, as well as republicans and democrats

voted. if you are a republican, you can vote for a republican candidate, but if you are undeclared, you can vote on either side, democrat or republican. it is a very different process from the iowa caucuses. things are starting to heat up here. you can almost hear the jets landing today in new hampshire. and this is certainly where the action is for the next six days. host: you may distinction between the way a caucus and a primary works. if you watched c-span last night, you saw how the caucuses unfold in iowa, where it is activity happening in a room. why is it significant to you that there is a difference between a primary and caucus? guest: the primary in new hampshire is a state election. it is a very different process. anyone can go and vote. the polls are open like any other election. if you are new hampshire, registered voter, you can go in before work, cast your vote, and

had -- head out the door. it is a confidence vote and it is up to you who you vote for obviously. the real difference here is that in new hampshire, because we have a small state, candidates really are out there campaigning hand-to-hand. a television advertising and things like that have less impact in a state like this. and we tend to work pretty hard at trying to see who is right for this job. we don't require that people vote for the we choose, but certainly we start the process off. host: neil levesque, new hampshire institute of politics at st. anslem college. here are the numbers -- if you are a new hampshire

resident, we would love to hear from you, 628-0184. neil levesque, tell us about new hampshire's's record at picking candidates that end up going on to become the nominee? guest: well, we don't always pick the candidate that goes on to become the president. but the fact is, it is an excellent place for candidates to come. they don't necessarily need a lot of money. but what they do want to do is work hard and meet new hampshire voters. new hampshire voters take this process very seriously. we have one of the highest voter turnout of any state. we turn out for town hall meetings. the old joke is -- are you going to vote for president ford, and the old time his person says i am not sure because i only met him twice. the fact is, we work very, very hard at this process. this is what our state is known

for. new hampshire state sport is politics. if you like baseball and you live in new york, you can go to yankee stadium, or if you live in boston, you can go to fenway park, but here in new hampshire we have the new hampshire institute of politics. a lot of activity. probably have several candidates a day here, going into the next week on campus. a tremendous amount of media. we have a debate coming up here. so, there is a lot of activity. host: i am looking at a story from "the baltimore sun." is it a romney stronghold? it talks about running's position there. is this his race to use? guest: we don't like to

necessarily handicap the race. we like the fact that research has shown romney has a significant lead. some speculate it is because he is from a neighboring state. i disagree. there is a great difference between people from massachusetts and new hampshire. i think mitt romney has been working very hard. and i think it is paying off. the other thing to consider is that republican primary voters have tended in the past to vote for people who have been on the ballot before. richard nixon, ronald reagan, george herbert walker bush, john mccain, are all people to examples. at mitt romney ran four years ago. it he was on the ballot so he is a well-known commodity. but he is certainly working hard. he has not taken the state for granted at all. even though he had good numbers here. so, going into next week, we will see what happens. but they all seem to be working very hard. host: here are how the numbers of playing out in the polls.

it comes from real clear politics. mitt romney is in red on top, 41%. ron paul is in yellow, he has gone up, 18%, second place. newt gingrich peaked back in december and now down to 12.5% and then comes jon huntsman, over 10%, followed by michele bachmann, rick santorum, and rick perry and single-digits. let's go to the phones and hear from eric, democratic caller from georgia. caller: good morning. i think mitt romney is going to be the perfect person for president obama to run against. he is mr. wall street. he would not show taxes. once president obama gets reelected he needs to roll back all the policies of george bush and the country will go straight. medicare part d, he rolled back one of those wars, and those two

wars and that the bush tax cuts expire. if you do not let the tax cuts expire, you don't need the second term. romney is strictly for the rich people. he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. it's got eric is a democrat, and he says he wants to see mitt romney -- host: eric is a democrat, and he says he wants to see mitt romney. how much you hearing from new hampshire voters that they are thinking down the line on who makes the strongest candidate against the present? guest: it is a factor the voters choose. but caller mentioned mitt romney's background. what is also interesting about mitt romney is his father ran in 1968. he never competed in the primary. however, he was a candidate in 1968. an accomplished man. there are great similarities between now and 1968, this election. so, it is very interesting. host: we will leave it there.

new jersey, nick, independent line. caller: i wanted to say how interesting it is to see the power of the media and putting the spotlight on candidates. it seems like rick seems likepumped up out of nowhere in iowa, but i want to see how what plays out in new hampshire. i think it played a big in 2008 when the media took hillary down from every direction. i also think there are propping down santorum to take votes away from ron paul who has the best argument against romney. i think anything they can do to pump up anybody, takes a pillar away from ron paul, it is something the establishment once because he is the only one who is distinguished in the field. guest: rick santorum has been campaigning very hard in new hampshire. he has been in this television studio quite a bit. he has a good ground game. it will be interesting. so is ron paul. ron paul, as i mentioned, has been on the ballot before.

he is a known commodity. working very hard. a good team here in new hampshire. so, we are expecting a good contact with the people you mentioned. host: who spent the most time in your state? guest: it is hard to say, but i would say that john huntsman has been here quite a bit. he has devoted a lot of his campaign to new hampshire. a very great campaign in itself. many town hall meetings, many events. but so have many of the people we have mentioned. so, they are all really competing very hard -- with some exceptions. but if you are a new hampshire voter, and through the summer you could have gone to any number of town hall meetings in any number of weeks and going to hear the candidates. so, the candidates created quite a bit of exposure. host: jon huntsman said on the

air a couple of days ago that he was putting his efforts in new hampshire instead of iowa because iowa picks corn and new hampshire picks presidents. guest: a famous quote from our governor, john sununu. we like to say that. but we honor iowa and what they do there. they are a great partner in this process. they just have a different type of process, different voters. it was great to watch. it is wonderful to see the returns coming in last night. and we are looking forward to next week. host: neil levesque is the executive director for the new hampshire institute of politics and also the executive director of the political library at st. anslem college. marion from the geneva, republican line. turn down your tv. you are on the air. please, turn down your tv and go right ahead.

ok, we are going to let to move on if you cannot talk to us, marion? caller: yes -- host: we want to hear what you have to say but we cannot hear you if there is feedback. caller: good morning. i switched four years ago, from republican to democrat, because obama is about a lot of hope and reinvigoration in this country but i am unhappy with the fact that he has spent trillions of dollars over there. i want to remind everybody that he is not the one who started this war. we went into afghanistan to help the afghan people and ended up

in iraq. we did take out a dictator who was a horrible, disgraceful person. but right now, i would have to say that if i did not vote for obama, i would be voting for ron paul because he is totally opposite on the war issues. yes, he is not going to get on tv and say what he would actually do to them because i do not think it is a smart thing to say what you are going to do to your enemies. guest: here at the new hampshire institute of politics, we have had a number of speakers. general petraeus is a new hampshire residents. we are very proud to have him. so, this facility in itself used to be a national guard facility

so we honored many veterans here as well as presidential candidates. we are keen to make sure our veterans are honored at the new hampshire institute of politics. are planning that -- we are planning to do that in the next week. we try to open up the facility to many veterans and veterans' groups to create as much exposure to that for civic-type engagement. host: the new hampshire institute of politics will be hosting a debate on saturday. what are you expecting at that debate? are you hearing plans of the candidates to attend? guest: obviously, we have not heard that yet. iowa tends to take out a few people, if you will. this debate is very different

than those done for years ago when we had a democrat and republican competitors, where you almost have to switch the entire audience and stage in the halftime break. it is very complex. this time, it is just republicans competing so it is a little bit less difficult on our end. but the debates are fascinating. june for cn andn n in another debate. fox news will be broadcasting up top on our campus next week doing a series of programs. we have many media groups coming in. so there is a lot of activity here and it is very exciting. if you love politics, this is the place to be. our citizens are very excited. host: let's hear from miche in

salt lake city. good morning. caller: good morning. i think mitt romney's new name should be mitt robotney. i was watching his victory speech last night on tv. he is doing speeches all over the state. it is exactly the same speech. all of his little jokes are at the same spot. when you are watching these things and you see them over a couple of days, it is almost like a cookie cutter stuff. it is pretty revolting when you are watching in. guest: one of the aspects of politics is it is a talent to stay on message. you repeat yourself as a candidate so your message gets out there. here at the new hampshire institute of politics, we engage with many candidates behind the

scenes so we see them in television studios and before the debates with their families. we have a lot of access to the. although candidates can be scrutinized in the national media, behind the scenes, they all are wonderful people. that includes the current crop of candidates and the people you just mentioned. really good human beings. their interaction here with students is a perfect example. you have a person like newt gingrich, mitt romney, jon huntsman. they come into the college and they find a student and they are answering questions, just really genuinely great people that are really patriotic and want to do what they can to help this country. that occurs on both sides. we have seen that over and over again with these candidates are

really, really fine people and family people. host: new hampshire has its primary on tuesday next week. let's hear from robert, a democrat caller from texas. caller: hello. thank you for receiving my call. i just wanted to make a comment. i cannot understand how this nation can not perceive that this do-nothing republican congress has not participated or went along with anything president obama has tried to do to repeal the inconsistency of the republican administration that was in there before them and how the problems we have -- they cannot recognize still back

reagan cames when into office, implementing his tax cuts for the rich. and then also, [unintelligible] the unions and repealing the civil rights legislation, erasing any kind of gain that the society had made, any civil liberties, and then they want to blame everything on obama which who has had less than three years to correct. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: we have turned down the thermostat here in new hampshire. it is two degrees outside and i am sure is not that way in

texas. as far as the congress and how it relates to the presidential election, in 1948, a famous memo to harry truman outlining his strategy for the election which was basically to blame the republican congress. it was a successful strategy. i think that same playbook has been used many times before, and death and possibly you will see that playbook in the 2012 -- and possibly he will see that playbook in the 2012 election. host: what does it take to win in new hampshire? are we talking about a ground game or reaching out through ads? you mentioned the style that candidates use, but what do you see as a constant formula that

is worked in the past? guest: i think a lot of political scientists will say new hampshire as a moderate group of voters, and i think that is incorrect. i think new hampshire voters vote for the person. the person who connect with voters and shows them that they are ready to lead this country or the people that new hampshire voters are tending to vote for. it does not matter if they are from a neighboring state or they have a different accent than people in new hampshire. a great example would be president carter. he was the governor of judah, a baptist minister who had a strong southern accent. he came into new hampshire at 2% in the polls. thanks to a senator who was one of his strategists, he won the

new hampshire primary. so the fact is people in new hampshire will respond to people that they feel can lead the country. i think we have seen that and we have proven that since 1952. host: here is a story from "the washington times." of the former president carter has some advice for obama -- the former president carter has some advice for obama as he gears up for the election. >> we are going to break away and take you live to new hampshire for a town hall meeting with rick santorum.

this is his first town hall meeting of the day, and one of several campaign stops after last night's showing in the iowa caucuses, garnering 25% of the boat, falling just eight shy of mitt romney, who also got 25% of the vote, garnering 12 delegates, mitt romney getting 13. he is speaking here with his faith and family values town hall meeting in a crowded room, which should get underway shortly.

>> good evening, everybody. welcome to the rockingham county complex town hall. my name is mike sullivan. rockingham county is the the seven towns in new hampshire. we hurt in the county seat. we will get started in a few

minutes. a couple of quick things. first of all, if you would like to learn more about the politics of the republican party in rockingham county, our website is rockinghamgop.org. you can attend our meetings. i want to thank the administrator for this facility. i know he is meeting senator santorum at the front. i would like a round of applause for him for having us here. [applause] we also have, somewhere in this mass of humanity, state representative bruce mccann. there he is. [applause] when the senator comes, he will come this way and up the center aisle. there will be opening statements. so that everyone on tv can get

the audio, there is a microphone over here. we will pass one around as well, so we can hear your question clearly and answer for you. make sure you mention your name and your town, and state, if you are from out of state. we will be good to go. as is customary, i would like to start our meeting with the pledge of allegiance. there you go. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you. [applause] all right. to introduce senator santorum and tell you a little bit about him, we have the new hampshire state co-chair for the santorum

campaign. >> thank you. [applause] and thank you all for coming out. it is a cold evening out there, but it is very warm in here. we have a lot of good new hampshire people here who are getting ready for the new hampshire primary. the new hampshire primary has been a long tradition. some of us have been involved in it for more years than we care to remember. remember the days of jack kennedy? we remember the days of ronald reagan. [applause] we remember the days of george h. w. bush. and we remember w. going through the snows of new hampshire. some of us remember bob dole.

john mccain. [applause] we have had a lot of good republican candidates come through new hampshire. and it is nice to follow that kind of tradition with the candidates we have today. and i want to thank you all for taking the time out, because i am sure right now you could be doing a lot of other things besides sitting here, listening to another politician. but it is very important that we do that. this is a very critical election in the history of this country. it will determine the direction that we go as a nation. because we are a democracy, we have all kinds of people. we have all kinds of beliefs. we have all kinds of ways in which we want to be governed.

and it is up to us to make sure that what we believe is focused on. that our future leaders understand what we believe, why we believe in it, why our freedoms are so important, and why so many veterans have given so much, including their lives, and sometimes their family's well-being, to preserve that freedom -- the freedom we have to vote. and we take it seriously here in new hampshire. that is why the new hampshire primary has to remain the first in the nation. [applause] it is a privilege to vote, a

privilege we treasure. if you look at what is happening in some parts of the world, in the middle east, where they are just beginning to find out what freedom means -- to have our kind of freedom, many of them are giving up their lives for it. they are taking their future in their own hands. in some cases, they may not understand all the responsibilities that come with freedom. but it is something that is treasured. and you take a look at what is happening in north korea, in choosing a new leader. they really did not have a choice. we do. that is why this election is key, and what all of us must listen to all of the candidates that we can. ask them questions.

let them know what we are concerned about. one of the reasons i supported senator santorum for president was that he believes in a traditional grass-roots type of campaign. he did come to new hampshire 31 times. he held house parties all over the state, including one in my backyard, which i was very proud to host. in fact, i had trouble rounding up people. i have to be honest. i had trouble in the middle of summer, try to get people to come to my house. when rick santorum was 1% in the polls, not that many people wanted to hear him, but a group of 30 of my neighbors showed up, not because they thought he would win, but because they wanted to hear what he had to say, in the middle of august,

when they could have been in there strumming pools or at the lake or beach. they came to my house to hear a political speech, to talk to a political candidate, and they would not leave. it was 11:00. i was ready to go to bed. senator santorum stayed and answered all their questions. they kept asking him everything, more things than i wanted him to discuss, but he stayed and stayed. that is what grass-roots campaigning is all about. i have enjoyed the debates. i have been to as many as i can, including the one in iowa. i went to iowa to watch the straw polls. that was an interesting experience. if ever you want an interesting vacation, go to iowa for the straw polls. it is an education. i have listened to all the debates, and this election seems

to be more media-driven, more debate-driven than grass-roots driven. and that concerns me, someone as old as i am, someone who is interested in history and tradition, particularly new hampshire traditions. we are losing the importance of grass-roots efforts. we have to be careful to maintain those here in new hampshire. i enjoy the debates. i think that our kind of fun. but there has to be more to campaigning than just debates. not only do we need to listen to the candidates -- we have to talk to them, ask them questions about things we are concerned about. how else are they going to learn what ordinary, average, hard-working americans are thinking about? we do not all think about the same things. we all have a lot of issues in

our lives. and everyone of us, whether you are 16 or 60 plus -- changes are going to be made in some of the major rules that affect our lives. we do need changes in our health-care system. obamacare, but't there are changes we cannot afford for medicare, at the rate it is being used now. we cannot afford to continue social security on the same trajectory it is going on. there is too many baby boomers. i do not know why we had to have so many of them, but we did. they are going to impact the social security system. and we want social security to be around when you hit it. ok? so we have education issues.

we have economic issues. and we want everyone in this country to have a job. [applause] [laughter] good point. one of the basis of our economic being in this country -- you start with the family unit. we need a secure family unit. i think rick santorum stands for those basic family values. [applause] you can talk about the responsibility of the school system. you can talk about the responsibility of the community. but it is still based on the family. we all have a role, but it is still basic to our country -- our basic bar use system is the family.

-- value system is the family. beyond that, we need a system where people can hope for the future. we don't need to guarantee them a job. we don't want to guarantee them a welfare check. we don't want to guarantee them free health care. we want to guarantee them the opportunity to earn it. [applause] every person, whether you are over 60 or under 16, should have the right to dream and think about their futures. what do they want? there needs to be some security about being all you can be. there should be a rout. everyone should have a good education. that person has to get that

education by turning it, by working for it. -- earning it, by working for it. that person should want a good position, a job, a house. they should be able to dream about it, think about it, plan for it, and earn it. it is the self-respect that comes with accomplishing your goals. that is what is needed today. if you look at rick santorum's platform, and ask him the tough questions about where we want to go with this country -- jobs, economy, secure families -- that is why i support senator santorum. [applause] >> good to see you.

thank you so much. >> how are you? >> thank you. >> how are you? >> hello. >> thank you. it is good to be here. thank you so much. >> to the right. >> how are you? nice to see you. thank you. >> right straight up here. >> thank you. how are you? thank you so much. hello. how are you? thank you. thank you. thank you. hi, how are you? thank you. >> i said a few things, guys.

>> thank you so much. i appreciate it. it is great to be here. another of my co-chairs is here. thank you very much. sheriff is any's endorsement of me. i always like to point that out. thank you so much for being here. it is really great. do i have to stand behind here for the cameras? it would help. ok. let me do that and make sure we get all the good audio. thank you very much. another one of my co-chairs is here from down in londonderry. thank you so much. it is great to be back in the granite state. thank you for this great turnout. people have asked me repeatedly.

"you'll have done well in iowa, but new hampshire is such a different place, and it is nothing like iowa." i said, "they are all americans. they have the fundamental the use our founders put in place, that we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain rights." that is what makes america america, a country that believes in people having rights individually, the dignity of every human person to go out and work, to provide for themselves. the government would be limited so they could provide for themselves and their families, and raise that family consistent with their moral beliefs. that is the key to america. it is what made america the greatest country in the history of the world, right? [applause]

so you believe here in new hampshire exactly what they believe in iowa, exactly what they believe in south carolina. i bet you also believe that this government, under barack obama, is undermining that basic principle of what america is about. [applause] he is systematically destroying the work ethic. how? by the narcotics of government dependents. -- dependence. systematically going out and ever expanding the reach of the federal government. why? let me say that in simple terms. he believes you are incapable of freedom. he believes you cannot provide for yourself, and that the government has to dictate to you all of the basic needs. all of the basic wants of society have to be organized and

orchestrated by the federal government. that is why we have obamacare, because you are simply not capable of going out and working, providing, buying food, being able to provide for your transportation and housing. they would provide for your recreation. you are not capable of being free enough to go out and contract and provide for yourself, with your employer or individually, to provide for your own health care. you need the federal government to tell any employer and individual how much to spend, what plan to have, what access to care, and how much to spend on it. that is because the president who believes that you need him. remember? he went around in new hampshire and talked about hope and change. "believe in me. just believe in me. i can go to washington, d.c. and

solve the problems." remember all the town hall meetings? people would get up and say, "you are going to help me and take care of this for me." remember that? he convinced you back in 2008. he did not snow the people of new hampshire, did he? he convinced the country. he almost won here in new hampshire. he actually won in the general election here in new hampshire. he convinced the american public that you needed a president that you could believe in. i am here to tell you that what i hear from the american people today is that you want a president that believes in you. [applause] so i have gone out and traveled the state. people say, "how are you going

to do it in new hampshire? you have not been here." they forget. you might say they have not been paying a lot of attention to me for quite some time. they forget this is my 31st trip into new hampshire. we have done well over 100 town hall meetings. we have been traveling all over this state for over a year, talking to the people of new hampshire just like we did in south carolina. according to "the washington post," governor huntsman has done more town hall meetings and i have in new hampshire, but he is cheating -- he lives here. he is just campaigning here. i did 381 town hall meetings in iowa. we will do a bunch of them this week. we have more events in south carolina than any other candidate in this race. i believe if you're going to ask the people of new hampshire,

iowa, south carolina, and florida to support you, you have to show you can win in every area of the country. we are going to show, in a short time here in new hampshire, that we have what it takes to get the momentum and raise our numbers, and to say we are the kind of candidate the people of new hampshire can rally behind. because we are the kind of candidate that is point to go -- we will take questions in the second. we will go and do this as president -- stand up and tell you the truth. [applause] tell you what the problem is. the very specific about it. i know you will be pulling up my sweater, saying "who are giving too much of an answer, giving too much detail." she has been chiding me about it for a year. but i believe the american public can be trusted with more,

not less, information. right? [applause] people ask me, "how are you going to get america to gather ?" -- together?" how about starting with a common understanding of the problem? you have to be honest with the american people about what is the problem. maybe, once you do that, you would be amazed, based on the values of this country, how we can work together to solve this. i am anxious to take your questions. i am going to go out there and be honest about what the problem is, tell you what i believe is the solution to this problem, and more important -- and it is important -- why i believe it is the right thing to do. it is not just what is up here, but what is here and here. it is important to understand this is what new hampshire does better. it is why you are here.

how many of you have been to see other candidates in this go around? i am not surprised. this is what you do. this is your time, the first in the nation primary. you have a huge burden. everybody says this race is over. one candidate is way ahead and is going to win. not a vote has been cast. a lot of folks are trying to tell you, "here is the guy going to win." you fight. i know bill gardner. you fight to be first. you have a responsibility that comes with it, and that is to lead. do not pay attention to what the polls say. do not pay attention to what the pundits say. how many pundits were right over the last six months about what was going to happen in this race? none. zero. they are worse than weatherman -- weathermen.

so do not trust them. trust yourself. look at these candidates. look at them all. go to their web sites. come to town hall meetings. i am talking to the choir, here. do your homework. do the second thing you have to do in new hampshire. vote for someone who would do what america needs at a time when america needs a fundamental change in the direction of our government. [applause] do not settle for a pyrrhic victory. do not settle for someone who can win, but then cannot do, will not do, and has no track record of doing the big things that are necessary to change this country, both from a standpoint of our economy, the standpoint of our culture,