about the largest defense cuts since the cold war. he will be joined by leon panetta and the joint>> politicg out of new hampshire, ahead of the first in the nation's primary on tuesday. newt gingrich is wrapping up a town hall meeting in plymouth. jon huntsman is in dhahran of new hampshire. newt gingrich will be in meredith, new hampshire for another town hall meeting. we have live coverage of that starting at 7:00 eastern. c-span2 will be live when the republican city committee in nashua, new hampshire holds their meeting. son, joney's huntsman's wife, and someone will speak for newt gingrich. you can see that on c-span2.

c-span's road to the white house continues to new hampshire for coverage of tuesday's primary. "washington journal" talks to political guess. candidates talk to new hampshire voters and see the latest videos of the candidates at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> yesterday, john mccain endorsed mitt romney for president. he spoke with romney at a town hall meeting. ♪ highway to the danger zone highway to the danger zone ♪

>> thank you. was a welcome. what a welcome. what a big morning we had in iowa. it sure is nice to have a win. my question is, can we do better in new hampshire? [applause] >> romney! >> let's see if we can get that mike going again. do you think we can get there? i sure hope so. i am proud to be here with senator john mccain. one of america's heroes and a great friend. thank you. [applause] i am going to say a few things and then turn to the senator to offer some thoughts and give you a chance to answer some questions of either one of us or

both of us. as you heard me say last night, i was appreciative that the process began last night. we are now on track to retire a nice guy, but it is time for barack obama to go home. we need someone who understands our economy to lead this country. [applause] you know, i happen to think that the gap between what president obama, then candid obama promised is so extraordinary, that the american people will finally do the right thing and say, "thank you for your four years, but we need someone to get this country on the right track." he has a long list of foreign policy -- his failure in iran. his failure to stand up for the people and to speak up for freedom and democracy. his failure to put in place credible military options. those things represent extraordinary risk to the future

of our world and our nation. and the economy. he said he was going to borrow $787 million from your generation to pay back. he was going to do that to hold unemployment below 8%. and so you have today -- they are having trouble with the microphone. i can hear myself, so we are fine. [laughter] people stop looking for work or are underemployed. this is not a statistic. these are real people having tough times making ends meet. some people lose their faith. this is a national tragedy. then of course, there is the failure in dealing with government itself. the federal government spends too much money -- your money. again, the next generation's money. spending more than $1 trillion. you guys have to pay that back.

i think it is immoral for us to spend more money every year than we take in and it has to stop. [applause] now, you know, the president after being inaugurated went on the "today show," and said, "if i cannot turn this economy around in three years, i will be looking at a one-term proposition." well, i am here to collect. [applause] just a couple of spots, guys, about how we are going to fix the country. one, is the deficit and the massive spending in deficit -- in washington. thank you for your board of security provisions to allow me to come into new hampshire and massachusetts. i took our budget, we were $3 billion short in my

administration of my first year. i looked and said let's divide all the things we have on the budget by those things we have to do and the things we just liked to do. and then let's cut or eliminate the things we just like because we cannot afford it. well, in washington what i will do is look at all of our programs and i will ask is this program so critical that it makes sense to borrow money from china to pay for it? and on that basis, we will get rid of a lot of programs. first on my list is obamacare. it is gone on day one if i become president. [applause] i will go to work to make america a job-creating machine again. i know how that is done. i know how we compete with other countries. i know why jobs come here and why they leave here. my intent will be to make america the most attractive place in the world for enterprise. for innovators. for entrepreneurs.

for businesses big and large. i wanted to come here. when the head of coca-cola, american's icon, says the business environment is better in china than in america, you know something has gone very badly are right. i will get our tax rates competitive. i'll make sure regulations are up to date. new make sure we open up markets for american goods and crackdown on cheaters like china. i will also do something else. that is take advantage of our energy resources -- oil and gas. that keystone pipeline and get america oppose the energy secure again. -- and get america's energy secure again. this campaign is not just about dollars and cents. as important as that is, it is not just about jobs.

it is also about the heart and soul of america. the question that america is going to face is whether we are going to remain a nation that our founders would recognize. a nation that was founded on the principles of opportunity and freedom. when they drafted the declaration of independence, they said the creator in doubt us with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that last phrase, the pursuit of happiness, refers to the fact that in america we can pursue our dreams or happiness as we choose. if we are not limited by the circumstances of our birth. that opportunity society, is that merit society where education, hard-working, risk- taking, dreaming, with individuals and lift our entire nation -- that has been an extraordinary prosperity for

america. our gdp per person is about 50% higher than the average european. these american principles are not temporary but permanent -- enduring. i want to get that job-creating machine going again. i want to restore to our kids that principle of hope. our president is taking us in a different direction. i think he is inspired by those european-style social welfare states. for the purpose of government to take from some people to give to others. the methodology to pursue that strategy is to promote envy as opposed to ambition. it is poison to the american spirit with class warfare. i want to remain one nation under god. i want to bring us together. i want to restore the principles that made america the hope of the earth. i want to transform america into something we would recognize.

i want to restore america. i love this country. i love its future. i am not a pessimist. i am an optimist about america and the potential that each of you young people has for a nation that is strong and prosperous and free. let me tell you this, there is no model in the world. there are no principles in the world more affective at creating jobs, peace, prosperity, hope, and promise that the principles of the founding of the united states of america. i love this country and the principles upon which it was founded. i will restore them for our future for the greatness of this great land. now, i am proud to introduce a friend, a person who has stood for america in far off places and here at home, an american hero, a giant among men -- senator john mccain. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much, mitt.

thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you very much. i say thank you. thank you for the kind introduction. i also want to say that it is with some nostalgia that i return to this place that i love so well. i am really here for one reason and one reason only. that is to make sure that we make mitt romney the next president of the united states of america and new hampshire is the state that will catapult him on to victory in a very -- a period of time. that is why i am here. [applause] >> yeah! >> i would also like to thank all of you for your involvement in this political process.

for your investigation and examination of the candidates. there are so many jokes. a guy was running and said, what you think about -- for president? and he said, i do not know. i only met him twice. those are true. you are here. some of you have not committed yet. i hope the end of this appearance and you watch this romney campaigned throughout the state, that we will get an overwhelming vote that will catapult this candidate to the white house. can i say, thank you governor for all that you do. that old joke of mind about it two inmates in the state prison and one turn to the other and said, food was a lot better in here when you were governor. [laughter] any way. [laughter]

some states you cannot tell that joke in. [laughter] can i also say how proud i am of this rising star in the american political scene. this leader, this incredible united states senator. [applause] and to many of you know her husband joe who has served with distinction and honor in the national guard, a lot better than me because he did not get shot down. [laughter] and and cindy, would you just stand? [applause] there are so many friends that i would like to say hello to, but i would like to get right into it if i could with you.

you know, i am a big a boxing fan. i have always loved the sport. i think it is one of the most difficult and challenging that there is. so many great moments in sports have taken place, as we all know, with some of the great boxing matches. some of the worst have. that is why it was called the red light district of sports. one of my favorite fighters of all time was a guy named joe louis. if you remember, he was the heavyweight champion of the world. he had a fight coming up with a guy who was a light heavyweight champion and a guy who was a great boxer with a lot of style and elusiveness. joe said, how are you going to beat this guy? joe lewis said, well, he can run, but he cannot hide. my friends, our message to president barack obama is, you

can run, but you cannot hide from your record of making this country bankrupt, from destroying our national security, and to making this nation one that we have to restore when mitt romney is president of united states of america. [applause] >> romney! >> all the media reports is that the president is going to attack congress. maybe that is not a bad idea. our approval rating is 9%. you get down that low, you are down two paid staffers and relatives. [laughter] the fact is that the democrats and president obama had both houses of congress and both majorities when they passed the bailout. when we passed obamacare. when we passed a $1 trillion stimulus package. that was the one that was supposed to bring unemployment

down 8%. remember that? well, my friends, he can run, but he cannot hide. that is what this campaign is really going to be all about. i will remind you again -- we just finished up, taxpayers were somewhat relieved, i am sure, a couple of weeks ago -- if we passed a $991 billion money bill to make the government run. you know how long we debated that bill? 15 minutes. 15 minutes we debated that bill. i identified pork-barrel spelling -- spending just in the defense bar. my friends, it cannot go on like this. see who is in the majority of united states senate -- a guy named harry reid. hopefully, along with president mitt romney, we will have a majority in the united states and and we will get things done.

so, can i say to you -- [applause] i know that jobs and the economy will be the dominant theme in this campaign. i understand that. my own home state of arizona people are hurting very badly. houses are under water. i understand that. but i also think that we have to understand our nation's security. i guarantee you one thing. no one will ever say that mitt romney will leave from behind. he will leave from in front, the way that ronald reagan did, and not from behind which is what this president is doing. my friends, we are believed around the world to be weak. we are believed around the world to be in decline. that is not the case. mitt romney and i and you believe that america's greatest days are still ahead of us.

it just requires the kind of leadership to put us back in the position that made america the greatest and nobles experiment in the history of the world. the person that will do that is right here with you today -- president mitt romney. [applause] >> go romney! >> romney! >> by the way, we forgot to congratulate him on his landslide victory last night. [laughter] [applause] >> ok, we are going to take some questions from you. raise your hand and shout a question. yes, sir. i am great, thank you. >> i am smart from occupy new hampshire. you have said that corporations are people. but in the last two years, corporate profits have surged to record highs directly at the expense of wages as jpmorgan

reports. you the u.s. is increasingly a desperate place to work. would you redefine your statement that corporations are people to corporations are abusive people? and would you be willing to reverse the policies of both the obama administration and his predecessor around corporate economic policies that only see wealth in come go to the top record highs every year and the people in this country are in permanent economic segregation? i just want to see some color on that. >> where do you think corporate proffered -- corporate park -- where do think corporate profits go? >> it depends. if they retain, that means they are not using it for capital expenditure. they could just poured it.

right? but profits go to shareholders. it goes to the 1% of americans who hold 90% of the stocks. >> let's get the facts. [laughter] hold on, it is my turn. first of all, you are right. it goes to dividends which are the owners. they are not the 1%. they also go to the people who have pensions. there is a guy -- are you in the 1%? he has dividends, retirement plans, 401 ks. that is number one. number 2, they go to retained earnings which can be used for capital expenditures or growing the business or hiring people for working capital. when a business has profit, it can do good things. give it to the shareholders and grow the enterprise. by the way, the only it can hire people is if it grows the enterprise. now, corporations are made up of people and the buildings that

people working. the buildings do not pay taxes. the only entities that the taxes are people. so, corporations are elections of people who are trying to promote the future. corporations are made up of people and the money goes to people eager to hire people or pay shareholders. they are made up of people. thinking there is something else out there we could just grab money from and get taxes from that is not of all people, but they are still people. i want to make america a place for those corporations who have that money decide to invest here. i was with a guy who ran a company and he just announced a $20 billion factory in saudi arabia. i asked why? he said they wanted to build it in pennsylvania, but the regulators in this country are not willing to allow us to get a hold of the natural gas so we have to go somewhere else. tens of thousands of jobs lost.

not by the corporations, but by governments not doing its job. i want this to be the place where corporations -- people, all over the world want to invest here and start businesses. that is how we get jobs. there are only two places we can get jobs. one is with the government. everybody working with government. it has not worked out. the only system that has ever worked in the history of the world to lift people out of poverty is free enterprise. nothing else has worked. look at cuba, north korea, the soviet union. they are bankrupt. only free enterprise. look at china. poverty. impoverished for generations. they finally adopt some form of free enterprise like we have, allowing corporations to exist and have profit. guess what happens? tens of millions of people a year come out of poverty. it is a marvelous vision of the

founders. what was brought forward by john adams and george washington and thomas jefferson -- i am all ears. until then, i am in favor of what was presented by the founders of this country and i will promote it. thank you, guys. [applause] >> in 2006, and you said to keep people from getting the cost of your health care to everybody else. whitey one to hold people who can hold health insurance accountable in massachusetts but you're not ok with that for everyone else? >> i didn't catch the last part. >> it just refers to help care.

excuse me. hello. on the issues, health care. >> i know the topic. i did not understand that top peak. i do not think anyone is in favor of rising health-care costs. i have ideas about how to get them down. i think that is probably the most important signal issue we face, is how to get the cost down and keep the quality up. i am an old business die, so numbers are something i am familiar with. -- i am an old business guy, some numbers are something i am familiar with and i like. we spent 18%. the next asian the world spends about 12%. -- the next nation in the world

spends about 12%. we have got to find a way to get our health care cost competitive. there are two ways of approaching that. one is to have the government put in place price controls or have put some have called "rationing." that is one way to hold it down. european nations have tended to go that way. i believe that letting consumers act more like free market by year's is a better approach. the last thing i would do with health care is do with this president did which is to say i'm going to impose on the whole nation my plan for health care. the right course is to let the constitution do what it was intended to do. in the 10th amendment, it said that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people. so i crafted what i thought was

good for our state -- not perfect, by the way. lessons learned. but i would not impose that on the nation. i would let other states craft plans that are best for them. what worked in massachusetts will not work in mississippi, montana, texas. we had 8% uninsured. texas has 25%. they need a different plan for them. that hopefully answers your question. senator, anything you want to add? >> no. the only thing i would want to add to it is with president romney we will put first on our agenda in congress to repeal and replace obamacare. [applause] we have to get there if we are going to save health care as we know it in america. obamacare must be repealed and replaced. it has to be replaced by things like medical malpractice reform. by giving people greater responsibility for their own health care. by giving people a large voice

as to which health-care they choose for themselves and their families. that is the way we can get the cost of health care in america under control and make it available and affordable to all americans. obamacare is going to bankrupt this nation. >> thank you, senator. i'm going to turn for a question for the senator. who has a microphone? senator, you stay there. >> can i ask you one afterwards? [laughter] respectfully, senator. we must never find another conventional war against an unconventional enemy. do you agree? and governor, shouldn't we be building state of the art refineries in montana or north dakota, rather than shipping the dirty oil to houston in a hurricane zone where it will only get shipped somewhere else

in the world? don't we get a chance to buy some of that oil? thank you. >> you know, the worst thing about war is the tragedies associated. mike is with us today. he and his wife lost their son in iraq. thank you for being here. and for your sacrifice. [applause] but everybody involved in the one organization, thank you. the town hall meeting in 2006, matthews stanley's mother who was also killed ask me to wear a bracelet. i have been wearing it ever since. i am very happy that the citizens named a bridge after

him. every time that a war has been over, we have made predictions as to what the next conflict is going to be. after world war ii we were never going to have another war because of atomic weapons would take care that and then we found ourselves in north korea. i do not know what the next war will be. i think the chinese are a great challenge. many of the things they are doing is not in keeping with the maturity of a world power. there will be tensions in the region. whether those tensions will lead to conflict, i do not believe so. but we obviously have to be prepared. i would point out that i do not think this issue of extremism is going to go away in our lifetime. i think we will always be a

people -- battling a people who want to destroy everything we believe in. i and we have made progress, but we are a long way from winning this conflict. as long as there are places in the world where these kinds of ideologies are embraced and accepted as radical extremism, you are going to have a product of people who want to attack and destroy america. i am very worried about our cuts in defense spending. i am worried about the impact and how it may encourage our adversaries. i am also worried about american leadership. the world expects us to lead. in the arab spring there was not a single sign or denunciation or burning of an american flag. there was a desire and belief that they could be like us. democracy, freedom, human rights, individual rights.

so, i believe there are changes taking place in the world and the arab spring is not just in the arab world. i believe that vladimir putin is being touched by it. i'd like, he and i have been exchanging thoughts in case you missed it. i really believe that a lot changes are taking place in the world. this universal yearning for democracy, freedom, and our god- given rights that mitt was talking about is going to cause changes around the world that we really cannot predict. couple years ago, gaddafi was in power, all of these in dictatorships were in power. a couple of months ago nobody believed there would be massive demonstrations in moscow. so, we, as a nation and world leader, have to be prepared to offer an answer. >> f. thank you, senator. i want to add a comment to that same topic.

i believe in having extraordinary substantial and superior military might. right now we have about 280 some odd ships. the navy says we need to have at least 313 minimum to meet our missions around the world. we are building nine ships a year. i want to raise that to about 15 ships a year. we have a few ships now in our navy than we ever have had since 1917 -- 1970. i want to make sure that we have 11 aircraft carrier tax forces. i am willing to make that investment, if not because we to make it to win wars. we need to make that investment to prevent wars. ronald reagan used to say that for wars began during his lifetime and not one of them began because america was too strong.

cut back on our deficit and the defense department i will use those savings to rebuild our armament. also, so we can care for our veterans. a lot of them are coming home physically and mentally damaged. i will not shrink our military. not because i want to engage in it, but because i want it to not be in gauge. with regards to where we put our refineries, if we have a risk of a hurricane crisis that would put america's economy at risk, but we have to find ways to solve that by having backup systems elsewhere. that will be the case and we will take a look at it. if that is the case, we the people will have to make the investment to put those failsafe backups in place. i also can tell you is massively expensive in some cases.

it is not only the cost of getting the oil to the facility, but distributing them out into the marketplace. i was always surprised in the business world that i participated in at how big the cost of distribution is. if you have a shirt on, as you guys in the groom to and you gals have on tops, i guess you'd call them. it caught -- a shot me to know the cost of manufacturing was compared to the cost of getting it into the store ended your home. distribution is a huge part of the cost of our society. as we change places for refineries, we changed our distribution system. that can become very expensive. i will take great care to assure that we provide for the american people in the event of some kind of weather catastrophe. thank you. yes? here in the front row, go ahead. >> first, i wanted to say i am

chinese. in chinese and i am american. i love this country. i heard all these degrading things about china. it just does not make me feel good. i love this country. i have three children and i hope they all live a purposeful life. i work. i pay my taxes and i vote. governor, i have a question for you. continue with the young man's question. it sounds like to meet the big corporations have a standard tax cuts. how many jobs said they created after job cuts? -- after tax cuts? after 20 years of reagan's economic trickle-down theory, it did not help. mike can is still empty. [applause] >> let me ask you a question. can you ask me where it is

better to live with the income per person is better than america? >> i love this country. >> excuse me, you had your chance. let this gentleman speak. she says she loves this country. i love this country, so do i.. ok. for those who did not hear, she says she loves this country and do not put any asians and down. i hope i have not put any agents down. by the way, one of the great things about america is that we are a nation of immigrants. i welcome people who come here from other lands. i love legal immigration. when i am president, we will have more of it. number 2, the income per person in america is about 50% greater in europe. if you look around the world and

at other societies, why their income per person is far less than ours. hours may be far from perfect, and it is. but it is a lot better than anything else the world has seen. in my view, the right thing to do is to improve the system we have rather than try to pretend like there is something better out there. i think the principles upon which this nation is founded are the principles that have the best prospect of putting all our citizens greater prosperity and greater peace. senator, anything to add? >> i would just add that i admired china's economic success. it is literally a marriage -- a miracle. but i have to tell you in all candor, when you take people who are using the internet and throw them in jail, when you in prison nobel prize winners, would you oppress the ability of people to elect their own leadership, when you carry out a basically

totalitarian form of government, i cannot admire that. i expect progress on the part of the chinese to work for democracy. [applause] >> yes, sir? >> now that the troops are out of iraq, too intent to form an alliance with iraq to avoid a conflict in the area? >> senator, i will let you start with that one. go ahead. >> i will be as brief as possible. we started the conflict in iraq because we believed that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. history will show whether it was the right thing to do or not. but at the time, there was a conviction, a belief, that said aum hussein had weapons of mass destruction. he was removed. then the conflict is handled badly and casualty started to mount. this is too general to try s and

early president bush, we started the surge. -- thanks to the general picture s and president bush, we started the search. connelly's a rice said we always envisioned keeping about 20,000 troops behind for stability. well, this president said it would never work and we would get out of iraq. he fulfilled his campaign promise and, of course, things are a very serious situation in iraq as most of us predicted if we left without leaving behind a residual force. iraq is unraveling. the tragedy of all this, my dear friends, one is that it did not have to unravel and many brave

americans gave their lives. >> thank you, senator. you know, those who followed my comments about iraq note that i was very critical of the president's failure to establish an agreement which would have allowed our forces, 10, 20, 30,000 forces to help the iraq military. his own secretary of defense said we should put something of that nature in place to keep the troops in place. the president simply failed to exert his own leadership and do so. the consequence of that is unknown at this stage. but the danger to the success of our mission is great. by virtue of a president who is following some other agenda that is hard to understand. it is one more failure. iran, iraq, and the deficit, the economy. there's no question.

in this campaign, there will be every effort on the part of the president to distract the american people from the president's record. we will have to keep bringing it back day in and day out. he will attack on every basis he can find, but he will not want to talk about his record. we will have to bring that home. i believe if we do that, we will allow him to return to the private sector which i think he will enjoy enormously. [applause] obscure as a microphone. -- here is a microphone. >> i am a student. one of my main concerns is the path that our unemployment is taking right now. i was wondering, if you are president, what are your plans to limit the amount of welfare and unemployment dependency that our nation is traveling in? >> yeah.

a couple of things. i would like to see us have an unemployment system where people have an unemployment account. we're basically during their career they put their money into an unemployment insurance account. if they become unemployed, they can take money out and use it for education, job training, unemployment benefits. that would give people incentive to move as quickly as they could back into the work force. i also like the idea of people were receiving welfare assistance have a responsibility of working. in my state, we made good progress in that regard falling the days of the welfare reform act. while i was governor, 85% of the people on a form of welfare had no work requirement. i wanted to increase the work requirement. even if you had a child two years of age, you needed to go to work. people said, "that is heartless." and i said, needed -- "no, in

what to spend more to put those kids in day care to get their parents back to work." get people back into the work force. [applause] i will just mention one more thing that is raised by your question. that is, in this country, let's say you're a young woman who becomes pregnant. you do a calculation. if you marry the father, the benefits you are entitled to will go down substantially. your qualifications for medicaid will likely not be there. as food stamps. they will combine your income. we encourage those people by those policies not to get married. i think the ideal setting will be where a mom and dad can devote themselves to the care and nurturing of that child. thank you. [applause]

right there, front row. we decided to save a little money on microphones here. [laughter] >> my mom is here from tucson, ariz. visiting. our question is, we are very concerned about border control. we drop in arizona. i know that gaby giffords is very passionate about border control. senator mccain, we would love a personal response from you on that topic and would love to see you on the ticket with mitt romney. [laughter] [applause] will you be on this ticket? >> thank you. at the tucson chamber as an -- has asked me to announce the temperature today. [laughter] >> we will check back in the summer to see how it is. >> at our borders are not secure. they are more secure than they were some time ago. we need to do a better job,

particularly with high-tech surveillance capabilities to get our borders secure. the issue is not just people who come across our border illegally. the issue is that we now have a problem with drug smuggling which is a very threat to the existence of government in mexico. atrocities and murders being committed at such an outrageous and incredible scale defies the imagination -- children, women. they are all victims to these most ruthless people in the world -- drug dealers. their smuggling a lot of it through mexico, through arizona to phoenix where it is distributed throughout the country. that is another problem. they have these people called "coyotes'." if you pay them enough money, they will bring you across the border. many times, you'll get to the

united states. many times you will have to die in the desert. sometimes you're putting dropouts in phoenix, ariz. and held for ransom and mistreated in the most unspeakable fashion. the drug cartels are a threat to the very government of mexico. so, we need to have a more secure border. we need to look at the whole issue of immigration reform. but we also have to look at the human side of this terrible issue, and what it does to human beings. by the way, we need to have a conversation nationally as to why we are creating a demand for these drugs. it is the united states of america that is creating the demand. we need to figure out how to handle that aspect of this issue as well. i would just like to say that nick and i had a number of conversations on this issue. -- mitt and i had a number of

conversations on this issue. mexican citizens are sick and tired of the effect and what it does to their country as it passes through. a lot of its stops in mexico. we need to have a conversation and try to come up with a solution to this problem. but we also have an obligation to have our borders secure. to have secure borders, that is the first obligation of every nation. i believe we can achieve that. we have made progress in that direction. but, as mitt just said, i appreciate very much what he said, we welcome immigrants into our country legally. all of us our immigrants. the reason why america is the nation is today is because it continues the infusion of fresh blood and vitality through our nation which has made us the greatest nation on earth. we are going to have to address this issue. thank you. [applause]

>> you guys, i am told that your time is up and my time is up. we're going to get a chance to shake a few hands and give us some hugs here. if you have more questions, come on down and ask. thank you, it has been great to be with you. i appreciate your generosity. let's go on and get the white house back. i'm sorry free like a river raging strong in the wind i'm facing deep like the canyon

wild like an uncaged stallion you can knock me down and watch me bleed but you can't keep no change on me i was born free i was born free i was born free i was born free good at long goodbyes look into my eyes i was born free ♪ >> in that event, yesterday, with mitt romney and at john mccain. he is now on route to south carolina where he will be joined again this afternoon in charleston by senator mccain and

south carolina governor who have both endorsed him. the romney campaign has also started a new ad in that state accusing president obama of sacking the relations board with union stooges. this after president obama made several nlrb appointments yesterday. other candidates are staying in new hampshire. this evening, former house speaker newt gingrich will be in meredith for a town hall meeting there which we will bring to you live on this network. that starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern. more on the road to the white house coverage will start today. the republican city committee is holding its meeting. all republican tenants have been invited to attend. the campaigns are sending mitt romney's son, jon huntsman's wife, and bud mcfarland to speak for mitt -- for newt gingrich.

that will be on c-span to today. >> live picture from the pentagon this morning. president obama is expected to arrive in just one moment to talk about plans to prepare for the largest defense budget cuts since the cold war. the president will be joined by the defense secretary leon panetta and the cheese share. -- and the joint chiefs of staff. following the president's briefing, a number of pentagon officials will answer reporter'' questions. we will be live with both portions of today's pentagon's strategic review briefing. that will start in just a couple minutes here, live on c-span.

>> we are live again at the pentagon where president obama is expected to talk about the defense strategic review. the president is scheduled to make a rare visit to the pentagon today to unveil the details of a strategic review for the u.s. military to consolidate missions and downsize ambitions of the forces to bring in a new era of prosperity. to place his personal imprint on a new military strategy that officials have been preparing for four months in anticipation of the largest cuts to the defense budget since the end of the cold war. the president expected shortly, this is live on c-span.

>> waiting for the president this morning to death -- to discuss the defense strategic review. politico says the remarks will unveil a new design to defend its national security while saving money over planned spending. it focuses on eight tech-savy military that maintains a powerful force. it is expected to shift u.s. forces towards asia and away from ground operations, such as those in iraq and afghanistan. new investments to bolster the air force and navy. latin america and africa are likely to get less attention from the u.s. military since it makes the global posture a little less global. that is from politico this

morning. >> stand by, this is a two minute warning. please turn off all cell phones. two minutes. >> we have seen a number of officials filed in. we just got the two minute warning, so we do expect the president shortly. this is live on c-span.

>> good morning, everybody. the united states of america is the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known.

that is because we have built the best planes, best equipped military in history. i'm going to keep it that way. all of us on this stage have a profound irresponsibility to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and a coast guardsman who puts their life on the line for america. we owe them strategy to only send them into harm's way when it is necessary, to give them the support that they need to get the job done, and to care for them and their families when they come home. that is our obligation. is what we've done. we have continued to make historic investments in our military and our veterans.

we have ended our war in iraq. we decimated al qaeda's leadership. we have put that terrorist network on the path to defeat. we have made important progress in afghanistan. we joined allies to protect the libyan people as they ended the regime of muammar gaddafi. now we're turning the page on a decade of war. we had some 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. more of our troops will continue to come home. we have strengthen alliances, ford's new partnerships and served as a force for universal rights and human dignity.

we have succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemy, reducing the number of americans in harm's way and we have restored america's global leadership. that makes us safer and stronger. that is an achievement that every american, especially those americans who wear the uniform of our armed forces should take great pride in. this success has brought our nation to a moment of transition. the tide of war is receiving. we have the opportunity and the responsibility to look ahead to the force that we will need in the future. we have to renew our economic strength here at home, the foundation of our strength around the world, and that

includes putting our fiscal house in order. the budget control act passed by congress last year with the support of republicans and democrats mandate reductions in federal spending including defense spending. i have insisted we do that responsibly. the security of our nation depends on that. that's what i call for this defense review, to clarify our strategic interests and to guide our defense priorities in spending. the size and structure of our military has to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around. we have to remember the lessons of history. we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that were made in the past when our military was left

ill-prepared for the future. i will not let that happen again, not on my watch. we need a smart, strategic set of priorities. a new guidance that the defense department is releasing today it does just that. i want to thank the service secretaries and chiefs and so many defense leaders, actor guard and reserve, for their contributions. many of us met repeatedly, challenging our assumptions and making hard choices. we come together today around an approach that will keep the military the finest the world has ever known. this review and benefits from the contributions of the leaders

acrostic national security team , as well as the intelligence community. meeting the challenges of our time cannot be the work of our military alone, or the united states alone. we have to work together in concert with our allies and our partners. i will let leon and marty tell you about the details. the tide of war is receding. what kind of military will we need long after the war's are over? today we're fortunate to be moving forward from a position of strength. we will be strengthening our presence in the asia-pacific. budget reductions will not come

as a result of a critical region. nato has demonstrated that it is a force multiplier. we'll stay vigilant, especially in the middle east. as we look beyond the wars in iraq and afghanistan, will be able to insure our security -- we will continue to get rid of systems,cold war-error systea so we can invest in character terrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries triumphed. yes, our military will be leaner.

but the united states will maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats. we will keep -- will make sure our troops have the equipment and capability so they can succeed. we will focus on wounded w arriors and mental health. we will keep working to give our veterans the care and the benefits and job opportunities that they deserve and they have earned. finally, i want to close with a word about the defense budget that will flow from the strategy. the details will be announced in the coming weeks. some will say the spending reductions are too big.

others will say they are too small. it will be easy to take issue with a particular change our program. remember what president eisenhower once said. each proposal must be weighed -- the need to maintain balance among programs. as we rebuild the source of our strength, it is time to restore the balance. it is important for americans to remember that since 9/11, our defense budget grew at a large pace. the growth will slow over the next 10 years, but it will still grow because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. the defense budget will still be

larger than thit was at the end of the bush administration. we can keep our military strong with a defense budget that continues to be larger than the next 10 countries combined. i want to thank secretary panetta, chairman dempsey and all the defense leaders who are on this stage for their leadership and their partnership throughout this process. our men and women in uniform give their very best to america every single day. they deserve the very best from america. i thank all of you for the commitment to the goal that we all share, keeping america strong and secure and keeping our armed forces the very best in the world. i'll turn this discussion over

who cannn and to marty take your questions. i understand this is the first time a president has done this. thank you. >> i am all set.

let me begin by thanking president obama for coming here to the pentagon this morning and also in particular to thank him for is the vision and leadership as this department went through a very intensive review that we undertook to try to develop the new strategic guidance that we're releasing today. in my experience, this has been an unprecedented processed to have the president of the united states participate in discussions involving the development of the defense strategy and to spend time with our service chiefs and with our combat commanders to get their views.

this guidance that we are releasing today and which has been distributed throughout the departments, it does represent a historic shift to the future. it recognizes that this country is at eight strategic turning points. after a decade of war and after a large increases in defense spending. as the president mentioned, the u.s. military mission in iraq has now ended. we do have progress in afghanistan which is tough and challenging. we're beginning to enable a transition to afghan security responsibility. the nato effort in libya has concluded with the fall muammar gaddafi -- with the fall of

muammar gaddafi. and now as these events are occurring and congress has mandated by law that we achieve significant defense savings, so clearly we are any turning point. even as our military campaigns recede, the united states still faces complex and a growing array of security challenges across the globe. unlike past drawdowns when oftentimes the threats that the country was facing went away, there remain a number of challenges that we have to confront. challenges that call for reshaping of america's defense priorities, focusing on the continuing threat of violent

extremism, which is still there and still to be dealt with, proliferation of lethal weapons and materials, the destabilizing behavior of nations like iran and north korea, the rise of new powers across asia, and the dramatic changes that we have seen unfold in the middle east. all this comes at a time when america confronts a very serious deficit and debt problem here a home, a problem which is itself a national security risk that is squeezing the defense and domestic budgets. as we face these considerable pressures, including the requirement of the budget control act to reduce defense spending by what we have now as $487 billion over 10 years, i

do not believe that we have to choose between our national security and fiscal responsibility. the department of defense will play its part in helping the nation put our fiscal house in order. the president has made clear and i have made clear that the savings that we have been mandated to achieve must be driven by strategy and must be driven by progress analysis, not by numbers alone. consequently over the last few months, we have conducted an intensive review to try to guide defense priorities over the coming decades. all this in light of the strategic guidance that we received in discussions with the president and the recommendations of this department senior military and civilian leadership, both of

them provided those kinds of recommendations. this process has enabled us to set priorities and to make some hard choices. the department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation. we are at that point in history. that's the reality of the world we live in. this crisis has forced us to face the strategic shift that is taking place now. as difficult as it may be to achieve, this has given all of us in the department of defense the opportunity to reshape our defense strategy and force structure to more effectively meet the challenges of the future, to shape the security

environment, and to decisively prevail in any conflict. i set out to insure that this strategy review would be inclusive. we met with department leaders including our undersecretaries, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, the combat commanders, our senior enlisted in visors -- advisors. we discusses with the president and his national security advisers, members of congress, and outside experts. there were four principles that guided our process. we must retain the world's finest military that sustains the global leadership role of the united states. we must avoid hollowing out the force. a small equipped military is

much more preferable to a larger, ill-prepared force that has been arbitrarily cut across the board. savings must be achieved in a balanced manner with everything on the table, including politically sensitive areas that will likely provoke opposition from parts of the congress, industry, and from advocacy groups. that is the nature of making hard choices. we must preserve the quality of the volunteer force and not break faith with our men and women in uniform or their families. with these principles in mind, i will focus on some of the significant strategic tauruses that are being made -- the strategic choices. the united states military will

remain capable across the spectrum. will continue to conduct a complex range of missions including countering weapons of mass destruction to maintaining a safe, secure nuclear deterrent. we will be fully prepared to protect our interests and support civil authorities. our goal to achieve the u.s. force for the future involves the following significant changes. first, the u.s. joint force will be smaller and it will be leaner. but its great strength will be that it will be more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly, innovative, and

technologically advanced. that is the force for the future. second, as we move towards this new joint force, we're also rebalancing our global posture and presents, emphasizing the pacific and the middle east. these are the areas where we see the greatest challenges for the future. the u.s. military will increase its institutional weight and focused on power projection and deterrents in asia/pacific. this region is growing in importance to the future of the united states in terms of our economy and our national security. this means improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological edge and freedom of action. the united states will place a premium in maintaining our

military presence and capabilities in the broader middle east. the united states must remain capable of defeating aggression well supported political progress and reform. the united states will continue to strengthen its key alliances to build partnerships and to develop innovative ways to sustained u.s. presence elsewhere in the world. the long history of close political cooperation with our european allies and partners will be critical to addressing the challenges of the 21st century. we will invest in the shared capabilities of nato, our most effective military alliance. the force posture in europe will of necessity continue to adapt and evolve to meet new

challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of the security needs of the continent relative to the emerging priorities that we face elsewhere. we're committed to sustaining a presence that will meet our article 5 commitments, deter aggression, and the military will work closely with our allies to allow for the kinds of college and operations that nato has undertaken in libya and afghanistan. in latin america, africa, we will use innovative methods to sustain u.s. presence, and attaining keep military relations and pursuing new security partnerships as needed. we will develop low-cost and small footprint approaches to

achieving our security objectives, emphasizing rotational deployments, emphasizing exercises, military exercises with these nations, and doing other approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world. as we shift the size and composition of our ground, air, and naval forces, we must be able to confront and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare. our strategy review concluded that the united states must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time. we're not confronting the threats of the past. we're confronting the threats of the 21st century.

that demands greater flexibility to shift and deployed forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere. how we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts. but make no mistake -- we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time. our military will never be doing only one thing. it will be responsible for a range of missions across the globe, of varying scope and strategic parity. this will place a premium on flexible forces that can respond quickly and effectively to a variety of contingencies and potential adversaries. that is the nature of the world's that we're dealing with.

the united states will emphasize building the capacity of our partners and allies to more effectively defend their own territory, their own interest, through better use of diplomacy, development, and security force assistance. with the end of u.s. military commitment in iraq and the drawdown that is already under way in afghanistan, the army and marine corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large-scale stability operations that have dominated military prioriti over decade.the past we will protect and in some cases increase our investments

in special operations forces in new technologies like isr and unmanned systems, in space and in cyberspace people bill is, and also our capacity to quickly mobilized if necessary. these investments will help the military maintain to continue to refine the expertise and capability that have been gained at such great cost over the last decade. we will structure and paste the reductions in the nation's ground forces in such a way that they can regenerate and immobilize capabilities needed for any contingency, building in reverse ability and the ability to quickly mobilized will be

key. that means re-examining a mix of elements in the reserve components. it means maintaining a strong national guard and reserve. it means retaining a healthy andre of experienced nso's made great officers, and preserving the health and viability of the nation's defense industrial base. the strategic guidance that we're providing is the first step in this department goal to build a joint force of 2020, a force sized and shaped differently than the military of the cold war, the post cold war .orce of the 99's1990's this strategy and vision will

guide the more specific budget decisions that will be finalized and announced in the coming weeks as part of the president's budget. in some cases, we will be reducing capabilities that we believe no longer are a top priority. but in other cases, we will invest in new capabilities to maintain a decisive military edge against a growing array of threats. there is no question that we have to make some trade-offs and that will be taking as a result of that some level of additional but acceptable risks in the budget plan that we released next month. these are not easy choices. we will continue aggressive efforts to weed out waste,

reduce overhead, to reform business practices, to consolidate our duple give operations -- our duplicative operations. as i said, true national security cannot be achieved through a strong military alone. it requires strong diplomacy. requires a strong intelligence efforts. it requires a strong economy, fiscal discipline, and effective government. the capability and agility of the force will not be sustained if congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts. the arbitrary across-the-board cuts that are currently

scheduled to take effect in january of 2013 through the mechanism of a sequester. that would force us to shed missions and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect court u.s. national security interests. it would result in what we think would be eight demoralized and hollow force -- that would be a demoralized and hollow force. i would like to address our men and women in uniform and the civilian employees that support them, who i know have been watching the budget debates with concern about what it means for them and for their families. you have done everything this country has asked you to do and more. you've put your lives on the line and you have fought to make

our country safer and stronger. i believe the strategic guidance honor's ear sacrifice and strengthens -- honors your sacrifice by building a force equipped to deal with the future. i have no higher responsibility then fighting to protect you and to protect your family'ies. as you have fought and bled to protect our country, i will fight for you and for your families. there's no doubt the fiscal situation this country faces is difficult. in many ways we are at a crisis point. i believe in every crisis there is opportunity. out of this crisis we have the opportunity to end the old ways

of doing business and to build a modern force for the 21st andtury ad that canwthat can wi respond to any threat and any challenge of the future. our responsibility, my responsibility as secretary of defense is to protect the nation's security and to keep america safe. with this joint force, i am confident that we can effectively defend the united states of america. thank you. >> good morning. it is my response bullet to work with the joint chiefs to insure the armed forces keep america immune from coercion. the strategy enables us to

fulfil that responsibility. it sustains the sacred trust put in us by the american people to defend them and our country. this strategy emerges from a deep but collaborative process. we took insights from within and outside the department of defense. we weighed the facts and assessments. we consider a wide range of recommendations. the steps we have taken in vault all of this and much more -- involved all this and much more. we held all day and multiplied date discussions with service chiefs and combat commanders. the service chiefs were heard

early and often. the combatant commanders all weighed in time and time again. we had access to the president and the secretary of defense. the dialogue to arrive at this series of choices was not worthy. we're here to discuss the central choices of the strategy, but this is not the and. this is a continuous process -- this is not the end. their four budget cycles and each of these cycles presents an opportunity to address how and what we do to achieve this strategy in the face of new threats and in the context of a changing security environment. it is a sound strategy.

it preserves the top of the all- volunteer force. it takes into account the lessons of the last 10 years of war. and your response to the new fiscal and varmienvironment. as a consequence, it calls for innovation for new ways of operating and partnering. it makes important investments in emerging and improving capabilities like cyber and special operations. there has been much debate about whether this strategy moves away from a structure designed to fight and win two wars simultaneously.

this will not change. we will provide a range of options for our nation. we always will be able to do more than one thing at a time. we will win. we to accept some risks in this strategy. we will be somewhat smaller. these risks will be measured in time and capacity. we could face even greater risks if we did not change from our current approach. i am pleased with the outcome. perfect.t ou it gives us what we need in this world and within this budget to provide the best possible defense for our nation and a time of great transition.

this is a real strategy. it represents real choices. this is not the strategy of a military in decline. this is a strategy on which the nation can depend. a couple of words about leadership. it is essential during tough times. these are tough economic times. i want to thank president obama and secretary panetta for their leadership throughout this process. the real test will be in execution. the young men and women know something about leadership, too. it is the corner ship of our profession, the profession of arms.

they have done nothing but lead under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. i am convinced and satisfied that the strategy will meet our nation's needs for the future. thank you. >> will of a chance for a few questions here. -- we will have a chance for a few questions. the process here has been led by the deputy secretary of defense and the undersecretary of defense for policy and they will be able to answer quite a number of questions in depth. what do we start our questions? >> this document says the military will get smaller. how much smaller?

how much the plan to cut? the presence in europe will evolve. is that another way to say it will be cut? >> as we said in the policy have ant, we're going to smaller and leaner force. what those numbers are will be part of the budget that will be presented by the president'. at that time will reveal what those final decisions are as to the exact size. there's no question that we are looking at a drawdown as a result of the end of the war and hopefully the end of the transition in afghanistan. budget constraints require that in addition to that, we have to

develop a smaller and leaner force but want best be more flexible and innovative and creative. with regards to europe, will maintain our commitments with europe. we will continue our article 5 requirements. we want to build our partnerships there. one think we've made clear with them is not only are we going to continue our commitments there, but we're going to develop the kind of innovative presence that we think will make clear to europe and to those that have been our strongest allies over the past that we remain committed to protecting. could i elaborate? all the demographic trends and

geopolitical trends and military trends are shifting toward the pacific. our strategic challenges in the future will largely emanate out of the pacific region and also the indian ocean. our strategic challenges are shifting and we have to pay attention to those shifts. we will be built on the traditional strategic partnerships. this is not a separation from nato. we are in dialogue with them about what it means. >> i wonder if you could score the statement you made your remarks about the capability to confront and defeat more than one adverse are at a time with the guidance that states that we will have the capability to fight one regional conflict and would be an action in a second

regional conflict. are those two consistent? >> i think the structure for making decisions and defense and looking at the past and the present is can the united states confront more than one aggressor and be able to defeat them? that is the key question. that remains the fundamental question -- can we confront and defeat any enemy that faces us? with the joint force we're creating, we can confront more than one enemy at a time. the nature of warfare today is that as you engage, you have to look at how you do woul it and t

is involved. you could face a land war in korea and face threats in the straits of hormuz. we have the capability to deal with those kinds of threats and to be able to win. that is what counts. >> the feet and enemy ito defeao theaters at a time? >> we just ended the mission in iraq and we are in the process of ending the mission in afghanistan and we are in the process of achieving those missions. >> the president said that you'll be getting rid of outdated, cold war systems. contiguous a sense of what types of systems -- can you give us

a sense? >> the budget drop will eliminate programs that have been adjusted or terminated and others that have been reinforced. i think what the president had in mind is that there are -- back to the question of can we do two wars. that has been a bit of thean anchor in trying to talk about the future. to thread those questioned together, your question about the outdated systems and processes and programs, that is the work that we have been doing and must continue to do to determine the how of it without tying ourselves to a paradigm that is a residual of the cold war. >> will efficiency be enough to

reduce the personal cost? take an honest look at what you spend in the military per man or are you going to have to look at reducing retirement benefits or to pay more for their health care? >> the specifics will be provided in the president's budget which will hopefully be released in the next two to t hree weeks. i felt it was important that everything be on the table and that we look at a number of areas in order to be able to achieve our savings and be able to develop the kind of defense force that we want for the future. yes, we look at efficiencies. we have a responsibility to try to make this place more efficient and get rid of waste. my predecessor began that

process and we are continuing it as part of the budget. that is a significant part of the budget we have worked on. we have to look at procurement and weapon is asian -- weaponization. we want to make sure the weapons we select meet the needs of the defense force. that is an area we reviewed. the area of compensation. that has increased in terms of cost. that is a key red line for us. we have a responsibility to control costs in those areas, and that is part of what we will present as part of our budget. all of those pieces are part of the budget, and you'll see the

decisions when the budget is revealed. >> what is the reaction that you have been getting from congress on this plan? the sacrifices that the military is making, downsizing -- will that be enough to sound enough alarms, or do you think some other actions will need to be taken, or will the military have to give a lot more between now and the end of the year? >> i have made it a point to stay in close consultation with the members of congress that would deal with on the key committees. i have spent time sitting down with them and their members, briefing them on discussions and on defense strategy. i briefed the chairman yesterday as well, and the ranking members with regards to the strategy

that we're working on. i think they recognize the challenge we are facing and how tough these decisions are. i think it recognize that we can do this in a way that protect our national defense and that it establishes a defense force for the future. i am confident that as we work through this and as we reveal the decisions on the budget, that there are going to be members that will clearly not support some of those decisions. that is the nature of making hard choices. we base this on strategy and on a policy of saying this is the kind of defense forced we want for the future. i think within that framework, if we can all stick to that and

if we can use that as the basis of the foundation for the debate that will take place, i am confident that congress will support what we're trying to do. >> let me follow-up. the strategy talks about moving away from potentially fighting two land wars some of potentially -- simultaneously. are you saying that fighting a land war and the persian gulf is off the table as a result of this new strategy? >> i want to make sure i get a shot of this. i have the west point class at my doorstep. we're a global power. we have to be able to conduct

global activities. nobody said it will not going to fight land wars. it does say we ought to be capable of conducting operations across the full spectrum. it is a matter scope, scale, risk, and those are the issues as we work on this living document. it would be a mistake to suggest that we're going to nice to some place and declare ourselves a global power. >> what message do you have for iran? >> the message we have had for iran is that we expect them to be a responsible member of the community of nations and not deny freedom of movement, freedom of access, and we are

determined there will not acquire nuclear weapons. >> clarification on one thing. maintaining the quality -- leaving room to reduce the quantity of benefits. will there be cuts in future benefits for our armed forces in the coming budget? >> that is something that will present as part of the president's budget. we're going to protect the quality, the benefits that are provided to our troops and to their families. we have some responsibility to try to control costs in this area. i think the troops have to understand we have to control these costs. when it comes to the basic benefits of those who have served, the benefits we provide

to their families, will continue to provide them and not break faith. >> future benefits -- >> it will be about seven or eight minutes while we set up. then more questions will be addressed. >> the chair of the joint chiefs and secretary leon

panetta wrapping up this briefing. the largest cuts to the military since the cold war. president creating some history this morning. we're expecting more on this review shortly. number of officials will be answering questions and we will have that live for you on c-span when it gets under way. go back to president obama's remarks on the pentagon cuts. he spoke for about 10 minutes. all of us on this stage have a profound responsibility to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine

, and co-stars but the poster life on new line for america. we owe them a strategy with well-defined goals to send them into harm's way went to the necessary, to give them the equipment and support that they need to get the job done, and to care for them and their families when they come home. that is our solemn obligation. is what we have done. -- and is what we've done. and thanks to their extraordinary service, we have ended our war in iraq. with a dozen of al qaeda -- we decimated al qaeda's leadership. we have made important progress in afghanistan and begun to transition so afghans can assume

more responsibility for their own security. we protect the libyan people as the end the regime of muammar gaddafi. three years ago, we had 180,000 troop in iraq and afghanistan. today we've cut the number in half. around the globe, we strengthen alliances, forged new partnerships and served as a force for universal rights and human dignity. we have succeeded in defending our nation, reducing the number of americans in harm's way, and we have restored america's global leadership. makes us safer and stronger. that is an achievement that every american, especially

those americans who are proud to wear the uniform of the united states armed forces should take great pride in. this success has brought our nation to a moment of transition. the tide of war is receding. we have the opportunity and the responsibility to look ahead to the force that we're going to need in the future. we have to renew our economic strength he read home, the foundation of our strength around the world. that includes putting our fiscal house in order. the budget control act passed by mandates reductions in federal spending, including defense spending. i have insisted we do that responsibly.

the security of our nation depends on that. that is what i call for this comprehensive defense review, to clarify our strategic interest in a fast-changing world and to guide our spending over the decade. we have to remember the lessons of history. we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past when our military was left ill-prepared for the future. i will not let that happen again. on my watch. the new guidance that the defense department is releasing today does just does just that.

i want to think secretary panetta and dempsey for their extraordinary leadership during this progress. i want to thank the combat commanders -- commanders and so many chiefs come active guard and reserve for their contributions. many of us met repeatedly asking tough questions, challenging our own assumptions and making tough choices. we of come together today around an approach that will keep our nation state and the military the finest the world has ever known. this review benefits from their contributions of leaders from across my national security team. from the department of defense and the intelligence community. this is critical, because meeting the challenges of our time cannot be the work of our military alone or the united states alone. requires all elements of our national power working together

in concert with our allies and partners. i am going to let leon panetta and marty go into details. this reflects the guidance that i personally gave throughout the process. yes, the tide of war is receding, but the question that this strategy answers is, what kind of military will we need long after the wars of the past decade are over? today we are fortunate to be moving forward from a position of strength. as i made clear in australia, we will be strengthening our presence. continueng to investing in critical partnerships and alliances, including nato, which has demonstrated time and again that it is a forced multiplier. we will stay vigilant, especially in the middle east. as look beyond the wars in our

-- in iraq and afghanistan, we will be able to ensure our security was smaller conventional front forces. we will continue to get rid of cold-war system so we can and best in capabilities we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, counterterrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and those that operate in an environment where at a serious try to deny us access. yes, the military will be leaner, but the world must know the united states will maintain military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible, and ready for the full-range of contingencies and threat spirited we are also want to keep faith with those that served by making sure our troops have the equipment and

capability they need to servie. as our newest veterans rejoined civilian life, we will keep working to give veterans the care, benefit and job opportunities they deserve and they have earned. finally, although to date is about a defense strategy, i want to close with a word about the defense budget. the details will be announced in the coming weeks. some will no doubt say the spending reductions are too big. others will say they are too small. it will be easier to take issue with a particular change in a particular program, but i encourage all of us to remember what president eisenhower once said, each proposal must be weighed in the light of a

broader consideration, the need to maintain balance and national programs. after a decade of war and as we rebuild the source of strength at home and abroad, it is time to restore the balance. i think it is important for all americans to remember over the past 10 years since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace. over the next 10 years the growth in the budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is it will still grow. because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. in fact, the defense budget will still be longer -- larger than it was towards the end of the bush administration. i think the american people understand we can keep the military strong in nation secure with the defense budget that continues to be larger at roughly the next 10 countries combined. again i want to think secretary

panetta, chairman dempsey and all of the defense leaders on this stage and those of are absent for their leadership throughout the process. and our men and women in uniform give their very best to america at each and every day. in return they deserve the very best from america. i think all of you -- thank all of you to the commitment we all share, keeping america strong and keeping our armed forces the very best in the world. >> i will turn this over to leon ty to answer your questions. i understand this is the first time a president has done this. pretty nice room.

>> president obama offered his plan earlier this morning, planning to cut military spending by about one trillion dollars over the next 10 years. other highlights making the services smaller and more dependent on technology while keeping an eye on terrorist activity in the middle east but reducing the size of force in europe. we're back live in the pentagon. pentagon officials will be answering reporters' questions during this briefing. this is live coverage on c-span. we expect it to start in just a moment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> folks, i think you know our officials here who are going to be speaking. this is on the record. secretary of defense, ash carter. the joint chiefs of staff, and the undersecretary of defense for policy michelle corn wounwo. >> good afternoon. is this microphone on? it is. excellent. we're here to answer your questions, and let me start things off by anticipating the question, which is what is new here? let me touch on the main points.

what is new in the circumstances that led to the strategic guidance is the pivotal moment we find ourselves in. take awe would need to careful and thorough look at our defense, even if we did not the budget crunch. then of course we do have the budget crunch, which is the second reason for the review that has led to the strategic guidance. what is new in this strategic guidance is the clear priorities it sets for us as we finalize the budget. the strategic guidance was the compass for which we lead to the budget review that will be released in a few weeks after final decisions have been made. what is new and specifically in the strategic guidance is first to rebalance our force structure and investments towards the

asia-pacific area where there are several challenges to stability, and the middle east where challenges persist. to advance capabilities to maintain access and power projection, which are relevant globally. second, to take a different approach to for size and structure. obviously our force will be somewhat small. -- second coming to take a different approach to force size and structure. the guidance it tells us additional ways to change the shape. for one thing, we will not maintain a force structure in the ground forces for a large and prolong the stability of operations, such as have been orquired anin iraq afghanistan. this does not mean abandoning coin or any such thing. we do not see the u.s. conducting such operations on its own in the future, and in

the event, we will preserve the know-how in capability to regenerate forces in such a need does arise. where are we can we're making provision for such reverse ability, as we call it, for readjustment in the plan, because we are at the beginning of what will be a mini-year transition in an uncertain world. well our forces will still be capable of prevailing in more than one thing at a time, we are continuing to you all our approach to the capability, since the nature of the conflicts has changed. we will be able to apply to them out all forces, and in some cases we can best meet the objectives and deny the aggressor objectives in ways other by a land invasion and occupation. third, obviously many parts of

our budget will have to suffer deep cuts. this tells us to preserve investment, and even in some cases to increase capabilities in key areas that are clearly important to the future. special forces and counter- terrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, building partner capacity, cyber, and aspects of the science and technology investments -- making sure we did not refer to yesterday's pre 9-eleven structure under the pressure of budget cuts. -- pre 9/11 structure and of the pressure of budget cuts. that is a recap of the main points of the guidance. now to your questions. >> i would like to start with what you were just talking about with corn.

-- with coin. the u.s. did not choose the real insurgency battles. they found themselves in situations where the insurgents were needed. white is what you were proposing different from what it did after vietnam where it put a lot of the resources to the reserves and focus on major combat operations? it seems like the military is turning its back on the skills to a certain degree. >> it is different in two respects. we are being careful to preserve the know-how and specialized capabilities that have proven so useful and have learned so much about over the past 10 years. and we're not retaining the large for structured necessary to sustain long, large scale

debility op -- stability operations, and that does not mean we can't not regenerate them in time to conduct operations in the future that becomes necessary. it is about forces in being, and we do not need to keep forces in team of that kind of this deal in which we use them over the past two decades. we will keep the option to reconstitute, but we are not going to keep the large force structure. >> i want to clarify something the president said about the top line. i think he heard -- i heard him saying the numbers may go up. is that so, and as that of just for inflation? i see the top line on the base budget. >> that is the top line on the base budget. s. nominal dollars purit

>> if spending is going up, why is it the 450 cuts on the table is far enough? >> $489 billion is almost half a trillion dollars, is the amount that we are going to need to take out of our plans over the next 10 years, about 263 of that from the next five years, and that is on top of a reduction in overseas contingency operations spending. but those things together -- put those things together and you have a reduction in total defense spending as rapid as in the week experienced after vietnam or the cold war. that is natural because the wars

are coming to an end, and that is what creates the pivotal moment that was the reason for carrying out the strategic review that we did. $489 billion is a lot of money, and you will see in 2.5 weeks when we describe the budget plans we have had to make with the reality, how significant those changes and plans are. we could not do that response of lee without the kind of guidance we got from the president and secretary and chairman. >> of the follow-up to that line of questioning, the you think what you have prepared and the budget that comes behind it will be enough to convince congress to act to avoid the sequester -- sequestration option that is hanging over? >> my view, and i will ask

michele to comment on this also, but my view is when members of congress, when you come as citizens to see the magnitude of the task we have had to undertake to meet the $487 billion target you will understand why we give the harsh warnings we do about sequestration. we are going very far with $489 billion. as the secretary said, we're looking at things we have not had to look at in this department for a decade. he has made as put everything on the table and undergo a very thorough process. we have undergone the strategy exercise first so we would not make the budget changes without having a strategy behind them,

strategic insight behind them. i think when you see what $489 billion is, people will easily understand why is a question -- see why sequestration would be so disastrous. >> when we roll out the budget details, you will understand the hard part, because there are a lot of hard parts, both in terms of hard parts, and also people stepping up to the plate and making tough political decisions to do the right thing for the nation's defense. every strategy does have risk. we think we have managed this in a way that the risks associated with this are acceptable, but i think there is a point at which it you went too far down the road in cuts, that statement would no longer be true, and we would have to go back to the drawing board to rethink our strategy in order to manage

additional reductions and additional risk. >> if i could add one thing, and one thing that is very important to point out, and it is the reason we're doing this the way we are today, and that is it was all driven by strategy. sometimes the behavior of the department has simply been to hand out proportional cuts, look and see what services come back with come and try to build a strategy out of the ashes. pardon the pun. in this case we have chosen to assess the political environment, how is more fair changing in the 21st century? -- how is warfare changing in the 21st century? that is a terribly important cultural change for the department. >> can you talk about were the most expensive weapons program fits into the strategy? and does this justify keeping the quantities of aircraft?

in the pacific, do you envision setting up a phase adaptive approach for missile defense comparable to what it has set up in the middle east over the past couple of years? answer onl say the the joint strike fighter for a couple of weeks. i will give you a generic answer. strategically it is the fifth generation fighter. we want it. we wanted to succeed. that is why we're working so intensively on it. as you asked about any particular program or any particular activity, i take you back to the point that sandy just made. the strategy told us areas where we do not want to cut, where we want to preserve the capability and where we want to increase capability like cyber.

we do not want to just give everything a hair cut. that means other areas that are not emphasize in this strategy will have to take more than their share of these cut spirit of the things that are part of the future take less than their share of the cuts. -- that means other areas that are not emphasized in this strategy will have to take more than their share of cuts. >> we continue to evolve our presence and posture in the asia-pacific region, a book to deal with challenges and opportunities. we already have very robust cooperation on missile defense development with our japanese partners. they are partners in research and development of systems with us. we continued to discuss the missile defense with very -- various allies and defense there. this is an evolving conversation.

i do not think there is a concrete set of plans that define an end point at this point, but it is a discussion with our allies, and we will continue to work with them on these issues. >> i would like to ask about the nuclear arsenal. document said it is [inaudible] . could you elaborate on that? is it still an open question that the department will try to preserve all of them? >> i think the strategy is very clear that we will continue to field a safe and effective deterrent, and continue to modernize and recapitalize as necessary. i think it is our judgment that we can maintain deterrence at lower levels of forces, but i will refer in the discussion to the budget went rolls out. rolls out.t

>> i would like to ask a follow- up question earlier about coin. you built small fleets of minor air forces that have held out coin. do we expect to keep those, retire those? >> good question. the remarks i made for mostly oriented towards ground forces. your right, there are lots of capabilities that were developed over the past decade that reflect modern technology and modern warfare that we want to make part of our future. we will not keep the large force structure in being, but the critical skills, then all the things -- the novel things have

taught as they we want to keep in the force structure. you will see examples where we are building in some of the things you saw in iraq and afghanistan in describing or designing how they would fit into the force structure in the long run. >> i will make a quick point. we have learned a lot over the past 10 years in these two fights in iraq and afghanistan. we're doing a lot of counter- terrorism work using a lot of those tools. one interesting thing for me has been a lot of what we've learned in the corn and business transcends the business and is applicable to a lot of other things. a lot of the things we have built technically, and it is network approaches to network and the like are applicable to the other forms of warfare as

well. we will not throw the baby out with the bathwater. we will take the lessons and technology and apply them to the future. >> on irreversibility. the concept was thrown out there -- thrown out there with where forces might be. it seems related to industrial base. >> it means that as we make these momentous changes, the $487 billion worth of changes, they are causing us to have to stop certain things, paul's certain things, slowdown in certain things, and in each case to the extent we can do so, preserve the ability to change course. for example, in the ground forces, as we reduce them, we will do that in the way so that we keep the mid-grade officers

that would be necessary to support a larger force in the future if we decided to reverse course. we cannot afford to do that comprehensively, but we can afford to do some of that. the industrial base, the same thing. as we make program changes, we want to make sure the 15 years from now we still have an industrial base that supports the key weapon system, even if we were not able to buy and those in areas at the rate or volume we had planned before we were handed the $487 billion cut. another example, science and technology and innovation. that is the seed corn for the future. we want to remind ourselves that we want to act in such a way that to the extent we can, preserved options for the future. >> i call our focus avoiding

department of hubris, because it is entirely possible. we could get this wrong. so we're going to remain alert as this progresses, the chairman referred to for budget cycles going out to 2020 and the like, and we will be aware of the need to shift course a little bit. as the world shifts beyond our worcontrol in many ways. we think we have a pretty good pathway for for that would allow us to change course if we have to. >> why do we take two more questions. >> secretary panetta mentioned the fact that the department would need to use innovative methods to sustain its presence in latin america. does this mean a smaller footprint, and you -- can you elaborate what those methods mean? >> the truth is in the past 10

years we have been so focused in iraq and afghanistan there have not been a lot of the forces available in some of these other areas to be available for engagement and so forth. that said, that has forced us to pioneer some fairly innovative forces. the use of soft it teams for example to go in and do partner capacity on our rotational basis. a very strategic use of standard leaders engagement. i think some of the work that has come out of that, we will continue to apply those innovative approaches to insure that even as we put an emphasis on the middle east, we're not abandoning other areas of the world. we will stay engaged, keep investing in those relationships

and investing in building the partner capacity in those nations. but we're when to do it and created in different ways. >-- going to do it in creative in different ways. >> the lion share of what they have been doing has been contributing to the coin fights, and they are very adept at that, but these are agile, flexible forces. small units that are also very good at working with partners. ,s the war's start to draw down we're going to retain those forces and leverage them and to other missions to include the types of things you ask about that include working with partner nations and other comments. another example of the innovation, there is a program called the state partnership program that the national guard has.

it is a very high-leveraged program were individual states will partner with another nation in europe or africa or asia, and it is proven to be a very valuable tool for us. we plan to build on that to help us build in the innovative part of the world. >> to what extent did you end up killing any major acquisition programs without getting into any details? >> we have had to make major changes in every category of the budget in order to meet the target. that includes modernization. i think as the admiral was saying earlier, what we get from having this strategy that the president and secretary and chairman have given us is the ability -- we will obviously have less at modernization than if we have $487 billion more,

but we figure out where to focus that to best strategic effect. that is the value of having the document. i think where we invest and how intensively we invest is shaped by this. this is not a hair cut. we are trying to shade -- change the shape but not just the size and piece of the budget activity. with that, we thank you all for being here. >> defense department officials fleshing out the details in the strategic defense review. downsizing the military,

shifting the focus towards threats from asia, increasing the use of technology, and ultimately saving a trillion dollars over 10 years. there has been congressional reaction to the president's plan. center mccain offered a statement with in which he says the current and emerging threats are more closely watched than ever i can recall. the house armed services committee ranking member adam smith said the administration has put together a significant string of foreign-policy successes. the elimination of much of what kind of leadership, the end of the war in iraq. today's announcement lays out a strategy that will enable the united states to build on successes and confront the threat of today, as well as in the future. if you missed any of this

briefing or the president's remarks this morning, you can see it in its entirety at c- span.org. most republican president of candidates are in new hampshire today campaigning for the first of the nation primary there next tuesday. at this hour jon huntsman finishing up a business luncheon in ports man -- portsmouth. rick santorum will be near concord port of a campaign lunch. a look at some of the campaign advertisements that are airing in new hampshire. >> we have been kicked around as people. we are getting screwed as americans. we of an economic deficit in this country that will shipwrecked the next generation i will lead the charge on all of the above, and not only six economic debt, but i am going to fix the deficit, because we're too good of people to be in

whole we are in. we deserve better. >> this election is about more than just replacing a president, it is an election to save the soul of aamerica it is time for this pessimistic president to step aside and let american optimism that built this greatest nation on earth build a greater future for our children. i am it romney, and i approve this message. and -- mitt romney. >> government is overtaxing and overspending. >> we need to change direction. >> mitt romney's reputation is the flip loppe-flopper. >> this election is about trust. there has been one true

consistency, and that is ron paul. >> he has been so consistent from the very beginning. >> he tells the truth about what he believes whether you like it or not. he is never once voted for a tax increase. never once voted for an unbalanced budget when he says he is going to cut one trillion dollars in the first year, i believe it. >> if you are tired of politicians, he is something different. >> ron paul is the one we have been looking for. >> this evening, newt gingrich will be in meredith, new hampshire, for a town hall meetings, and we will have live coverage starting at 7:00 eastern. c-span to will be live as the new hampshire republican city committee holds a meeting. campaigns are sending met son.omney's

live coverage will be under way at 7:00 eastern. a look now at the political climate in new hampshire as the presidential race shifts to that state with the upcoming primary next tuesday. host: on your screen is manchester, new hampshire, which is the largest city in that state. joining us from the center of manchester on our c-span desk is kevin landrigan will writes for "the nashua telegraph" newspaper, political reporter and columnist and longtime watcher of new hampshire politics. it is good to see you after four years. welcome back to c-span. guest: thanks so much, peter. thanks for having me. host: i want to start by asking you about your story this morning in "the nashua telegraph." you write about mitt romney coming to new hampshire after

iowa, and you say he looks stuck in neutral before a relatively small crowd of supporters. guest: it is really hard for a candidate like mitt romney, who has a 30-point lead in new hampshire to maintain a high level of energy and enthusiasm. when you have such a big lead, you don't tend to get complacent, but certainly it is harder to rev up. and you can see, john -- john mccain, a veteran of all of these very close races, sensing a little lack of energy there and trying to buck is a candidate up at that event at central high school. host: you say mr. romney has a big lead. the most recent poll has him at 43%? mr. romney, 43%, ron paul, 14% sun, jon huntsman, 9%, newt gingrich, 7% and rick santorum, 6%.

how does this campaign feel to you as opposed to four years ago, eight years ago? guest: well, certainly the economy and jobs is the dominant theme. and it is important to note here in new hampshire that we are doing better than the rest of the economy nationally. our unemployment rate is much lower than the national average. our poverty rate is the lowest in the country. we are the safe its stake in the country. but you sense out there nonetheless, in the workplace, a lot of anxious people about the possibility of a second dip recession. at so that issue has really displaced all others, whether it is foreign policy or social issues -- jobs and the economy are really important. what is interesting about this race that is different than eight years ago or four years ago is this is a fierce fight for second place, with enormous consequences for whoever gets it. it is really reminiscent of the

1988 campaign on the democratic side, when, ironically enough, another massachusetts governor, mike dukakis, was the overwhelming favorite. and the question of, who was going to challenge dukakis. the question going forward from the hampshire, who will challenge from the? is there somebody who can coalesce the conservatives who obviously in great numbers are larger than romney's support nationally. is it rick santorum, is it ron paul, is it newt gingrich, is it jon huntsman? they've all got a shot and they all come as i say, are jockeying for that position in these last five days before the election on tuesday. host: your paper this morning endorsed mitt romney in the gop primary. "romney best choice for gop" --

you have endorsed mitt romney. "the manchester union leader" endorsed newt gingrich. guest: and four years ago we endorsed john mccain. it's sort of highlighted some of the flip-flops in romney's record. mccain went after mitt romney about -- the democrats and the newt gingrich campaign were shopping a video, a web of video from the 2008 campaign produced by the mccain campaign in which it listed some of the flip- flops and changes in positions, whether it is abortion, gun owner rights, that mitt romney had in its pre -- his previous history. we look at that and judge romney to be the best candidate and really to provide a clear

choice and competitive choice to president obama in november. host: up until yesterday, did rick santorum have any presence in your state? guest: it is interesting -- he has spent so much time and c- span has chronicled it so well, 380 town hall meetings in iowa -- that kind of grassroots politics catapulted him to the near victory that was really astonishing. he has made the third most number of trips to new hampshire before all of those four races in iowa. only mitt romney and johnson -- jon huntsman had been here more. he has about 30 elected and former-elected official supporting his campaign, and he also has a cadre of a political organizers, seasoned professionals, who really helped engineer pat buchanan's stunning defeat of the front runner bob dole in the 1996 republican primary.

it added by a nail -- man from manchester -- headed by a man from manchester. pat buchanan was singing his praises and all of those troops yesterday during many conservative talk shows. and santorum are obviously hopes those faults can provide the same kind of magic for him as they did for pat buchanan 16 years ago. >> do you think in the next poll taken, there will be a search for rick santorum? >> i think we will see some movement for rick santorum. unfortunately for newt gingrich, i think some of the tracking polls has showed slippage. as you pointed out, the "union leader" endorsement was a big help. the house speaker, it conservative tea party republican, endorsed him. it helped a great deal. but the disappointing finish in a iowa and a lot of the national news about the attack ads from romney's super pac hurt

him. he has obviously come here angry, infuriated, and he is rodney's stalker in new hampshire the next five days and it will be fascinating to see what the newt gingrich offensive against mitt romney does in this race. but it solidify votes for newt gingrich or, in fact, as even some newt gingrich supporters worry about, will it this logic mitt romney supporters to go to rick santorum and taken the conservative alternative with a strong second place showing? it is possible. but there is no question ron paul has the most passionate following in new hampshire. there are many thought he has a ceiling of around 15%. if he cannot grow past 15% tuesday, he can be passed by rick santorum, jon huntsman, and newt gingrich. host: we will put the numbers up on the screen --

an e-mail, journal@c-span.org, twitter.com, and you can, on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. "the wall street journal" says the clock ticks for announcement in new hampshire. is that correct? guest: it is correct. i think he had a disappointing day yesterday. it is important to emphasize. he is a good friend of john mccain and was really hoping john mccain -- why? because jon huntsman's secret recipe for financing a strong second in new hampshire is to tap into those large numbers of independents that can take a republican or democratic ballot -- they will enormously take a republican ballot tuesday. he was hoping to get the votes. john mccain does not transfer all the support to mitt romney. polls show mitt romney leads

among independents, jon huntsman is seconds, and huntsman has to worry right now whether mccain's endorsement of mitt romney stops some of the surge of more independents to his candidacy. it is key to him coming in seconds. host: we want to hear from the hampshire residents and we set aside our fourth phone line -- 628-0184. kevin landrigan of "the nashua telegraph" is our guest. lisa from sacramento. caller: hello? hi. good morning. i just want to say that i have been laid off for a little over a year. thank god i do have an interview on tuesday. i just want to say to the republicans, they need to just allow obama to do his job. if he would just do his job, then the things that go wrong, we can blame him. but we can't blame him if the

republicans are in the way. because i blame the republicans for everything that is going on. host: any comment for her? guest: lisa, you certainly raise a point that the democrats and some independents feel very feelhere that they really feel that the agenda of the republican party nationally for three years has been -- has not been simply to vote no, but to stop obama's movement in its tracks in any way possible. that is one of the reasons why the republican leadership on capitol hill was on it -- was under severe pressure regarding the extension of on and on the benefits, and i thought president obama really pleaded that issue extremely well, put the republicans on the defensive, forced them to accept an extension of on and on the benefits, which is very important in new hampshire. as i say, we have an unemployment rate in the low 5% range, it is well below the national average, but we have thousands of people who have

stopped looking. we have thousands of people who have exhausted their benefits. and, like lisa, are continuing to look for work. and it is very difficult to find. host: kevin landrigan, about 240,000 people voted in the republican primary in 2008. what is the turnout expected to be? guest: we have not heard from secretary of state bill gardner. he comes out with a turnout estimates which is usually very solid. i've police suspect a much higher turnout on tuesday and then we had in 2008. there was such a competitive primary on the democratic side from hillary clinton and barack obama, which turned out enormous number of independent votes. that race does not exist on tuesday. democrats have no contest to vote for. many loyal democrats have come

to the polls. i think that we could approach 300,000 on tuesday. host: do you have to be registered as a republican to vote? guest: no, you can be registered as an independent and take a republican ballot at the polls. you don't have to be registered. if as an unregistered voters you can show up at the polls, sign up, declare any party. if you declare republican or independent, you may take a republican ballot. host: what if you are registered as a democrat and say you want to switch? guest: you cannot do that. about five weeks ago you had to change your party affiliation in order to participate in the republican race. it is different than we saw in iowa in the caucuses where democrats tried to cause mischief by showing up at caucuses and voting in the republican caucuses. host: barbara is a republican in

brooklyn. good morning. caller: good morning. i am conservative, but i called on the republican line. the lady that called, she is brainwashed by obama, saying the republicans are blocking everything. they had the house 10 months. obama had two years of democratic control. he pushed on his agenda as a side. his playing class warfare. i am a disabled veteran. i am insulted that people have fallen for the rhetoric. if anybody can beat obama, it is romney. people in the tea party, you have to be in the middle. i am independent, but i cannot stand people saying republicans are not making obama dew poin -- not making obama do his job. it's making me sick.

i am a veteran and cannot get a job. i am disabled and cannot work at all. host: we will leave it there. kevin landrigan. guest: barbara is right about the fact that early in his presidency he had democratic control of the congress and got his health care reform bill passed, about the stimulus package approved. republicans argued that made the economy worse and made the economy uncertain. she raises an interesting point and that is, what do republicans want in this nominee? there's a fierce fight in new hampshire about that. do they want a moderate who can appeal to mainstream voters and independents in the general election? or a fierce conservative who will take the fight hardest to president obama in the debates? many conservatives in hampshire point to the nomination of more

moderate republicans such as john mccain in 2008, bob dole in 1996, leading to battle victories for republicans. denominations of more conservative candidates like ronald reagan in 1980, leading to strong victories for republicans. that fight will go on past new hampshire as was reported yesterday, conservatives are meeting in texas next weekend to try to have a summit about whether we can coalesce around a candidate. can we all get behind newt gingrich, can we get behind rick santorum, ron paul, although that's unlikely because he is not acceptable to ne-yo conservatives here and around the country, or jon huntsman? that decision, after new hampshire, could have a lot to do with the kind of challenge mitt romney will say is going forward in this long primary season. host: you fail to mention new

perry in that list. guest: rick perry certainly did a texas two-step on caucus night. it sounded like a candidate getting out of the race. but as we have seen in published reports as he was jogging yesterday, had some kind of epiphany and decided that he is back in the race. he made the right decision. with michelle bachmann getting out of the race, there is an opening for rick perry. it's not going to happen in new hampshire. he is going to south carolina today, by passing new hampshire. there is no conservative candidate who has an ability to raise enormous amounts of money into like rick perry does. the thing about -- money follows momentum. that's one of the axioms of american politics, but the big

money slowly follows momentum. as rick santorum has seen yesterday, he got 50% more campaign contributions yesterday banned in the entire campaign. almost all of it has come on line from conservative republicans all over the country who have been woken up by his astonishing showing in iowa. it will take a lot of time for establishment republicans to decide rick santorum is the guy. rick perry knows that. he is sitting on several million dollars and will stake its claim in south carolina and tried to make a surprise showing like rick santorum did in iowa. it is a longshot, but it is worth taking for governor. because he still has those resources. people never star running for president, they run out of money to run for president. rick perry has not run out of money. so is no reason for him to get out. host: kevin landrigan has been writing about new hampshire

politics with the telegram since 1988. mary is a democrat in illinois. caller: i will make my comments short. look at president obama's audience compared to the republican audience. president obama's of audience looked more diverse like america really is, compared to the republican audience. thank you and have a good day. kevin landrigan host:, how do you describe the diversity of new hampshire? guest: it is not averse at all. it is the most white state in the country behind only vermont. -- it is not diverse. we're getting a larger minority population, but it is in the single digits when it comes to african-americans. and hispanics. we have a larger agent population -- asian population now moving in.

it is a very white state. we are trying with this tradition to represent the entire country. issues of diversity are very ofhere. -- here. we are one of five states in the country that allows same-sex couples to get married. a sitting governor signed that bill into law. a number of courts had court decisions to bring that about. that is an example of diversity inclusion that new hampshire is very famous for. it has a very libertarian, very yankee, a live and let live and do your own kind of thing attitude in new hampshire and that is not changed. senator santorum during a town hall meeting last night made a

fierce defense of the republican party and its support for african american voters. he spoke about the fact as an urban congressman and then senator in pennsylvania that the leveraged over $1 billion to historical links african- american colleges. there are three of them in pennsylvania. he tried to defend the republican party's support for african american and minority residents in this country. host: next call for kevin landrigan comes from new hampshire. curtis on our independent line. caller: good morning. i am a native of new hampshire and small business owner and veteran. i am pretty upset that romney has such a lead in this state's, because i don't see him as being much different than what we

hadn't for decades. what we need is a change in this country. what we need is less military intervention, nation building, and on false premises. ron paul is being described as a dangerous person, yet so many veterans and active duty military and are supporting him. how can he be considered dangerous when he does not want to start world war iii? guest: curtis, thanks for the call. great to have a new hampshire caller. >> will leave this discussion at this point to go live to new hampshire. rick santorum is holding a meeting greek in new hampshire. -- a meet and greet in new hampshire. >> we have been watching you

since you were down at the bottom. >> think you. thank you for what you are doing here yet to go which way am i going? that this way? -- back this way? thank you. great. how are you? >> [inaudible] >> for good to see you. excellent. thank you very much. in hope we get a chance to talk. >> congratulations on iowa. >> great country, isn't it? >> 8 votes, how about that? >> [inaudible]

hello. how are you? >> doing well. and congratulations. >> think you. >> congratulations on iowa. -- thank you. >> can we get a picture with you? >> absolutely. i want a picture with you, too. >> ok. there we go. gioot it? thank you. >> senator, how are you? >> i do a lot with [inaudible]