that differentiated me from the senator john mccain. hi actively went out. john mccain focused on a small area of spending called earmarks that is not going to solve the deficit problems. i support beening earmarks. but part of the budget process is taking on these entitlement programs, which many members of congress did not do, and i did. >> congratulations on your win in iowa. >> thank you. [unintelligible] >> good to see you again. >> thank you. >> when you can make it, it would be nice.

>> thank you guys very much. >> come this way. >> i saw you on tv the other night. >> thank you so much. [unintelligible] >> i am excited. >> thank you so much. that would give me a big boost in the campaign. [unintelligible] >> you position on the president of iran? your position on iran right now?

>> i think it is pretty clear. i have a strong plan to make sure iran does not get nuclear weapons. >> i have a question about that. [unintelligible] >> i said as a last resort. [unintelligible] >> in fact, if they get a nuclear weapon [unintelligible] >> new facilities, -- >> as you know, we took got a nuclear [unintelligible] they got nuclear active in iran. >> that are very skeptical. >> that is because of the information they have.

>> how do you feel about passing newt gingrich in the polls? >> balanced budget amendment. that is one of the big parties i'm going to put up there. [unintelligible] we talked probably 3/4 of the time about reforming in congress. five years, i've told you this is the real deal. >> get it done. >> put my record of entitlement

reform up against his. >> i like why you were doing it. >> i will put my record on reducing spending through entitlement reform against anyone. more importantly, governor romney's record on entitlement reform. you hear that? all right. [unintelligible] >> we are from poland. >> we abandoned poland by not deploying them the style defense system there. [unintelligible] >> this is the photographer. he will get us. >> thank you so much.

trying to eat their lunch. >> thank you for coming. >> you guys got to keep moving. [unintelligible] >> senator, are you taking questions? senator, are you taking questions? i guess not, since you're totally ignoring me, not even -- eye contact. >> can i have a conversation and talk to you while i talked? [unintelligible] >> how many people would not have health insurance? [unintelligible]

>> there are programs like that. there are programs that incentivize people to be hired. >> they do not give a dollar- for dollar tax cut. >> i did not think that is the best way you do it. >> i will do one, then i have to move. there you go. >> thank you, good luck. >> you are welcome. i decided maybe i could take one day to see what kind of reaction i get.

>> handsome guy. how're you come a little money? do you want your ball back? nice to see a. good luck. >> should i bother everybody else back here? >> sure. >> are we going to go this way? >> yes, we are going to go this way. >> good to see you. sorry. >> not a problem. >> how are you? >> good. >> hello, young lady, how are you? >> i am charles. >> hi, charles. good to see a parent thank you. -- good to see you. thank you. >> can i ask you a question? >> sure. >> how do you keep health care costs down and make it affordable? >> you have to involve the consumer.

right now the consumer is separated from the health-care system. a third party is basically paying every bill. that is the principal reason we see health-care costs continue to go up. if your auto insurance policy, and you have a $700 fender bender, and your insurance covers the first $500, will you turned in? now. that is the problem. we need consumers taking partial responsibility. right now there was a law that if you have insurance any move from insurance to insurance that can not decline you. >> i just did that. i was working for an employer. they have to cover my daughter who has a pre-existing condition because the law says, rightfully, and i support this,

that if you have insurance, no insurance can deny it. we should expand the law to say that if you're any insurance, not just group insurance, but also individual insurance. obama law says if you did not have insurance they have to cover you. what if we did that? mandates. if you have a program that says you have to cover anybody, whether they have insurance or not with a pre-existing condition, why are people going to do? they are going to wait until they get sick to buy insurance. how is that going to work? every young person says why my buying insurance, when i can wait until i am in the ambulance? you have to create an incentive so when you come off of your parent's policy, you can buy insurance and ensure they will never hit you with a pre- existing clause.

so, it is an incentive for everyone to stay insured. that is a pre-existing conditions are supposed to do. >> what is your opinion on the recess appointments. >> the united states senate should shut down until an appeal pushes them back. >> good luck. >> i'm going to come right back. how are you? >> hello. >> is a real new hampshire guy. >> how will the year? -- how old are you? [unintelligible] >> thank you. >> congratulations on a pile up. >> thank you. -- iowa. >> thank you.

>> how are you? [inaudible] >> this is my wife. -- hi. >> i am from pennsylvania. >> up in the northeast. there you go. >> nice to meet you. >> thank you. >> good luck. >> thank you. sorry to interrupt your lunch. >> i am checking it out.

>> thank you. >> we are working. hampshire and i asked that those of you who wish to represent listened to the voice of the 99%. >> i am going to do my best. i will listen to the 100%. >> i am the following years since 1994. 5 a good question for you and it is about executive experience. i've listened and read everything but have not heard a lot about your experience in that than you. >> it is truly leadership experience.

if you look at my experience on the armed services committee, and a national security measures, i have more experience than anybody to be commander in chief. it is a unique set of principles. you did not get that in a corporate board room. was a principal purpose and responsibility -- what is the responsibility of the president? >> protecting our borders. >> with the experience that matters, i have more experience. it scares me when you hear people say i have business experience, as the president of the united states runs the economy. the president of the united states runs our military and our national security policy, has some impact on the economy, but not as the leader. the congress passes legislation dealing with the economy, and your job is not to like a ceo -- no present -- president ordered me when i was in the senate. you have to persuade. that is not the job of a ceo.

look at my track record. accomplish in persuading people to come to my position is a lot stronger. if you line up based on experience -- i love people that talk about executive experience. when you look at experience that i have for the role of the president, which is different than ceo, a high stack up much better than anybody else in this field at >> and will protect our borders? >> you bet i will. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good luck. >> how are you? nice to see both of you. >> doing great. >> can you guys get a picture? >> we would love to. >> thank you. >> thank you for spending the time doing the hard work. >> you bet. >> got it?

>> do you see yourself as strong as michele bachmann was on getting rid of obama-care? >> i actually put forth a deal -- detailed plan to actually do it she never did that. i would not be in this race if it was not for obama-care. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> he would like your autograph. >> you can just give it to me. >> next week we have the kids heading to south carolina. thank you. i appreciate your help. >> nice to meet you. >> thank you very much. >> yes.

>> thank you. good luck, and god bless. >> how are you? >> good. >> nice to meet you, sir. >> thank you. i appreciate your help. >> we were joking about that on the phone. can i get my picture? >> absolutely. everybody have their verizon phone? >> exactly. >> even better. >> that came out a beautiful. >> all right. >> thank you. >> i appreciate it. >> perfect. >> i appreciate your help. >> you bet.

>> absolutely. >> share. how are you? >> i am worried about jobs. >> me, too. >> [unintelligible] the people and normally do in manufacturing are sitting at home. >> i have been saying -- >> i have been saying what about santorum.

>> coming up. >> good luck. >> thank you. [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> my goodness. you have a lot of stuff. >> i have a table. >> can we let bob through?

>> this is just going to be a. >> ok. to you have a camera? >> ok. there we go. >> take a couple, if you do not mind. >> i will. >> hold on. >> he is holding me up. >> here we go. >> got it? >> thank you very much. hopper>> thank you. >> you are very welcome. nice to meet you. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming. >> you bet. >> senator, senator? >> enjoy your lunch. >> thank you very much.

>> nice to see. did you want to be in the picture? >> we have friends here. we can do a group one. hot >> you just pass it and let go. thank you. good luck. [laughter] >> hold on. >> sneaking in. >> one, two, three. >> got it? >> thank you very much. >> you are welcome.

>> the best way out? [unintelligible] >> i am sorry. nice to see you. >> i appreciate your help. >> senator, you gained momentum since iowa. do you think you will keep it? >> we are getting a lot of great feedback, great enthusiasm, and a lot of folks saying they're excited i am here.

i saw you can ask for. >> any thoughts on how you will fare in the primary? >> we have a long, long haul. we need to show momentum, that we are moving up, and not stop at 4%. >> yes, sir. god bless you. >> thank you. >> there is a light right behind you. >> there we go. >> awesome. good luck. thank you. >> how are you? >> more than eight. you have a good crowd. >> we have cbs news.

>> go ahead. >> senator, everyone talks about jobs being the number one issue. when will you do to restore manufacturing, or can it be restored? >> absolutely it can. right now american is 20% more business -- more expensive to do business. government regulation, taxation, litigation -- what i've done is look at that and said what can we do to level the playing field. labour rates. i want good manufacturing jobs in this country. we have to get rid of the competitive disadvantage we have. the limit the corporate tax for manufacturers. if you do leave this country, if you bring that money back, you will not pay taxes on it.

if you invest in equipment here in america. we also say that we eliminate all regulations that will cost over $100 million a year. some we will eliminate completely, but the ones that will shut down 60 coal-fired power plants. the state has absolutely phony statistics. that will drive up the cost of electricity which will make us again less competitive from amend affecting point of the apparent regulations, energy costs, -- from pay electricity point of -- competitiveness point of view. regulations, energy costs, excess taxes have been hurting the economy, which are small town manufacturing towns spread all throughout america, but particularly in some important

states like pennsylvania, ohio, michigan. people say you are doing it for political purposes. i am doing it because that is where i grew up. i grew up in pennsylvania. most of my friend's father's worked in the mills and provided a good, stable living for them. 21% of the people were employed in manufacturing when i was growing up. now it is down to 9% and it is one of the principal reasons small town america has been struggling. we need to turn that around. >> how was your fundraising today? >> you got $1 million yesterday? >> it was amazing. we had a great day yesterday. >> are you looking for the small contributions? >> i think, yes. we had well over 10,000 new donors. it was pretty amazing.

[inaudible] [inaudible] one of the thin >> where is my polaroid? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i appreciate your help. see you guys.

take care. >> thank you very much. enjoy it. >> how are you again? good to see you. >> thank you so much. thank you for coming. >> nice to meet you. >> c-span's rode the let us-- road to the white house takes you on the campaign trail with the candidates. watch c-span's coverage of the new hampshire primary on television and on our web site, c-span.org. ♪ >> war new hampshire primary coverage from a wmur in manchester.

>> an explosion of popularity for rick santorum. the candidate created a buzz at a diner this afternoon. >> mitt romney in nuking which avoid hitting each other hard and set their sights on something else. >> no politicians, no exceptions. restaurants are a popular campaign stop. this one in portsmouth assessment vendue. -- says it no in bank you. >> temperatures back to normal. warmer air is on the normal, with the mercury will pop off in the 40's. >> nobody covers new hampshire like we do, in high-definition. >> rick santorum booed off the stage after a testy exchange over same-sex marriage. this is a candidate who built his near win in iowa. he was not making noise on the campaign trail. >> he was all the buzz as he

was trying to get your vote. we begin our coverage. >> events for senator santorum have started to heat up. the event here will be no different. instead of small groups, it is big crabs. today was a perfect example. following rick santorum around the diner, it was of these things have changed. he has caught some attention. media surrounded him. the crowd drowned out what he was trying to say to voters. >> give you a big boost in the campaign. >> he even stopped to take pictures. he said he was feeling good. >> a lot of great feedback we're getting. a lot of the enthusiasm. a lot of folks saying they are excited i am here and they're going to be supportive. that is all you can ask for. >> he is realistic about his chances in the primary. >> we started at 4%.

we have a long haul. >> pryor, he held a town hall meeting. >> we have a priority -- responsibility to go out and recommend we believe is the right person. >> he talked about everything from the economy to social security to medicare. he says he is new hampshire's conservative alternative to mitt romney. >> do not differ your judgment to a national poll. do not differ year deadman to what pundits and experts who have gotten it wrong, -- your judgment to what pundits and experts who have gotten it wrong say. what you fight to be the first in the process. make sure the lead. the event begins at 7:00. this is a sign of what the campaign is going through. this event was supposed to be scheduled at a smaller town hall.

instead, it was moved to the high school auditorium. >> during his earlier stop at the diner, santorum supporters and occupied protestors clashed. santorum was leaving when things started to get >> mitt romney spent only part of the day. he was campaigning in south carolina. he jetted off to the next early voting stake. he held a town hall asking voters to make him their top choice. we are covering him tonight. >> he is leading the polls for now. he is comfortable looking ahead to south carolina. he is taking nothing for granted. >> the last couple of weeks, we spent some time in iowa. i am going to keep working in

new hampshire. landslide. eight votes, but who is counting. i think you can do better than eight votes. >> mitt romney will not have to victory. he and his latest high-profile endorser know that there are no guarantees. >> because of both of our experiences, we take not a single vote for granted. get out to vote. >> from a continues to look past his current challengers, focusing on president obama. >> this president is a capitalist. he is a job-killer. he does not understand the passion of freedom and the power of freedom and opportunity. >> he may think obama is a capitalist, but one questioner wondered whether he would favor capitalism over american interest. >> had the balance a capitalism -- how you balance capitalism?

>> romney said he would only work on improving the business environment. >> we have to make america, in every way we can, high-tech, low tech, we have to make this the best place to be. >> he will return tomorrow with a rising star at his side. >> newt gingrich also meeting with voters today. the former house speaker saying he is the candidate who can go head-to-head against president obama. despite dropping in the polls, the reagan conservative it is hoping to upset mitt romney. >> we have a different opinion about which will be less conservative standing. i think he will get down to one conservative and governor

romney. he will get done -- he will continue to get 25 percent. somebody else is going to start getting more votes. >> gingrich admits he has become an underdog. >> jon huntsman is also playing the underdog card. at lunchtime, he met with business leaders. he was asked about david versus goliath. >> i am very clear with the people of new hampshire about being the underdog. i also know that the state has a history of coming around and embracing and supporting underdog. i sense that may happen again. >> huntsman will be in newport. >> things are coming together for our debate, said tonight. video shows the stage taking shape. join us on saturday night for our special coverage report

after the prime-time debate between all of the major candidates coming up tomorrow, we have new poll numbers that we will be releasing. giving us our first look at things here. >> we have a small restaurant that has had enough of politicians. they have made their policy clear. >> after customer complaints, this is a sign hanging on the door. we explain what led one of the servers to put that sign up. >> they have been around since 2003. >> best pancakes in town. >> this week, it is not the food but the sign. this no politicians, no exception sign was posted monday by a server. >> it was more of a joke.

it got a little big. >> it was born at of staff frustration and complaints from regular customers who have had their space intruded upon by multiple politicians on six or seven occasions. >> it is kind of nice. the one place you can go and feel there is nobody who is going to bother you. >> can you name names? >> they are all the same. >> part of the problem is politicians and their entourages take up space. >> it is tabled turnover. >> there is also the interruption. >> the hole kissing babies retain. >> not to mention different political views. one person has called -- >> they are very offended. they will never eat here again. if you're going to let politics

get in the way, that is your decision. >> day you have it. there is one good place to go when you want information on the primaries. where else but wmur.com. these special features you will find. >> wmur.com keeps you up to date. our bar on the home page links to everything you need. stop by our live outlier with pictures and videos and what the candidates are saying. in our in-depth primary section, we have broken down where each candidate stands on the issues important to you, like health care, afghanistan, and energy. there are even fun facts. we want to see your version of the primary. snap some pictures of all the campaign science in your neighborhood. -- signs in your neighborhood

and upload them. >> at the top of this section, there is a voting link to info on how you can go about voting. >> on washington journal, we discuss the role of economic issues in the the new hampshire primary. you can call in with your questions for the chair of the santorum faith and family coalition. and we will be joined by a university of new hampshire survey director who will speak about state demographics. washington journal is live from new hampshire to next tuesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> we are covering several candidate events live tomorrow

in new hampshire. jon huntsman will be at new england college in concord at 9:00 a.m. eastern. you can see that on c-span to. here on c-span, call in with your questions for newt gingrich at 10:20 a.m. eastern, joining us from dartmouth medical school. live at 7:00 p.m. eastern from the university of new hampshire, congressman ron -- ron paul. >> appreciate your help. see you guys. good for you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> enjoyed it. >> thank you. good to see you. thanks for your question. >> thank you so much. >> thanks for coming. >> glad to be here. thank you. >> the road to the white house coverage takes you on the

campaign trail with the candidates. >> good to see you. >> thanks for being here. >> how are you going to do with congress? >> watch c-span coverage of the new hampshire primary on television and at c-span.org. [applause] >> as republican presidential candidates campaigned in new hampshire, their supporters were at an evening in nashua. this is an hour and a half. >> it is an honor for both of us to be here tonight. my dad is in newport. we are going to fill in. we have had a fun few weeks in new hampshire. you grow up hearing about the primary and learning about it. we have been able to experience it on the ground. it has been cool for my sisters. now i see why it is so important.

you get to know the candidates, their families, hear their message, know what they are all about. that is why you guys are where everyone looks to. i am here to say a few things about my dad. i was reading an article in the economist, the title was "the candidate." it was about who the american people are looking for. i was curious of the qualities they were looking for. there were four things. somebody who has governed, as a governor. my dad was governor of utah and reelected with 80% of the votes. the second one was business experience, he brought you talk to the number one state for jobs for business in the country. the third one was foreign policy.

i think he is the top of that list. he has studied asia for over 30 years. china is the most important relationship our country is going to have. the president understands that. the fourth one was somebody who can unify. i think my dad is the best person who can unify this country. beyond that, as a father, he is somebody who has integrity, he is honest, he is not going to pander, he is going to be honest. you may not agree, but he is going to be square with you. he is someone i have looked up to my whole life. i have two brothers in the navy. that is why he is running for president. he believes the generation deserves better. that is why i am fighting for him. i hope you'll take a look at him. there is a primary and a few days. i hope you give him a look and see what he is all about.

thank you for letting us be here. [applause] >> when they say you mary above yourself, i think i must be in the dictionary on that one. i am lucky to be here. i am the son in law. i can shoot straight with you guys. if you want any secrets, come and find me. some information about his record, who he is, what he sees as the vision for our country. for his experience, i think it boils down to two words, experience and leadership. he has foreign-policy experience. he has lived overseas four times, three times as invest there. conceivably, a relationship that is going to define the world. the next piece is business experience.

he helped build a family business to be a multi-billion dollar business. he brought the state of utah to the number once they for job creation. the best date for business. the best manage state. -- managed state. he has the experience to take a country in the direction it needs to go. he was a guy that brought new ideas to the state. he brought difficult ideas. he was trying to create the most competitive business environment to compete with the other states. he said, all i'm going to do is to call off these 10 points. at the end of four years, -- take off these 10 points. at the end of the four years, he had. he did the largest tax cut in state history.

these are things that require pregnant people together. -- bringing people together. what is the vision he is bringing looking for? it comes down to two deficit. the first one is economic. as a of a we all know it. there is $15 trillion in debt and that is going to wreck our generation, and must be solved. we are not talking about super committees getting together to tackle two 0.5% of our spending. it needs to be 6 billion. everything needs to be on the table. we need to take a serious look, for us, for our kids. the second is a deficit of eight different kind. that is a deficit of trust. -- of a different kind. that is a deficit of trust. 8% approval rating, where of

those guys hiding. unbelievable. the executive branch, no trust. note trust, crony capitalism. the things the president campaigned on he is not delivering on. wall street, no crust. no trust at all. these deficits are what we are bringing. he can say it better than we can. hopefully we give you an insight, a guy with integrity, honor. those of you who are not decided, maybe we can convince you. have a great evening. thank you for letting us be here. god bless you and have fun this week. i think it is going to be a great primary. [applause]

>> our next surrogate is someone who has been that in the nashua for a while. it is good to see him back. our former mayor. [applause] i should say he is here representing speaker gingrich. >> thank you. i did not think some of the people remember me. [laughter] barry does. my good neighbors are here. i am here to represent my candidate, that is speaker gingrich. i had the opportunity to get to know him on saint patrick's day when he came to nashua. this is a guy who come up with no notes, captivated the audience osama.

plus, the fact -- audience. plus, he had a strong message. that convinced me, maybe i ought to take a look at that that. i did. that is why i am supporting him. there are two other surrogate who are supposed to be here. one man did not have stature enough. [laughter] i am being facetious. there is not a hard worker in the gingrich campaign. he almost got elected himself. two years from now, i am sure he will be elected. my candidate, hopefully it was, does not change his positions overnight. he does not change his positions

depending on what audience he is talking to. he is one of the true conservative leaders in our nation. he believes he is the best person for the job. i believe that. also, when your looking at the candidate who can best be president obama, you need a good, strong conservative candidate, one who can not only think on his feet -- everyone will say newt gingrich is the most intelligent candidate running for president. we need a candidate for governor as well. [laughter] and i think he will be a very strong opponent to president obama and his administration.

he is being supported by the largest newspaper. they have been running a series of pieces about what he is all about. let me read what jeffrey anderson wrote about newt gingrich the of the day. i quote, "mitt romney is the most electable candidate in the field. it is not clear this is actually true. the fact that we are going to design an opponent tailor-made to president obama's like winds, that opponent would be -- likings, that opponent would make class warfare argument. in all of these ways, newt gingrich is the one that can carry this message. besides, there is a more engaging general election we look at the nationwide poll.

i think we have seen how the polls have changed dramatically. one day, one candidate is up. i think he is hoping the real people who count will look at that field and the side-- and decide the best candidate is speaker gingrich. as i say, when he led the charge in 1994 to revolutionize congress, he did it because he felt strongly that congress should be there not to spend your money, but to provide bishop that our country needed. he was criticized for that. the good thing but gingrich is what you see is what you get.

his credentials are in order. he has not changed. he has not flip-flop. that is why i am supporting him. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. the next speaker is -- was the 52nd governor of louisiana. 1988-1992. higher, he was a member of the u.s. house of representatives from 1981-1988, he announced his presidential bid in march 2011. he has stressed campaign finance reform as a key issue. governor buddy roemer. [laughter]

>> thank you. i am from southern new hampshire. [laughter] what is so funny? [laughter] i am cut to be here. i am proud to be here. i have lived for the past four months in manchester. i have done to know new hampshire very well. i like you a lot. you have treated me with kindness and honor. i will always have good memories here. i ran for president for one reason, i thought america was headed into a decline. no matter how you measure it, i give the one statistic, there were 1 billion cell phones made in the world last year. 1 billion.

do you know how many were made in america? zero. and the president did not say a thing. i have been to china many times. i offer no apologies. i have watched them trade. i have watched them work child labor. i have watched them work workers 12 hours a day, six days a week. i have seen it. i have seen a worker in a factory with a rope around her waist with a two year old child tied to it. she said there was no place to put the kid. i asked her what she was paid, she said room and board. a president has the duty to stand up for america and its workers.

has a duty, it is in the constitution, and yet the last three presidents, bill clinton, george w. bush, barack obama said it not a word. they took no action for us to be competitive. i run for president because i think we are a nation in decline and we can do better. we do not have a single problem we cannot fix. i am tired of the-guys. -- the negative guys. i said, you happen of the politics 20 years. you will be the only person running who has been a governor and a congressman. i am the only one running who has been a governor and a congressman. in the last six years i have built a billion dollar bank, no

bailout money. we did not foreclose on a single mortgage. i am a farm boy. i came north to go to school. i apologize for harvard. my daddy had great faith in me. he said, son, you can handle it. i got my master's in finance and banking. it can be done. i do not like american politics. i love america. i tell you what american politics is, money, money, money, money, money, and it is not your money. the special interests own this country. as a banker, i saw it. i saw it in health care reform. i see it in the oil addiction to the middle east.

i see it in foreign policy that makes no sense. i see it when nobody listens to the american people, they laugh at the tea party. they laugh at them. how dumb they are. my wife and i went to the first meeting in louisiana. the first one. she held a sign, you know what it said? my wife is the sweetest thing. she is a nurse. she is a piano player. she held a sign that said, "action now." i say no to the special interest. i do not just talk the talk, i am the only person who does not take pac money. i did not take pac money when i was governor. i beat a man who was corrupt. i was in a state that was corrupt, just like washington, d.c.

louisiana had the highest unemployment rate in america, cole 0.8%. louisiana had a governor that brett that he took $100,000 in cash. it was not legal as long as he reported it. i saw a state where people were leaving. young people, bright people. osama a state that had the lowest-rated bonds -- i saw a state that had the lowest-rated bonds in america. you do not want your bonds to be below qualm. i ran against a couple of congressmen and a governor who had never lost a race. i whipped them. it can be done. i beat an incumbent democrat. he laughed at me. i whipped him.

it can be done. america has become corrupt. i am speaking the truth to people who know the truth. how is congress rated in the polls? i love all these congressmen running. 12%,1 out of 8 said they are worthy of a vote. we have a president raising a billion dollars to get reelected. two years into a four year term he quit doing a darn thing. he signed bank reform, too big to fail. we are headed for another one. that's where he went? wall street. fund raiser. $35,000 a ticket. guess who the host was? goldman sacks.

look, i love america. i am sick and tired of its politics. i was a democrat for 20 years. i am the only governor who changed parties. i became a republican. i am proud to be a republican. i am proud to be a republican. i am more proud to be in america. the next leader of this country a park.s not need to build we need to fight for fair trade. we need immigration reform. we need tax reform. we need health care reform. we need all of that. it is not going to happen in new hampshire.

everybody running for office has a super pack ask them. they go out and buy televisions and radios and your vote. it is not right. i need a million people at $100 million. they know how impossible it is when they have the televised debate. i wonder why. do you ever wonder why? by they can be saluted for time's running?

i formant it. i voted with president reagan time after time. i did not care what they said. what you need is courage. what you need is a leader. what you need is to send a signal to the rest of america. i like this guy. i know he is free. i came to new hampshire for a reason. i came here because i have precious dollars. i have contributions. i am only think i qualified. and only guy that limits his contribution.

this is what a leader has to do. i called president obama the biggest hypocrite he's ever seen. he talks about what you're going to do to wall street and fair play. he takes the money like everyone. [applause] who are you going to pick? which one of them is ready? i don't see. i been anxious all year for someone to step forward. i thought he said this is someone who might be able to lead. he has seven superpowers.

he is the expert of crony capitalism. he has never served a day in congress. and just look at him. i think republicans ought to send this. some republicans tell me that our first priority is to beat obama. fair enough. i know who obama does not want to see in a debate. it is me. i have a higher goal. i have a higher goal. i believe we can have an america that creates jobs for its children and grandchildren. i believe with it have an america where education is locally and not out of washington. we can have an america that has a balanced budget.

it treat everybody fairly. ge will pay its fair share. i dream of an america that can be strong again and not a joke run by the lobbyists. there is no problem in america that we cannot solve. if we don't solve the problem of special interest, our government will be right back here for years from now switching again. the problem is not the candidate. the problem is the political system that has sold out to the highest bidder. >> you know who wrote the banking bill? the big banks. you know who wrote the healthcare bill? insurance companies, the

pharmaceutical companies. you know i am telling you the truth. how would you like to see health reform? i have been a diabetic for 40 years. pretty good shape, i work hard. i am disciplined. another power of health care reform. there is nothing wrong with health care in america. it is just too expensive. i would like to see a president who would start with nurses, doctors, and patience in the room. wouldn't you like that? [applause] but it won't happen. san mitt romney there. he seemed like a decent guy. but it won't happen. that is where he gets his money from. it won't happen. and i am not just picking on him. you could take any of them.

he is like the 1%, and newt gingrich is like a lobbyist for the 1%. i have worked with all these people. they are decent. they are not corrupt. it is the system that is corrupt. we've got to break the system. send a message, new hampshire. tell the world that we know what we need to do, but it starts with the money. the final story. my dad is 89. he will be 90 on his next birthday. my mother had her 80th birthday christmas day. they are still alive and they live on a cotton farm in north louisiana. five kids, all still alive and they all live all around there. i am the renegade, i came to new hampshire. i went to visit occupied wall street. you know i am a tea party republican.

but i went to visit occupy wall street. maybe it is because i am granddaddy, i like listening to young people. i have learned so much. the reason i went to occupy wall street and spent a day listening was because they smelled just what i smell. they smell corruption, don't they? their solution is incorrect. we don't need bigger government, we need better government. but i went to listen. that is what you should know about me, i am afraid to listen. i listened first. i have spent 68 years getting ready to leave. louisiana, we wrote our constitution in 1973. i have experience in listening. i want a president that here's

-- hears an america that wants to change. it starts with the money. some say money is not that important. do you believe that? this race is decided by debate, i am 0 for 16. i wonder who makes that decision? when i reached 1%, i called and they said you have to have 2%. when i reached 2%, i called and they said you have to have a half million dollars raised in the last 90 days. they keep moving the target, because i don't think they want

to hear about the money and politics, money and politics. it is going to take money for me to win. my average gift is about $51 a person. i have reported every name given to me. i am free to leave, and i will take on barack obama, the likes of which you have never seen, but something is wrong in america when a former congressman and governor cannot get invited to a debate, and there were people on that stage that have never held elective offices or never been governor are never been congressmen are never started a company or never built a billion dollar bank. listenn't have time to to them anymore. i am just listening to new hampshire. stand with me. if we take our government back, we will have the biggest

economic boom this country has ever seen. we are that close. all we need is to keep the special interests out and let the plain people in. theater roosevelt said it 100 years ago this month. he asked the republican party, are we going to be the party of privilege and wall street, or are we the party of plain people who built a great nation? i ask nashua tonight, who are we going to be? thank you very much. [applause] >> we are doing pretty well as far as our schedule. we have time for a few questions.

are there any questions for the governor? >> we have a constitution. we have no place for sharia law. a person can follow their idea of moral values and all that business, but this country is not run like that. this country is run by constitutional law. no place for that. [applause] >> [unintelligible] >> full disclosure. i am a conservative. i have always battle in congress and as governor of louisiana for full disclosure. i am not so much interested in limits. $100, $1,000. that does not bother me, but full disclosure, nothing under the table. cut i think super packs are illegal. by the supreme court ruling, they said must be independent of the candidate.

jon huntsman father is financing the super pak. i guess they don't talk? i would make them equal to individual gifts. whatever we decide to do, right now it is $2,500. if we do that for individuals, we ought to do that for pacs across the board. i would not allow all lobbyist to bring a check. she could bring a good idea, request. lobbyists have a good function in government. as long as they are not hosting a fund-raiser. congress did a special committee. a couple of months ago, it was a total failure. guess what they did three days after being selected? the lobbyists held a fund- raiser for them. that is why you did not get any

budget reform or tax reform. you don't own this country. the lobbyists do, for the big corporations. i would have it illegal for a lobbyist, a registered lobbyist, to bring a check. he has a decision to make. lobby, or fund-raiser. you cannot do both. number five, i would have criminal penalties for politicians who violated criminal penalties. i would have 48 hours to report a gift. now it is 120 days. this election is going to be over before you find out from mitt romney or jon huntsman who their super pak is, who gave them money, and how much. they had a trick in the law that the vote followed to hide that fact. under my conditions, it would be 48 hours. we live in the age of the internet. we could do it like that. all constitutional, and congress has the power to do it now.

i would make it house bill number one and i would veto all bills that came to me until we passed a version of that. i will play poker with them if that's what it takes. i will listen to the ball game with them. i will go to garden parties. but we will campaign -- we will pass campaign reform and turn this country around. [applause] >> we have time for one more question. >> [unintelligible] >> the pipeline is much safer, but go ahead. >> [unintelligible] it is a controversial issue.

>> i agree with you completely. if you get on my website, i have 17 more reasons why we need energy independence. i am a natural gas guy. it is clean, 20% of the carbon footprint of oil. we have enough natural gas to last 350 years. we can turn our fleets of first and our big trucks to natural gas. it cleans up the environment and it is american made, if i can put it like that. i think we are addicted to foreign oil. i don't mean to pick on exxon or british petroleum. but when i was in downtown baton rouge a couple of years ago when the british petroleum fiasco happened, a guy stopped me and

said did you hear about the oil spill in the gulf of mexico this morning? i said no, your the first one that told me. he said, can you guess which producer caused it? i said british petroleum. i did not hesitate a second. as governor, we clean up for air and water in louisiana. we had their regulation of energy. i believe we need to the energy independence. natural gas. we need to take back our future, and i would do it that way. it can be done safely. watch me do it. we do it in louisiana. [applause] i will close, if you let me. if there is no other questions, i will point to what the enemy is doing. barack obama's five top ambassadors, germany, france, switzerland, great britain, and belgium, gave an average of $725,000 each to the

presidential campaign. is this country for sale? the number of george bush from those was $285,000. how do we average people feel? i don't want to fuss at them. i would rather stand up and do it ourselves. that is what i am asking you to do. i know it is tough to do. most of the people have never given me a dime. i am asking you to give me a dime. thanks. [applause] >> thank you, governor. our next surrogate is on behalf of ron paul. we have a nashua activist.

[applause] >> who is ron paul? if you know him, if you look into him, you have to vote for him. it is that simple. who is he? in these turbulent times, ron paul is the heart and embodiment of what it is to be fundamentally american. he is a faithful husband, dr., veteran, a true conservative, and the only constitutionalist in this race. article one section 8 defines power of the congress, the ninth and 10th amendment limits the power of federal government. our government is out of control.

ron paul knows this. he understands it. the biggest threat to our national security today is our nation's debt. we are the biggest debtor nation in the world. china is the biggest creditor nation in the world. now you know what is wrong with our economy. where do you think this will take us in history? not following the constitution is what got us into this mess. not listening to our founding fathers is what got us into this mess. it is time for a new founding father. ron paul has been correct in his predictions and knows what needs to be done to turn us around. he is an honorable man of his word, and you can put your trust in his word. look at the other candidates out there. look at what they do, not what they say. look at their actions. ron paul has proved himself over decades of being a man of his word.

ron paul is the wise choice, the moral choice. he is the righteous choice. he is the only one who can save our nation. that is just the two minutes that i wrote down because i was going to come here and had late notice. let's just talk about any topic you want to talk about. in the iowa caucus, 60% of those under the age of 30 voted for ron paul. the youth are enthralled with him. do you want to talk about where this nation is going and who cares most about its future? ask any young person who they support. there are so many distracting

things in politics, fracking. i don't give a frack. let's talk about what is important. let's talk about where we are today and where we are going in the future. let's talk about our economy, our family unit, our education, our society. the morals in society, honor, integrity, trustworthiness. can you find this in any of our politicians? ron paul is not a politician. he is a statesman. can you find anybody who does what they say? can you find anybody who has predicted what is going to happen, the consequences of all these great ideas from these politicians?

and the solutions the federal reserve system really is at the heart of it. it is really hard for people to understand, and they gloss over it when you start talking about it, but it is what has led to us being the greatest debtor nation. it has also led to our trade imbalances. we have been doing all these imports from wal-mart from china, and now we owe them all this money. it is just like an individual situation, when you are loaded up on credit card debt. you are going to have to work it off. it is the fault or work it off. either way, it is going to be rough times. china knows this, strategically. how are we going to fund all these wars abroad, when china is the one who gives us all these knickknacks? the taxation keeps going up. but he was talking about all the corruption buddy was talking about all the corruption in the pacs.

ron paul has some special interests out there, a lot of them. the american people are his number one donation center, the american people. no other candidate has that. no other candidate from the very top of for the get their money has the american individual people. under that there is google. he has done more donations from military personnel than all the other candidates combined, including obama. he wants to support our troops. maybe you should support the candidate they support. what do our troops want?

they want ron paul. we need changes in america. there is nothing radical about fixing things. people on the news -- buddy was the candidate who showed up here, and it is really nice to hear somebody. the tea party and wall street have in common -- we are all fed up with special interests. at the end of the day, that is what it is. we are americans together. we just want america back. we need to find somebody who is american with us.

somebody who has morals in this age where it is so hard to find morals. honor, integrity -- i keep going back to those. morals, consistency, who is ron paul? this tuesday, i want my america back. i wanted back with all of you. i want my special interest backed. i don't have one particular group of want to benefit, and i don't want to listen to all those other special groups who want to benefit themselves. i can see through it. military-industrial complex, health industrial complex. the lawyers -- stop listening to them.

just turn it off. listen to your neighbors. listen to what your heart tells you is right. listen to your kids and what they want for their future. this tuesday, vote for ron paul. [applause] >> or next speaker is probably not a stranger to any of us here, though he has a new title tonight. deputy majority leader, keith. [applause] >> i guess i should start with howdy.

i am just going to give you my story and tell you why i support rick perry. m. tucker, who is the deputy speaker, we kind of said that we were stalking him even before he started running. he came to my house of a 17th after i threaten the campaign because he was not calling me. it was just a great little house party. we all got to meet him. there were probably about 40 people there. as everybody knows, on my radio show, i have pretty much interviewed all the candidates. some of the things that keep me motivated or from john o'brien. he tell me something early on this whole campaign cycle. he said there are only three

things that matter about the next candidate i am going to support. number one is can he beat barack obama? number two is can he beat barack obama? number three is can he beat barack obama? that was definitely my opinion. i heard from governor romer and what he was saying about the for ways that campaigns run. you also have to be realistic. it is not a fantasy world. i did the whole fantasy thing before with ross perot, and that did not work out too good. if you look for the perfect candidate, that person does not exist, because we are human. you have to go and see who can win this beauty contest. this guy obama has a billion dollars to spend on negative campaigning. when i asked all the candidates, i would always

finish with, -- roemer has his idea why the country is in trouble. i think the main thing that is killing this country is political correctness. we cannot say what we think. the president you have today is here today because of p.c. [applause] i was in salem, new hampshire, three years ago when sarah palin was giving her speech. i was standing right next to her. we left there and i said to my wife, it is all over. if you remember, when sarah palin first came on the trail, it is the first time she led in the polls. she told the truth. you have to tell the truth. that got us in the white house. when i asked you are willing to play smash mouth with barack

obama, he leaned over. she raised $9 million against me in texas and i be heard by 20 points. that is the thing i am talking about. the first thing is you have to campaign. here in new hampshire we realize he got in late. it is hard to come back in new hampshire when you get in late like that. he does have the organization to go forward and tell his ideas of what it wants to do. >> $100 a year gets us through about june. july is tough, and come christmas time, we are hurting. i had to get a real job and for the past 20 years i've been in medical sales.

something that is near and dear to me is tort reform. they had that in the state of texas. [unintelligible] we will have a republican governor. one of my republican union friends who seventh taught me on right to work, i am like michael corleone. we are going to get them all. but we will get right to work in this state. it is a huge issue. the other -- the other thing that attracted me to governor perry is one of the interviews i saw that he was going to different states and attracting people to this day because of right to work. he tell me on my radio interview, you guys get right to work out here. put a sign that says open for business.

those are just regular things that the average person can relate to. that is what we need. he does not just talk about them, he did them. i used to be self-employed, but i have been audited twice. the tax system we have is outrageous. as governor perry pulls this out all the time, here is his tax plan, on a postcard. just 20%. you send it in. if you don't like it, if you want to use the old form, you can still do it. the keynote to me really is, you really have to be able to beat this guy when he goes head-to- head. he makes comments about all the debates and everything.

i blame my republican leadership for that. they should never have agreed to 347 debates, having guys like al sharpton do commentary, that is ridiculous. they should have just said no. if you don't agree to go to it, you are not going to look right. once you start seeing the governor hit the trail, those who have been at town hall meetings, seen him and to the questions when he can have more than 30 seconds to do it, you will see a difference. i think we will see that in the next couple of days. he will be here saturday and sunday for the debates and then back to south carolina. i think that is when you are going to see him come out. i will be glad to answer any questions. if i can offer some facts, i would be glad to. does anybody have any questions? of course you do, fred.

>> [unintelligible] to me, he sounds like a good debater. he acts a little bit like ronald reagan. why do you think [unintelligible] >> the press is right in obama's pocket. i believe this whole thing is orchestrated. if you do the local races like we do here, when i ran for state representative, they gave me these cards in my first term. it had all the republican platform issues. everything was 17% tax increase. that is why i have no idea what i have in the bank. my wife will not let me touch it. she writes all the checks. i was going around talking to people and their eyes were blazing over like a lizard.

i started telling people, do you know what the democrats did to you for years ago? they took away your right of being able to note that your daughter, 14 or 15 years old, is having an abortion. they did not even know it. they were freaked out. i think it is the same thing. they know that he is the guy who has all the ammo. i think that is why they made it tough for him. it does not seem to bother him. when you see him in a town hall debate, you will see that there is always plants. the ones that i was that, the vfw, they are there for a reason. all those things, when it gets to that point, in a 32nd sound bite on the stage with a people, it just did not play

right. anybody else? >> a couple of weeks ago, we went to see steve forbes represent rick perry and talk to us about his collaboration with him on his financial plans going forward. very impressive, of course a. a question i forgot to ask him was, was the going to protect, again, coming from steve forbes, would they be protecting social security going forward, and what that plan was. can you speak to that at all? >> that is the first thing that came out in the debate. anybody that knew anything new had nothing to do it touching people's social security that is already in there. i think the highlight of this campaign is when he said ponzi scheme.

that is what it is. if you don't think it is upon this game, then you are ignorant. that is what it is. i am 52 in march. these kids, there is no way. you have a lot of guts. of course people are still going to be protected. that is going to be there. one other thing, before i forget. especially being in government, he wants to cut congress, basically cut in half as far as the terms go. that is music to my ears. they have the 13th largest economy in the free world and texas itself.

they meet for 140 days a year every other year, and they have had a balanced budget every year he has been governor, for the last 11 years. we should start their right here in new hampshire. there is no reason to be up there. it your business done, go back to new hampshire. we don't need career politicians. that is the whole problem. people can be corrupted and manipulated in the state of new hampshire just by power. when you go down to washington and combine that with money, and they have access to be able to go ahead and do insider-trading and there is no penalty for it, you cannot make these things up. you do not hear them talk about that in the media. that is the key thing. let's get rid of congress. anybody else? all right, thank you. [applause]

>> the next speaker tonight is my honored former -- i guess he is my predecessor, dennis hogan, chairman of this committee last year. now he is our hillsboro county attorney. he is here representing rick santorum. dennis? [applause] predecessor,ws' and you are doing a great job. i hope everyone of you will keep watch over when we have another fund-raiser for the nashua civic league and i will make it -- i hope he is every bit as successful in raising money as i was. don't tell buddy roemer i said that. i am so glad i did not have to

follow but roemer. he is such a terrific speaker. i have four things i wanted to make sure i say. i want to talk about rick santorum's electability. he is a full spectrum conservative. and i want to talk about leadership. going back to what we are doing here in nashua, coming up to the 2010 election, always running for county attorney and i had to go to manchester, an important city in the county and that i had not run elections then as i had in nashua. the congressional campaign was being run by -- he was entirely into the idea of teamwork. he did not care that my little

campaign for county attorney did not bring much resources when it came to get his person elected there in manchester. he said come on in, be part of the team. we will be carrying your stuff. my pamphlets were as good as any put out in manchester, and that was a good thing for me. down here in nashua at the same time, nick pappas was in charge of the national victory office that the republican national campaign had sent up. he had the same attitude, come in, do work, we don't care about anything other than you coming in here and being part of the team. that extensive teamwork that both of them have, i dearly appreciated. those are two quality guys that can do a great job campaigning.

both of them ended up on the santorum team. i said to myself, that takes some smarts for a guy like santorum to take these knowledgeable, effective campaigners. one of the most important things about leadership is picking the right people to do the job. you have to set the culture for that organization, of course, but having the right people doing the job well is a big part of setting the culture and getting the job done. i knew early on -- i won't say i knew how great he was going to do in the iowa caucus, but i knew early on that he was going to do the right thing. he was going to campaign with good organization and probably good results would come from starting out with those two. i went with don and randy white house and we went to the ames straw poll. we met some people there that i want to tell you about, because

it is important that you know there are people there from south carolina. they have an organization that is going to take what we do in new hampshire, and we were there to let the people in iowa know, if you send us him as a winner, we have an organization. we will not drop the ball, is what i am saying. the people in south carolina were there to tell us the same thing. he has a former congressman on his team there. my purpose in telling you all that is that it gets mixed up with the elective ability part. that is what i feel about his leadership quality. he is showing them in running this campaign, he has been the first person on a lot of things.

one of the important parts of leadership is knowing where you are going. he spoke out against tarp. rick santorum did, and that took guts. everybody was all in a panic at that time. working backwards, he is a full spectrum conservative. on everything you can think of, it comes down on the conservative side of the issues. that is best illustrated, if you get the youtube clip where he is debating with barbara boxer, and he is just very nice, very calm. she tried to get on the record that he was getting upset, and he was not getting upset.

it's that kind of conservative that will go out on a limb on an issue that some people say it is going to cost us something politically. he is going to push the envelope to get us there. the best example of his full spectrum conservatism is the comment from rush limbaugh. we are not going to worry about what rick santorum comes up with if we make him president. we know he will come down on the side of things the way we like to see them. will he go back to the way he was before? he has always been here with us. a lot of people have been waiting to see if he could have that electability. he is one of us and he agrees with us. his personal story, and this

goes a lot toelectability. he talked a lot about it when he did his speech at the caucus. his granddad came over from italy, worked in the coal mines. his father was a working man as well. he comes from that part of america, the working part of america. that sells very well to the electorate. the electorate wants to know there is someone who understands them, that has walked in their shoes, or at least on the same sidewalk they have walked on. the fact that maybe if you were very successful because you worked very hard, not just somebody who wonders how people became successful because their dad was successful. he has risen on his own merits. he went to law school and worked in private practice for a few years.

then he got elected to congress, a smart, young guy. he was in congress for 20 years. then he got a chance to not be in congress for the last few years. i think his personal story is one that very easily sold to those folks who don't concentrate on politics the way we do. this issue and that issue and how do they line up. they just look at the person and think, is this a good man, someone we should put in charge, or not someone we should put in charge? excuse me while i get a drink. i picked the wrong time to be silent. my favorite part of the argument for rick santorum. it is and electoral college vote. not how many people you can get for you to vote in the united states. these are state by state elections.

if you can start off with the state that is generally a democratic state and couldn't in the republican column, like ronald reagan did -- and put it in the republican column, you start off in a huge advantage. if we can take pennsylvania and put that in our column, that is a huge advantage. the obama administration recently talked about how they are planning on their reelection. it depends on the state's that went for john kerry in 2004. pennsylvania is right in there. you take pennsylvania and put in the republican column, that is going to be great. he started off his election career by winning in congressional district that was democrat, by working hard, going door to door. then he went beyond that and got elected to the entire state of pennsylvania. that tells you a lot.

that tells you he can hold his own in the big cities. he can win in those suburbs outside of philadelphia and pittsburg. those kind of folks will see the same thing and hopefully see him the same way those folks in pennsylvania saw him. that will give us a great advantage in winning the election come november. i am sure i have not done as great a job as rick santorum does himself. he speaks extremely well. i am impressed by the way he speaks in an inspiration away. he talked about the founding fathers and how we have to honor their work and go back to their

intent and the freedom they have given us and how we are smothering ourselves with government excess. then he can sit down and talk to you one on one about the intricacies of the federal budget, and which places we can actually go and save money. we all agree we have to make the federal government smaller. it would be great to have someone on day one that knows the federal budget and where to go and what proposals to bring forward that will work. he has proven that he can work well both with republicans and democrats as well, to come to common ground. he explains how he got welfare reform back in the 1990's, but he had to do that with the democratic president. they worked together on that. you see what is happening in washington right now and you think, how come there are not any people like that?

what is the problem with them getting things done? at least we know there is somebody we can put up there who has been in that situation and got things done. that is rick santorum. >> if you want to see him, saturday he is that the lawrence born in hollis at 2:00 p.m., according to the gop website. on monday he is that the riviera college at 3:30. i would be happy to answer any questions if i can, but i am sure you would much rather hear them from the candidate himself. i thought the board of education knew all the answers. >> since you worked with senator santorum for a while, i know he is a roman catholic, as i am.

let's talk about foreign policy. all across the nation, and here in new hampshire, catholic pastors and bishops have been speaking out from the pulpit against war. the other thing is that if you look at the rasmussen reports from last month, over 50 by% of the american voters believe we were wrong to attack iraq. 63% believe we should not be going back in case they get into trouble. 67% believe that we will not be successful in our military mission in afghanistan, and 75% of likely voters now believe that the united states should not become militarily involved unless it is to protect the security of the united states homeland. given both the pastoral side and also the very overwhelming evidence that the likely american voter opposes military intervention, do you feel that this will alter rick santorum is decision on foreign-policy as we move forward?

>> the web understand his position is that the best way to avoid a war is to have a strong sense -- strong stance and strong defense that would make anyone reluctant to cross our interest. i don't think that is contradictory to a position against war. if everybody knows you are not going to go to war, you are probably going to invite trouble. >> we have time for a few more questions. one in the back. >> [unintelligible] >> that is a specific question i do not know the answer to. [applause] >> our next speaker is someone that is well known to all of us. center gary lambert, speaking on behalf of mitt romney. [applause]

>> thank you very much for having me here tonight. i understand that ann romney was supposed to speak to you, and i feel privileged to speak to you. i know most of you in the audience, and being an elected official, you speak to your audience. what i am about to say is not the kind of thing i would normally say to democrats and independents, because i know who you are. i know how lot of you think. >> remember we are on live tv.

>> i am here to convince you to vote for mitt romney. i know everybody out in this audience is very astute. they know the candidates' positions. i would like to get right to the point. i know how this movie is going to end. mitt romney is going to be the nominee. with all due respect to all my friends out there, that is going to happen. the way i look at it, the sooner we can get it over with. in the end, guess who we are after? we are after barack obama. we have got to beat him and save our resources and get to that point. mitt romney has the best round game, the most money, and the polls say he is going to win.

i know there are a lot of you out there that say the polls like. the polls are pretty good, and they say mitt romney has the best chance to beat barack obama. even a little guy like me, i ran a poll during my senate campaign and it came out right on the money, the way it came out in the election. they are really good at doing polling now. pete is a good friend of mine. the last time he picked a fantasy candidate -- i just talked to ron paul supporter today, a great guy. he even knew ron paul was going to lose. i think ron paul said he was going to lose or thought he was going to lose. i don't get it. this is not about picking a favorite, not about picking someone you like or even someone with your own beliefs and principles. this is about picking a person that can beat barack obama.

one of the main reasons i like mitt romney and support him, being a senator who won in a democratic district, the first republican in 94 years, i can appreciate i who can beat the democrats, and that is who you need to get out there and convert democrats to vote for you, and especially those independents. that is not the group we have in here. that would be a different route. he appeals to the independent voter and certain democrats. i am going to spare all of that and all the details, but i will take any questions you might have, if i can answer them. yes, sir. >> [unintelligible] you know lot of people in this room.

i was hoping for a little bit more than why everyone is going to vote for romney and the process is already decided. that is not what i think the primary is about. there is a vetting process, and as important as the result is is the process for getting to the result. i think you diminish that with your comments, and i found it offensive. [applause] >> i am sorry about that. i will be more than happy to spend a half-hour with you offline. i have a limited amount of time up here. i have to pick up my son at

basketball practice at 9:00. i understand, i apologize if i offended you or anyone else in any way, but i will tell you this, i expect most people are paying attention to the issues and have almost made up their mind. this was more or less a time to tell republicans why they should vote for romney. >> i think representative price also has some comments.

a.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. the united united states of ames the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known. and in no small measure, that's because we have built the best trained, best led, best equipped military in history. and as commander-in-chief i'm going to keep it that way. indeed, all of us on the stage, every single one of us, have a profound responsibility to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guard's men who put their life on the line for america. we owe them a strategy with well-defined goals, to only send them into harm's way when it's absolutely necessary, to give them the equipment and 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 solemn obligation. over the past three years that is what we have done. with continued to make historic investments in our military. our troops and their capabilities, our military families and our veterans. and thanks to their extraordinary service, we have ended our war in iraq. we have decimated al qae's leadership. weeliver justice to osama bin laden and we put that terrorist network on the path to defeat. we have made important progress in afghanistan and we have begun the transition so afghans can assume more responsibility for their ow security. we have joed allies and partners to protect the libyan people as they ended the regime of moammar gadhafi. now we are turning to page on a decade of war. three years ago, we had some 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. today we have gotthat number in

half. and as the transition in afghanistan continues, more of our troops will continue to come home. more broadly around the globe, we have strengthened alliances, forge new partnerships and served as a force for universal rights and human dignity. in short, we have succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of americans in harm's way and we have restored america's global leadership. that makes us safer and it makes us stronger,nd that's 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 naon once more to a moment of transition. even as our tros continue to fight in afghanistan, the tide of war is receding. even as our forces prevail in

day's missions, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to look ahead to the force that we are going to need in the future. at the same time we have to renew our economic strength here at home which is the foundation of our strength around the world, and that includes putting our fiscal house in order. to that end, the budget control act passed by congss last year with the support of republicans and democrats alike, mandates reductions in federal spending, including defense spending. i have insisted that we do that? responsibly. e security of our nation and in uniform depend on that is why iiñ?ñ? have called r this comprehensive defenseñññ?ñ? review, to clarify our strategic interest in a fast0sñ?ñ?ñ changg world and to guidehññ?ñ? our dee priorities in spending over the coming decade, because the size and the structure of our military and defense budgets

have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around. moreover we have to remember the lessons of history. we can't afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past after world war ii, after vietnam, when our military was left ill-prepared r the future. as commander-in-chief, i will not let that happen again, not on my watch. we need a start, we need a smart, strategic set of priorities. the new guidance that the defense department is releasing today does just that. i want to thanks secretary panetta and general dempsey for their extraordinary leadership during this process. i want to thank you the service secretaries and chiefs, the combatant commanders in so many fense leaders, military and civilian, active, guard and reserve, for their contributions. many of us met repeatedly asking

tough questions, challenging our own assumptions and making hard choices and we have come together today around an approach that will keep our nation safe and our military the nest that the world has ever known. this review also benefits from the contributions of leaders from across my national security team and from from the department of state, homeland security and veterans affairs as well as the intelligence community and this is crical because meeting the challenges of our time cannot be the work of our military alone or the united states alone. it requires all elements of our nation power working together concert with our allies and our partners. so i'm going to let leon and marty go into the details, but i just want to say that this effort reflects the guidance that i personally gave throughout this process. yes, the tide of war is receding but the question that this strategy answers is, what kind of military will we needong after the wars of the last

decade are over? and today, we are fortunate to be moving toward -- forward from a position of strength. we will be strengthening our presence in the asia-pacific and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critica region. we are going to continue investing in our critical partnerships and alliances including nato, which is demonstrated time and again, most recently in libya, that it's a force multiplier. we will stay vigilant, especially in the middle east. as we look beyond the wars in our back in afghanistan and thee end of lonterm nation-building with large military foot rents, we will able to ensure our security with smaller conventional groun forces. will continue to get rid of outdated cold war era system so that we can invest in the capabilities that we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and

reconnaissance, counterterrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to operate in envinments where adversaries try to deny us access. so yes our military will be lienor but the world must know the united states is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full rge of contingencies and threats. we are also going to keep faith with those who serve by making sure our troops have the equipment and capabilities they need to succeed and by prioritizing efforts that focus on wounded warriors, mental health, and the well-being of our military falies. and as our newest veterans rejoin civilian life, will keep working to give our veterans the care, the benefits and the job opportunities that they deserve and that they have earned.

finally, although today is about our defense strategy, i want to close with a word about the defense budget that will flow from this strategy. the details will be announced in the coming weeks. some will no doubt say that the spending reductions are too big. others will say that they are too small. it will be easy to take issue with a particular change in a particular program. but i would encourage all of us remember what president eisenhower once said, that each proposal has to be weighed in the light of a broader consideration, the need to maintain balance in and among national programs. after a decade of war and as we rebuild the source of our strength at home and abroad, it's time to restore that balance. i think it's 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 and the defense budget will slow but the fact of the matter is this, it will still grow because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. in fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the bush administration. and i firmly believe and i think the american people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secu with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined. so again i want t thanks secretary panetta, chairman dempsey, all the defense leaders who are on this stage, and some who are absent, for their leadership and their partnership throughout this process. our men and women in uniform give their very best to america every single day and in return, they deserve the very best from

america. and i thank all of you for the commitment to the goal that we all share, keeping america strong and secure ini-ñ?ñ?ñ thet century and keeping our armed forces the very best in the world. and with that i will turn this discussion over to leon and to marty, who can explain more and take your questions. so thank you very much. i understand this is the first time a president has done this. it's a pretty nice room. [laughter] thank you, guys. [inaudible conversations] take it easy, john.

[inaudible conversations] >> let me begin by thanking president obama for coming here to the pentagon this morning, and also in particular to thank him for his vision and guidance and leadership as this department went through a very intensive review that we under tech to try to develop the new strategic titans that we are releasing today. and in my experience, this has been an unprecedented process to have the president of the united states participate in

discussions involving the development of a defense strategy, and to spend time with our service chiefs and spend time with our combatant commanders to get their views. it surely unprecedented. this guidance that we are releasing today, and which has been distributed now throughout the department, it really does represent historic shift to the future. and it recognizes that this country is at a strategic training point -- turning point after a decade of war and after large increases in dense spending. as the president mentioned, the u.s. military's mission in iraq has now ended. we do have continued rug rats in afghanistan. it's tough, and it remains

challenging, but we are beginning to enable a transition to afghan security responsibility. the nato effort in libya has concluded with the fall of gadhafi. and targeted counterterrorism efforts have significantly weakened al qaeda and decimated its leadership. and now, as these events are occurring, and the congress has mandated by law that we achieve significant defense savings. so clearly, we are at a turning point. but even as our large-scale military campaigns receipt, the united states still faces complex and growing array of security challenges acss the globe. and unlike past drawdowns, when oftentimes the threats that the country was facing went away,

the fact is that they remain a number of challenges that we have to confront, challenges the call for reshaping of america's defense priorities. focusing on continuing threats 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 of this comes at a time when america current -- confronts a very serious deficit and debt trouble him here at home, a problem which is itself a national security risk that is squeezing both the defense and domestic buets. even as we face these

considerable pressures, including the requirement of the budget control act to reduce defense spending by what we have now as the number of $487 billion over 10 years, i do not believe, and i've said this before, 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 rigorous analysis, not by numbers alone. consequently, over the last few months, we have nducted an intensive review to try to guide

defense priorities in spending over the coming decade. all of this in light of the strategic titans that we have received in discussions with the president and the recommendations of this department, both senior military and civilian leadership. both of them provided those kinds of recommendations. this process has enabled us to assessisk, to set priorities and to make some very hard choices. let me be clear again. the department would need to make his cheesy chick -- strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation. we are at that point in history. that is the reality of the world we live in. fiscal crisis has forced us to face this strategic shift that is ting place now. as difficult as it may be to aceve the mandated defense savings, 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 deter aggression, to shape the security and byram and, and to decisively prevail in any conflict. from the beginning, i set out to ensure that the strategy review would be inclusive. chairman dempsey and i have frequently with department leaders, including our undersecretaries, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, the combatant commanders, our senior enlisted advisers. we also discussed the strategy and its implications obviously with the president, his national security advisers, with members of congress andith outside experts. there are four overarching principles that of guided our deliberations and i said this at the very beginning as we begin

this process. one, we must maintain the world's finest military, one that supports and sustains the unique global leadership role o the united states in today's world. two, we must avoid howling out the force. a smaller, ready and well-equipped military is much more preferable to a larger, ill-prepared force that has been arbitrarily cut across the board. third, 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, from industry and from it the biggest -- advocacy groups. that's the nature of making hard choices. four, we must preserve the quality of the all-volunteer force and not rake faith with the men and won in uniform or

their families. with these principles in mind, i will focus on some of the significant strategic choices and shifts that are being made. the united states military, let me be very clear about this, the united states military but remain capable across the spectrum. we will continue to conduct a complex set of missions ranging from counterterrorism, ranging from countering weapons of mass destruction, to maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. we will be fully prepared to protect our interests, defend our homeland 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 lienor. 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 are also rebalancing our global posture and presence, emphasizing the pacific and the middle east. these are the areas where wsee the greatest challenges for the future. the u.s. military will increase its institutional weight and focus on enhanced presence, power projection and deterrence 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 for instance, improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological adage and freedom of action. at the same time, the united states will play -- pce a premium in maintaini our military presence and capabilities in the outer middle east. the united states and their partners must remain capable of deterring and defeating aggression while supporting political progress and reform. third, the united states will continue to strengthen its key alliances, to build partnerships and to develop innovative ways to sustain u.s. presence elsewhere in the world. a long history of close political and military cooperation with our european allies and partners will be critical to addressing the challenges of the 21st

century. we will invest in a the shared capabilities and responsibilities of nato, are our most effective military alliance. th u.s. military's force posture in europe will, of necessity, continue to adapt and evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of security needs of the continent relative to the emerging strategic ironies that we face elsewhere. we are committed to sustaining a presence that will meet our article v commitments, deter aggression, and the u.s. military will work closely with our allies to allow for the kinds of coalition operations that nato has undertaken in libya and afghanistan. in latin america, africa, elsewhere in the world, we will will use innovative methods to

sustain u.s. presence, maintaining key military-to-military relations and pursuing new security partnerships as needed. wherever possible we will develop low cost and small foot rand approaches to achieving our secuty objectives, emphasizing rotational deployments, emphasizing exercises, military exercises, with these nations, and doing other innovative approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world. forth, as we shift the size and composition of our ground, air and naval forces, we must be capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing naturof warfare. our strategy review concluded that the united states must have

the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time. we are not confronting obviously the threats of the past. we are confronting the threats of the 21st century. and that demands greater flexibility to shift and deploy forces, to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere. how we did beat 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. as a global force, our military will never be doing only one thing. it will be responsible for a range of missions and activities across the globe of varying scope, duration and strategic

priority. this will place a premium on flexible and adaptable forces that can respond quickly and effectively to a 480 of contingencies and potential adversaries. again, that's an h. or of the world that we are dealing with. in addition to these forces, the united united states will emphasize building the capacity of our partne and allies to more effectively defend their own territory, their own interests, through a better use of diplomacy, development and security force assistance. in accordance with this construct, and with the end of u.s. military commitments in iraq, and the drawdown that is already underway in afghanistan, the army and marine corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large-scale, long-term stability operations that it dominated military

ironies and force generation over the past decade. lastly, as we reduce the overall defense budget, we will protect and in some cases increased our investments in special operations forces, in new technologies like isr and unmanned systems, inpace and in particular in cyberspace capabilities, and also our capacity to quickly mobilize if necessary. these investments will help the military retain and continue to refine and institutionalize the expertise and capabilities that have been gained at such great cost over the last decade. and most importantly, we will structure and pays the reductions in the nation's

ground forces in such a way that they can search, regenerate and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency. building in reversibility and the ability to quickly mobilize will be the key. that means re-examining the mix of elements in the active and reserve components. it mea maintaining a song national guard and reserve. it means retaining a healthy cadre of experienced ncos and midgrade officers and preserving the health and viability of the nation's defense industrial base. the strategic guidance that we are providing ishe first step in this department's goal to build the joint force of 2020, a. a4 sized and shaped

differently than the military of the cold war, the post-cold war force of the 1990s, or the force that was built over the past decade to engage in large-scale ground wars. 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 capabilitie that we believe no longer are a top rider eddie. but in other cases, we will invest in new capabilities to maintain a decisive military adage against the growing array of threats. there is no question, there is no question that we have to make some trade-offs and that we will be taking, as a result of that,

some level of additional but acceptable risk in the budget plan that we release 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 tip click it if operations -- duplicative operations but budget operations will inevitably impact the size and capabilities of our military. and as i have said before, true national security cannot be achieved through a strong military alone. it require strong diplomacy. it require strg intelligence efforts. and above all, it requires a strong economy, fiscal discipline and effective government.

the capability, readiness 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, in particular he be arbitrary, across-the-board cuts that are currently scheduled to take effect in january of 2013 through the mechanism of sequester. that would force us to shed missions and commitments and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect core u.s. national security interests. and it would result in what we think would be a demoralized and hollow force. that is not something that we intend to do. and finally, i'd like to also address our men and women in uniform and the civilian employees who support them, who i know have been watching the

budget debates here in washington 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 have put your lives on the line, and you have fought to make our country safer and stronger. i believe the strategic guidance honors your sacrifice and strengthens the country by building a force equipped to deal with the future. i have no higher responsibility than fighting to protect you and to protect your families. and just as you have fought and bled to protect our country, i mmit to you that i will fight for you and for yo families. there is no doubt that the fiscal situation ts country faces is difficult, and in many

it many ways we are at a crisis crisis.. but i believe that 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 century that can win today's rs and successfully confront any enemy and respond to any threat and any challenge of the future. our responsibility, i 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. as chairman, it's my responsibility to work with the joint chiefs to ensure that the armed forces of the united states keeps america immune from coercion. the strategy just described by the present and the secretary of defense enables us to fulfill 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 deeply collaborative process. we sought out into the key insights from within and from outside the department of defense to include from the intelligence community and other governmental departments. we wait facts and assessments. we challenged every assumption. we considered a wide range of recommendations and counter arguments. i can assure you that the steps we have taken to arrive at this strategy in false all of this and watch more.

this strategy also benefited from an exceptional amount of attention by our senior military and civilian leadership. on multiple occasions, we held all day and multi-day discussions with service chiefs and combatant commanders. the service chiefs, who are chged with developing the force for this strategy, were heard early and often. the combatant commanders, charged with executing the strategy, all weighed in time and time again. and we were all afforded extraordinary access to both the president and the secretary of defense. frankly the breadth and depth of dialogue to arrive at today strategic choices was both necessary and not worth the. today we are here t discuss the broad contours and the central choices of the strategy but this is not the end. rather, it's a waypoint in a continuous and deliberate process to develop the joint force for 2020 that the secretary just described.

therefore budget cycles between now and then. each of these cycles presents an opportity to adjust how and what we do to achieve this strategy in the face of new threats, and the context of the changing security environment. is a sound strategy. it ensures we remain the preeminent military in the world. it preserveshe talent of the all-volunteer force. it takes into account the lessons of the last 10 years of war. it acknowledge is the imperative of a global, networked and full spectrum joint force. and it responds to the new fiscal environment, though it's a learning organization it's important to note that even if we didn't have fewer resources, we would expect to change. as a consequence it calls for renovation, for new ways of operating and partnering. it balances our focus by region and mission. it makes important investments as the sex -- secretary noted in

emerging and pven capabilities like cyberand special operations. now there has been much made and i'm sure will be made about whether the strategy moves away from a force structure explicitly designed to fight and win two wars simultaneously. fundentally, our strategy has always been about our ability to respond to global contingencies wherever and whenever they occur. this won't change. we will always provide a range of options for our nation. we can and will always be able to do more than one thing at a time. more importantly, wherever we are confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win. we do acce some risk in the strategy is all strategies must. because we will be somewhat smaller, these risks will be measured in time and incapacity. however, we shld be honest. we could face even greater risks if we do not change from our cuent approach. i am pleased with the outcome. it's not perfect. there will be people who think it goes too far.

others will say it didn't go nearly far enough. that probably makes it about right for today. to its ishat we need in this world and within this budget to provide the best posble defense for our nation at a time of great transition. it prepares us for what we anticipate we will need in 2020. this is a real strategy. represents real choices and i'm here today to assure you that it has real buy-in among our senior military and civilian leadership. this is not the strategy of the military in decline. this is a strategy, and a joint force, on which the nation can depend. i want to wrap up by saying just a couple of words about leadership. it's always important but it's absolutely essential during tough times. and make no mistake, these are tough economic times. in the strategy required some tough decisions. i want to thank you president obama and secretary panetta for obama and secretary panetta for their leadership throughout this

process. the real test though will be in execution. fortunately the young men and women who will be charged to carry out the lion's share of the strategy know something about leadership too. it's the very cornerstone of our profession, the profession of arms. and for the past 10 years they have done nothing but lead under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. and it's for that reason, above all others, that i am absolutely convinced and fully satisfied that the strategy will meet our nation's needs for the future. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, mr. secretary. press, we will have a chance for a few questions here with the secretary and the chairman and i'll feel those. field those. following that, the process here has been led by the deputy secretary of defense, the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the under-secretary of defense for policy, all of whom are here. they will then, and be able to answer quite a number of

questions in depth. so why don't we start on questions on strategic guidance. >> mr. secretary, this document says and the president himself said when he was here that the military will get smaller. the questions, h much smaller? how ch we propose to cut the army and the marine corps and over what period? and also this document says the u. military presence in europe will quote if all. is that another way of saying that it will get cut? >> well, as we have said in the policy statement, and the president referred to it and i referred to it and marty referred to it as well, we are going to have a smaller and lienor force. what those numbers are will be part of the budget that will be presented by the president and at that time obviously we will deal with those final decisions as to the exact siz but there is no question that,

look, under any circumstances we were looking at a drawdown as a result of the end of the war, and hopefully the end of the transition in afghanistan. but budget constraints requid that come, in addition to that, we have to develop a smaller and lienor force, but one that has to be more agile, flexible, innovative and creative. with regard to europe, we will maintain our commitments with eupe. we will maintain our article v requirements. we will be able to deter aggression. we want to build our partnerships there. and one of the things that we have made clear with them is not, you know, not only are we going to continue our commitments there, but we are going to develop the kind of innovative residents that we think will make clear to europe

and to those that have been our strong allies over the past, that we remain committed to protecting them. >> could i elaborate on the european one, sir? the strategy talks abouher shifted the future, and all of the trends, demographic trends, opolitical trends, economic trends and military trends are shifting toward the pacific. so our strategic challenges in the future will largely emanate out of the pacific region. and also the indian ocean for that matter but the point is, so our strategic challenges are shifting and we have to pay attention to those shifts but what we will always be build on the strong foundation of our traditional strategic partnerships and nato is chief among them. this is not a separation in any way from nato and we are in dialogue and will be dialogue with them. >> david. >> mr. secretary i wonder if you could square a statement you made in your remarks.

we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time. with the guidance, which pretty clearly states that you will have the capability to fight one regional conflict and what would essentially be a holding action in aecond regional conflict. are those twconsistent? >> you know, i think that the structure for king defense decisions, looking at past as well as the present, has always been canned the united states confront enees, aggressors, more tha one, and be able to defeat them. that is the key question. whatever strategic formula you use, that remains the fundamental question, can we confront and defeat any enemy that faces us? and the answer to that question is, with a joint force that we are creating here, we can. we can confront than one enemy

at a time. the nature of warfare today is at, as you engage, you have to look at how you do it, what forces do you choose to be able to confront that enemy, what exactly is involved? the reality is he could face a land war in korea and at the same time-based threats in the raits of hormuz. we have the capability with this joint force, to deal with those kinds of threats, to be able to confront them and to be able to win. that is what counts. >> the past 10 years in iraq and afghanistan, that you cannot fight to defeat an enemy into theaters at the same time? >> well, i think the bottom-line of what we are seeing happening is that we have just ended the mission in iraq and we are in the process of ending a mission in afghanistan. i think our view is that we have achieved those missions and we are in the process of achieving

those missions. >> mr. secretary? >> mr. secretary, the president said that you're going to be getting rid of outdated cold war systems. can you give us any sense for what he was talking about there? what types of systems? >> well, again, the budget drop here at the end of the month will illuminate programs that have been adjusted orerminated and others that have been reinforced. i think what the president had in mind, at least what i believe he had in mind, is that there are -- back to the question about can we do two wa? that to work paradigm has been a bit of an anchor frankly and trying to help us figure out the future. and it's not about whethere will fight adversaries as they confront us. is how. so, to thread those two questions together, your question about what a the outdated systems and process in

programs, that is the wo that we have been doing and must continue to do to determine the how was it without tying ourselves to a paradigm that frankly is a residual of the cold war. >> mr. secretary will efficiency reduce your personnel costs when you have taken an honest look at what you spend per man in the military, or honestly are you going to have to look at reducing retirement benefits for active servicemembers to pay more for their health care? >> again, the specifics will be provided in the president's budget that hopefully will be released in the next two to three weeks. soon after after the president's state of the union address. ..

and look at all of those areas, the tremendous cost associated with those areas. you ought to make sure the weapons we select to met the needs of the defense force that we are building. that's the key. but clearly that's another area that was reviewed. thirdly, the area of compensation. that has been an area that is increased in terms of cost. we want to maintain the quality of benefits that flowed richardson to their families.

that is a key breadline for us. we are going to maintain those. at the same time we have a responsibility to control costs in those areas as well and that is part of what we present part of our budget. lastly, for structure reductions. all of those pieces are part of the budget and you'll see the decisions associated with that when the budget is revealed. >> wait time for tumor questions. bill. >> first thought, what is the reaction he'd been getting from congress on this plan? on the issue sequester, the sacrifices the military is making downsizing, will that be enough to kind of sound enough alarms to sell sequester reducing some other actions will need to be taken? what the military has to get more between now an the end of the year? >> i have made it a point -- we have automated a point to stay in cse consultation with the members of congress that we do

it on the key committees up there. and i spent time sitting down with their members, briefing them on discussions we've had increased demand on the defense strategy. i briefed the chairman yesterday as well and the nking members with regards to the strategy we are working on. i think all of them wreck is the challenge we are facing. i let them recognize how tough these decisions are. but i think all of them also recognize that we can do this in a way that protects our national defense and establishes a defense force for the future. so i am confident that as we work through this and ultimately as we reveal the decisions on the budget that reflect the policy we are putting out here, that they are going to be members that will clearly not support, those decisions.

i mean, that is the ature, and making hard. i think overall because we base this on strategy, because we base this on a policy of saying this is a kind of defense for a screwup for the future, i think that within that framework, if we cannot stick to that and if we cannot use that as the basis and foundation for the debate that's going to take place, i am confident that ultimately congress will support were trying to do. >> let me follow-up on what david martin jay said. the strategy talks about moving away from potentially fighting to land were simultaneously. he mentioned the tension in the persian gulf. clearly iranians know they are fighting a ground war until 2014. are you saying within a strategy that fighting a land where within the persian gulf in iran, for instance, is off the table with the new strategy?

>> i want to make sure i get a shot at this one because this is secretary of defense gates said were never going to find another landlord. at the west point class of 2014 at my doorstep. we are global power and we have to deal conduct military at tvs and introductions out that the full spec. nody has said and know where this document doesn't say we're not going to fight and worse. it doesn't say what the stability operations. it says we hve to be capable of conducting operaons across the spectrum. if it matters go up and scale, time, risk, reversibility and those are the issues we continue to work as we work on this living document. but it would be really a mistake to suggest or for you to walk away with the impression or anyone to walk away with the impression that we are acquainted nitsch ourselves to something on the the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> what message do you have for a man >> what message do you have for a man >> what message do you have for a man >> what message do you have for a man we expect them to be a responsible member of the community of nations, not deny freedom of navigation, freedom of movement, freedom of access. and we are determined they will acquire nuclear weapons. >> the conversation on one thing you just said. you're committed to maintaining the quality that seems to leave room to reduce the quantity of benefits. specifically, will they be cuts in future benefits for our armed forces? >> and again, that is something that we will present as part of the president's budget. i want to make very clear that we are going to protect the quality. we are going to protect the benefits that are provided to our troo and to their

families. at the same time it's a set, we have some responsibility to try to control costs in this area. i think the troops understand how it got to control those costs. but when it comes to their basic benefits, when it comes to retirement benefits for those who have served, when it comes to the benefits they provide their families, we are going to continue to provide that. the >> thank you very much. >> folks, it will be about seven or eight minutes slowly sat at been in the deputy secretary,, the vice chairman and the undersecquestions. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. >> folks, i think you know who

is going to be speaking. this is on the record, deputy secretary of defense, ash carter for the joint chiefs of staff chain would of thought and the undersecretary of policy and deputy secretary carter will begin and field questions. >> good afternoon. is this mike on? well, we are here to answer your questions. and let me start things off by anticipating the question i'm sure you're going to ask, which is what is new here? and let me just touch on the main points in the circumstances that led to this guidance is the secretary said and the chairman said the pivotal moment we find ourselves in. where we would need to take a thorough and careful look at our

defense, even if we didn't have a budget crunch. and then of course, we do have a budget crunch, with them at second reason of the review that has been -- that is led to the strategic guidance. what is new in the strategic guidance to set clear priorities that sets for us as we finalize the budget. quite ugly, strategic guidance is the comp is restrict the budget review leading to the president's budget for fiscal year 13 in the years thereafter that will be released in a few weeks after final decisions have been made. what's new specifically in the strategic advances first, to rebalance our force structure and investment towards the asia-pacific area, where there asia-pacific area, where there are several potential challenges to stability in the middle east were challenges persist. and towards advanced capabilities to maintain access and power projection, which are relevant globally.

second, to take a different approach to foresight and structure. obviously our forces will be somewhat mahler under a smaller budget. but what is important is their shape and the guidance tells us two additional ways to change the shape. for one thing, we will not retain force structure in the crown forces for large and prolong stability operations such as have been required in iraq and afghanistan. this does not mean abandoning coin or any such thing. but we do not see the u.s. conducting such operations on itself and is likely in the future and in any of that we will preserve the know-how and capability to regenerate forces have such a need is a rice. wherever we can, we are making provision for such reversibility as we call it for readjustment and our plans.

and as chairman dempsey said, we are at the beginning of what may be -- which will be a mintier transition in an uncertain world. next, while our forces close to be capable of prevailing in more than one conflict at the same time, i want to make clear this is not changing. we are continuing to evolve our approach to this capability since the nature of those conflicts has changed, since we will be able to apply to them in dance and agile new kinds of forces and in some cases we can best meet our objectives and today the aggressors object is in ways other than by land invasion and occupation. and third, will obviously many parts of our budget will have to suffer deep cut, this guidance tells us to preserve investments and even in some cases increase their capabilities in key areas that are clearly important to the future. special forces and counterterrorism, counter

weapons of mass destruction, building partner capacity, sniper, and aspects of our science and technology investments, making sure we don't simply referred to yesterday's pre-9/11 for structure under the pressure of budget cuts. and importantly, click to add that this includes critical investments and waited for your care and other aspects of taking care of troops to the heart of our whole defense. so that is a recap of the main points of the guidance. and now your questions. what i will do is recognize questioners. >> i'd like to say with what you were just talking about with coin. the u.s. didn't choose either the two counterinsurgency battles that just had in afghanistan or iraq. assigned itself in situations where those taxes are needed. why is what you are proposing out different from what the military did after vietnam, where pushed a lot of the coin

sort of resources to the reserves then focused on, you know, major combat operations? it seems -- why are you -- it seems that the military is turning back on the ghost of a certain degree. how can you be sure that you're not going to beat them? the >> no, it's different in two respects. first, we are careful to preserve the know-how and some specialized capabilities that have proven so useful and that we have learned so much about over the last 10 years. we are not retained in the large force structure necessary to sustain long large-scale stability operations. and that doesn't mean we can't regenerate them if we need them in time to conduct such operations in the future that becomes necessary. it's about forces and be. and we do not need to keep forces in being of that kind on

the scale in which we've used them over the last two decades. so we are going to keep the tradecraft in the options reconstitute, but we are not going to keep the large for structure in being. >> banks. i want to clarify something the president said about the topline. i think i heard him correctly and saying the budget may actually go out. and if that is, is adjusted for inflation? is the number will see? may soon as the toppling of the base budget. >> as the topline and the base budget, yeah. >> real or for an inflation-adjusted numbers? >> in nominal dollars. >> so i think it's a fair question to ask, why is 450 plus cats now on the table are as far as you think you can go. the secretary said anything about that can be disastrous. >> $489 billion is almost half a

trillion dollars is the amount that we need to take out of our plans over the next 10 years. about 263 at the next five years. and that is your just attacking about the base budget, that is on top of a reduction in the overseas contingency operation. you put those two things together and you have over the next four years a reduction in total defense spending as rapid as any we experienced after vietnam or after the cold war. now, that is natural because these wars are coming to an end and so far 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'll see in two and a half weeks when we describe the

budget plans that we've had to make with that reality how significant those changes and significant those changes and plans are. and we couldn't do that responsibly without the kind of guidance that we got from the president and the secretary and the chairman. >> secretary carter, just to follow-up on that line of questioning, do you think that what you prepared now and the strategic review in the budget that comes behind it will be unmasked to convince congress to act to avoid the sequester -- the sequestration that penny mike and damocles over. >> my view and i'll ask michelle to comment on this also, but my view is that when members of congress, we knew, when citizens see the magnitude of the task

that we've had to undertake to meet the $487 billion target, you'll understand why we gave the harsh warnings we do about sequestration. we are going very, very far with $489 million. as the secretary said, we are looking at things that we haven't had to look at in this department for a decade. he has made us put everything on he has made us put everything on the table and undergo a very thorough process. we've undergone the strategy exercise first so he wouldn't make her budget changes without having a strategy behind them and the strategic insight behind them. so when you see with $489 billion is, people are going to easily understand why sequester it be so disastrous. >> outages that the secretaries

repeatedly used the phrase hard but manageable choices. when we rode up the budget details, you'll understand the heart part because there's a lot of hard choices, both in terms of trade-offs ima but also in terms of people stepping up to the plate and making test political decisions to do the right thing for the nation's defense. every strategy does have grass on tran risks. we think we've managed this with the risks are acceptable, but there is a point if you went too far down the road of further cuts, testing and would no longer be true and it frankly have to go back to the drawing board to rethink our strategy in new in order to manage additional reductions in additional risk. >> if i could add one thing. i think one thing that is important to point out and the reason why we are doing this the way we are today. that is a dissolve them a

strategy. sometimes the behavior of the department would have to take a study that has been to simply had a proportional cut, look and see what services come back with and try to build a strategy out of the ashes. in this case, if you pardon the pun -- in this case the chosen delivery to you to assess the geopolitical environment, what kind technical changes in how kind technical changes in how warfare is changing the 21st century average is clearly changing has crafted a strategy that can guide her budget decisions and that's what you see in three weeks. that is a terribly important cultural change for the department. >> can you talk about where the f-35 and the most important bits in a strategy and does this justify keeping the quantities at the 2500 plus quantities of aircraft. and if ever questioned, in the pacific to envision setting up an adaptive approach for missile defense comparable to what it has set up in the middle east over the next couple years --

over the last couple years? >> tony, i will say the question on the joint strike fighter for a couple weeks. i will just give you a general answer about a strategic -- strategically as we've said many times about the joint strike fighter. we wanted. we wanted to succeed. that is why we are working so intensively on advantage early. but as you ask about any particular program or any particular dvd, i take you back to the point that sandy winfield just made. but the strategy has told us this areas where retail want to cut, where we want to preserve capabilities and words that we went to increased capabilities like sabre. we don't want to just give everything a haircut. that means that some other areas that are not emphasized in the priority, and the strategy for going to have to take more than their share of these guys. so the things that are part of the future take less than their

share of the cuts. that is why having the strategy has been so valuable to us because we haven't wanted to go right across the board. >> as the president's announcement that australia made clear, we continue to evolve our presence in posture in the asia-pacific region, both to do with challenges emerging and opportunities. we are the have very robust cooperation on ballistic missile defense development with our japanese partners. there's partners in research and development of systems with us. and we continue to discuss ballistic missile defense with various partners and allies they are. i think this is an evolving conversation. i don't think there is a concrete set of plans that define an endpoint at this point. but it is a matter of discussion with our allies and we will continue to work with them on these issues. >> to ask you about the nuclear

arsenal, is it possible that schools can be achieved with the smaller nuclear courts. smaller nuclear courts. could you elaborate on that? whether the department was preserved? >> sure you can. i'm going to ask michelle. >> so, the strategy is very clear that we will continue to clear that we will continue to field a safe and secure and affect it deterrent and that we will continue to modernize when we capitalize as necessary. i do think it is better judgment that we can maintain deterrence at lower levels, but i will do for any discussion of specific programmatic details to the budget when it rolls out. >> can we expect to hear more of that when the budget rolls out? >> i want to ask a question about coin in the next got another question as well. but specifically the coin insurgency forces, is that just relative to forces?

be built small air force us to do the isr that it hoped out point. do we expect to keep those? to retire those clicks in a good question. and the remarks i've made that were mostly oriented towards ground forces. you are right there a lot of capabilities that were developed over the course of the last decade to reflect modern type allergy in modern warfare, not just coin warfare, that we want to make part of our -- of the future. so when i talked about this -- we're not going to keep the large force structure and being, but the critical skills come in the critical enablers, the novel thing for over the last day kate has taught us, keep included on force structure. you'll see examples of that one in a couple weeks, deliberate ones will rebuild and some of the things you see ads on iraq and see in afghanistan and

describing are deciding how they will fit into the force structure in the long run. let me ask anders winnefeld to add to that. >> we learned a lot over the last couple years and they suicides in iraq and afghanistan. it's sometimes important to to keep the between calling and counterterrorism. purdue enough a lot of counterterrorism work using those tools. an interesting thing for me has been that a lot of what we have learned in the coin business transcends to coin business and is applicable to a lot of other things who could find yourselves doing in the world. by the same token, a lot a lot of the things we've built and added to and it's not just isr platforms and approaches to warfare and the like are applicable to other forms of warfare as well. so we're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. we will take the lessons and technologies to develop over the next 10 years and apply to the future. >> my second question on reversibility was strung out

there with regards to being able to reverse her forces might be. it also seems to such an industrial base. >> is a couple different dimensions. reversibility means as we make these momentous changes, this $487 billion worth of changes, they are causing us a necessity to have to stop certain things, paused certain things, slow down certain things. and in each case, to the extent we can do so, preserve the ability to change course. server example in the ground forces, as we reduce ground forces, we will do that in such that in such a way to keep the mid grade officers that would be necessary to support a larger force in the future if we decided to reverse course. now, we can't afford to do that comprehensively, but we can afford to do some of that industrial base, same thing.

as we make program changes, we want to make sure that 10 years, 15 years from now we still have an industrial base to support their key weapon systems, even if were not able to abide in this areas that the race or in the volume that we had planned the war we were handed this $487 billion cut. another example, science and knowledge and innovation because that is the seed corn of the future. i want to make sure we don't eat the seed corn. reversibility is the concept reviews to remind ourselves that we want to act in such a way that to the extent we can with the $487 million cut, preserve options for the future. >> bicolor focus on reversibility, avoiding departmental hubris because it's entirely possible. secretary gates was fond of pointing this out that we could get this wrong. we will remain alert as progressives, as the chairman

referred to the four budget cycles going to 2020 and we will be alert to the need to either change course or shift course a little as the world shifts beyond our control in many ways. we have to make very difficult choices of $487 billion of cuts and we think we've got a pretty good pathway forward that would allow us to change course. >> let me take about two more questions. serve. >> secretary cannot imagine they would need to use innovative matters in latin america and africa. does this mean in any way smaller footprint and could you elaborate about this innovation innovation -- >> if you don't mind, i have a lot to say on that. >> the truth is in the last 10 years we been so focused in iraq and afghanistan, there hasn't been a lot of a lot of forces available in some of these other areas to be available for areas to be available for engagement and so forth.

that site, that has forced us to pioneer severely antiquated approaches. the use of small teams to the sof team to build cartner capacity on a rotational basis. a very strategic use standard theater engagement, exercises a foreign military souls, foreign military assistance and so forth. some of the work that has come out of that we are going to continue to apply the insights and innovative approaches to ensure even as he put an emphasis on asia and the middle east, we are not been in every other reach the world. we are going to stay engaged, keep investing in relationships and keep investing in building the partner capacity in those nations. but we are going to do it in creative and different ways. >> and i would tell on that and we've invested a lot in our special operations forces may be

doing remarkable work. the lion share what they've been doing has been contributing to the coin type. the head element than they are very, very tight to that. he's a very agile and flexible forces. small units as michelle pointed out, that are also good at working with partners. and as the waters start to draw down, afghanistan coming down, we'll retain forces and leverage them into other missions to include the types of things you asked about that could include working with our donations and other comments. i would also point out another example of the innovation. there's this program called the state partnership program that the national guard has. the national guard has. ..

we are obviously will have less modernization than if we had $457 billion more. we figure out where to focus that to best strategic effect. that is the value of asking this document. you see where we invest and how intensively we invest is shaped by this. that just gets back to the

same point sandy made earlier, this is not a haircut. we're trying to change the shape and not just the size of each and every piece of our budget activity. with that, let me thank you all for being here. [inaudible]

the united states will emphasize blding 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 suppt the kind of large-scale stability operations that have dominated military priorities over the past decade.

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 quicklyobilized 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. most importantly, we will structure the reductions in the nation's ground forces in such a

way that they can search -- surge, regenerate and mobilize in response to any contingency. the ability to quickly mobilize will be key. that means re-examining the mix of elements in active and reserve components. it means maintaining a strong national guard and reserves. it means retaining a healthy cadre of officers and the nation's defense industrial base. the strategic guidance we are providing is the first step in this department's goal to build a joint first for 2020, a force shaped differently from the

military of the cold war, post- cold war force of the 1990's, and the force that was built over the past decade to engage in the large-scale ground wars. this strategy and vision will guide to be 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 are no longer a top priority 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 will have to make some trade- fs. we will be taking some level of

additional, but acceptable risk in the budget plan we released next month. these are not easy choices. we will continue aggressive waste, to week ouweed out consolidate our duplicate its operations. budget reductions of this magnitude will impact the size and capabilities of our military. as i said before, trued national security cannot be achieved through strong military alone. it requires strong diplomacy. it requires strong intelligence efforts. it requires a strong economy, fiscal discipline, and effective government. the capability readiness and

agility of the course will not be sustained if congress fails to do its duty and t military is forced to accept far deeper cuts, in particular be arbitrary, across the board cuts that are seduled to take effect in january of 2013 through the mechanism of a sequester. that would force us to shed missions, commitment, and capabilities we believe are necessary to protect core u.s. national security interests. it wl result in what we think will be a demoralized and hollow force. it is not something we intend to do. finally, i would like to also address our men and women in uniform and the civilian employees who support them. i know they have been watching the budget debates here in washington 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 have put your lives on the line and you have fought to make our country safer and stronger. i believe the strategic guidance honors your sacrifice and strained his the country by building a force equipped to deal with the future. i have no higher response ability than fighting to protect you and to protect your families. just as you have -- just as you have fought and bled to protect our country, i commit ou that i will fight for you and for your families. there is no doubt that the fiscal situation this country faces is difficult. in many ways, we are at a crisis

point. i believe in evy 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 century that can win today's wars and successfully confront any enemy and respond to any threat and in the challenge for the future. our responsibility, my responsibility as secretary of defense, is to protect the nation's security and to keep erica safe. with this joint force, i am confident that we can effectively be thinned the united states of america. thank you. the-successfully defend -- nine successfully --

successfully defend the united states of america. thank you. >> it is my responsibility to keep america immune from coercion. the strategy described by the secretary of defense enables us to complete that responsibility. this strategy emerges from a deeply collaborative process. we took insights from within and outside the department of defense from the intelligence community an other governmental departments. we challenged every assumption. we considered a wide range of recommendations and counter argument. the steps we have taken to arrive at this strategy involved all of this and much more. the strategy also benefited from an exceptional amount of

attention from our senior military a civilian leadership. on multiple occasions we held all day and multi-day discussions with service chiefs. the service chiefs are challenged with developing the strategy. they were hurt early and often. the commanders charged with executing the strategy weighed in time and time again. we were afforded extraordinary access to the president and the secretary of defense. the breath of dialogue to arrive at today's strategic forces were necessary and noteworthy. this is not the e. it is a point to develop that a joint force for 2020 that the secretary just described. there are four budget cycles.

each of these present an opportunity to address how and what we do to achieve this new strategy in the face of new threats in the context of a new security environment. it ensures we remain the preeminent military in the world. it preserves the talent of the all volunteer force. it takes into account the

.

. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i put my record on the -- >> like what you're doing. >> thank you.

i put my record on -- governor romney's record on tax reform is not strong. we abandon poland by now deploying the missiles. thank you so much.

>> are you taking questions? senator, are you taking questions? i guess not since you're totally ignoring me.

>> by giving the money, we cut out the middle man. they don't give a dollar per dollar -- >> i'm not so sure they should. i don't think that is the best way to do it. handsome guy.

how are you, little buddy? you want your ball back? there you go. >> thank you. >> should i bother everybody else back here? how are you? nice to see you. thank you. hello, young lady. how are you? how are you? >> i'm doing great. >> how do you keep costs of health care down and make it affordable? >> you have got to involve the consumer. that is the most important

thing. right now the consumer is separated from the health care system. that's reason health care costs continue to rise. you have a $700 fender bernd and your insurance covers the first $500. do you turn it in? >> no. >> you tern in every single claim. that's the problem. >> right now, if you to have insurance and move from insurance to insurance, they can't deny you -- they have to cover my daughter who has a condition because the law says

if you have insurance, we should exand if law to say if you have any insurance, not just group but individual insurance. that's one change we need to make. obama says if you don't have insurance, they have to cover you. we are waiting for the mandate to go into effect. the reason is if you have a policy that says a program that says you have to cover anybody whether they have insurance or not, whether it is pre-existing condition, what are people going to do? they are going wait until they get -- by insurance. every young person is going to say why am i buying insurance? you to create an incentive to go out and buy insurance so when you come off your parents policy, as long as you do that, they will never hit you with the

pre-existing condition applause because you came off your parents' policy and you're sured going from one insurance to another. -- insured. >> what's your --? >> the united states senate should shut down until -- >> hi, lew? good to see you. >> i'm just going come right back. how are you? how old are you? very nice to meet you. >> thank you.

how are you? how are you? this is my wife. >> how are you? nice to meet you. >> thank you.

>> checking it out. >> working. >> i'm an actual voter. >> nice to meet you. >> i ask that those of you who wish to represent listen to the voice of the 99%. i'll do my best. i'm going listen to 100%. hi, how are you? >> pleasure to meet you. i've been following you since 1994. i have a good question for you and it is about executive experience. i haven't really heard a lot about your experience. well, it is really leadership experience. if you look at my experience on the armed services committee and national security measures, i

have more experience than anybody to be commander in chief. it is a unique set of principles. you don't get that from a corporate board room. >> i'll definitely agree with you there. >> what is the principle role of the president? >> protecting our borders. >> if you're looking for what the -- the experience that matters, i've got more experience than all of these folks. it scares me when people say i have got the business experience. the president of the united states doesn't run the economy. the president of the united states runs the military and our national security policy and has some impact on the economy but not as the leader. it is the congress that passes all the legislation dealing with the economy and what your job is to not like a c.e.o. order the -- no president ordered me when i was in the senate to vote for one thing or the other. you have to persuade. a c.e.o. is not a persuader.

look at my job record. what i've been able to accomplish, persuading people to be able to come to my position. i love these people talking about executive experience. look at the experience i have. the role of the president is different than the c.e.o. the commander this chief, the role that the president has in the economy, i stack up much better than anybody else. >> you'll protect our border? >> yes. how are you? how are you? >> hi. >> nice to see both of you. thank you. is everything going well? >> doing great. appreciate your help. >> thank you. >> thank you for espning the time. doing hard work. >> you bet. >> got it? there you go. >> are you as strong -- do you

see yourself as strong as michele bachmann was on getting rid of obamacare? she painted herself as the only -- >> i even put forward details how i was going to do that. she didn't even do that. i would not be in this race if it wasn't for obamacare. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we're going to be doing that next week. we have -- we're heading to south carolina. >> nice to meet you.

>> good luck to you and god bless. >> hello. >> hi. >> how are you? >> how are you? >> good. how are you guys doing? >> good. >> nice to meet you, sir. >> appreciate your help. can i get my picture with you? >> absolutely. >> everybody get your -- got it? even better. >> that came out beautiful. >> thank you. great to see you. appreciate your help.

>> how are you? >> you know what my economic plan is? made in the u.s.a. >> what about santorum .

what about santorum ? >> thank you. >> thanks for being here.

>> this gentleman here. take a couple if you don't mind. >> i will. >> she is holding me up. >> got it? >> that was a good one. thank you very much. >> nice to meet you. >> you too. >> enjoy your lunch. >> thank you very much. >> did you want to be in a

picture? >> sure. >> thank you. good luck. >> hi. trying to sneak in. >> one, two, three. >> got it? >> trying. thank you very much.

>> what's the biggest difference so far between iowa and new hampshire? >> do you think you'll keep it going all the way through? >> we're getting great crowds. a lot of enthusiasm. they are excited that i'm here

and they are supportive and that's about all you can ask for reform >> any thoughts on how you will fare on the primary? >> we have a long, long haul. we need to show momentum that we're moving up. the higher we go, the better we're off. >> there we go.

>> senator, everybody talks about jobs being the number one issue. what are you going to do to restore manufacturing in this country or can it be restored? >> it absolutely can. right now america is 20% more expensive to do business in america, manufacture-wise. excluding labor cost. government regulation, taxation, what i've done is looked a that and say what can we do to level that playing field? i don't want to reduce our labor. i want good manufacturing jobs in this country, but we have to get rid of the competitive disadvantage we have with our nine top trading partners. eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing. if you want to take money if you left this country if, you bring that money backing you will not

have to pay it back. we limb nat all regulation that are going -- limb eliminate all regulation. based on phony -- doctored, phony studies, statifpks and studies. -- statistics and studies. regulation, energy costs, cost of capital and, you know, lowering taxes. we eliminate that 20% deficit and create millions of jobs in places that have been hurting in this economy, which are mall towns, manufacturing towns. spread as you might guess all throughout america but

particularly in some pretty important states, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan. people say you're just doing it for political purposes. no, i'm doing it because that's where i grew up. i grew up in pennsylvania. most of my friends' dads worked in the mills. it is one of the reasons for small town america, where they have been struggling and we need to turn that around. >> how is your fundraising today? >> it was amazing. we had a great day yesterday. we sent out a lot of emails and asked people to help us the day after -- >> the small contribution? >> i think we had well over 10,000 new donors so it was pretty amazing. >> your thoughts on --

>> appreciate your help. >> thank you very much. thank you.

thank you so much. >> thank you for coming. glad to meet you. nice to meet you. thank you. >> c-span's road to the white house coverage of politics takes you on the campaign trail with the candidates. >> how are you doing? great to see you. . thanks for being here. >> how are you going to get past the stalemate with -- >> watch c-span television and on our website c-span.org. >> ♪ >> i know president obama came into office talking about procurement reform. everybody leans on the defense industry and the military to neck down and people leave out to one part that is going to make the difference, which is lawmakers. go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs in your district. right, that's how that falls.

that's where it always stops. >> as editor of military.com, he provides 10 million members with news, information and support. sunday we'll discuss how american tax dollars are spent on the tax department at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q & a". >> g.o.p presidential candidate newt gingrich's last campaign stop on thursday was in meredith, new hampshire, for a tea party-sponsored town hall meeting. this is an hour and a half. >> good evening, everybody. great crowd. great turnout. i want to thank you for coming tonight. i'm one of the leaders of the tea party and it is just exciting to be here, it is

exciting to host this event and i want to thank you for coming again and i want to thank of course newt's team for making this all possible. it is really, really amazing. earlier in the evening, i had the opportunity to be interviewed by two different international press people and really, their questions were kind of fascinating and it really tied into why i think newt is here and why i think the turnout is so big and the questions that they both asked me was what is the attraction with newt? what makes newt a viable candidate? and it was really kind of funny. my answer, i just thought well if, you just pay attention, these are international correspondents and i don't want them to be tuned in all the time to the united states. think about newt. more importantly what i said, my answer was, you know, this is a very unique time in our country's history and i'm going

to pull a line off of what michele bachmann would say time and time again, is that this election -- this is the one that we have to get it right. we can't make a mistake. and more importantly, i said this election -- no disrespect to newt at all, it is not about newt. it is not about mitt. it is not about ron paul or rick santorum . this election is about beating obama. [applause] >>

>> we need a candidate that understands international politics and we need a candidate that understands fiscal policies and we need a candidate in these horribly partisan times that can work with both sides as best as possible and we need a candidate who is constitutionally conservative, and with that in mind, i would like to introduce to you the next president of the united states, newt gingrich. [applause]

>> i forgot to say one thing before i hand the mic to newt. anybody for the meet and greet, if you would line up on the left hand side of the room, we're going to try to make the flow go this direction. everybody line up there. mr. speaker, it is all yours. >> thank you. >> you're very welcome, sir. >> wow. this is quite a turnout. i'm very impressed.

i want to thank all of you. as a former teacher, it is a little unnerving to have people directly behind you. i want to count on you to help keep them under control. no spit balls. you got it down. i'm thrilled that you all came out this evening. i'm very, very grateful. and i just doont share a couple of things about -- running for president is very odd. you have all of this attention from our friends and the media and all that stuff. the way the system really works, you're only supposed to say things that are automatically understood by everybody who was scripted by some consult and you repeat some 2600 times and everything else gets complicated. so i'm going tell you a little story about new hampshire. i got involved doing an

education forum. these young people are here. i'm so thrilled that we have a number of young people here. that's really what this should be about. this is about their future, their country, what we are going to do, the decisions we make, i believe this may be the most important election in our lifetime because i think eight years of barack obama will wreck the country and that we really need to stop the decay as fast as we can. you're allowed to applaud. [applause] but i also am thinking about one of the approaches i'm taking. i talked about reintroducing the work ethic. the idea at the very heart in 16 70 in jamestown, work was part of being american. the famous story of captain john smith who was approached ironically by our liberal friends not by the poor who said we have paid our way over here and you can't make us work.

he said you're right, under the contract, i can't make you work. however, this is a new world and in this new world, there are limited resources and therefore >> while i can't make you work, if you don't work, you won't eat, so it is the opposite of communism. and they went off for an hour or two and discussed it and came back and said ok, this work thing, we have a new interest in it. and from that point on, work was at the heart of the american ideal. the founding fathers, we is have certain unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happen describe happiness. an active term. i thought it will be really good, particularly if the poorest neighborhoods to try and

find a way to help poor children have a chance to learn the work habits and learn the right patterns. i was really affected by an article i read 20-25 years ago by joe cline which described how much new york janitors are paid. they start at a higher salary than the teachers and the pay for school janitors is higher than for teachers. it is an example of union power. well, the first thing that came back was the left, which responded to me about the way they had to -- senator moynihan when he first discussed some of these ideas and they were just shocked. he was a liberal democratic. he was in double trouble because he was a traitor to the idea of redistribution and taking care of those who ought to become independent. we like telling them what to do. why don't we get them to relax and we the government will define their lives. people say beginning rich wants

to trap children into into being janitors. doesn't he realize janitors do dangerous work? why does he want to risk these children getting killed? then i ran into cline who was laughing. he had written this article years ago. we went back and got the article. we figured out that if you kept a head janitor who is grossly overpaid but kept a head janitor to be over everything that was hard, you can take one janitor per school and for one janitor per school, you can hire 20-30 kids at $3,000. if you're a poor child, that is not bad and it probably would reduce dropouts and some could work in the front office and some in the cafeteria and some could actually push a broom and mop a floor. this all got worse all of a sudden. then my younger daughter who

writes columns wrote me this very funny note that said had i forgotten that her first job was at first baptist in carolton, georgia. and that she actually had cleaned out the toilets as part of the job. and that it taught her the value of earning money because it was her money. she really worked for it. she took pride in what she was doing. it was part of learning how the work. we have two grandchildren. maggie is 12, robert is 10. they are both learning how the work. maggie wrote me a few weeks ago on her new ipad. i wrote her and said where did you get a new ipad. she wrote i have been saying everything i earned until i could afford it. this is not a parents' gift. it is her ipad. it is true she negotiated how much doing the dishs is worth. but nonetheless, she is learning

-- a young man 16 years old named ian in manchester who has ian's wicked good doughnuts. his father brought him. i just did a column this week. you can see it at beginning rich productions. i do a news -- at beginning rich productions. i told him what i've been up to. he is 16 years old. he started ian's wicked good doughnuts at 11 and his father had been to some trade show and found this very expensive doughnut machine. they decided this would be a good thing for him to learn how do. his father is very excited. ian promptly went out and got two local restaurants that became customers every morning for fresh doughnuts and then he found local fruit stands along the road that became customers

for doughnuts. his father has a particular level of excitement at him being 16. anyone want to guess what it is? it is really funny. this is american -- for the first time, he can drive and deliver his own doughnuts. [laughter] now, i'm telling you this story, when i wrote the column this week, i put at the bottom, if you a story about somebody who started early, send it to me. i want to collect this. i said to ian, this is exactly what i'm trying to explain to people, would you write me your story? literally most of my news letter was written by ian and it was his story how they created ian's wicked good doughnuts. he thinks he will earn enough to put him through college without borrowing any money. i'm a candidate. i believe what is wrong with america is vastly deeper than politics and vastly mar than barack obama. we need to have a conversation that drives at how fundamental

the change needs to be and we need to have the courage to go out and talk to everybody in every neighborhood about an america that works. and what that america is like. if i become the nominee, i'm going to take a very simpfendorfer boll, i'm going to have -- simple symbol, food stamps versus food stamps. president obama is the most effective food stamp pd in america. no president has put more people on food stamps than obama. it is not negative the. it is a fact. i would like to be the best paycheck president. [applause] i look at these young people and i think it would be much better for them to grow up in a world where they actually had a job

and earned a paycheck and were independent than to grow up in a world where they were unemployed and had to take food stamped from the government and were dependent. this is a fundamental cultural question. because once you decide that work is at the center of the american experience, many other things come out of them. you decide, for example, i don't want to lose them but you decide for example, that young people have to do homework. the second half of this term is important. it is work. and may have to do home -- they have to do homework because if you're going to compete with india, china and korea, you to actually know something and know that the schools are about learning. they are not about self-esteem as a gift but about something you learn. not about socialization but education. that leads to another cultural conversation. the one thing we need in the

schools is discipline. if you tell freddy he's not good enough. [applause] the schools begin to decay in part because in the 1960's parents began to change. when i was growing up -- if you got in trouble with a teacher you got in trouble with your parents for getting in trouble with the teacher. about 1960, the parents decided their children were precious. if you said to little freddy he wasn't doing right, they would threaten to sue you because you had harmed freddy's psyche. my argument is if freddy gets a diploma he can't read, you have ruined his life. why don't you bruise his psyche a little and get him to learn how to read. [applause] now, you'll notice what we're now having is a cultural conversation within a political campaign about a government which ought to be designed to reinforce the right culture, not

the wrong culture. this is why this is the most important election in our lifetime. we are currently on a road towards a european style secular bureaucratic secular model which is profoundly wrong. if the founding fathers were shaped in part by adam smith's great works, the president is shaped by two works. over here you have a radical repudiation of american society. over here erks you have the core beliefs in rule of law and free enterprise. somehow magically there is an invisible hand which is smarter than any government can be. these are two fundamentally division of the world. i was very fortunate to have

been a job creator twice. in 1978-1979, i worked with jack kevin -- jack kemp. it was a very simple model. a cookbook. you want sound money. lower tax. less regulation. more american energy and you want to praise the people with the courage to go out and create jobs. [applause] now -- notice -- notice that this cookbook is the opposite of obamaism. sound money. inflation. what bernanke is doing, pouring money out of the federal reserve is in the long run unbelievablely dangerous. lower taxes, higher taxes. less regulation. more regulation. more american energy. anti-american energy. praise for the people who create

jobs. class warfare. is there any wonder this administration is such a mess? their core formulas are profoundly wrong. i probably shouldn't say this but i can't help myself. [laughter] i saw the president today. did anybody see this picture in the news of the president getting in a vault? ok. he apparently at one point -- i'm going to get to that. don't -- [laughter] >> don't get ahead of my story. so this is what -- i'm watching the news. we're having a meeting. there is a scene. as you know, if you watch the cable news channels, they repeat every half-hour so you can mindlessly pick up 10% and by the end of the day you have got all of it. so apparently at some point, i don't remember when he did this but obama goes as part of his greentons jump in a volvo which

is proof how all of his industrial policies are working and you're giving him to create cars you won't buy. they have this picture of him getting into the car and he talks about all of them volts are being recalled. it is apity we can't recall him along with the volts. [applause] defective cars, what about a defective president. this is what i want you to think about. this is the two models. i'm a historian. and i'm a historian in large part because imitation is cheaper than invention. this is sorts of like how people develop cookbooks, you know? on the left, you have this model, you get a hard egg by putting it in a freezer. it is technically true. you leave -- i don't know if you

ever tried this. if you leave an egg in the freezer long enough, it will become hard. it is just not edible. on the right, you have this theory. you want a hard egg, you put it in boiling water and boil it for a while. both of them produce hard eggs. it is almost impossible to get a left wing academic to understand this one is dumb. if you elect them it becomes really impossible. i'm going give you two terrific examples of history. first is jobs. what is the result of sound money, lower taxes, less regulation, more american energy, praise for job creators? ronald reagan cuts the unemployment rate in half in the month of august, 1983, we created over 3 million new jobs. if you take the reagan recovery over our current population, it would be 25 million new jobs in seven years. now after reagan, we have two

tax increases in a row. the economy starts to stagnate. i get elected speaker. we go back to the first tax cut in 16 years and the largest capital gains tax cut in history. unemployment drops to 4.2%. we create 11 million new jobs. these are pretty straightforward experiments. and they work. now we have had two experiments in left wing economics. jimmy carter, who created 13% inflation. 22% interest rates, rising unemployment and a gasoline rationing program in which you could only buy gasoline every other day based on the last number of your license plate. how many of you remember that? one of my favorite stories, a good friend of mine was 13 that year. every morning his father would send him out back with a screwdriver to make is that your the right license plate was on the car that needed gasoline.

[laughter] now, i derived if that, the following test you can give your neighbors whether they are liberal or conservative. if you learn that the government has done something dumb enough that we're teaching 13-year-olds how to break the rules, and if you're a conservative, you say we really ought to change that regulation because it is obviously stupid. if you're a liberal, you say this is why we need license plate police at every gas station. [laughter] because it is about coercion. imposing your will on a free people. so that's the context in which this election is going to be held. so the first is we know historically for a fact that if you follow these five goals, sound money, lower taxes, less regulation, more american energy and praising the people who create jobs, you will have a

boom of employment in the united states. and therefore, i'm running on a ticket to go to newt.org. i have a 21st century contract which follows this program. it is not because i'm all that smart, just because you take the cookbook that works, not the cookbook that fails. it works because of the most sound principles about human nature. if you really want to save social security, what you ought to do is allow young americans to have the right to choose a personal social security savings account. everybody who wants to can stay in the current system, including young people. you're not making them leave. but you're saying, how would you like the take your half, the personal part of the social security tax and put into a savings account you'll control. never will barack obama say i

may not be able to send you a check as he did twice in july. this is no longer a theory. we have historic from the evidence two places. galveston, texas and chile. it turns out that the chilian program is run by the group in des moines, iowa. i met with them and we talked about the effect and i called the original creator of this model. here are the facts. if you allow people at 16, 17, 18 and ian's case, 11, to start put iting away the social security tax part of what they are doing, it builds compound interest for their lifetime. you're probably saving for a minimum of 50 years. compound interest over 50 years means you end up with two to three times as much money as in the current transfer program. in a bad year, you still have more money than the baseline

social security system. both chile and galveston guaranteed that you would never drop below the minimum social security payment. in 30 years in chile, they have not written one check. nobody has done badly enough to drop below the baseline. now it has a couple of secondaryfects. it means when you're saving, you're building up your own personal savings. today because of the way social security works if, you die before you retire, all the money you paid your entire career goes to the government. the group it hurts most are african-american males because they have the shortest life span and they are the least likely to get their money back. if you worry about income and equality and wealth and equality, this would do more to help african-american males than any other group. second, the -- martin feldstein at harvard estimates if you

allow people to voluntarily opt in and the social security, the actual person who does this analysis for social security estimated you would probably have 95% to 97% of people opt in because the return in the out years are so massively better. in one generation, you eliminate 50% of the wealth and equality in united states because every single worker becomes an investor and a savior. this doesn't count any second order df -- they learn the value compound interest. . they decide it is kind of fun to have savings build up. third, when you that level of saving every single year, the amount is enormous. in chile today, the social security savings are 74% of the annual economy. it is so big that they now allow

chilians to invest part of it overseas because the chilean economy can't absorb it all. think about the difference. finally feldstein estimates by the end of this cycle, the economy is $7 trillion to $8 trillion annually bigger. it creates that many more jobs at that much higher salary. you're saving so you're getting a bigger build-up. the bigger build-up is being invested. you're getting a bigger salary so you can afford more savings and this becomes an upward spiral of relative wealth. the thing that is great about this, i'm not describing a theory. when people first talked about it in the 1960's, it was a theory. i'm describing two places where it works. galveston, texas. and chile. i would do one other thing.

i would take social security off budget so it is never again held hostage to politicians playing games and i would put it back as a genuine trust fund and i would say no consideration of the debt ceiling or anything else will block it. it has the money. it should pay the money and the politicians ought to keep their hands off it. [applause] let me ask you one thing about the specific nanch situation. that is we're looking at developing a program for veterans where we would build a veterans clinic in the north country that would be connected with telehealth so that you can get very sophisticated diagnostics without having to drive to boston and we're looking at expanding the opportunities for veterans and the rest of new hampshire to get care without having to go to boston and we're looking for a way for you to be able to use a local doctor or hospital if that is your preference. i think we should not require

veterans in mid winter too drive all the way to boston in order to be taken care of. [applause] let me ask you three quick questions. how many of you agree that the united states is very much on the wrong track right now? ok? how many of you agree that fixing it is more than just barack obama. fixing it includes the bureaucracy, the laws, the courts, the whole system has to be put back on the right track. how many you've agree that if we win the election, the old order will fight us every day to try to stop us from getting it back in the right direction? ok? the reason i ask you those three questions, that is the real reason i'm running. if we had 4% unemployment, a balanced budget, safety in the u.s., i would not be running.

i've already done this. as speaker of the house, i had a wonderful time and a pretty good private life and i wasn't getting beaten up and people were not trying to embarrass me and i wasn't criss-crossing the entire country. but we have two grandchildren who are 10 and 12. i'm thinking about what kind of country are they going to inherit? it is a mess and it is embarrassing. the last couple of weeks in washington were worse than usual. so i felt that i had to run. why did i think i had to run? because i'm the only person in the race who has ever done this. i worked with ronald reagan in 1979-1980, to shape an election. to create a team effort. we brought all the candidates together in the fall of 1980. we picked up the u.s. senate. we won six senate seats by a combined margin of 75,000 votes. i then worked in a democratic house with tip o'neill as speaker. we got 1/3 of the democrats to

vote for the reagan tax program. if we had not made it bipartisan then it would not have passed. you could not have passed it as a republican program. i worked all eight years with reagan on the defeat of the soviet empire and when i got elected speaker in 1994, it was a team effort. we had 350 members of the house sign up. we had a contract with america. it was designed to unify the american people. the largest one-party increase in an off year in american history is 1994. nine million additional republican votes. a million fewer democratic votes. we took control for the first time this 40 years. we voted for every single item in the contract. [applause] so i want to suggest to you i am the only candidate running who both understands how to design national campaigns and

understands how to actually implement real change once elected. we watched three years of an amateur. i think a conservative amateur or a moderate amateur is not going to be dramatically better. they will be better than obama but getting the changes you want is going to take a level of leadership that is amazing and it captain be my leadership. i tell every audience, i'm not going to ask you to be for me, because if you're for me, you're going to vote. you're going to go home and say i sure hope newt gets it done. that is not possible. this is such a big mess that not even the president can get us out of the ditch by himself. i can will ask you to be with me for the next eight years. i will ask you to be shoulder-to-shoulder with me. reminding the congress every day, this is what we want to get done. reminding the governor, the state legislature, the township,

the city council, the school board, but i also want you to be with me because we're going to make mistakes. you can't have change in the scape we're describing and not make mistakes. i want to build a social network so if you see us making a mistake, you let us know. if you see the world changing and we don't quite get it, you let us know. you run across a better idea, you let us know. 537 elected people in washington are not all that smart. they prove it every day. [laughter] but five or 10 or 15 million americans can create a collective effort that would be amazing. finally, i want you to be with me for a very fundamental reason. if we are going to implement the 10th amendment and reduce the bureaucracy in washington, by returning power back home, we have to grow citizenship to replace it. it is that simple. now, there are two reasons i

believe that i can defeat barack obama and my friends who are running can't. the first is just this is going to come down -- he is going to have a billion dollars. he is going to use almost all of it negatively. and you -- there are only two ways to defeat somebody who has that much resources. the first is you have to design a campaign as we did in 1980 and 1984 and 1988 and 1994. you have to design a campaign where the two sides are this far apart. you want his billion dollars to fall in the middle. you run a campaign this close, this is what all moderates fail to understand. if you rone campaign this close, they will always beat you. they can simply lie about you. when you run a campaign this far apart as jimmy carter discovered, even when you get done lying, it doesn't work.