at 8:30 eastern, you can call in with your questions for the family coalition. we will be joined by the university of new hampshire's senate -- survey director andy smith on the state's demographics. ♪ ♪ host: good morning. you are looking at scenes of downtown manchester, new hampshire. we will spend most of our program with guests from new hampshire today. mitt romney is on the campaign trail in south carolina this morning, but returns to new hampshire tonight. "the boston globe" has endorsed jon huntsman. this is the second time "the boston globe" has chosen another

presidential candidates. ron paul, newt gingrich, and jon huntsman are all over the state of new hampshire today. rick perry has shifted his focus to south carolina. our focus is in washington. yesterday, the president went to the pentagon -- actually, the first time the president has gone to the pentagon briefing room, and announced a shift in military strategy. we will be talking about that and showing you some of the finer points. tony capaccio of bloomberg news will help us understand some of the details. we would like to open our phone lines and talk to you about a leaner military in the future and your reaction. our line for independents. we also have a line for active- duty military and their

families. good morning to you. all of the major papers have front page, a major headlines about the shift in military strategy. we have the bullet points. let me show those to you, so you can see in a nut shell the direction the president and pentagon leaders hope to take this in. first of all, $478 billion in cuts over 10 years. in addition to that, the major thrust is to end the two-war capability, which has been the post cold war strategy. next, the army and marines are likely to be reduced by 10% to 15% over the next 10 years. the focus will shift to asia and the pacific and middle east, which raises questions about the future of our relationship. there will be an increased focus

on cyber warfare and space warfare. there is also a review of personnel costs in the forms of pay and benefits. that is the overall thrust of what the president announced yesterday. tony capaccio of bloomberg news is with us. he has a number of stories coming out of this, including this. to start with him, i want to show a clip from the president yesterday. the president emphasized his deep involvement in this process, as did each of the speakers. the defense secretary and the head of the joint chiefs. let's listen to the president on this topic. and: i'm going to let leon marty go into the details. this effort reflects the guidance that i personally did throughout this process. host: tony capaccio is with us in our newsroom downstairs. he was in the pentagon briefing room yesterday.

he watched this. the first time a president has visited there. what was your reaction to the president emphasis of his role in this review? guest: i thought it was fairly credible. i do not recall that president bush or president clinton was as involved in a strategy as it was being pulled together. i found a pretty credible. the atmosphere yesterday was minimal pageantry and high drama. no president had come to the briefing room before. he was a smart guy at the end. he said, "myspace you have here" as he walked out. host: would you comment a bit on the politics of the president's unveiling this at this time and his underscoring of his personal role in the review. guest: i thought the image of him in the foreground will be a

brilliant campaign ad for the obama campaign this year. he needs to show his core constituency that he will cut the defense budget, but he also needs to convince independents and conservatives that he is not going to gut the military and he has thought about how to reposition u.s. forces in this post-iraq environment. whether he does that successfully or not remains to be seen. the unveiling yesterday -- there was some high drama, but minimal pageantry. host: the report is widely available on line. here is what it looks like. it is pretty easy to find at the pentagon website. let me ask you about the fine print. yesterday, we heard the headlines. when will we learn the details? guest: over the next three

weeks, mr. panetta will be doing more details on the budget itself. on february 6, the budget will be unveiled. they were very tight-lipped on the details come on the specifics right now. anyone on the budget has had to sign nondisclosure statements. host: is that usual? guest: no, it is not usual. secretary gates did this in 2010. excuse me -- 2009, when he came in. he successfully kept leaks out. the nondisclosure statements couple of weeks ago, after details from the office of management and budget leak out, primarily through bloomberg's reporting on the subject. host: we are going to take your phone calls.

we mentioned there is a line for active-duty military and their families. you can also send us a tweet on twitter. we would like to have you involved in this. a quick review of the editorial pages. a positive endorsement from "the new york times." more of a thumbs down from "the wall street journal" editorial page. we'll show you more, but we would like to hear what you think. let's start with a call from seattle. this is anthony on the line for democrats. you are on the air. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: we know that the defense budget is bigger than all of the nation's combined. my question would be, why has it taken so long to get to this? are the special interests so entrenched that the president

-- and making any significant changes. host: tony capaccio, there will be a lot of statistics people will be siding. we often hear that the united states military spending is greater than that of the next 10 countries combined. there is also an argument on the other side about the percentage of gdp that america spends on its military compared to times in the past. in fact, here is "the wall street journal" chart on that very topic here. "defense spending is much smaller than the 1980's, but the economy is much larger." what are the right metrics the people should be looking at to gauge the size of the u.s. military? guest: i think percentage of gdp is a good measure. it is about 4% today. another good measure is how much of discretionary overall

spending does the defense department consumed. that is about 51%. another metric is how much overall budget spending the pentagon consumes. that is about 22% to 23%. another metric is this. as people wring their hands over the reduction in forces, here is a useful metric. in 2002, the u.s. army was about 480,000 people active duty. today, it is about 564,000 active duty. the increase of 84,000 was largely driven by post 2007 decreases in the army. this was to deal with the deteriorating situation in iraq. that is the benchmark people should watch for. if we drop down to 490,000, as "the new york times" suggests, people have to determine if that's too much of a drawdown or not, given that we are out of

iraq and hopefully winding down in afghanistan in the next few years. host: tony capaccio will be with us throughout this 45 minutes. the next phone call from rockville, maryland. jim, republican, you are ouon. caller: good morning. i think our military should be a million or 1.5 million soldiers. we do not know how to get along between democrats and republicans. we need to learn how to cut spending in this country and get back to basics, get back to god , and really get back to the fundamentals we have really lost touch with in this country. host: thank you for your comments. next up is a call from debbie, a military family member in troy, ohio. you are on. caller: i'm real suspicious of

anything the president comes up with. he is just trying to do this. he had this plan all along. he needs to go and represent his muslim brotherhood. everything he does is going to cause us to get killed. his programs do not fwork. host: what is your connection with the military? caller: i have uncles in the military. this is a joke. everybody is building up their military and obama wants to leave behind. host: yesterday, that was also the phrase used by key members of the house of representatives, who will be reviewing the budget. what has been the reaction from republican congressional leaders, tony? guest: leading from behind came from congressman but mckeon. this strategy review for him was

red meat. he was out of the box right away with an aggressively critical statement. leading from behind was his quote. john mccain, who you would think would be much more critical, is a lot more metred in his criticism. he is usually a good benchmark on how republicans feel. he said he understood why the pentagon was taken the steps it was taking. we will see how it plays out. host: next is a comment from georgia. curtis is an independent. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. people have to realize that the two-ground war strategy goes back to world war ii. our thinking and planning was all about a two-war front.

one thing i do not want to see -- i hope this does not turn into politics. i understand this is an election year. if he is a leading from the front or the rear, someone will always have something to say. let the man to his job. i'm sure he did a very good review with leon panetta and they looked at it. they could look at contractor spending. i just hope this does not turn into partisan bickering, politics, because the republicans will say this and the democrats that. thank you very much. host: next is akron, ohio. michelle is a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am calling to support the lesser military and grateful that it is finally come to pass. i support obama 1000%. i'm giving up my apartment for

campaign headquarters for him and listen to him talk all day. i am grateful for the good news. thank you. host: "the washington post" on its forum page has put pro and con. a senior fellow at the brookings institution and military writer talks abouthanlon, the benefits of a one war posture. here's what he writes.

just below that, robert scales argues the administration -- host: tony capaccio, the other branches of the military seem not to be targeted to. specifically, air force and navy. can you talk about how they would fit strategically?

guest: the navy seems to be a major beneficiary of this strategy. a lot of the strategy released yesterday talks about a forward presence and the need to be engaged. the navy is your best presence there. it is big and visible and costly. aircraft carriers are expensive. the navy is well-positioned in this scenario. the air force is also well positioned, but not as visible. they would be positioned in guam, korea, and japan, and places like this. the strategy focuses on naval and air assets and also space. navy and air are pretty expensive. there's a great history of cost growth in naval air force and space satellite programs over the last decade. it could eat the pentagon alive if costs are not contained. the strategy has a downside. if costs keep increasing,

they've got a real problem. on the other hand, this is the way you compensate for a smaller ground force. host: specifically, this twitter, it is about the carrier fleet. this is bozthx, who tweets -- guest: there are 11. it will go down to 10 for a couple of years. traditionally, we have three to four carriers blow in the pacific. you have one positioned in the persian gulf. carriers are loved by members of congress. the public loves aircraft carriers, also. they are the highest manifestation of u.s. naval presence.

1,000 yards of diplomacy, as some of the ads would say. the downside of carriers in the pacific is this. china has developed an anti-ship ballistic missile that even the pentagon concedes has the ability to target carriers. they also have a cruise missile provided by the russians call the sizzler that can destroy carriers. the united states navy is now developing defenses. secretary gates a couple of years ago said that china's new weapons take away our virtual monopoly in the western pacific to roam free with carriers. there's a downside to depending on carriers. still, they bring a major capability. not only air, but the ships they bring with them, the escorts.

host: the next comment is from roco, republican in columbus, ohio. caller: i am much more a ron paul republican. the application of the space aspect is really fascinating. i think it is a really fascinating subject. if you want to check out some more stuff about that kind of stuff, i go to this website divinecosmos.com. it is really fascinating stuff. there's a documentary called "the source field." host: here is secretary of defense panetta talking about increased investment in cyber and space. clip: 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 particular, in cyberspace capabilities. 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 costs over the last decade. host: we are taking your comments on the president's announcement yesterday at the pentagon, along with the head of the military and the defense secretary about their issue heated shift over the next decade. the next call is from fort hood, texas. caller: i am a veteran.

my husband is touring. he is one of the last units to pull out of iraq. iand like what the president said, he did not come home from the holidays. talking about cutting military spending and benefits, i do think there are places where they can tighten the belt without having to much. if you'd start getting into the fact that my four-year old daughter is going to be five and she has not spent even one year with her dad. he volunteered for this. we knew what we were getting into. i don't expect us to hand us anything. we knew what we were getting into when we signed up for this pre at the same time, we did not

necessarily expect that they may cut our retirement or cut our health care or dramatically change it. it is stressful to think that the changes that may be coming, as well as somewhat disheartening. however, i am willing to take cuts in areas if it means that congress is going to stop putting our pay freeze on every time they can't agree on something. we're in a frenzy trying to figure out how we're going to make our bills that month. host: you are seeking certainty. caller: yeah. if it means i have to pay a have a more normal

health system -- i am ok with that. we cannot have everything. at the same time, i would like to see the government do a little bit more in reforming other areas that are very wasteful. you know, we see a lot of food stamp of use. we see a lot of welfare abuse. i see a lot of unemployment abuse. do not even get me started on unemployment. if i could go on unemployment for two years -- there are a lot of areas the government can tighten the belts. it should not be just those who are elderly, those on medicare and medicaid, and active-duty military who are out there risking their lives. host: thank you for your call. she is a military veteran herself and a military spouse.

picking up on the comments, echoed by page 6 of "the new york post" with this editorial cartoon. the next telephone call is from shenandoah, virginia. david is a democrat. caller: good morning, susan. host: good morning. caller: i think it is a great idea. we are in a high-tech society. we cannot fight world war ii everywhere. we did not learn anything in vietnam, trying to fight a war in the jumngle. we are fighting terrorists, drones, special ops, and cia. that is the way to go now. judy tweets --

next is a call from stamford, connecticut. bud, a republican. go ahead. caller: this sounds like suicide of a superpower. china is on a major buildup. 30 submarines, aircraft carriers, and we are cutting back. i question the president's involvement with 90 rounds of golf, continuous vacations, and globetrotting around the united states on a continual campaign tour over the last three years. i do not get it. host: thanks for our call. one of the bullet points is a shift away from the military's ability to fight two ground wars at the same time. here is secretary panetta talking about that aspect of the plan. host: that will be just a

second, as we're looking at the bullet points here. next call is new hampshire. morton, independent, you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to start off by saying president obama's record concerning the military is very poor. he has earned the disrespect of most military personnel from top to bottom. starting with his early on. in his book, he joyfully explained that he and his wife attended flag burning ceremonies -- american flag. he followed that up by refusing to salute the flag, as all military people do. as a matter of fact, he was teased about it because he

dangled his hand by his crotch -- known as a crotch solute. then he proposed that all military people by their own health insurance. fortunately, his helpers talked him out of that ridiculous position. next, he gave $20 million to the relief when they were lobbing missiles and bombs into israel. host: lemme ask you a question. this is essentially the strategy that was attempted by donald rumsfeld. is it that you do not like the direction the military is going, or you just do not like what the president is doing? caller: my point is that any input by president obama concerning the appropriate steps to take with our military are

suspect, because he has been an anti-military president. host: tony capaccio, what is the president's relationship with the military? guest: it's a lot better than bill clinton's was in the first part of his administration. he engages military leaders on a regular basis to get their views on issues that are not as high profile as yesterday. i think his stock really rose with his push to get bin laden over the last couple of years and the gutsy call he made in may to launch the seal team attempt. host: that caller and the military spells' talked about the benefits. the review will look at the programs currently available to active duty and retirees. what do you know about the

direction they're heading? guest: the fort hood caller -- her views resonate through a lot of military families. this administration, they better make this a priority number one . this is less important to the military then what they're going to do about airplane carriers, submarines, and cyberspace at this point. my impression is that active duty military benefits will not be touched. they will not be gutted. the point of the debate, retiree health-care benefits, the extent to which the pentagon needs to keep buttressing the try care for life benefits. the concept where someone works 20 years and can get 40 years of retirement benefits by paying benefits that have not risen since 1985 -- i do not get the

impression that the active-duty military will be hit greatly by these cuts for these increases. this administration needs to get out in front to lay out what they are intending. host: from the international pages this morning, in iraq -- this is "the wall street journal." host: also, i'm going to shift the paper. this is alsow that -- "the wall street journal." host: we are talking about the future direction of the u.s.

military after the announcement yesterday. the next call is from concord, new hampshire. nancy is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think we need to be a smarter, leaner military police all all those boots on the ground costing us a lot of money and our dependency on foreign oil and the convoys we need to transport oil for our military -- we have to be smarter in the future. i would like to challenge c-span to do some unbiased reporting on this president. you folks could make a difference if you were bringing on people from the administration to support anything that goes on, instead of having daily trashing. no matter what's hype goes on at night, you have it on the front page in the morning. during the bush years, because he constantly raise that level of threat, we cannot talk about anything. i find it very disingenuous that we do not have real conversations.

jill biden and michelle obama have done more for military families in the last three years. where is that on c-span? nowhere. if you go to military.com and website,llie north's they trashed the president every day. where does that come from? c-span can make a difference. i do not understand why you tack the president -- you attack the president every day or encourage people to challenge every single thing he does. host: your observation is yours. obviously, we do not agree with it. we work very hard to representing all sides. let me move on to new hampshire. will you vote in the primary? caller: yes. i'm going back to barack obama. i do not think he is lying to us the way these other folks are manipulating. none of them have served in the military.

i think we need a real conversation. i think we should have more people from the administration on to explain the policies of the president and not have the heritage foundation and the cato institute. host: and the center for american progress on the other side. i am not going to take your point. we have people working on all sides. caller: air should be more. i do not see that there is a balance. host: thank you. next is a call from san antonio, texas. stephanie, military family. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am active duty military. i have seen that when all this information comes out, they say we are going to have a leaner military. what ends up happening is that the soldiers that have already served tours in iraq are pretty

much targeted. they're already having a hard enough time readjusting to their normal life with their families and with their peers. then the leadership takes on the attitude that, ok, since we are cleaning house, we are going to look at anything that is going on. the soldiers end up not getting treated properly, getting the correct health care that they need. the military structure and leadership is so busy trying to downsize and get rid of them. then you have new, untrained soldiers coming in to takeover because we need a new, better, and stronger military. you are losing your experience. host: thank you for your call. let's listen to secretary panetta once again in yesterday's briefing, talking about the smaller, leaner force,

as the caller mentioned. clip: the u.s. joint force will be smaller and it will be leaner, but its great strength will be that it will be more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly, innovative, and technologically advanced. that is the force of the future. host: now, tony capaccio, the isler's comments on who targetted when there are reductions versus what was said by the defense secretary. can you talk about the rank and file in terms of cuts that would be made and who would be chosen? her point was that the most experienced people that have fought the ground wars, she believes, will be first targeted. guest: those would be the people in the longest.

she has one really good point. in terms of these multiple deployments in iraq and afghanistan. there is a danger there. if you do not target the reductions carefully, you will lose a lot of the noncommissioned officers -- basically, the guys at the smallest unit level. you need a vibrant noncommissioned officer corps. you need a vibrant captain and litton corp. -- and lieutenant focore. you need to make sure you are not left with a hollow leadership. from page of "the washington post."

host: below that, two other international stories. first, from egypt, prosecutors called for mubarak's execution. these are demonstrators outside the court yesterday. prosecutors demanding the death penalty for the former leader. right below that, from iran. "currency collapse under way of sanctions." here is the story. host: next is a call from luanne, a republican in oregon. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not understand a statement of a two-war capability.

right now, put us into a mess in the middle east by leading from behind. not only one country, but it was three or four. will you please explain to me what that means? when you say we will probably pick and choose, will we go to egypt, israel, afghanistan, iraq? look at all the messes. north korea is pretty hot. the lady who called about c-span -- i think you're very fair. as a republican, i will say that. if she will go back on senator obama's statements as a senator, he was never for the military treaty did not vote for going to iraq. i beg president bush not to go over there, as a republican ticket i thought it would be another vietnam. now we have president obama taking the credit for something he voted against. he has pulled our troops out. we're in a horrible mess over there right now. we have no leadership in the

white house. i am sorry. i have called senators and said, "where are the true democrats?" i do not see them anymore. as a republican, i do not see them anymore. everything he has said -- we're in a worse mess and now you want to cut defense. why? we're in a mess. host: thank you for the call. she asked a question about the two-war strategy. can you, more on what the new direction means? guest: too much is being made of this two-war strategy issue. the two-war strategy was adopted in the 1992-1993 view of the clinton administration to get a handle on how to structure u.s. forces with the demise of the soviet union. they found throughout the '90s

that the two mrc scenario did not really reflect the world as was unfolding. haiti in 1993, somalia, and things that did not fit the template. the bush administration came up with something called 1421. it's a country for looking at the way it is organized. what would be, defend the homeland. four, forces that can go to four regions of the world. one was to deter conflict -- to work peacetime operations. what the current administration's plan is is to basically to modify this even further. they have the ability to execute

fully one conflict against an adversary and then to come in a second conflict, deny or make the cost extraordinarily high to an adversary in the complesecond conflict. they need to explain this more. the united states, in the last decade, has had the ability to deal with two conflicts and a number of contingencies. they are more focused. they need to explain how they would handle a second conflict. what does it mean to make a cost of a second conflict to an adversary extraordinarily high? that needs to be played out. host: a question from bill on twitter, who is wondering if there will be just cost shifting to nato. guest: the issue there is

continuing to help nato's capabilities, and to buttress capabilities. the complaint is that nato nations are not spending an appropriate amount of money on military. they are depending too much on the united states. we need to see how that plays out. the u.s. has not been successful in getting major increases in nato country defense spending. the strategy yesterday did discuss helping buttress nato's capabilities, so they could basically pick up some of this lack of the united states. host: next is a call from kathy, a military family in new york. caller: hi. my oldest son sore into the united states naval academy in may of 2002. it was the first class to swear

in after 9/11. you can imagine the incredible anxiety we thought having our oldest son swear into the navy. he could have gone a lot of other places, obviously, since the naval academy has been consistently ranked as one of the top-10 schools in the united states. he has now been in the navy for nine years. he has been deployed two times. he is a lieutenant. the government made a promise to my son, and that was held there, retirement, -- and that was health-care and retirement. now the government wants to say, "we cannot afford to pay for that." i just read an incredibly long back-and-forth on internet regarding people and food stamps. we have 46 million people in this country on food stamps. the argument was whether people

on food stamps should be allowed to buy lobster tails and ice cream cakes. yet, you want to tell my son, who is a ploy for eight months at a time that, guess what? we do not want to pay for your health insurance anymore. this is insanity. i want to ask the american public watching the show who they would like to have police the shipping lanes in the world. as the gentleman just said, nato has no intention of policing those shipping lanes. they cannot have any money for it. they do not plan to do it. who is it that you want to take care of the shipping lanes in the world? host: kathy, a military mom in new york. the last call is from savannah. mike is a democrat there. you are on. go ahead. caller: what i'm going to say is

probably going to be a little bit harsh. before i do that, i want to commend you. i think you are personally a standard above many of your colleagues out there. i have tremendous respect for how you run this show. my comments -- the lady from new hampshire -- i agree with almost all her points. yes, you do have some liberal guests on every now and then. the majority of your guests are the right wing folks of the heritage foundation and so forth. it is frustrating listening to the republicans. the tea party talks about how the president has ballooned the deficits and all that sort of

stuff. when he tries to do some cutting, here they come criticizing everything he does. one of your callers made it clear that everything this president does is subject to them. there's so much in love with bombing other people. he has killed more terrorists than any of the president has done, yet they are unsatisfied. what does he need to do? it boils down to one thing in my mind. he is not the right color to do anything in the country. that's the bottom line. host: tony capaccio, let's close with you very briefly. the passions from our callers, how does that pre-stage what will happen on capitol hill? guest: people in the military and those who are not are very concerned about health composition and such will affect active duty and retirees. this administration needs to lay

out what impact, if any, these cuts will have on active duty. they have not done that so far. they have been very quiet about all budget details. from what i've heard today, this is a lightning rod that they will really have to deal with. this will resonate on capitol hill and energize even those gop members who are not aggressively anti-obama at this point. host: thank you very much for being with us this morning to help us understand some of the details behind the news headlines from the pentagon. guest: thank you. host: you can read tony capaccio's regular coverage of the pentagon at bloomberg news. as we turn to the rest of our program, all of our guests will be coming to us from manchester new hampshire new, as we focus on the countdown to a combative gop primary on tuesday. it will have a guest back who is a conservative, who is representing the josiah bartlett center for public policy. we will learn more about that.

he is also a columnist for "the new hampshire union leader." we will talk about the conservatives in the race in which direction they may be going to really want to show you some of the latest commercials. let me show you "the washington times" this morning. we will begin with some ads, including one from newt gingrich. clip: romney's economic plan, a timid. timid certainly will not defeat newt gingrich barack newt. 's bold leadership balance the budget and help create millions of new jobs. a powerful plan for growing our economy and creating jobs. rebuilding the america we love with bold, conservative leadership. i am newt gingrich and i approve this message. clip: and present adopting

policies that will affect the economy, based not on what is right for the american worker, but what's right for politics. says to a free enterprise like boeing, you cannot build a factory in south carolina because south carolina is a right to work state. that is unamerican. it is wrong for america. it is something that will stop undermine administration. i am mitt romney and i approve this message. clip: totally consistent. totally consistent. >> i do not know how to respond. he has switched positions in order to get votes. on every issue, it's a matter of record. i have not changed my position because of the different offices that i may be running for. gov. romney, you are the candidate of change.

[laughter] ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: you are looking at charles arlinghaus, who is joining us from manchester, new hampshire this morning. he is the president of a group called josiah bartlett center for public policy. thank you very much for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: why don't you tell us a little bit about your organization and where you fit on the political spectrum? where does your point of view emanate from? guest: we're a free market oriented think tank. we are economically conservative. generally, we think taxes are too high and the government spends too much money. host: can you give us your

snapshot of the new hampshire voting public and where they are today? guest: well, there are two different snapshots of the voting public. one is the general boating public. democrats and republicans, and independents, and the other is the primary. new hampshire has historically been a more republican state than the rest of the country. in the last few years, maybe the lesast decade and a half, it has become more of a tossup. george bush won won and lost one. in each case, it was a nip and tuck battle. the last election was a little wider. i think that it is trending a little bit more right of center that it had been, but not nearly as much as it had been in the early 1980's and 1990's.

host: the economy in new hampshire seems to be doing much better. why is that? guest: historically, the economy has done better. some of it is economic policy. during a recession, companies lose jobs and they tend to close a bunch of facilities. when they reopen, sometimes they reopen in more competitive states. we have a tax competitive advantage. we are the only state in the country without a sales or income tax. i think that is an advantage, especially compared to some of our neighbors considered high tax states. we tend to lead that. despite our good economic situation and significantly lower unemployment and lower poverty rates than the rest of the country, i think there is still a relative unease about the economy here. people are nervous about the economy. whether they should be or not, we can argue, but they are. some of that has to do with, you

know, you are brought on tv and newspapers with a series of people saying we're in a very precarious state. i think that makes people nervous. host: the latest channel 7 news suffolk university poll, which has romney in the clear lead at 41%. ron paul, 18%. rick santorum, 8%. i wanted to ask you, as you look across the candidates, how are they going into this crucial weekend shaping up messages to the voters? guest: there are fewer disagreements among the candidates than they would have you believe. i think the voting populace

sense is that a little bit. the leadership issue and the ability to lead a country tends to dominate. mitt romney comes into this with a very substantial lead. it struck a little bit in the last couple of days, but not very much. i think he wants to not make any errors and keep the notion of a strong presence, a steady hand on the wheel. that is his message. the other people are fighting less with romney, although some of them are taking shots at romney. they are really fighting for position. ron paul like to maintain a second place position to suggest his movement continues and he is a candidate who has a niche to himself, so to speak. santorum and gingrich are sort of fighting between themselves to be the leader of what you

might call the non-romney, non- paul faction. there's a romney group that he is obviously ahead of. there is a more libertarian audience, which is very much dominated by ron paul. there is another conservative group that had been gingrich, santorum, bachmann, and perry competing for. bachmann is out and there is no rick perry in new hampshire. one of them wants to make the case that you should not waste your vote on the other guy. i am the only viable non-romney, non-paul candidate. host: which fits the thinking of your think-tank? guest: that is a good question. i want to be careful how i answer that.

i do not want to imply anything about where we lean. i have board members who are with every major candidate in the race. i'm not with anybody. i am actually undecided. on economic issues, part of it is ron paul has a very sort of traditional libertarian message. you could describe some of our politics as economically libertarian. he is certainly there on some issues. frankly, all the candidates are. we believe in reforming medicaid. we believe in social security along the lines of the old plan. the guy who most resembles where we stand is paul ryan. he is not running. host: we also have an line have

resident -- a line for new hampshire residents. mitt romney pick up the endorsement of senator john mccain. "the boston globe" announced it was backing one of his competitors, in fact, jon huntsman paid for the primary voters in new hampshire, do either of these two events mean anything? guest: they do not mean nothing, but they do not mean a lot. it would rather have an endorsement of somebody over not. in jon huntsman's case, he would rather get the endorsement and not get the endorsement. "the boston globe" is a widely read paper. its most influential editorially among people who are unlikely to vote in the republican primary. on the other hand, there are a lot of moderates voting in new hampshire.

i tell people that if you look at exit polls from 2008, in iowa, 88% self-identified as conservative, the highest of any state in the country, among the 30 states with exit polls. in new hampshire, 55%. that means 45% of the primary electorate four years ago identified themselves as moderate or liberal. endorsements do not always mean as much. the mccain endorsement is a little bit different. people from a variety of stripes like john mccain. he has a very strong following among conservatives, as well. i think it helps mitt romney. to some extent, because it was

expected to go to mitt romney, is not as much of a boost for romney. he is probably happy mccain endorsed him than anybody else. it would give other people a little bit of a lift. host: as we talk about who the candidates appealed to, one of our viewers on twitter handicaps' them this way. i'm going to ask whether or not you would like to strongly disagree with any of those characterization's? guest: one suspects that person is a ron paul voter. right and left is sort of in the eye of the beholder. mitt romney is an interesting case. four years ago, he portrayed himself as the conservative alternative to john mccain. this year, people like your tweeter -- is that the right

phrase? host: yes. caller: saying he is a liberal in the race. it is hard to characterize mitt romney as a liberal. although, is a sense of where the republican party has become morehas become more conservativ. bob dole in 1980 was one of the conservatives running for president, and 16 years later he was one of the more moderate candidates. mitt romney is sort of the same way. i would characterize mitt romney as a moderate conservative, i would characterize ron paul as a libertarian conservative. >> they will all be in new hampshire except for governor rick perry who is focusing on south carolina. is that the correct decision? if you were advising him, would you tell him? guest: after coming in fifth in iowa, it becomes difficult to decide what to do at all. interestingly, if you look at the results in iowa, they are

similar to 1996 when upstart conservative like pat buchanan almost knocked off of the more moderate front runner, and got a big boost. the guy and fourth place was a very idea driven conservative who had led in my polls among the earlier, then steve forbes, now newt gingrich. the guy in fifth place had a lot of money -- phil gramm's decision in 1996 was to drop out. rick perry that a decision was almost that and he changed his mind. i suspect what is going on his got money in the bank, $3 million, and i suppose you could only use it to run for president. somebody said, listen, maybe new hampshire is not fond of you somehow, but in south carolina, you are culturally in sync with them. you have a lot of money. you are the only real southerner in the race so roll the dice.

i guess if i were rick perry, i would go to south carolina and roll the dice. but then if i don't do quite well there, win or close the second, i would go home. host: next is a call from new hampshire. martin, independent. caller: i think that that poll you showed from suffolk university is a little skewed. because new hampshire is pretty geographically, it has a geographical significance -- below the appalachian mountains there is a pretty strong democrat -- and above the appalachian, much more rural, quite a staunchly libertarian base. i think they will jump at the

chance to vote for ron paul. and i would like to hear your guests comments about that. guest: i think there's a lot of wisdom in that statement, that in new hampshire, what we call north of the notches, the northern part, there is a more libertarian flavor. the difficulty is it is only 3% or 4% of the whole population of the state, but i think ron paul will do very well in that area. no. carroll county. think it is very friendly to him -- a libertarian, "leave me alone" message. but i do not necessarily think the poll numbers are necessarily skewed. i do not want to pick on the university because their numbers are fairly in line with the other polling we have seen.

the magellan pulled from the "new hampshire journal" nd ppp pulling the and i think cnn had a poll out as well. they are fairly similar but you could borrow with some of the numbers are probably not the ranges. host: next is a telephone call from south carolina. marcus, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: can you hear me? i just have a few comments. first of all, the way you opened -- it a lot of the republicans -- as far as the candidates. that is true, with the exception of ron paul. because economically, they are all the same. they are following some of the same sound bites -- basically they are the same. basically no different from bush. and everybody should just know

that and take heed. a second of all, rand paul -- people like him for being honest. everybody knows he is honest. that is a good quality about him. but i think people should be careful because a lot of left leaning independents want to vote for him basically on one issue, drawing down the military. they need to think about if ron hall had his way, that they would really be damaged -- if ron paul had his way. i want people to know all the issues ron paul expressed. it seems to me to be honest. that is a good thing. i am not ragging on him but people need to look at all of his policies and all that he stands for. host: thank you, marcus.

guest: i think there is a lot of wisdom in what he says. ron paul is different -- and i stressed the similarities between the candidates but there are significant differences. ron paul is very different on foreign-policy, and some of them have taken exception with it. paul'start with attractiveness as a candidate is that he is not a typical candidate. he is not overly telegenic. he is not a pretty boy in the political terms. and it is not that he is older and grumpy, but he is a typical -- atypical. what you see is what you get and you do not have an impression when he speaks that he is making it up and it is not coming from the heart. it is absolutely who he is. so, on foreign policy, he has more, you might call it

isolationist or non- interventionist. he wants to bring all the troops home at once. he is less concerned about iran and then other candidates and some criticize him for that. and some people who like him for that. so, he has an appeal to moderate to liberal voters or left- leaning independents as well as libertarian voters on that issue and that is why he won moderates in iowa and independents and why he has won them hear it. and his economic policy is very strong. i have a lot of friends -- and not a lot, but i have some friends is a i like half of ron paul. i absolutely love half of his candidacy. i have friends like the one half and friends like the other half. but i also know people like both halves. but he has a non-traditional crowns -- cross section appeal and it will be interesting to see how well he does.

he is running second right now at a much higher level than pundits have predicted was possible two years ago. two years ago people would have said no way he gets more than 9% or 10% of the vote. he is getting 16, 17%, 18% of the polls and easily north of 20. host: charles arlinghaus has in the past been a campaign consultant to senator john sununu, campaign consultant to the republican national committee and hosted a weekly radio commentary and public affairs television show. he has been the head of the center for public policy, which will learn is focused on state and local policy issues, particularly on a conservative economics and how it affects them. jersey city, new jersey. mike, republican. good morning. caller: how are you? thank you for taking my call. i am actually a lifelong democrat.

i always voted democrat. north jersey is a democratic base. but after voting for obama, i feel completely deceived and i really have turned into a storage ron paul supporter. this is the first time -- i had to change my party affiliation just to campaign for the man, do anything i can do, because i feel like he is our last chance in america. nobody talked about ndaa and the patriot act and civil liberties. to me this is what the election is all about. he is the only clear candidate different from the rest. to me, they are a bunch of puppets. host: we will be covering ron paul, one of the campaign advance. tonight at the university of new hampshire in a dorm, and then afterwards we will talk to some of the new hampshireites there and take your calls.

and former speaker -- former speaker newt gingrich will be with us starting at 10:20 a.m. at the dartmouth medical school and taking viewer calls. for charles arlinghaus, this question from twitter. let me preceded by shoring -- showing that coverage about rick santorum. this captures it. "the new york post." one of our viewers as to do you think rick santorum's social agenda is in sync with new hampshire? guest: an interesting question because of the differences in our electorate. what people referred to, new hampshire is the least churchgoing state in america, which was a surprise to me when i read it. i did not say it with pride. i go to church and think you should, too. but people do not in new hampshire.

so it is different. so, people think for themselves. new hampshire is economically conservative, not socially conservative. so i think it's misses the boat a little bit. we had a series of strong social conservative senators. gordon humphrey, followed by smith, followed by sununu, all of which very much pro-life senators. judd gregg, his entire time in the senate, although he did not emphasize the issue but it is one of the issues. people are willing to vote for -- it may not be the defining issue of their choice, it might not be the wedge issue that draws you to campaign, but also not a disqualifying issue with a lot of campaigns. so, i do not think santorum will be necessary ruled out for something like that. in addition, i think it sort of helps define who he is and where he is coming from. he talked a lot about economics as well on the campaign trail,

but it all seems part and parcel -- his mantra is a family, faith, and freedom. i think when you merge all of it together as a candidate, you get a sense of who he is. so, no, are we the most socially conservative state? far from it. but by the same token, the republican primary does not necessarily spurring social conservatives. pat buchanan won here and reagan. host: two debates this weekend. a saturday night and sunday morning. some other time will be correct -- prepping for that. a viewer tweets -- caller: congratulations from the ozarks. and i want to congratulate you guys are having the only non- biased news programming on cable

television. i and then independent, libertarian i guess now, i am appalledite, and starts to it -- i am a paulite -- i know it sounds like a conspiracy because so many of us are calling in. i wrote -- i read a letter to president obama from dr. paul about taking the benefits away from the vets. incidently, of the people standing on the republican platform, he was vet, is a vet and he served in vietnam -- he did not go but he served as a surgeon in the air force. he sent a letter -- he wants to cut the bills, but he sent a letter saying not on the backs of our vets and our serving military. the second one is, he is against

the repeal of -- and i would like him to comment on that. and he does not believe in this corporate citizenship. i would like him to comment on that. i think the people who put the bill out there to begin with, i think was mccain and lieberman. if he could comment on those and thank you so very much and i enjoy your show. your show is made for redial. host: appreciate you watching. charles arlinghaus? guest: it is insisting the number of independents and libertarians, the calls we are getting. i think congressman paul has a different credibility on military issues and, frankly, on his non-interventionist status,

because his -- he served in the military itself and it explains why there are a number of murders -- military personnel supporting his campaign. at one point his campaign said they have more military donors than any campaign. i do not know how true it is but it sounds possible. it gives one to cut government but not veterans benefits, some tried to argue it is inconsistent and i would disagree, simply because the general argument is you made a commitment to the people as part of a contract with the serving and you have to fulfill the terms of the commitments. veterans benefits should not be cut because you promised them already. it makes a lot of sense. i do not know anything about the coomittatus bill -- i have not seen that. it sounds like it would be a mistake but not an issue i followed. and i forgot entirely the third issue. host: i only have those two written down, too.

we talk about military service. governor rick perry was in the air force. he had military representatives at his post-election rally in iowa. i am wondering if that changes your thoughts at all about military service in the candidates. guest: well, my big pz point is big -- my big point was ron paul has credibility because he served. host: our next caller is from pennsylvania. john is a republican. caller: good morning. since the first the bush tax cut in 2001, we have not been able to balance a budget. we just keep getting farther and farther apart in being able to balance the budget. the argument seems to be with obama, he wants to raise taxes on the richest people.

governor mitt romney said it was just plain wrong to have a tax policy gingrich wants to have when romney says all of his income -- income comes from capital gains and newt gingrich was not taxed any of that money. i think those should be brought out in debates, where they stand on capital gains talks -- tax because it is an important part of the discussion of how much of the richest people should pay in america. newt gingrich, nor romney, would pay any tax. isn't that a fair discussion and shouldn't it be asked at the next debate? guest: i think tax policy has been a very important part of the discussion and there have

been discussion about the capital gains tax and what you raise taxes. the people who want to cut taxes, what they point to is it would help spur economic growth and economic growth is the only way to balance the budget. it is true, the budget has not been balanced sense of the tax cuts but a lot was on the spending side and the economic losses that affected revenue. spending has increased dramatically since 2000 what -- 2001 as well. we spend a lot of money during a time we were not taking in a lot more money. the worry when governor mitt romney says we shall not be raising taxes -- it makes a lot of sense to me, because when you are in economic turmoil of any sort -- and i know we cannot of the recession technically but there is still a lot of economic unrest -- raising taxes at a point like that -- if you think of taxes as a price of economic activity, which they are, but you do not want to raise the price on anything you want more

of and there is no economic activity right now that we want less of. i did not think there is extra room where we could afford to raise the price on economic activity. the capital gains tax, i should point out that in 1990's -- and speaking bridge once to cut the capital gains tax -- we did try this when he was speaker years ago. we did cut the capital gains tax and tried to balance the budget. during the time period, the next four years from 1995 until 1999, spending went up about 12%, but its spending, according to the federal documents. revenues, despite the tax cut, or may be because of the tax cut, some would argue, went up 35%. the result was not just balancing the budget but a surplus. there was a notion we would start to pay off bank the national debt at a significant rate.

i think there is some evidence tax cuts do work but not everyone would agree. host: this is a "usa today" story -- philosophically, where are you on the super pacs and their role? guest: it is very and port the political spending be accounted for and there be complete transparency and reporting and i think in this day and age reporting is much more instantaneous -- a weird phrase -- instantaneous. within 24 hours, 48 hours. maybe we need weekly or monthly update. it is hard to read stories, based on finance reports ending september 30, we know this about the candidates. no, we don't.

candidates' finances change more often. transparency is important, knowing what they raise is important and knowing what they raise it from. super pacs of the latest attempts to get around the most recent finance laws. money will find its way into politics. we spend a lot of money in this country on politics but we spent a lot more money in this country on dog food than we do on politics. and i think we need to be careful when we are regulating it because i lot of times well- meaning regulations and changes lead to some sort of way around that. we used to know much more about money that was going into, say, the republican national committee and the democrat national committee, then we did what was going into the super pacs. now we are able to limit the amount of money in the committees, transparent committees, spend, but the,pacs crop up. be careful what you push on

because it creates these kind of environment. host: "usa today" tells us these new groups to not have to disclose donors until january 31 -- next, or question is from democrat from richmond, virginia, demerara -- deborah. caller: good morning and happy new year. i also agree with the previous caller. i love your show. you did a beautiful thing. what other programs are a little scared to do. my question is on ron paul. i followed him ever since he ran the last time. he looks like a beautiful little man that could not hurt a fly. he says everything the right way. but i would like your guest to elaborate on one little big thing -- he has a very close relationship with david duke and

the group. which goes completely against everything he states that he is for. i can't understand that close relationship between david duke and the group. thank you so much for being on. i will let you elaborate on that. guest: i think he has come under criticism about people who support him. the relationship of the david duke would surprise me. it is true there are some people like that who are reprehensible who do support him for other reasons. and you can argue about whether or not he has been strong enough in denouncing them. but i think it really is unfair to say he has a relationship with david duke. it is not true. he has some very libertarian leanings and there are some

people to -- who support every candidate who we don't like, and that does not mean just because somebody supports you means you support them. but i think that congressman paul has made it clear he does not support that sort of agenda. i have not heard any reference he does. there are some questions about some newsletters he has written in the past or has gone out under his name and how much he knew and the phrasing. but i don't think anyone really thinks he has any of those kinds of views himself or in any way support of of people like david duke. host: in our final segment, 9:15 a.m. eastern time, we will have the director of the university of new hampshire's service center and we will do a deeper dive into the new hampshire electorate. we will learn more about the people who have the responsibility of testing the first in the nation primary vote. a question from twitter --

i think it will be more -- in the republican primary it will be more than 2008 and it will be hard for me to say what the percentages. the total vote in the primary will be significantly more than half of the registered republicans total. about 60% probably registered republicans and 40% registered undeclared, which we call in new hampshire independents. the turnout in new hampshire tends to be much higher in the presidential primary then and general primary in the more typical regular primary in september but significantly less than the general election in november. about more than half the

electorate. lest this time because until there is no real democratic primary. the president is on the ballot and there are some other lesser known candidates but nobody substantive that anyone would have heard of. he will get 80% or 90% of the vote. some of the people who might vote democratic -- voting in the republican primary. but the republican turnout should be higher for that reason. host: jon huntsman picked up " the boston globe" endorsement. he is staking much of the future of his campaign on the hampshire. what message is bringing to the voters in new hampshire and you believe it is resonating? guest: he is a little bit harder to describe because he is sort of an interesting mix -- former governor of utah, very conservative tax plan -- i like

very much. it might be my favorite tax plan of all of the candidates in the race. so, on a lot of economic issues, he is very much a conservative in the mainstream cents. although he then mixes in with the that, some discussion about tax cuts for green energy and things like that which is actually not something i would support. he has some appeal to more moderate voters for some things like that, he makes noises about green energy and while socially conservative himself, he is sort of libertarian on gay marriage issues, although pro- life, so that he is sort of a mix. so, he has a strong appeal to some of the more moderate voters, which is why "the boston globe" endorses him, and some of the more moderate newspapers, some of the more moderately-

liberal papers. he is appealing to them. there is some thought that he and mitt romney appealed to the same electorate although romney's appeal is probably broader. but his support has been growing, but growing slowly. you can argue -- i think he said he needs to come in third in new hampshire to continue. that is about where he is pulling. if you could see him rising a little bit. i know a lot of people who say i am taking a second look at huntsman. those people tend not to be the ones considering santorum or gingrich as an alternative. and less likely to be considering ron paul, although some of ron paul's more monitors aboard is attracted by his foreign policy issues, also consider huntsman because he has more of a "let's bring the troops home in" attitude. host: we have three minutes left for charles arlinghaus.

it las vegas. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span listening to me in this public forum. i have a couple of economic points i would like to hear comments from your guests. one thing that has bothered me, and it has to do with unemployment -- there are over 400,000 green cards legally issued every year that this place american workers. this topic never seems to be talked about by any candidate. and they have quite a long expiration date. and the other topic is, income taxes, there are millions of puerto ricans who work in the united states for 30, 40, 50 years, an income tax is not deducted from their paychecks. i would like to hear your guest's comments on these things. at guest: my understanding is on

the puerto rican income tax, if you live in puerto rico you did not pay but i am not aware if you are from pr that in the united states, in the 50 states, you do not pay an income tax. i am not sure it is the case. it sounds to me unlikely, though. but on your former point about green cards -- immigration is one of those issues, and people need to keep in mind we are talking about legal immigrants. i think all of us support some degree of legal immigration. legal immigration. green cards and work visas and things like that are a difficult thing because you did not want to allow too many of them in an area where there is significant unemployment. you do not want to many people to come in and displace jobs. but in a lot of places people are hiring temporary workers or, in some cases, engineers and

things like that, when they are having trouble finding workers in other areas and those people come here because there is accompanied that decided to employ them and found them. i don't mind having some openness on the borders that way. i have a friend who was the legal counsel for a technological company and he says, we would much rather hire american engineers, we would much rather hire domestic u.s. citizens as engineers, because there is a lot less paperwork to fill out. it is a lot easier for us certainly in the legal and other departments to hire engineers. when we are bringing people in from, in his case, india, it is not that we prefer it but it is kind of pain for us, but we have trouble filling slots so we did that. so you have to kind of bridge the gap between those two competing interests. host: i looked up the pr and tax -- this is wikipedia, with that in mind -- puerto rican tax.

at that are required to pay the most u.s. taxes with the exception being the federal u.s. personal income tax. residents pay social security and are eligible for benefits upon retirement but excluded from ssi and island receives a small fraction of the medicaid funding it would receive if it were a u.s. state. we have a little bit more information. charles arlinghaus, last call is from virginia beach. ruby, a republican. caller: i am calling because there is a gentleman -- and i thought this man could tell me -- running for president who used to be a former governor of a southern state and a former u.s. house representative, and i think his name starts with a b. he received 31 votes in iowa and he is in wisconsin running. he is getting wrote -- votes but nobody lets him debate.

why is that? guest: i think the candidate you are referring to is buddy roemer, who was wanted the governor and congressmen of louisiana. in an odd 1 cents with another caller, was ousted from his governorship in a primary that included david duke. and i think edwin edwards might have won that race. why is he not getting much support? he is not in the debates because he is not getting much support. 31 votes in iowa and he had significantly less of a campaign that some of the other candidates. i do not know i necessarily agree with that. i would like as many candidates as possible in the debate, but there are limits. there are something like 39 people who are going to be on the ballot in new hampshire and some of them are really waging a very serious campaign and some less so. there is an intermediate group, and buddy roemer is part of that, and some other candidates as well, who, although making an

effort, have not risen to the top tier. and networks and people like that make a decision based on availability and the fact they cannot have 30 people on the stage. a disappointing for buddy roemer supporters. he is an interesting man. he is a good guy. but he is the kind of candidate right now who will get about 31 votes in a iowa and less than 1000 in new hampshire as well. host: when will you make your decision? guest: probably tuesday morning in the voting booth. i am having a lot of trouble. host: is that typical for you? guest: is atypical for me. i am fairly decided -- and usually decided fairly early in the race but it is a very difficult decision for me this year. ghost: thank you for being here this morning to talk about the candidates. we will take a break and in your next segment we will need a prominent social conservative in new hampshire and she will talk

about rick santorum, who she is supporting, and how the senator is positioning himself with new hampshire voters after his showing in iowa. but on our break we will go live to new hampshire. our colleague is at robie's country store, one of the longtime retail politics stops for presidential candidates. greta? >> david chouinard is the older. -- is the owner of robie's country store in hooksett, new hampshire. tell us a little bit about the history of the store. >> we have been here since 1822. at one time, it was the center of the town. it has gone through two major

fires -- the structure you see now is about 110 years old. at one time it was the post office, the train station, and the general store, everything focused right here. >> a longtime political stop for many candidates, a lot of members abelia back to roosevelt. >> my collection just kept on a growing and growing. it went through five generations that robie's and it kept on growing. >> you took it over when? >> about eight years ago. >> tell us about the customers who come here and irregulars. who are they? >> all town people. it is the same people every day. today in, day out, seven days a week -- seven days a week. >> the same times? >> if i close on christmas, they get mad at me because i close. >> do they like politicians coming into your store and talking to them? >> yes and no bank.

they like seeing them, but they did not really want to say a lot sometimes. >> when a candidate comes to the store, the get advance notice? >> sometimes you get three or four days, others to get a couple of weeks. they come in ahead of time to check it out to see how they will set it up. >> when they come in and, do they -- come in, did they bring in a lot of people, their own supporters, as business picked up? >> a little bit. not much. people come in to see the candidates. >> how many have been here so far? >> this year has been a slow year. we have had mitt romney this year so far. >> do you expect some, by tuesday? >> i hope so. >> why do you think so? >> it is good for the town, good for us. it brings more people to get to see the store. >> when mitt romney came in october, what was it like?

what happened? >> you could not walk in the store. down the street, all full. tons of people. >> good business for you? >> yes, good business. >> what did he have to say? >> right when he walked in, the first thing he said, i know there is a picture of my father here somewhere and had looked all over the walls for it and he finally seen it. he said, this is dear to my heart. >> four years ago, how is it different than it is today? >> it seems like this year is just so much slower. last year i had all the candidates that came in. >> democrats and republicans? >> slower. >> what about the media? do they want to come in? >> we have already been contacted by "the washington post" and "the new york times" was there a few weeks ago and that is about it. >> what are you expecting for

leading up to tuesday? are the customers in your store, are they talking politics more than they do usually? >> yes, we get a lot of calls, especially in the morning. that is all the talk about. >> debates? >> yes. >> heated debates. >> heated debates. >> the you find it with these republican candidates this time around? >> we do. >> polls are showing mitt romney and had a lot. do you have a lot of romney's supporters or mixed? >> it is mixed. a lot of people still don't want to say. >> they don't? >> yes. >> chouinard -- david chouinard, thank you for talking with us. appreciate your time. host: we continue this morning with the new unemployment numbers. let me read the s -- the story from the associated press. hiring it in december brought

the unemployment rate to the lowest in three years. employers added a net 200,000 jobs. it fell to 8.5%, the lowest since february of 2009. the rate has now dropped for four straight months. the hiring gains capped a six- month stretch where the economy generated 100,000 jobs or been more each month that has not happened since april of 2006. for all of 2011, the unemployment averaged 8.9%, down from 9.69 -- 9.6%. that is the latest from the associated press wire. as we continue our discussion on the new hampshire primary let me introduce you to karen testerman, from of the santorum faith and family coalition and is supporting santorum in his race in new hampshire.

thanks for being with us. give us why you believe senator santorum is presidential timber? guest: thank you, susan, for having me on. one of the reasons i think senator santorum is our presidential candidate -- quality, is he appeals to it -- he has an answer in many different areas. he is not just a social conservative. he also has a foreign policy that is important. he has this tax plan that is important. he has a new, and long distance in view. i say oftentimes he had a vision beyond just the eight years. he seems to be looking at what is going to be down the line. i say that because one of the problems we have today is a result of the breakdown of our

moral and our families. and he addresses that, that is a core problem we have to address, but he also says that we have to take care of what is going on today and address those problems as well. i see him as a broad spectrum risen for america. host: senator santorum expect it himself his crew would increase after his strong showing in iowa. let me show you a few of the headlines -- in the frontadline page of "the washington post" -- here is a little bit more detail --

does this concern you, resonate with you? what is your reaction to these stories? guest: it does not concern me because i talked to senator santorum about those incomes, and basically he said, you know, when he left congress, he wanted to continue to have some play and use his talents and his influence to advance causes that he really cared about. and so, i think that that is

something that many of our elected officials do once they are no longer serving in their elected capacity, that we do go on and use our influence. i myself have done the same thing -- even though i was not elected, i ran for governor in 2010, and as a result i had an increased visibility. and because of that increased visibility, i am able to bring a different dynamic to an argument or a cause or an issue. and so, i think that is perfectly logical that you would be going on to some of those areas -- and, of course, you get speakers' fees, you are employed in some cases to help the cause. and so, i think that those are definitely not areas that i find concerning. i think that that is probably something that everyone of our

candidates have done in some level. host: writing in "the washington post" this morning, a columnist for that paper has a headline " compassion" comeback. -- ", passion comeback." your comments, please. guest: i agree with all of what he just said. that is something that senator santorum has mentioned many times on the campaign trail, is that he was very, very interested in doing whatever we can to stimulate small businesses and self-employed, as well as those people who are in

the blue-collar area. he himself comes from that blue- collar-type background. and so, those are very important issues. but more important than that is the core family. because research -- multiple pieces of research to demonstrate that children raised in a family with their biological mother and father fare much better economically, financially, they have less run- ,ns with the legal authority is less likely to be on drugs and alcohol and less likely to be on what mothers. so, he is very, very right in saying that we need to address that family court, but at the same time, we still need to do whatever we can to improve the employment situation in our country, getting manufacturing

back into america, working on making sure that we have eight business-friendly climate for our small businesses and are self-employed. host: i want to read a little bit more of the column. he goes on to write -- do you have any comments on that? guest: [laughter]

the thing is, when we are talking about america, we've got to go back to what were our founding documents. and our founding documents state very clearly that we hold these truths to be self evident that we were endowed with certain inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and we get those rights from god, not from a king or an exclusive elite, but we get those rights from god. and it is the government's job to protect those rights, to make sure that we are not infringed and that all men are treated equally in that protection. and i think that is where we as americans need to go back to our founding documents and see what they say and be able to discourse on those. host: with regards to the kinds

of social programs just described by the columnist, do you leave that there is a role and responsibility for government involved in things such as cancer screening and print -- prison ministries? guest: certainly as a president, one of the things you would be doing in your governmental role is using the bully pulpit to encourage those things. and if you listen to senator santorum, he talks very much about doing things from the bottom up. instead of having the government coming in and the president coming in, like our current president does, saying, this is what you will do and this is how you will act, he believes that we should be working with our families and that they will grow the community and the agreement -- community would grow the state, etcetera. and it is from that core working

together at local level that we are best able to address our problems, any of our problems, and our challenges that are in front of us. it is using that family that then expands into said it organizations come into our church organizations, into our church ministries, that will address a lot of our problems. in fact, education is best when it is done at the local level. because it is the parents and teachers who see what the problems might be that the child might be having, that are best able to address it, not the federal government telling us what curriculum should be being used. so, i think that what we are talking about really is that we need to address our problems at the local level and that we use -- the federal government should be limited to those things that are provided for in our

constitution. and if we can start to pull back and go into those -- it will not happen overnight. it is going to be something that takes a long time. that is where i say, senator santorum has that long-term vision about what will happen beyond eight years. if host: i want to get to calls, but i wanted to ask about the faith and family coalition-type of voters. we just learned from our last best that in the hampshire is the lowest churchgoing stayed by population in the nation. so, among the people likely to vote, how many of them are the kinds of voters that you identify with and that senator santorum in his compassionate conservatism and values-based message will resonate with? guest: it is interesting because i heard charlie say that. and i had been at a pastor is breakfast-- pastor's

to kick off the year, and that very thing came up and our discussion, is that, while it is advertised, it is not what we see on the ground. what we see on the ground is there are a number of small churches in new hampshire -- the average church size is about 35 -- a but there are many larger churches as well and the community that we find here, they have those values. they have those core values. and i would argue, too, you can evidence of this in the 2010 election, at which time, we were expecting that maybe we would take the republicans -- the republicans might take back the house and senate, but they were not even sure about the senate. they thought maybe they might be able to squeak through a

majority. and what happened is we ended up with supermajorities in both the house and the senate. and i would argue that every place that i went in the state of new hampshire, when i was running for governor, the number one question i had was about marriage. it was not about taxes and jobs. it was about marriage. so, i would argue that the 2010 election was because of voters that are in that family and freedom coalition, that they will come out if they have a clear choice on who to vote for. host: let us get to some of your calls, beginning with the gym, a republican from oklahoma. caller: thank you. i have a little trouble talking. i am a disabled vet. i have two things i wanted to address. why is it that c-span is obviously pushing santorum and

mitt romney win ron paul is way ahead of most of them, except for mitt romney? guest: well, i would not say that c-span is necessarily pushing santorum. i think they are giving each of the candidates an opportunity to come in and have their voices heard and their supporters heard. i think that ron palm has a very strong -- inron paul as a very -- ron paul has a very group of dedicated supporters to use social media to the max and they use the airwaves to the max, so i think that c-span, from what i have been understanding from a lot of people who call in and so forth, is that they are very pleased with the even hand -- even handedness you have been

using, so i disagree with the caller. host: thank you. i was not looking for an endorsement by that i appreciate your comments. one of the viewers ask a question by twitter asking why did santorum lose his last pennsylvania race by 19%? guest: you know, i really don't know that, the answer to that. it may have had something to do with the negative feeling about his endorsement of senator specter. however, i really don't know why he lost except that he did. but he also won in a state where there are 1 million more democrats registered that now are republicans. and he won not want, but twice. -- not once, but twice.

everybody has a cycle to their electorate, and it was his time to move on and maybe do something else. host: new hampshire, bill, and independent. are you supporting a candidate? caller: yes, i am. i have been a mitt romney guy sends a long time ago. host: why is that? why do you support the governor? caller: number one, he took $2,500 and made it into a few billion dollars, and character shows went tough times appear. when one of his employees daughter disappeared in new york over the weekend one time, he closed the company and took all the people down there until they found her. and i don't know of anybody else i ever heard of doing that. but that shows a real character and a real family spirit. host: what you make of the outcome in iowa?

caller: i certainly do not like the disputed part of it. [laughter] but i think it is amazing in certain respects because mitt romney only had five people in the state actually doing full- time work versus the 50 he had four years ago. but i think also because of the four years ago, there might have been some residual value he created at that time, which created the final push. certainly my biggest issue right now is -- i don't see rick santorum as a good candidate for the primary reason is he does not really anything other than a career politician and a lawyer. and when it comes to the economy and the private sector, i will always look for someone who has

actually been there and done that end of the candidates, really only mitt fills the bill. host: thank you very much. guest: i can appreciate the caller's viewpoints, however, i think that in order to have someone who is going to beat barack obama, which is our primary focus, we need someone who is going to be totally different in their viewpoints, who is going to give the voters a clear, distinct choice. and i don't think that obamacare, which mitt romney has offered, nor his -- authored, nor ushering in the same-sex marriage in the state of massachusetts when he could have been a stalwart in the state, and he could have been that very year that said to the

courts, you are not a legislative body. he could have been a much better at protecting those rights of marriage -- he says on the one hand marriages between a man and woman, but his actions in massachusetts very clearly say that he is ambivalent on that particular issue. and i think we need to have someone who is going to be clearly different from obama, and that is rick santorum. he is 180 degrees different from obama. host: karen testerman works with social conservatives in new hampshire politically, but nationally christian conservative groups are rethinking rick santorum. this is their story --