a lot of activity in new hampshire this weekend at of the tuesday primary. this morning, cspan takes you live to central new hampshire do joint the new gingrich town hall meeting. that is coming up in about one hour at 11:00 eastern time. at 2:00 eastern, we will go south for live coverage of the right santorum town hall meeting. we will take a look back now to november when newt gingrich met with the editors of the new hampshire union leader. he said he needed to finish in the top three in the iowa caucus and the new hampshire primary to continue his candidacy for president. the union leader decided to endorse mr. gingrich's after meeting with all the candidates and that the paper's offices, mr. gingrich talked about his role advising the home mortgage co. freddie mac and his new social security reform plan.

>> we have gotten some good interviews with the candidates. what is in news overseas about a dozen cia informants who been captured and may be killed in both iran and lebanon. that leads me to ask you what is your reaction to that. if you were present of the united states, what more would you need before you sanctioned

or participated in or helped somebody take out the iran nuclear plants. ? >> i think our goal should be to replace the regime. it would take out the plants and the dictatorship stays there, but plants come back. i would adopt the strategy of maximizing every kind of pressure on iran. i would ask the congress to repeal most of the restrictions of the cra. we could go back to having a genuine spies. i would have a fund set up to support anybody who was a dissident. i would support any dissident group of the country much as we did with poland and elsewhere during the cold war. i would be prepared that if we

get to a point where the military believes that they are truly on the edge of getting a nuclear weapon, i would be prepared to use military force but i would try before that to do anything to disrupt and break up the regime including maximizing covert operations inside the country and also be supplied -- and it also be prepared to cut off the gasoline supply. they only have one major refiner that makes 60% of gasoline at home so i would look at trying to find ways to impede their refineries and wage economic warfare. until the regime broke. >> are we doing that now? >> not very effectively. >> what about internet warfare? >> the israelis did it and that is good. the next thing you're likely to see is an israeli effort to break up their whole system to

basically go into their bank system and a variety of other places and break them up electronically. we could wage real cyber warfare against iran and probably be remarkably effective. >> are you in favor of that? >> absolutely. i want to replace the regime and a fall that failed, a was sadly agree to military action. >> you have said it to me before that you think we need to reassess our entire foreign policy and military situation as it applies to afghanistan and elsewhere which sensible like hillary clinton with a reset button very what you mean by reassessed? >> how do you have a strategy for afghanistan that does not include pakistan?

when you look at pakistan and realized for most of the last decade they had a major military city. you've got to back up -- this is part of what item for an american energy strategy. you have to be able to take risks and the region. you got a look at the iranians and the saudis. they are the largest funded terrorist education in the world. we tolerate it because we are afraid to make them mad >> you would first build up our -- >> the iranians and saudis are

each a problem. oil production is causing a spike in price. the saddam regime is not a strong regime. they have to get control of the money being spent and there have to change the nature of what they are doing. we are paying for saudi wealth

>> they are exporting it elsewhere hoping to put a lid on it at home, right? if you disrupt the saudi kingdom as it now stands, aren't you going to have a huge hour revolt? >> i think it should disturb every american that in iraq after the american victory, why did 700e"

christians leave the country? we need to reassess this whole thing. i don't see any great results or the last decade that should lead us to believe we're winning. >> what about domestic? >> we are hearing there won't be any kind of agreement at all. number one -- did you think that was a good idea in the first place and what can be done? >> i said pretty early on it was the dumbest idea i heard of. tech 535 people who are supposed represent them and shrink that to 12 and over 95 percent and have no representation and have the 12 handpicked by the political leaders. will it accomplish something? this was an act of desperation by people who could not fix

anything. if i were in john boehner's issues i don't know that i could do any better. we understood that you could get something done. we got an amazing amount done in a three-year period. i don't see any of that happening here. i have tried for two or three months to convince the house republicans to pass that would allow -- the warner bill that

would provide for drilling off the coast of virginia. if they pass it and it goes down to the white house, in this economy, does the president veto a bill which for its american jobs and american energy and create revenue for the federal government to tax that would be an act of suicide. it might but it would still be pretty amazing.

you should assign -- designer national security policy around several things. i am for reforming the pentagon. i think there is waste and the pentagon but i don't acustar with a politically-defined policy. the british did that and came back to haunt them what risk does the president and congress want us to take? >> before 2013, the republican congress might repeal the

defense cutting. is that not something to campaign on? >> i would campaign on that. washington) and austerity. -- washington loves pain and austerity.

we did a study and we believe that the level of corruption that medicare is 70 to $20 billion per year. i will announce a social security plan that is designed to change trillions of dollars. martin feldstein has argued that

if you're a different system, the impact on the economy is very substantially increased over the next 30 years. the easiest model is you are allowed to put her out of the social security tax into your own savings account that turns out that half the amount that so security text builds up over

your lifetime and that comes to two or three times as much money. we would keep a guarantee that you would never fall below the social security minimum. you still get a tax karen tiberi in 30 years, they have never paid a penny. >> part-time hours with the kids? >> the constitution says we are endowed by our creator with

certain unalienable rights. we designed to school system so the kids could in fact take care of the school. i got this from the college of the ozarks which is a terrific work study program. it is in southern missouri and you cannot apply unless you need financial aid. they are the fifth about selective college in the united states after columbia. they have no student aid. you work 15 hours per week and two 40-hour weeks during the

school year and that pays tuition and books. you work 40 hours a week in the summer and that is a man boarded 92% of the graduates of nothing. --owe nothing. a% 05 thousand dollars because they bought a car. i went around the campus and have a brand library. all the workers are students. everywhere in the school you have people working. most of the clerical work force and students. u.s. public universities -- you have public universities and i have one clerk for every teacher. you wonder why the price goes up. what if 80% of the clerks were students? what about instead of student loans, you had student work? part of my wife's financial package taught piano. she had 20 students per week

that she taught. we've got to rethink from the ground up. the poorest neighborhoods in america and the most important characteristic is we want to read and still the work ethic. when i get out and talk to first generation successful people financially, all of them started working early. they got into the habit of work and in the habit of turning their money and saving and had a much longer time horizon of being successful because they started much earlier. kids in poor neighborhoods don't work, drop out of school, have no habit of showing up in school board stating all dead. it is tragic. >> you mentioned the senate on health studies. there was a report about the

amount of money the senators made over the years, a lot of which is dealing with the government or big business and big pharmaceutical which are dealing with the government. last week on one of the debates, you were asked about your fees for helping freddie mac and your initial response was -- i am a historian and it was $300,000. it got up to $1.6 million. >> i was promised $300,000. >> a much was in total? >> it was $1.6 million but was not paid to me personally. it was paid to the office that had centers in three cities. over the course of the year, i think they have had 300 clients at various pricing. >> isn't this going to be

viewed, especially if you were to get the nomination, as the same old same old, washington insider gets the money based on his name. you went before the house republican group to argue in favor -- which amazed mate -- of medicare part d which was the death knell for many republicans winning again and you said that was because you want to bring them into the modern age. there were no concomitant cutbacks of that bill. >> it created medicare advantage. >> it paid for rich people to have their drugs paid for. >> it also pay for everybody to have drugs paid for. >> at a time when we did not have the money. >> first of all, every medicare program that says we will give you open heart surgery but not

lipitor is very destructive them understood, how you pay for all this. >> you have to modernize the system. i'm cheerful about balancing the budget. you save the life and the news said the money. -- and then you save the money. talk about setting money in health care, you talk about

pension reforms, and talk about the tom price bill to allow successful people to contract out. i would take part of paul ryan's bill and do it next year. if you combine that with the tom price bill, some people will come on with insurance packages and they will opt out and go to that kind of model. you can't really medicare plan that has a variety of choices and begins to be dramatically less expensive. >> you said of the paul ryan plan that it was too radical. >> no, what i was asked was -- should we impose on the country something the country thinks is deeply unpopular? >> you're not talking about the paul ryan plan? >> no, i said overall there are

some things i like and some things i don't like. the fundamental principle of government is when you do something large like social security, you have to have a conversation with the country where the country decides that, in fact, they will accept the change. i am against imposing radical change on the country and i think they fire you when you do that. and they showed. the europeans don't want any popular vote on these reforms because the police know they will be repudiated. i like a country where you can get repudiated. when we did welfare reform, 95% of the country favored it. one of the reason obama care will be repudiated as it had no republican support that matter and they were not capable of getting a back for the senate and they rammed it through

anyway. >> does it matter if the supreme court accepts or rejects obama care? >> i am for repealing obama care no matter what the supreme court does. >> you are pretty analytically politically, does it help or hurt the republican nominees? >> it probably helps. >> in the 1990's when the heritage foundation was promoting the idea of responsibility of individual mandates and you were for that, would you say that since then you have come to a different conclusion? between then and now, at what point did you realize that an individual mandate at the federal level was unconstitutional? >> i never focused on the federal level. i talked about that at the state

level. i conclude you could not do it. it is too hard. it politicizes what you mean by health care. once you go into mandates, you get into it is this in for is that in. and you rapidly politicize the system and take away from being a doctor-patient relationship. we were trying to get out the -- get at the challenge of a significant number of people who were uninsured. and they earn over $75,000 of income and they were prepared to be a free rider on their neighbors if something happened to them. you had a psychology of health care for people frequently won't pay their hospital bills. as we work with hospitals, their challenge of collecting and people who show up in a any other business, they would

expect to pay a but for some reason, we have this mind set in health care that it is free. that is a problem for hospitals. we were trying to get at how you encourage responsibility for people who otherwise -- john goodman as a model for that. he says you get a tax credit and the don't want to take it, you don't have to get it or buy insurance. it goes into a high risk pool. if something happened to you and your not insured, you're taking care of by the high risk pool and you have to have a double room and not a single room and a means a variety of steps. it is a half step toward saying if you cannot take care of yourself, you'll get basic services but to don't have the right to demand what everybody else has earned. >> the man did at the federal

level in your view is not unconstitutional? >> as you work through it, at the time it was designed to block hillary care. a congress that could compel you to do something like that could compel you to do anything. what is the limit of the congressional power to dictate your life? that is the heart of the argument at the supreme court. >> [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> there are two pieces that were part of my education. there are 185 federal tested programs. the amount spent on them is enough that if we were spent directly on the poor, there wouldn't be no poor left in america. all bureaucrats to earn a living and managing all the regulations and all the structures for 185 federal programs -- when you start to block grant that, your potential savings are extraordinary. there is no evidence that washington knows how this all the of these problems. we did welfare reform and are driving gold and i think i'm the only speaker who brought in

state governors and state technical people and put them in the drafting room with the federal drafters of the federal drafters had to actually involved people who implement the bill. there was this federal attitude of why these guys were there. >> you mentioned before that clinton was successful because he had been the governor and dealt with the legislature. you are also an historian. history tells you -- tells me that the people to get to be president are first and foremost governors. once in awhile they are a senator and very rarely if ever a member of the house of representatives. what is it in your background that is going to convince the american people that on like all these governors we got out there with real experience dealing with these problems that

you can do it? >> you could probably argue that james k. polk is the only other speaker of the house that was elected president. if you look at the scale of what we did in the 1990's and the size of the contract with america campaign in 350 districts and you looked at getting balanced budgets and getting welfare reform enacted, i have a fair amount of management experience. when i stepped down, i had a few small companies. frankly, i think people who thought i was dead in july have to confess that we are building a bridge -- a pretty good-sized campaign. in terms of management skills, i

think have a reasonable track record of having done that. i also think that if you want to change washington, you need a leader who can attract managers. it is very different than being a manager. the job of president as the leader of the american people and be the head of the american government in that order. the biggest job is to communicate with and educate and set standards for the american people. >> that's what herman cain said. >> i don't disagree with that. whether that means he could deal with the congress and the federal budget -- i was very fortunate when i stepped down first because clinton appointed me to the commission that we created to gather and i spent three years with national security after 2000. old friends came in and got me

deeply involved in the executive branch. i spent six years on a pro bono basis inside the executive branch advising on strategy. i probably have had more inside experience trying to understand how private industry is seldom what works and doesn't work that almost anybody from the legislative branch. at the same time, i had 20 years in the legislative branch as a speaker so i've a good understanding of that branch. look at the available candidates. who has anything like this in national experience? look in my background national security and i work with the army in 1979 and also in the 1980's. who has the foreign policy experience? >> is that what the country is looking for?

you mentioned being an insider. it seems that many people are fed up with anything from washington and are looking for something else. >> in every state right now, we are picking up the key leaders. the reason is they are mature enough to say that i want somebody whose values are outside washington but actually knows enough about washington to be affected. we just have -- had three years of amateurism and you make a good case that has -- that having somebody does not want know what he is doing is not a big winner ben that's my editorial tomorrow. >> i can make a pretty good case that on the one hand i have had the experience and on the other hand, clearly my values and my positions, if you look at the contract with atat newt.org,

this is clearly an outsider documents. . >> you have been rather unusual in that you have become your own worst critic on the website by bringing up charges both personal and professional and attentive to answer them. what made you decide to do that? were they going to come out anyway? >> we are having a national conversation. this is an extraordinary moment in american history. you either believe in the american people which i do or you don't. if you believe in the american people, you have to say that anybody can ask anything they want because i am asking them to loan the the power to be president of the united states and they have every right.

rather than have msnbc to store something with no answer, i would rather say if you have any questions, come right here at newt.org and here are the answers. a number of the accusations are plain false. the best way to get that across is to say that here are the facts. you decide. i have tremendous faith in the american people sorting through this stuff. and coming up with a reasonable conclusion. >> the facts also show you have changed positions. drew mentioned health care option and making people buy the insurance even though it was at a state level you were famous law on the couch with nancy pelosi talking about climate change.

there have been others over a long career. the big charge against mitt romney is that he is a flip- flopper. are you as well? >> i don't think so. my conservative rating was 90%. i think that is relatively high. my career record of balancing the budget is the only person to have done it in your lifetime. my career position and strong national security was from 1979. my record on wanted to cut taxes and working with others to do this goes back to the 1970's. sometimes things change. i voted for the department of education in 1979. i would not vote for that now. i look at how it has evolved. i look at the national education establishment and my conclusion is you need very dramatic

changes in education. that was 32 years ago. i have been relatively stable and other things and a couple of things i just made a mistake. the advertisement with nancy pelosi is probably the dumbest thing i did because she is a radioactive. it is just dumb. i don't know about climate change. there are zero many reputable scientists who say it is real and others that say it is not real. >> there is a question there is climate change? >> yes. >> because of climate and is up in the air. >> in the 1970's, the data set we were going into an ice age.

climate is changing all the time. i used to be an amateur paleontologist. i look the dinosaurs from the antarctic. if there were dinosaurs in the antarctic, there was no ice. >> so we can call you a dinosaur because you have been around that long? what is the state bird? >> i don't know. >> the finch. how's your health? >> i work seven days a week running or president. >> how was your blood pressure? >> fine. >> this is the strangest thing -- not only decided to become a catholic but a golfer? are you nuts? >> i was driven to catholicism

by my golfing. my wife was a golfer and she is the only person i golf with. it is a way to get away from telephones and is a nice walk in the woods. i have no investment in gaul psychologically. >> that's good. who was the presidential gault the most. golfed the most? >> i would say lbj. >> woodrow wilson. his doctor prescribed it after his first mild stroke. he hated it. eisenhower was one of the better ones. the best one was candidate. which he did not want anybody to know.

-- the best one was kennedy. >> i would probably not fit in that book. no way would confuse my game for serious golf. >> you mentioned your web site. you mentioned your energy policy and you would rather have an energy from iowa than the panhandle. what is it logically follow that the federal government has to subsidize this tax can't the government get out of the way? >> the government obtains good renewable fuel standard. most don't think the tax subsidy will survive.

this is where the academic side of me find this interesting. everybody in big oil paid at the mall. --hates ethanol. obama says let's get rid of the 10-$14 million. everybody who has tried to kill ethanol they apply to the small independent exploration. the big oil guys understand exactly why they want subsidies for oil. this is not a purity argument. this is a practicality argument. there are two sources of energy fighting each other. i am for both of them. i want to keep the ban is for small independents and i want to of federal lands to find oil and

gas. in north dakota, all the development is in private land. the reason north dakota has 3% unemployment is that the formation up there has turned out to be 25 times bigger than the u.s. geological survey thought it was. >> how much have you collected from the ethanol industry's, gingrich enterprises? >> i voted gasohol when reagan signed it and in 1988, i voted -- i helped it survive when the oil guys wanted to kill it. my record on this is pretty clear. i had a very successful consulting business. i had a successful [inaudible]

there's not a single position i have taken and i am happy that i am certain there are note situations where i said do not pay me. i have had a long public career when the ethanol guys came in and ask for advice, i said sure. >> what exactly where you're companies paid for to do by freddie mac? >> i offered them strategic advice. they did not pay me to lobby. "the art of transformation"is a good way to get large scale change. we were listening to people tell

us what their problems were and try to help them think for what they -- how they could solve what they are up against. the case of housing, i worked with jack kemp started in the middle 1980's and how you help poor people get into housing. there is a conservative way to do it which is to teach them budgeting and how to take care of their house. there is a frugality that allows relatively poor people to own homes and be successful at it. it does is give them the money for a house they cannot sustain. about meetingous these goals, how would you do it? >> one of the freddie mac directors said we were hoping he would write something in support of the gm model and get republicans on board and i don't think that ever happened. was that ever communicated to you? >> sure, i looked at it.

government-sponsored enterprises go back to the founding of america. they can be useful but no rational person was going to advocate creating a bubble. i used to teach economic history. the fact that something is good if you do with up to this point but insane at you do to this point does not mean you should do it more i think we should try to find ways to help relatively poor people to own houses. should you create a bubble and give away money and have people trapped in -- trapped in poverty? no. there is a big difference. >> were you in a position to see the double coming? did you were against it? >> it was not obvious in 2007.

it was things like countrywide not freddie mac. when you started getting people who could buy houses with no credit and no money down, these things are in sync. i --nsane. i had no access to their internal information. i was not brought in to review what they were doing. if anybody had said to me do you think we should do the following five things, i would have said no. i was not in congress that the time. i was a private citizen. private citizens are allowed to be in business. i did no lobbying of any kind.

mark lazio produced a reform bill in 1996 that we passed against the opposition liberals. he said he always supported my reform efforts and i never mentioned fannie mae and freddie mac. in my public role, i think i was very clear about what i was doing. it is important to understand that as a private adviser, had they come to me -- every time somebody said to me here is what is happening -- it was not obvious before 2007 -- i would say this is unsustainable. the study economic history, it is clearly not possible to do this. a good friend of mine is a

successful investor. he was describing the grounds of the japanese palace have the same value as the state of florida. i said that as a bubble. he sold everything he had in japan before the crash and he has liked me ever since. it is not hard to figure out when things are out of whack that they are not sustainable. >> you used to support the education department. you have a long list of education ideas, reform ideas, one of which is pell grants for k-12. then you say you're going to shrink the education department as small as you can get it. grants further

entrenching the federal government? i would encourage the states to do that. >> i would say here are 12 things i hope the state government does. the president is the leader of the government. ronald reagan understood this early. as leader of the country, i can advocate a whole series of texts. i think every state to adopt a law that says students will encounter financial independence in the third year of school. i don't know if the federal government should adopt the rule but i will advocate that in every state because i think the declaration of independence is essential to we are as a people. data collected analysis ridge --. >> had you on wind all the

subsidies? -- how do you and want all the subsidies? >> we first went to school lunch program after world war two because of malnutrition. it was sponsored by richard russell who is pretty conservative. so many young men were incapable of serving because the basic health problems. that was the original theory behind it. i have not taken a position on school lunch but i think you should be cautious before you automatically jump off a cliff and say we will dispense bad. di --sband that. >> every school is a certain amount of their budget comes from washington. >> it is a pretty small percentage and i would argue that if you went to the average school, how much does federal

regulation cost? how much time do spent filling out forms and how many clerks do you hire? i think you might find better federal aid also meant the end of federal regulation and you might find it is more of a break-even. >> in manchester, we have 70 languages that are spoken in the city school system that want to take these kids a who areesl and not test them for federal testing for your two but we can't because of federal regulations. >> that is example of something that is crazy. if you have someone who shows up from ethiopia or somalia or glad ia and you say i'm did you -- you have been here for six months ended testament to get into school, >> what about no child left

behind? >> i am adamantly in favor of english being our official language and all people over six languages learning english. learning english as the first set toward prosperity for immigrants. >> there are some government documents in miami that may be printed in spanish or in california or texas. >> you can print voting documents in every language of the country. the total number of languages that print the voting ballot in is absurd. >> you have been talking about

the team of rivals. where were to put your rival ron they? >> governor romney is extremely competent manager. it knows about business and finance and has a wide range of possibilities. >> funny, when i suggested that to him, he was not so interested. the part about him serving on your team of rivals. >> all i thought you asked about me serving in his team of rivals. [laughter] ronald reagan said he was glad that ford did not run because he was not sure that you turned down the president. this is like a percent sign and

people thought i would not get the nomination. romney is the front runner. >> have you got a campaign now? you say you have eight staffers here. >> that is a campaign. i have a good natural political leader. butou don't have to pay him you complimented him nicely. do you have a campaign to sustain yourself? where do you have to finish in new hampshire to go on with any hope of winning the nomination? >> i think i should be in the

top three in iowa and the top three in new hampshire. i would like to be first in iowa and first in new hampshire and we will see. i have to be in the top three. if we go south and i am a viable candidate, i will win in south carolina. that changes the environment for florida. these are really important building blocks. whether one of us can run the table. in which case it will be over early. you saw what happened to hillary and obama and you start slugging it out in may and june. you have to prepare for both. i would sure like to do the best i can in all the early primaries but i would rather have the ability to sustain a campaign all the way to -- >> when you say top three in

these two states, ron paul seems like the wild card in this thing. should he be viewed as one of the regular republicans? he has his following in his position. >> and he may do surprisingly well. you cannot tell yet started as we learn more about how bad the federal reserve is and how much money it has thrown around the planet, he has a better case. it is hard for people to accept but i think ron pohl get a niche that israe real. the bigger the primary, the less support he will have. he is a factor and he will be reported as a factor. >> he also said he will not run

on a third party. >> he said flatly he would not run on a third party. he would not guarantee that he would endorse a republican so he might not be passive a body would not run as a third-party candidate. >> have you caught up with mackinnon will pay money to get in the ballot in 50 states? there be internet voting. >> if we nominate somebody was reasonably articulate and clearly conservative that no third-party ticket will get the boats. people will say they can vote to beat obama for reelect obama and that i don't vote for a major candidate against obama, just voted to re-elect him.

there will be less tendency to have a third-party candidate than in any other year. the biggest advantage i have is that if you say to people who would you like to see debate obama, overwhelmingly, they say me. that means i have a no to be theminee. i was living desmans the other day and one woman said we like your idea of seven debates. we're already planning debate parties, me and my husband. i thought that was an encouraging sign >> do we have any follow-up or are we all set? >> here is a unique figure -- >> woodrow wilson.

i just found out the woodrow wilson's son-in-law was a ma,cindor. i found that out from the can "burns prohibition"series. we will be covering your social security thing. come back and see us. >> thank you. we now made cspan happen. y. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] .

he is behind first-place mitt romney and second place ron paul. clip: ♪

♪

♪

>> c-span is live here in central new hampshire. newt gingrich expected about 10 minutes ago. we should be seeing him maybe in another 10 or 15 minutes. just watching the room here in the veterans hall at the wright museum. this is in wolfeboro, new hampshire, the central part of the state. some of the poll numbers coming out of the latest new hampshire primary poll, mr. romney is in the lead here in new hampshire. he has about 44% of voters support. ron paul is in second place with 20%. ed newt gingrich, who you'll see here in a few minutes, is in third place with about 8%. later today, his daughter is scheduled to attend a meeting and agreed with the gop women's group this afternoon down near the massachusetts border, and that is also near where rick santorum is campaigning today. we will have live coverage of one of rick santorum's events as

well. we will have that at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. just a few minutes away, 10 to 15 minutes before we see former house speaker newt gingrich's. clip: ♪

>> i am the speaker of the house in new hampshire. how ar you? [applause] i am pleased to be up here. my son went to brewster academy, so we come up here all the time. what a great area of the state is that you live in but i am here for an important reason today. i am here to talk to you about the candidate that i have endorsed for president of the united states. the reason i have endorsed him as for the varies -- very reason

i am involved in politics. i have not been in politics that long. it is my third term in the house. i have moved to forward it into the speakership pretty quickly. as i became involved and spent my first term in the legislature, i began to realize that the republican party in new hampshire had a problem. the problem was this, that we were not presenting to the people of new hampshire a clear conservative alternative. we were not going to the people of new hampshire and unabashedly saying, we are republicans, and we are republicans because we believe in the bidding government. we are republicans because we believe in liberty and personal responsibility. we believe in the government that should be a modest government, a government that should be turned to as a last resort, not the first resort. a government that should assume that we are adults and that we

can care for ourselves and we can make decisions for ourselves. when i came into the legislature, i was confronted with the republican party that, when you talked to people, they had good instincts. but they did not think the people of new hampshire would respond to that kind of message. and we had spent decades being, i think, embarrassed about being republicans. and we decided -- some of us in the legislature decided that the republican message, the conservative message is an attractive message. it is a message that speaks to what is the essence of being an american. and we just had to get out there and talk to people about it. and the failure to do that over time not only lead to increasing numbers of republicans in new hampshire. it led to four years of a

democratic legislature. during that time, after we suffered of those defeats, those of us who remained in the legislatures that we are not going to put up with this anymore. we're going to come forward with a strong republican message. we're going to present to the people of new hampshire a clear alternative to what it means to be a republican and a democrat. a clear alternative tbetween wht it means to be liberal progressive and a conservative. we think, and we were right, that the people in new hampshire would respond to that. when we did that this last election, we were able to get 75% majorities in the house. [applause] and as i told you, we decided that this message is one that will be successful in the state level. and i submit to you that this is a message that would have to take to the people of the united

states, that we cannot any longer have those who build themselves as the party establishment saying to us, be embarrassed conservative. the embarrassed about this strong message of liberty and limited government that we say we stand for what we do not nominate candidates who will promote. and that is the reason that i have taken a very, very strong position in supporting newt gingrich. we cannot have a candidate who is a massachusetts moderate, a timid candidate -- [applause] who will go to washington and be the tax collectors for the democrats, go to washington and fix the problems they have caused the not limit the opportunities for those problems to arise again. a republican who will say, i have to tax you, but i feel bad about doing ed. you know, when we put the budget

together in new hampshire, we made a clear choice. we said no more taxes. we're going to shrink government, and we reduced state spending, this budget we just put in place, by almost 18%. i ask you, among the presidential candidates, who has the history and experience of doing that, who has the principles of doing that, and it is not a one-term massachusetts governor who left the office having been elected to no other office with a 34% approval rating. that is the necessity of us turning around from this disastrous presidency, this presidency that has done as one favor. what he has done is chew horn 50 years of creeping socialism into a three-year time span and demonstrated the way this country is going. he is showing us that transformative changes needed, and it will be one candidate who has the history, the experience,

the ability, the track record that will turn around this country, and that candidate is newt gingrich britta i am so pleased to be about to come to you and enforce them and ask you to listen to him, and i think you will reach the same conclusion that i have. now, before he comes on, we have a great american here want to introduce to you. that is just someone i am throw to have had the opportunity to meet, a true american, an american who has had a history, but in the military and following his military career of defending the country, and that this bud mcfarlane. bud, if you come out here, i would appreciate it. [applause] >> good morning. thank you to each of you for coming out. this is a great, very warm show of support for newt gingrich. i will be very brief.

the data blessings in my life i treasure most are having served for 20 years in the u.s. marine corps, and secondly, working for -- [applause] and secondly, having had the good fortune to work for president reagan for five years. [cheers and applause] i mentioned that because that record of service to our country was service at a time when the conventional wisdom was that we were going to have to endure a soviet threat forever, that there was nothing we could do about that. president reagan came to office, and he said this idea that things always have to be the way they have been is nonsense. this is an evil empire. we can bring it down.

we can reform our own government. we can make it smaller. these were heretical ideas, even in the republican party, at the time. but he did it. and, today, we look back on five years in which we brought down marxism, ended the cold war, reduced nuclear weapons, and short changes feasible with good leadership. in those years, i had the good fortune to meet newt gingrich. here was another man who did not believe that things had to be the way they had always been. you could change them. you could write a contract with america to reform welfare, to balance the budget, and actually do it. this is a leadership of an extraordinary nature. in the years ahead, we're going to face an uncommon, truly

complex, daunting agenda of threats to national security. the family of threats that includes cyber security threats, the ability of the subversives to bring down our banking system, to mess up your bank accounts and credit cards. also, your electric power grid. and every electronic system that truly has begun to control most of what we do every day. you're going to face the continuing terrorist threats, but now and in the future, threats that include the ability to use biological weapons and bring about mass casualties. you are going to face, also, the threat from iran and others, perforation and a clear weapons. why do i mention these? well, because somebody, our president, has to have given a

lot of thought to these issues, to understand the nature of cyber threats and what we do about it. how can you hard in our systems, improve them? make them resistant to these kinds of threats and overcome them? when i look at the family of people running for office this year, there was only one that stood out for two qualities first, having studied for years the nature of these threats, where did they come from, what is the nature of the technology, and how do we overcome them? that was newt gingrich. nobody else has given thought to these things running for the presidency. secondly, it is one thing to know the nature of the problem, another to know the solution and to be able to get it done.

newt gingrich has gotten it done. who else balance the budget for four years? moved the entire federal government to a very different way of thinking that we can do this and do it? he also brings to the presidency a knowledge of how to move the u.s. congress, how to have the courage to go against conventional wisdom, how to balance the budget, and at home and abroad, show the kind of leadership that president reagan did only 25 years ago. nobody else in this race has those qualities of knowledge and experience. i am here because i believe in a newt gingrich. he can do this. he is the only one who can do this. you have got to get out and support this man. our country is at risk. he can do it. only he can do it.

it is an honor, truly, to be here today with you and introduce the next president of the united states, speaker newt gingrich. [applause] ♪ only in america dream in red, white, and blue clip: [cheers and applause] ♪ >> well, this may be the best venue -- you know, i have got to

tell you, i have two reactions. first of all, i am an army brat. my dad spent 27 years in the infantry. so i grew up as a kid around places like this, although i think we built this right at the end of world war ii, and this was the first generally modern tank built. from an army brat standpoint, this brings back lots of memories. from a political standpoint, i look at this tank lovingly. [laughter] because i remember michael dukakis -- [laughter] [applause] and it is just a reminder that governors of massachusetts do not always make good presidential candidates. [ >> before i get started, want to

briefly cite things about people and reduced may. we need to get this man a microphone. you have a favorite son from right here at home. i was thrilled to get a call a while back and he said it is so important that a reagan conservative wind. you want to come and volunteer and work full-time. that is senator bob smith. [applause] , up for a minute. do we have a microphone? there we go. talk to the hometown folks. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. this is his show and i want to say thank you for coming and thank you for all coming to see speaker gingrich. in 1984 when i was elected, i walked into the congress and did not know where the bathroom was. here is a congressman from georgia who came over and said

before you get involved with the minutia that happens here, are you content to be in the budget -- in the minority and fighting this liberal majority of democrats or do you want to take the bull by the horns and take control? >> i think the answer is obvious. >> he said come on and about 10 of us met in a closet area. we plotted the revolution but it is not finished. the reason why i left key largo to be up here in the cold of new hampshire is because i believe in this man. we need and so desperately right now. [applause] i cannot tell you -- i cannot put into words how much i mean that. he and his wife have produced this movie about ronald reagan. if you saw that movie and you realize that all of ronald reagan's dream come all the things he wanted to do, we held him in the house and senate in

those days when ronald reagan was there thanks to newt gingrich. we would probably still be a minority of not for him. we need to finish that revolution to honor president reagan. this man can't do it. he has the philosophy, the conservative principles and values, he is a reagan conservative through and through. let's finish the revolution and let's elect newt gingrich, please, elect newt gingrich next tuesday, thank you. [applause] >> before it gets started, how many of you are either veterans or families of veterans? virtually all of you. [applause] i think we owe you a real debt of gratitude. i want to say thank you for coming to this rally. [applause] without your willingness to risk everything -- when you swear the

oath to be in the armed services, you are basically signing over your life to the commander in chief. this is the flag that george washington flow of valley forge in front of his command headquarters. this is the flag of the commander in chief of the american army. when they met in philadelphia, he presided over the constitutional convention. when they wrote into the constitution that the president is the commander-in-chief, they knew what they meant. he was not an adviser in chief for a talker in chief. he was not a politician in chief. he bears the ultimate or she bears the ultimate responsibility for the defense of the united states and the defeat of our enemies. that is how real this this. would you signed up, you gave that commander in chief control over your life.

because you did that, we are today still a free nation. without our veterans, we would not today be a free nation. i'm thrilled to be here and i thank you. the two great folks who introduced me, speaker o'brien is the model of what we need [applause] what he and his team -- he is very good reminding you that it is the team -- what he and the team did, when they confronted a budget deficit, i want every state to do this -- they did one of the smartest things i heard. they started by having the ways and means committee report how much money was being spent they then said we can pass any budget up to that amount. normally what politicians do is figure out how much they want to spend and that leaves them with

a shortfall and i figure out how much they have to take away from you. they ended up cutting 18% out of the new hampshire expenditures and 11% if you count federal funding. i don't know of any state that had a more courageous and direct effort to protect the taxpayer. they protected the average taxpayer from $3,000 additional taxes. they did it the old-fashioned way. they had to set priorities, cut out waste, make decisions, everything the u.s. congress and the president cannot do. one of the reasons i'm campaigning is i would like to make washington more like new hampshire where as the left would like to make new hampshire more like washington. that is an easy way to think of the difference. there is a huge difference between speaker o'brien and his team who represent a tea party conservative small government low tax movement and governor

romney who campaigned on no tax increase in 2002 and passed a $730 million tax increase. most of them were in the form of fees which were mandatory. there was actually a tax on people who were blind. that is a little hard to imagine but true. the other was a tax on gun ownership. he double the cost of owning a gun so you had to register a gun in massachusetts and pay $100 for a gun every year. it was a tax increase on the second amendment right, in my judgment. the difference between raising taxes because you don't have the courage to cut government and cutting government because you refuse to raise taxes is a dramatic difference. i am really glad to have bud mcfarlane here. one of the reasons he did a great job is unlike many of the politicians to end up in washington, he came out of a military background and he

actually thought his job was to help the president be effective, not maneuver around the president. because he had, in ronald reagan, a president who knew what he intended to do, president who was methodically determined to defeat the soviet empire, bud played a decisive role in one of the most important administrations we have had. reagan had a clear vision. when i talk about being a reagan conservative, i met him in 1974 and campaigned in 1979-'80 and helped develop supply-side economics. i work for the reagan administration for eight years. it is a simple model. reagan set out to accomplish three things -- he understood something important about leadership. lions cannot afford to support chipmunks. even if they catch them, they starve to death.

lions have to hunt zebra and antelope. reagan got up every morning and he said where are my antelope? there were three. rebuild the american economy and get a clear strategy. renew american civic culture so we were proud to be american. and defeat the soviet empire. those are pretty big. he would then go in the oval office and chipmunks would run in. the federal government grows $10 billion per month, those are big chipmunks. [laughter] reagan listened patiently because he was a positive person and he would say, you are a terrific chipmunk. [laughter] have you met jim baker? the president's chief of staff became the largest chipmunk collector on the planet.

i really learned a lot about leadership. it wasn't that reagan was disengage, it was that reagan thattwo boxes in his head. he had a chipmunk box and he had an antelope box. this is the difference. this is a great study in real leadership. reagan wants to send a signal and he got down into the weeds if the weeds involve the big issues. secretary of state george shultz told the story that reagan had gone to berlin as governor in 1967. he said that wall sure is ugly, they ought to tear it down. >> 65-68. >> and the wall was ugly and it should have torn down. 20 years later, reagan is

reelected president and carries 49 states. he will go back to berlin and he has this blind he wants to deliver -- mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. the state department hated the line. they thought would be a gorbachev feel bad. [laughter] it did not sound presidential and it was not going to happen. the speech went from the white house to the state department and what critics department editor takes out the line. it goes back to the white house and reagan personally writes it back again and goes back to the state department. they take out the line. it goes back to the white house. reagan calls the secretary of state. he said george, you need to tell your chipmunks that i am the president and they are not.

the line stays in. they get to berlin and that morning before he goes through the speech, there are still senior advisers saying to him please don't give this line. it is not going to happen. the wall be there for 30 more years and you will look foolish. it is one of the greatest lines of his presidency and the wall fell within two years. that is what real leadership is. real leadership understands the principle that matter, the correct division of the future, and the courage to impose your will when every time a person around you is scared to death of what you are about to do is foolish because as a leader you believe in doing what is right no matter what the staff believes. that is the key. [applause] that is why i think a bold reagan conservative candidate

barack obama decisively. whereas a timid, mass. moderate will have a much harder time because when you're facing a fund of $1 billion and the support of the elite media and the white house, you want to create a big gap. i am for american energy and he is against it. i am for paychecks and he is for food stamps. i am for lower taxes, he is for higher taxes. i for helping every american create jobs and he is for class warfare to did -- to divide the country. most of his $1 billion will fall in the middle if you have a big gap. reagan took on carter and carter was a milder version of obama. he was equally bad performance but not as wobbly. reagan was able to draw such a vivid comparison that made a huge difference.

the comparison stock and that is why reagan and carter debated and he came up with "there you go again." carter would make some wild charge and people got it. let me talk to you about two issues that relate to veterans and hampshire. i want to talk about the northern pass. you have my commitment that i will do everything i can to insure that the only way that happens is if it is buried underground along [applause] we have the technology today that we do not have to choose between delivering electricity to boston and the tourist industry and the beauty of northern new hampshire. we can assist and technological solution which the state could make money from by leasing part

of the right of way so you don't have to get into eminent domain and you don't have to go into the taking of private property. i would suggest that allows us to have a win-win solution that enables electricity to arrive in the big city without having run over everybody in between. i think there is no reason to assume that in america everyone in between needs to be run over just so that big cities and big businesses can get what they want. second, i think it is profoundly wrong that in midwinter veterans have to go all the way to boston to get health care. i am committed to three things that i want you to know about for veterans in new hampshire. first, i am committed to reopening the manchester hospital as a full-service facility, not just an outpatient clinic. [applause]

second, i am committed to developing a very sophisticated clinic in the north country that uses tele-madison so you can get a high percentage of your diagnostics and treatment done without having to go as far away as manchester. [applause] third, i'm committed to effect a program that allows you, if you prefer, to use your local doctor and local hospitals the don't have to travel. [applause] i say this as the son of a 27- year career soldier and somebody who values military families and veterans families and knows what you have to go through. it seems that all you ever have to do to explain this is get somebody off a congressional committee and get them to come to northern new hampshire and let them try to get to boston. if you pick the right week with

the right blizzard, they will get the idea. [laughter] if they hit three moves on the way, they will thoroughly understand why it is the wrong thing. [applause] let me talk briefly about jobs and the economy and where we are. this is a big deal. let me draw an historical comparison. i don't see much that is the radical. i'm a history teacher and i try to use facts and use history. last month, we created 200,000 jobs and the obama administration is dancing in the streets and i have to admit, compared to some other months, 200,000 beats nothing. you have to remember that in august of 1983, with reagan, we created 1,300,000 jobs in one month, six times the number. what does that matter? you have a real crisis in europe that is still sitting there with

the euro decaying and european banks decaying. you have the potential for a real crisis in the middle east with the iranians practicing closing the strait of hormuz and the straits of hormuz have one out of every 6 barrels of oil in the world. if either of those happen next spring, this coming spring, you could see the entire world tilt into a deeper recession. the only engine big enough to pull the world economy is the united states. we're still 1/4 of the world economy. when we grow, the sheer momentum of our growth changes things. this is one of the things of why i am running for president. we know how to do this. this is one of those things were the academic left and the political left in the media left is so dense that you wonder what happened to them. it is as though they had a

cookbook that says you take a hard again put in the freezer. [laughter] if you want to test this some time, you might want to go home and try this. an egg in a freezer for a couple of days and it will become hard. when you go to a restaurant and say you'd like a hard egg, if they brought you a frozen egg, you would think they were nuts. reagan have five principles for economic growth -- strong money, a sound dollar, lower taxes, less regulation so people could focus on to open orsahip, american energy [applause] and praising the people who create jobs. what is the obama model?

reagan is for sound money. bernanke and obama are for inflation. the amount of money they are printing now in the long run, they are starting up a wave of inflation on an historic scale. under jimmy carter got to be 13% inflation at 22% interest rates. reagan, lower taxes, obama higher taxes. reagan -- less red tape, obama -- more power to epa and osha. reagan -- more american energy, obama, anti-american energy. reagan, i love people a great job and i want to praise small- business owners and praise people go to work. obama -- let's attack ever when it was successful. is it any wonder you have this gap? i have grown from the reagan model. i helped develop in the '70s and

implemented in the '80s. it was a bipartisan model. tip o'neill was speaker of the house. if we were going to pass the reagan program, we had to get one out of every three democrats to vote for it and we did. we reached out to everybody. we tried to develop an american program. , not just the republican program. i get to be speaker. there were two tax increases after reagan and the economy slowed down and i pulled out the same cookbook. two out of three people went to work or went to school and we pass the first tax cut in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history and we traded 11 million new jobs in four years and unemployment droppedto 4.2%. if you take someone off of welfare, unemployment, food stamps and you put them to work taking care their family and pay

their bills and paying taxes, you raise the revenue of the government without raising taxes. you reduce the spend a. clinton and i were able to hammer out four consecutive balanced budgets and paid off $405 billion of debt. that is the only time in your lifetime you have had four balanced budgets. [applause] this is part of why speaker o'brien and i identify with each other because we're speakers to believe in balanced budgets. in that context, what would you do today? i am for sound money. i would fire bernanke, shrink the role of the fed -- [applause] i would focus the fed on a stable dollar. taxes -- zero capital gains tax so money pours into the united states. [applause]

12.5% corporate tax rate which would free up billions of dollars from overseas and would allow american companies to compete on a fair and level playing field. at two 0.5%, general electric would actually pay taxes. [applause] 100% expenses -- no one realized how much precision manufacturing there is in new hampshire. what you want to do was at 100% expensing. if you buy new equipment, you write it off in one year. we want american workers to be the best equipped workers in the world with the greatest productivity. it is the only way to have a high value job competing with china and india. if you do that on the equipment side, i would also modernize the unemployment compensation program by having a training requirement attached to it so if you need on and on the

compensation, you have to sign up for business training course to learn new skills while we are paying you but we'll never again pay anyone 99 weeks for doing nothing. [applause] >> we would abolish the death tax permanently because it is a destructive tax. [applause] at a personal tax level, you could keep the current deductions and red tape or you could have an optional 15% flat tax in the hong kong tradition. the one-page and here's my tax. if you do that, people have a choice. hong kong has done this for four years. we are not taking anybody's deductions away. we're giving you the choice of simplicity verses complexity and you can choose.

[applause] now you come to regulatory. pretty straightforward -- you want to fix this country quickly, i would ask the brand new congress and january 3, 2013 to stay in session. i would ask them before the inaugural to repeal of acare - [applause] -- to appeal obamacare -- it is the biggest job killing component of regulatory behavior. i would ask them to repeal the dodd-frank bill which is killing small banks. [applause] dodd-frank kill small banks and cripple small businesses and drive down the price of health. i would ask them to repeal sarbanes oxley which has added paperwork and gained nothing. [applause] i would like all three of those done before january 20 so when i'm sworn in they can bring them

in and i consign the repeal of all three and get to work in a positive way. on the inaugural, i would have a series of executive orders about two hours after the inaugural, the first of which would abolish all the while houseczars as of that moment. [applause] other regulatory reforms -- we should replace the environmental protection agency with a brand new environmental solutions agency. we should not retire any of the radicals currently trying to destroy the american economy. [applause] everywhere i go municipalities tell me how they are being dictated to by washington bureaucrats who have never visited their 10, have no idea about reality, have no concern about the budget and simply issue washington dictates that

are destructive. the epa is the largest job killing agency in the federal government. [applause] i would also go to a 21st century food and drug administration on a particular model. we want the fda in the laboratory understanding new science and want them to accelerate getting into the patient and not block it. that will change everything. they will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, dominate the world held market which is the biggest market in the emerging world, and it will enable us to get to patients better ways of saving their lives faster and a lower-cost. the duty of the fda is to turn it upside down -- it is today and obstruction to bringing new science to patients and it is stunningly expensive and it is guaranteeing that the breakthroughs will occur in china and india. our last scientists will go overseas to develop their products. it will not work for the fda. that is regulatory. let's talk about energy.

[applause] i have a very simple model. i am for every form of american energy. i want america and not just to be energy independent, what is to have a surplus of something happens in the straits of hormuz, we can step in and assert our productivity and make sure the world avoids a depression. i want to get to report no american president ever again bows to saudi k, period. [applause] the two-tiered venue -- as was the coolest place as i have done this. [laughter] the two last examples on energy -- the president goes to. brazil the president has blocked

american development of energy offshore and messed up louisiana and people have no idea how the world works. they put a moratorium and louisiana against the advice of their technical experts. they said was the dumbest thing they could do and i think the white house literally did not know these huge ocean drilling rigs move. these are very expensive pieces of capital. they will not sit around for six or a year to be political exhibits for a demagogue politician. the first one that left went to egypt. it took $80,000 per year jobs with them and when they drill oil, the government gets oil reg. it is a major source of revenue. the second one was perfect. the company that moved at a ceo who was tough. he issued the following statement -- because of political instability in the united states, we're now going to develop all of the condo.

congo. under obama, we are less stable copngo and that is not easy. in the middle stop american oil and gas productivity, the president visits and says i really want to be -- i want to thank you and congratulate you for developing offshore oil and gas. i am proud that we were able to guarantee $2 billion of equipment purchases largely from company-owned majorities. he said the most amazing thing -- he said i want america to be your best customer. this guy really doesn't get it. to be't hire president's foreign purchasing agents. the obama model is to borrow from the chinese to buy from the brazilians. it does not work. we hire an american president to be a salesman for american

goods and services worldwide to create jobs in the u.s. selling overseas. [applause] finally, you have the spectacle xl keystone pipeline. it is one thing if the white house cannot play chess. it is another thing if a white house cannot play checkers. [laughter] but if a white house cannot play tic tac toe -- [laughter] let me explain why use this analogy. this is one of the dumbest things i have ever seen. the president has this dilemma. he is in total real auction mode. he does not care about being president. he cares about being reelected. so he will not do presidential stuff, because that is so

boring. giving speeches is so much fun. so he has this dilemma. the san francisco environmental extremists hate canadian oil. the construction workers union wants to build a pipeline because there is 20,000 to the 2000 american jobs. he does not want them union mad at him and he does not want the environmentalists met at thibodeau facility things, being quite clever, i will postpone the decision to 2013. now, prime minister harper is a conservative who is pro- american. but he is also the canadian prime minister. so he says, you know, if the united states does not want to make a decision, i want to talk to the chinese about paying for a pipeline, which is more expensive, over the rockies to vancouver. the ideal pipeline comes straight down, it is easy to build a it is fly. we have been building pipelines for well over 100 years. it should go from canada to

houston. houston is the biggest petrochemical complex in the world you make money building the pipeline, running the pipeline, and make money processing the oil for the next 30 to 50 years. you make money in the port of galveston shipping oil. but harper says, well, you guys are going to mess around and be totally unreliable, i will go work with the chinese and we will build an off-canada pipeline. if you set three years ago that the u.s. would have a president so incompetent that a canadian- chinese partnership made more sense than a canadian-american partnership, i would thought it would be inconceivable. but i underestimated how self- destructive barack obama is. the last point, of course, as i like people who create jobs. i am willing to be pro people who create jobs, whether they're small business jobs, self- employed jobs, entrepreneurs, inventors. what has made america great for our whole history has been in

the words that dick expressed in creativity and entrepreneur ship. so the gap between us and obama is that big. [applause] i need your help tuesday. i need your help from now to tuesday, talking to your many friends but i do think there is an enormous gap between somebody who is a bold break and conservative and somebody who is a to admit massachusetts moderate. i think it is big. i think it makes it very different in terms of how you would compete with obama. with your help, if i become the nominee, i will challenge president obama to seven three- hour debates in the lincoln- douglas tradition with a timekeeper and no moderator. i will agree in advance that he can use the teleprompter. [laughter] [applause]

after all, if you had to defend obamacare, wouldn't you want to use a teleprompter? [laughter] and i think, with your help, we can win a decisive victory for america. we can make this one of the most important elections in american history. we can do what i helped reagan due in 1980 at what we did in 1994, which show a clear, cold distinction around which we can rally the vast majority of americans of all backgrounds. and as a result, in january of 2013, we can aggressively put this country back on the right track. and with your help, that is what i will do. [cheers and applause]

so -- questions? i think we have a couple of microphones. how about the gentleman standing back there? >> thank you for coming to wolfeboro. how big are your coattails? nothing personal. >> when we designed the 1980 campaign, i helped cheer the first capital event in history. it was written about in september 1980. reagan came and stood on the capitol steps with every house and senate candidate. we pledged five specific things. we won six u.s. senate races by a combined margin of 75,000 votes. we took the senate. we took the 33 house seats, as well as the presidency. that was a team to victory. in 1994, we ran the team

campaign, three under 50 candidates signed on to the contract with america. we had the largest one-parte increase in american history. 9 million additional votes with the republicans over 1990. 1 million fewer votes for the democrats. so i think it is pretty fair to say -- i know i designed sweeps better team victories. my goal, as the nominee, would be to carry the senate by a big margin, to strengthen the house, and to do on an agenda. you can go to newt.org for the 21st century contract with america. it is not so much about cartels, that is about building a team. the entire team when 17. michael would be that we have the ability to pass what we are going about by having an elected team committed to it. ok? >> mr. speaker, as chief executive, until you can get the epa shutdown and the department of education shutdown, would you

say the doors are closed? >> i am not sure i have quite that level of authority, but i can probably ordered them to re -review every single proposed regulation. get them working for a good long while while we solved it. [applause] >> last night, i waasked your opponent how he felt about veterans defeated us, are there any veterans? there was just a smattering of us there, hardly anything. a surprise me. he said, how you feel -- as it, how i feel about it when you sit cutting this, cutting back, i worry about my veterans benefits of their where i live. i live further north. he said, i am all for the military. he dodged the question. and then i said i have not read

anything about the second amendment with the. he said, i am for the second amendment. we know his record in massachusetts. back in 1995, i have a picture of you and me. when you sign it? -- would you sign it? [applause] remember that? just before you got on the helicopter. >> that is great. >> no one has ever called me slim. so i am writing this to you with great admiration. [laughter] [applause] all right, there's a lady right here. >> mr. speaker, thank you for being here. listening to you, it is like a breath of fresh air. you know, i think so many people feel that. we need a leader. we need leadership. annie le, north korea has the

largest military in the world. china, right behind it. now our present administration -- i do not even want to call him mr. president, but he wants to cut our military. what are your feelings about that? >> i think when you elect a radical, you should expect him to be headed that way. he does not believe we had any enemies, worries about what america is not a better country than it could -- you know, just listen to his speeches. egos on apologizing for the u.s. he thinks we are the problem. my only advice is we have to defeat him. this guy is totally wrong. [applause] >> there is a bunch of us here that are getting checks every month from social security. you have in your legislative proposal to save social security. what is your plan? >> my plan for seven security --

for saving social security is two parts. my mother depends on it, so i am very sensitive to this issue. she is a great deal of attention and e-mails me regularly to ensure that i not forget this. [laughter] i would say a couple things. one, i think we should take social security off budget. it was off budget until lyndon johnson combined it to a unified budget. he did it to hide the that is a. the reason why i would take off budget is what obama did in july was totally unconscionable. he twice threaten people and said i may not be a percent your social security there is over $2 trillion in a trust fund. there is no excuse for any politician threatening anybody on social security, because the money is there. the money has been paid for. i want to say to politicians, keep your hands also sixth -- of social security. so i would move to take it off budget, and i would provide that

in the case of the debt ceiling problem, it was the second item paid after interest, the second item pay before anything else, just so people can relax. to say to people -- i had a guy walked up to me at a hospital in southern new hampshire months ago who said that his 87-year- old father was really worried that he was going to lose his social security check. now, for politicians to scare people of that age is just, i think, disgusting. so i think, let's take it away from them, make it automatic, put it over here, keep the trust fund safe, and not have attached. that is for europe generation, and frankly, for your children. for your grandchildren, we have a proposal to allow them, the young people here, to allow them the right to choose, not force them, allow them the right to choose a personal social security savings account. this is not a theory.

galveston, texas has this model. chile, as a country, has this model. the principal group in iowa actually runs the chilean system. what does it mean? when you first go to work, you're part of the social security tax would go into a savings account that would be yours. no politician could touch it. let's say you started with a part-time job at 16. that means that for 50 years or more, it is building up compound interest. in the chelan in galveston expense, the average retiree gets two to three times as much money as you get from social security. both of them have a provision that says if you ever fall below the actual social security number, the government will make up the difference. so you have a safety net. i in 30 years, no one has gotten a check short. all of them have been above the social security line. what does it do? first of all, it means that you

increase your estate. because, instead of transferring money back and forth, you're actually building up your money into an estate so if anything happens to you, your family now has your estate. there is an economist at harvard who was the chair who estimates that you eliminate 50% of the inequality of wealth over a generation, because every single american worker becomes an investor. they all end up having the state. then you change the fabric of american society. this is important for african- american males who have shorter life span on average and actually get back less from social security than any other group. so you really dramatically enhance every part of the community having more resources. the second thing you have is, because you are saving this money, it gets invested. so the economy gets bigger.

folks estimated that at the end of their lifetime, the american economy will be $70 trillion bigger because of the momentum. now has said -- chile now has such a huge savings will come as a 2% of the economy is in the savings pool. they now allow them to invest part of the savings overseas because the chilean economy cannot absorb all the savings. compare that to our current mass. you would be totally safe. your grandchildren, tully said peter it is a voluntary program, and the ensure for social security estimates that 95% to 97% of all young people would pick it because it is mathematically so much more powerful than the current system. that is how we fix it. that way you can relax, your children can relax, and your grandchildren can relax. ok? [applause]

>> mr. speaker, i am 30 years old. i have a son and one on the way. my concern is the future of our country financially. i cannot vote for ron paul because it is dangerous foreign policy. but at the he is spot on with respect to how much and how aggressive he wants to be with respect to the amount we need to cut in spending. i understand he has a policy. he wants to cut $1 chelan over 10 years, which is just 1/15 of the $15 trillion in debt we are in as a country. it is not just balancing the budget, because that is not enough. what is your proposal for actually try to get on a path to cut our nation's debt? >> that is a very good question. by the way, i agree. i think that ron paul's, particularly his view on israel and iran are so dangerous, and makes it hard to imagine him as

president of but i think his critique of the federal reserve has a lot of strength to it. i think his critique of spending has a lot of strength to it. a couple things. i say this from a background of being the only person who has actual balance the federal budget four times in a row in your lifetime. i think i have some credentials to get this done. first, you one very dramatic economic growth, because if you have big enough economic growth, it eats up a lot of the problems by the sheer momentum of scale and how much people start making. second, you want to control domestic discretionary spending. we control it twice in our lifetime. in 1981 as a junior congressman, i participated in the first real cut in domestic discretionary spending since world war ii. in 1995, the second real cut. not slowing down the rate of increase, but actually going down. part of it is just to cut spending. i believe it to apply what strong america describes as -- if you modernize the federal

government so it was as efficient as a modern company, i think we would save about $500 billion a year. that is $5 trillion over 10 years. i have to write a book called stop paying the crux, which looked at how bad the federal government is at managing payments, and our estimate was that in medicare and medicaid, their summer between $70 billion and $120 billion a year being stolen. when i say stalling, i mean a dentist who filed 982 procedures a day. i am talking about stolen. so we went to american express, visa, and mastercard. we believe it to apply their anti-fraud mechanisms, you said between $60,000,000,000.99 $10 billion a year. it does not count food stamps and student loans and other things that it is in medicare and medicaid, we think again saved something on the order of

$1 trillion over 10 years. i would close down some of the departments. frankly, the department of energy has been an anti-energy department. i would close it down. that would -- i do not know why we have a department of housing and urban development. i do not know why local housing authorities cannot be required to run local housing authorities and cut out 90% of the washington regulation. these are the kind of things that just grow and grow. i would fundamentally overhaul the washington houses. i would shrink the department of education dramatically. i would cut out the regulations but is in the power back over to states. i would say you have got to figure out how to solve education. the federal government cannot, and by the way, should not. i do not want that level of power in washington, d.c. [applause] so my goal would be to try to get to -- it took us three years to balance the budget when i was speaker. this is a much bigger mess. my goal would be to try to get

to a balanced budget within five years, to be very aggressive. you are right, you then have to run a surplus for enough years that with a combination of economic growth and control of spending, i think our goal should be to get our debt down to about 40% of gdp. if you did that, you pay off all the chinese debt and you have a very, very stable environment in terms of your fiscal situation. there is a guy right up here. he is coming to your right now. >> good morning, mr. speaker. 20-year air force veteran, and two things i have in mind. one is, would you return us to a bare minimum of don't ask, don't tell policy in the military?

and, two, what about repealing 100% of rahm obama's executive orders? -- of barack obama's executive orders? [laughter] >> first, yes. i would go back to don't ask, don't tell. they want to go back to that. they have been opposed to what obama has been trying to do. the army and marine corps were deeply opposed to it, at the they are right. i would go back to don't ask, don't tell. well it is a great line and it is tenting, i do not want to say i would repeal all of his executive orders until i knew what all of his executive orders are. i certainly have a bias for repealing those, but i do not want to say yes. i will say, yes, i am for repealing all of this exhibit of orders. one of our dear friends in the press will find executive order number 205 actually makes sense. [laughter] then they will run out and say that gingrich wants to repeal

this, whatever it is that actually makes sense. my bias is in your direction, and i am committed to reducing all those executive orders, and a very substantial number of them will be repealed the first day. my goal is on inaugural day, about two ihours after the address, to really shift the government by the end of the very first day. we will take reviewing his executive orders as a step in that direction. ok? [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of the tragedies of the clinton administration was the ranking of the patent office and the rules for patents. this has cost america daily, because basically you're -- we are being ripped off, both in medicines and inventions were we're very successful in the past, and to the actual the foundation of our economy. do you have some plans for doing

something for the patent office? and i had one request. when we close this, will you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? >> ok, i would be honored to. all right, the harvard person here. where is our microphone. >> here you go, harvard. >> in the first debate a while back, you stated that he would not increase taxes, even if they agreed to decrease spending 10 times as much. how do you feel like you will be able to do all these big plans when you are so unwilling to compromise? [laughter] >> well, because i have done it twice before. in 1981, we helped pass the reagan tax-cut program by getting democrats to vote with us. we appealed to the american people, and the american people appealed to the country. they went to the congress and said, you have got to do this. when i was speaker, we passed

welfare reform and got 101 democrats voting yes and 101 building no. the country went to their members and that we have got to do this. part of it is you have to work with people. i am happy to what rate. i am not going to call mark -- compromised to a compromise in washington means to sellout, and i am not going to do that. [applause] that may explain why i feel so strongly about this. in 1981, i helped pass the tax cuts. in 1982, president reagan was talked into a tax increase, because his senior staff did not believe in tax cuts. there were all establishment types. i fought him that year. and i stood firm on reaganism, which is no tax increase. he gave a speech, which is the only speech to give this president that failed, and people watched the speech and read and explained why we had to raise taxes, and they all said, that was really weird.

i wonder who wrote that speech. it was clearly not him. he wrote in his diary that this is the single biggest mistake of his administration. the democrats promised if you will raise taxes, we will cut spending. they got all the taxes and none of the spending. he said i will never do it again. when they tried to sell him on another tax increase, a famous story in the "new york times," or jim baker is trying to sell them on another tax increase and reagan takes off his glasses and looked at him and says if you believe what you just said, why are you in this administration? baker walked out and said we're never talking about a tax increase again while he is president. 1990, i campaigned very hard for bush in 1988. and one of the keys to his money -- he was 19 points behind dukakis in may. he won by six. as one of 25 points. in the convention he said no new taxes. he went on and said it read my

lips, no new taxes. so he gets there and several people, including the governor, sell them on the idea that it is really ok to break your word and raise taxes. and they came to me and i said, no, i am not going to do this. in one book, is is flatly that i was the one guy who kept saying to them, this is a trap. the democrats are suffering you in to accept a tax increase to break your credibility and to get more money. so i fought him. 1993, bill clinton comes in, he wants to raise taxes because the liberal democrats tell them to. he did not get a single vote. one of the real reasons we want the house. so i start with a simple promise. i do not believe this country is under attack. i believe this country is overspent. [applause] and i am light speaker o'brien.

i believe if you push hard enough, you'll get the spending cuts. you have guys over here saying i will only vote for that if you raise taxes, and you almost know for sure they are going to try to not give you spending cuts. i would go in in a very aggressive program of saying, look, we're going to fight this out. but i would cooperate with democrats. i would reach out. i will give you one quick example. senator web and senator warner have a proposal to allow va to develop oil and gas offshore. half the royalties go to the fed. 37.5% to the commonwealth of virginia. 37% to infrastructure. i think the house republicans should pass their bill without amending it, just send it over, and say, here, here is a democratic bill with bipartisan support, and make senator reid

-- is he going to really bottle of two of his democratic senators? that is cooperation, because i happen to share the goal they want to get. that is the way i would approach it. i would cooperate. i would try to get things done. but i would not be willing to compromise accord values, because i think then you are on the slippery slope, and then washington takes over. we have had too many competitions who are reasonable. they go to washington and say we have got to be reasonable. that can mean selling at. i have no interest in serving as a reasonable president who sells out the american people to appease the washington establishment. [applause] one more. somebody over here. this lady right here with the sunflower addressed. >> could you speak about your

feelings on illegal immigration? i believe you felt sensitivity toward an illegal immigrant who may have worked hard. working hard is not on the dull. >> there is a very important example of cooperating without compromising, in my judgment. there are a series of steps. i do not think you could pass, and to reform. bush tried and failed. obama has tried and failed. when it is all on one bill, it is to be. step one, patrol the border. patrol the border by january 1, 2014. how do you patrol the border? one, you pass a law that says we're waving all federal regulations. control the border. you do not go through epa studies are due this other stuff. you just do it a two, there are 23,000 common security employees in the washington area. i am prepared to move up to half

of them to texas, mexico, arizona to give you the manpower to go to war. [applause] once you control the border, i would then -- the next step i would take would be to make english the official language of government. [applause] we have 86 languages spoken in the dade community college. i think there are 80 languages in manchester, because it has been a red the city. in cook county, chicago, over 200 languages. we need a single unifying language to bring us together as a people. it is clear english is the only language that could do that. three, i would increase the requirement to be an american citizen in terms of learning american history, people actually learn what it means to be an american. candidly, a descending for high

school students. i it would be good for them to learn american history. [applause] four, i would make legal the says easier to the current estate department process is a nightmare. we want tourists to come here. we want business people to come here. we want professors and students to come here. they're going to come here legally and leave legally, we will make it easy to do, not hard to do. five, i would make it much easier to deport people who shall not be here. if you are a member of an el salvadorean gang, we should be able to get rid of you in two weeks. it should not require two years of lawyering. you're not an american citizen but you do not deserve those projections. goodbye. ok? [applause] next, i would create a legal guest worker program, and what outsource its ameritech -- american express, visa, or

mastercard, because they know how to run it without regard. having created a legal guest worker program, it would dramatically increase the economic penalties for businesses who are not obeying the law. remember, you do not get illegal workers without illegal employers. now you get down to the hard part. 11 million people already here illegally. they will have a hard time getting a job, because now you have to have a guest worker permit or you are an american citizen or you cannot get hopyard. most of them will go home and will apply for a guest worker permit from back home. they have deep ties here. sending the was a shock to some of my colleagues was, what do you do about somebody who has been here 25 years? remember, the community has been working hard, paying bills, mary. the head kids and grandkids. they may belong to your church.

do you really think that america will send the police in to take some grandfather or grandmother out? as a friend of mine said, a real case, he said -- he had a constituent who was a marine serving in afghanistan and was faced with his grandmother being reported. you ask yourself, what do we do? here is my answer, you take the world war ii is selective service board model, which is a local county board. you create a citizen review board. you can only apply if you have been here a long time, if you have genuine ties to the community, if you have been paying your bills and are clearly a member of the community in good standing, and if you can get an american family to sponsor you. if you meet that standard, you go before the review board. if the review board thinks you are a legitimate member of the community, you can get a certificate of residence, but not citizenship. but you are now here legally. you can get a job. you can continue the rest of your life. if you then want to apply for

citizenship, you have to go home long enough to apply you get in line back home. behind everybody else. and that way, you do not have anybody getting the advantage. one of my competitors said two things that i think are just plain, pardon the language -- well, i will not say it. [laughter] my mother used to teach me, if it is really dumb, do not say it. so let me try to use a different word. i do not quite understand what they're thinking was. is it two things. one, everybody has to go. i cannot wait for them to campaign in florida. [laughter] ok, and try to go into miami on the battle cry everybody must go. i do not see how they are going to win a general election. that is clearly going to come across in the immigrant community as you have no sense

of humanity for people. the second thing they said was, this is creating a magnet. this will increase illegal immigration. that is what i describe. here is a program where we are controlling the border, creating a guest worker program, having probably 9.5 million of the 11 million leave. you have to have been here 20 or 25 years and have a family and have a record of paying all your bills and have an american family sponsor you. what kind of magnet is this? you're going to say to somebody in mexico, guatemala, or china, you have two choices. you can apply for an american guest worker program or you can sneak in and in 24 years, you can become eligible for residency. this is just stupid. that is the word i was going to use earlier. i cannot help it. [laughter] you know what their reasoning is? desire to hit the other candidate. that is all. since i said, and must be a bad thing, because otherwise it

would be a good thing. you know, i think that is foolish. i have often said, you know, rick perry has good ideas on the 10th amendment. so i say, those are good ideas. he suggested that we start at zeroth every foreign-aid program, and have to earn their way back into the budget. that is a good idea. i do not mind saying that somebody has a good idea. that does not mean a thing you should vote for him. he is a good guy. but, i mean, not as good as me. [laughter] [applause] anyway, this gentleman had a great idea. i want you to come up here and bring the fivlag. >> [inaudible] >> if they have been here that long, they are paying taxes. in order to be eligible, that would have had to be paying taxes. >> [inaudible] >> oh, the sanctuary. that is one of the things i would do in the opening day. i would say no century cities or any federal funds, period.

[applause] now, i want you to help lead us. i want all of you to join in. >> [all] i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. [applause] >> everybody come this way. i would love to see each one of you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

♪

fo

[unintelligible]

>> thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for being here. we need your help. thank you. >> this is tony. he does all our audio stuff. [unintelligible]

>> our you? -- how are you? [unintelligible] >> haori doing, guys? >> mr. speaker, can you sign this?

[unintelligible] >> hopefully, we will see you in pennsylvania. >> thank you. >> , or which have -- gorbachev, tear down this wall. [unintelligible] >> they are arguing internally.

>> february, march of 1945. this one. >> was it capable of standing up to the panthers? >> yes. that is exactly what they wanted them. they had the capacity to do it. >> how would it go against the king tiger? >> probably not brilliant against taking tighter. but the mobility of the king tiger was almost road abound.

-- bound. [unintelligible] >> that is correct. and i trained in the army, i grew up in 48. >> i remember the the great revolution coming in. >> i graduated from vmi. we were always told that first- round hits were important. [unintelligible]

>> we forget that the german border is gone and all that stuff that we did for a long time disappeared. >> having never served, they had no respect. the museum has three components. it is meant to talk about the american world war ii experience generally. we have a gallery that is just civilian. the home front. things that people experienced on the home front. we have others of their. >> we are in the process -- we are in the process of redoing the exhibits.

we have an armored car. >> you have quite a collection. >> in the building appear. -- up here? >> what is our schedule? >> i will wait. >> let's go look of the tanks. -- look at the tanks.

[unintelligible] >> you were very positive in your show of support. you were very positive here. you had a big outpouring of support. if you go after mitt romney tonight, might that not hurt your chances here? >> it reagan conservative and a massachusetts moderate describes the difference between cutting taxes and raising taxes.

for being right to life and putting planned parenthood into romneycare. i do not get this go after stuff. if you do -- you do not need to do that. if your taste is good -- if your case is good, the trick is to try to find a good case. if your case is good, you can be relaxed and happy. i was with ronald reagan in the 1980's. i am happy that i voted for ronald reagan in the 1980's. about're not worried coming across to viewers in it -- as-? >> i do not think that telling the truth in a happy way comes across as negative. you would have to ask governor romney about how he feels accurately describing his

record. >> [inaudible] >> how could i run for president and say forromney.org? that would be 2 feet. i think that notromney covered it. >> how concerned are you about mitt romney winning new hampshire, iowa, and headed to the polls in south carolina? >> i am very concerned. we have two weeks to clarify that he has -- he is a massachusetts moderate with values that are the opposite of the south curb -- south carolina republican party. if we do not succeed in getting that across, he might win. >> rick santorum will be

standing between you and mitt romney. [inaudible] romney alternative? >> i intend to be a reagan conservative alternative. it is not me against. i helped to develop supply side economics in the late 1970's. i worked with governor reagan as candidate and president reagan for eight years. i was speaker of the house. i helped to develop the contract for america. i think that i have a sufficiently positive agenda. three weeks ago, before the negative advertising, why would i have to worry about doing anything except going back to work and figuring out how to work past negative advertising? >> [inaudible]

>> not at all. none. not at all. >> [inaudible] >> i said that i would look into it. i do not know enough about the details of what he is discussing, so i will not jump into it. >> do you think that you could have done better in new hampshire of more voters could have seen you at town meetings like this one? >> talk to the voters the go to town meetings. we get very high conversion rates at town meetings. i am delighted that c-span covers several of them. it means you have several hundred thousand extra people that see them. >> other conservatives, reaching out to you and rick perry to get you to drop out and throwing your support behind rick santorum. have you been contacted? >> no. >> your reaction? >> everyone is allowed to have

an opinion. >> [inaudible] >> standard preparation. drink a diet coke, call maggie and robert, get their sophisticated coaching advice. slower, smile, shorter, clearer. >> do you talk to anyone about what you're going to talk about? >> maggie and robert. how many debates to people think that i want? you have debate coaches like them, what are you going to do? i could go to some of these guys, but why would you? >> [inaudible]

>> i think that we will one of going directly to the community and getting through revenue. the question of who owns the right of way in some places will be a city street or something that allows you to avoid the problem of having eminent domain over private property, allowing you to avoid ruining the tourist industry. virtually everyone i have spoken to in the north country says they have referred this solution and i think it is worth exploring. thank you all very, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[unintelligible] >> is this a world war ii still mobile? >> the 10th mountain division started here.

[inaudible]

>> our live coverage continues from here in new hampshire. our phone lines are open. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. if you're living in new hampshire, voting on tuesday, we want to hear from you as well. 202-628-0205. a new hampshire native is with us today. why did you come out this afternoon to hear the speaker? >> i like town meetings. i am familiar with newt gingrich.

>> can you give us a sense of the vantage point on tuesday? >> i think it will be a good turnout. i think that people are very anxious to vote out obama. i think that they are concerned and they think a lot about who can beat obama. i think that there's sometimes a conflict between who you might choose. i do not think that everyone has made up their mind as much as in the past, but i think it will be a big turnout. >> what has turnout typically been in the past? >> i am not from this region. i am from north conway. turnouts have never been what everyone wants them to be. but i think there will be more this year than other years.

>> finally, have you made up your mind? >> i have a leaning, but i have not made up my mind. i liked newt gingrich's answers today. i found the town hall meeting very informative. >> thank you for sticking around. >> and we like c-span a lot. keep on going. >> republican line. gilbert, ariz.. good afternoon. >> this is the most arrogant person i have ever watched. he is a big blow hard. the one that got together with clinton was john case, in ohio. i am so sick of hearing about the lincoln douglas debate. we are talking about the future.

gingrich was on, and he constantly bad mouthed mitt romney, saying he would be an embarrassment to his grandchildren. he had enough nerve to bring his grandchildren into this. he said that he was working hard for america. what about all of those affairs? he talks about how upset that he was that he did not get on the virginia ballot. you know what? alan keyes did. alan keyes. this is the speaker that is supposed to be so brilliant, he did not go to virginia? he should have stayed and worked. mitt romney helped to get a lot people elected in for the tent. newt gingrich thinks he can come in and do what he wants.

and what he said about mitt romney's grandchildren, i think that newt gingrich is fair game. these family values candidates? they want a contract? do you want something like gingrich, with all of his dirty, marital affairs? or do you want someone like obama, with a beautiful family? america, wake up. they will take the democrats. >> thank you for the call, gen, on the republican line. a least we thought. mike, are you going to vote on tuesday? caller: following her is kind of interesting. we are not voting for a good looking, presentable president. we are voting for someone who is confident and intelligent.

knowledgeable and has done it before. i think that you might have made mistakes in your personal life, being married three times or whenever, but that does not mean that his character flaws as a husband will carry over to the nation. he has done it with the house. he did it with reagan. there is no reason to assume that he cannot do it again. it bothers me when the clergy and religious get into this situation. they kind of mix religion with government. we're supposed to have a separation of religion and

government. to govern does not mean that one has to be religiously observant. i am 100% for newt gingrich. >> thank you for the phone call. this is a world war ii museum. that is why there is a sherman tank behind me. this is a local resident. will you be voted on tuesday? >> absolutely. >> or you voting for? >> newt gingrich. >> why? >> he does not equivocate. he has a grasp of history that is important.

>> what about his personal life? >> in politics we can criticize people for their individual lives. what is important to me is that i am electing someone based on their policies and the principles that they articulate for good government. >> how long have you lived in new hampshire? >> 35 years. >> how does this process and campaign cycle stack up to previous ones? >> there are so many candidates. this is the first time in my memory that i can see that someone else is on top one week, then another person another week. the volatile situation makes it very different. >> howard is on the phone on the

democrat's line. >> below? >> you are on the air. -- hello? >> you are on the air. >> i wanted to point out that the republicans are looking very bad in the state of ohio, due to the fact that newt gingrich, leaving the middle class in the middle to try to figure out which side they will take, is terrible. you have newt gingrich standing up there, conceded as he has ever been. talking about president obama being -- because of families that cannot navigate their way out of this situation without the assistance of the government

or anyone else that was willing to help them. it is ridiculous to sit back and watch these republicans carried other part. at the same time, claiming that they care and want to do something for the american people and american population. really, all they want to do is claim power for billion their political futures and things like that. it is not right. obama is trying to make a difference. trying to get people like me health care. trying to keep people like me protected from these companies that are trying to over-charge me. that are trying to keep me dependent on them. >> i will stop you there. two debates within 12 hours.

one this evening at 9:00 eastern time. we will also be airing that nationwide on abc. tomorrow morning, the msnbc meet the press debate. we mentioned both because both abc and nbc news have given c- span permission to rebroadcast the debates tomorrow afternoon and evening. we are wrapping up this event in new hampshire with newt gingrich. bob is on the phone from the southern part of the state. nashua, new hampshire. go ahead. >> i love c-span. you get to take all the questions and get all of this afterwards stuff. it is marvelous.

i have been a mitt romney guy since last time. nobody is perfect. nobody is full of all good ideas. >> rick santorum has an event coming up in the next hour. you can check it out here on c- span. the first in the nation here, following the primary in south carolina, january 21. gary, republican line, texas. good afternoon. >> i have been a republican all

my life. he said he would be speaker. he has done everything that he city would do he has made some mistakes. who has not? i believe that mr. gingrich has the intelligence to put this in place. >> and gary, what about your governor, rick perry?

he is not competing in new hampshire, but he is still in the race. >> rick perry has been a wonderful governor, obviously. we enjoy a lot of good things in texas. at the same time, there is a certain level they reached and that is as far as you can go. he might go somewhere, but we will have to wait and see. >> walter shapiro, the author of "one car caravan," you have been covering this process since? >> 1979.

i came here watching a fellow named bush lose the 1980 robert -- primary. i wish there were more candidates like in the gingrich event right here. to many fly by night campaigns have eroded. and you talk about -- >> you talk about the process and the number of debates we have been seeing? >> to that extent it is a campaign under water. it is like other primary campaigns but everything is

slower. a part of it is the overabundance of debates. candidates like romney, deciding that they have invested all the time they already meet in new hampshire. in years past even one day can deemphasized the aspect of little bit. >> we saw what rick perry did in iowa. slipping to fourth place again. he will be critical in the race, what do you think? >> the hampshire is terrible to pull. there are some many events crammed into such a short amount

of time. these are very deliberative and loyal to poster voters. that said, i do pick up a bit of unease about rick santorum's extreme social conservative positions. this is really a secular state, rather than a religiously dominated state. if i remember my exit polls in the new hampshire primary, only about 60% of the voters attended church a couple of times per year, or not at all. as opposed to iowa or south carolina. that may hurt rick santorum here. >> south carolina? >> it is always pivotal, but everyone who says that this will be over when it romney switzer january, there is another

president. in 1976 ronald reagan lost six straight primaries to jerry ford. everyone screamed at reagan to get out of the white -- out of the race. ironclad rules about this campaign should be taken with a grain of salt -- great assault. that is a mixed metaphor. >> thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you, steve. >> we will continue live coverage with an event in new hampshire. next is carol. peoria, illinois. thank you for waiting, carol. >> thank you very much for taking my call. i have a couple of comments that i would like to make. c-span, thank you for showing us things that we could not possibly go to. the presidential race this year

is so important to everyone. i firmly believe that that is how president obama got elected. he destroyed his opponents. he destroyed it running and hillary clinton. he destroyed everyone along the way. and that is how he got elected. to even remember the stature and importance to the great answers. >> rick is on the phone from

over. >> the beauty of living in new hampshire is that you get to see the candidates in person. not just on television. i have got to say that what troubles me is that we do not have the new republican candidate. people like ron paul, who are true conservatives. people like huntsman, who are true conservatives. it is really discouraging to see the abundance predicting that romney is going to wrap this up so early. the voters and the candidates took this to the convention floor.

taking the fight to the convention floor, this decision is the most important decision that we will have at this pivotal time in our history and should not be decided in iowa and new hampshire. it is the up-and-coming people, like jon huntsman. new blood, fresh blood. mitt romney, who did not work in massachusetts. mitt romney could not even run in massachusetts and arrested. we need new blood like jon huntsman or ron paul. i do not say that i agree with all of ron paul's ideas, but he knows that the budget is out of control and it needs to change. >> by the way, we will have our conversation with senator rand hall on monday morning.

tomorrow we get the democratic perspective. on "washington journal," we will get the chair of the democratic national committee. continuing coverage of the candidates here, today, tomorrow, and monday. speakers -- speeches from the winners and losers, streamed online c-span.org. our coverage continues throughout the day. of thean's live coverage presidential campaign in new hampshire continues in about 20 minutes, 2:00 eastern time, as we head south to hollis for rick santorum's meeting. in some polling, mitt romney is in the lead. ron paul is in second. newt gingrich is in third.

the new hampshire state by the paper endorsed newt gingrich in the race. we heard earlier today from the papers publisher about the primary. host: all kinds of headlines in newspapers, including yours, regarding the latest movements in new hampshire. give us a sense for what is happening with two days left before the new hampshire primary and tuesday? >> my sense is no better or worse than anyone walking down the street in the state today. the polls have it all one way for mitt romney. i do not believe that it is going to be that lopsided. certainly, he is going to win big appear.

the fight is really going to be for the second and third place. dr. paul has a strong support base and he will do well. and then the question is, whether newt gingrich or rick santorum, or jon huntsman, can survive new hampshire and move on through the south. >> you have supported speaker gingrich. what does he need to do between now and tuesday to keep moving up the polls? >> he has to make an impression . the piece at the diner was interesting. the waitress was going to be watching tonight's debate. there is also one tomorrow morning. i think that that is going to events the decision making for a lot people.

if any of those candidates physically makes it to sunday afternoon, we should give them the title. they have to debate from 9:00 until 0:00 tonight. then the debate tomorrow is on meet the press from 9:30 until 10:30. as i understand it, candidates have to be there at 7:00 in the morning. we will see how well the makeup artist's work. >> it makes for a long day. the headline this morning in "a washington post is that mitt romney holds a strong lead -- in "the washington post," is that there's a chance to weaken support for mitt romney. the idea that no one can beat mitt romney, closing the gap between themselves and the front runner.

>> you -- guest: you do not want to go against the tide, so you say that the other will win. mitt romney has the most money and he has a home here. he has also been at the red arrow and i had a cup of coffee with him last summer. the waitress came over and asked if she could have her picture taken. he said that it was great, getting the picture taken. the waitress handed me the camera. [laughter] host: it happens like that some time. there is a large portion of the new hampshire republican population going to the polls on tuesday that still have not made

up their mind. what can a candidate do in two days that they have been campaigning in new hampshire for well over a year, what can you do to get a person to come to your side or commit to your campaign if you have not been able to do it in the year previous? >> you might say something like you're paying for this microphone, mr. green, which is a historical reference to a debate that happened on this day in 1980, when ronald reagan, who was seen as the two old, too conservative guy, had a meeting with george bush and some others and ronald reagan really stole the show by being forceful. he was already tracking to win. but this really pushed him over.

things can happen. in 1972 i was told that senator muskie was coming to do something in front of the paper, and he railed against my former publisher for some things that we printed. he did or did not lose his cool or cry, but that was pretty much the end of musky within a few days of the primary. i don't say it will change a year's worth of campaign but for most people, other than the junkies' here and the folks on c-span, most people have not been interested until the last couple of weeks. the real problem with a modern day primary because of trying to protect the first in the nation's status is we are just past the christmas and new year's holiday and most normal people are not paying attention

or have not paid attention to politics. they wonder if they are going to get an ugly sweater for christmas and is there's no to go skiing and how can i pay for the christmas bills and the new year's hangover. new year's was just last weekend so now is when people are just beginning to focus and concentrate. we are -- on the last weekend, you would not and i think the debate would make that much difference, think it could. in our paper today, we have a nice statistical peace of the secretary of state of what he thinks the numbers will be of those who will turn out. host: we're talking with joseph mcquaid, president and publisher of the "union leader." the phone numbers are on your screen.

for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. and our special line for new hampshire residents. our first call comes from manchester, new hampshire, donald declares himself an independent, go ahead caller: people in new hampshire -- i work for a couple of people and i would say only 40% of them follow politics. he has a house here, mitt romney, and people don't have a clue. people think they have to vote for him because he is local but i think it is a joke. he will win the nomination and he will -- it will be present obama and and and i think president obama consider moment he will still become president

because mitt romney is a big- time flip-flopper. host: your thoughts about what he had to say? guest: he is right about name recognition. i happen to think that mitt romney is not the best candidate against obama. the conventional wisdom is that he is the best candidate because the economy is in trouble and governor romney is a businessman. i think the economy can turnaround at least on the surface and there are going to be other issues that come up and governor romney is -- has soared pigeonholed himself as the businessman be all and end all. an election is about more than that. conventional wisdom for the last year has been the economy. that is the water and only focus. until recently, everybody would agree with that. the unemployment numbers, for whatever reason, are starting to trend downward the stock market has picked up little. president obama and the democrats are going to say, as they have been saying, that we

have been winning the fight against this recession and the republicans have been obstructing it. the republicans will have to have a good argument against that. i think donald is also right that it may be 60% of the people, republicans in the state, who care about the election but that is quite high in american politics these days. in many races, you get 25% turnout. in the presidential primary in new hampshire, you get much better. host: our next call comes from oxnard, calif., our line for democrats.

caller: i have heard you say that romney has the probability of winning the primary because of name recognition and money. it is current sad to me that because of money -- it is kind of sad to mate and the supreme court ruling that allows an unlimited amount of money that can be given to politicians is distressing. i'm a democrat but we have people like buddy roemer. their views are rarely expressed because these guys can buy their way into office if they can influence enough people. the want to use the line about running the country because they have a business background. i would hope our country does not base everything it does just on a business model. there are other considerations. you've got ron paul and he would withdraw our military forces from foreign governments to we have alliances and

treaties with that are mutually effective for both nations. there are dangerous people running for these offices and other people who probably have excellent ideas that will never be heard because of money. guest: i do think money has always been used in politics and the new hampshire presidential primary is a place where the person who does not have the most money at least as a shot at making a difference. we are so geographically small that a candidate, if he or she set their mind to it, can spend time and made an awful lot of people. that has not been the case this time around i talked to a lot of people about this especially in the national news media. because of these so-called debates because they are not classic debates where two or more people argue a particular

position. withare 1-minute q &a's half a dozen candidates but because they -- there have been so many of those, that has taken away from the retail politics and the one on one asking questions by real voters in the street. that gives the money and name recognition and upper hand. look at the reelection rate of incumbent politicians at any level. it is over 90% and the reason is that they have the rain -- name recognition and i have the money and business and industry and special interest groups want to go with the winner to advance their particular cause. i have a radical view for a conservative. if, in fact, terms were limited for every office, i would be in favor of public funding of elections. because that is the power of the incumbency that takes over,

terms are not limited with the exception of the president and that is the power of the dollar. host: shenandoah, va., on airline for republicans. caller: you watch cnn and fox and they go out of their way to either put ron paul down or keep him out of the news. is there any way you can hold their feet to the fire over that? host: how? caller: it seems to me that they are not actually telling the news.

they have an agenda to push. they are not really news. host: joseph mcquaid, among the rank-and-file folks in a hampshire, are they making up their mind based on what they have seen on television or the coverage they read a newspaper or based on their one-on-ones or opportunities to meet the candidates had various town halls and other events? guest: it is a combination of things. we have several stories in the paper this morning where several candidates have been out meeting people. i am struck by the number of people who say they came out not because they supported a candidate but because they

really want to hear what the candidate had to say. that is pretty nice. that is part of it but it is also what they see on television. there has been a dearth of political advertising in new hampshire this time around. it is a boon for local tv station which is a nice building which is known as the house that steve forbes built because when steve forbes ran into a thousand spent an incredible amount of money on television advertising. that does not happen this time around because there has not been that much money available and because of the dozen or so televised events, they have not had the need to do it. on one hand, it is nice for the new hampshire people that they have not been inundated with the same tv ads over and over again but that takes away one filter in deciding who will vote for. i do think they read the newspaper. they don't always follow what

our suggestion is for editorial endorsements. host: our next call for the president and publisher of the new hampshire "union leader" comes from our independent line. go ahead. caller: i may run paul supporter of this will be my first time voting. i support him not on all of his views but mainly on the drug or because it has been around for 40 some years. it is not very effective. it just empowers drug dealers to charge higher for their products and quite frankly, it does not help young people. i would rather see business itself and that hands of professionals, so to speak, rather than drug dealers who will sell you anything and everything. guest: ron paul has got a very interesting following.

i have compared him recently to eugene mccarthy in 1968 and eugene debs back in the 1920's. his position, you know what it is if you listen to him. he has got a lot of young people backing him. not so much of hemp which is what this guy was talking about on our foreign entanglements, i disagree with dr. paul's position. there is a bunch of negative responses when i suggested last week he is a dangerous man because of his views. because of the way the country has handled the iraq situation and the afghanistan situation, a lot of people, young people especially, are fed up. they don't see why we are there.

they are drawn to ron paul. the problem with ron paul's foreign policy position is not so much on those two issues as it is with iran where he compares it to the old soviet union and says the soviet union had 20,000 nuclear missiles pointed at us and they never use them so why should we care about iran. that, in my mind, is really crazy talk. the soviets were not looking for 70 vestal virgins when they went to the next world and did not have any religious passion whatsoever where iran does. on that score, i disagree with ron paul. because he is such a blunt talker and because on domestic issues, many people favor them,

the only way you'll cut the government is to cut the government and he names the agency's better than governor perry and how many agencies he would cut. he has his base and i also think he has his ceiling. i disagree with the earlier caller who said cnn and fox were ignoring ron paul. i don't think that is the case this time. he has run twice before and this time, many people thought he would be written off as circumstances change. because of the issues i mentioned to foreign and domestic and the ron paul unique position, he will get his share. i would not be surprised if he is the guy who comes in second here. because he is marginalized within the party, the fight is really between the first-place guy, romney, and w