and go to another job which is the issue of commander in chief and national security. governor huntsman you've already said for us the iranians have made the decision to go nuclear. you think they want a nuclear we ven. tell us why you think you would be a the stage? >> because being commander-in- chief is more than about the discussions we just heard a second ago. a lot of insider gobbledygook and political spin. it's about leading organizations and creating a vision and i've done that my entire career. i did that as governor. took my state to the best managed state in america and took that economy to a number one in america, as compared and contrasted with massachusetts which was no. 47 at a time when leadership matters to people. more than anything else, i believe this nation is not only looking for leadership, but

leadership that can be trusted. let's face it -- we have a serious trust deficit in this nation. the american people no longer trust our institutions of power and they no longer trust our elected officials. i am here to tell you that we must find not just a commander- in-chief, not to president, not just a visionary, but we've got to find somebody who can reform congress and do what needs to be done with respect to leading the charge on term limits. everybody knows congress need term limits and we've got to close the revolving door that has corrupted washington. everybody knows as well that we have to have someone who can deliver crossed back to wall street, which has also lost the american people's trust. >> do you want to speak specifically about anyone on this stage? >> they can speak for themselves. having served as governor successfully, the only other person on the stage to have lived overseas, i've run to embassies, including the largest

we have in the world, the united states embassy in china. i understand better than anyone on the stage to complex national security implications we will face going forward with what we know is the most complex and challenging relationship of the 20th century, that with china. >> governor romney? >> you have a question? >> the governor has just said he can speak better than anyone else. >> he can do a lot better than barack obama. let's put it that way. we have a president with no experience and leadership. he never let a business or a city or state. as a result, he learned on the job being president of the united states and he's made one error after another related to foreign policy. the most serious of which relates to iran. we a nation which is intent on becoming nuclear. iran has pursued their ambition without having a crippling sanctions against them. the president was silent when a million voices took to the streets. he stood at -- he should have

stood up and said we're with you and he should have before a plan that shows we have a plan to remove their plans to go nuclear. this is a failed presidency. who has the capacity to lead? who is someone who has demonstrated leadership capacity? it has character and shown it over their career? who has integrity. i don't want to be critical of the people on the stage. any one of these people would do a better job than our president and i will endorse our nominee. i believe in the principles that made america such a great nation. but this is a time when we are faced now with a nation that is extraordinarily secure in a very calm world, we face a very dangerous world and we have a president now who, unbelievably, has decided to shrink the size of the military, who, unbelievably, has said for the first time since fdr, we will no longer have the capacity to fight two wars at a time. this president has to be

replaced. >> being commander-in-chief would put you in charge of the most powerful military force in the world. only two of you have served -- dr. paul and mr. romney. there are 3 million active-duty serving in this question is relevant to a large number of voters out there. do you believe having worn a uniform and being part of the unit better prepared you for the job as commander in chief and those who have not served? >> i think it brings a very clear knowledge about what it requires for those on the front line, but having been the governor of the state of texas and the commander in chief for 11 years there and 20,000 troops we have deployed to multi -- multiple theaters of operations. i want to go back to one of the biggest problems facing this country -- iran is a big problem, senator, without a doubt. but what this president is doing

with our military budget is going to put our country's freedom in jeopardy. you cannot cut a trillion dollars from the department of defense budget and expect america's freedoms are not going to be jeopardized. that, to me, is the biggest problem america faces. a president that doesn't understand the military and a president who is allowing a reduction of the departments of defense budget so he can spend money in other places. it will put america's freedom in jeopardy. >> talk about the understanding of the military, speaker gingrich. dr. paul recently referred to you as a chicken hawk, because you did not serve. given what governor perry just said -- >> dr. paul makes a lot of comments. that's part of his style. my father served 27 years in the army in world war two, korea and vietnam. i grew up in a military family, moving around the world. since 1979, i spent 32 years

starting with the army's training and doctrine command. i was -- i served on the defense policy board, but let me say something about that. as an army brat whose family is deeply engaged, i feel for veterans. we had a meeting today with veterans and i made a commitment that we would reopen hospital in manchester and develop a new clinic in the north country using telecommunications and provide a system where veterans could go to their local doctor or a local hospital. their idea that a veteran in the north country in the mid winter has to go all the way to boston is absolutely, totally, fundamentally wrong. as an army brat who watched his family for 27 years, i've got a good sense of what military families and veterans families need. >> congressman paul, would you say that again? would you use that phrase again? >> yes. i think people who don't serve

one they could and get 3, 4, even five deferments, they have no right to send our kids off to war and not even be against the war that we have. i'm trying to stop the wars, but at least i went when they called me up. the veterans problem is a big one. we have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, unnecessary and have not been one and our unwinnable. we have hundreds of thousands looking for care and we have an epidemic of suicides coming back. if you add up all the contractors and all of the board is going on in afghanistan and iraq, which lost 8500 americans and severe injuries, over 40,000? these are undeclared wars. rick keeps saying you don't is libertarian stuff, but what i'm talking about, i don't bring up the word, you do. i talk about the constitution. the constitution has rules and i don't like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars and

when those individuals did not go themselves and then come up and when they're asked a say i don't think i could have made a difference. i have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal. when i see these young men coming back, my heart weeks for them. >> speaker gingrich? >> dr. paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. the fact is i never asked for a deferment. i was married with a child. there was never a question. my father was serving in vietnam at the time he is referring to. i think i have a pretty good idea of what it is like as a family to worry about your father getting killed and i personally resent the kind of comments and dispersions he makes without accurate information and then slurs' people with. >> one quick follow-up -- when i was drafted, was married and had two kids and i went.

[applause] >> i wasn't eligible for the draft. >> the speaker said to have an issue of inaccurate statements. there was a controversy about this newsletter that went out under your name and number of concrete -- a number of comments received -- were perceived as racist. you say even though they were written under your name that you did not necessarily know they were written and don't necessarily stand by them. can you take the time now and explain to everyone what happened there and how it was possible those kinds of comments went out under your name without you knowing about it? >> it has been explained many times. there were things written 20 years ago approximately that i did not right. concentrating on something written 20 years ago that i did not write is diverting attention from the important issues. but the inference is obvious -- that even bring up the word racial overtones. more importantly, you ought to ask me what my relationship is

on racial relationships. one of my heroes as martin luther king because he practiced a libertarian principles of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience. rosa parks did. but i'm the only one up here, and the only one in the democratic party that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system and it has to do with enforcing the drug laws. look at the percentages. the percentage of people use drugs are the same black and white, yet the blacks are rested disproportionately. they're prosecuted and imprisoned disappointed -- disproportionately. they get the death penalty disproportionately. how many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or execution? poor minorities have an injustice and they have an injustice in war as well because the more worries suffer more. even with the draft, they suffered more and without a draft, their suffering

disproportionately. it if we want to be concerned about racism, look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws which are being so unfairly enforced. >> we want to thank you for the first round of this debate and take a break right now. when we come back, there are some and a family issues. gay-rights have been front and center in this campaign and we would love to have to address some of those. thank you for being with us. this is the 2012 debate. >> you are watching a live abc news coverage of the new hampshire republican party debate. >> live, from manchester, new hampshire, once again, diane sawyer, george stephanopoulos and josh mcallen. >> i want to go to you --

senator santorum has been clear in his belief that the supreme court was wrong when they decided a right to privacy was embedded in the constitution. that the states have the right to ban contraception. >> i'm talking about the 10th amendment. >> i want to get to that court question. governor romney, do you believe states have the right to ban contraception or that trumped by constitutional right to privacy? >> this is an unusual topic. do the states have our right to and contraception? i can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so and if i were a governor -- >> is it wrong? >> i would oppose any effort to ban contraception. given the fact there is no state that wants to do so and i don't know of any candidate wants to do so, could constitutionally be done?

we could ask our constitutionalist here. [laughter] [applause] >> i'm sure congressman paul -- >> do you believe states have that right or not? >> i don't know whether a state has a right to ban a contraception or of the state wants to. but putting forward things that states want to do is a silly thing. [applause] >> has the supreme court decided the states do not have the right to provide contraception? >> yes, they have. >> i believe bill lot of the land as spoken by the supreme court, and if we disagree, and occasionally i do, we have a process under the constitution to change that and it's known as the amendment process.

right now, we're having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. my view is we should have a federal amendment in the constitution to finding a marriage as a relationship between a man and woman. i know of no reason to talk about contraception. >> is there -- >> i don't believe they decided that correctly. rowe versus wade was decided in correctly, based on that principle. if we had justices like roberts, thomas and more justices like that, they may decide to return it to states as opposed to saying it's in the federal constitution. if the people say it should be in the federal constitution, instead of having an unelected judges have its buffett in there, we shall of people to express their own views through the amendments. >> should that be done in this case? >> to allow states to ban contraception? states don't want to ban contraception.

why are we trying to put it in the constitution? with regards to gay marriage, i would amend the constitution. contraception, it's working just fine. leave it alone. [applause] >> you've given to answers to the question. should the supreme court overturn it or not? >> do i believe the supreme court should overturn roe vs. wade? yes, i do. know whether i got time when it was favorable or not. >> i think the fourth amendment is very clear. its explicit -- you cannot go into anybody's house and look at what they have for their papers or any private things without shirts warrant. this is why the patriot act is wrong. you have a right to privacy by the fourth amendment. as far as selling contraception, the interstate commerce clause protect this because it was originally written not to impede

trade between the states but to facilitate trade between the states. if it is not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal sell birth control pills in that state. >> senator santorum? >> what's the question? [laughter] >> the right to privacy. >> congressman paul is talking about privacy under the fourth amendment, which i agree. i don't agree with the patriot act, but we have a right to privacy under the fourth amendment, but that's what the griswald decision or will versus wade was about. they have a new right to privacy not in the constitution. i agree with governor romney's legal assessment. it created a right through bootstrapping, creating something that wasn't there. it should be overturned.

i don't believe we have a right in the constitution to take human life. i don't think our founders envisioned that and i don't think the riding of the constitution enables that. >> i want to turn from the constitution to something closer to home and maybe families sitting in their limit -- sitting in their living rooms across the country. yahoo! census questions, as you know. we have some real viewers. -- yahoo! sends us questions. at the level i would like to be able to ask you what he would say sitting in your living rooms to the people ask questions like this. this is from film in virginia. given you opposed the marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form a loving, committed long-term relationships? what is your solution? speaker gingrich? >> what i would say is we want

to make possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur, for example, you are in a hospital. if there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay? there ought to be ways to designate that. if you want to have someone in your will, there ought to be ways to designate that. but it's a huge jump for being understanding, considerate and concerned to saying we are therefore going to institute the sacrament of marriage although it has no basis. the sacrament of marriage is based on a man and woman and has been for 3000 years and is at the core of our civilization and is something worth protecting and upholding. protecting and upholding that doesn't mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding applies everywhere and is a civil right. it's not. it's part of how we define ourselves and a marriage between

a man and woman as part of that definition. >> the other huntsman, you have talked about civil unions. how do you disagree with the others on the stage? >> personally, i think civil unions are fair and i support them. i interest such a thing as equality under law. i married man. i've been married 28 years and have seven kids. i'm glad we're off the contraception discussion. [laughter] 15 minutes worth, by the way. i don't feel my relationship is threatened by civil unions. i'm a traditionalist and i think it ought to be saved for one man and one woman. but i believe the civil unions are fair and i think it brings a level of dignity to relationships and i believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights and should be part of civil unions as well. states ought to be able to talk about this. i think it's absolutely appropriate.

>> i would like to get to senator santorum. we are in a state where it's legal for same-sex couples to marry. 1800 couples of married since it became law a couple of years ago. they're trying to start families, some of them. your position on same-sex adoption? you are in favor of traditional families, but are you going to tell someone as a ward of the state or in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them? >> this is not a federal issue, it's a state issue. states can make that determination and new hampshire -- this is an issue that i believe -- the issue of marriage itself as a federal issue that we cannot have different laws with respect to marriage, we have to have one law. marriage is a foundational institution and we have to have a singular lot with respect to that. we cannot have someone married in one state and not and another. if we are successful

establishing that, the issue is moot. we don't have a federal law, not going to have a federal law that bans adoption for gay couples in certain states. this is a state issue and not a federal issue. >> let me ask you to follow up on that. with those 1800, if you have a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, what happens to the 1800 families who are married? are their marriages illegitimate? >> if the constitution says and marriages between a man and woman, and marriages between a man and woman. that's what marriages and would be in this country and those who are not men and women who are married would not be married. the constitution would say. >> if i could come back to the living room question, would you weigh in on this question -- saying to a gay couple, would you simply -- as the person who wrote the e-mail said, do you

want people to form a loving, committed long-term relations -- in human terms, what would you say? >> it's a wonderful thing to do and there's every right for people to form long-term, committed relationships with one another. that doesn't mean they have to collet marriage or have to receive the approval of the state with a marriage license for that to occur. there can be domestic partnership benefits or a contractual relationship between two people which would include hospital visitation rights and the like. we could decide what kind of benefits we might associated with people who form the kinds of relationships state-by-state. but to say marriage is something other than the relationship between a man and woman i think is a mistake and the reason for that is not that we want to discriminate against people or suggest gay couples are not just as loving and can also raise children. instead, it's a recognition that for society as a whole, the

nation will be better off if children are raised in a setting where there is a male and female. there are many cases where that's not possible. but for society to say we want to encourage through the benefits we associate with marriage people to form partnerships between men and women and then raise children, which we think that would be the ideal setting for them to be raised. >> since we spend this much time on these issues, i just want to raise the point about the news media bias. you don't hear the opposite question asked. should the catholic church be forced to close its adoption services in massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples? should the catholic church be driven out of providing charitable services in the district of columbia because it will not get into secular bigotry? should the catholic church find itself discriminated against on the obama administration because of the bias and bigotry of the

administration? the bigotry question goes both way and there's more anti- christian bigotry then there is on the other side and none of it gets covered. [applause] >> as you can tell, the people in this room feel speaker gingrich is right, and i do too. i was in a state where the supreme court stepped in and said marriage is a new relationship required under the constitution for people of the same sex to be able to marry. john adams, who wrote the constitution, would be surprised. it did exactly as speaker gingrich indicated. catholic charities that placed almost half of all the adopted children and our states was forced to step out of being able to provide adoptive services and the state tried to find other places to help children. we have to recognize this decision about what we call marriage has consequences that goes far beyond a loving couple wanting to form a long-term relationship.

calling it marriage creates a whole host of problems for families, for the law and for the practice of religion, for education. let me say this -- 3000 years of human history should not be discarded so quickly. >> congressman paul, let me bring this to you -- you are running in the republican primary but you have not promised to support the nominee and you refuse to rule out running as a third-party candidate. why not rule that out? >> i essentially have, but i don't like absolutes like i will never do something. >> please don't interrupt me. i said that in the last go around. they asked me three times and i think you've asked me four or five times already. the answer is the same. no plans to do it, i don't intend to do it, why don't you

plan to do it? i don't want to. i have no intention but i don't know why a person can reserve judgment and see how things turn out. in many ways, i see the other candidates as a very honorable people, but i sometimes disagree with their approach to government. i would like to see some changes. i want to see changes whether we are talking about a little bit of a difference in foreign- policy, an interest in the federal reserve and a change in monetary policy. we have not heard one minute of talk about cutting spending. we talked about cutting military spending, that cutting proposed increases. this is why i propose we cut a trillion dollars that first year. if we're serious as republicans and conservatives, we have to cut. i want to put as much pressure on them as i can. besides, i'm doing pretty well. i wasn't too far behind, and catching up on mitt every single

day. [applause] >> governor perry, should everybody on the stage rule out third-party candidates? >> i think anybody on the stage is better than what we've got in place. let me it there -- let me address gay marriage quickly. it's a bigger issue. i'm for a constitutional amendment that says marriages between a man and woman. but this administration's war on religion is what bothers me greatly. when we see an administration that will not defend the defense of marriage act, that gives their justice department clear instructions to take the ministerial exception away from churches where that never happened before, when we see this administration not giving money to catholic charities for sexually traffic individuals agree withy don't the catholic church on abortion,

it's a war against religion and it's going to stop under a perry administration. [applause] >> i would like to turn back to foreign policy. gov. huntsman, afghanistan. 90,000 troops tonight and we salute them all, serving in afghanistan. what's the earliest you think they should be brought home? >> we have been at the war on terror for 10 years now. we've been in afghanistan and we've got a lot to show for our efforts, and i as president, would like to square with the american people what we have to show for it. the taliban is no longer in power. al qaeda is no longer in sanctuaries. we've had free elections and osama bin laden is no longer around. we of strength and civil society, we have helped the police. i believe it's time to come home and i would say within the first year of my administration, which is to say the end of 2013, i would want to draw them down and

want to recognize afghanistan for what it is. it's not a counterinsurgency. i don't want to be nation- building in southeast asia when this nation is in need of repair -- in need of repair. but we do have a counter- terrorism mission, and that would leave behind 10,000 troops for intelligence gathering, special forces rapid response capability, and training. >> governor romney, time to come home? >> we want to bring our troops home as soon as we can. gov. huntsman says 2013, the president and commanders say 2014 is a better date. we will see what happens over the coming year. we want to bring our troops home as soon as we can and if i'm president, i will inform myself based on the opinions of the people on the ground and make sure we handoff responsibility to an afghan security force capable of maintaining the sovereignty of their nation from the taliban. but i can tell you this -- i

want to do something that would put in jeopardy much of the hard-earned success we have had their and i would bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can. based on my own experience there, and forming of my -- informing myself what happens there, i would listen to the people on the ground. >> the president of the united states is the commander-in- chief. of course you get input and advice from a lot of different corners from washington, including the commanders on the ground. but we defer to the commanders on the ground in 1967 during vietnam and we did not get good advice then. here's what's around a corner in afghanistan -- i think civil war is around the corner and i don't want to be a president who invest another penny in a civil war and i want to send another man or woman into harm's way that we cannot bring back alive. i say we've got something to show for our mission. let's recognize that and let's move on. [applause]

>> i think we are asking the wrong questions. afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mass that is very dangerous. -- gigantic mass that is very dangerous. pakistan is very dangerous. iran is actively trying to get nuclear-weapons. they have close the straits of hormuz where barrels will go through every day. if they close that, you have an industrial depression across the planet within 48 hours. you have the muslim brotherhood winning elections in egypt. we don't know who is in charge in libya. you have a region-wide crisis, which we have been mismanaging and underestimating, which is not primarily a military problem. we're not going to go with and solve pakistan militarily or solve these other things. look at the rate at which iraq is decaying. it began to came within 24 hours of our last troops leaving.

we need a fundamentally new strategy to the region, comprehensive -- comparable to what we develop to fight the cold war. it's a long-term problem but it is not primarily a military problem. >> senator santorum, would you send troops back into iraq now? >> i would not. but we need someone with a strong vision for the region and we have not had that with this president. he has been making mistakes at every turn in iran, egypt -- i would argue libya, syria, israel, all of these places, he has made mistakes on the ground that have shown the people in that region that we are the week course. that's something that cannot happen because it will cause events like you see in the straits of hormuz. it will be pushed, america is soft, and they can be pushed around. they did it by withdrawing from iraq.

you want to see what's going to happen if we get out of afghanistan? let's just wait and see how things turn out when the united states is not there and see how consequential our efforts are. >> how long do you want to wait? >> . the security of our country is insured. as with the job of it commander- in-chief is. you do that based on an analysis of how dealing with the threat of radical islam is. you confront that threat not just militarily, and importantly, not just militarily. he confronted by being honest with the american public about what this threat is. sanitized every defense document. the word radical islam does not appear anywhere. why? because we are fighting this politically correct war and not being honest with the american public as to who the enemy is, how virulent they are, why they hate us and what we must do to stop them. >> who has the better of this

argument between senator santorum and gov. huntsman? >> i would send troops back into iraq. i think we start talking with the iraqi individuals and the idea that we allow the iranians to come back into iraq and take over that country, with all the treasure in blood and money we have spent because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal, leftist base and move out those men and women -- he could have renegotiated that time frame. i think it's a huge error for us. we're going to see iran, in my opinion, move back in and what's really at the speed of light, they will move back in and all of the work we have done, every young man that lost his life in that country will have been for nothing because we have a president that doesn't understand what's going on in that region. >> do you agree about sending troops back into iraq? >> no.

let me put it into context. ronald reagan's former national security adviser who worked with on the strategy to defeat the soviet empire spoke today -- here's the key thing to remember. if you worry about the iranians in iraq, develop a strategy to replace the iranian dictatorship and a iraq will find. -- will be fine. get a policy so no american president ever bows to a saudi king and then you can put pressure on the saudis because you have enough american energy. [applause] >> governor romney, you say you will not send troops and back -- back in right now. but what would it send to -- what would it take to send troops back in? >> it's a very high hurdle. the decision to send our men and women into harm's way should be made -- >> what kind of thing?

>> you cannot say with the specific circumstances would be, but it would require a significant, dramatic american interests. you'd have to have a president explain those interest to the american people. we go in with the exception of force and indicate how success would be defined and how we would find -- how we would define how we get our troops out. the president didn't do that in libya or anywhere. i find it amazing we have troops in harm's way around the world and in afghanistan, and in iraq, he does not go on tv and talk to the american people about the sacrifice being made by these men and women and i find that extraordinary that a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in america. the hurdle to put troops in harm's way is very high and the test is america's interests, our security interests. they have to be involved in a significant way to deploy our troops. >> i want to give congressman

paul a chance to will weigh in here because a lot of people think foreign-policy is your achilles heel. you say you would not have authorized the raid to get osama bin laden and a nuclear iran is none of our business. how do you reconcile that? >> i think that is a misquote. i don't want iran to get a nuclear weapon and i voted to go after osama bin laden. that takes care of that. that business of one to go in, i don't think it's complicated. we've made it more complicated than it should be. the president is the commander- in-chief, but he's not the king. that's why we fought a revolution. we would have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we had only gone to war in a proper manner. the proper manner is the people who elect congressmen and senators to make a declaration of war and then we become the commander-in-chief and make these decisions. but we went into afghanistan, iraq, and now we are in pakistan, we are involved in 70

countries and want to move on to syria and there are -- we are involved in so many countries. some people can't wait until we start bombing iran. something happened this week which is encouraging -- how we finally talk to the chinese. they've killed 100 million of their own people but we broke the ice by playing ping-pong. if the american navy picked up a budget iranian fishermen that had been held by the pirates and released them. they were so welcomed and it was a wonderful thing to happen. this is the kind of stuff we should deal with, not putting on sanctions. sanctions always lead up to war and that's what we're doing. eastern europe will be destabilized if they don't have this oil and this pushes iran right into the hands of the chinese. our policy may be well intended but as a lot down side and a lot of unintended consequences and,

unfortunately, black. >> a final word from senator santorum. >> if we had your foreign policy, there would not have been a fleet to pick up the iranian fishermen. the fact is we did have a beneficial relationship with picking them up and we have a great relationship which should be better with the iranian people. the iranian people have come to the streets and taken to the streets repeatedly and still do and try to overthrow their government. we had a president of the united states who stood silently by as thousands were killed on the streets and did nothing. did nothing. in fact, he passively supported the results of the election. mahmoud ahmadinejad announced after the election he won with 67% of the vote. the president said that sounds like a legitimate election. obviously a chicago politician. that's not what the president of the united states does. he does not get up and condone

the behavior and turn his back on the folks in the street. when i was in the senate, i pushed to help those revolutionaries before the revolution and get the resources, to make sure we had the relationships because i knew -- if you take polls, they do in iran, the iranian people love americans because we stand up for the truth and call evil what it is. that's why they admire is, because we tell the truth. now we have to have a president that helps them do it necessary, which is to turn that regime out. >> we will be right back. >> this is the abc news republican presidential debate, live from manchester, new hampshire. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> live, from manchester, new hampshire, once again, diane

sawyer, george stephanopoulos, and josh mckelvin. >> welcome back. want to tackle jobs right now and specifically the ideas that candidates have, individual, the neat ideas for creating more american jobs, specifically asking about what we think created the age of american in it -- american energy. >> we have an example in new hampshire. if you travel up interstate 93, what was a widening project where about $300 million away from getting the project completed and all lot of people here think it's a very important project to get done in terms of our regional economy. so the question is infrastructure. with the increasing demand on our roads and bridges and aging roads and bridges, how committed would you be to invest not such a stimulus package but a true economic growth package? >> there are certain things the

government can do to encourage the economy. infrastructure is one thing. in my state, we had structural deficiency in our bridges. we have to improve our rail beds, our air transportation system to be competitive. but fundamentally, what happens in america that creates jobs is not government. it is taxed too much, it regulates too much and as energy policies that keep us from using our own energy. s. trade policies that favor people taking jobs away from us. we have to have government change its orientation to be encouraged in the private sector and it makes america the wealthiest nation, our gdp per capita, our income per person in america is 50% higher is -- is 50% higher than the average in europe. that's because of the entrepreneurial experience in the america.

we have in a nation based on opportunity and merit. we draw people here who seek freedom in these people have built enterprises that employ and make america strong. we have a president who has an entirely different view. he wants us to turn into a european style welfare state and have government take from some but give to others. that will kill the ability for america to provide a prosperous future, secure our freedom and give us the rights have been in our declaration of independence and constitution. i believe in america based on opportunity and freedom, not president obama's social where there state. -- social welfare state. >> how would your plans distinguish you from governor romney? what are you talking about infrastructure? >> and more broadly, job creation. >> i think infrastructure is a big, and borden topic. you cannot compete with china if you have an inferior infrastructure. you have to be technologically

smart and make investment. for example, the no. pass project ought to be buried and it should be along the state right away. you need modern technology to bring power from quebec and do it in a way that preserves the beauty of northern new hampshire. i would have an energy policy that does free from saudi arabia, iran, and venezuela. two-thirds of delegate to debt reduction. one-third would go to infrastructure. that would give you the ability to have and for stricter investment program that would get you back on track. if you look at the infrastructure, if you don't have some systematic investment program, you're not going to be able to compete with china and india. >> governor huntsman, where does the money come from? >> we have got to earn our way forward. governors on how to pay the bills and to pay the bills, you've got to expand our economic base.

that's the problem we've got. we read about the jobs that have ticked upward, and we are happy with that. we're providing more in the way of real opportunity, but think of where this country would be of during the first two years of barack obama, if we would have had a different president. i would have ripped open the tax code and done what simpson- bowles recommended. i would have -- we have a corrupt tax code, so you have to say how we are going to pay for it. we've got to stimulate confidence in the creative class in this country. right now, they're sitting on their hands and they're not going to have a more optimistic view of our direction. >> that was a commission appointed by a obama. would anyone else on the stage agree with that, to raise the kind of revenues called for in the simpson-bowles commission? >> i would not. our plan focuses on simplifying

the tax code. five deductions -- health care, housing, pension, children and charities. everything else goes and we focus on the pillars that have broad consensus in this country. the other side is the corporate side. cut in half to 17.5%. i'm very worried about a sector of our economy that has been under fire. i come from southwestern pennsylvania, part of manufacturing. it has been devastated because we are uncompetitive. 30 years ago, we're devastated because business and labor did not understand global competitiveness and made a lot of mistakes. they were not prepared and we lost a lot of jobs. our productivity gains and labor force are doing their job, but they are running into stiff headwind called government and government taxation. 35% corporate tax, which is the highest in the world. it's a tax that does not offset when we try to export.

>> [inaudible] >> we are at a 20% cost differential with our nine top trading partners on average. that cost differential is excluding labor cost. it is government taxation, eliminating the corporate tax gets rid of a chunk of that. this administration is on track -- the congressional research service look at regulations and priced the highest cost once over $100 billion. with bush and clinton there were 60 on average. last year, under president obama, there were 150 of those types of regulations. i would repeal every one of them and replaced with ones are less costly or not replace them at all. >> why not go to 0? >> there's no question it would be great not to have taxes but we have that taxes to pay for our military and programs to care for those who cannot pay

for themselves, but the levels are too high. government at all levels during john f. kennedy pursued -- assumed 27% of our economy. we're inches away from no longer being a free economy and democrat friends want this to be -- they just want more. government is already too big. have to rein in the scale of the federal government and we need to have the tax rates brought down to be competitive with other nations. we also of to make sure we give relief to people who need it most, the people who need it most. the people have been hurt most are the middle class. i've put in place a significant savings incentives and eliminate any tax on savings for middle income americans. i looked long-term debt to do it john indicated, which is to take bold-simpson and reduce the rates in our tax coal and reduce the amount of exemptions that can -- the tax code and reduce

the amount of exemptions that can take place. simplifying the code, broadening the base is the right way to go long term and immediately, some relief for middle-income americans. >> congressman paul, over and over again, people are hoping for a great vision for america once again. america on the move once again. give us the great vision, that is realistic given the financial situation, a realistic, a great vision for america. >> it is to restore america to our freedoms and principles. that individual liberty and the constitution and sound money. you have to understand economics. you cannot solve the economic crisis unless you know with business cycle comes from and why you have bubbles and why the break. you have to understand we have had a financial bubble that has been going on for 40 years and its collapsing. we are in the midst of a big correction and the only way you can get back to growth is to

liquidate the debt. instead of liquidating debt, what we have done is the people to build up debt on wall street and the banks, the american taxpayer has bailed them out. we bought it to the federal reserve and the american treasury and dumped on the middle-class which is now shrinking and we don't have jobs. but if you are individual, if you are consuming everything you are earning to finance your debt, you don't have room for growth. this is why i call for cutting spending. the only one calling for real cuts. that's what the republican party used to stand for. but you cannot liquidate that were keep bailing out the dead. that is what has been done for 20 years. we are into this for five years and it has to end and will only and after we understand the business cycle. >> there is a vision. dr. paul, there's a vision out there and it's to get america working again. the idea that americans have lost confidence in washington

d.c. and wall street is a great example of where they want to go. they want washington out of their hair. a lot less taxation, less regulation, less litigation. there's a model for that in the state of texas over the last decade. if we put those types of policies into place, we're sitting on 300 years of energy in this country. allow the federal lands and waters to be opened up so we are the people developing domestic energy and not being held hostage by countries hostile to america. we could put this country back to work again in the energy industry, whether it's any industry side -- solar, wind, oil and gas or coal. use it all and that the american people to work and allow the resources off our federal lands to be used to pay down the debt. one of the things that could turn this nuke -- could turn this economy around in new hampshire is pass the right to work law. that will make new hampshire a

powerful magnet for jobs in the northeast. [applause] >> governor hunt's been? >> you hit on it. what's the vision for getting this country moving? we all have records, very specific job creation records. i delivered a flat tax in my state and we had the top job break in the country. you can look at what mitt romney in massachusetts and he was no. 47. i went to a diner and had a conversation with a guy who has a small motorcycle repair shop. he said when he grew up, it was bustling with activity and he had 30 different jobs growing up. he said there four different machine tool operations and he remembered the excitement and opportunity. we had this conversation and i said we are on the cusp of a manufacturing renaissance if we do it right. china is going down in terms of gdp growth. as they go down, unemployment

goes up. we have an opportunity to win back that manufacturing investment if we are smart enough, with the right kind of leadership, to fix our taxes. no one is calling for the complete elimination of the loopholes and deductions for the wall street journal came out and endorsed by tax plan. that's what needs to be done, not tinkering around the edges. if we could move toward a friendly regulatory environment, this country could get back in the game again. we could rebuild our manufacturing muscle and rebuild the opportunities we've lost. >> why not close all the loopholes as governor huntsman is saying? >> let me step back from that and i don't uncritical from the questions you ask but i think the real issue is the vision for this country. i think people have to recognize what is at stake in this election is jobs, yes, and balancing the budget, yes, and dealing with our extraordinary overhang from our entitlements.

we have to make sure they are preserved so we don't kill the future of the country. but this election is about the soul of america. what is america going to be? we have a president who has put america on the road to decline militarily, internationally and domestically. he is making this into something we would not recognize. we are increasingly become an -- becoming a like europe. europe is not working in europe. the correct course is to return to his first words in the declaration of independence -- we were endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. we have the right to pursue happiness as we choose and as people pursue education, to build enterprises of all kinds, they don't make us poor, they make us better off. the question is, are we going to

remain a successful nation? that is what is at stake. that is something we're fighting for in this election and i hope the people on this stage share that vision. but we must return america to the principles upon which was founded if we're ever going to have a strong balance sheet and create jobs and have a bright future for our kids. >> you just heard governor romney. >> a little bit harsh on president obama, who i'm sure in his efforts to create a radical european socialist model is sincere. [laughter] but i think the "wall street

journal" captured -- i have a very aggressive program, zero capital gains, 12.5% corporate tax rate, to dramatically modernize the system, abolish the death tax. they say governor romney's program was timid and more like obama. i would think those are fighting words. he wants to fight with the "wall street journal" i would not blame him. but there's a difference between a bold, reagan conservative model and a more establishment model that's more cautious about taking the kind of cheap -- about making the kind of changes we need. >> senator santorum, you just heard from both people on either side of view. and of substance there for you? >> i like the vision. as far as substance, is -- i agree with speaker gingrich. i don't think governor romney's plan is particularly bold or focus on where the problems are in this country. the governor used a term i

shrink from, which is what i don't think we should be using as republicans -- middle-class. there are no class in america. we are a country that don't put people in classes. mabel middle-income people, but the idea that we're -- maybe the idea we are going to use the words of barack obama -- that is their job, divide, separate, put one group against another. that's not the language i will use as president. i will use the language of bringing people together and i will be able to show you unlike some of the folks appear, we have a consistent record of being able to contrast ourselves in america. we're looking for someone who can read it -- who can win this race on the economy and the core issues of this election. i was not ever for a individual mandate, i was not for the big bank bailout as governor romney was, and i stood firm on and

worked in the coal fields against this idea that we needed a cap and trade program. if you want someone with a clear contrast and has a strong record and a vision for this country that will get the country growing and appeal to blue-collar workers in pennsylvania and ohio, michigan and indiana and deliver that message that we care about you, not just about what street and bailing them out, then i'm a guy you want to put in the nomination. >> my plan is broader than tax policy. the tax policy i have described is to help people who desperately need help right now. but there is more to it than that. we have to open up markets to america's goods. we have to open up markets for our goods and we have not done that under this president. the european nations and china over the last three years have opened up 44 different trade relationships with various nations. this president has opened up none. we have to open up trade and

take advantage of our extraordinary energy resources and we have to do something about the regulations in this country. we talk about deregulation. what we are short handing is we want to change old regulations and put in place those who encourage enterprise. i understand how the economy works because i have lived in it. but they have not been on the front line, competing with businesses around the world. i have and i know what regulations kill and which regulations help enterprise. i want to use that expertise to get america working again. i come back to the point i made at the beginning -- this is bigger than that issue. this is a campaign about the direction of this country. if we don't make the right choice this time, we may not be able to for a very long time. this is a critical time in the

history of this country. >> governor huntsman, dealing with china and competing on world. >> we have the most important relationship of the 21st century with china. we've got to make it work. of course we have challenges. we have had challenges with them for 40 years. it's nonsense to think you can slap a tariff on china light governor issues, like with iran, burma, pakistan, south genesee. they are all interrelated. a president that serve the interests of the people of this country, from an economic standpoint and a security standpoint. i am sorry. >> over the last few years you administered our policies in china. the rest of us were doing our best to get republicans elected across the country and stop the president's policies. my own view on china is this --

it is stealing our intellectual property, our style, our know- how, our brand names. they are hacking into our computers, corporate and government, and are manipulating their currencies. for those that do not understand the impact of that, i have seen it. if you hold down the value of your currency artificially, you make your products artificially low price and kill american jobs. if i am president of the united states, i will not continue to talk about how important china is and how we have to get along. >> we are now going to take you live to coverage of road to the white house, from meredith, new hampshire, 40 miles north of concord, where we will be hearing from ron paul. he is joined by his son, rand paul, at this town hall meeting.

>> i thought that after two days of the dates you would be tired of politics. but we are just getting started. we are looking forward to tuesday, for sure. before we started, i wanted to introduce several members of my family. this is my wife, carol. you might have received some greetings from her. she has sent out a lot of cookbooks here lately. also, a daughter-in-law is here. and her daughter, linda. we also had the arrival of a son, and we celebrated his birthday yesterday, senator landfall. >> lending is jim forsyth. i am from the lakes forsyth.

we also have senator sanborn and senator white on board. i am glad to have the support of so many senators. i have the honor of working with grand fall when he was campaigning for a father. i got to know him very well. he is a true believer. at that time, he did not want to run for office. he was a family man and had a successful practice. he saw the call to duty and i am so glad that he did. he has done a fantastic job. senator ran the fall introduces his father. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. what a crowd. what a crowd. anyone here for rent -- anyone here ready to vote for ron paul already? [applause]

we will take the cheers and approval. hang tight, as i try to convince the people who are undecided. years ago, reagan told the story of how he was going to visit border check of -- gorbachev. it seems that there was an accountant in moscow that wanted to buy a car. he saved his money for years and years, because no one had much money in the soviet union, and there was only one car dealer. it was a crummy, a piece of crap car. he saved for years and years. he put his money down. the surly bureaucrat said that that is good and well, come back in 10 years to pick up your car. the accountant did not miss a beat and said -- is that tuesday or wednesday? the bureaucrat told him -- it would be 10 years, and you want

to know tuesday or wednesday? he said yes -- the plumber's coming on tuesday and i do not want to miss it. [laughter] how could we ever conceive of the government owning our car dealerships and manufacturers? people of america would not get it. but the new acronym for gm, do you know it? government motors. we have come a long way, but we have been going the wrong way in the wrong direction. the government, owning businesses, bailing out people who make bad decisions. anybody here think that a banker that makes $100 million per year on wall street, $10 million per year on wall street, if he makes a bad decision and is going bankrupt, we should bail him out? does anyone believe that? i got started running as part of the tea party movement because i was unhappy with republicans.

unhappy with republicans the double the debt under george bush and double the size of the department of education and had the audacity to broker a bank bailout. i guess you can get elected as a republican, because it matters what kind of republican we get. i tell people that the republican party is an empty vessel unless we view it with values. you have a lot of candidates running around saying that they are reagan conservatives. reagan would be rolling over in his grave to hear people say they're reagan conservatives when they voted to double the size of the department of education, when they supported an individual mandate that was the lynchpin of obama care, when they supported things that were

inconsistent with the conservative wing of our party. there has only been one person who has voted against these over the years. who never voted for any budget that was not balanced. sums -- some will say that they never voted for planned parenthood. they put in a line the said the money would not go for a portion, but they voted for it anyway is. they never had the courage to say no. there has been someone in washington who is one of the few candidates that voted no a few times by themselves. one candidate who has never been accused of flip flopping. one candidate in washington who the lobbyists do not even bother to come to his office. [applause]

there is only one candidate, and this is the anomaly that bugs the heck out of people and the cannot understand it, they cannot understand america because they want to think that ron paul does not believe in a strong national defense. it is not true. do you know who soldiers trust with their money and contributions more than any other candidate? >> ron paul. >> good answer. [applause] there is only one candidate in the race who has gotten more contributions from active duty soldiers then all of the other candidates combined. i think of a soldier, a young man or woman who puts their lives on the line and sends their contribution, and many have been sending it to ron paul, shows that there are many soldiers who are thoughtful

about going to war. they volunteered for the country and our awful about it. they know that they're putting their life, line and want to have a commander in chief that has the same thoughtfulness. i give you that new, hopefully, commander-in-chief, my father, ron paul. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. >> we love you, ron. [applause] >> pretty soon he will be able to get up on stage and give a pretty good speech, do you not think? [laughter] i will have a little bit of a different format. i will not start with a long speech. jim will ask me a few questions and we will then get some questions from the audience. >> thank you. you served in congress for a

long time. you were practicing medicine before that. what was practicing medicine like in those days? how has that influenced how you feel about the government's approach to medicine? >> that is one thing that i have witnessed. a change in medical practice. i went to college in the 1950's, graduating in the end of 1960. i finished a couple of years of residency and did some practice before the government was involved in medicine. this was before medicaid and medicare. there was just minimal government. government took care of the veterans and some others. in the 1960's, lbj -- i do not know if you remember him or not -- he claimed that we could have guns and butter. we were fighting the vietnam war. the butter was this idea that

the federal government had to take over medical care. subsequently over the last decades he has done that. we have seen a dramatic change. the cost of medicine has skyrocketed. the second-is it has destroyed the doctor patient relationship. and it has introduced -- not socialized medicine, but corporate medicine. the government is now running things and owning it. that would be very bad. corporate medicine is not much better. drug companies become powerful lobbyists. the medical profession has powerful lobbyists. a dramatic change. the experience that i had in the early 1960's was in a catholic hospital. all that i remember is that i did not get paid very much. in an emergency room i was

moonlighting. the one thing that i noticed is that everyone that taking care of. people back to pay, they paid. no one was turned away. people received medical care. it was not a period of time like the 50's and 60's. i recall people lying on the streets and not getting medicare. it was delivered differently now. we have introduced a change medical system where the quality goes down, the cost goes up, and everyone is unhappy. the patients go unhappy -- grow unhappy. it will get so much worse with obama care. the good way to start, once we take over in washington, will be to get rid of obama care and making sure that the control of medicine is returned to you, the citizens, the patient. [applause]

>> [inaudible] good suggestion. >> your budget plan is to cut $1 trillion in the first year. why do you feel that cutting spending is important? a lot of people say that we need to spend more in order to stimulate the economy. >> actually, it is the government that spends less when the people spend more. people spend money with a much better, much more wisdom that the government. the government, we actually lose twice. if they take that money out of our pockets, they lose $1 trillion. it is usually spent getting themselves into trouble. either overseas or on

bureaucrats. then we need additional expenses for overcoming the bureaucracy. i think that we really lose twice that way. we need $1 trillion if we are serious. the proposed cuts are not really cuts. they are cut on proposed increases. we call it baseline budgeting, going up at a medically at a certain rate -- automatically at a certain rate. understanding that they will cut on the proposed increases. $100 billion per year as opposed to what is happening today, with the budget going up $100 billion in real costs every month. it has nothing to do with cuts. no one is talking about it. right now, they are nearly hysterical about these mandated cuts because of the super

committee. cutting something out of the military. there are no cuts proposed. there are only cuts on these wild proposed increases. they are not willing to admit that this country cannot continue to run up a deficit of $1.50 trillion per year that is growing exponentially. if we are serious, we have to get the federal government out of our wallets and out of our lives and let the people spend the money. then we have a much better chance of regaining prosperity. [applause] >> as you know, i served in the air force between the gulf wars. there is a big difference between defense and overseas military spending.

cut the money the -- the money you are planning on cutting, is that military spending? >> this is an important point. as soon as you talk about cutting funds overseas, cutting it from defense, not really. there is a big difference between military spending, oversees spending, and state of department spending. then all the activities, you cannot distinguish the cia from the military anymore. they control bombings any place in the world. from langley and washington, d.c. it is out of control. military spending is what you want to cut. even have a better sense of this. you are just looking for trouble when we have military spending occupying countries and telling

other people what to do, threatening everyone. the admitted it. there is no spot in the earth that is saved. we can hit any single spot or any particular individual. there is a big difference between the two. when they say that he wants to slash defense spending, it is not true. slashing the military-industrial complex, they're making too much profits doing the wrong thing. [applause] just recent -- >> just recently, jobs numbers came out. are we out of the woods? are we all in good shape? >> we wish that we were. i do not think that we are. we are in the middle of a financial crisis correction that is the biggest in anyone's lifetime in this room.

unless someone has lived through the total depression, we are on the verge of this being much worse. the financial bubble is understandable, if you understand monetary policy and the federal reserve. bubbles come inevitably. the major bubble has been forming since august 15, 1971, when we severed the last link to gold, which meant that governments could spend and leslie and borrow and print money. the size of government grew exponentially at the same time as the deficit. and the world would be willing to take the dollar. we had our best export, which was dollars. we bought goods from overseas at a cheap rate. we are now indebted to the world. at the same time, jobs -- 200,000 jobs is nothing compared to what is really going on.

this notion of 8.5% of the people being unemployed is fictitious. even if you look at the bureau of labor statistics, they will limit that if you are partially employed, 17% to 18%, including everyone, and the people who are working part time, unemployment is over 20%. the people feel much worse. they also tell us that there is no inflation and prices are going up at 2%. all you have to do beyond fixed income and social security is see that your standard of living is going down. this is very temporary. the problem is worldwide. even like a problem with china right now. we explored a lot of dollars to china. they inflated their currency as

well. when this came down, you're a fist -- when this comes down -- yes, europe is collapsing right now. all that secretary geithner can do is take care of that and the american people will not figure it out until it is over, and we can bail you out i just printing dollars. they did that in 2008. the people that had gripped this off and made the money, they should have gone bankrupt without you getting stuck with the bill. [applause] we are prepared, right now, for all of europe. our banks are connected to the european banks. they bought all of the debt that country's like italy and spain. just like we bought up the

worthless mortgage debt in this country, they said it was a liquid. no one would buy it. the fed bought it. the treasury bought it. that is major. you cannot turn an economy around until you eradicate the debt overhang. we are like an individual that has borrowed too much money, but all of their income is being used to pay the interest on the debt. they cannot get ahead. the key borrowing and getting more and more credit cards. we are at that stage where the debt is automatically going out and the spending is automatically going up and they are not proposing cuts. eventually what has to happen is we have to wipe the debt of the books so that we can get back to work again. right now they are in total

denial in washington at what we have to do. because it is uncomfortable and they do not want to understand it. they do not want to have to cut anything. this is why we are in serious trouble. there are answers. sound economic policy in the three more -- free market. the things that made america great and wealthy. we need that, but we cannot do it by papering it over and turning in money. [applause] >> we are going to open it up to questions from the audience. we are two days away from the primary. dr. paul is surging 20% now. it is absolutely critical that we get every vote possible. if you are a ron paul supporter from out of town, please leave it to the undecided voters from new hampshire to west questions,

please. there should be people in the audience going around to ask questions. >> what is the most devastating diagnosis that you can get in terms of alzheimer's or dementia? what would you do to help stop this terrible disease that is affecting more and more, costing our country billions in productivity every year? >> what we have to do for all devastating diseases, and i know someone who is suffering from alzheimer's, is that is -- devastating. one, a system that is the most efficient way of taking care problems like that. you have to really challenge depending on the government to do it. the government gets involved and takes over research and

development. most of those funds are different -- divvied up politically. governments of very powerful. even the good can come from that, it is really not the answer. the change in the medical system that we have now is we are totally dependent on the government. in my proposal for these significant cuts, it does not deal with -- i have priorities that i do try to protect, because we have become so dependent on these. social security, medical research, and child health care. i am trying to get a system where we can work these out and take care of people like that. whether you are sick or not sick, you will not get anything. whether it is alzheimer's, cancer, whatever, the most efficient way to solve those problems is not your dependency on government. all of those funds are allotted

for political reasons and on not necessarily the most efficient. if the government is on our way and we became prosperous again, instead of a shrinking middle class, they would be more fun. -- there would be more funds. and stock with hospitals that are run by churches and others? we would not be facing this crisis. even with the problems that we have in texas, we have a hospital, with difficult problems -- would be much better if there was a free and prosperous economy?

we work these problems out much better before 1965. [applause] >> nice to meet you. our question is, with a volunteer fire department, how would you replace them? and the department of education? >> ok. she is talking about the fire department's i want to get rid of. what would we do to replace those responsibilities. for the most part, i would not want to replace them. i do not think that we need a department of education. what i want to do is go back to the assumption that it is not the proper authority of the federal government or their

ability to tell your parents how eat it -- how to educate you. it should be the responsibility of the parent. this would mean that if people become unsatisfied and, we have to protect the right to be home schooled, schooled in private school, or whenever. once again, when the government gets involved, in medicine, education, or housing, it does not increase the quality. what it does increase is the price. prices go up, but the quality does not go up. in we do not want to give up on them, but we want them to be delivered in a different fashion. we are not convinced that the government is very good at delivering these goods and services.

this would mean that if people get worried and say that a lot of federal workers will be laid off, that would happen. but they do not get laid off immediately. we want to gradually reduce their workforce. they are not doing productive work. we want people to work in a free-market economy and do productive work. it is a matter of how you deliver the goods and services and there is no evidence whatsoever that government is good at doing that job. [applause] >> there has been a bunch of talk about lowering the corporate tax. we have a company like general electric with 60% of their products made overseas. how is lowering the corporate tax, given the fact that they do not even pay one on their structure and loopholes -- they do not pay anything.

how does lowering the corporate tax bring jobs back to america? >> you are a corporation and our international. they probably pay taxes overseas at a lesser rate. we penalize them if we want them to come here and build a plant at home. then they will have an additional tax and their tax twice. we are one of two countries that does that, taxing the return on capital. you have to have capital to start businesses. it cannot come out of a printing france -- printing press. keynesian liberals believe the you can get capital out of the federal reserve by printing money and it does not work. you want lower taxes, but you want lower taxes for everyone. without an income tax, everyone would have more money to spend. [applause] in many ways, we chased

businesses overseas. we do it through currency manipulation and the fact that we have this reserve currency. it is a detriment, and you cannot do it with the monetary system. businesses can be started in china and other countries. here it would take three years to get a business started. not a healthy climate. they will go overseas. and as far as the rich to have benefits, i put them into two categories. some of them are very rich. they have a lot of money and they manipulate the inflationary system. they make money off of you by getting contracts from the government or the military industrial complex and are very

much involved. if a company is big because it delivers a profit at a good price and you and i reward them by buying their product and they get rich, we do not want to punish them. that is earned capital. we should encourage them to stay. take these companies that made a lot of money in the derivatives market on speculation, and then they went bankrupt and went to the government and got bailed out with most of the salaries protected, they are still back making money? those of the rich people we should deal with. the ones who are ripping us off. not the ones who we provide services for. >> you mentioned an unemployment rate at 8.5%, 15%, 20%.

many of us believe it is short by 438, that is the government, the house and the senate. if we were to hand you a clean slate, with a brand new congress, 435 new faces and 35 new senators, what did you do with that to put america back to work again? >> meaning i have all of the votes and ready to go? >> 50/50. democrat, republican. >> what you can do, the president has the most responsibility with foreign policy. you can change the attitude of the world and say that we are done with the wasteful, unwinnable, undeclared wars. spend our money here at home. [applause] you have to have a revision of the monetary system and to do it

completely you would have to have incorporation from the congress. the immediate thing that we should do is find out what is going on. meaning a thorough and complete audit of the federal reserve and to they have been taking care of. in order to get that transition started, you have to legalize competition today. you want competition with the federal reserve. you could deal in gold and silver, and that would require the legislation i have been trying to introduce for years. you have to cut the spending. that is the most important thing. do not let the american people get stuck with buying up this plot -- this bad debt. when that message is sent, for a different tax code and respect for contract rights, sound

money, and a change in form policy, things would change immediately because it is confidence over the direction we are going. people will not go back. businessmen will not be investing until they get their confidence back. if every time they have a problem the go to washington and pass another program to put on another layer of regulations -- bob franken is hanging out there, of course, as well -- dodd-frank is hanging out there, as well as obama care, of course. you have got to get that off and i believe that we could do that. [applause] >> my first job is that i teach american and constitutional history at a community college. i want to say thank you for talking so much about the constitution. it is very much appreciated by myself and everyone else in the room. my second job is i work for the

new york city police department. i was a first responder on september 11. [applause] i think that a lot of people that like what you say about the constitution and domestic policy are on the rigid policies are on the fence about what you're saying about domestic policy and september 11. could you talk more to reassure the people? >> 9/11 will be remembered by every one of us. one of the significant events of 9/11 was it brought the american people together. it was a devastating day. it should have been a time when we reassessed all of our values, foreign-policy and everything else. instead we put the burden on the american people and undermined the privacies of the people. that was not the answer for 9/11. it was shortly thereafter that we had a vote, giving the

president the authority to go after the individuals responsible for it. which i strongly supported. but i did not believe for a minute that authority should have been used the way that it was used. that authority was used to go to war against iraq. the iraqis were involved? al qaeda was there? it was not true. the patriot act had been floating around. it was an excuse to pass the patriot act. we have to sort that out. we cannot just fly off and do things that are more harmful. but we have to do things to defend this country. if you get involved in 130 countries in nine places, we are not doing ourselves a favor if we have no money. one thing that is important about the valuation of 9/11 was

that paul wolfowitz, as soon as that happened, within days he should have said -- you know what? give us a chance to get our troops out of saudi arabia. bin laden was using that as a recruiting tool. saudi arabia was seen as holy land. what they do not understand is that troops in muslim countries around the world, the middle east in particular, is still exciting people. when we go into pakistan, they lob these bombs after one, two, three people, with innocent people killed. how would we react if that was

done to us? [applause] the challenge that i get is that i do not want to be engaged around the world. i do not want to being gauged by acting like a bully. if they do what we say, we ride them and give them more money. i am sick and tired of that. what we need to do this influence the world with our goodness. our goodness will be spread if we do a good job with freedom, prosperity, and civil-rights in this country, minding our own business without going around in moving people. maybe people would see us as an example and i would want to emulate us. this is so much different from what we are doing today. [applause] that is my approach. [applause]

>> only undecided questions, please. [laughter] at the prompting of my 16-year- old, i like when i see in your campaign. my question is, what advice would you give to a young man exploring a possible career in public service? >> a very important question. you know, we have a large family. children and grandchildren. we talk about these kinds of things. you have to define public service. if you want to become a bureaucrat someplace, engage in a department that is not authorized by the constitution, i would probably not be a that encouraging.

i still take my responsibility very seriously about appointing people who are serious in studying and training in our military academy. i think that is very important. also, we need an education. kim talked about that, he got his education when he was sent over and found out what he was doing in the military. it was different. to say that anything in government is public-service and therefore ok, i think the public service they being a local policeman, providing safety and security here at home, rather than accepting any role in the federal government.

[applause] >> congressman, what would be your policy on the state of israel? >> policy in the state of israel. i would want to maintain very close relations with israel. i want to be a good friend of israel. i also want to respect them in the many ways that i do not think the united states should undermine their sovereignty in any way. the establishment came about with the movement of zionism. there were two different principles. one was independent and self- reliant. i agree that those fundamental premise these were of zionism. i do not think we should tell them what to do. if they want to have a peace treaty and they think that they can work it out, they should not have to ask us for permission to

defend their borders. i do not believe that i should take money from anyone here and send money to israel. [applause] some people would say that that means you're anti-israel. but i am pro-american. this is a benefit to israel, actually. when you give money, it implies that we own you. second, if you cut out all foreign aid, israel comes out ahead. their neighbors get about five times as much assistance. i do not think that it is much of a problem. we should not become hong kong or anything like that. we have every reason to get

along, and we can, by controlling them and regulating and holding them back -- that is not necessary. that yah who went before the congress this year. ahoo went before the congress -- netanyahu went before the congress this year and said they did not need american troops to defend themselves. i think we should respect that. >> my daughter has been ill for many years and on insurance, but

she will soon graduate from college. does she have to stand in line at a charity hospital under your administration? >> we will probably be standing in line under obama care. at the rate we are going. i have reserved final decision on medical care. it is messed up. because it is messed up, you cannot save those of us that want to reform it at all. i want to preserve at least 1 people have become dependent on. the insurance business, the way we have given benefits, tax benefits, to insurance over the years, it has encouraged problems with transferring the

policy. if it does not go with the job, you do not have to transfer it. the contract to be there. they should never be able to cancel you. if you have individual insurance without the deduction and work for a big comfort -- big company, it is all artificial. the market has been messed up in that way. the only way to save the system from total bankruptcy is by cutting spending elsewhere. looking at this overseas spending that has nothing to do

with that. >> we have time for one more question. >> dr. paul? i am over here. i am an independent caller and i cherish that. i feel hopeless about any president succeeding right now because of the way the congress does not work together. it is essentially a two party system and they are fighting. if someone asked you what you could do to start fresh, but you cannot? >> maybe if i could give you a better answer. i did not understand the other one. >> the congress that you will have, depending on what people vote, how would you handle the fighting between the sides? >> with difficulty. but with a new approach. completely new. everyone knows what we are talking about is different. i have a strange new idea of

obeying the constitution. [applause] i know exactly what you are talking about. i appeal to that group. independent people who are tired of the two party system. they are sick and tired of it. tea party people, it is not working, this failed economic policy. you cannot tanker on the edges of foreign policy and saying that we will cut this year and go into two countries instead of three. that is what has to be decided. our fallacy over these many decades, we did not have to be responsible. we kept reelecting the members of congress. the people have the responsibility as well. they kept bringing the goods back to the district.

how did they do it? they had too much compromise. there were conservatives who spend money on their projects. liberals spent money on the other. there was no money, so they agreed to raise the natural -- national debt. it was the wrong head of compromise. what we need is not compromise, but coalition building. this is why freedom works. it brings people to gather for different reasons. these people want to use their freedoms the way that they won in the personalized. other people want to use their freedom in their economic lives. this will bring people together, if they understand them. but coalitions spending overseas, i work with a lot of independent, moderate liberal democrats, who see this as more like conservative republicans. protecting civil liberties. cutting these overseas spending.

at the same time, you have to work with people who have a better sense of too much spending here at home. if we can continue to depend on deficit spending, there is no solution. the big difference will be that if there is a victory in this way, our campaign sends a powerful message. it is also the reason that they're very, very scared. the term that they use that i always laugh at, they say we have to stop ron paul, he is dangerous. meaning that if you are supporting me, you are a dangerous person because you want a balanced budget, living within our means, defending america. but i really sincerely believe that we can bring the people together. if a new president has those views, a lot of new people will

be swept in. there is one other secret weapon that we have. the people in washington are not all that principle. and you know that. you have to use that to our advantage. that does not mean that we have to get rid of everybody. all you have to do is let your voice be heard. vote against obama care or whenever it is, or we will send you home. you can pressure them to come along with the programs i and -- i am suggesting. thank you very much. [applause] that was it. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you, dr. paul.

[cheering] >> there you go. ok, here. [unintelligible]

>> is that right? >> [unintelligible] thank you so much.

[unintelligible] >> is that right? back in the 1960's? [unintelligible] can i get a photo with you? [unintelligible]

[inaudible]

>> our cameras are rolling in meredith, now hampshire, -- new hampshire. ron paul will be moving on from here. when he does so, he will be done for the day. as you know, he was a part of this morning's nbc news debate and last night's abc news debate. a long day for the candidates, including the congressman from

texas. we will be taking your phone calls and getting your thoughts on what you just heard from ron paul. let me give you the phone number. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. and let's see. new hampshire voters, 202-628- 0205. i have a new hampshire resident here with me. michele, you are from manchester. you drove about one hour to hear from ron paul. why? of >> time is running out. i take my voting very seriously. it is resonating with me, what ron paul is saying. i really want to see him before i make that final decision. >> why are you undecided? what other candidates appeal to you? >> it is an important time in history.

as a mother of a 7-year-old, the decision is so important for the direction of the future. i want to make sure the government does not get out of control. at the same time, someone can get things done in congress. and >> who are the other candidates that you like? >> huntsman. mitt romney is ok. and i like what mitt romney -- what ron paul has to say, my main concern is can he get it done. >> why do you like jon huntsman? >> he seems to be able to earn the respect of both sides. his negotiating skills will be crucial in getting anything done. take onnk that his trust is so relevant today. i have got a few more hours. >> did you watch the debate last night? this morning? >> both.

i was much more impressed with this morning. the questions that were asked for much more pertinent and help me with my decision making process. last night's questions were a little bit odd. but that, as well, gave me the extra boost to make the drive over to meredith. >> have you seen other candidates? >> not in person. certainly, i have been following awfully closely. living in new hampshire, we just have to. >> when do you think we will decide? >> tuesday. >> when you go into the polling place, that is when you will make the decision? >> that is my right as a new hampshire citizens. >> between now and then, will you be listening to the local news and following these candidates? how will you help -- what will you do to help you make the decision? >> the biggest worry is that ron paul will not be able to

persuade congress to do all of these awesome things. i want to do more research to find out what his record is. >> have you always voted republican? >> i am an independent. it is whoever i feel is most -- most relevant for the times. >> i am a teacher. >> who did you vote for the last time around? >> mccain. i am a middle of the road person. healthy balance is important to me. >> what about the mccain endorsement of mitt romney? >> i was surprised by that. i was very surprised. i felt when he was running against mitt romney, there were so many core values that were not in line with one another. i was just very surprised that he picked mitt romney over jon huntsman. he was against him in the past and terms of getting his campaign going. i was a little taken aback by

that. >> good luck with your decision. >> thank you. >> we want to take your telephone calls, too, and let me go to the first phone call. caller, if you can tell me your name and where you are calling from, and we will try to hear from some more people in this room, as well. >> i am calling from chicago. and ron paul belongs on mount rushmore. hopefully later. has not our 100-year-old war on drugs cost us a lot and the jailing of many? a lifetime of joblessness, welfare, and dependence. thousands of dollars each. a tax laws and an underground economy and monopolizing but a $500 trillion pharmaceutical market by prosecuting free,

homegrown herbal medicines. and the war since vietnam. >> ok, let me jump in at that point, caller, and we have another new hampshire resident. what is your name, and who do you plan to vote for? >> my name is richard. i am from new hampshire, and at this point, i am going to vote for ron paul. >> where is that? you drove how long been to get here and to hear from ron paul? >> yes, we went one hour to get here. i think it is worth it to see these people as much as we can. i am a independent voter. i voted for obama last time. a big mistake, in my mind. i can see ron paul and his side of the story, and i like that better. >> he ran last time.

why did you not vote for him? >> there was not anyone else to vote for korea and terms of policy? >> yes, why did you not vote for ron paul last time. >> i am talking about the general election. >> because the matchup was obama versus mccain. did you vote for ron paul in the primary? >> yes. >> what is it about ron paul that you liked? >> i like his stance on policy. i was a military person that flew planes. i do not believe it is our job to go and invade other countries, and i got very upset over the bush administration doing that. >> do you see any other candidates? is that what you said? how many have you seen it? >> just a couple. >> have they come to your area, or do you drive? >> wheel drive. >> why do you make the drive?

>> depending on where they are. i look at every morning and see where they are. >> you do. you take your primary process seriously. >> oh, yes. i think everybody in new hampshire does. we spent winters in arizona. i went to the grocery store on primary day, and i asked someone, "why -- did you vote?" and she said, "why would i vote? " they just do nine understand it the same way as we do here. >> ron paul has a quick media availability, so we will stop there. we will keep our cameras rolling. >> here you go. here you go. >> keep moving. >> i got one. i got one.

>> ok. >> thank you. >> ok, folks. >> thank you very much. >> i will vote for you. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> i need another --

>> checked. >> folks, i want to say thank you very much. >> you look marvelous. >> thank you, thank you. thank you. >> check. >> thank you. thank you. >> yes. >> year you go. >> thank you. >> good to see you. >> thanks a lot.

>> this is not going to work too well or to a long, unless people sit down, please. >> thank you very much for sticking around, and thank you for your patience as we work for just a couple of difficulties. dr. paul is going to stick around. let's go ahead and get started. anthony with nbc. >> hi, dr. paul. you were able to get a majority of independent votes in iowa. how do you plan to do that here? >> by delivering the same message. independents are independents, but i think the people here are very independent-minded, and i have a strong appeal because i have challenged both the republican and democratic party leadership, and that means they want a message of cleaning house, and that means changing policy, whether it means looking at the federal reserve are doing something about the huge deficits we have, so i feel good

about getting the vote here in new hampshire. >> actually, this is one that has been asked of me by a number of voters. they are asking about your health. how are you holding up? >> she is asking about your health, sir. >> it is a bicycle ride. [cheers and applause] i feel very good, and your health depends on your mental status, too, so there is your mental health, but i feel excellent. the only thing frustrating about the campaigning is i do not get quite as much exercise as i do when i am not campaigning energetically, but doing great. >> hi, dr. paul. at the debate, with all of the

candidates, how do you a fee -- how do you feel? deerfield they were were they? >> he is asking about it tax -- the attacks at the debates. i think it is understandable. sometimes the more vicious they are, the easier it is to dismiss them, and i think i just mentioned a short while ago that one of the ones that was supposed to tear me apart is that i am a dangerous person, and i admit it. i am very dangerous to the status quo of those people in charge, people getting the bailout, the people in the military industrial complex, the people benefiting from the federal reserve system, so those kinds of attacks do not bother me at all, and that is what happens in politics. we would expect that. the higher up on the ladder you go as you are rated in the polls, the more taxing get. >> did you have a question?

-- the more tax -- the more attacks you get. >> the highest baloney? >> i would not use those words. no, but i think i would put them all in the same category. i think all of the candidates support the status quo, and they basically have been on different sides of the issue. i do get the negative charges, but no one has challenged me in being -- that does not occur, but i think they are on the same category. they do not challenge the status quo. they have been part of the establishment. they are not challenging the foreign-policy. they are not looking at the federal reserve, so i think they are all very close together philosophical, and i think the country is looking for something different. >> right over there.

>> hello, dr. paul. our subject university poll has you gaining on mitt romney. a marked difference in the way you and the other candidates went at it versus today, and will you concentrate on any one candidate, particularly in the coming days? >> well, i am going to concentrate on my message. that is what i have been concentrating on for 30 years, but when the questions are asked, you know, about individuals, i am not bashful. i am normally up to speed and know how they voted and let people know. i think too often, they have been on both sides of the position. i think the message is more powerful. i think it is more important to say. i am much more positive. i'd like to talk, the benefits of freedom and the benefits of

the world of law and personal liberty and foreign policy. i think that is what is winning the day for us. >> dr. paul, pharmacists in the press. you came in third in iowa. let's say you do not beat mitt romney here. what is your strategy for winning? what about south carolina, coming in third and then set it? what is your strategy to get the nomination? >> i guess i am not very good at answering questions like that about strategy because i do the same thing over and over again. my job is to understand the issues, understand the philosophy, understand history, understand the economic policy, and explain it to people so they know what to expect and to join in with what i am doing by voting in electing me to whatever office i run for, so the strategy is to continue the same. but those individuals who help

me in managing the campaign, i relied on them for a strategy in that they have to look at the books and raise the money and to direct mail, and fortunately, that is an easy job. they should not get paid any money at all, because the money comes in sometimes spontaneously. you have to have the money. but the big challenge is, even with us raising, i do not know, millions of dollars, to me, that is a lot of money, but when a competing with the somebody with a $100 million, talking about a president may spend $1 billion, our strategy has to be that we have a wonderful message which get spontaneous support. at the same time, we have to do our very best to raise the money and compete in a normal fashion, which, so far, we were able to do. we were in iowa, running a very conventional campaign. we have been here a long time.

i have been here frequently. doing a lot of phone calling and the male and advertising. i think i will be in south carolina rather senate, 12 hours of knowing how we do appear. -- up here. >> what states and beyond? >> which states to do well in beyond new hampshire? i hope all of them, but, you know, secaucas states we are putting a little bit more emphasis in. south carolina will be a nice test for us. a bigger state. if we do well there, that will encourage the fund-raising and alert other people to the message. they will say, "what is he talking about? maybe we should look at that.

maybe he has some answers." said that is it, folks. thanks for coming. [cheers and applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> are there any other amendments? >> there is one that people do not think about too often. the 17th amendment, using the state legislature. they are to go up there. you would send your two

senators. those senators are supposed to vote. a lot of people are thoughtful about the tax issue. the 17th amendment would be another amendment. >> people feel that the republicans are -- bill and >> to take those questions. >> you are doing great work. >> you are welcome. >> thank you, dr. paul. >> thank you. >> talking about the importance of --

>> very well. >> what is your name? >> you are handing that to me? >> that is for you. >> ok, thank you. >> sir? >> and long as you do not work for the federal reserve. and promise you never will. >> online. >> ok. >> sir, may i get a picture with you? thank you very much. >> there you go. >> good luck. >> do it quickly.

have the camera ready. >> my gosh, i did it wrong. >> in the meantime, can you -- >> ok. >> ok. >> can you comment on -- >> this guy. >> thank you. >> and for your efforts. >> please, folks. >> thank you so much, ron paul. >> you are welcome.

>> later today, more live coverage from new hampshire. we will be in the southern part of the state just outside manchester with former utah governor jon huntsman with some of his supporters at 5:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch this live on c- span or streaming online at c- span.org. >> if you want to see the candidates, the "wrote to the white house" coverage take you on the campaign trail. >> i believe we are seeing the kinds of crowds we are seeing because they are pretty excited. >> go to town halls, campaign rallies, and meet and greets.

>> do you know who is the first? >> i am responsible. >> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it is a pleasure to have a listening ear. thank you for having won. >> bringing manufacturing back to the united states, what are your plans for doing that? the companies that are shipping the work overseas? >> i want a tax code that clears, all of the loopholes. >> watched on television and on our website, c-span.org. >> next, former presidential candidate and consumer advocate ralph nader on his latest book, "only the super rich can save us."

>> ralph nader is here. after three years in office, what do you think of president obama? >> i do not think he has been aggressive enough. they seem to run the show. he should never have run the government in a way to allow republicans to control the house, so now, he has the argument that he is gridlock, so he cannot do anything, but he did have two years when he could have done a lot more, but he is not a very transforming president, as one writer has pointed out. he is not that. he is also too concessionary to wall street, not tough enough on law and order on the wall street crooks. the unemployed workers. the taxpayers.

in on the military, i think he is even worse than george w. bush. he has been aggressively flouting any sovereignty of any nation, going anywhere on his own sake, and he has turned himself into a prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, and that is a serious issue with law, and that is why there is a new group that is a forthcoming caucus in the congress on the misuse of intelligence to justify war. >> responding with questions and comments to ralph nader, who himself ran for president five different times. we will hemlines for democrats and republicans and independents. it says ralph nader, you, are saying that the white house challenge people to not challenged obama. what is going on? guest: it was said there should

be a primary challenge to obama. congressman dennis kucinich. not necessarily to defeat him, simply to put the liberal progressive agenda on the table and have the media cover it. right now, they are just covering the republicans because the republicans are contesting at the debate. and one-man primary is not good for debate. so whenever a name came jon, a former senator this or a former governor of that, the democrat national committee or their emissaries basically would move to discourage it. we have tried to develop six distinguished citizens in education, in varna, labor, foreign military, affairs, just about a challenge in the democratic primary, and that was very difficult. they do not want debates in the primary, the democrats, and that is unfortunate, because all of these issues on minimum-wage and

cracking down on corporate crime, the bloated military budget, tax reform, none of these get any attention because it is a one-man primary. host: before we get to the calls, what do you make of the gop? guest: it is a be a team. it is so bad that they cannot challenge each other except on very minor points, so when rick santorum says something that is inaccurate on social security, the others cannot challenge him on social security because they think that social security should have private accounts and etc., etc., so it is not a very functional debate that is going on, and they are ignoring huge areas of concern for the american people. >> it was written in "the washington post" that electability remains the g.o.p. gold standard.

are any of them electable? >> you are down to two candidates, a two-party tyranny. look at the way they are excluding people like buddy romer and gary johnson. why? because they have not raised half a million dollars. that is the entry fee to the primary, which was unheard of many, many years ago. someone with that kind of elective background to be on the debates. host: kansas city, missouri, a democrat, joanie, hi. caller: hello. i am so excited i can hardly breathe. mr. nader, i hear written your name in for president. every time you ran, i have voted

for you, and i have written your name and otherwise, ever since the second term of clinton. i've always been a lifelong democrat, but i could not do it after that. al gore. currently, for many, many reasons. you are kept out of everything but just because of the money. if i and $1 million, you could have had three-fourths of it. somebody has got to get rid of this john ashcroft patriot act. it is killing people. steinfeldt i was an alien in my own country. i never have had a reason to get a photographic id. i did not needed. i did not choose to drive. i do not travel. i do not have a passport. to go to the doctor, they have told me not even to show up if i

do not have it. during december to a private company. i went three trips. i was so sick. and they told me each time wrong information. it cost a total of $158. i finally got it, but that is a disgrace. i do think it is a tactic. this and other issues, too. >> -- host: banks. ralph nader. guest: there are laws in the states for identification of costs people money. and they can be blocked to register or to vote. it is difficult for people to vote or run for office than in any western country. my former campaign manager had a book that she pointed out an

issue in. we do not have a competitive democracy. if we had more parties, we would have a more competitive democracy. the third party pushed -- pushed it through in statue on. she makes a good point. the patriot act is replete with provisions that allow search and seizure in people's times, no notification for 72 hours. they can go after your library records, your medical records. we are moving toward a police- type government, and the weber had two type attacks, they will have that is people will go for security. remember that benjamin franklin once said that goes to subordinate liberty security deserve neither. >> -- host: our guest is a 5

time candidate for president of the united states. he was a write-in. a green party nominee in 1996 and in 2000, an independent in 2004 and 2008. >> actually, but slightly more republican votes in the 1992 primary. host: why do you think that is? guest: you get down to issues like civil liberties and living wage and of breathing clean air and eating clean food and having clean water. when you get down to getting corruption out of politics, when you get down to what we have to do in campaigns. whether you are a republican or a democrat. your car with a defect that can fly into a wall with a sticking throttle. you look at the candidates. they stay very, very general.

have they ever named a company? they will name an agency, but by and large, they stay general. that is what drives people in the media crazy. and so what happens, they look for anything tribute, and they start talking about the ground game. guest: is that what campaigns should be about? host: a caller identified himself as a green. caller: i suggest c-span change its independent line to green line. in a country where money is political speech, i would like you to comment on a movement to change the constitution to clarify that corporations do not

have the rights of u.s. individual citizens and what can we do as u.s. citizens to rescind the charters of corporations that cause harm or do not record -- represent the common good? thank you very much. guest: corporations were chartered. they are created by state charter.

on a short lease. in massachusetts in 1810, you have a 10 year lease for good behavior. we are not going to renew it. i do not think you can have equal justice under the law between real people and exxon mobile or general motors or shell oil. i do not think it is possible. they are not only given all of the rights of human beings we have under the constitution, they have enormous privileges and immunities they have been using to control government and to move to control anything that might oppose them. host: back to the last caller's point, putting up a green party line. how did you go with the perception that third-party candidates are viewed as spoilers? how do you --

guest: how do you spoil a spoiled political system? we are all running for vote is trying to get votes from one another. i take great umbrage at third- party candidates being called spoilers. i think there should be a change in the access laws. there is a center for competitive democracy, which i helped start. it is dedicated to reducing the barriers. just get on the ballot. if you cannot get on the ballot at the local, state, or national level, you cannot give voters choice of different records and different proposals. unfortunately, the people in charge of the two parties are not interested in that. host: rose is calling on the republican line. caller: i listen closely to the

budget discussions on television. the general who was there said that he was called to go to vietnam and he told the president that his men were not qualified at that particular time. the answer was, we did not ask you if they were qualified. we said ago. so he went. he lost 44% of his men. he said if the budget was cut for the military at this particular time, the same thing would happen. is obama willing to except 44% kill rate? host: ralph nader. it what are we doing with an

empire all over the world? we have the obama doctrine to go anywhere and kill anyone on suspicion of terrorism without due process, including american citizens. we were not all over the world messing around and supporting dictators against their own people and opening up opportunities for oil companies, we would not have to send any soldiers over there. increasingly, the automation of the military would be drones and all kind of push button technologies. there wouldn't be that many soldiers sent over there, even as there are, assuming an aggressive foreign policy. the key is, when these soldiers come back after the trumpets stop sounding, how are they treating? there are figures in the media. double the rate of homelessness and unemployment for veterans. huge dramatic -- traumatic

syndrome. there are hundreds of thousands of people who were over in the the persian gulf and came back sick. we have to become a humanitarian dealing with the prevention of infectious disease, saving millions of lives abroad, children's lines for a fraction of what we are spending on a militarycorrupt contacting budget. host: let's hear from newcastle. frank is on the democratic line. caller: after 8 years of george w. bush, i was proud and happy to voted for obama. after three years of obama, i will have to give my vote to ron paul this time around. it is mainly due to the patriot act. i do not know why obama would

run free prosperous nations. now we are going into other nations. we should be addressing our civil liberties in our own country. i would like to hill -- here ralph nader's response from each of those independently. guest: almost nobody agrees with most of ron paul's position. but they strongly agree with some of them. they agree there should never be a war that we are plunged into without a declaration of war by congress preceded by open, public hearings to talk about the coverups that got us into the invasion of iraq. the patriot act is an abomination. it was passed without any hearing. there was a bill passed by the judiciary committee.

it was a meeting be placed by the bush version. it was shoved through congress in a panic after 9/11. that is not a good way to legislate, taking away people's freedom and arrest without charges and imprisonment without lawyers. this is not america. why ron paul is starring supports is because he raises the fundamental issues of whether we are a nation under the rule of law or whether we are a nation under the rule of men or politicians? i do not agree with ron paul on health and safety regulations. i do not agree with him on single payer health care. i do agree with him on the opposition to corporate welfare, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailout, revising the patriot act, protecting people's

privacy, the support of dictators and involvement that get us into these quagmire and divert trillions of dollars from rebuilding america, modernizing and regenerating the public works. that is why he gets such passionate support. some of the young people like his drug policy. host: this question was asked, could ron paul be the next you? let me read a bit of his peace. paul could offer them a tempting opportunity to express their weariness with compromise and complexity. they could voted their confidence -- their conscience. the threshold would be much higher than with nader. he carries none of paul's in

paris in baggage. paul would repeal a century -- he carries none of paul's embarrassing baggage. guest: i do not think we are that much alike. if ron paul feels badly treated by the republicans -- you notice mitt romney never goes after ron paul. if he makes ron paul into an adversary, ron paul can get the libertarian party nomination and win 10% or 15% of the vote. i do not believe republicans want that. they want a two party contest. host: there are some things you do like about ron paul. mr. nader, would you except a ron paul as a vice president? guest: no. host: let's go to russell, an

independent. caller: one of the best documentaries ever about your work and your campaign is called under reasonable man, which people can watch instantly on netflix. second point. joe connison is one of those hypocritical democrats who came after your campaign and be little your campaign. when you are not running, they are saying what a great man he is. the hypocritical democrats who say ralph is a great guy, but he should not run, are the problem. my question is this. i think i disagree with you on the question of ballot access. the problem is the american people spend close to zero to 1% of their time on civic action.

they are watching football. they are distracting by shopping this and going back. if they spend 1% or 3% of their time supporting your causes and supporting your work and engaging in the political system, we would be better off than we would have a chance. guest: i have kept my web site open from 2008 to show the agenda we ran on so that people could compare what they are talking about now in the republican-democratic primaries compared to what is a more abundant agenda. it has to do with getting private money out of elections. we should not have politicians for sale. it has the single payer, full medicare for all. the most important part is shift of power. people call in. few of them say, i think the citizens of this country have

more power and the corporation should have less power. the constitution does not mention companies or political parties. why are we allowing them to rule us? they should be our servants, not our masters. one of davison's favorite words was -- one of jefferson and's favorite words was participate hor. that is what i hope people will focus on. politics is too much of a spectator sport. i just want people to watch -- they just want people to watch. there has got to be a participator. we need to have a couple dozen presidential debates all over the country.

they exclude others and pick their own reporters. the president should deal with the congressional colony and the lack of voting rights. i did not know president obama has voting rise here. if he has the voting right here, -- i did not know present obama had voting writes here -- right here. host: what do you think the effects of the occupied movement will be? guest: i think it is going to come back. it resonated because it was a voice. enough is enough. we cannot let families continue to decline economically and b power less politically. it is a cold winter. they were inflicted from their

encampment from most places, -- it did from their encampments from most places, but not from washington, d.c. they will be back for occupy spring. on march 30, there will be a massive entry into this city from all of the market by the best buy all of the mock -- by all of the occupied people. host: still, thank you for waiting. phil is a republican -- phil, thank you for waiting. phil is a republican. caller: i want to talk about all of these back room deals the president is doing for these immigrants so they can vote in the election. he is a flip-flop. he has flip flopped on everything he has said when he

ran in 2008. he is running around and trying to do a lot of things so it will look like he has done things. host: could you like on the republican side? caller: i like mitt romney. we should be able to hold these presidents accountable so we get -- when we get into these messes like bush did. we have to support more president to try to get things right. we should have the right to be able to sue a president. they should not be able to do whatever they feel like doing and we the people have to clean get up and pay for it. death there are serious flip- flop questions about president -- guest: there are serious flip- flop questions about president obama. he was a constitutional scholar.

it has been shown that he has violated a whole series of constitutional provisions and constitutional provisions in his foreign and military security policies. he promised a $9.50 minimum wage by 2011. he has not moved at all. he has not even talked about it. a $9.50 minimum wage adjusted for inflation is less -- is less than 1968. he promised unions that they could band together against the corporations and have a say in their working relations. he has not pleased that at all. there are serious questions. because of his lack of a primary challenge to president obama, these issues are not likely to be heard. do you think the republicans are

going to accuse him of backing down on his minimum-wage? they do not even believe in minimum-wage. caller: no one seems to be talking about newt gingrich or rick santorum. sheldon is a zionist jew. he wants to make the middle east say for israel. he was to bomb iran to make israel safe for anybody in that area. host: there is a story. big bucks for gingrich. they are talking about the casino mogul. he has given money to a committee supporting newt gingrich. the broader question, what do you think of the so-called superpacs? guest: they have taken money and

politics to an unheard of level. $52 million was spent in the iowa caucuses. there was in many years ago that that was what a president to campaign spent all over the country. we have to get a voluntary, well promoted system of campaign finance where people can give up to $300. they do not have to give anything if they do not want to. ballots qualified candidates would have a certain amount of time on tv and radio. otherwise, we would have to amend the constitution, which is too difficult to do, but not impossible. host: tell us the story behind this book that you wrote a little while back. it is coming back in paperback. "only the super rich can save us." guest: i take 17 realize multi

billionaires, people like warren buffett, yoko ono and others. they get together in a mountain top hotel. it happens in one year. it is political fiction, but it could happen. they say, how can we turn the country around. enough is enough. there is too much misery and too much power in too few hands. this is the story of how they do it. they use their influence and their rolodexes because they are all successful in their own way. they buy up radio and tv stations because the media does not want to do it. they will go right to the community and organize the community. it is dramatic. it has humor in it. it is designed to expand people's imagination. without imagination, you cannot

envision new possibilities for our country and our world. it is a first-time i tried political fiction. i put a lot of my experience on how to make change, how to deconstruct power, how to find the incredible talent in the neighborhoods and communities that are not depressed by a corrupt political system and a plutocracy. host: let's go to akron, ohio. caller: hello, mr. nader. i think you would make a great commander in chief. you are the only one who talks about conservation on our farms. the american soldiers are supporting ron paul. guest: that is an aging point. why is ron paul getting more contributions from act -- from active duty soldiers than anyone else? is soldiers in iraq and afghanistan do not think we

should be there, the majority of them. they will play the good soldier and do their job. they do not speak out. there was a poll in january 2005 that had over 70% of the soldiers in iraq wanted us out in 6-12 months. that was a field poll that was not challenged by the pentagon. they see ron paul saying, what are we doing over there? what are we doing creating more insecurity for us, more dead soldiers, more injured soldiers, more massively injured and dead civilians in iraq and afghanistan? what is the purpose? that is why they are responding to ron paul. it is their way of expressing themselves. it also a member of the best chance for peace. they are a rock veterans against the war. -- i am a member of veterans for

peace. they hardly get any air time. that is unfortunate. they speak from experience. they speak from a deep well of concern that we are going the wrong way overseas. it may blow back on us in terrible ways in the future in terms of the beat -- a mob of revenge we are banking when innocent people are destroyed and iraq is subjected to sociocide. the drinking water is contaminated. no security in the street. that is what happens when innovators take sides. host: dean, a republican. good morning. caller: as i considered the situation our country is in and the questions being asked, what

can we do to correct the problem? there is a simple solution. return to the principles of our founding fathers and except the constitution for what it says. who would ever believe that we would have someone occupying the white house that supports and you being the best uses my tax money to kill babies. this is totally -- supports and uses my tax money to kill babies. this is totally unbelievable. d.o.m.a. he will not be sent -- defend it. he will not deal with illegal immigrants because he desires their votes. we have got to have someone in the white house with the courage to take a stand.

if we do not do this and we have people today who are talking about global warming. global warming we are experiencing in this country is nothing more than what we have confused with actual sun warmed. guest: they did not want another king george plunging the country into war in the white house. that is what has been clouded. it has been clouded by republicans and -- that is what has been flouted. libya was a classic case of the imperial presidency. we attacked libya without a declaration of war, without an

appropriation of funds, without an authorization of funds. without a war resolution. it was decided in the white house. he picked the money from the budget to supply the plant and other logistics. that is an -- to supply the planes and other logistics. that is an impeachable offense. it is satisfied with sending its constitutional authority to the white house and not opposing its sworn duty to obey its constitutional responsibility. host: would mr. nader consider running for president again? guest: first of all, i have done it enough. we need someone else to carry the progressive banner. the mayor of salt lake city is

running as a green party candidate. we have documented record cases and documented reports that it is a two-party tyranny. that is completely contrary to the kind of choice voters deserve with multi-party candidates. i do not mean that the national level. anybody out there who would like to run an is an independent local, national, state, run,. . it is your duty as a citizen if you think you can contribute. host: calling from florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: what are we planning on doing as far as the veterans? we have 65,000 veterans. the majority of them are women, homeless with children. what are we planning on doing about that? what are we planning on doing

about what is doing at camp lejune? all of these better rents are dying in the marine corps from the contaminated water -- all of these veterans are dying in the marine corps from the contaminated water. guest: you should contact your congressman in your district. he knows a lot about that. the v.a. is totally overwhelmed with mental health problems. they cannot handle the huge overuse. there is too much demand for it and they cannot meet its. this is the problem. these presidents love it when the soldiers are going abroad and they go to these big military rallies. when they come back, families are broken up, domestic violence. it is a terrible thing to witness.

for what? what are we getting for these wars? we are not controlling our government. we say, a pox on all of their houses. it only takes one% or 2% of people organizing any major area -- 1% or 2% to change anything. host: conn, u r d last call. -- connecticut, you are the last call. caller: what do you think about bill donohue running? i have always loved him. it -- still donahue -- phil donahue running. i have always loved him.

i would like to get away from the electoral college before 2012. whoever runs for the common man, please let them use alan jackson's solemn little man. it is about corporations taking -- song "little man." host: i am a supporter of -- guest: i am a supporter of phil donahue. he is the pioneer peace movement. i urged him to run for the senate in connecticut. he could have won. i think he should put together a book. he has a lot to say about the media about what it is not doing. he has a lot to say about the decay of our culture and the commercialization of childhood.

i am with you on that. insulin not running. i am concerned. i am trying to organize -- i am not running. is like trying to organize 1 million americans. corporations are dominating almost every area you can imagine from political to electoral to commercialization of childhood. our food, foreign military budgets. you named it. corporations are there. that is incompatible with democracy. that is what we have to pay attention to. how many of us are willing to put a certain amount of hours on our civic duty so that town meeting still up and the elections go to 80% or 90% turnout and the courts are properly used and so that the impact on congress -- those 535 people represent us in congress.

there is almost no organized pressure back home except for a single issue groups on representing the american people. they represent about 1500 companies that get their way with the majority of these members of congress. host: ralph nader, as always, thanks for joining us this morning. >> we are inside the home of some of jon huntsman's supporters in bedford, new hampshire. we are getting ready for him to talk to the crowd inside at this political house party. two days from the new hampshire primary. that effort is in the southern part of the state. if -- bedford is in the southern part of the state. jon huntsman moved into third place with 11% support of those polled.

>> how're you going to make washington work for the american people -- how are you going to make washington work for the american people? [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> the economy is the most important issue. [unintelligible]

>> inside the home of some of jon huntsman's supporters. moving up in the state polls, he is trailing mitt romney, who is in first place and texas congressman ron paul. we will come back to this scene. the former governor is running a few minutes late to write and speak to supporters. we are going to take a look at some of the main candidates in the race. they participated in the back to back debates. we will have some analysis on last night's debate. it was posted on abc and leader cantor tv station wmur.

>> this was a great night for mitt romney. the candidates barely focus on him. they focus on one another. there was a nasty back and forth between ron paul and rick santorum. even there, there was not too many moments of engagement. for every minute that goes by when the rest of the race does not have a standout moment, is great for mitt romney going forward. votes have now started to be passed. mitt romney has won a state. host: you talk about 8 takeaways. mitt romney is just running out

the clock. tell us about this take away. guest: mitt romney is absolutely right out the clock. he is looking to chew up time. the more time without anyone lay a glove on him, the better shape he is in. rick santorum had an ok, but not great night. he seemed a bit off kilter. he seemed fired up when he was talking with ron paul and engaging on him. toward the end when he tried to land a hit on mitt romney, he meandered and had a hard time getting there. newt gingrich had telegraphed different things going into the bait -- the debate suggested he was going back to being positive. he also suggested he would take on mitt romney pretty hard. he did neither. he was not particularly positive. he also did not attack mitt

romney. he seemed unsure of which way he wanted to go. as for the rest, there was not any great moments. odd huntsman had an moment when he decided to speak mandarin on stage. he has been prone to making jokes at these debates. they amused him and not anyone else. this was no exception. they have to do it over again in two hours. they will be at the nbc news- facebook debate. there is an opportunity for more to happen. this is the last chance to change the narrative after tuesday's vote in new hampshire. host: we will see a lot of the changes that he speaks of. -- maggie speaks of.

is there a number for mitt romney that will make him look great heading into south carolina or not so greg? -- not so great. death there is a fair amount of apathy among voters -- guest: there is a fair amount of apathy among voters. there may be a little more energy for rick santorum that we are seeing in the polls that have come out so far. if mitt romney gets below 36%, that will feel not great for him. he is expected to win here. one thing his team has done

little of is manage expectations about his poll numbers in new hampshire this entire time. every time a poll came out, they could have said something to be a fact of, polls come up or down. we expect the margin to shrink. there is an expectation that he will do well. the democrats are trying hard to make that point. a win is a win. it does not have to walk away with a huge share. 40% would be great for him. he was still in up winning iowa and new hampshire and it would be a precedent and a big deal. host: maggie haberman is a political reporter. thanks for spending a few minutes with us this morning. >> we are live in new hampshire outside the home of the cole family, supporters of jon huntsman. the porters are waiting for the

governor's rival -- the be porters are waiting for the governor's rival -- the reporters are waiting for the governor's unravel. -- arrival. [unintelligible]

>> we are taking a look at some of the supporters of jon huntsman. this is inside the house of the coles in the southern part of the state. the former utah governor is on his way here. in a recent survey conducted on friday and saturday, he has moved into third place in new hampshire. he has support of all of% of those polled. he is trailing the front-

runner, mitt romney, who is in first place at 35%. in second place is ron paul at 20%. [unintelligible]

>> you said you were going to be here. >> how are you? >> good to see you again. >> hi guys. we are here for a traditional house party. we started doing these house

parties many months ago. there maybe half a dozen folks who showed up at the early ones. we are getting a few more. i still a little momentum. i feel a little surge. we are still the underdog. we have a lot of work ahead of us. we are not going to say no and we are not going to stop until we cross the finish line. i have always had a pretty good demeanor. what are you talking about? [unintelligible] i thought it was a silly charge. it spells the difference between the two of us. i put my country first. governor romney put politics first. he talks about never apologizing for america. i want the american people to know that i will never apologize for serving america.

that is who i am and i have always been. i will take back philosophy to my grave. >> do you think your rivals' attacks are working? >> it is a matter of the voters of the granite state's coalescing around their - state coalescing around their favorite candidate. you look at iowa and 75% of the voters who turned out basically said, no way, no how, no thanks to the establishment front runner. i believe the same is true in new hampshire. i think the same is true throughout the country. there is a huge opportunity for us. >> you got about 70% of the votes in the last election.

you are hovering around 11%. you went from 9% to 11%. >> we are not yet at 78%. can that momentum gets you up into the area you need to get to? >> i cannot quantify its. i think that is on wise. the only real evidence i have, on clause 5 a to be sure, is what i feel on the ground. -- unqualified, to be sure, is what i feel on the ground. i do believe we are going to meet market expectations. you all are going to be part of setting those market expectations. we are going to wake up or go to bed tuesday night and mary kay will have a smile on her face. that will be the first

indicator. we will have to see that we did a little better than you all think we were going to do. that is additional momentum going down to south carolina. >> how do you expect to go from here and you are at 9% or 11% to about how you expect to walk into south carolina at 11%? politics is a mysterious business. i was ahead of rick santorum in an iowa poll. within a day or two, things changed remarkably. snapshot in time that we read in the polls are absolutely tweeting and in summer. you cannot base long-term trends on them. it is based on hard work and momentum. >> four days ago when we were

traveling and there would be three reporters with you. >> there are a few more reporters now. that is evidence of some momentum. the fact remains that i am is still an underdog. we still have a long way to go. we have a lot of votes to win over. this is a state with the people do not like to be told for whom to vote. they want to know your heart and soul and they want to know what is in your head. that is handshake by a handshake. we are going to keep working all the way to the finish line to make sure we can bring with us as many voters as we can to beat the expectations you all have set for us. >> i remember your announced in new jersey. >> i said presidential politics dumping. like bunjbungy this is an exhilarating moment

for us. you put in a lot of work for us. 160 public events in new hampshire. no one has worked this market as aggressively as we have. you see light at the end of the tunnel. all of that hard work, all of the hands we have shaken, all of the messages we have in part in homes and town halls around the state began to add up at this point. you see it was all worthwhile. thank you all very much. >> all reporters move please as he moves in. everybody.

>> in new hampshire you have republicans, you have democrats, and you have been dependents -- independents. [applause] >> how do you feel? >> how are you? good to see you. it is a great honor. how is everybody back here? thank you. how you doing? a pleasure to see you. thank you very much. thank you all for coming. i would like to thank our family, friends, the neighborhood.

a lot of our colleagues are here. they helped us put this on. we also want to recognize the candidate for governor. real quick, to introduce governor huntsman, we want to quickly say why we are so passionate about him. he has the most consistent conservative record. he has the most bold solution. he has had the most foreign policy experience. we believe he is the one best suited to beat president obama in the fall. we are excited about this opportunity here. we know on tuesday we will be sending a message to the rest of the country by a great turnout. governor huntsman. [applause] >> jason, thank you. heidi, it is an honor to be in

your home. not long ago at events like this, we only had two or three cameras. times have changed. i have to say we have a little bit of momentum going here. the know what else? -- do you know what else? new hampshire is a state where the voters to not like to be told for home to voted. what have we done? we have gone around the state. we have done almost 170 public events sharing our hearts and souls and our vision for a better tomorrow with the voters. this is a state that loves underdogs. we are an underdog. we need your help and we need your support. i need your vote. this visit would be incomplete if i did not come right out as a crack political salesmen and ask for your vote. in asking for your vote, i know

that i am also asking for your trust. there is not a more important or valued commodity that one human being can get to another than trust. it is a big deal. i understand that. i will use it wisely and i will turn it. the reason i am running for president of the united states of america is that i believe it is totally unacceptable that we are about to hand over the greatest nation that ever was, the united states of america, to the next generation, some of whom that are in this room, less good, more divided, less protected than earlier generations. this is not who we are. we are blue skies, problem solving, can do americans. we find ourselves in a whole. we are going to get out of this

whole. in order to get out, we need a leader who is going to focus on the two most important issues of our time. one is an economic deficit. we need to launch an industrial renaissance. create jobs and expand this market's economically. 25% of the world's gdp with the world's most productive workers. we are going to get back into the game and create jobs for the next generation. we are going to make sure that the debt now being passed to the next generation is changed. we are not going to hand down $15 trillion in debt. that is not going to work. the next generation deserves better. i am also here to tell you we have another deficit that we as people must take care of. find a leader who can get it done. that is called a trust deficit.

we no longer trust our institutions of power. we no longer trust our elected officials. how did we get to this point? the greatest nation that ever was founded on trust. and now we are running on empty. we are going to do a few simple things. i am going to be the president that will lead the charge for term limits for congress. [applause] while we are at it, we are also going to close that revolving door that allows members of congress to go and become lobbyists, profiting from insider information. while we are at it, why don't we say we are going to balance the budget? there is no trust in the executive branch. because at a time when this nation needs leadership most, is

nowhere to be found. the simpson-bowles bipartisan commission report on debt and spending falls right on the president's desk and it goes into the garbage can. no trust. i say there is no trust in our tax code, riddled with loopholes and deductions for anyone who can afford a lawyer or a lobbyist on capitol hill. this president is going to phase it out. this president is going to clean out all the cobwebs and we are going to broaden the base and apply it. i look at our wars abroad and i say there is no trust either. we have had the war on tariff board 10 years. i want to square with the american people and say, we have a lot to show for it. we have had free elections. osama bin laden is no longer around. i want to bring our troops home. we have done what we can do in

afghanistan. i want to square with the american people and say afghanistan is not our future. iraq is not our future. our future as people is how well prepared we are to rise up and meet the competitive challenges of the 21st century. that is about economics and education. that is going to play out largely across the pacific ocean in the countries i have lived in before. without a hint of hyperbole, i will tell you that unless we get our act together and fix our core right here at home, we will see the end of the american century by 2050. that is not the legacy we will leave behind for the next generation, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] that to me finally said, we also

need a president that will take on the big banks. what is this about banks that are too big to fail? give me a break. we have things hanging over our head called, banks that are too big to fail. we are setting ourselves up for another bailout. we have been there. we have done that on the bailout side. we are not going to do it again. in order to ensure that, we have to write size the banks. we have to take banks that are too big -- right size the banks. if you are too big to fail, you are too big. we need a president that is not in the pocket of wall street. we need a president that is not carry the support of half the members of congress in order to bring reform to capitol hill. we can get it done. we need your help. we need to get this word out to

nebulas across this state. we are going to turn out on tuesday and an interesting thing will happen. all of the can this a wisdom that the pundits are still in our heads with -- they want to tell us what the order of the universe is. i think it is i think it will happen again. we will head out of new hampshire and we will keep this ball rolling in the name of the next-generation. they deserve better. the american people deserve better. this isnd of the debay, about bringing us together as americans. we do not need any more division. this is about serving our country. i had another presidential candidate last night to called into question my service for a democrat. where have we, as people?

what about putting your country first, for heaven's sake? he has signs around this state saying, "believed in america." would you want to believe in america, you need to serve america. serving is not limited to one political party. we need to pull together to make this country a better place. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you. i will take a couple of questions from you here. thank you. anything. comments, questions, criticisms. >> dennis. the question is about immigration and securing the southern border. i have read your positions on the issue, but i was not clear on one new -- on what you

believe on doing it with the illegals that are here now. >> we have so screwed up our economy no one wants to come across the border. we fixed it. [laughter] i say that, in cheek, but we are at a low in four decades. we have no jobs. this is the effect it has had. we are fortunate. here is what we must do as people. we owe it to the american people to secure our borders. this discussion does not have a lot of intellectual honesty until the president can work with the border leaders in confirming it has been done. i have been down there with my national guard troops and stalling technology. we have a fenced probably one- third of it. if you want to keep putting up fencing, it will cost. i think securing the border is important, but we did take care of the people who are here. some people say put them on buses and send amount.

i do not know what planet you are from. who pays for that? we have a problem in this country come and i am a realist. i will not use political rhetoric and say we just put them on a bus. let's get rid of the criminal class. they can go home. we have to sit around and figure out a solution going forward. we can find a solution. i have every belief in that ability. then we need to look up the movement of people. our visa system is screwed up. the students that want to come in, but travelers, the tourists who come in, we have gone from 17% market share, with respect in down travel, to about 10%. we are losing money, losing jobs, lose an opportunity because people cannot get visas to come in and visit. someone is taking that business. i will not let that happen as

president. i will get together with a news secretary for the department of homeland security, and we will fix that problem. thank you. back here? >> i want to know we plan to do about the health care for veterans of war and continuing health care for them. i think we are in for a lot of mental health issues, trauma, handicap issues and how you plan on taking care of them and keeping them healthy which continued care cutbacks the think that their families deserve a bigger salary? >> let me just say that how we treat our veterans is a representation of our nation's heart and soul. i have two boys just beginning their journey in the u.s. navy, and i look at the years ahead for them. it informs my thinking on the

deployment of troops, veterans, foreign policy. as governors, i greeted the first ever department of veterans affairs as a state. people said we could not get enough resources together to build a nursing home, and we did what people said we could not. we pooled together and got it done. the men and women who stand between our nations liberty and freedom and the enemy are pretty remarkable people. do we owe them a lot? we do, absolutely. [applause] i will tell you this, as well. as president, i will not let the men and women come from the theaters of combat, the front lines, to the unemployment lines. that will not happen. they will help rebuild list country and they will do with the greatest generation did during their time to rebuild this nation when we needed.

this is the next greatest generation in they will be a part of rebuilding this country now, when we need it most. yes, right here. >> thank you for visiting. hello? this morning in the debate, david gregory ask you a question about how you would begin to deal with the debt that we have. you mentioned means testing for social security and medicare. you also talked about making cuts to the department of defense. i agree with those things. i am wondering if you truly believe that we can sustain the entitlement programs that most of us really want without letting the bush era tax cuts expire. >> might tax plan would take care of the bush tax plan because i will phase out all of them. we will pay for it by the money we raise when we phase out those loopholes and deductions by

investing it back in the tax code. why did that as governor. we will lower the rate, brought in the days come and simplify, which is completely doable and leaves us with a more competitive tax code. on entitlements, we just talked to recognize the world that we live in today. the world-changed. we have no choice. we have no choice. we will have to recognize that on social security we have to change some things. we will have to change retirement eligibility age. we will have to look at the underlying assumptions for inflation and look at real wage growth, and yes we will have to means test. there are a lot of people in the upper income categories to do not need those services. there would be the first to say so. as president, i will not hesitate fallout for a shared sacrifice. i will not play class warfare, but i will call on this nation to a bear -- and raise its share

of a sacrifice. thank you for having me. i am honored and delighted. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you for giving me a listening ear. >> he will have two votes, my wife and die. >> thank you very much. i appreciated. how are you? thank you for being here. >> thank you, governor. >> we appreciate your time. >> nice to see you. >> europe from salt lake? what did you do there? >> i just came up to visit. >> glad you're here. >> thank you. >> we love you. >> you tell them i love them, too. when i put a budget together i say our educators are pretty

special people. we can get this economy improved, one of the first things i want to do is to make sure we can start paying them what i think they're worth. >> thank you. >> my goodness. what happened to uncle mitt? >> you have done a super job. over the top. >> house and going? great to have you. good to see you. thanks for being here. i appreciate it. however you? all right. i'll follow you. >> a governor, back to the shared sacrifice part. >> israel. we all have to pull together as americans, right? not cause work -- quarter, sherds our price.

>> how are you? >> congratulation. >> i have a gift for you. >> you are a special person being in small-business, a lot of risk but your best ideas in the marketplace. >> these are new hampshire is best cookies. enjoy them on the road. thank you. nice to meet you. >> a pleasure. thanks for coming out. this is the greatest thing we've ever done. twice. you're very kind. i appreciate it. how you all doing? thank you. thank you very much.

thank you. i appreciated. i do not have a pen. >> i do. >> how you feel about [unintelligible] >> i am optimistic. yet to leave it up to the good voters of this state. i'm confident about the fact that we have done everything that we need to do. we have worked every angle. we have worked hard. we've reached out all corners of the state. my family has been involved. even my 12-year-old gracie is my senior foreign-policy adviser and has been here in the state.

>> what that does not work w? >> i do not like to think about things not working out at this point, because i like to maintain a high degree of optimism. >> hit back in june, looking at the arc of your campaign, how you feel? the dig was a mistake to skip the iowa at all? what is your sense of where you are? >> we have endured and persevered. i never regret getting into politics. you give everything arrest occurred and you encounter obstacles. you overcome them sometimes. we're still standing. i think it has put me in the right direction here in new hampshire. >> what you say to the conservative moderates? >> it does look at what i talked about. what i talked about now was of what i talked about when i was

governor of the state. my first press conference when i ran for governor was on term limits. campaign finance reform. it did not win me a lot of confidence in my legislature, but we talked about enhancing and trust in our institutions of power. i'm the same person. >> how do you think japan is important? >> they are the centerpiece of our alliance in the asian- pacific region. we have a strong security relationship with them that is critical in northeast asia. we also have a very strong economic relationship with japan, and a strong kinship with the japanese people based on strong values. >> thank you, governor. >> thank you. i appreciate it. see you, guys. thanks, everybody. i appreciate it.

>> thank you so much. we appreciate you being here.

>> were waiting for him to come out.

>> where are you going next? >> the but the story to lever -- together for 11. we are given to gingrich today. >> as we await gov. john huntsman to leave, but on lines are open. -- the phone lines are open. we also have a line for new hampshire viewers only -- 202- 628-02005.

tanya. caller: populace and into the primaries -- after listening to the primaries, but they are running on president obama is policy. we'll listen to the emperor structure and how they are trying to get jobs, that is obama is a policy of. social security, medicare, and saying people 65 and younger whatever right to continue, but what about people 66 and over? when you get right back to what they are saying, it is a bunch of crap. they're running on the same problems -- the same policies as obama. >> ok. thanks for the call. scottsdale, ariz., on our line for republicans.

caller: thank you for having us. watching the debate today, listening to david gregory and then going over to chris matthews, [inaudible] this is not my fund. i can here be back. it has to be your system. anyway, i just want to tell you, it is amazing. msnbc wants jon huntsman and i do get it. i think it's great his sons are in the navy, but i am sick of hearing about it. john mccain did not do that. the other thing is that huntsman has been in this thing for six months. he wants to do a 1 state election? i cannot even believe that. it would be really easy for a

republican to be a governor in utah. go try doing what mitt romney did in massachusetts. i'm getting really tired of hearing about it. huntsman is msnbc's buddy. but i was a republican, i would never go on nbc or msnbc anymore. host: thanks for the call. it full live coverage tomorrow as well as the candidates will be here in new hampshire. we will be covering rick santorum, mitt romney, and all of the events are on our website. c-span.org. tomorrow morning, the day begins early with all the candidates and all of the events of the last few days are part of the seas. nvidia library. the phone lines are open, from

manchester, new hampshire. will you be voting on tuesday? hello? joe, you are are in the air. caller: i am a republican from manchester, and after watching governor huntsman, i will definitely vote for him. he is not offering sound bites and felony pandering. he offers real solutions. unlike governor romney, he does not want to mandate the health care plan. he wants to have market-based health care reform. when i hear his plan for tax reform that was in "the wall street journal," every time i read about him, it gets better and better. i may very conservative republican and he is the most conservative candidate with the best chance of beating obama.

in new hampshire, i think he is the best candidate for new hampshire and the country. he has the best chance of beating obama. host: thanks for the call. fort lauderdale, fla., good evening. caller: hello? can you hear me? hello? i just want to say that i am very impressed by a lot of the candidates, especially jon huntsman. i appreciate a moderate who will bring something to the table that the other side can agree with, you know? i really hear everything that the candidates are saying. sometimes i think is one thing when you are pandering to a crowd, but when it comes down to actually creating legislation that will benefit 49% of the country that will not vote for you, then that is a completely different story. a moderate like jon huntsman,

someone who can actually come to the table and pass legislation for the 49% of the country that does not agree with you. host: i'm going to walk over here. this is roberta and joe. they were in attendance of the house party here. why did you come to this event, as he called it a quintessential new hampshire house party? >> we went to one earlier when there was not such a crowd. we just wanted to hear more about governor huntsman to make sure that we were making the right decisions. >> what did you hear from the governor tonight? >> certainly, his position on what he would do with the returning veterans and how he would handle the needs of those families that are effected by

men and women who have served our country. >> i will be voting for jon huntsman. >> why? >> he has international experience. his position for major tax reform, and i think he has a much more realistic view on immigration and how to deal with that issue as well. >> we obviously have a national audience watching these events and we have been covering these events since the 1980's. why are these house parties, these one-on-one events, so important? >> it gives you an opportunity to really be in the same space as the candidate. you can see how they react to the local culture and what is important to the local people. it has been something that i have certainly watched over the years. only in new hampshire.

i have children who have lived elsewhere, and you just do not have that opportunity. >> who over the years have you seen in these types of settings? >> if you go back to certainly, before president reagan. our daughter was in fourth grade, now in her mid 30's, and she was in a class when there were nine republicans running come and nine students were assigned to be one of the candidates. an incredible education opportunity. who was she? >> the fellow from south carolina. >> she had to go out and get all the campaign and permission from him, go to class, and convince those fourth grade students why she/he was the right person.

we have been doing this for over 30 years. it is a wonderful part of new hampshire. only the new hampshire people are so independent. the and the way to get them is to go out and meet them. >> governor huntsman is leaving and we will watch for just a moment. >> do believe we need a balanced budget amendment? thank you so much. >> can someone take it doxies not very good at it. >> best of luck to you. >> thanks for coming out. >> thank you. >> sorry about the house. >> thank you very much, i appreciate it. i'm not thinking about that. i just won the endorsement of the people of new hampshire. >> what about getting the correct -- getting rid of the corruption in government?

>> we have to deal with it and it realistically. we need someone who can actually focus on the parts that will be meaningful to the american people. >> thank you. >> we wish you the best. >> thanks. you are very kind. anything in a state with the spirit of new hampshire, live free or die. give me a break. it does not matter if it's a town hall meeting, house party, or at a diner. >> we will continue with your phone calls. the numbers are on your screen. we have two new hampshire voters and residents here. have you made up your mind >> --mind? >> i think i have. you get to know the candid it

pretty well and get an understanding better. >> and your decision? >> governor huntsman. >> how 1 thorton was the debate last night and this morning? >> a very important for me, because i had not made my decision. i had seen him at events in manchester a few months ago, and i was leaning towards him, but seeing the debate reinforced it for me. that plus seeing him in person here today, hearing his views again, it made it very simple for me. >> let me ask you a more broad question. how would you describe the state of the country today and what this election is all about? >> two things. he keeps hitting on trust, and that is one thing. the congressional approval rating is at all-time lows and everyone is skeptical of what goes on behind closed doors. the other thing is rejuvenating the economy. but it seems people are not