the country. it is one of the most amazing patterns that the news refuses to cover. in georgia, when we first brought this up, we went so far as to say we will give you a free photo id. you do not have to pay for it. if you do not own a car, that is fine. we would like to know that you are you when you vote. this was seen by every left- winger as a vicious act of oppression against non-existing people. we have to understand their fear. if the only people who vote in american elections are law- abiding, hard-working citizens who are committed to america, the left wing and democratic party will cease to exist. [applause] party will cease to exist. i want you to know that, among the directors i will issue on the first day, will be an

instruction to the attorney general to drop a lawsuit in south carolina on voting. and an instruction to drop all three lawsuits about illegal immigration. it is the juppe of the united states to enforce the law and to work with those who are willing to help enforce ball law, not to obstruct the enforcement of the law. >> my 16-year-old son recently had a school project where he asked the freshman united states congressman from south carolina to describe what they believe to be the american dream. what is your opinion is the american dream and where will you protect that dream so that my son has the same freedoms and liberties of the nation had when

you were 16? >> that is interesting in two levels. your son is doing all right if he has as his school project interviewing all of the congressman. that is not a bad deal, as research shows. when i was 16, my father was serving in the united states army and i was in germany. the previous year, i decided that i would do what i was doing now. we were in france and watch the french paratroopers. i realized that everything about this process is legal. the countries can die. leadership makes an enormous difference. i grew up stranded by people who believe passionately in america. they believe in america because they did not have very much economically.

when i was a child, we lived above a gas station in pennsylvania when my dad was in korea. we did not think we were poor. we did not have much money, but we were not poor. but we were americans. therefore, we were rich. we have freedom. we had a sense of safety. we believe in fair play. we believe that everybody had the old opportunity to pursue happiness because they were given them by their god. my mother was very old fashioned. she taught me the kind of patriotism but they taught in america in the 1920's and the 1930's. the belief was that george washington was really a growth figure. that the founding fathers were remarkably wise. i was only 100 miles from philadelphia, so we could see independence hall. we could see valley forge. we could have this sense of what it took to make america.

i would say to your son, to every young person in america, that the american dream is to recognize first that we exist under our creator. and because of the endowment by our creator of inalienable rights, no president, no congress, no judge, no bureaucrat can take away our jobrights. because we exist under god and because we have been in doubt by our creator, we also have responsibilities. the right to pursue happiness implies that you have to get up off your tail and pursue it. [laughter] [applause] we also have a very deep strain in us that often intellectuals are afraid of. it comes in part from south carolina and from north carolina and from tennessee.

it is the jacksonian tradition. andrew jackson was here during the revolutionary war. i think he was 13 years old when he was struck with a saber, leaving a scar on his face for the rest of his life. he represented a scotch irish tradition. we are a tough country. we are a country that believes in the flag that has a snake on a that says "do not tread on me." we are a country that says to the others that we have no interest in coming over there -- as somebody once said that the only friends that we wanted was a graveyard for our troops. -- the only france that we wanted was a graveyard for our

troops. we have to dedicate yourself to working all of your life, for your family, your friends, your neighbors, for the chance to pass on to your children and your grandchildren. what is the freest, most open society in the history of the world, the treasure that we should not lightly give up or lightly allowed to be taken away from us. [applause] >> mr. speaker, thank you very much for taking time to share your thoughts. as we reach the conclusion of our q&a portion, i would like to give you an opportunity if you have any closing remarks that you would like to make to do so at this time. >> he said i could have 50

minutes because i was a professor. [laughter] santorum is a lawyer. he will get three minutes. [laughter] let me just say i just first came to south carolina to support the conservative movement. the chair of that movement is still below bill. i came back over the years. my younger daughter came here to go to presbyterian. her husband's grandfather was a daring agent for clemson. we have long ties to the state of southern cal's monday south carolina. -- we have long ties to the

state of south carolina. if barack obama, with the disaster that he has been, can be reelected, he will feel totally vindicated in the approach he has taken. the feeding him is central to everything we are doing. he already has two hundred $40 million in the bank, according to the newspapers this morning. they intend to run the most dishonest, ruthless, vicious campaign in history because it is the only hope they have for winning. they went from a campaign that says yes, we can, to a campaign that says why we couldn't. i believe the key to defeating obama is two things. it is secondarily having someone who can stand on the same platform and defeat and decisively in debate by approving the difference between american exceptional as

of and the radicalism of saul and skate. the difference between -- offshore development and natural gas for $29 billion worth of surprise with $80,000 per year job and his anti-american economic program. you need someone to carry that case so convincingly that they wash away half a billion dollars of advertising. second, you need a solid conservative because you need to be will to draw the contrast. if we run a moderate who is in any way close to where obama is, we will lose. the moderate will not be able to explain anything. [applause] my only appeal to you -- i will say two things and then i will

get out of the way for rick santorum. i will say two things about why i think i am uniquely qualified. i helped reagan with the economic plan. i designed the 1994 campaign, which had the largest one party increase in american history, 9 million extra votes. we kept our word. we created 11 million new jobs in four years and we balanced the budget for four years. there is a second reason. i hope you'll think about this. if we end of splitting the conservative vote, we will stumble into nominating somebody that 95% of the people in this room will be uncomfortable with. [applause] and it is just that simple. i believe, if you look at the

polling data and everything going on and at the skill of the campaign, i believe you will help me. if we can win on the 21st, we will go into florida with momentum. and we will win in florida. and if we win those two back-to- back, we will guarantee a conservative nominee on a conservative platform to offer a clear and decisive choice. and i believe that is the only road that gives us a chance to beat barack obama and the only opportunity we have to put american exceptional as a back in charge in washington, d.c. thank you. good luck and god bless you. [applause]

>> thank you very much, mr. speaker. we will continue with our program when we come right back. we will take a quick commercial break. of course, we happened be capitalists. so we will take a quick break and then we will come back.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> will come back, ladies and gentlemen. we would like to again thank

former's baker of the house newt gingrich for joining us here this evening. i want to take a moment to thank our sponsors for tonight's boarbroadcast. as we continue with our program this evening, the next 20 minutes to 25 minutes, we will bring up our next canada who has joined us this evening -- next candidate who has joined us this evening. rick santorum -- he mostly grew up in the suburbs outside pittsburgh, pa., a city i know very well. but he actually graduated from high school in illinois in 1990.

a 30-year-old, rick santorum ran for the united states house of representatives for the pennsylvania 18th congressional district. surprising the pundits, he won the election, knocking seven- term democratic incumbent out of office. in 1994, he won the election to the u.s. senate, knocking out a long-tenured democratic incumbent. then he won reelection to a second term and became chairman of the senate republican conference. in 2006, a year that many of you recall, democrats nationwide made sweeping gains in congressional elections. rick santorum failed in his reelection campaign. he received his undergraduate degree from penn state

university. his mba from the university of pittsburgh. and his law degree from the dickinson school of law. will you will come, please, former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. [applause] how are you, senator? great to see you. [applause] >> i could tell i was in a family friendly place when you mentioned that we had six children and no one may sound. you say that north and people say, oh, ah, uh. >> on behalf of all of us, we can scarcely imagine the sacrifices that you and your family are making in pursuit of this office, motivated, i am sure, by love of country.

on behalf of all of us, i want to thank you and your family for those sacrifices. [applause] >> i think that is my cue to introduce my wife who is right here, karen. so if you welcome karen who is here with me. [applause] the rest of the family is here also. they are staying down in the low country and many in the offices in charleston. we have all seven kids. many of you have seen my children as we have been traveling around. you will see more of them between now and saturday. >> senator, you cannot serve in congress and look at the budget without realizing that entitlement programs or what is driving the debt. congressman ryan proposed what jeff and i found to be a very courageous foreign package -- a reform package. what would york and that of a reform package look like? would you agree that come a few -- what would your reform package look like?

would you agree that, if you -- >> the federal budget is the highest priority for the president to go in there and take this profligate spending, this dramatic increase in the size and skill of government and get government back to its constitutional limits, get back to a budget that is not going to mortgage our children -- not even mortgage, but bankrupt our country if we do not get this runaway government under control. you also know -- you highlighted it -- that there is a reason for this big budget deficit. a big chunk of it is because the economy is not generating a lot of revenue. it is not generating a lot of tax revenue. we're below the historical average, which is 18% of the overall economy being collected in revenue. but we are way over the amount of spending we are doing. we are up to almost 25% of the economy which is consumed by

government spending. that is way above the historical average of 18%. part of that is because the economy is doing poorly and spending goes up because, if you have all of these transfer programs, all of these welfare programs, like unemployment insurance and the like, they cost more money. but there is a structural deficit problem. even if the economy was booming and we had revenues of, expenditures down, we would still be in a very bad deficit position. social security is one such example. up until last year, socials a tree was running a surplus. it is no longer running a surplus. and it will not run a surplus ever again unless we change it. it will never meet the amount of money -- the amount of money will never meet what we pay out unless we change it. this is what he is referring to. the entitlements. a lot of people say that social security is not an entitlement for the me define an

entitlement to an entitlement is something in all that, if you qualify for under the law, you get it. you are entitled to it. you may say, i paid into it some. it does not matter. it is an entitlement. we have 72 entitlement programs in washington, d.c. when everybody goes out to that -- and i know this has been a popular thing to talk about -- and talks about earmarks, i have already taken a position that jim demint as. we need to end earmarks. but let's be very clear. that is less than 1% of the budget. it is the part of the budget that is non-entitlements. earmarks have nothing to do with entitlements. they have to do with discretionary spending, which presented to parts. defense and non-defense, which is domestic spending, which comprise less than 40% of the budget now. and in remarks are a very small portion of that. the idea that we will reform your marks and solve the deficit

problem, the deficit problem is not in defense spending. defense spending 50 years ago is not 20% of the budget. it was 60% of the budget. when some say, well, we need to slash our defense because it is causing a huge budget deficit, it is not. [applause] what we have to do is deal with entitlements. how do we do that? i break ithen into to pieces. one is the entitlement programs and the other is medicaid and medicare. they are anti-party types of fooprograms. there is a whole host of school

lunch programs. a whole host of them that are out there that people are entitled to if they meet certain income qualifications. these are all programs that come in my opinion, have absolutely no business at the federal level. [applause] under the constitution, but under common sense, we do not need to be solving these problems at a level so far removed from the people that they are trying to help. we need to understand the principles of our country, our founders, was to build a great nation from the bottom up and to be able to solve problems closest to where the problem is. some problems are beyond the family's ability to solve, the community or the churches ability to solve. but we should not automatically, as we have done over the many years and as, automatically go to the highest level of government to solve these problems. so what i have suggested and others agree with this -- we

need to eliminate these entitlement programs. need to cap them, cut them, capt., send them back to the state, remove the federal oversight, and let the states have the ability to deliver these programs. [applause] , like other people who are running for office, i have actually done this. other people who are running for office, i have actually done this. it was part of the contract with america occurred when i came to the united states senate, i manage to the welfare bill on the floor of the united states senate. bill clinton vetoed it twice and we had to change it to make him happy. and clay shaw was in the house while i was in the senate. the washington post justed a

fact check on the statement and they said it is a japan no, not a pinocchio. it is true. -- it is a giapetto, not a pinocchio. we were able to get bipartisan support to do something that had never been done in the history of our country. and a broadbased federal entitlement -- end a broadbased federal entitlement. [applause] president clinton vetoed. we communicated with the american public. we told them what will there was doing and how much harm was being done. we can and we must do the same thing. go out and communicate to the american public that these programs, as well-intentioned as there, are not helping people as much as they could. and we need to give the flexibility to the local committees to make sure that these programs are not dependency programs. do what we did with welfare,

give them back to the state with two requirements. number one, a work requirement, never to come a time limit. those two things. [applause] if we can do that for the rest of these programs, like we did for welfare, we can accomplish when we did in welfare. the two things we were able to accomplish -- we cut the rolls by over 50%. that is a good thing. but it is not a good thing if we cut the rules and people ended up in abject party. but that is not what happened. people went back to work. people went back to work and started providing for their families. poverty rates hit the lowest level ever in the most chronically poor in america. [applause] so we have a model that works on medicare and social security are different programs. i agree with the paul ryan plan. but i am not for waiting 10

years. we have $15 trillion debt, which is the size of our economy. if we did not have a federal reserve and can print our own money, we would be greased pig if we were in the european union, they would force us to do austerity measures. and we have a president who is whistling through the graveyard at night as though nothing is wrong. [applause] we need to have an honest conversation with the americans and with seniors and with young people about what we can do. here's what we need to say to seniors with respect to medicare. you believe in yourself? you believe you can handle yourselves and your freedom. or do you need to be rolled? what dr. lucy, what benefits you get, what -- what doctors you

see, what benefits you get, what copays you pay. we trust that you can go out with the same resources that are provided under medicaid /medicare and go and find a program in the marketplace that fits you better. seniors believe that they're capable of freedom or do they want to be ruled? i believe in the american people. i believe that seniors, as well as every american, while freedom is harder, they also know this about freedom. when we exercise our freedom, what ever economic freedom we exercise, there are lots of people out there across america who want to help you exercise that freedom. why? because they can profit from doing so. and they can help you. we can help design using free markets instead of government a

health care system that will lower costs, provide better care, quality care, better choices, better access, and not have government put artificial tass and rationed care which is what will happen under medicare. [applause] i think i went along on the 1. >> catch your breath. welcome to south carolina, senator. a congressman from a state that understands there can be no national security without energy security, the question i have is this. south carolina is one of the nation's leaders in nuclear power. we're one of four states that gets the majority of our power from nuclear power do you support the use of nuclear power? how? i also want to give you an opportunity to expand on your

energy policy. >> i come from southwestern pennsylvania. in my old congressional district, when i served in the house, was westinghouse nuclear. i got very familiar with the nuclear power industry because westinghouse nuclear research facility is right in my district. i was one of the great promoters and supporters of nuclear power and still amicably nuclear power is in fact a long-term option for this country -- and still am. the clear power is in fact a long-term option for this country. i also believe in markets. markets have to be fair. in the nuclear kids, it is not fair because it is so costly. it is so complex -. it is less economical to do.

i know we can improve that somewhat. i believe that we need to improve it more. the market will probably drive non-nuclear power for the short term. the reason is because of a great supply of another fuel that is much cheaper and cleaner than even nuclear power well, not cleaner, but as clean as nuclear. that fuel has been driven by a dramatic increase in supply group i got a big kick in president obama when he gave his speech in cleveland and he made fun of drilling. he made a if -- he made fun of sarah palin. we know that will not work, ha, ha, ha. as if the president in the united states -- we are all familiar with economics 101 in college.

the president took economics 1 50.5. [laughter] i guess the kids did, too, because they only understood demand and not supplied. you cannot reduce prices by only reducing demand. he wants to meet demand go down by telling you to inflate your tires properly and do all those things they wanted you to do instead of looking at both demand and supply. when i left the united states senate about seven years ago, the price of natural gas was $12. then we found this huge gas field in pennsylvania. we drilled about 3000 to 4000 wells a year in that field. if you look at the unemployment rate in pennsylvania, it is the lowest in the nation. small towns and rural areas are growing and are prosperous because of the energy resources

that were taken out of the ground. and guess who else is prospering? you are. because natural gas is not $12 and more. an article in the paper yesterday says that now gas prices are down to $2.70. it is to give you an idea of what that means, that is $100 oil at $20 per barrel. in a matter six years. why? supply here. drilling here. yes, mr. president, drill, baby, drill works and reduces crisis and helps our economy. [applause] as a result of that, we need to actually expand our natural gas infrastructure. there are oil wells -- some gas comes off the oil wells because the mix in there -- but they fled the gas because there is not enough room in the pipelines to move the gas to market. we have 300 years of natural gas. so when the president says that we must move and spend billions of your tax dollars in all this

new green energy, look at the president and say drill, baby, drill natural gas. we need to look at natural gas as not really an alternative to automotive fuel, but it is an alternative to a 18-wheelers and garbage trucks and buses and other fleet vehicles as a way of burning clean energy, affordable energy, energy that we produce in this country. we're 100% self-sufficient in natural gas in this country. it is a coup which should be using more of. it is cheap and can be used in transportation. not again -- not, again, in automobiles. but it can be used in larger vehicles and we need to be moving in that direction. why? because natural gas vehicles burn cleaner and the meanness on those vehicles is a lot less than when you are burning oil. so the long term use is cheaper and better for your engine.

we need to expand the infrastructure so we can use natural gas. that is one example. there are some other things and we need to do. we need to do the same thing in oil, open up anwar and drill for oil. we will lower energy prices which will help make us competitive on a variety of fronts, including manufacturing group as you know, i am sort of big on manufacturing. one of the things that will help attract manufacturers in this country are lower energy prices. natural gas is a big magnet right now for manufacturing. >> when we talk about nuclear power -- i appreciate your stance on natural gas -- but getting back to nuclear power, the generation of nuclear power and the creation of the nation's legacy weapons products has left

us with product that need to be sourced somewhere. i would like to ask your opinion on amounting, the opening that, and if we are not good to open it as -- opinion on yucca mountain, the opening of that. >> i have supported the building of yucca mountain. we need to have a repository. i would work toward making sure that we do have a permanent repository. harry reid cannot stay in the senate forever, right? [applause] we hope. the objective would be to get a permanent repository. if, for some reason, that is foiled, then obviously the rate bears of south carolina who paid for it should get their money back. [applause] >> states, including south carolina, are being sued for try to do what congress has abjectly

failed to do, which is immigration reform. how do you balance respect for the rule of law, make allowances for our agricultural interests, and resolve this once and for all in this country? >> let me hit on the legal immigration part. then i will go into the legal. i am the son of a legal immigrant. i talked about my grandfather who came here and brought my dad when he was 7 years of age. he worked in this country for five years, earned his citizenship to make enough money and bring the rest of the family over. he left my dad from ages 2 to 7 and visited in him once for about two months. he made the sacrifices because america was worth it. it was worth leaving the family behind to be able to plant that flag and get your citizenship and give your children the opportunity to live in the greatest country in the history of the world. when we talked about legal

immigration, i think legal immigration is a great thing. it has to be a lot more ordered then it is today. the fact that we have a lottery system for people to come into this country is silly. people should not be in a lottery to determine whether they come to this country. they should come to this country based on a whole bunch of different criteria and one of them should not be chained immigration where relatives coming to the country because their relative is here. immediate family is one thing, but extended family is another. [applause] america needs to look for people who want to come here and be americans and want to contribute to this country. and i am not saying that we bring all rocket scientists into this country. we need a variety of different people and skills and we have to look at it from that perspective, not just economically. that is part of it. but we also look at it from the standpoint of the kind of melting pot that america is and bringing in diversity which is

good for america. so on the legal immigration fraud, that is a policy that we need to strengthen a little bit -- so on the legal immigration part, that is a policy that we need to strengthen a little bit. the obama administration has deliberately allowed -- restructured its so it will let work. the labor unions do not want the competition. they do not want legals to be working in this country. so they have put pressure on the president to basically screw up all these programs. we will restore the ad worker program and the other visa programs where there is a demonstrated need in our society for people to have to come and do jobs that americans, as we have found, in the south carolina, georgia in particular, are you have lots of produce that never ended up to market

because there was not anybody there to harvest. we have to have responsible programs that work with our business community, work with their art -- with our agriculture committee, to make sure they have the labor that is necessary to do that. but that is irresponsible program that allows people to come and then leave. they can work here for the season and then are able to go home. with respect to illegal immigration, i'm somebody who believes that you enforce the law. and the law is that the orders should be secured and people unable to cross. and have whatever personnel and technology that is necessary to go from where we are today, which is a body that is 40% secured to a border that is 100% secure. [applause] secondly, we will enforce a law in this country. that is on employers who verified or another system that

can be developed by the private sector, but require businesses to do the proper background checks to determine whether these people that are coming to work for them are in fact legal and are allowed to work in this country. and then, of course, enforceable law with respect to people who are in this country illegally and doing illegal activity and sending them back. that is deportations. and working with state and local governments -- i was talking with the sheriff in york county. he can and has the funds from the to the government to help, when they arrest people and five people who have broken a law who are illegals to be able to deport them. most of the state cannot do that because they are not provided the resources or the corporation. we need to make sure that counties and states have the resources to do something that the fed the government has obviously not been doing, and that is enforce the law.

-- that the federal government has obviously not been doing, and that is in force the law. newt is my friend and we have a disagreement on this. i do not believe the people live been here -- i deny care how many years -- i do not care how many years -- stooshould earn te right to stay in this country depending on how long they have been here. [applause] i have no animus toward people who want to come to this country. but when the first act of people that come to this country is breaker law, the first thing they should learn is respect for the law, not to break the law. [applause] and the idea that, because someone has been here 25 years here and work and raise a

family, that that fact should create an opportunity for them to be able to stay longer, i would just say this point if someone has been here 25 years, unless they are independently wealthy, they have probably broken a whole bunch of other laws, right? you had to work. if you were working, you were illegally working. and if you were working, you probably had a fraudulent id, which is illegal, or you had a fraudulent social security number, which is illegal. you probably still some is identity. my grandfather separated from his family for five years and did it the right way. and there are millions of families in america that are separated -- that separate in order to follow belong to america and do it in the right way. people who break the law today and we send them to jail and separate them from their family. why?

because they broke a law. so let's treat everybody the same and not treat people who broke into this country illegally differently. [applause] >> senator, i am co cent -- co- chairman of a sovereignty caucus. many americans are leery of the united nations and the efforts to constrain american power and infringe on our sovereignty conservatives see trees like the kyoto protocol, the proposed u.n. arms treaty as international efforts to regulate united states in ways that the american people would never agree to through our democratic process. as executive of this country, what do you see is the u.s. possible going forward in the united nations? >> limited. [applause] it should be limited in my mind

to basic national security issues. the united nations does provide underscore "some"-- they are run by countries or groups of countries whose values are not our values. and they are promoting things that do not comport with american values or american law or the american constitution. and why do we actively give legitimacy to things that work to promote values in the world that are different than ours? it makes no sense to me. to do so just because we want to open up relationships -- there are all sorts of other ways to have relationships with other countries as opposed to do it through organizations who are working against our country.

systematically decide whether we will keep their relationship or end the relationship, defund it, and narrow hours for dissipation. maybe that will send a message because the menu will the be flowing as it has in the past. maybe that will send a message that we need an international body that reflects international human rights that the united nations clearly does not. [applause] >> senator santorum, thank you very much. we are nearing the end of our time here. i want to give you five minutes or so to tell us why you should be the next president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you very much, gentlemen, for your questions. thank you very much for being here. i want to thank the people of south carolina for the hospitality that you have shown us over the years.

karen and i have been vacationing in south carolina almost our entire married life. my brother lives in south carolina and my niece is a coquette here. i am not a native, guys. give me a break. anyways, we are very much connected to south carolina. we know the wonderful and warm hospitality of the people here. when you come down from new hampshire and the protesters and the screaming and hollering and the occupy wall street, it is great to be in the gentle south. [applause] i just want to say that south carolina is a state that stands

up and prides itself in strong traditional values and conservative values. it is a state that believes in less government, low taxation. it believes in states' rights. it believes in a limited federal government. and deeply believes in family and faith. as the foundational principles of our country. [applause] you have an opportunity in the selection to make a choice that will speak very loudly to our country. all i would ask you to do is to support a candidate that reflects the values of south carolina. [applause] over the next few weeks and over the past few weeks, you have been told that your job is to pick someone who can win. to compromise those values that

you believe in, to settle for something less, to settle for something that, well, maybe is not as authentic as your values. maybe it is not as consistent because we need so badly to win. you have been told this many times in the past. as republicans, you are constantly told that you cannot have a to really want because, well, if you put a real strong conservative up there, across the border on national security and on moral cultural issues, on economic and spending issues, then you'll have a hard time winning. and we need to win. and who is saying that to you? people who do not share your values. and they want you to compromise your valleys so they can have their bellies be represented on -- your values so they can have their values be represented on a national ticket. the last time we had such a

critical election was way back in 1980 when our country was in an economic malaise, according to jimmy carter. we had a hostage crisis in iran. sound familiar? we were considered weak overseas. and jimmy carter was managing decline. and you were told here in southern cal -- and south carolina to settle for something less so we can win. and you said no, we will not do that. we will take our chance, our vote, our message to the country and we will make a statement. we will stand for someone who believes in the values that we know will make america great again. and we will not compromise on that. i find it really incredible -- i hear the slot and legitimately so -- where people -- i hear this a lot and legitimately so -- where people say why you compromise?

why do you compromise on this or that? why did you not stand for your principles? why do you not stand for your principles? [applause] you want your leaders to lead? lead them. [applause] this is the most important election of your lifetime. south carolina very well may decide who the next president of the united states will be. do not defer your judgment to those who do not share your values, to those who do not want to see what happens to america what you want to see happen to america. lead.

be bold. remember this. when south carolina voted for ronald reagan, he was not ronald reagan. not the reagan we remember. he became the ronald reagan we remember. what you saw, the reagan, you believed he could be the reagan we would remember some day. the bold. do what is right for america. thank you and god bless. [applause] >> senator rick santorum. [applause]

ladies and gentlemen, we have used our allotted time and then sometime thank you for your patience. please, another nice hand for our two questioners tonight. thank you, gentlemen. [applause] and thank you all very much as well for taking time to come out tonight, expressing your patriotism, and showing your interest in america. we appreciate you being here. be safe going home. god bless you and good night.

>> the south carolina primary is saturday january 21. since 1980, the winner has gone on to be the presidential nominee. >> i think you have to say that this has been a failed presidency. i cannot think he is trying to make a bad. he just did not know what to do. he is over his head. >> we have a message that can appeal not just in south carolina, but across this nation, and come in particular, in the states where it is necessary for us to win this election. >> yet another war where we do not know what we are accomplishing and why we're there. >> if we are going to use our national security assets, are elements of power, we need to make sure that it is in our national security interests and that we're not spread so thin

that we cannot do it. >> do you want to hold third? ok. >> find more resources at c- span websites. >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal." after that, another look at mitt romney at hilton head, south carolina. host: in this episode, we will look at rick perry's climate change. >> the truthfulness

of political figures and others. >> if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it has been pointed out that it is untrue, but they know that they're saying something untrue and they will say it anyway. >> glenn kessler sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> charles clark, senior editor of government magazine. then craig gilbert looks at