from what we used to call voc-ed. in the small and medium- sized manufacturing firms are basically in charge of the curriculum. people are getting the normal education, but then for a portion of their education, they're being trained, and at the end, they get those credentials. they can literally leave high when you look at the class coming into this high school, many are coming in with third grade or fifth grade mitt reading and math. by the time they leave, they can move directly into the workforce. we can push this down further into our system, probably along the german model. there's a question back here. >> we were told at the outset of this day that gdp in the country is pretty much back to where it

was prior to the recession with 6 million fewer workers. that's a very disturbing statistic. is this a trend we're going to see? it looks like a mountain to me. >> thank you. let's go at this for a bit. that is why we are here. part of that answer is more manufacturing in the country because that addresses not only the domestic market but all of those emerging consumers in other parts of the world. manufactured goods represent a smaller part of the economy than exports and they can create wealth for the country. on one level, the fact we are producing as much as we did before the recession is your workers says we have an increase in productivity. that is never a bad thing. but we need to take those additional resources and put them back to work and manufacturing is a great place to do that.

developing markets are a great place to solve u.s. problems. >> dominic mackenzie came out with that study in conjunction with the president's job council where you looked at the course of a decade and we are trying to sort out what are some different scenarios of growth. at one end was 21 million new jobs. what is the joblessness whole we are in now. how big of a deal will manufacturing be in contributing? whether the factory jobs are larger contingency of jobs we are describing. -- what are the factory jobs. >> it comes back to what tom

said. there are a lot of opportunities. i sense we are very consumer- driven. about how much we're going to spend and -- depending on the value of our house and where we are. innovation and technology create wonderful new opportunities for jobs and consumption. it is its own virtuous cycle. putting aside the number of jobs that can be created from these advanced sectors -- health-care, whether you look at it positively or negatively, it it's going to be one of the largest industries in the world. there are a huge number of jobs that can be created from the very basic level back to the point where we don't have enough nurses or radiologists. if you think about what we can do with data and our bodies and

what is happening, this is going to erupt into a big area. it's not only the basics of what we are doing, that is why i say with food, someone mentioned standards. there it is very big businesses to be built on standards. the chinese consumer would buy that. if you think about what happened with milk and what happened with drugs, that's a very high value- added area to develop standards and how we do it. we are seeing 2 million jobs, that is one number -- we can break that out on the data area and we think that's going to be half a million jobs. it all depends on how much we do in each of these different sectors. >> questions, comments, criticisms?

>> i don't know if it's a criticism, but your hand went up. >> i'm a vietnamese american. we're talking about jobs and creating jobs for americans. would you say we have a global level playing field and how do we reach that? are you having trouble with the labor laws and as american workers compared to china and the debt create problems for your and products? with the idea of the -- how are we supposed to compete with the labor and wages lost compared to year and over there? >> if i understand the question, can the u.s. base compete with the competitor based in a

different part of the world with a different labor standards? is that the labour -- is that the nature of the question? it is an issue, no doubt about it. there are parts of the world with lower cost of capital and lower unit labor rates than we have. that's a statement of the problem, not a reason to give up. what we need to do is look at where we want to compete. there are some sectors where we cannot allow our product technology or manufacturing technology bring enough to that sector to make a sustainable business out of it and we will exit those businesses. but we have found that there are enough places thanks to our intellectual property where we can create a product that has value for the consumer in those developing regions where they are willing to pay price of the u.s. manufacturing goods. part of it is the security question and dominic is

absolutely right. food ingredients is a new and important business. part of it is the quality and consistency of our products and part of it is specificity driven. goods manufactured in southeast asia for markets in the west end of the materials will be specified at a dupont international standard. there are ways to compete and there are some markets where we cannot compete. it is up to the business leader to find out where and how his or her business can be successful. >> [inaudible] the minute that we have some products coming out, shortly after, they [inaudible]

>> i mentioned i.t. earlier. requires constant vigilance. don't think that is because you have a patent that it is safe. i like to think that as concentric cells. the patent is the shell. it has to go well beyond holding a pact that in one part of the world. we have proprietary ingredients and proprietary processes that we use. we worry about cyber security and penetration of our intellectual property and it requires constant vigilance and government private cooperation to build the ip fortress around our ability to manufacture in the u.s. and succeed in global markets. >> it strikes me there has been

no discussion of what i see as a contradiction between the need for national investment in the structure, investment, education and the dominant political climate in the united states where nobody wants to spend any thing on anything in congress and in fact they want to spend less on everything. it may be worse after the 2012 congressional elections. what's the appropriate role of the private sector in publicly advocating for these kinds of greater expenditures in areas like education, infrastructure? i recall a program here about a year or two ago where the case was made for an infrastructure board and the argument was made there that even republicans support it. but i do not think anything has happened. >> may be at the state but not at the national level. >> i abeyant -- somebody

mentioned we have confused investment with expenditure and treated the same. i think that wrongheaded. we've got to get back to the basics about accounting and how we look at things. just on infrastructure, this is an area i'm very passionate about. we feel we know if you watch our to invest $250 billion a year in u.s. infrastructure, and we know precisely what areas -- roads, grids, so forth, you would create 2 million jobs. that 250 billion will come from outside. the canada pension, there are people who actually want to invest in infrastructure. it's not even our money. they would actually rather by that than the bonds to be honest. and yet -- everyone says it's great and you have people who

want to put the money down and we have needs in the areas and we have a market that does not work and that's a shame when we have unemployed people like that. that is why -- i don't know if it's a transparency thing to say by not doing things -- it's going to take six months, you are costing people jobs that are out there and i just wonder if there is some other mechanism -- why do we look at the stock market every 25 minutes about where it's moving? why are we watching the progress on an infrastructure project and then get people? why are we not putting tents up around that. i feel passionate about that because the money is there to put it in and the people are hind it. the good news is there are some local leaders that actually want to do something and we just have

to get the transparency so that people see it. >> there may be one question after this. >> i think you raised an absolutely fundamental question here and that is the way the government does accounting for expenditures versus investment. it is idiotic. why is there not an outcry in the business community? this could bring to an of the political spectrum together because it is so totally obvious that we need that infrastructure to remain competitive and it's totally obvious we have a big budget deficit. it is also totally obvious that with some financial ingenuity, we could develop the instruments to do this. this is where i think mckinsey

and dupont should push and where brookings should push. >> absolutely. >> amen. [laughter] >> i agree. this is going to take us back to the cultural conversation. you watched the stock market and i'm on twitter all day long. it's a very interesting because if we were appear talking about biking in cities, with a celebrity, let's say, there would be thousands of tweets right now. if we were on transportation -- bikers tweet more than anyone else. there's not a lot of twitter

traffic on this. is that a sign that when we talk about the real commanding heights of the economy, advanced industry, exports, foreign direct investment, we're talking about a certain cohort of individuals and institutions. intore not really plugged social media. they are not spending most of their day engaged in this way. that end of this question is to comment -- to use a margaret thatcher phrase, we might have to sexist up a little to really get the culture change we need around labor, around skills, around seeing this as a career path, professional path and a life pass.

when you think about the americans zeitgeist, there's a path that we have of people tinkering at these makers fares that happen around the country, they are well attended. we have to think that at the cultural level, there needs to be a different thought process along with what antoine is describing with some of the key policy things we need to hack at to get done. are you guys on twitter? >> i can barely handle e-mail. >> one story i would just say if we could get twitter going on investment and verses expenditure. i agree with you. that said, we could leverage it. one story -- i met the fellow who did it "chariots of fire. he's in the house of lords now

and he changed his life to focus on education. he was doing advertising awards and they gave it to a social media house and the company that one, it was for a lifeboat savers in the uk. the people providing the money it, it was an average age of 65. what this small little advertising agency did was they found 25 blotters whose average age was 15 years old. they had a following on the order of 150,000 people. then they sent a jack at, a video about the people who volunteered and so forth. they ended up signing up 100,000 people with an age of 21, not a single dollar spent on advertising.

hiding there is a lot that could be done to pack into people to identify with the problem is. i think people don't necessarily know what the problem was, to make it understandable to people. there are so many vehicles -- whether it goes back to education, do we talk about this? in media, we talk about comfort -- about compensation. where are the stories of the heroes who are inventing? i wonder if in the media we could not glorify or have heroes or prizes or something more on the invention side. that's a great thing to go to. there is a group of german business leaders who decided to focus on -- they went to kindergartens and developed a box which was to get people to

look at how you could do experiments -- they think if you get people excited about science in kindergarten, that is what the business leaders did. >> any thoughts about unleashing the hidden tinkering talent? >> i think there is a culture change and i would agree that it has to start early in k through 12 and that is the key to getting more interest in science and innovation at higher levels. i served on the national academy committee, sitting around the room at a table full of research professors from leading universities and we said what did we all have in common? why were we all there? there were two things we had in common. one was the chemistry set. we were lamenting that the good stuff was out of it for legitimate safety reasons.

the other thing we all had in common was a high-school teacher that made scientist -- that made science wonderful. if we can put the excitement in the classroom, we will get the kids at the major universities. >> we had mayor daley at a dinner last night, the former mayor of chicago. he made the point which he has made many times before, but it was so lucid -- we are not teaching invention, manufacturing, from the early stage up. we lost that. we had a post industrial nirvana. we were marching through post industrial means you do not have the industry. that's a minor problem. so you don't need to teach it. what has been

added to the conversation here on both the policy front and on the count textual front. last question, since i have the floor, i can ask what i want. we have been working with a group -- and it builds on this question about vietnam we have been working with a set of u.s. metropolitan areas to enhance manufacturing and services but also begin to engage with international markets. our next panel is here, so this will be short. when somebody comes up to dustin hoffman in "the graduate" and says "plastics" we have all of these names for emerging economies -- we have many immigrants here who relate back to these countries.

if you were thinking about the interplay of invention, commercialization, prototyping and exports, the answer would probably be i have to understand what the metro is and what their sectors are before we end up talking about which country and trading partner they should really engage with. but out of all of those acronyms, are we missing the next group of emerging markets? are we focused too much on the big ones and missing so many opportunities in the next year? what is your view on that? >> someone said 95% of the consumers are outside. a i would like to make a plug for africa and nigeria. this is a place that is moving. nigeria will have more babies born than all of europe combined this year.

africa and food. that's all i have to say. >> for us, brick has been -- i would go to africa. we sent a team last year to go to the markets and understand them. it is certainly early days, but it is time to lay the groundwork for what is going to happen economically over the next 20 years. >> as the british say, we're going to have a march of the makers. this panel and the prior to panels help to eliminate how to do that. i'm going to turn it over seamlessly, maybe, to my colleague. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up next, a preview of the gop presidential candidates ahead of the south carolina primary on saturday. later, we will be live in florence, south carolina, for rick santorum's town hall meeting. all of the gop candidates are in south carolina except ron paul. here is a look at the various candidates' schedules. the primary is saturday and polls close at 7:00. >> the south carolina primary is it saturday, january 21. since 1980, the winner has gone on to be the republican presidential nominee. c-span's road to the white house coverage takes you to the candidate of and spirit >> i think you have to say this has been a failed presidency. i don't think he tried to make it bad, he just didn't know what to do. >> we have a message that will appeal not just in south

carolina, but across this nation but in the states that are necessary for us to win this election. >> as candidates get their message out and meet voters -- >> yet another war where we don't know what we are accomplishing more know why we are there and we leave and it's a bigger mess. >> if we're going to use our national security assets and elements of power, we to make sure it's in our national security interests and we are not so spread so -- will not spread so that we cannot do it right. >> take a picture. we want to put this on -- >> find more resources at the c- span campaign website with more video from the campaign trail. read the latest from the candidates and political reporters and people like you from social media sites. >> as part of our coverage of campaign 2012, we will take a

look at the upcoming republican president shall primary coming up this saturday. host: your story is focusing on jobs. there was a story on the front page -- rick perry hoping for a campaign revival. what is happening with his candidacy? guest: south carolina was supposed to be a slam-dunk for rick perry. the first week he is here, i followed him to a couple of restaurants and he was a rock star. people had come from all over to see him and it looked like he

was going to win. he was lining up all of these important endorsements in south carolina. but i think the debates heard him. he had a poor showing at all of the debates. i also think the hit he took on immigration heard him as well. he has never been able to recover from that. i think it is just par for the course. the polls have been such a rollercoaster. we have had a different person leading every week. they look at a new person -- michele bachmann lead for a while, herman cain lead for a while and then rick perry led for a while and he fell down and the polls and has not been able to rebound. >> we have been hearing from rick perry about the number of jobs he created in texas as

governor, but it has happened at a time where the numbers have jumped to 8% or 9%. what have we seen in terms of the unemployment rate in texas? >> the unemployment rate under his leadership has nearly doubled. it was about 4% when he started and it jumped up. in texas, there is about 2 million more jobs now than when rick perry started. the doubling of the unemployment rate means there are about twice as many people who do not have a job in texas. i asked governor perry about this earlier this week and his explanation was that because the reputation in taxes for creating jobless so great that people were just moving to texas in droves. he said we are good but we are not that good. he had a statistic that said about 1300 people moved to texas every day. that is the reason he game -- he

gave for that unemployment rate. >> week to focus on editorials. the union leader supported newt gingrich in your newspaper endorsed jon huntsman, saying he could bring us back together again. what kind of reaction have you been getting into this editorial and what kind of support is jon huntsman getting across the state? >> i have not gotten much reaction for it because it has only been out for a few hours. i have gotten some e-mail's from his supporters that are very excited. we will have to see if it translates to any kind of momentum for huntsman. he has struggled to get a foothold here. he got into the game early here and hired some very well known a veteran political strategists and got some key endorsements.

the attorney general of south carolina got behind him and it was almost like he was trying to set himself up to the establishment republican candidate which if you look at the history of the republican primary, to have always favored the establishment candidate. but unfortunately for huntsman, there is another guy, mitt romney, who has that title right now. there has not been much of an opening for huntsman. but if you look at his campaign and run the's campaign, the type of voter they're going after is the fiscal conservative voter that cares more about economic issues more than the social issues and those voters tend to be concentrated along the coast and midland's are on the columbia area where i am now. romney and had spent appear to be the only to can't it's really going after those voters substantially. there are a couple of experts believe huntsman could hurt

romney in that way and he might want to think about his strategy going forward because of the does, he could cut into romney's base. host: if you wish to call in, with a special number for callers from south carolina. otherwise, numbers as usual on the bottom of the screen. send us it twitter message twitter.com/c-spanwj, -- you can also send us a twitter message at twitter.com/c-spanwj. "we need someone who understands negotiations are essential to representative democracy and that there are good ideas across the political spectrum. someone with a well-defined set of core values but is not so rigid that he ignores new conditions.

we think that mr. romney could demonstrate those, but mr. huntsman already does." your reaction? guest: i do not have much of a reaction to that. that is the opinion of the state newspaper editorial board. i am not a member of the board and have no say in what they write. i simply cover the political process in south carolina. i think that is the narrative that jon huntsman would like to adopt. he would like to see the primary voters adopt that as a path for him to gain some momentum. host: let me ask you about the other part of that narrative, which was put on the air by mike huckabee. he sat down with five candidates, including newt gingrich. the ground rules was no criticism of other candidates. here's part of the exchange.

clip: governor mitt romney ran saying that he created 100,000 jobs in the private sector. and clip: we have said that we would not allow negative comments. foot go in and try to answer the question. i believe that it is fair to ask for the records to be clear. my total record is clear, as i helped to found four small companies. i think that to ask questions about a particular company is not the same as attacking capitalism and i do not see how you and expect to have a presidential campaign in which -- in which an entire sector is avoided. i guarantee you, if we avoid it, our nominee in the fall is not going to find that obama avoids it at all. every single candidate has to be prepared to answer the question before the nomination so that we know that whoever renominate is capable of surviving the fall campaign.

host: that was yesterday on the "the fox news channel." that seemed to be much of the news that came out of the forum. what was your sense of the comments from the former house speaker, newt gingrich? guest: i was not surprised by them. the speaker has made an did a pretty big part of his campaign, attacking the mitt romney record at bain capital. newt gingrich has a super pac that has spent a substantial amount of money here. just last week, several of the station managers at the local television stations here told me that the newt gingrich campaign were shocked -- shopping around, trying to purchase half of an hour of time that paints mitt romney as this greedy, job killing businessman. it makes perfect sense that

newt gingrich would try to continue that. mitt romney is the front runner here. according to the polls, newt gingrich is a in second place. of course he is going to go after mitt romney to eat away at that support. host: this is from "the daily news." a focus on some of the past issues that have come up in south carolina presidential primaries. also, what does the current governor said about the charges of adultery from two years ago? why is south carolina so legendary in the town of its politics. guest: i think a lot of it has to do with our position on the calendar. our voters vote early, but not first. we go after iowa and new hampshire. this campaign is already very well defined.

a lot of shots had been taken. by the time the candidates and the campaigns arrived in south carolina, they have a lot to be angry about. especially in this cycle, south carolina tends to be the last stage for a host of candidates. rick perry, rick santorum, they both need to do well here. if they do not do well here, even if they do not win here, it could be the end of their campaign. there will be no tomorrow. they're trying to do everything that they can to continue their campaign. when you get a situation like that, it opens the door for this kind of dirty reputation politics. host: the headline this morning, from tampa, "victory would give the front runner a clear path to the nomination."

our first caller is from conway, south carolina. ed, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. ought yes, america is in decline. south carolina is a perfect example of that. people do not want that scumbag, they want ron paul. we want to be free. we have a president who is trying to be a king and people who are playing politics with money. this system is sick. it has been in decline since they started murdering babies. there is a war going on in this country. host: reaction or comment?

guest: not much to say it to that. many people i've criticized governor haley. some people wonder for endorsement of mitt romney would be a hindrance more than a help. she has spent a lot of time on stage introducing him. any time a sitting governor gets involved in a primary, it will definitely make a difference. host: mitt romney, said that his record, which include buying and shutting down companies, it is the same as the obama record." can you elaborate on these stories? guest: first, the gina smith story. we have seen that narrative come up a lot.

why would you attack governor romney on the free enterprise argument in a primary race? particularly because that is the argument that president obama is most likely to use and is, effectively, already using. why would you use that against that romney? we have seen a lot of candidates backed off of that rhetoric. with my story, mitt romney made those comments in an interview with the state editorial board. it was just trying to say that if he is the nominee, this is how he would defend the attacks. investing money into private companies, making them better. i sometimes had to make tough decisions for that to happen.

by giving lots of money to the auto industry, some people lost their jobs. i think that he would try to say that what he did was the same as what obama did in detroit. host: this headline, from "the new york times," "criticism over time that bain capital." the criticism is that this could be old news. guest: a great point. especially because the democrats and the obama campaign committee are already pushing that narrative. by the time that we get to labor day, the american public could be tired of hearing about it. host: next, one of the staunchest supporters of mitt

romney, a local talk show host that we chat with frequently. welcome to "the washington journal." caller: i want to phrase your screen there. you have done a great job, and c-span has done a great job covering the election. i was the small businessman of the year in 1975. i am getting calls from all types of business people saying that they are for mitt romney. newt gingrich is from my home state. i know him personally. i like him, but he has made a huge mistake attacking the running. 35% now support mitt romney. in the latest poll in south carolina, it looks like mitt romney is point to tie up this nomination pretty quickly.

steve, you do an incredible job. host: joe, always nice to hear from you. thank you so much. adam, your response? guest: it is not impossible, especially given the nature of the race and how many candidates have made such huge gains in a short amount time. iowa is a great example of that with rick santorum, who surged tremendously in the days leading up to the primary. yesterday we had a group of 150 evangelical conservative leaders that met at a private ranch in houston tx and came out to say that they would endorse rick santorum, attempting to push evangelicals across the country to rally around rick santorum in a last-minute push.

who knows what could happen in this coming week. with so many candidates in the race providing for those same blocs of voters to present a hindrance, it would not be impossible. i talked about this a little bit before. the south carolina history always tries to go with the establishment candidate. host: let's go back to this story, from "the new york times." "to what extent will those attending the meeting be able to mobilize their followers behind rick santorum? it remains unclear. the leaders did not directly ask -- host: next, rebecca, ohio.

welcome to the program. caller: i agree with the governor of georgia -- of georgia. thank god for c-span. host: joe will appreciate the elevation to state of governor from talk show host. caller: i thought he said the was the governor. [laughter] here is what gets me as an observer. i try to watch from the right, left, and center, and read from the right, left, and center. i know that washington journal showed a poll yesterday where ron paul was in third place in south carolina. there is no way i would vote for him and his domestic issues, but on foreign policy he breaks down the wall through both

parties, as well as independents, on his foreign- policy stances. he is not anti-war, he is anti- unnecessary wars. a huge number of military people back him up. unless i stepped out of the room, i do not believe that you have talked about ron paul either. yesterday, joe scarborough did not even bring up ron paul. chris matthews or and those guys, they insult and ignore him. i am fascinated by this pushing of ron paul off to the side. i have asked c-span to do a program on this article on foreign policy about mossad agents attempting to recruit people in pakistan to go into iran. the major media is not talking about this, but you can read the article.

on lot -- read the article online. guest: that is a good point. ron paul is ignored, to a certain extent, in south carolina. part of the reason for that is the he always seems to have his supporters here, and that is it. he always seems to be stuck in the 12% mark. this election cycle does seem to be doing very well. i like what the caller said about giving second place in new hampshire. but he has been kind of invisible in south carolina lately. the other candidates are holding three, five events per day. ron paul has had one event since he has been here, that i know of. he is not on the ground that much here, although his campaign says that they will get a monumental endorsement from a

rural beach -- merkel beach later today. i think that ron paul does have some problems. this is a very pro-military state. some of his views, including closing of a foreign military bases and pulling everyone backed, i have heard a lot of people in south carolina saying they have a problem with that. host: we are covering an event with rick santorum in south carolina later today. two polls and we want to ship -- share with you, this survey was conducted in concluded on friday if at reuters. another survey showing mitt romney ahead, with 29%, newt gingrich in second, and ron

paul with 15%. here are some of the advertisements on the air in south carolina. clip: what has massachusetts given us? a liberal governor. a liberal senator. a massachusetts moderate who runs away from ronald reagan. clip: i was an independent at the time of reagan-bush. i am not trying to return to reagan-bush. clip: romney chose the democrats. voting for a liberal democrat instead of president george h. w. bush. he raised taxes and offered government health care that funded taxpayer abortions. massachusetts moderate, mitt romney. he will say anything to win.

clip: [speaking french] clip: he speaks french as well. and he is still a massachusetts moderate. a massachusetts moderate cannot be barack obama. host: your reaction? guest: one of the interesting things raised in this advertisement is the issue of electability. that seems to be a common attack against mitt romney. that he is too moderate, too similar, even, to president obama. traveling around the state this week, with governor perry, he said -- why would we want to change out someone in the white house with someone who is only a little bit better, in his words. that issue of electability seems to be gaining some traction amongst rival campaigns.

one thing to keep in mind is that south carolinian is, like i said earlier, electability is a big thing for them as well. especially republicans. in every primary since 1980, the eventual winner of the nomination has had to win south carolina. something the republicans do not take lightly. that is very important to them. they look for that in a candidate. if you can try to get this narrative going, it could be one way to try to hurt him. host: john, welcome to the conversation. caller: how're you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: this country is going down the hill. i got in on a job on the 15th and they fired me the next day.

i have been trying to get them to call me back. i cannot find a lawyer that will take this case. i do not understand, is that why republicans do not want unions? i do not understand what the republicans are trying to do to us. i have been struggling ever since. host: thank you for the call. how this is sentiment shore up with the story that euro about south carolina? guest go as far as labor unions, south carolina historically has not been friendly to labor unions. i do not think that any candidate could run on a platform that was pro-labor and do well. as soon as rick santorum started surging after iowa, it appeared the that would be a tactic used against him.

during his time in pennsylvania, which has unions, he had a couple of pro-union votes. it appeared that would be a way to attack him there. you have mitt romney, rick perry, everyone campaigning against the decision to attack the move of a boeing plant. host: responding to the advertisement that we just aired >> we are going to take you live now where rick santorum is holding a town hall meeting. he's just entering the restaurant. this is live coverage on c-span. >> thank you for your service to

the country. >> thank you. >> how are you? >> you look very cute, susan. how are you? my pleasure. good to see you. great to be here. thank you for coming out. i like that sweater vest. that looks good. no double handshakes. >> thank you for coming to florence. >> twice in one week. >> i just signed up to help with your campaign. >> thank you very much. good to see you. good to be here.

thank you. thank you for coming out. >> how are you doing? >> good to see you. how are you? did to see you. hey, buddy. > > god bless you. > >> same to you.

are you being a good girl? appreciate your help. >> my husband saw you the other night. >> very good. thank you very much. how are you? good to see you. thank you. >> you are taller than you look on tv. >> thank you. >> we met when you came through last time. you have to meet this little girl. she really wants to meet you. >> hello, sweetheart. how are you? nice to meet you. >> can you name all five? >> that is pretty impressive.

i think there are only four in the south carolina right now. they were with us a couple of days ago. nice to meet you. can we do a picture together? very good. turn this way. there we go. thank you, katie. god bless you. how are you? hello. a busy day today. >> yes. >> thank you for coming out. >> good to me you. >> we are counting on you to

turn this country around. thank you very much. >> pleasure to meet you. >> thank you for your help. thank you for coming out. good to see you. are they keeping you busy today? >> keep america christian, ok? >> you have a good man behind you.

[inaudible] >> thank you very much.

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

>> the federal government appoints a member to run it. >> the federal reserve -- >> the reason we have in it doesn't visit we have independence is because redo not have a politicized money system. do you want obama running the money? someone has to run it. >> hold on, it will either be a

federal system or it will be outside the government. i do not want the government running the money slot. the constitutional system says that government has to run it. you have to make a decision. you want politicians running it? >> is this a court of the constitution. >> it is in a court of the soc constitution. it is not under the control of the president. that is the whole idea of setting it up separately.

the constitution allows the congress to manage the money in. bibid to give this responsibiliy to this particular organization. >> the dollar has lost 90% of the value. >> the dollar will have lost it depending on inflation. it always loses money. you always want some inflation. as a result, there will always be a loss of money. you do not want deflation. you want a little inflation or else the economy stagnates. good to see you. oh, i saw you already. thank you. i would be happy to. quirks let's see coax before it

-- >> lets see coax before we leave. >> all right. how were you? ok. thank you. good to be here. good to see you. thank you. how are you? yes, ma'am. thank you for coming. dreams.e in my >> bless you. you want to get started, griffin? go ahead and get started. thank you. >> good luck to you, sir. >> thank you very much. hello. how are you? . >> thank you for coming to florence. >> thank you. who is that? how are you? good to see you. >> my brother in law is from clinton. >> hello, everyone.

i want to thank you so much for this huge turnout on this beautiful sunny afternoon. i would like to turn it over to congressman grisham barrett. >> thank you, chairman. hello, florence. you can do better than that. hello, florence! how is it going in the pd today? thank you for the santorum campaign. we were down in myrtle beach today and rick gave a fantastic speech this morning. everybody was on their feet. let me just say this to the crowd. we have had two primaries so far, right? the first one was in iowa. what did they say in iowa? they narrow the field. right? you are learning. in new hampshire, they say it is the first in the country, right? right. let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen, in south

carolina, we pick presidents. yeah, baby! i know the people in this race. we have some good people in this race. but, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you something. we are at a crossroads in this nation. i left a group of national conservatives less weekend and the consensus was that we are in the line of the sand, we are at a point in time in this nation where we will restore to its greatness or we will lose it forever. this guy standing behind me is the guy that can restore this nation, ladies and gentlemen. yes, i will take that. c'mon. thank you. [applause] there is more to being a president than being a president. there are a lot of guys that got

two of the three right, some of them. one of them is your head. you have to have a good head on your shoulders. you have to be good with the physical stuff, which is very important. yet to begin on the national security. but there is something special about the president of the united states. you have to have a good head. but more than that, you have to have a good part. absolutely. [applause] he has to know where his strength comes from. let me tell you something, when it comes to a faith, when it comes to family, and when it comes to freedom, there is nobody in this race that represents our values, our south carolina values like the next president of the united states, senator rick santorum, ladies and gentlemen. thank you! [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much.

he is the state chairman here in south carolina. i want to thank him. he is a stalwart, a strong conservative. i want to thank you renee for being a stalwart for this year in florence county. it is great to be back here. we had a town hall meeting not too far from here. we had a few less people than we have here today. that is a good thing. we have a little more energy and enthusiasm and there is a good reason for it. this is a very important election. you have a huge responsibility here in south carolina. the field has narrowed a little, but not very much. but i suspect, after south carolina, it will narrow a little bit more -- maybe a lot more, depending on what you do. it is very important for you to speak out loudly. the values of this state, the values of this state and the voters in the republican primary in the state are conservative.

they believe -- you believe in limited government. you believe in a limited federal government in particular, right? [applause] you believe in strong family, a strong community, and faith at the center of not just your lives, but the center of our country's life. rice spoke at the faith and freedom coalition. -- i spoke of the faith of freedom coalition. the strength of our country is really in these bedrock institutions of faith and family. if you think about what built this country, it was strong family instilling faith into the children and grandchildren who built this country, who built this country to believe in going out and working hard.

they talk about american values. and of course, the values of faith. but hard work, people went out and earned it. there was no welfare system. there is no government handout. america was built on the hard work of the sweat and brow of your ancestors who came here and wanted to be free, who wanted the opportunity to reap the fruits of their labor and had a government that respected them and that freedom, keep limited government and rely on the local communities and strong families to rise up a great nation. that was unique in the course of human history. every other country in the history of the world did it differently. we tend to forget that here in america. america was unique in the history of the world. before america, all other countries were ruled from the

top down. they were ruled by kings and emperors. there were ruled by people who grabbed and held power. and they were told that they did so for their benefit, that there would be banal the lead and would care for their people, just like to hear the politicians in washington say to you now. that they will care for you, that they will do for you, that they will make things better if you simply do one thing -- give up some of your freedom and give them more power. that is the deal. it has always been the siren song that has haunted generations in the past and countries in the past. give your freedom and give your power up and someone else can do it for you. your life will be easier if someone else takes care of you. this is the ultimate siren song

of barack obama. he believes that he can run the health care system better than you can and the private sector and the free markets. he believes that he can run the banking system better than you can then the private sector. he believes he can run the auto industry better than the free market appeared he believes he can run everything, top to bottom. in cooperation with their friends in big business. they say conservatives are the party or the folks behind big business. that is just a lie. conservatives love small things, small government. they like small business. they like the opportunity for people to be able to grow and exercise their freedom and rise from very small to great heights. that is what conservatives

believe in. thethey believe in opportunity society, where everybody can pursue their dreams if they work hard. they have good ideas and take risk and they get rewarded for that risk, not penalized and condemned by the government for taking those risks and succeeding. this is the essential struggle in this campaign. between two very different visions of america -- one of vision based on the founding principles of our country, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. that is the essence, the foundational principles on which america was found. that our rights come to us from god and that government is limited to protect those rights and, if we did so, if we took that leap of faith, which has never been done before in the history of the world, that rights come from god and go to

each and everyone of you and not to the king and not to the emperor, but to you, man, woman, everybody, according to our declaration -- revolutionary. unheard of in the history of the world. and we changed the world. i think america, sometimes we need to stop and reflect on how exceptional we are. not we as in each and everyone of us, but we as a people. as a posterity, as our history has shown. we have transformed this world in a way that goes far beyond any other civilization in the history of man. why? because we believe in new. -- in you. we believe in giving you the freedom to do what man was meant to do, provide for himself,

provide for the one that he loves and she loves. that is what freedom is essentially about. for the first time, we had a country that honored that. that understood there had to be institutions and they be local, families and churches to help mold the moral imagination of our people. john adams said when the constitution was ratified that the constitution was put in place to protect those god-given rights. he said our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. so here is america -- god-given rights, the freedom to exercise those within the constraints of creatoral code that the kriege laid out for us. so when someone on the republican side says, well, we need to put these social issues aside. all we need to worry about is

economics, cutting taxes, i cutting everything, we will be fine. they do not know america. if all you think we need to do to get this economy going and get this country on the right track is to cut government and reduce taxes, you do not understand america. america is a moral enterprise, not an [applause] economic] -- not an economic enterprise. [applause] ferguson interviews a chinese dissident, somebody who came over from china who used to work for the chinese government. he worked for the chinese government during the time when they decided to transform themselves, open themselves up,

become more, well, somewhat like us from an economic perspective. they were study -- the communists were studying america trying to figure out what made america the greatest in the history of the world. they put this commission of all of these smart people, of which this man was one. he said they started out -- we were convinced that it was the american military that made america the greatest country in the world and we ran the tracks on that. nope, that was not it. then we thought, maybe, it is the economy. the fact that america has this free enterprise system and the economic structure is what made america great. then they realized it was not that. and then they said, well, it has to be the system of government, these fundamental freedoms that made the difference. they realized it was not even that. he said, 20 years ago, we figured out what made america different than any other country in the history of the world

truly exceptional. the answer -- faith. to live good moral decent lives, to do what our critter says, which is to provide work, to perk -- which is -- to do what our creator says, which is to provide work, to be our brother's keeper, to love your neighbor. this moral foundation of america, that is still vibrant, contrary to popular opinion, contrary to the folks who cover us from new york and los angeles, this is still a country that is a hugely faithful country. it is a country that still believes in their faith and values and crumpleprinciples. and we need someone running for office --

[applause] we need someone running for office because someone who does not believe that, who will present a clear contract -- people ask: time, how will you bring people together? i said, by doing the exact opposite that this president is doing. [applause] every day, barack obama reminds us how divided we are appeared in fact, not only does he remind us, he points out how we are divided. he encourages the division. the 99% vs. the 1% -- this class against this class, this ethnic group against this ethnic group, this racial group, this labor group, this man is constantly pitting one group against another all for some political purpose.

it is disgusting it is beneath the dignity of the president. [applause] you know -- you want to know why government is dysfunctional? it is because we have dysfunctional leadership. there have always been differences. do not underestimate the fact that america is not a united country. there have always been differences. but the greatness of america was that we were able to have great leaders, along to remind us who we are and what actually bind us together. we are not bound together like france. we're not bound together like for my mother and father came

from, italy. we are not bound together like russians are. we're not an ethnic group here in america. we are made up of a variety of different races and ethnic groups and creeds. but what makes us an american is different than any other country in the world. it is because we share a common value system. it is an idea. and when the president go out or lay leader goes out and tries to sell a fundamentally different idea of what america is, when they try to rewrite history, as this president is doing, then you have great friction in society because you're doing things that americans in their heart note is not who we are. one of the reasons the tea party sprung up, and thank god for them -- [applause]

is because people who are sitting on the sidelines, watching what was going on, finally felt that could get punched -- that gut punch. wait a minute, this is not the america that i know. i cannot sit on the sidelines anymore. i have to do something. because freedom, america is at stake. and this is your charge, south carolina. you fight. you moved up your primary so you could be the first in the south. let's look at what happened in the first two primaries. iowa, a tie. by the way, i was not quite done yet. they're still certifying those election results. [applause] and we will know what that is in a couple of days. but do not count us out in iowa

yet. but virtually a tie, eight tie. -- so 8 tia thankfully for the people of ottawa, i was one of the folks that tied with mitt romney. [applause] then we went to new hampshire. a really interesting thing about new hampshire, over half of those that voted for us in new hampshire were not republican. [laughter] no wonder mitt romney did so well and jon huntsman did so well. [applause] but among republicans, we came this close to coming in second. we did not spend a single penny of broadcast television. we did not spend virtually any money at all. we only had five days to campaign -- actually six, because we spent one of those days here. so we came from 1% or 2% and

finished in fourth place behind people who spent millions and ahead of a person who spent millions in congressman gingrich. i will, new hampshire, as far as the conservative candidates running, we finished first in both of those races. if we can do that again here in south carolina, if south carolina can coalesce and say here is the conservative candidate, we want to draw a sharp contrast between our vision of america, the founder's vision of america, your ancestors vision of america, what made this country great and perot obama's newfound vision of america. remember, i want to share with you what he gave less than a year ago. he was responding to paul ryan is budget.

-- paul ryan's budget. he listed all of these programs and said america is a better country because of these programs. and he is reading this teleprompter. you probably cannot see my teleprompter. it is out there somewhere. [laughter] he said i will go one step further -- and he did. he said, "america was not a great country until these commitments." [booing] barack obama sees the greatness of america in the government handing out and redistributing not wealth, but poverty in america, the tendency in america. -- dependency in america. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, we have a stark choice in the selection

and you, here in south carolina, will make that choice as to whether we will have somebody who can paint a different vision of obama vs. the vision of our founders, the vision of the leaders that have been able to bring this country together and move this country forward. there are others in this race, good people. but folks, the contrast is not there. the contrast is not there between someone who is for a huge government health care system called obamacare, that will rob you of your essential freedoms and make each and every american the attendant on the federal government for your health. -- american dependent on the federal government for your health. we have never had that. solving our problems like america solves our problems,

from the bottom up, not the top down. right? [applause] unfortunately, the man who is leading the polls here in south carolina, if you believe them, it is someone who's plan was the basis of obamacare. the traditional values of this country, a free people, free markets, free enterprise, not top-down government control, why would the people of south carolina put out there someone who we lose that issue with? who is wrong on that issue? he says, well, it works okay. it worked in massachusetts. it did? massachusetts sets the highest health care reit in the country. it had huge tax increases to pay for it.

it got money from the federal government through medicaid to pay for it. it is a huge expansion of government. it is exactly what will happen to obamacare. for all of the things that governor romney has flip flop on, the one he should have was this one. and it is not the contrast we need, folks. we need someone who can paint clear lines about the role of the federal government in your lives. south carolina, i know, has strong convictions, conservative convictions. on saturday, you will get an opportunity to show those, to speak loudly to the country about what kind of leader you want. the last difficult times, the -- a lot of folks are down

seeing our credit rating drop and our perception being threatened around the world. we had that situation in 1980. the race came here to south carolina. again, just like it was in 1980, the people in south carolina were told that we have to win, just focus on winning, we have to pick that moderate, someone who can appeal to moderate voters. that is what the establishment is telling you, what the media is saying to you. here's what i would say. as i travel around south carolina, one of the things i hear all the time -- you guys, i want you folks to go to washington and stand up for our values. how many times do i hear we are sick and tired of you folks going to washington saying you will do one thing and that then compromising our values away?

right? [applause] we are tired of that. we are tired of folks not standing up for what they believe in and fighting the fight. that is what you want from us? that is what i want from you. do not compromise on what you know is best for this country. because someone else is telling you that we can win. i hear all the time, when you compromise, you may get a bill passed, but we keep winning. the same is true in this 8we ain't-- but wee winning. the same is true in this election. [applause]

south carolina, vote your conscience. " your values. do not compromise. do not believe the pundits. you can even believe the polls because now the polls are showing that, and all of these key states where they are running polls, i am doing as well if not better than governor romney against barack obama. [applause] do not listen to the siren song. stand up and fight for what you know is right for this country and help us out in this election. i would be happy to take your questions. yes, sir. >> this is a public forum, but i would like to ask you a private question. >> yes, sir. just between you and me. [laughter]

let these cameras out of the way. go ahead. >> what has been your greatest disappointment and life? >> a little bit louder. >> what has been your greatest disappointment in life? how did you respond to it? what you learned from it? and how do you think it will make you a great president? >> last night, i got an opportunity to speak at a church last night. i was talking about my walk, my journey, and how that faith walk would shake me as a public official and as a president. i do not know what else could top the greatest disappointment in your life other than the loss of a child. unfortunately, karen and i had to go through that. it was something, as you can tell, it sticks with me.

karen always says, we lost our son gabriel lived two hours. and people come up and they have lost a child, whether the child died in world war -- whether the child died in womb or shortly thereafter or years later, on a scale of one to attend, the loss of a child is always a 10, no matter what. that process for me, going through that in my life, given the fact that, by some very, i do not know, maybe i would say some miraculous coincidences, happened to occur at a time in my life when i started to get involved in a battle in washington. oddly enough, it was a battle

over a boarding children later in pregnancy who had conditions like my son had. it is called the partial birth abortion ban act. i had never been a part of the abortion issue before that. but i felt compelled for a variety of reasons to step up and fight this battle and lead this battle. it is always a hard thing for a person to do in public life, to fight on the moral cultural issues. we all know that those are flashpoints. people have very deep feelings. you can have deep feelings about regulation of interstate commerce, but it is not the same as on issues that are as personal as the right to life or the right to choose. those are intimate decisions and personal ones that are deeply

held and, as a result, tend to be very divisive in our country. i always used to say that it is one thing to be pro-life and check the box. it is another thing to get out of the foxhole and fight. because when you get out of the foxhole, people look at you differently. they look at you differently. they treat you directldifferent. in america today, you are a real conservative -- my kids, when i started to do the pro-life or, when they read the paper, they thought my name was ultra. [laughter] because i was the ultra- conservative senator from pennsylvania. once you speak out, you are labeled. you are labeled. you are one of those guys. they are ok with you if you keep

your mouth shut. but if you speak out, you are a social conservative warrior. i got that throughout the course of this campaign. rick, we like you, but you are too much of a social conservative warrior. i said, i am as passionate about these issues as i am against the islamic jihad. >> yes, we know, but it would be better if he did not talk about those things over here. >> i got up on the floor the united states senate in 1996, as i listen to dianne feinstein and barbara boxer and a whole host of others make the case as to why we should keep this late- abortion legal. they said we should keep illegal because parents find out late in pregnancy that the child that

the mother is carrying is disabled and therefore they should be able to kill that child, because it is better. i found that stunning that the very people who would say that, at the moment that child is born and wanted by the mother and father would argue that the society would have to help to pay and support that mother and child. not only would that child be killed, but should be killed. my wife was 19 weeks pregnant at the time. we have a sonogram schedule for a week or so. but it would not matter to me because that is my son. that is my daughter. it does not matter. we will love and except that child. in that sonogram, we found out that our son was going to die. he was born prematurely and

lived two hours. if there is probably one thing in my life that gave me perspective on life and understanding god in my life, because i was a very angry man at god for having " i thought was the courage to stand up and fight for what he believed was right and then a week later him taking my son. it was a tough time. it took a lot of prayer and a lot of understanding. finally, it was my wife and gave us the understanding, frankly. she did not just shake her fist that god and feel bad. she invented it. she wrote -- she vented it.

she wrote. she wrote letters to your son during the time that we were going through and afterward. then she had been published in a book called "letters to gabriel." is a little tiny book published by a little tiny publisher that published the one book and has not published 1 cents. [laughter] that little book reached thousands and thousands and thousands of people. i know of directly hundreds and hundreds of lives of people who understood the dignity and humanity of life in that child. i look at it and now understand that my plans are not always the best plans. god's plans are ones that are hard to understand and sometimes hard to accept. but is in fact the best plan. [applause]

>> elena agrees with you. can you say hi to everybody and say thank you to rick santorum? how about it? go ahead. tell him what you told me. you go right ahead. say ya, yay, yay, yay. >> thank you for being with us here today. you think about restructuring certain federal departments, including the epa. what about actually abolishing some of these departments, like the department of energy, the department of education and returning some of that power to the states to make those

decisions? >> that is a good question. i know a lot of politicians say that they want to abolish this department and this department and -- [laughter] just kidding. just kidding. you can go out and say that you will abolish a department, but that does not mean anything. it really does not mean anything. ok, i will abolish the epa. we met, there are dozens and dozens and dozens of laws that are on the books that the epa enforces. so if you abolish the epa, who will enforce the law? somebody will. it will be the responsibility somewhere in the government. you can abolish the epa, but some other organization of government will have to do it. the idea of abolishing a department makes no sense unless you abolish the functions of the department.

you cannot do that with an executive order. [applause] so all of this -- i will get rid of five departments. i will cut this. i will cut that. he has been in congress 21 years and has passed one bill. let's be honest about it. [applause] let's look at someone who has actually done something to make a difference and actually has gotten rid of federal entitlements, accident able to reduce spending and be rid of programs. i have done it. i proposed it. and we have been successful. but the key is not worrying about abolishing the departments. someone will have to oversee environmental policy because we have a bunch of environmental laws. the question is what do the laws say? what should they be saying? whether we need them or whether we do not need them. and then what kind of administrators and people we have in these departments. the problem with the epa, if you

go back and look at george bush, there would not be that many people out here kicking and screaming about george bush's epa. there were not. it is because who is running the country, who the people were collected. i am not worried about going in there and abolishing the epa in the sense that we will get rid of all of the political appointees over the obama administration, but a whole bunch of people who share the values in this room will understand, responsible as good stewards of god's creation to be good stewards. but we are not slaves to creation, right? we manage and steward creation, not the other way around. right? [applause] we act responsibly and care and conserve our resources and treats them with dignity and respect. but we also utilize them as we

were supposed to do as we have dominions. right? [applause] it is a different philosophical viewpoint. here is the problem. i will not be president for at most eight years and then someone else will come back and we will be back to square one. abolishing the department will not change anything. eliminating laws do. what i have done is not as sound biteish, but if this were to have to do to fix this problem. it has been a little bit but we have to go through these laws and see the authority that it gives

regulators to make new laws. the obama bill has 700 places in the bill where it gives specific authorization to the secretary of health to rewrite obamacare. it is broad discretion. that is the problem. look at what happened down in the low countries in charleston and boeing. it is a classic example. if you read the national relations act and look at what unfair practices are, it is exactly what it says it is. why? because congress did not want to go through the tough job to say what it should be. and then left it to the regulators. that is a mistake. we will never have a bowling again if we have specific things that says you cannot claim an unfair business practices because of the facility is in

another place in this country where they have a better opportunity to make a profit. that should be in the law and it is not. those are the kinds of things that we need to do with the epa law, with labor laws, and a whole host of other things. as these bills come up for record -- reauthorization -- these are laws that are up temporarily. they have to be looked at again under the law. we will make sure that those changes occur or we will not sign those bills. we will veto them until we get more specific laws in place. [applause] yes, ma'am. >> i would like to ask you, as a gop nominee for president, are you prepared to go toe to toe with obama? >> i hope you have gone a little impression of that today. [laughter] look, i believe in running a campaign that talks about the

issues, that talks about the differences between the candidates. i also believe that we need to run a campaign that is honest, that has real integrity, that we do not go out and make claims about someone that are not factual. there is enough that barack obama has done so we do not have to make up things. i know a lot of candidates have been upset about governor romney and his pack and what he is doing and attacking. as you know, governor romney and congressman paul are running pretty hard and negative campaigns, which tells you a little bit about what they think about their ability to ps people's better side -- to appease people better side. fine, if you do not legitimately, that is fine. but repeatedly, i think congressman gingrich has made the point that governor romney has not been accurate in what

his assessment is. i have run into this with the governor romney, too. today, he has an ad out that says that i voted to let felons vote. it is very interesting. i did vote in the united states senate that someone who is a felon who served their time came out of jail, had served his parole and probation, and after all of that sentencing, then they could go out and apply to have their voting rights renewed. that is the exact law that is in south carolina. governor romney has taken that and said santorum is in favor of feliz voting. that is a lie. i think there are only two states that do not allow that. to go out and mislead the people of south carolina as to what are our -- as to what our record is on this is just your -- is just

yuck. i expect that from barack obama. i do not expect that from a republican running for president. [applause] >> i want to ask you a question about defense. when bill clinton was president, we did the building. now, obama is doing, i reckon, the same thing, a building down. with all of the issues that we have with the arabs pray, with iran, with china of building a navy, north korea having nuclear weapons, and all of the other issues in the world -- and to make it -- maybe i am wrong -- that is the number-one job of the federal government, is the sense of this country. >> a mmen. [applause] >> have you been to my previous town hall meetings because you

sound exactly what i sound like. it is the only thing that the states cannot do. besides printing quoins and things like that. but on a major scale, the principal responsibility of the government is to keep us safe from foreign aggressors. if you look at the problems in this country as far as the explosion of spending -- i get a kick out of congressman paul who says that the reason that the budget is going out of whack is because the military industrial complex and all this spending is going on in defense. it makes a nice little narrative. it is just not true. 50 years ago, defense comprised 60% of the federal budget. today, it is 20%. if something has gone from 60% of the budget to 20% of the budget, why would ron paul said the that is the problem?

it is not the problem. the problem is entitlement spending, domestic discretionary spending, interest on the national debt -- all of that has grown. but not defense spending as a percentage of the budget. what we need to look at is why is the president of the united states taking the area of the budget that is not growing and targeting that as the only place he is willing to cut? the only place he is willing to aggressively go after? about -- he is at half a trillion dollars so far. and now he has proposed shrinking the marine corps, shrinking the army, cutting back on weapons systems. he is trying to manage the decline of the american military. why? because he does not think america is a source for good in the world. he wants america to pull back because he believes, as he did on his apology tour, he

believes america is not a positive force in the world and that we would be better off. and the world would be more importantly better off without america as a major player in world affairs. that is what the president's policies indicate. and what he does believe is that the welfare state should give bigger and bigger and bigger. and you cannot have a big military and a big welfare state. if you want to look at that, look at europe. 100 years ago, the british empire, the son did not set. and look at the british empire today. why? just like so many countries, we have leaders who have lost faith with the people. we start to look inwardly instead of understanding how great we are and project out. this is barack obama not managing the decline of the

defense department. it is managing the defense of this country. it is not wealth redistribution. it is poverty redistribution. it is a declining idea of america. it is an america with your people, fewer resources, more government control. that is barack obama's view of america and one that is constantly pitting one group against another. does that sound like america to you? we need to have a leader who understands the role of the american military. i want to cut $5 trillion over the next five years out of the federal government. and we will not take it out of the military. we will keep the military budget strong. [applause] i am the only candidate, the only republican candidate who says i will not cut the military. everyone else says it is on the

table. it is not on the table. [applause] i understand -- i served eight years on the armed services committee. all like anybody else who has no national security expert -- unlike every body else who has no national security experience, i succeeded in getting bipartisan cooperation. i am proud of the fact that, for eight years, i was either the ranking member for a short time or chairman of the subcommittee and everyone of those national defense authorization acts that we pass, one per year. we were able to pass our portion of the bill every year and not one time in eight years did my ranking member ever have an amendment on the floor against our portion of the bill that succeeded.

we were able to work together on a bipartisan basis and build a strong national security coalition. people think that cannot happen anymore. it can if you have folks who want to work together from a common platform and believe in the basic values of this country instead of looking to score political points at every turn. we did that and it should be -- it must be done with national security. it is too important to do otherwise. [applause] one last question. >> once again, welcome to south carolina. >> thank you. >> with the jobs why has the keystone issue been swept under the carpet? >> the question is on the keystone pipeline. i support the keystone pipeline being built.

go look at the mouth of the oil and gas pipelines running the same route. there are hundreds of them. the idea that one more will be silly.us is it is politics. it is that the core of every decision president obama makes. political decisions for one group, what he needs to support his campaign. it is a coalition of different special interest. that is his campaign. in this case, it is in criminalists. it is not about reducing oil prices -- in this case, it is environmentalists. it is not about reducing oil prices. it is about winning the election. it is about power. it is about with the kings and emperors used to do. they would tell you, such they love you and did everything to

control you and keep power in their hands. that is the obama model. -- they would tell you that they love you and did everything to control you and keep power in their hands. that is the obama model. open up and more -- anwar, offshore, a deepwater. [applause] weekend drill and drive energy prices down. -- weekend drill and drive energy prices down. look at natural gas prices. we were building a liquefied natural gas terminals. now the natural gas prices are $2.70. why? if you listen to barack obama in his energy speeches, all he talks about is the way to solve the energy problem is to get you to put more air in your

tires and drive smaller cars, do all these things on the demand side. economics 101, he only took economics 50.5. [laughter] he forgot about this thing called supply. it can decrease the cost of things. he does not want more supply. pennsylvania has the second- largest natural gas field in the world. we're drilling new wells every year. that is why natural gas is as cheap as it has ever been in this country. it is dirt cheap. heating prices are coming down. electric prices will come down. the markets work if you let them. that is the difference between a

clear contrast envision -- division -- a clear, contrasting visions with someone willing to go toe to toe with barack obama. there are six candidates in this race. only one has ever gone toto with a democratic incumbent and one nd won -- twice -- me. once in the house in congress and the 60% democratic district and once in the senate against incumbent in a state with 500,000 more registered democrats than republicans. you ask them if i was tough enough to go up against them and take out an incumbent democrat. i was able to win another congressional seat the 70%

democrat. when i ran for reelection for the senate in pennsylvania, i won by six. we have won tough races in tough states building coalitions. we win those states, you can go to bed. it is over. [applause] it is up to you, south carolina. you will speak on saturday. will you reflect your values? are you going to make the boat as to what america needs in the most important election in our history? are you going to compromise and go with what the pundits say on who will win? will you vote like you did in 1980? in 1980, you had a choice to make between the establishment candidate or the hard-core

conservative, this rabble rousing hard-core guy named ronald reagan. south carolina voted for reagan before he was the reagan we now remember. you saw something in him and said yes, this is what america needs now. you gave reagan the chance to be the reagan we know. everyone says there will never be another reagan. back in 1980, there was not another reagan. but south carolina stood tall, voted its values, it gave america what south carolina fought american needed -- thought america needed. it made all the difference.

do the right thing for our country. god bless you. [applause] thank you. it is good to see you. thank you for coming. thank you. i like the sweater-vest. thanks for coming out. doyle said. did you get the picture? i appreciate your help. -- go ahead. >> can we take a picture of you? >> we wish you the best. >> thank you.

you are on tv. everybody is watching you on national tv. [laughter] you can look at yourself. >> how do you think -- the endorsements in texas? >> we feel good about that. the conservatives are coalescing around a campaign. that is good for south carolina and as we go forward. this was the third state. we have a long way to go. thank you. >> you have my vote. >> thank you.

>> do you remember mike? >> wonderful. hey , jeff. how are you? how are you doing? >> can i get a picture? >> sure. >> thank you, sir. >> let me do this real quick. there you go.

>> it is good to see you. >> a wonderful guy from florence. >> let me get it right. she is a coquette. >> god wants you there. >> help us out. i want to see good numbers from south carolina. help us out with more votes. get some more for us. thank you. thank you, ladies. it is good to see you all. small business. it is good to see you guys. thank you. how are you?

thank you so much. they want me to sign andre's butt. andre here? >> there you go, buddy. an excuse? >> it is educational. >> you want a note? >> going to the debate, free pass. >> what is your name? there you go.

>> santorum nation. >> thank you. >> where am i taking it? thank you. bless you. now they know. a woman ahead of her time. there you go. >> we're getting all the candidates to sign it. >> there you go. >> good luck. >> thank you.

>> fell last one. then we have to head back to myrtle beach. -- the last one. thank you, south carolina. take care.

>> rick santorum is driving up, wrapping up this town hall in florence, south carolina. we will find out about what you think of the candidates heading into the primaries coming up on saturday. there is the number to call if you are a democrat. there is the number to call if you are a republican. we have a special line for south carolina residents. make sure to mute your tv before you come on the air with us. rick santorum spoke for about one hour and 20 minutes. we will get to your calls. pam is in pittsburgh, pa., on the republicans line. go ahead. >> rick santorum is truly a conservative from pennsylvania.

hopefully the people in south carolina will go for the conservative. we do not need to compromise and go from the, paul, or the other liberals in the race. -- in goal for romney, paul, or the other liberals in the race. >> tim, what do you think of the south carolina primary coming up? >> i am 100% behind ron paul, but i cannot find him on any channels. host: he is taking some time off. caller: he is taking on the status quo. if you look at his economic policies, i think he is brilliant. his predictions back in 2002 just blew my mind. is amazingly accurate

predictions in 2002 are a video you want to see. i cannot find him on c-span or fox news. he is not getting the coverage i think he deserves. we would like to see him. host: he has been taking a few days off. you can always go to our video library or check out our campaign 2012 site. it is a clearing house. you can find all of the candidate is there. you can find all the video we have had. mary in florida is on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i only have one problem with santorum. he is supposed to be christian. everything he is saying about obama is not true. he is supposed to be a christian. host: what does he say you do not think is truthful?

caller: everything he says about obama is not true. obama wants welfare and not to work. he is not being honest with people. host: there was a pull out recently by reuters. they posed a question to democrats and republicans in south carolina if they had to choose mitt romney or president obama. going to take it locally and talk to glenn. caller: if people do not get behind ron paul, mitt romney will be the nominee. nobody else can stop him or go up against obama. if people want a real conservative, we need to get behind ron paul.

host: we go on to wyoming. caller: i fully agree with what this gentleman just said. mitt romney and barack obama are two sides of a counterfeit coin. this is the same mitt romney that supported abortion, gun control, tarp bailout, cap-and- trade, and open borders. all the sudden, he has had a change of heart. we are supposed to believe he is like instant coffee. you add water and he becomes an instant conservative. he is a counterfeit conservative. i do not care for mr. santorum either. mr. santorum is not telling anyone about the business dealings he had with jerry sandusky from penn state university. i want to know about those business dealings. host: who are you going to be supporting? caller: ron paul. host: there are a number of

articles out. ap is reporting they're looking at his business records. reports say six to -- rick santorum is focusing on mitt romney's business record and that distracted from his record on abortion, gay rights, and health care. rochester, minn., the democrat'' line. jim, go ahead. caller: rick santorum said his father and grandfather are from italy. santorum is not an italian name. i would like to know when he changed his name and why. i will be supporting the democrats. i lived in massachusetts when romney was there for governor. if they put him up there, is an easy win for the democrats.

tot: we're going to go middle byrd beach, south carolina. lesley, go ahead. caller: i am in myrtle beach, south carolina. we are having the primaries right now. i believe i will be supporting rick perry. i think he is the man to bring out the conservative vote. he will do everything he says he will do. he is very conservative, pro- life. he is just really conservative. host: texas gov. rick perry is placing right after newt gingrich in a reuters poll.

he only has about 6% of the support in south carolina in the upcoming primary. he is been missing after gingrich and about this place. we go back to south carolina -- he is death after newt gingrich -- he is in fifth place after new gingrich. we will try to get back to you now. john is in south carolina. are you on the line with us? caller: this is sharing in myrtle beach, south carolina. i will be supporting ron paul. i like his views on things. i think he is the first person who has got new ideas. if it comes down between from the -- romney and obama, i will support obama.

i will not have my vote bought. host: moving on to jerry in ohio. you are on the democrats' line. what do you think of the candidates? caller: i am a registered democrat and have held union office. there are only two republicans i ever thought about supporting. those are herman cain and extend form. herman cain is gone. -- those are herman cain and rick santorum. herman cain is gone. host: what did you think of what he had to say today? caller: think he is on the right track. i think he has a fair idea of what the bible says about destroying the environment for selfish gains. i think he has the right idea, the same as the aborigines have

to take from the earth what you need and that is it. one thing my church was founded on was the principle of getting rid of the ira's and many of the world's problems would disappear. that is true. host: that is the word from ohio. don, go ahead. what do you think of the primary in your state? caller: this is pretty interesting. south carolina is a diverse state. at the rally today, i did not see diversity there. i would have thought there were african-americans cooking in the kitchen, but at the rally there was no diversity there. i am a democrat. i cannot vote in the primary.

host: every 28 is the democrat'' primary. -- february 28 is the democrat'' primary. our coverage continues tomorrow when we will be hearing from the mothers of south carolina on the road to the white house. the candidates will appear with their wives starting at 11:00 in the morning. it is a cafe moms forum led by a republican pollster who will keep the conversation flowing and direct questions. we will have live coverage. >> the south carolina primary is january 21. since 1980, the winner has gone on to be the republican presidential nominee. our coverage takes you to the events. >> i think you have to say this

has been a failed presidency. he did not know what to do. he is in over his head. >> we have a message that will appeal in south carolina and across the nation, in particular the states necessary for us to win the election. >> the candidate get their message out and meet the voters. >> another war where we do not know what we're accomplishing or why we're there. >> if we're going to use our national security assets and elements of power, we need to make sure it is in our national security interest and we are not spread so thin we cannot do it. >> take a picture. >> find more resources at the c- span campaign web site with more video from the campaign trail. read the latest from the

reporters come to canada, and people like you on social media sites. -- read the latest from the reporters, the candidates, and people like you on social media sites. >> we go now to a discussion about the guantanamo bay detention center. the 10th anniversary of the center was last wednesday. we will hear more about the prisoners and how much it cost. host: we want to welcome the longtime professor from georgetown university school of law. september 11 happened just over 10 years ago. on january 11, 2012, guantanamo bay was opened. give our audience a history. why was the facility located in cuba? what was the initial goal? guest: there were two reasons. one is. it is a safe, relatively easy to secure place.

it is far away from anything. it is an island we have control basically forever. it was easy to secure. the second reason is a less noble one. the bush administration felt no law would apply if we put people there. it could argue the detainees were not entitled to projections of u.s. law or the war -- laws of war. the: let's look at this for cost per prisoner. it is about $19,000 per prisoner in the state of florida. colorado's super max has a cost of about $30,000 per prisoner. -- $38,000 per prisoner. at guantanamo bay, it is up

words of $800,000 per prisoner. guest: the typical cost for a federal prison is about $25,000 a year and for super max, $40,000. it is very costly to keep it open. it is extremely costly in our -- in terms of our image around the world. it has become one of the most well known images of the united states around the world. that is not a good thing for us in terms of our standing from image -- our standing, image, and al qaeda recruiting tactics. president george bush said it would be good if it were closed. former secretary of state rice said it. robert gates, the defense

secretary, john mccain. everybody paying attention to this closely has said we would be better off if it were closed, yet it remains open. host: this is a comparison across a number of different sections. this is the cost of food per day. . detainee at guantanamo bay, $38.45. guest: it costs a lot to get the food there. it is because it is on the remote island. is not within the u.s. territory. you can only get to it through

the extraordinary measures. everything will cost a good deal more. host: it opened 10 years ago this month in 2002. what is its future? guest: that is a big question. president obama on his second day in office promised to close it within one year. he obviously failed meeting that goal. it largely depends on the extent to which people in congress will begin to pay attention to how much this is costing us in terms of dollars and the cost to our image abroad. what is stopping us from closing it is congress. they have put restrictions on the transfer of detainees from guantanamo. you cannot transfer them from guantanamo to the united states for any purpose, even to put them on trial in the criminal court, even if you determine a

person was wrongly brought there, we could not bring them to the united states to release them. they have put onerous restrictions on transferring detainees to any other country. the government has to promise the person will pose no threat in the future. the foreign government intellige with us regarding the person. very few countries are going to make that kind of open-ended promises. the releases from guantanamo have basically frozen. transfers from guantanamo have frozen because of this a distillation. host: give us a phone call, join the conversation. send us an e-mail. journal@c-span.org. join us online, twitter.com/c- spanwj. or you can weigh in on your facebook page. this is from "the miami herald."

guest: right. some of those costs, presumably we would have those if they were being detained in the states, like intelligence correction costs. but others would be substantially diminished, if there were held as the obama administration would like, in a detention facility in the united states. host: had line from "the miami herald," "guantanamo -- the most expensive prison on earth." good morning.

caller: obviously, this money being squandered on the war on terror is a shame and a crime. not only did president obama fail to close it, he just signed an act which, to my understanding, allows, i do not know who, to decide that anyone of us in america could be a threat or somehow aligned with forces that they say are against our national interests. anyone of us could be scooped up by the military and detained without trial indefinitely. we may have to maintain another fortress to hold assault. guest: it is a troubling piece of legislation. a massive defense spending bill , a massive defense authorization bill that had a number of provisions that the with military detention and guantanamo.

president obama was opposed to those provisions. he threatened to veto that bill because of the provisions. but at the end of the day, after threatening to veto the bill, the conference committee between the senate and house worked out a language that the obama administration fell that they could live with. some of that language is the language the referred to, which codifies existing judicial decisions and administration positions regarding the authority of the administration to detain persons who are alleged to be fighting for al qaeda, the taliban, or associated forces indefinitely. that is a very troubling provision. the one thing that i will say is that this was not at the administration's urging, it was

over the administration's very strong objections. host: habeas corpus, is there a reason it is or is not being applied to these detainee's? guest: it is recognized in the constitution and says that habeas corpus will not be suspended except in times of rebellion when public safety requires. it is the right, when a person is locked up, to go to court and say that i am being illegally detained. it is is that -- about as basic a right as you can maintain. much of the early litigation about guantanamo was whether or not the detainees had a right to come into court. the administration initially said no, absolutely not, no right to lawyers or coming into court. the supreme court said that

there is a statute for the right of these days -- detainee's to come into court. the administration went to congress. congress repealed the statute that said they had a right to come into court, went back to the supreme court and the detainees were declared to have a right. even though they have said that the door to the courthouse is close to these people, the supreme court had a constitutional right. 38 of the detainee's that remained there have been found by the district courts to be wrongfully held, because there is no adequate evidence that they were fighting for the enemy. host: who makes up these detainee's today? guest: initially there were 779

people in guantanamo. a high number. over 600 of them have been released. 530 were released by president bush. another 70 or 80 were released by president obama. and what we know about the 171 is that each have had their case reviewed by a joint committee of military intelligence and they have determined that of those 171, more than half do not need to be detained and should be released. they continue to be detained because of these congressional restrictions that were part of the earlier authorization acts. host: david cole, who has been a professor of georgetown for the last 35l years.

l he is a legal affairs correspondent for "the nation," and a staff attorney for at the center for constitutional rights. the next call is then, from lynchburg, virginia. good morning. caller: this is a terrible example of political pandering at its worst. a president that makes a promise and has three years, essentially, to follow through with a promise and fails. the of professor has been mentioning a lot about the congressional influence over the matter. however, at the same time, this president had two years of a democratically controlled house. he passed a health care bill and a caucus bill for tax for -- cap and trade, but we were not able to close guantanamo.

guest: excellent point. there was a bat -- democratically controlled congress that initially blocked the president's efforts to close guantanamo. it is not partisan politics. it is more -- not in my backyard politics. it is not the the republicans are blocking president obama, it is that they have blocked president obama because they do not want to be responsible for having any guantanamo detainee, even one determined by the military and intelligence forces to be no threat, to be in their jurisdiction. they do not want them in their jurisdiction even if they are in a maximum security detention center from which no one has ever escaped. the caller makes a good point. had president obama chosen to fight on this issue, nos.

we might have been able to persuade members of congress, there might have been more education or public opinion on this issue, and we might have close guantanamo. but the decision was initially made by rohm emmanuel that doing health care and guantanamo at the same time was just not possible. so, he chose health care and they did health care. that is largely explained why they're still not fighting about closing guantanamo in a serious way. we have not heard the president make a speech again though why guantanamo should be closed since may of 2009. host: this was written by kathleen -- guest: very few. i think that the number is certainly under 10. it might be five.

there have been several military trials, military commission crile's of guantanamo detainees. most of them have ended in and guilty pleas in which the people, the individuals plead guilty in exchange for the united states agreeing to release them. it is a perverse situation in which they are better off pleading guilty, because they get off the island and it sent back to their country. david hicks was one of the first. an australian man. he spent six months in prison in australia after we send him back, and he is a free man today. same thing with a young canadian man that was released after pleading guilty. there have been a few convict -- convictions, but they are few and far between. compare that to convictions in the united states in terrorist

trial in ordinary federal criminal courts. we have had 400 convictions on terrorist charges since 9/11. many of them are trumped up charges under a broad statute that makes it a crime to provide material support to a terrorist group. nonetheless, hundreds of convictions through the federal administration. very few from guantanamo. host: we are talking to david cole, of the georgetown university of law. the guantanamo detention facility opened officially in january of 2002. they initially had 700 inmates. it currently holds 171 prisoners. 36 are awaiting trial on war crimes charges. 46 have been held in indefinite

detention. the question posed to the white house press secretary, jay carney. >> we are aware of the obstacles to getting that done. as well as the fact that they continue to persist. but the president's opinion has not changed at all. this has been an opinion shared not just by this president or this administration, but senior members of the military as well as the president's predecessors. host: your response? guest: as i said before, for people that have paid close attention to this issue, the military people, intelligent people, the law enforcement people, those that have to work with our allies abroad, those that have to -- who watch on al

qaeda recruiting, everyone agrees, guantanamo is a net loss for us. we are losing by creating more terrorists than we are gaining through some sort of security. we can get the security that we need by holding those the need to be held in the united states and releasing those that should not be released and we have determined can be released, finding those the can be tried. because of the restrictions that congress has imposed, we are stuck in a kind of stasis. guantanamo remains probably the best recruitment tactics that al qaeda has. host: jim franklin says -- close it down now. you can join the conversation on our twitter page. some scenes from guantanamo bay as we take this call. mike, good morning. caller, why can we not build

this prison up in alaska or someplace -- caller: why can we not build this prison up in alaska or someplace? guest: we could put it anywhere. there are many facilities that are in places that are difficult to get to and away from any kind of significant residential population. we have places in the greater united states where we could certainly very easily secure, as a facility. again, the original decision to put them at guantanamo rather than a central facility was a decision that, by doing so, the administration to argue they do not have any legal rights. but the supreme court has said that they do have legal rights. keeping them there does not change the legal rights or give them additional legal rights. what we would be doing, really, would be closing down a symbol,

a symbol that hurts us, and maintaining our security. host: we are welcoming viewers from the bbc parliament channel. richard, go ahead, good afternoon. caller: thank you. i do not mean to sound horrible or bad or anything like that, but from an international perspective and european perspective, we cannot understand how you operate a military base in cuba when you still have an embargo on the island. that question really needs to be looked at. for us, internationally, of it makes no sense, with regards to that. equally, when president bush was in office, he said that we would have a war on terrorism. i assume that includes all terrorists, not islamic

terrorists. catholicism could not be further away from islam than anyone else, but there are still commissions like the northern aid committee. why are you so selective over redrafted to these sorts of prisons? host: we appreciate the call from london. guest: it is odd that we have this military facility on the sovereign territory of one of our declared enemies, cuba. but it is a historical artifact. at one time we negotiated a lease deal with cuba. it is a remarkable lease. the kind that any apartment owner in new york city would love to have. it can be terminated only by joint consent of both the lessor

and the lessee. and it is $1 per year. it is a good deal for us. apparently fidel castro does not cashed our $1 per year check. as to this activity and use of the tension power, i do think that there is a political problem with who gets called a terrorist and who does not get called a terrorist. as ronald reagan famously said is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. the principle of who is to blame it in guantanamo is supposed to be an properly ought to be those who are actively engaged in the ongoing armed conflict between the united states and al qaeda with the taliban as centered in afghanistan.

in wartime, countries typically detain those were fighting against them. so, we are not fighting a war against the remnants of the ira. we are not fighting a war against hamas or hezbollah. we are fighting a war in afghanistan. detainees should, if lawfully detained under the rules of war, be tied to that particular conflict. host: who in the american government thought the u.s. constitution only applied inside of the u.s.. guest: that was the position that the bush administration took when it chose to put people in guantanamo. the position in the courts was that they prevailed in that position. it was not until they got to the supreme court that they lost.

there is some precedent for the notion that constitutional guarantees apply to all people in the united states, regardless of whether you are a citizen or a foreign national. beyond our borders, they apply if you are a u.s. citizen. if they try to punish a u.s. citizen in london in some way shape or form, he could raise constitutional claims. but as far as foreign nationals outside of the borders, the supreme court said that where it is not anomalous or impractical to extend constitutional rights to a place like guantanamo under our borders but control, the rights should extend. that is the theory on which the rights were extended. host: the obama administration has left guantanamo to remain

open. one have not -- 171,000 detainee's at a cost of $800,000 per detainee. it is called the most expensive prison in u.s. control. caller: thank you for bringing up this topic. and this reminded me of gangsters. their offshore money laundering or casinos. when you think about executives that take an oath to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, instead they show patterns and actions that are more like criminal gangsters.

guest: there is something disturbing about using these geographical boundaries and where you detain people to keep them from the courts. that is one of the things that has made guantanamo such a black mark around the world. we go around saying that we are of holders of the rule of law and our state department issues human rights reports on every other country, yet here we are taking human beings and putting them in a place where we said that no law protected them and used tactics to interrogate them that rose to the level of torture in a number of instances. that is why it had the negative connotations that it had. however, guantanamo would not necessarily have those connotations if we took a different view and we said at

the beginning of the conflict in afghanistan that we have the right under international law to hold people fighting against us, but we will give them hearings to make sure that they are people fighting against us and not a shepherd picked up on a bounty. we will treat them humanely and give them the protection of the geneva convention and release them when the time in afghanistan is over. had we done that, i do not think that guantanamo would be the embarrassment that it is today. but we have said they have no right to hearings or protection of law. we of said that they can be interrogated using cruel tactics where deemed necessary. the war on global terror was defined as a war of global reach, obviously not a war that

would ever even conceptually end. host: with the president signing the national defense authorization act, there is a provision that was a tongue-in- cheek question. is he talking about closing gitmo or streamlining government? guest: he to do both. close it, it would be streamlined and etc.. host: newcastle, pa., good morning. caller: bush started all this and in my opinion, obama has wanted everything civil-rights. protesters are considered low level terrorists. if we look at all the running candidates on the republican side, they support mdaa, which

is in my opinion anti-civil rights. guest: a lot has been said about the mdaa, and a lot of it, some of it, is exaggeration. there is nothing that says a protester could not be detained by exaggeration. foreign nationals who are not green card holders or citizens who are deemed to be either part of all or substantially supporting al qaeda or associated forces could be subject to that attention. that is essentially a restatement of the existing law. that law has not yet been approved by the supreme court.

there are real concerns there. it is not, i think, a realistic complaint to say that it will lead to protesters being put into military detention. as for the current administration and the potential opponents for the presidential position coming up, as anti- civil-rights in the prior administration, viewers can judge for themselves. it is worth noting that when president obama came to office, he closed the secret prisons of the cia, put an end to enhance interrogation tactics, which was our official torture program employed by the cia. he released formerly secret memos written by the justice department that authorized torture. he abandoned the argument from

president bush, which as commander-in-chief he could engage in conduct that congress had made a crime, as long as he was engaging the enemy. because he saw it as a part of fighting al qaeda. president obama abandoned that. he has continued to use military detention. he has continued to use military force. he has continued to use the criminal process, as did president bush. i think that the administration has at least sought to do so within the framework of the traditional notions of the laws that apply, whether they be constitutional laws, criminal laws, or international laws. we are not going to dispute on the many issues whether the got it right, but at least they're not saying that they put a whole group of people beyond a law. they're saying no and i think

that is a very different approach. host: let's go back to the defense authorization act that the president signed last year. total spending of $662 billion. the act does restrict the transfer of cleared detainee's from guantanamo bay. as we look at that, we will listen to john, joining us from new york. go ahead, please. caller: i am not surprised that someone who writes for "the nation," has these views. the president had a filibuster proof majority. he could have done whatever he wanted. guest: he could do so only if he had the democrats on his side.

the problem was, as i said before, even when i had -- when we had a democratically controlled congress, there were a substantial number of democrats that, in a very short- sighted way, the eyes for the possibility that a single guantanamo detainee. it is shortsighted and undermines our security around the world and is not part of the solution. democrats were as bad as the republicans on it. it was just a shortsighted, domestic focus with blinders to the real cost. host: the obama administration said the cost $800,000 per year to keep up guantanamo bay. in florida is just under $20,000

per year. let me conclude with this e-mail from a viewer. the president received -- host: that kind of sentiment seems to be driving a lot of the conversation this morning. caller: the nobel peace prize committee -- guest: the nobel peace prize committee gave president obama the peace prize, looking forward with optimism and hope. president obama has brought the iraq war to a close and has a schedule for bringing the war to afghanistan in a close. he did intervene in libya, although in a limited fashion. i do not think it needs to give it back, but the jury is out as to whether those that gave him the award, based on their home for the future, will have their hopes born out. host: david cole, your

perspective on the first anniversary -- 10th anniversary of the opening of guantanamo bay. thank you. >> richard lamb >> the nation's highest-ranking military officer spoke at duke university last wednesday, one week after president obama announced a plan to cut the defense budget over the next 10 years. general martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in his first public speech spoke to the students about his plan and took questions from the audience. this event runs just over an hour.

>> universities bring young people to get an education to go forward and assume responsibility in the world and shoulder the challenges of their time. i think he would agree this person has done that in spades. he was born in new jersey. he had his college education at west point and graduated in 1974. after his first tours of duty, he was sent by the army to duke where he got a degree in english literature. he and his wife had their home at duke. you had a child born at duke. welcome home. after his duke career, martin dempsey went forward to a single command every echelon of the

armed services. he has served at war, peace, at home, and abroad. most recently, his leadership during the second iraq war led to him being referred to as the best combat division commander of the decade. he became the acting commander of all u.s. forces in the middle east. more recently, chief of staff of the army. he is now the chief of staff. he is the highest ranking officer in the armed forces in principal military adviser to the president, secretary of defense, and the national security council. we could think of other ways to describe his job. he has the well-being of the 1.4 million people on active duty in the armed services under his authority. he also has another 1.4 million in the army reserves.

he is this nation's leader in facing all security threats, including the familiar ones, none of which ever seen to go away, and the many new and .nfamiliar ones that emerge he has had the further challenge of having to face new challenges and old challenges at a time when the underlying budgetary realities of everything in this country have become newly challenging. that is irresponsibility and a half to take on. these are jobs to need someone who is smart, strong, has a real leadership gives. i would say general martin dempsey, thank you for your service. welcome back to one of your many homes. [applause]

>> no one has referred to me as a young man in a long time. in the spirit of it, i would like to clear you the supreme ham.ed commander of duru [laughter] thank you so much for sponsoring the lecture series. i am honored to be part of its. thank you for what you do to encourage thinking and conversation. i would characterize this tonight as the conversation or discussion about the topic of strategy. strategy in this century with the complex issues, to suggest

someone with lecture about it or try to impart any particular bit of wisdom on it might be a bit of hubris. eighth stepss notwithstanding. i thought that was a wonderful piece of work. professor feaver, i mentioned you. thank you for your collaboration especially on the issue of civil-military relations. that has been enormously helpful in helping me understand that and my responsibility as a steward of the profession. michael sean filled, chris simmons, melissa, the congressman, the senator are

here. i am not sure why you are all here tonight. there is a duke basketball at some point in the near future. my own recollection of my time at duke suggest that before basketball games i would not find myself in a lecture hall brother down at shooters. [laughter] if i did not have this lecture tonight, i would probably be back there trying to find my favorite school -- stool. [applause] this is my first public speaking opportunity since we've ruled out what was described by the secretary as a strategic guidance. as it comes to us, it takes the shape of an emergency --

emerging defense strategy. it is a great opportunity for me to crystallize my thinking. i will leave time to see if we can interact a bit. i will reflect a bit about my arrival here at duke in 1982. we drove over from fort carson, colorado, where i was stationed as a captain. and remember at the time that the coach was a hanging an effigy in the quadrangle. "the card rankle -- the chronicle" was talking about his imminent demise. i think what he has accomplished here has been remarkable. it reminds me that in this age

of technology and information, the unblinking eye, i wonder. i have always wanted to ask the coach if he thought he would have survived to become the person he was capable of becoming in this environment today. it should give us all pause of with the -- if we think the answer to that is no. you have to give a strategy time to succeed. i will speak more about that in the future. as part of the english program, i had to take a foreign language exam. i have taken french in high school. i signed up for french believing a cassette that requirement off to the side. in subsequent semesters, i failed the damn thing twice.

the rule was if i failed it the third time, i would be sent packing. i got steady -- series about studying french or i would not be here. i have often thought about that aspect of development. i do not know that i had ever failed anything up to that point in time. as we look at how we develop the young men and women who will have to deliver the strategy we're talking about, i think it is important we give them the opportunity to see what failure looks like so they can come to the conclusion it is not something they like and that with the right attitude and work, they can overcome it. in the context of the strategy, it has got to be given time to work. we have to make sure as we step

off to execute it -- we know there will be mistakes. you have to underwrite that. ultimately, we continue to grow and develop emotionally through diversity. they're plenty of opportunities out there for diversity. i studied a bit of william blake. i considered myself to be -- i was going to be the next results man for the army. i studied blake a bit because i was intrigued by the way he merged the written word with his illuminated manuscripts. i pretty much decided i had figured it out. i spent a semester working on what i thought was an incredibly hot-perot coming -- thought- provoking and pieces were the paper only to find out i got a -- thesis were the -- a thesis- were the -- worthy paper only to

find out i got a c-. i really worked hard on it. i asked the professor where the reward was. he said they did not reward for the effort. we reward you for the outcome. that was one of those libelled moments. it is -- that was one of those light bulb moments. you have to deliver. you have to produce. you have to achieve the outcome necessary in whatever line of work you have or you do not succeed no matter how hard you work. these are a lifelong lessons now applicable in the job. the last thing related to my experience is that i chose william butler yeats as the poet

i would study. i am irish. he is irish. i thought we would have this mythical linkage and it would be easier. if i got into trouble, i could always " my grandmother and maybe the professor would take pity on me. what i learned about yeats that i did not know going into it -- that is another lesson. i learned he was unique in that he allowed himself to change and reflect about that change as he went through his life. he did bizarre stuff at the end of his life. but that said, he was always a man who could understand his time and himself. he understood the context in which she was living -- in which he was living.

that is the point i want to pull into the discussion about strategy. strategy is the ability to predict what will happen. it is also about understanding the context in which it is being formulated. you have to be open-minded to the fact you will not get it right at the beginning. you have a certain context in which to operate. you apply yourself to that. it changes the environment and introduces another set of complex challenges. it is a fascinating issue, this notion of strategy. i want to lay the groundwork to suggest that i think my development to become capable of thinking strategically starts in ways that sometimes unexpected and quite surprising.

let me tell you about becoming the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. people ask what it is like. i say it is pretty good. i am a general. i have a nice house, an airplane. lie came to my office and wanted advice about her acting career. [laughter] actually, she did come to my office. she is and humanitarian. she wanted to get up to speed on issues in africa in afghanistan. we have been married almost 36 years. when i became nominated to be the chairman, i was serving as the chief. i had about two weeks between jobs. we decided to go back to our home town to see friends. we went to high school together.

we pulled into the gas station. in newark, they will not let you get the gas yourself. this guy comes out who it turns out she had dated in high school and just before she dated me. i was polite, a great guy, by the way. when we drove away, i was feeling like oats a bit. i was thinking to myself, hell, yes. [laughter] i did not want to be boastful, but you have got to feel pretty good about the fact you chose me and not bobby. she looked me in eye and said if i had married bobby, he would be the chairman of the joint chiefs. [laughter] [applause]

i had to concede she was probably right. the fact i am not pumping gas -- because there is a basketball game, i will not let the remarks go into overtime. i want to make some assertions about the cop -- topic and then get a chance to interact with you about it. if you have not read dr. feaver 's comments about grand strategy, they are extraordinarily important. the way i communicate with my joint chiefs and bosses is simplistically somewhat on the instruments of national power to achieve a particular outcomes. it is the integration and

relationship of the four instruments of national power that do and must define a grand strategy. the one i scratched my head about the most often is the "i" --information. i think there is worth it to be done to understand the impact of information. the way it is passed, and sword, -- absorbed, and generated that has an effect on our strategic desires and aspirations that we have not come to grips with. we have come to grips with the inter-relationship of the instruments. if you are wondering why our grand strategy is being

renegotiated in terms of outcomes in the face of the nation's budget crisis, it is because we are only as strong as those three pillars -- diplomatic, military, and economic -- related to each other to achieve the outcome. akened, they all are. we have to rebalance ourselves. that is what i would suggest to you about the issue of grand strategy. let me talk in military terms. the application to achieve different outcomes depends on what was told to close to the 19th century. he said strategy is a triad, the

interaction of ends, means, and way. -- ways. in our system, we have truly never been denied the means. it has been a great strength of our nation because of our economic well-being that the means whenever a limiting factor region were never a limiting factor -- that the means were never a limiting factor. we spend most of our time thinking about what we want to achieve. then we apply the means to its. we were not forced to confront the issue of whether there was another way to do it. i think the most important part of the emerging defense strategy and where we're trying to get

between now and 2020 is that we are confronting the fact that in a constrained fiscal environment, and given that the ends are changing and being shifted, the real question is how we can look at changing the way we deliver the objectives given the means available. it is an enormous opportunity. i am not being pollyannaish, but i do think there is as much opportunity as liability. as chiefs, we do not feel victimized by this. it is healthy for us. because we have not to confront the issue of "ways," i think we

have missed opportunities in the past. over the last 10 years, we have ignored -- used a great amount of resources. if we have not learned anything over the last 10 years, shame on us. we have to take the last 10 years and how things have changed and how we have accomplished tasks that are different. we have to leverage that to deliver this grand strategy that i mentioned. i want to mention some continuities and di- continuities. we have to recognize what will endure. we have to recognize there are dis-continuities that we cannot

see it. sometimes i think we are the to reminda ourselves of who we are or what we stand for. half of my career was lived in foreign countries. i have interacted with partners. publicly they will not say they have it all right and we have it all wrong, but privately they understand what we stand for. they understand that when we show up, we show up to try to make the situation better and not worse. that is for them and us. that is a value system that provides incredible leverage as we decide how to change from a foundation of strength and not

weakness. the second thing is our u.s. geography. it is not the 19th century. we are not protected by the two oceans. we are not protected from cyber talk -- attack that is ubiquitous around us. the geography of the united states provides a continuity on which we can rely. u.s. homeland is no longer sanctuary. we are vulnerable. part of our strategy is to understand that vulnerability and lower the risk. the third thing is our demographics. we are a diverse society. we do have the ability to allow people -- we provide an example and enormous strength to our nation. we are trying to capture that in

our strategy. the fourth continuity is resource competition. demographics and economics shift toward the pacific -- if you have been in new york, you will drive by the big sign at the u.n. about 7 billion. it will only take 10 years to get from 7 billion to 8 billion. you can figure out what will happen as this accelerates. what will it mean for the world economy? resource strength and competition is a reality. it is a continuity. we have to be alert to that.

the fifth thing is violent extremist organizations. i will not pass judgment on any particular ideologies, but there de-groups network ed, centralized, and syndicated that act against our interests around the world. between now and 2020, that is a continuity we have to confront. the final continuity for the military is that we are a profession. i just left 400 young faces of the rotc cadets from surrounding universities. if you feel like you are not sure where we are heading and not feeling good about the direction of the military, go a

chat with those young kids and you will come out with a different feeling. they are terrific. they have sworn allegiance already has cadets -- as cadets to a set of ideals embodied in our constitution. we are unique on the face of the planet in that regard. it is the strength of our profession. it is a great continuity on which we can build. dis-continuities i will mention. there is this thing out there called the arab spring. no. two is the occupy movement. what does it mean to our system of governance?

the third thing is north korean regime change that recently occurred. that will eventually stabilize. we describe them sometimes as black swans. the manifest at unexpected times and in unexpected ways. the fourth one is information technology. this some thought that information technology has flattened. others will tell you we are about to increase again exponentially. 10 years ago, "cyber" meant something different. they might have called you a geek.

cyber is now a reality. it has security implications. there are the potentials for breakout technologies we have to be alert to. the last one will make me sound like i have potentially lost my mind and given up my roots as a literature scholar. that is non-biological intelligence. you probably saw the "jeopardy" show. there is a book that talks about a test that pits humans against computers trying to figure out which one is the computer and which one is the human. the human has always won, but the computer is getting close. as non-biological or artificial

intelligence increases, what will it mean across all sectors of society? many believe we are at the knee of the curve and it is about to spike. others believe it is flat. there is a dis-continuity in the issue of non-biological intelligence we have to be alert to. strategy, is it hindsight or foresight? some believe it is knitted together after and you take credit for strategy. i do not think it is either or. i do not think it is a dichotomy. aspects of it are backward-

looking and aspects are 4- looking. is it in during or opportunistic? -- in during en --during or opportunistic? should it be entirely clear or should it be introducing ambiguity? strategy should not be entirely ambiguous. we need balance. strategy is about context and choice. choices have consequences. consequences produce new contexts. it is dynamic. you have to appreciate it, accepted, embrace it. you have to force it or your

strategy will not be with the nation needs in its security forces. i became interested in context during my tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan. i grew up in an army that was centralized and hierarchical. i have the expectation as a young officer that the best information i could receive would come from the top down. the echelons above me always had the best capability to grab information come and gather intelligence, analyze it, and pushed it to me. this was through the cold war. i was in the business of consuming intelligence and information and in acting upon it. what i found in iraq and afghanistan was that the best information available to me did not come from the top down.

i was at the top. rather, it came from the bottom up. i came to realize that over the last decade, this hierarchical organization had become, had adapted. it had become the centralized, networked -- de-centralized, networked. now some of the best information comes from the bottom up. i also realized we had not changed the way we develop leaders. they were doing it on their own. when i was chief of the army, i said that the environment has changed. we're no longer centralized, her

coat. we are global and networked. we are de-centralized. we have to figure out the new set of leaders attributes necessary in this environment. we have been adopting our leader development. times -- we have been adapting our leader and development. times -- paradigms. \ when i go into a meeting to discuss policy or strategy, he who has the best context generally prevails in the argument. it is not necessarily who has the best tracks -- facts, it is too has the best context in which those exist.

we have got to develop leaders who can take the facts of the situation, apply context, and understand. remember what einstein said march 14, same birthday. i consider it an omen of some kind. he said if i had an hour to save the world, i would spend 55 minutes understanding the problem and five minutes solving it. that was true in the middle part of the 20th century. i would say it is even more true in the 21st century. we spend far too little time understanding problems before we try to solve them. i am in conversation with one of

the leading advocates for the changes to the public-school curriculum to develop leaders who can understand context and problems before lurching to find the answer. that is extraordinarily important. the last thing i will mention before i say a few words about the new strategy and what it means to the nation is the idea of cost as an independent variable. the military is not being victimized by the budget issue. some are speaking about it in those terms. we clearly have a role to play as citizens in helping the nation address its economic crisis. i will not be the only one who goes to the altar and put something in the basket. we understand for the nation to overcome the debt crisis and economic challenges, we have to

get a hold of costs as an independent variable in the development of our organizations and modernization programs. we will. i want you to know we are not being victimized. this is something the joint chiefs have embraced as what is best for america. we will figure it out. cost is now an independent variable in our decisions about what we will and will not do. it is probably the first time in my recent memory that has been the case. cost has always been a variable. it has not been an independent variable. it is. that is ok. we will adapt and figure it out. we cannot underestimate the impact of cost. that is among the things that are new in our environment.

what about our emerging defense strategy? it is a real strategy. it is non and edited cousin of its former strategies. we have taken real ownership of it. it seeks a balance of principle and pragmatism. it looks out to 2020. we have decided what we've want to do between now and 2017. the secretary of defense will submit the budget through 2017 at the end of this month. the work will not end. we're looking to 2020. what is so important about the mid-future? nobody wants the mid-future. if you go to a cocktail party,

see if you can get somebody in the conversation about 2050. no problem. talk about global warming, demographics, life on other planets. it is not hard to get somebody to talk about 2050. get them to talk about what happened today or tomorrow or yesterday. it is not a problem. people are up to speed and connected on the issues of today. ask someone about 2020. crickets. it is intimidating because we have the opportunity to shape it. we will own it. we will submit four budgets.

whether we intentionally and deliberately build towards 2020, i will be the chairman that delivers deliberately or inadvertently the joint forces of 2020. that is what we need to be thinking about, what the nation needs in 2020. we are working on that. it is a combination of changed in relationships, the emerging components, the lessons of the last 10 years of war. it is a new relationship among the services. that gets at what i was saying about the way we approach security challenges and not just dialing up or down the resources.

there are shifts in geographic priorities. you will here we are more interested in the strategic challenges emanating from the pacific it does not mean we will reject our traditional partners in europe. it means we have to understand how to engage with them in a different way than just plopping large numbers of u.s. troops on their soil. we will shift our view of the strategic challenges. there is something powerful about that notion. dr. feaver in his article said you have to have some sort of a bumper sticker to describe it or

people will not be interested in it. the idea of shifting our strategic priorities to the pacific is probably profound enough for now. it is up to us to determine what that means. the two-war construct, we have said since the demise of the soviet union that we have to be able to fight two nearly simultaneous wars. we have taken that language out. they say this because we will only fight one war. the nation needs a military that can do multiple things at the same time based on the needs and to give as many options possible.

i can do it because we have freed ourselves from that tyranny of language associated with the two-war construct. we had this construct that said you must fight two wars simultaneously. i am the chief of the staff of the army in take two potential scenarios -- and take heed of potential scenarios. -- take two potential scenarios. there were always two scenarios where you had to be prepared to fight. you would apply combat power and then enablers. you would have to make judgments about how many days of supply and ammunition you would need.

there's not much wiggle room. you have to be in to fight two wars conventionally and simultaneously. the army ended up with 264,000 trucks. you might say that is absurd. three days of supply, ammunition, spread out over two conflicts for three days. it was a mathematical drill. there truly was a tyranny to the construct. that was fine when the world was like that. it was fine when resources were not an independent variable. it is no longer find. by freeing ourselves of that tyranny of vocabulary, we have allowed ourselves to think differently about how we achieve the outcome over time.

we are not where we need to be. i am suggesting that by freeing ourselves of the tyranny of that particular language, you will find is to beat a better force. we have to keep it balanced. we have to invest in manpower. we have to invest in our leaders. we will do that. if i had to pick one placed on which the strategy will succeed or fail, it will be on the ability to develop leaders to execute. even in the face of resource constraints, we have to redouble our efforts. no strategy will ever be executed as we intend, and it will be the leaders that adapt and make it work in whatever circumstance they find themselves. i went to a funeral yesterday for one of our very famous generals, a guy named don star

who served at the end of world war two, vietnam, became a four-star. he was credited, for me, with taking the army of vietnam and turning it into the army that became the army we know today. we are at another one of those inflection points in history. listen to what he said about how he kind of engaged in what was important in life -- gauged what was important in life. if you want to think about your future, perhaps you should do it in this region these terms. i've got this extraordinary. down this extraordinary. i found this extraordinary. "i suggest your life takes on

meeting only to the causes to which you attach yourself have meaning. to something that lives after its. in the end, you become what you are for some caused you have made your own. in many ways, it is a far higher ideal to live an ordinary life in an extraordinary way." as i sat at the service listening to those words, i think it captured what we should all be about, not just those of us that serve in the military. but anyone that considers themselves to be a citizen of this great nation. god bless you all, i look forward to taking your questions. [applause] >> thank you, general. we have some time, and we have microphones down there. if you would make your way to the microphones. i will ask the first question.

last week, when you were speaking about the president's strategy, you mentioned risk. managing risk. can you talk about what you think is the biggest risk in the strategy? what are the risks you would want to focus attention on? >> i'm held accountable annually. the chairman, just after the budget submission, i have to submit a document cleverly called the chairman's risk assessment. it is against the strategy, will this budget deliver the strategy? i think about strategy in two important ways. one is almost mechanical. you take a look at the likelihood of something

occurring against the consequences of that occurring. take the easiest example, the consequence of a global nuclear exchange is extraordinary, but the likelihood is quite low. that allows you to determine, as we did in the recent negotiations, to determine where you are willing to take risks. that is true at any point along the spectrum of conflict. what is the likelihood and what with the consequences be? the other way to look at it for this particular strategy, since we are getting smaller, we are taking a risk in time and capacity. i will elaborate very briefly. time that means it might take us longer to go to a fight. it might take us longer to finish a fight. in terms of capacity, how often can you use the force, will we get into another protracted

stability operation? the active component would not be capable of taking a protracted stability operation because once you get into a protracted conflict, you have to rotate people in and out. this has been done to mitigate -- has work to be done to mitigate the risk of time and capacity. >> general, thank you for your remarks. my name's steve kelly, a retired officer that teaches here at duke. you talked about continuity, specifically the competition of resources. i would like to ask you about energy in general. the pentagon is very focused -- with becoming more efficient. you consume 80% of the energy that the federal government consumes. i would like to know your thinking on that as a way forward to save money and work with a smaller budget.

related to that is energy and the relationship with u.s. national security. your take on events in iran and nigeria, the impact on oil supply for the united states over the coming months or years. >> thank you for sharing your nightmares with me, i share them myself. you left off one or two points, but you got most of them. energy is the right thing to do. three reasons we should be serious about energy. one is that it is the right thing to do. i am not a card-carrying member of greenpeace, but i recognize it is the right thing to do for the planet to become alert and aware and concerned about energy. the other is cost. we consume enormous amounts of fossil fuels. the reason i am passionate about energy and i have made it a focus area for myself, i

would describe it as operational energy. i might be off by a few, but 250 either forward operating or outposts in afghanistan. everyone requires power, energy, logistics, all the things that sustain life --all the things that sustain life, and every one of those generally requires us to drive it in or fly in or drop in. we have a remarkable system of parachute extraction. it is physical, we have to get it there. and by doing that, we have people at risk. we would be more effective if we had a brigade combat team that was self-sufficient, net zero in terms of energy consumption. every service has a program, i can only speak for the army. we have the five installations

in this country that has a goal of and by 2015 or 2017, achieving a net zero energy consumption goal. there are the operational aspects of that, and there are programatics as we put out a request of my particular vehicle, we introduce energy into the peak performance parameters. all of that is somewhat aspirational. it is part of the joint force 2020 vision that we will become -- or we are trying to benchmark its. we are trying to become energy efficient. in terms of the security environment, there are those that believe that that is the issue over which the traditional and the emerging powers will find common interest.

another reason to try to break this kind of paradox, it's also related to what i mentioned to you earlier about demographic trends as well. i don't know if you have a more specific questions, and not to be tried, i share your concern that energy could become the issue of the last half of this century. >> my name is julian specter, i was surprised to hear your english background from duke, i was wondering if you can talk about how the humanities experience influenced and translated into your subsequent military career? >> [inaudible] i think dick planted that

question. >> yeah, i get asked that a lot. when i came to duke university in 1982, i might as well have been planted on the moon. here is why i say that. i had grown up in a series of catholic grammar schools, i went to catholic high school, west point, i never had to think about what to wear. [laughter] i got to do it and i was at the panic. -- duke and i was in a panic. what was i going to wear to school? i am way overdressed, by the way, people are walking around in shorts and i stuck out like a sore thumb. one of the funny things that happens to me, on the first day of class, i am an army guy. i'm doing intelligence work and on the list of incoming graduate students, there was a priest, an air force guy, and army guy, and several students that had just graduated into

matriculated strayed into their graduate degree. -- straight into their graduate degree. i wonder who the priest is. i realize everyone in the class is doing the same damn thing. which was the priest? i got the most votes as the priest. [laughter] i swear to god. the priest got the most votes as the army officer. to your question, it was incredibly broadening. every place i went to school, you could label it as somewhat conservative and maybe dramatically conservative. i came to duke and i was confronted, and a positive way, with few points that i had never -- viewpoints i had never been confronted with.

that was in the interactions with students. i was reading things. i fell woefully inadequate. the priest was working on his doctorate in literature and he was quoting things from his master's program and i felt completely left behind. i clawed my way back. one, it gave me enormous confidence. second, it opened my mind to seek, not just accept, but seek other ways of thinking about things. the third way, it helps you communicate. when i got to west point, they held up the dictionary in the works of shakespeare. he said, this will tell you the definition of the words. the dictionary will tell you what they mean. i found that to be

extraordinary. i have been an avid reader and i am always looking for ways to phrase things in a way that is persuasive. you heard me say that even in our government, he or she that has the best context prevails. and he or she that is the most persuasive will prevail. it has helped me a lot. >> let's take two questions at a time. >> i served with you in third armored division along time ago. i have a question as it relates to volunteer force. the willingness to serve will be based on how we take care of those that have served. what would be your recommendation to help transition soldiers back into the workforce as well as take care of their long-term care is after the war's subside? >> i am part of the occupy

movement. identified with the quotation you shared. i guess i was really curious to hear, you mention occupy wall street as a key discontinuity that you feel like there is a military need to respond to. i was wondering why you feel like it demands a military response and what the response might look like? >> i think she misunderstood. thaty, i'm glad you asked question, because if you have doubt, i need to clear it up. i am not in any way advocating a military response to the occupy movement. that would have made news. there is this thing called the arab spring that has changed in the security environment internationally.

the same kind of technology has produced this occupy movement changing the internal political dynamic of this country. not necessarily military, but it is almost linked to your question. how do we make sure that changes in the political climate calculation that we can preserve, the volunteer force to continue to make sure that we have the right kind of man and lemon, we are not going anywhere near a military -- men and women. we are not going anywhere near a military response to the occupy movement. when i look at the environment in which we live and function,it is not just about things military. it is economics, political change. it is information it is information proliferation,