for more. thank you for your service. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in a few moments, jon huntsman with drawing from the campaign. cafemom.com hosted rick and anita perry. >> i believe is important to emphasize that while it is great and have a memorial to his memory, and great have a national holiday, and it is great have streets and schools and hospitals named all over our

nation and world, it is also important to not place too much emphasis on martin luther king the idol, but not enough emphasis on the ideals of martin luther king. >> search and share. it is what you want, when you want. >> jon huntsman ended his presidential bid. he says the republican primary has become too negative and purple -- and personal and that candidates should concentrate on defeating president obama. this is 10 minutes.

>> good morning, everybody. i am delighted to be surrounded, first and foremost, by those i love and appreciate most. i am up here with the greatest my wife, mary kaye, who has sustained us throughout this interesting group of campaign activists called the jon2102 girls, and i am delighted to be here with maryann, abby, and liddy, and also delighted to be joined by my daughter gracie dubbed as our senior foreign- policy adviser, and i want to compliment her on the excellent job she did. i am here with my father and i want to express my love and appreciation for him, my son- in-law, and terrific team. some supporters, like the beloved iris campbell, the former first lady of this great state, as is the attorney

general, alan wilson, and close personal friend of mine, mike campbell, who is here, among others. i am honored and delighted to be in the presence of some of our great supporters. i just like to make a few comments about the current state of the presidential race and i will let you go. as candidates for our party's nomination, our common goal is to restore bold and principled leadership to the white house. leadership that will unite our economy and renew the american spirit. yet, rather than seeking to advance that common goal by speaking directly to voters about our ideas to rebuild america, this race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks not worthy of the american critical time in our nation's history. this is the most important

election of our lifetime. this country desperately needs to begin a journey that will allow us to courageously tackle our two most urgent deficits. one is an economic deficit. the other is a trust deficit. only bold ideas will get us where we need to be. and this campaign needs to be driven by those ideas. at its core, the republican party is a party of ideas. but the current toxic form of our political discourse does not help our cause. have lost trust in their elected leaders. today i call on each campaign to cease attacking each other and instead talk directly to the

american people about how our conservative ideas will create jobs, reduce our nation's debts, grandchildren. let's invest our time and resources in building trust with the american people and unite them around a common purpose. three years ago, the president promised to unite the american people. yet his desire to engage in class warfare for political gain has left us more divided than ever. this divisiveness is corrosive and does not advance america's interests. this nation was built on unity and trust. trust in each other, trust in a revolution that gave birth to

the freest and most prosperous nation the world has ever known. trust in our system of government. that sense of unity and trust has sustained us through world wars and national tragedies. now we need to -- it to sustain us during this hour of need. all to leave, this election is about more than the future of party. it is about the future of our nation. and for our nation to move forward together with new leadership and unity, the republican party must first unite. we entered this race just six of months ago with the longest of long shots. my candidacy was staked on the simple principle of country first, and driven by a refusal to pass down to the next

generation a country who is less powerful, less prosperous, and less competitive than the one we inherited. today i am suspending my campaign for the presidency. i believe it is now time for our parting to unite around a candidate best equipped to defeat barack obama. despite our differences and the space between us on some of the issues, i believe that candidate is governor mitt romney. as for the huntsman family, we stepped down with an even greater appreciation for american democracy, which is fundamental to american values. after all the town halls and handshakes and meet and greets, we leave it in the hands of the people and we respect the results. to our many staff, supporters,

and volunteers, i offer my heartfelt thanks. today our campaign for the presidency ends but our campaign to build a better and more trustworthy america continues. we will continue to fight for a flatter, simpler tax code that helps unleash opportunity rather than stifle it. for an energy policy that ends the scourge of our addiction to foreign oil. for congressional term limits. for education reform that prepares our kids for the realities of the 21st century. for finance reform that breaks up too big to fail banks and protects taxpayers from future bailouts. and we will continue fighting to bring home our brave men and women from afghanistan and stop nation-building overseas and

start rebuilding our own nation. for mary kaye and our family, these last six months have been an incredible and awe-inspiring journey. i have seen the very best of america. i have seen it in the spirit of our entrepreneurs whose innovations continue to inspire and better the world. i have seen it in the courage of our veterans who i have met at vfw halls in communities all over the nation. i saw it in china, 10,000 miles away, meeting with dissidents who have been tortured and beaten, but who drew strength from our nation's values -- our openness, our freedoms, our commitment to human rights. half way around the world, they can still see america's light. projects.

and i will never stop fighting for her and fighting to ensure that america's light shines bright for generations and generations to come. because in the end, we must all come together as americans and must be reminded -- reminded that the fight to preserve and enhance life, liberty and happiness is what really sets us apart in this world and is worth our tireless efforts as citizens of this most extraordinary nation. thank you, and may god bless america. thank you. >> [inaudible] why the change of heart? >> thanks, everybody.

>> cafemom.com posted several candidates in south carolina today. they first heard from texas governor rick perry. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> thank you for joining us. how are you doing here? what kind of response are you getting? >> the hospitality is fabulous.

we have enjoyed getting to know the people of south carolina and going to the different communities. we were in georgetown the day before yesterday. one of the most beautiful cities in south carolina. the history that you get to learn as you go to these states, the people, if there was not a south carolina, there would not bit a texas. there are just some great stories and history that you get to share with people. the short answer is we have had a wonderful time. anita has probably been here more than i have over the course of the campaign. she made a lot of the stops. she was in georgetown a couple of months ago. every time i go somewhere people tell me -- we love your wife. [laughter] >> they may not be so sure about him. [laughter] >> my wife, my son, then maybe meet. that is the way it has been.

i cannot tell you how many times, back when you're all on the b team, and then rick was on the top of the list as well. this whole process is stressful and it can be rough and tumble. but we are asking for your support for the most important job in the world. this is a job interview and you need to know everything that there is to know about it. what we did 30 years ago, or what we did over the last 11 years as the governor of the 13th largest economy in the world. in need to know my vision for this country, as you do all of the other individuals standing up today. i want to give you a vision to make you feel better about the future of this country and why our children and grandchildren are going to have a better life than we had.

if you are like my wife, she has great concerns about the future of this country. >> you have got this thing, debate after debate, rough-and- tumble, the super pac, you cannot feel the same way about this as you did when you got involved. is this process reworking when there is more negativity than ever? >> where were you when you ran -- when we ran in texas? [laughter] politics is rough and tumble. go back 150 years, look at the advertisements that were run. it is a tough business. there are people that said things that they wish they had not said and you can reel them back in, but this is rough and tumble work. we need a tough individual who

has a very powerful core and they know what they believed in. they're willing to go face-to- face with the leader of china, or the leader of russia, or for that matter that madman in iran. saying that this is what the united states is going to do. i want our allies to be very, very comfortable that america is going to stand with them. and i want our enemies to be very nervous. [applause] >> there are mothers and grandmothers here. in some cases, great grandmothers. are you prepared to look them straight in the eye and say to them that you might send their children into battle over iran? these are their children. >> as an individual who has worn the uniform, i am the only person on stage who has volunteered to serve our country. [applause]

for the last 11 years i have been the commander in chief of our national guard troops. i have seen them deployed multiple times in two theaters. the absolute last thing that i want to do as your commander in chief is put our most precious resources at risk. and we will use every tool that we have got. it is one of the reasons i am concerned about this administration and their lukewarm approach to what is going on in the middle east. whether it is wanting to negotiate rather than using every tool. civic, overt, covert sanctions. we should have been sanctioning the iran and central bank years ago, frankly. we are not even sanctioning them now with the power that we would be sanctioned. bring them to their knees, if that is what is required.

when american interests are truly impacted and the only way to defend ourselves is force, we will use it. having won that uniform and having had great knowledge about our power and ability, we will ghostwrite card. it is about winning. [applause] >> a few days ago you called -- you referred to vulture capitalism when talking about mitt romney. some republicans were upset. i wonder if you regret saying it now.

>> i think it is a term that has been used before. mitt romney's campaign consultant used it against meg whitman. the fact is this. i am about creating jobs. my record on job creation is being part of the 13th largest economy in the world. when million jobs have been created in texas because we have a climate in that state where people know that they can have a return on their investment and keep more of what they work for. that is what the president of the united states needs to be focused on. this is a job interview. you need to know what my tax returns look like. if that is an issue, my taxes -- we put our taxes out every year, since back in the 1980's. every candidate up there, they should put their taxes out. including mitt romney.

november -- excuse me, september and october is not the time to find out that there is something out there that is a problem. we need to know it now. as i talked about georgetown, i think that that is fair for us to say -- is that the right type of mentality, that american people want to see in the leader of this country? people putting a lot of debt on the country, a lot of people losing their jobs. that is the point i was making. the bigger issue is that americans have lost confidence in washington and in wall street. congress was the facilitator in that.

you want a congress with a record that has been vetted and a record of job creation and they have a vision for our children so that my son knows that he is able to go risk capital and have a chance with tax policy that i put out, that 20% flat tax policy is the reason i would pull back every regulation that has been in place. and have that philosophy instilled into this country. do it every day. not just talk about it. people are so fed up with folks that talked about doing one of the other, and they go to washington, d.c., and nothing changes. do you think that if we change a democratic insider with a republican insider, will we get a big change? i am the outsider that will go

in with an 11 year record of making a difference. our children and grandchildren will be better off for it. [applause] >> i believe we have a mom that is wedding dress to a question. >> hi, mom. >> hi. the education of our children is very important for us. i need to know, what role do you think the office of the president of the united states of america should play in american educational policy? >> a great question. our two children are out of college now, but they were public school children all of the way through.

we started our lives together and right through one of them went to private college and another went to public institution. their education, we paid a lot of attention to. anita is on the school board. we really have this love affair, in our case, with public schools and how those public schools impacted our children's ability to be prepared to be successful adults. here is one that i do not like, one that i do not agree with. that washington, d.c., should be making education policy decisions back in the states. i would do away with the department of education. and let me share with you why. and i think that governors and legislators, school boards, administrators, parents and teachers in the states have a

substantially better idea of how to educate and the better concept of one-size-fits-all. waivers and everything. i was not in favor of no child left behind. i was certain not in favor of race to the top, where they wanted national standards and national tests. leave education of children to the states and i guarantee that not only will we get more money into the classroom, where the dollars will be spent, but decisions will be made that are in the children's best interests. >> so often we talk about the role of mom with children. what is the role of that when it comes to educating children? >> frankly, i do not think it is any different. there should be a partnership

there. people need to keep more of their money, where mom's or dad's are forced to have to go work two jobs to be able to pay for the cost of living in this country. we can do that. but government has gotten so big, we use up so much of our money. this is more of an economic issue than it is whose role is to play in the education process. we are pulling farther and farther away from our families because we are required to work longer and longer to pay the

cost of government. my whole issue, when i came to charlotte -- excuse me, came in in august to announce my candidacy, i said that my job was to make things easier for parents by taking away their tax burdens. let's let's take another question. >> my mother is in the room. both of my parents are small amway business owners. when will you do as president to keep entrepreneurship alive in this country? >> the loss of freedom, it is only one generation away. that is a quote from ronald reagan.

to me, freedom comes in a lot of different descriptions. there are economic freedoms. obviously there are freedoms that the constitution is talking about. our economy is simple. i am really proud of what we have done in my home state. i tell people, you want to know how it person is going to perform in the future? look at the past. it is a very good indicator. in 2003 we had sweeping tort reform that protected doctors and medical professionals, hospitals, from frivolous lawsuits. texas has 20,000 physicians practicing medicine. it was about access to good health care in our state, dealing with that issue.

we have also kept the tax policy as light on the job creators as we can. with a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable. there is a reason that on the average 1500 people per day move into the state of texas. and it is not the great weather. there is still a perception of reality that happened because not just government -- not because government created jobs, but because they created an environment that entrepreneurs could get a return on their investment. that is what america needs. a president that every day gets up and understands that their most important job is, other than making sure that america is protected from those who would do harm to this country, is to have those economic freedoms protected and expanded

in terms of taxes and, again, a 20% flat tax. go to my website to see the entire plan, so that we do not burn up time talking about it. obviously, legal reforms as well. our best days are ahead of us in this country. there is no reason in the world to be pessimistic about the future. but we have to change presidents and change washington. [applause] >> hello, i am sally. i am from savannah lakes. as a mother and a grandmother, what will you do to make america a place where they will want to live and also thrive. >> i will not go over my economic policy again. i think you all understand that that is really where i am such

a believer, a believer in the free enterprise system and capitalism. getting that confidence that, that washington and wall street -- what happened over the last few years, when you had tarp and $800 billion worth of our main street money going over to bailout businesses that were too big to fail? my policy is that if you are too big to fail, you might be too big. then the president came in with stimulus and we have been in this experiment of keynesian politics. i have got to ask you, are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago? >> no. >> getting this country back to have confidence, the men and

women in washington, d.c., really understand what is going on in their life. i happen to think that it makes ultimate, good sense, as our founding fathers did, that members of congress should not be a full-time job. they should go into washington for a set period of time and get their work done. i would even consider doing budgeting over two year cycles with a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution where you cannot spend more money than you have coming in. have those members live under the laws that they pass, with real jobs like everyone else has. that is what we do in texas. it works well. 140 days every year. they get their work done and they come back home to take care of the real job. [applause]

>> before we go on, it is a privilege to introduce your better half. please welcome anita perry. [applause] this is done because this guy wants to get on television. [laughter] and he wants a workers' comp filing. [laughter] everyone asks what life would be like -- how their spouse has added to them. can you tell me how your life would have been different if anita had not been your wife? >> you have to understand, she

is the first girl i ever had a date with. >> you met in elementary school, right? >> i live out in the country, she lived in town. her father was a family practitioner. he was my physician. i knew she was. 16 years, we dated. yes, she was a hard sell. [laughter] she thought that i was pretty cool when i was a pilot in the air force. when i came back home and started farming again, i lost a lot of cool. it took me another five years of begging and pleading and winding -- whining. i cannot imagine my life without her. >> what she had to you? what do you talk about? policy? do you talk about the

challenges that you face? >> she has incredible instincts. she has that proverbial 6 cents about people and issues. when i fall op, which i do, on a more regular basis that i would like to admit -- [laughter] she is always there to share with me how i could have done a different. [laughter] and if i had asked her first, it would not have happened. [laughter] we truly do have a partnership from the standpoint of -- she has done this. she ran for office. she ran against five other people for school board and she won without a runoff. she has been in the arena and

understands the trials and tribulations. she knows the scrutiny that children have. that we have. i consider her to be my best friend. she is the person -- i mean, if i just had to walk away from all of this, if she was walking with me, it will all be ok. [applause] >> i am curious. given all the media portrayals of your husband the you are watching and reading every day, what is out there that is an accurate? i know it must be hard for you to sit silently by.

>> actually, i do not. i have almost stopped reading the internet. i have watched the news. but you cannot do that. it does not just happen to us. it happens to all of the candidates. it is unfair. he is a smart, intelligent leader. he set the climate in texas to create jobs. i am very proud of him. we put ourselves out there, as every candidate does. we expect to be scrutinized on every level. it is hard, the closer that we get. >> is it you? you both grabbed each other when you sat down. is it you that grabs his hand? or is it he that grabs your hand? >> it depends on the issue. [laughter]

if there is a big bump on the airplane, it is her grabbing me. if it is something to do with health care, it is me grabbing her. [laughter] i know what she is a professional at. she knows what i am a professional at. >> let's take another question. >> good morning, governor and mrs. perry. thank you for being here. your alma mater is in the sec, so we will see you. my concern is the curriculum slash liberal indoctrination that our children are subjected to in school. i know that texas has a big influence on what goes into

textbooks. and i do not think it is textbooks. but what is your vision for education? >> you want to? >> she asked you. >> i go back to my argument that those issues should be decided that the state level. we have big fights in texas over the content of the textbooks. it is a big back and forth. we left our school -- excuse me, our state board of education is elected. the challenge is for you, as the citizens of your state, to be actively engaged with that. i know that each state has may be different ways of setting up the board of education, or whenever it might be called. it is your responsibility to be engaged in a public arena so

that your values are reflected. our state board of education actively is engaged in the content. i put it on you. if we are going to be a country of we, the people, and hopefully, you know, the two- party and conservatives really understand that our country is in jeopardy. and a way of life in this country is in jeopardy. not just economically. i will tell you, when i see the department of justice, this administration's department of justice, coming into south carolina and suing to stop this states immigration laws, suing

to stop the identification bill you had, and the national labor relations board trying to leverage boeing to not come into this state unless the unions had their way? in my opinion, that is irresponsible. >> mrs. perry, we have an online member that have a question for you. "of all of the disagreements you have had throughout your marriage, which one sticks out most?" >> my gosh. [laughter] of the one that sticks out most? >> we have not had that many. we really do not. >> who apologizes first? >> he does. [laughter] you know, there is no really

great, tumultuous decision or argument that we have. >> life is too short. >> i think that she realized. >> we dated for 16 years. it is not like i did not know her pretty well. 45 years, i have known her. i am not interested in watching that on the television? me neither. i love her. she loves me. we really do not have -- we just do not have those kinds of arguments. i tell people on a regular basis how blessed i am to be married to her. i know that some folks have these knock down drag out, but we just do not. >> you have said the word last.

you and i have run into each other on the campaign trail. she says she prays for you. i believe her. it is a special thing for me, when she says that. what does prayer and faith mean for both of you in your life? >> i do not think that you can get through this without faith and prayer. the longer that we are in it, the more dependent upon that faith and prayer that i become. it is uncanny, the people and the friends who send a message. it is a biblical version, a devotion of their friend in georgia. is it not amazing, when you open the bible and it gives you the guidance that you need for that day? for me, my faith, my prayer has become much stronger.

>> it is very true. i tell people -- god did not tell me "i want you running." but there were certainly things that i tested god on before i made the decision on this. i needed to fill comfortable in my heart. you sure to tell me that i would win. [laughter] but i do know i am doing god's will for my life. i agree with nita. my life, particularly my ski -- my spiritual life has been substantially strengthened. i have matured as a question over the last six months. i think about, as joshua said -- i am asked what my favorite scripture is, right now it is

joshua number one, number nine, where he is told to be courageous and unafraid because god will always be with him. as we go through this process and you look around, looking behind you in the parade you are leading, that is ok. the one person that you need to have in your rate is always there. [applause] >> another question? >> my name is grace. when you said in the past about illegal aliens gaining in-state tuition, my question is, why do you let them get in state tuition for our schools? texas schools, especially, when

there are other kids in a great state that might want to come to a texas school and pay out of state tuition? i have a heart. i understand it is good for them to go to school. but that is a big money issue. >> the bigger issue, and i am going to directly address would you have asked, but the bigger issue is that the federal government has failed abysmally at securing our border. do you agree? >> yes. >> it is the reason that south carolina passed an immigration law. we have had to do things in the state of texas that we were forced to do because the federal government absolutely failed. we have spent $400 million on border security in texas today. just last month i deployed two gunboats to the border of mexico.

these are 30 foot, kevlar impregnated boats. this is what you would expect to see in a war zone. there are places on the border where it is a war zone. we made the comment -- the president made the comment that the border is as safe as it has ever been. he is so out of touch. my point is, i know how to secure the border. when i am president, there will be thousands of troops on the border. we will have strategic fencing and planes in the air, 24/7, so that we know when the activities occur on the border. when individuals cross, we can send teams to stop the activities. we need a president who will

commit to do that. on the education issue, the federal government demands, by law, that you take care of individuals in your state, regardless of their immigration status. texans were faced with this. you are either going to have a group of people that are tax wasters or taxpayers. they are there. they will be on your welfare rolls, your prisons, engaging in activities that will cost your state, or you're going to say you're going to get in line and work on gaining citizenship. if you go to a texas college, you will pay full in-state tuition. of 181 members of the legislature, there were only

four dissenting votes. this was a straight up economic issue for texas. look, i would never say that this is what you should do in south carolina. you should make that decision on your own. i would never support it at the federal level. i am not for amnesty in any fashion. to deal with that issue in a way that we did made economic sense. texans still agree, by and large, that that was the best way to deal with it. if you live in the state of texas for three years, you pay that in state tuition. >> we have a young man that wants to ask a question. how old are you? >> 10. >> go ahead. >> hello. my name is john and i am 10 years old. i have been following this race pretty closely. [laughter] describe what life will be like if you become president, in 25

years, for me and my kids. [laughter] [applause] >> a great question. [applause] >> be careful, he is not smiling. >> john, you will be 35 years old. i hope you will be smiling when you are 35 years old, because there was a generation before you that had the courage to make decisions that were hard decisions to reduce the size of government so that you could have more freedom. i am talking about freedom from over-taxation, regulation and litigation. and we kept the freedoms that people who hate us would try to take away. i refer to making sure that we

keep a strong military to defend this country from those that hate us, for whatever reason. to do that, we must first have a strong economy. our whole existence goes back to making sure that we have tax policy and regulatory policy in place that allows for the of entrepreneurs to know that they have return on their investment. if we cannot do that, we cannot have the resources to keep up with research and development to maintain a superior edge against countries like china. we cannot have a moderate navy the we're going to need -- that we are going to require. my pledge to you is this. i am not going to tell you that america will look like my home

state. but those basic blueprints of economic prosperity that we put in place there, inarguably, in my opinion, and i believe this with my whole heart, texas is the best economic climate in america. it did not happen by accident. we make hard decisions that allow the state to flourish. it's still flourishes today. we can do that in america. we need citizens that will rise up. we will say that we will no longer except washington, d.c., not listening to us about taxes being too high and regulations been too onerous. we need a president who is an outsider and has the courage to walk in there.

and you stop spending money that you do not have to, so that your generation and have the freedom that you deserve. [applause] >> john, if i may, i want to follow up on that. the governor and i decided to get into this race -- it was after we look around, and we do have two children. remember when the worst thing that could happen on a bicycle was you took a wrong turn in your neighborhood and a neighbor would call? and i just want you to know? that is what we want. when we looked around, we wanted -- and as a mother, i want every young person to have the same opportunity that we had growing up. also, that we live safe.

as a mother and future grandmother, i want our world to be safe. >> pressure is on. [laughter] >> will be one for you is the safety and a job, and a wonderful future and safe environment, and healthiest environment you could have to raise your children in -- what we want for you is the safety and jobs, and wonderful future and safe environment, and healthy environment you could have for your children. >> how old are you? >> 28. >> what do you want for your son? >> i want him to be happy. he has already found the most beautiful, smart, capable young

lady to be his wife. i do not know, four or five children? [laughter] and happiness comes in so many forms and fashions. i realize that money and the access to money is not going to bring you happiness. but the other side of that is that we live in a world where government continues to get bigger and bigger. our liberties become smaller and smaller. that was not the vision of our founding fathers. i want to go back. some people may think it is old-fashioned, but i want to go back to a reflection of those limited powers that our founding fathers had over a federal

government. that the states, when we talk about the powers delegated to the states by the constitution, reserve for the states and the people, the simplicity of that 10th amendment. then people can kind of pick and choose. if you want to live in a state with heavy regulatory burdens, or individual mandated insurance that you have to buy, you can go live in massachusetts. [laughter] or you can go live where the environment is more to your liking. that is the beauty of our founding fathers. that is the happiness, frankly, that i want for americans. go and find that state that best reflects your values and not live under this one-size-

fits-all mentality. >> the other thing i might add is the debt. i have cried every time with the miracle of birth. i am a nurse. but the amount of debt, we can truly make a difference in washington. >> another question? >> my name is laura brooks. my husband and i, we have three children. the lord gave them to us to raise. that being said, where do you stand with the line between parental rights and the government telling us what we cannot do?

what would you do to protect our rights in decisions like schooling, religious freedom, nutrition. stope government's rights at your front door. when it comes to dealing with your children. i am a very strong proponent of home schooling. timothy lambert, the head of the texas homeschooling coalition, we get pointed out on a regular basis as being a state that has some of the best homeschooling environments. we protect the rights of the parents. we have gone to court to do that. we have passed laws in the state of texas. as a president, i would be for promoting that same type of protection, whether you are home school or private school, whatever it might be.

parental rights are paramount. unless there is clear evidence of abuse, it is on the government and the business what you -- it is not on the government to be in the business of your children. [applause] >> you are very clear about what you do not want the government to do. when you hear the pledge of allegiance, star spangled banner, or god bless america, what do you think, personally? >> i think that it goes back to the way that i was raised and the values that i learned. my father was a tail gunner in 1944. i cannot tell you how many hundreds of missions my father flew.

the love of america was instilled in us by a parent. my school board president was also my sunday school superintendent and my scoutmaster. there was a lot of multitasking. by basketball coach, my civics teacher, and he drove a school bus. he was also a marine. loving america, loving the values of this country, it was instilled in us at home and in school, as well as church. and i am boy scouts. when i went on to texas a&m and volunteered in the air force, i had opportunities all over the world.

i only left texas a handful of times in my life. i did not know how other people live or how other governments treated their people until i lived in saudi arabia, iran, and all of these european countries. i saw monarchies and theocracies, different types of dictatorships. at that point in time, as a 26- year-old young man, it became so clear to me what an uncut -- incredible country i lived in. what those people had taught me was so powerful. when that flag goes up at a ball game and we see the words, they are really special. they are a powerful thing.

when i am standing on that stage, getting ready to debate, i am standing at attention. i am standing with my hand over my heart. to reflect my belief in this great an incredible country. we believe that the symbols of the country should never, ever be used in any other way than to hold up america and its great freedoms. and the hope that it reflects. [applause] >> your faith, your commitment to traditional family values,

having a big part of this campaign. america is filled with many faiths systems and beliefs. what do you have to say to them? those that do not look like you, who have different beliefs systems? how can you be a of president and what message do you have for them? >> the fact is that my faith teaches me to love them, regardless of their lifestyles. it also teaches me to hate their san. -- sin. that goes to the issue of traditional marriage. there are some very good things that come out of individuals who have that lifestyle. but my faith teaches me, very clearly, that that act is an act of sin. but i love them. i would never not love them. that is the powerful message of my faith. the founding fathers were wise

and fought for freedom of religion. not freedom from religion. regardless of your religion, you will be free to practice it. but this country was founded upon judeo hurt -- judeo- christian values. >> amen! [applause] >> people can argue that jefferson was deist, and that is a fine argument, but the truth is this country was founded on judeo-christian values. as we allow -- whether it is political correctness or if it is active -- activists in robes on the supreme court to chip away at those values, it hurts the american foundation. as president of the united states, you will see me put

strict constructionist, court. you will also see me being very open to individuals who are different for me. but i will always love them. i will not compromise my principles from the standpoint of saying that i have to accept something that i think -- that you think is ok, but my values, and frankly the voters in the states have said we are not going to except as an act that goes against 3000 years of tradition in this country. >> my name is tara hanes. i have a 17-year-old son who is an eagle scout. i found out that you are also. i know that in the future he is going to hit a number of

obstacles, growing up in general. what obstacles did you come across when you receive your eagle rank? as president, how will you remove them? >> here is a message for every young boy, as they are working their way through scouting. it is the only thing that you will do as a young person that will be a on yourresume when -- the on your -- be on your resume when you are 50 years old. it is why you have to really work to get your ego. when it says eagle scout, i know something about them without having ever met them. i know something about them as a young person, somewhere between the age of 12 and 17, they went through a long and

laborious process, following a rule book, a road map to the completion of a long project. their mother probably spent a lot of time -- [laughter] prodding them and poking them to finish this, because they understand something. as an employer is making a decision about who they want to be on their team and they see eagle scout, they know that that young person has the characteristics embedded in them as a young person. if they had it at the aged -- ages of 12 to 17, chances are they will still have those characteristics by the age of 71. >> i know that we are getting close to the end and i want to give you an opportunity -- i do not know what direction you

will take at. we will be sitting on the stage tonight, one candidate less. as you can see, behind you, there are a lot more people watching. there are many people out there comparing you and governor romney. what would you say to the people watching? >> governor romney is a good man. we have got to know each other over the course of the campaign. but americans have a decision to make. we are applying to work for you. we are applying to be the chief executive officer of this country. i disagree with rick santorum. it is a ceo job. and it is commander-in-chief. i have done the mall. as i said earlier, do you think

that changing an insider with another insider, whether it is a wall street insider or a washington insider, is that really going to change washington, d.c.? i am the one person on the stage that is an outsider. that has a record of the 11 years' worth of operating a major institute. working in the same environment where democrats and republicans have been successful, i am the one individual who has been a consistent social and fiscal conservative for my entire life. for that reason, i asked you to vote your values and who you think can step in to that race. i cannot wait to get on the stage and draw the stark contrast between myself, my record, and barack obama. [applause]

>> what would you like non- voters out there to know about your system? >> i would like them to know that we did not take this decision lightly. we put ourselves out there. two things come to my mind. we need a leader. my husband is a leader and the longest serving governor in the state of texas. he knows how to create that environment for jobs. we want the america that we had growing up. i want everyone to really look at his record. do not listen to the rhetoric. he can get america back. [applause]

>> the cameras are going to want to focus on this. i am trying to read this. which is cooler? [unintelligible] >> 1824 in the back. the front of the boots says? >> i use these to go to schools to teach history from time to time. the flag on the front was made from a wedding dress in 1835, in a little town, where the frontier, where the mexican government had been unfair to texans. they had loaned us a couple of cannons to protect against the

indians. they thought about, saying that may be giving those texans those cannons was not such a good idea. they sent an envoy to rest for the canon back. the flag was made and they said, and take it. the first shot was fired as part of the revolution at gonzales. they tried to take the cannons and they were unsuccessful. the flag on the back, the message had the date 1824 embroidered in the middle. that is the flag that is flying at the alamo. the reason that 1824 is on there is that that is the date that the constitution's, texans were living under mexican rule at that time. they flew that over the alamo to remind the generals that

they were in there because they did not live up to your word on this constitution. the alamo did not turn out that well for us. [laughter] six weeks later, at a place [unintelligible] called sam houston -- place called [unintelligible] the republic of texas was created. it is thanks to people like james butler and william travis that a lot of folks from tennessee, who came to fight for freedom, it reminds me about service and sacrifice. i like to tell young people that i do not care if you joined the peace corps or the marine corps, but you have got to get back to this country. freedom is not free, we are one generation away from losing our freedoms. and that, i will suggest to

you, is the most important issue in this election. [applause] >> i did not expect a history lesson, but thank you. >> we will be back here at 1:00. there will be a special message recorded just for you from stephen colbert. [laughter] do you have a message for stephen colbert. >> senator rick santorum will be here. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[indistinct conversation] [indistinct conversation] >> here we go. get in here. did you get in?

thank you all. come here. do another one. do another one. i want to get you in there. nellie of cooking. -- now we are cooking. go grab her. >> we are cut of the. -- proud of you. >> of my colleague. he is wonderful. >> that issa of dallas. -- that is south of dallas.

good luck to him. that would be so awesome to have him on the commission. >> you have friends in south carolina. >> thank you. >> can i get the picture real quick? >> let me turn around. [indistinct conversation] >> we love you.

>> i flew into baghdad and back. i flu this thing, it is so old. the last two years, i have not of tgone back. i have been over there four or five times. it is incredible. [unintelligible] somewhere in the theaters. thank you for your service. that is awesome. married a fighter pilot. where did he go to school?

>> he went to ole miss. >> this is my third time to be around the. -- you. >> thank you sir. yes ma'am, thank you. how are you? that is awesome. i think we have people who are artistic and have gotten their eagles helpscouts. finding out where that is, it may be extraordinary. there is a place. he has done that. the talent you have. it is finding the place for

those talents to be. you go girl. >> thank you. >> sure. thank you. >> we love you. >> thank you. god bless you. >> thank you. >> you've got it right. >> he is awesome. i love him. >> [unintelligible] >> i did not. i knew exactly what u.s. in. -- you were asking. >> i was wondering if my husband could get a picture.

>> come right here. i want to be where she is. the light is better. >> a picture of you and me. >> ok. >> i am sorry. i was looking at the wrong guy. we are going to get a picture. how are you? >> [unintelligible] >> right on. thank you for your service. it in here. -- get in here. how above that?

>> i did not know what i did with it. hang on a second. [indistinct conversation] >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> i wonder what i did with that. that is bizarre. i wonder if it fell out of my pocket. i had it. who knows what a did with it. -- i did with it. get in here. >> can you do me a favor and send as. -- sign this. >> can we have one more picture?

>> i know. thank you so much. >> huh? >> [unintelligible] -- [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you for answering my question. you did it great. [laughter] [inaudible] >> check that. hold it reels bill. -- real still.

and of those, you have to hold them real still, -- i know those, you have to hold them real still. you got it. >> that is fine. you can do yours first. >> congratulations. tell him, well done. [laughter] >> i miss you when you were in georgetown. >> we had a great time. georgetown is great. [indistinct conversation] >> nice to meet you.

i am it cut army mom. -- a proud army mom. my son. he is getting ready to go to afghanistan. thank you. i appreciate it. >> howdy. yes ma'am. amen. yes ma'am. >> god bless the. -- you. >> i have a friend, he could not come. pat sullivan. she is going to go crazy. thank you. >> god bless you. yes ma'am.

>> what you said about immigration, huge. it hit home. it is this solution to the problems we need. -- this is the solution to the problems. >> i understand. >> i am doing a congressional race. [inaudible] just like the way it did today. especially with illegal immigration. explain to us. [inaudible] >> yes ma'am. come on. >> [inaudible]

>> there we go. now we have our eyes open. >> and god bless the. >> god bless. -- god bless you. >> god bless. >> there were three texas brothers that came in the early -- early 1700's. somebody did a little bit of work. we have one of the perry's who fought the revolutionary war in 1776. he was born in 1760. >> it is hard to find that these days. keep it up. >> leading up to saturday, c-

span's rode it to the white house takes you live to the candidate events. >> we need to eliminate these programs. we need to cap them, cut them, kept them, send them back to the states, remove the federal oversight, and let the states have the flexibility. >> others have talked about it, they get into office, they do nothing. right now, it is this liberty movement. it is saying, we have had enough of sending our kids and our money around the world to be the policeman of the world. it is time to bring them home. >> candidates get their message out, meeting voters. >> thank you. thank you.

>> i am so excited. you have my vote. >> we feel very good about that. the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign. that is going to be good for us. >> find more video at c- span.org/campaign2012. what's our coverage continues from the online presidential forum hosted by cafemom.com. this is an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] ♪ >> hello, everybody. i'm cafemom's political correspondent. we are the number one mom site and we started back in 2006. mom's come for community and content, but they really come to talk, too.

one of their favorite subject is politics. they have all different kinds of opinions, but there are two things they all have in common. one, they feel like politicians are not listening to them. and two, they feel like politicians cannot understand what our real day-to-day lives are like. we think that is unacceptable and that is why we have started mom's matter 2012, an initiative to get mom's the information they need to be informed to vote, no matter what your decision may be. to that end, we are having these forums. we spoke to newt gingrich a few weeks ago, and today we have rick santorum and his wife, karen. thank you so much for joining us. [applause] >> you told me something very interesting just now, you have an insane schedule every day. it is event after event.

and he just told me he drinks no caffeine. how is that possible? >> i guess i'm not a good cafemom. maybe a decaf dad. [laughter] it actually gives me the jitters. i've never liked it. i'm high energy enough and luckily it am able to go on. i feel very passionate about what i'm doing, and i have no trouble getting up in the morning and getting out there. what an awesome opportunity this is to go and get your ideas out there and paint a vision for the country and, hopefully, get people excited about what we want to do, the vision we have, and it keeps me going every day. >> what's the toughest moment in the campaign so far for both of you? is there any one thing where you just think, "i do not know why i'm doing this" or "how i

can keep doing this?" >> it is the challenge of day to day. we are the parents of seven children. to the mothers, we understand the challenges of the day-to- day, the juggling, the work, the schedules. you have a lot of moments where you feel like this is what you want to do, that you are on that path. then you have days where you think, "why?" my car broke down car twice, my old car that i really like. just funny things. it's a juggling act with the kids and their schedules.

>> we feel like this is where we are supposed to be. we have a lot of these things happening. we were not moving in the polls, and a lot of people are asking why we were still in the race. we just said we felt like we had a different message than everyone else and we're talking about things that no one else is. eventually people will look at our message, our record, and we are real people out there trying to do a good job to reflect the values of real people. hopefully that comes across. if it does, great. if not, we gave it our best. [applause] >> i would like to ask you now about an issue that a lot of our moms talk about that really never goes away.

you said in your books that women find it harder to work outside the home. you think families are best suited when they have a stay at home mom in them? >> or dad. i will let karen answer that question. she had a lot to say in that portion of the book. in way of an introduction, karen was a nicu nurse, and when we got pregnant with elizabeth 21 years ago now, her life changed. she made the decision to stay at home to raise elizabeth, and i will hand it off from there. >> i think it's important that women feel supported. if they want to work outside the home -- i'm all for dads staying at home.

whatever is right for your family. it was my choice. i'm hitting my mic. sorry. i felt passionate about staying home with my kids. my mom was home with us. she is just the most amazing woman in the world. if i can be half the mother that she was to us, i will feel like a huge success. i wanted to be at home because of that. but what happens, and i hear this time and time again, but women at home do not feel the same appreciation as a woman in the workforce. we are very much in the work force. i worked as a lawyer. i worked as a nicu nurse. what i did at home was just as challenging, if not more challenging, than what i did as a lawyer or a nurse. i applaud those who stay at home. [applause]

the work that we do at home is critical, whether it is a dad or mom at home raising the next generation, educating our kids, raising good kids who can give back and contribute to the world to make it a better place is essential. >> i talked about the important role that dads play, and they're out there making money, doing those things, and they may not recognize the work of cleaning, cooking, changing diapers, as well as being the coach of a sports team and all these other things. to me, it is about affirming the important role that the family plays in society, for both mothers and fathers, and not just celebrating success in the workplace, but also celebrating the critical role

that parents play in our society. >> you said something in a speech yesterday, and i never got permission, so this may cause me some consternation. you described the role of the government and families, particularly this government, and this president, and the decisions and policies that they are making, and how you described it touched me. sometimes i get a little cynical, but you broke through it. i would like for you to, just briefly, describe what you think is wrong with the obama administration and its policies, particularly toward young, unmarried women, because i think it could be very educational for the people watching at home. >> i will try to condense this. there was a study done by the brookings institute, a liberal think tank, and it was a study on poverty. people can do three things in

their life to avoid poverty -- work, graduate high school, and get married before you have children. if you do those three things, according to brookings, you have a 2% chance of being in poverty. on top of that, you have a 77% chance of being above the median income. conversely, if you fail to do one of those three things, you have a 74% chance of ending up in poverty at some point in your life and a 4% chance of being above the median income. these numbers probably shock you in how stark they are, but you understand how it makes sense. when i heard this from bill bennett, former secretary of education, i was on his radio program and he told me about his wife's program, called best

friends, which is a program that helps average young girls stop at risk behavior that could lead to bad life choices and bad outcomes. she has this program in schools that is in part federally funded. the obama administration just came down with a policy that said, in her program, she cannot teach abstinence as a preferable way of avoiding birth out of wedlock. she cannot talk about marriage. she cannot talk about marriage as anything other than an alternative lifestyle, no better or no worse than any other. my question is why. why would the president of the united states put a policy in place that even people on his side of the aisle would leave those women to make

unfortunately bad choices that could harm them economically and in a whole host of other ways? someone suggested, on the cynical side, that maybe they want to create dependency or it is just an ideology. it is an ideology. i hear often, "rick and you should not impose your values on everybody else." what is that? imposing a set of values that we know leads to behavior that causes problems in people's lives and in society as a whole. i keep coming back to the question -- why? why would you do that? why would you have a policy that you know is going to cause strife in all of these young girls' lives, not give them the information they need, the power that they need, to be able to help themselves make these decisions in their lives. i keep asking the question why. >> what is the answer? >> you tell me.

you tell me. you tell me why. i literally do not know. it could be a variety of different reasons, but none of it makes a real sense to me unless you are just so dogmatic that you just cannot look at evidence. you cannot look at reality. you want to reject something just because it happens to be a traditional value, that, somehow or another, for that reason alone we must reject it to the point where there is no value that one is better than the other, everything is just the same. we know that is not the case. >> you have said in the past that as president you would talk about the dangers of contraception. what would you say those dangers are? >> i do not know if i ever said that. >> referencing a speech from october in des moines. maybe it was taken out of context? >> someone asked me a question

about that, not at a speech. someone asked me a question years and years ago about contraception with respect to a decision by the united states supreme court in the case that was the precursor of roe v. wade and started a number of rights that they found hey were able to justify the creation or the right to abortion. i said i disagreed with that decision, as i disagreed with roe v. wade. states, while i would not as a legislature vote to ban contraception, they have a right to do that under the 10th amendment. the have the right to, just like under the 10th amendment, the states have the right to ban or approve of abortion, in my opinion. what the supreme court did was take away the people's right to make this decision through their elected body and create a right that did not exist in the constitution, and i do not believe still exists, the right to an abortion.

if the founders wanted to put that right in there, they would have written it. later, justices 5, 6, whatever, could not find something if it is not there, it is for the public to decide what those moral decisions could be. [applause] >> we have a question from a mom in our audience. myrtlefrom here in beach. i'm also a very proud military mom. my son is getting ready to deploy to afghanistan, his second deployment. recently, i heard about cuts in defense spending, and, as a mother, one of my greatest fears is that he will be on the front without supplies or support that he will need and he will be stranded. how will you, as president, reassure me and other military families that our sons and daughters that are in harm's way serving gladly will have

the support that they desperately need? >> thank you for your sacrifice and service and for your young son's sacrifice and service to our country. i'm the only person who has said they will not cut defense spending, because it is not the problem in our budget. 50 years ago, defense took up 60% and it now takes up 20%. no objective person can look at that and say defense is what is causing the problem. it's not. it is the most important thing the federal government does, the only thing the government can do that no other area can do. we can have health care programs at the state and local level, and education programs at the state and local level, but we cannot have the military at a local level. that should be robustly funded to make sure, in this very dangerous world, that we have

the best possible equipment, the best possible training, the best possible system that produces not only the best military, but the best chance for that military to survive and respect the lives of every one of those men and women in uniform. you have my commitment. this sort of ties into these tv ads being out there run against me about earmarks. if it were not for earmarks, this armored vehicle prototype would never have built, and it would not exist, the heavy armored vehicle that can sustain ied attacks and survive. we had armored humvees before that, and we were getting decimated. this armored vehicle would not be deployed right now because the military did not want it. gramm earmarked money for that,

and if not we would not have it. the v20 is being used on our special ops missions. i earmark money to make sure that program continues. the predator drone would not exist if it were not for congressional earmarks to make sure they follow through with the program. night vision goggles, another earmark i put in place. "the new york times" just did a story about all these earmarks. they interviewed one of the guys that i got an earmark for and they did not run the story. you know why? it's about regenerative medicine. you have seen figures being drawn back.

it's amazing technology. but for five years, i earmarked against them to keep it open because it will transform wound care for men and women in uniform. after five years, the army said it was really good stuff, and then two weeks ago, "newshour" ran a 20 minute program about how transformative this has been for the men and women in uniform. i understand the concern with earmarks, but every agency does not always get it right, and sometimes members of congress are trying to spend more money or raise money because they have taken the time to learn what the right thing is, go out and advocate for it, and they may know a little bit more about it than the bureaucrats. earmarks have been abused over the last few years and guys like jim demint and i have said we should put an end to it.

they are not always bad. we have to understand that abuse does not mean that everybody abused it. i'm very proud of the things we have done. go ahead and continue without me. look at our record. look at the men and women who have been saved as a result of what we have done. i'm very proud of the fact that we did it. [applause] >> there are a number of mothers with children of military age here, and you talked about the challenges, and i want to follow up on this question about afghanistan. you have seven kids. i ask both of you, how would you feel if that was your child going over there? are you prepared to send your children to take down iran before they launch a nuclear weapon? >> to take down iran? no.

to take out their capabilities, as the israelis did in syria with their reactor and iraq, that is a very different thing than a full-scale invasion. i will not talk about that, because it's not in the playbook, anywhere in the playbook. that's not something we should engage in. we should stop the radical theocracy that has mal intent, not just for israel but for our allies in the region, most of whom are sunni muslims, and not just for the west, with their projection of terror. this is a country that, with a nuclear weapon, would be the greatest threat to peace and

security this world has seen in a very, very long time. they are driven by a theology that believes in conquest. i know barack obama says it's just a little country in the middle east, but it's a very wealthy one with a lot of oil and gas and they can buy off- the-shelf technology and develop themselves with nuclear weapons, build the technology to deliver it, and they have legions of terrorists. in central and south america, president ahmadinejad spent time in venezuela with hugo chavez talking about launch pads. there are training camps of jihadists sponsored by the terrorists. this is not a problem halfway across the world that we do not need to worry about. they are aligning with others and they want to see the u.s. domination, if you will, or influence, to wane and they will do whatever they can to

make that happen to show that they are the next one on the block. if we do not stop them from doing this, we will be preventing a war we have never seen the likes of before in this country. it is not a matter of taking out this regime, not a matter of a pre-emptive war, but a matter of taking out the nuclear capability that will change the face of our country. >> you would not have a problem with your son flying in that plane that drops the bomb and there will be people on the ground trying to take him down? >> i would be very proud of my son for serving my nation, as a mother. [applause] >> we have two boys, one just graduated from high school, the other in high school. one of the considerations

they're looking at is potentially doing some kind of military service. i have been nothing but encouraging. >> which branch? >> i will not get into that. [laughter] >> let's take another mom question. >> thank you for being a home schooling family. it would be great to have one in the white house. i am the mother of two boys who are perfectly normal, and our daughter was born with emmanuel syndrome, similar to the chromosomal issue your daughter has. i'm curious as to what you think the government's role should be in the role of special needs children. it's complicated. she had surgery at duke last week. there are a lot of needs to be considered. what do you think the government should be doing to help parents? >> i'm jumping in here, but feel free to fill in.

our feeling, from our perspective, is that we want to do everything we can to care for our child to the extent that we can do so. we not only feel an obligation to, but we want to do it. we believe that those are resources, and i cannot imagine how to spend them any better than on this beautiful child that is the center of our life and we love more than life itself. [applause] to me, that is a good expenditure of resources. obviously, some people are not in that position. one of the reasons i'm concerned about obamacare and government-run health care is that we tend to hear about the "cost effectiveness" research. you hear about the "proper utilization" of resources. when i hear things like that, as the dad of a special needs

child, the red flags go up. that means my child has to "earn" care, "be worthy" of care, be a "good investment." how do you look at my daughter? do you look at her as we do, which is a transformative figure in our family and to everyone who has ever met her? >> she's perfect. i'm sure you feel the same. >> do you look at her as the gift she is to everyone she touches? it's amazing. yet, to many in the world, you would ask why do anything? we were told by many professionals to let her go, that she's not worth fighting for, because she would not be able to "do" anything. >> i'm sure there are some physicians who love and support your little girl. we'll pray for her.

what's her name? >> hermione. >> we will hope she does really well. it's interesting how they categorize certain diagnoses. "lethal diagnosis, incompatible with life." they need to stop using those words. and we are really on a mission now to help change the wording and how they give these diagnoses the parents. their mantra is to give the child a chance, see what the issues are, love and support the families. there's no doubt. we feel, as i'm sure you do, that it is an honor to take care of our little bella. she's an angel of heaven. she's worth the dignity of

every other child. you may have to turn into a mama bear to get the care -- and i'm sure we could talk for hours. she has a happy, beautiful life. initially, it was a challenge just getting the basic care. >> to answer your question more directly, to the extent that the parents can and should provide, that they can't, anytime there are extraordinary costs associated with a disorder, it should be socialized in a high risk pool at a state level, because of the instability of medicaid, something will provide for that. that, to me, is a very appropriate way for society to affirm the dignity -- the dignity. [applause]

>> the senator described what he went through in a very emotional way. can you, as his wife, talk to us briefly about what he went through and about how you and he dealt with the challenges of that child? it's very powerful. i would like to now hear from the mom. >> we got the diagnosis four days after her birth. it was a really hard time. we were not expecting it. we had lost a baby, so i was thinking about was how i could not go through it again. i was very angry and i went into a deep, dark hole for 10 days. i was never going to leave my faith. it was trying. i just kept asking why.

she was in the nicu. when i let go of the "why" there was a peace in me. that beautiful child was here for a purpose. i loved her with my heart and soul. she is a part of our family and we will love her and take care of her just like any of our kids. initially, he held back because he needed to beat the strong guy holding us all together. it was a very hard time. we were going to love her and take care of her.

we just sort of came together and dealt with it issue by issue. but over all, it was gone to be we will love and support bella and fight for life. and the family -- there were things that happened that i thank god i had been a nurse because i knew better. when certain things would happen i would call the doctor on it or the nurse. and again, we have wonderful physicians and nurses and our lives. who will love like crazy, because they walked this journey with us. but there were some along the way, too, where it was shocking what we saw what they're not treating bella with dignity and respect and that is something i always insisted on as a mother, she be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other child and it was not always easy. issue by issue -- which grows really strong. we were all initially go right through a tough time. hospice care -- and strange that it is, you bring a baby home and you are going to hospice care, which is strange for us. we got home from the nicu and we both said, we want to focus on bella's life. our children are so dear. they love her like crazy. we came home and they had a big sign, welcome home bella, happy

birthday. each day they made a number and for two years the sign hung on the family room and the change did every day, every week, and every month. them a party every day for a while. do >> a party every day for a while. then it was every week and then confident enough to do every month. it is just sort of the steps you take. >> a lot of hospitalizations the first year. but to make a very long journey short, bella is an amazing girl. if she is 3 and have and nobody thought she would live for three hours and she is joyful and happy. the cutest thing. i have all these pictures in my mind as a mother -- one day i was in my room and my two little boys peter and patrick were playing cards and they had bella in her little chair right there with them, little cards in front, and monday were playing piano, she is they're

playing with them and in the kitchen -- would love to cook and bake and it is very much the heart of our home. she is right there and she is a great blessing. >> she loves her dad alive. [laughter] >> she has him wrapped around her little finger. she just melts -- >> she really loves me, too. and i love you brought your kids on the campaign trail. -- >> i love you brought your kids on the campaign trail. you said it is almost like a living school lesson. how are you structuring that? >> our children, who are in school -- they allow them to have two weeks off. and they are very good keeping up with their assignments. not really. >> you know you are on camera. >> their assignments are going to the campaign office making phone calls.

>> hands-on learning. looking at the caucus state, primaries, the whole journey, how presidents are elected -- history and geography. it has been a lot of fun and it has been a great education. >> they have done a great job. my daughter elizabeth spent six weeks in south carolina traveling. my son john, a week and have in new hampshire and a couple of weeks in iowa. that was last semester. the semester we gathered everyone together and decided to spend time and come down to south carolina and plan our flags down here. they have been a boost and encouragement to me, being with us. it can be a lonely traveled day after day on the road,it can bey after day on the road, not seeing your kids. >> i think it is really need to watch these children. you always want to raise your kids with a spirit of service. the kids have done a lot of mission work and clothing and food drives, but they are being

raised with a sense that life is not about them but it is about serving our lord, making the world a better place, it is about going out of your comfort zone and giving to make the world a better place. this is hard work. the kids are working hard but they know this is to make our country a better country. pretty neat. >> let's take another question from a mom now. >> good afternoon senator and mrs. santorum. i live in greenville, south carolina. i have supported the senator says he announced as exploratory committee. >> thank you. >> my youngest son is gay. i debated a long time how to handle my support of you because what he has been hearing -- rick santorum hates gays. interestingly, we had a short conversation and he said actually i did not have any

problems with his stance on gay marriage because i do not believe in gay marriage. but i still have that sense of guilt because -- his friends react to what they hear. how do i deal with that? >> go right ahead if you want to jump in -- >> thank you for the question. you as a mother -- we all love our kids unconditionally, and as rick's wife, i have known him and loved him for 23 years. and i think it is very sad what gay activists have done. they have vilified him and it is so wrong. rick does not hate anyone. he loves them, but he has simply -- what he has simply said it is marriage should not happen. but as far as hating, it is

very unfortunate it has happened and a lot of it is backyard bullying where people come up to us and say something and we will ask them to give an example and they cannot even provide one example as to why they took the position they took. you can take it from here. >> karen is right. it is not an issue of not doing what i am called to do, which is to love everyone and accept everybody. this is a public policy difference. and i think the problem is some see the public policy difference as a personal assault. and because that i believe that marriage, which has existed before government existed, marriage existed from the very beginning of time -- the way we were meant to be, not just that, but it is i believe governments include marriage in their laws is because we need to encourage what is best for mothers and fathers and children, which is for them to be together again to give every

child of their birthright, which is to know and be loved by their mom and dad. and if we do not hold that up as something that society is for and encourage it and promote it, then we will get less of it, and we will be, in a sense, denying tilden what is best for them. -- the nine children what is best for them. -- of denying children what is best for them. we should not be a society that denies our children and our feature what is best for them. it is already rough enough out there. we need to affirm that people can have other relationships that are important and they can say that they are fine, but they cannot be what is essential for the future of our country. there are all sorts of the relationships -- relationships that people have and they are valuable, whether they are cameras, friendship -- mrsa, friendship and -- amorous,

friendship relationships or familial relationship. they are all important and they have value and they should be affirmed. but that does not mean we should change the laws in order to create an atmosphere in where children and families are not being -- i looked at what we have seen in the country. i hear this a lot from those who are promoting same-sex marriage, that heterosexuals have messed up marriage and why are you picking on us. your answer is, you are right. that we have seen a decline in marriage in america and a decline -- just in the last 30 years, -- this has came out as of today -- 71% of people over the age of 18 being married in this country down to 51%. 5% drop in the last five years, which is the fastest drop ever. and you can't say that what is going on in the public and the culture does not affect marriage. it does. it affects people's attitudes toward marriage, their desire to marriage, what they see marriage is, and if it is not something that have an intrinsic value and worth, then you will get less of it. and we see this going on now.

and so, i would agree that there were problems with a marriage before we had this debate, but this debate in my opinion is not helping. what we need to do is refocus on trying to promote men and women coming together and having those strong bonds, supporting men and women in marriage. in an example in my book "it takes a family." in one of my chapters i talk about a project and in chattanooga, tennessee. a city in east tennessee where they found out through the demographic research that was done, the senses, that they had, i think, the highest divorce rate in the state and one of the highest out-of- wedlock birthrates and the highest single parenthood rate. they were amazed this to town in the smoky mountains would have this problem. the community fathers decided to do something -- educators, business people, town fathers,

as well as the churches, taint -- came together and started a nonprofit saying we will do something to reinstalled marriage, to help father is the response for the children, nurture and support people going through difficult times, and make a conscience -- conscious effort as a community to have in the classroom education about what marriage is and why it is valuable and what is important about that and maybe share the things i've shared with you, the brookings institute study. information is a very powerful thing and having community support and nurturing is actually essential for setting expectations as to what people should be doing in their life. and you have a popular culture that sets a very different expectations. our heroes that we celebrate almost without thinking, not heroes necessarily promoting the values and when we have one that does, they are controversial. right?

they are the ones who get held up to scorn and ridicule because they stand up for the book of virtues or truths, as we saw just recently with tim tebow. so, we have this problem in our culture. so when the people in chattanooga decided we are going to fight against the culture and do it as a community, and they lowered all three of the rates by 25% in the first three years. it can happen. we can do this. and it is not against anybody. it is for something that we know it is good. respecting everybody in their right to live their lives but understanding that there are intrinsic good and body and institutions that have been in existence for a long time and we should not nest with what is true and right and has been in existence since the beginning of humankind. [applause]

>> is tim tebow a hero? [applause] >> hesitated because he beat the pittsburgh steelers. [applause] sort of a sensitive subject right now. >> i was for him yesterday. did not work out too well. >> so, in a way you work for him before you were against them. i want to ask you about how the wood. -- about hollywood. i have known you for sometimes and i know you are very concerned about the cultural influence not just economic. what message would you send to the moms about hollywood. >> it is funny, after i left the senate people said he spent your life in politics. i did -- we got married and got into politics right away and was in public life from a timeout was 32 years old.

i practiced law before that. but 32-48 -- i left politics when i was 48. after that, i got involved with a little company because i was very concerned during my time growing up, in a sense, growing up as a father in politics and sing the impact of the popular culture on our children. we took measures by putting all the parental controls in and not sending our kids to a movie unless we saw the movie first. we did everything we could but you cannot avoid it. you are watching a good show and then there are commercials which are x-rated commercials and you are constantly sang "turn your head away." "hit the zapper." what should parents have to fight to protect their children from what comes into their house? if somebody came to your door like that who was showing themselves the way they are showing, you would call the police. and yet television feels they have the right to go in there and show you these things.

and mold the moral imagination of their true -- your children. a friend of mine was involved in a start of business that was going to try to provide a technology to help parents manage the television from the standpoint of what their children were being exposed to. it was a little company i and of working for, the number two guy at the program, the business, for three years. we ended up having to go out for money to launch our product in the fall of 2008, which is when everything crashed. so, timing is everything, my friends. it did not turn out very well. we hung on for as long as we could. here is what i found. i found as we did demonstrations of the product and did focus groups with parents, there was wide acceptance because it was a matter of basically here is a tool for you. it is neutral from the standpoint of what you do with

it. and it really gives parents choices. we are not saying this is good or bad -- this is good, this is bad, but here it is. it gave you control. to that extent, a lot of people were very excited about it. and so, that was exciting. what i did find that also is that the cable industry and the entertainment industry wanted nothing to do with it and ran away from it as fast as they could. they will do the minimum. they will do the minimum to show that the "care" about giving parents parental control but they really do not want to and they certainly do not want to charge anybody for it or create a service parents would have to pay for because it takes away from their own revenue. they are interested in purveying what ever you want to see and they did not really care what you see. to me, that was chilling. something interesting i found out. look, this is a great product and you parents who are desperately wanting something that could help them manage it,

so when the six-year old or eight year old or 10-year-old are watching what you are making dinner, they did not have to worry about not just what is on the show but on the commercials they are watching. they were very start with me and they said, look -- only 31% of our subscribers had kids under the home -- in a home under 18. not a big market. you know who uses cable? single males. and we do not want to touch this thing. there you have it. this cold business decision. not what we can do to help form and give parents the ability to be able to raise their children in ways that is consistent with their values, but we have an entertainment industry -- whether it is internet or television or movies -- who, in many respects, have been on the agenda. number one is money.

but it is also pushing the envelope because that is what they continue to do to try to get new, young eyes, to push the envelope. as we see it pushing the envelope, our culture is degraded further and further. >> and question from my mom now. >> my name is christine, and i want you to know i have a whole bunch of moms following my experience today, because i will be writing about f it in about forums on cafe mom. my husband and i are in the process of trying to sell our home but in the current market is proving to be a very difficult task. i was wondering what you and your administration would do to try to repair the damage that has been done to the housing market? >> i did that question quite a bit, and i have, at least in my own mind, somewhat of an unsatisfactory answer. that. the housing market had a boom and had a huge bubble and it

burst. what we saw is what happens in the housing front and basically the financial services front, which of the government injected itself through fannie and freddie and other ways to try to soften the blow. and in softening the blow, as we have seen in the financial markets, we have for long but the pain. and we have stretched out of this situation for a longer and longer time. and we still have not reached the point where we have, in a sense, hit bottom and can accurately and fairly priced everything -- all of the bad loans have been gone, swept out, and we can reestablish real value of the house or housing or grow from there. we are still carrying these mortgages along with us because we have a government that does not want to recognize the pain, as we did with respect to the financial services sector. i believe in letting markets work.

and sometimes it is like taking the band-aid off. for me, my arms are a little hairy so when you take the bandit off, you do not want to take off slowly because it really hurts. so, you take on real quick and it hurts for a second but then it goes away. in some respects, that is what we have to do with the housing market. we've got to find the bottom. we've got to let the market work. we have to let the folks, whether they end up speculating and losing money or it simply bought their house at the wrong time, people have to go through the pain of recognizing that laws and moving on. and if we don't do that, then we will have a malaise in the housing market which will continue to drag down our economy for a long time. for me, it is quit trying to apply more band-aids and just pull them off, let the market work and let us start over and build a stronger housing industry.

[applause] >> i think you just broke the news about the hairy arms. [laughter] i now understand the sleeveless vest. >> they had to shorten the microphone for me. thank you for being here today. a real excited to meet you guys. my name is becky and i am from camden, south carolina. i want to go back to the subjects about you all home school. we are one of those families who home schools our children. and many families are turning to home schooling their children to give their children a better education than what they feel is out there. you all obviously support homeschooling. i am wondering what steps would you take to defend the rights of parents to direct their children's education with no

fear of governmental intervention? >> i guess i will take it. my feeling is -- and i say this in all of my speech is where i talk about education. we should have an education system that serves the customer of the education system. and the customer of the education system is the parents, because it is the parents' responsibility to educate your children. we have been conditioned by a sect -- society that believes by serenaded is no longer in your responsibility. you can drop your kids off at a public or bring private school and it is somebody else's job to do this. but of course, it is not true. there are still your children and you have the responsibility of making sure that they are provided for in every way. whether it is food or transportation. education is a big part.

you educate your children from the moment they are born -- you teach them their abcs, everything. it does not stop because you have somebody helping you. you need to be, i think, reminded, as we were, that if parents do not engage, then you are turned -- turning over your child to being raised by people who may or may not share your values, may not do what you believe is in the best interest of your children. of course, why would be do that? other than you have to because you have no choice. this is the first -- frustration of a lot of parents. they feel like they did not have any choice. we have an education that focuses on the education system. they did not focus on your child. they talk about "children." i understand we have a children -- have a system that need to educate all children.

but we have businesses in america, large ones, that provide services to millions, probably more people than the education system those children. yet, they have a motto in every business -- who comes first? the customer. it is not true in the education system in the country. i of the system comes first, employees come first, and it is certainly not the parents did. it is certainly not the parents and what we can do to work with parents so they can get, for their children, what they believe their children need to be successful. not as a society necessarily sees successful. because you know what -- let's look at no child left behind. yes, i know i voted for but i would repeal of i have the chance, which i hope to if i get elected president. [applause] but society said what is really important is academics. what is really important is academic accomplishment.

but what if you are a parent who believes that, yes, academics are important but i want my child to be raised with a deep, rich state, or i want my faith,in -- a deep, rich fac or i want my child to be good and virtuous, that is more important to me than how well they do in a particular subject? maybe those things are more highly valued by the parents. and why not? you said before that the three things you have to do to be successful is work. that is a value parents want to instill. it was instilled in me. a very important part is a set of values -- hard work, honesty, integrity. all of those things. how many people were hired a hard worker who has enteric -- integrity and honesty and loyalty and maybe a c student, or d. 1 d a student who does not -- or do you want the student who does not have any of those values? so why are we just focused on the a?

why do we have an education system that cannot provide parents with an environment that focuses on the things we know will lead to success in america, and it is not just academic achievement? but that is what the entire education system is focused on. and it is not focused on what is best for mom and dad and for the family. it is broken. it -- people say, what can you do at the federal level? not much, to be honest. what we can do is, and i said, repeal "no child left behind" and the federal government out of the way of education. maybe you have seen a little of this today -- i believe in getting up and telling people what i think. sometimes it gets people man, -- sometimes it gets people mad, but you know would also get to them doing? talking. i think it is important we have national discussions of what we really want our country to be. and to talk about important things. to talk about a real fundamental reform of our education system and empowering parents to start -- i hate to use the term resolute -- revolution, but maybe that is what it needs. parents need to unite and say

we are not going to take this anymore. we are not going to be told what our children are going to do and how they are going to do it. we demand for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in the education system, that you give us an education system that meets the needs of me as parents and what is best for the children. yet others say we know better what is best for your child. i remember this debate a few years ago -- you may remember, ira magaziner who designed the clinton health care plan in the mid-1990s, he was on "meet the press" what phil gramm and there were going back and forth about the clinton health-care plan and who cares for this and how good this is where your kids, whatever. he finally got frustrated and said i care for your children as much as you do, phil. and he looked at him and said you care for my children as much as i do? he said, yes. and he asked, what are their names?

you know your children's names, right? you know what they want. as much as washington says they care, they don't, because they don't know your kids. they don't know all the special things. we have seven children. they are all different. they learn differently. they need different things. why don't we trust parents enough? will some parents fail? yes, unfortunately they will. the government have to pick up the pieces and help? yes, they will. but why do we deny parents who love and want what is best for their children the opportunity to do that? why would a government specifically say to those who are responsible -- think of this city for those who are responsible, no, you are not going to have freedom, you will not get what you want because we have to have a system that treats everybody the same? it is not america, folks. >> you will be debating tonight. one less opponent. you did quite well in iowa and

not as well in new hampshire. >> we did well in new hampshire given what we were up against. we finished fourth and spent no money. [applause] we spent no money. everybody else spend millions. we spent nothing. we were at two points a week before the primary and ended up finishing fourth place. ahead of the other two conservatives and the rage, gingrich and perry -- who spent millions. so i think we did exceptionally well. >> certifying the race -- rick might have one iowa. >> we will know in the next 24 hours what the results were and it is an open question. a lot of folks have been shifting around there. this may be a different environment, saturday than what people think. >> out of the three conservatives -- ron paul has

the libertarian race, mitt romney has the establishment vote -- how does one of you emerge when there is still a newt gingrich and rick perry? >> for some reason the press wants to declare this race over as soon as it can and certainly the republican establishment. they are all lining up saying if one of these guys does not win in south carolina -- mitt romney tied in iowa, having campaigned there for six years and spend millions of dollars, and i spent $30,000 on television in iowa. first place in new hampshire where he has lived for the last six years. spent enormous money and hired anybody who is anybody to work for him. and 53% of the people voted in new hampshire were not republicans. how many people know that? >> surprising, isn't it? >> the press does not tell you. in only 47% of the folks who voted in new hampshire were republicans.

sure, he did great. but they are not the people in my opinion who should be decided with the republican nominee is for president. [applause] and so, all of a sudden, now he is the guy. and of course, it has an impact on south carolina. why? because people watching tv saying he is the guy. if you want to be with the winner. if there is one thing that i have noticed it -- two things i have noticed running for president. first, it is possible for someone with no money who goes out and has good ideas and can go out there and willing to work and put the shoe leather grand, to come out of the pack and do something. we have been blessed that we have that opportunity to prove it again, that america is a pretty great country and this is a pretty great political system that someone who literally has spent virtually nothing and was just willing to work hard and

get their ideas out and still actually be in the race for president of the united states. it should be an encouragement to everybody. that there still is a way, there still is a path. but it gets harder when the people who have the resources are the ones who are sort of saying, well, let's just ignore this and focus on who is the guy who had the money. money does not win elections. ideas, a character, integrity -- integrity, vision, that wins elections. [applause] >> rick has got an important endorsements from social conservatives. i am starting to read that south carolinian is starting to say they think that may be on your -- they think that god may be on your side. is god on your side?

>> hopefully he is on all of our sides. [applause] we all need god our sides. we pray for everybody in this race because we know how difficult it is. this is something we have been doing for years in our family. we always pray for opponents -- republican, democrat, whatever -- because when a hard it is. it is brutal. it is really tough on families. the time away. the things that are said. the nastiness. the vast majority of the people are wonderful, but cut -- but you run into people who are not so nice at times and they can make it may be not so much fun. particularly with your kids and what they have to go through some times with the charges and the assaults. >> the endorsement -- an important point to make. >> my campaign manager here. [laughter]

>> go ahead. >> really unprecedented that these folks got together. i talked to several people who were on their way down and everybody thought it was sort of a waste of time, because you put a bunch of christians together and they cannot agree on anything, right? so, the fact that here they are and they came up with a very broad consensus, like 75% of the folks decided to come out and say they are going to support this and sort of give an endorsement and several people since have come out. i think it showed how important this race is for conservatives. we believe we have to win this race by having a mandate for the kind of change that is necessary to restore our constitutional principles back and get this kind of bottom-up solutions to problems that made america great -- believing in free people, free-market, faith, family, and freedom. and if we did not do that the digging -- i talk about back in

1980 we were going through a similar collection with jimmy -- election with jimmy carter and economic malaise and stagflation and disrespect around the world, and experts came down here to south carolina and told south carolinian they had to vote for somebody who could win because it was so bad, they just needed to win an all somebody should care about is winning and they promote somebody called george h. w. bush. and the other choice was a guy named ronald reagan. everybody goes back and looks at reagan -- ronald reagan. when he came to soccer line he was not carolina he wa ronald reagan. he was just the governor of california, former governor. he is the right and we know now. -- he is not the reagan that we all know now. but south carolina saw in front of reagan someone who could be that person. and was willing to buck the

experts and the pundits and vote for what america needed. and as a result, it made all the difference. that is what i have been encouraging south carolinian is to do. this is a state that has strong american values, conservative principles, and all i ask you to do is vote your conscience, vote those principles. america needs that voice. if they are not going to get it from here, where else would they get it from? do not be afraid to go out and do what you believe is right and do not worry about differing your judgment to political pros who did not care about the issues you care about. >> i say vote for my husband -- [laughter] [applause] >> senator, i think this audience could sit and asking questions all day but unfortunately we are out of time. we appreciate you coming and talking to us today. thank you. [applause] >> you can get your rick

santorum sweater vest. so beautifully modeling it. you can go on the web site. we also have hunting vests that have the logo on the front and back, the right to bear arms. [laughter]

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

[unintelligible conversations]

whe

>> you can to the latest video of the presidential candidates and president obama on the campaign trail online at c- span.org/campaign2012.

you can also see their views on the economy, the deficit, national security, and immigration. c-span's road to the white house coverage continues as coverage is in south carolina. the primary there is this saturday, with the florida primary 10 days later. in early february, there are caucuses in nevada and maine. following events c-span.org on our web siong/campaign -- on our website c-span.org/campaign in2012. >> i believe is important to emphasize that while it is great to have this memorial to his memory, and it is great to have a national holiday, and it is great to have streets and schools and hospitals named in his honor all over our nation and world, it is also important to not place too much emphasis on martin luther king, the idle

and not enough -- the idol and not enough emphasis on the ideals of martin luther king jr. >> search, watch, click and share, what you want and when you want. >> in a few moments, supreme court argument in a court case concerning redistricting lines in texas. and jon huntsman announces his withdrawal from the presidential campaign. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow in south carolina. gop presidential candidates governor rick perry is hosting a town hall meeting on the coast just south of myrtle beach. that is at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

here on c-span, live from west columbia with newt gingrich, the former speaker of the house. >> a quick reminder, the deadline as soon for c-span video cam -- studentcam competition. there is a grand prize of $5,000, and $50,000 in total prices. get your five-eight minute documentary to c-span by january 20. for details, go online to c- span.org. >> up next, supreme court arguments in a case judging redistricting ninth drawn in texas. last year, it plan was approved the democrats argue disenfranchised minority voters. because texas is one of 16 states that after a federal approval before changing voting laws, a district court was set to hear the case.

in the meantime, another court jury did -- and in dramatic and the supreme court heard the challenge. this is a little more than an hour. >> we will hear argument in the case 11713, perry verses peres, and the consolidated cases. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the judicial maps and he is drawn here are truly remarkable. the court repeatedly invoked the principle that these were only interim maps and not remedial maps. but that obscures the reality that a court has the authority to draw on the election map, surely one of the most powerful tools in the traditional arsenal, only if there are constitutional violations.

>> section 5 says you cannot draw new maps and less they have been previously. all you have is old maps and you get the clearance. i do not see how we can give deference to enacted new mapping is section 5 says do not give it a fact until it has been pre-cleared. prouts obviously, section 5 is clear that the new map -- a new maps drawn by the texas legislature cannot take effect by their own force. that does not answer the question of whether a judge, when having to impose a remedial math to address what all concede is a one-person, one-vote problem can look to the new maps, which is also the same one-person, one-vote problem.

>> you are asking for deference, more than guidance. you are saying that they have to start with the new map, even though that has not been approved. >> that is right, your honor. >> the starting, as the court below did, with the old enough that had been approved. >> right, in all fairness, we are asking it to be used as the starting point for trying the new math. >> but isn't that turning section 5 on its head? >> i do not think so, your honor, for a number of reasons. one is, the obligation to go to the attorney general remains fully in place. the only question is, "what is going -- what is going to inform the district court in texas and to exercise the authority to remedy the one vote, one person plan with the benchmark vote. this court has emphasized the need in previous cases to look for legislative guidance in order to inform the judicial

exercise of solving the reapportionment problem. and the need to look to new maps is most important with the congressional maps. the benchmark is a fine map, but it is a map for 32 seats. and congress and the legislature of texas has spoken as to how it would like to divide the new 36- seat allocation up. it seems to be quite odd that the accord would ignore that judgment when it could look to that as the starting point. >> it did not ignore it. it took into account along with other plans. mr. clement, suppose the d.c. -- that has exclusive authority over a creek-clarence denies pre clarence and -- over pre- clearance denies pre-clearance? and then the three-judge

district court says these plans do not need section 5 requirement, we deny pre- clearance. what happens if we do not use the texas plan, that has been pre-clear, as the interim plan? >> i suppose at that point, apelles at that would go to the court in texas would say, you need to revise your intra maps once again. i think since your premise for the court during its interim maps is that time is of the essence and it cannot wait any lauber, a texas court may decide that motion or grant the motion. i do not have a crystal ball to take that into account. the d.c. suppose that court does deny pre-clearance. at that point, it is common ground that the legislatively

and active cannot -- legislatively in active plan would have to be something that the texas court referred to. >> that was a plan -- and there were two contiguous districts. there was a problem with them. the attorney general said the rest of it was ok. here, the entire plan -- the plants are opposed. >> justice ginsburg, it is true that the justice department does raise objection to the entire plant as a whole. it seems to me quite likely -- obviously, our position is that the d.c. court is most likely to grant pre-clearance. but if there were to deny it, then it would be clear that the texas court would give deference

to the legislative plan. you give less deference to a plan one pre-clearance is pending than when it is denied. >> can i ask a question about timing? let's suppose the district court in washington move expeditiously and issues a decision in mid february. are there insuperable problems with postponing the texas primary house about the plan that is to be used does not have to be formulated until after this record in washington has ruled? texas has a very early primary. some states have congressional races in the fall. and the latest presidential primary, i think, is in the month of june. when that eliminate a lot of the problems that we are grappling with in this case? >> two answers. one, as a practical matter, all

of the affected entities in texas have gotten together and they have agreed upon the moving of the primary back to april on the assumption that a map could be in place by february 1. the primary has been moved from march to april already. i cannot tell you that it is impossible to move again. but the question becomes -- i mean, texas has made its own determination that it wants to have a relatively early primary. it has had that in place and -- since at least 1988. how much do you want to interfere with that judgment? >> it is either the plan that is an act of the texas legislature or the plan drawn up by the court, yes, that could be presumably resolved pretty quickly. but what if need your of those as fully acceptable? -- what if neither of those is fully acceptable?

plan thatou want a had been previously agreed upon? would texas entertain the possibility of moving the primary back? >> if texas wants the court to have the opportunity to get this right, we think the decision below is profoundly wrong we think is important for this court to send a clear signal to the courts that would provide direction not just in this case, but future cases. >> assuming that the three- judge district court of columbia in the proceedings of pre- clearance to find a problem with two or three of the district'ds. does it then give guidance if the pre clarence were made? does it give you a road map?

>> well, i don't think there is a road map for the extent to which they give a road map. i think there are two things that are crystal clear. one is that when the d.c. authority, be it the attorney general or the court denies preclearance, it denies preclearance. the plan is not precleared. there is no such thing as preclearance in part or partial preclearance. as the justice department puts it, it doesn't work like a line item veto. now, that's not to say -- and here's the second point. that's not to say that the court doesn't provide reasoning for its decision or the attorney general. and that's why in upham, for example, that the court -- this court knew that the objections were to two particular districts, even though the effect in upham was to not preclear the whole plan. and it seems to me the mistake of the district court is it effectively treats the unprecleared plan as a nullity. and that's the exact word that judge johnson used in the lower court opinion in upham.

and this court reversed and it said -- no, you don't ignore that, but on the other hand, what you do is you take into account the judgment of the attorney general in that case, but other than that, you take the plan into account notwithstanding the fact that it hasn't been precleared. >> but we've said over and over, mr. clement, that it's the attorney general and the district court in d.c. that has exclusive jurisdiction over this set of questions and that we don't want courts in other parts of the country to try to mimic what those -- what that court and the attorney general are supposed to do. and you are essentially asking for the district court in the state of texas to try to predict what they are going to do and to mimic what they are going to do. and that's why justice alito suggests, well, look, if we said that only the district court in d.c. and the attorney general should do this, let's wait until they do it and go from there. >> well, justice kagan, here's why we are not asking the regional court to mimic the d.c. court's function. we are asking it to perform correctly the one -- one of the roles that this court has always made clear the regional court retains.

and that's to provide temporary relief. if you look at this court's decisions that essentially warn off a regional court from arrogating to itself the final preclearance decision -- i'm thinking, for example, of connor against waller -- those same decisions say, but this is not with prejudice to your ability to provide temporary relief. now, our position is quite simple. if we are in a situation where the regional court has to provide temporary relief, then it should apply the same standards that always apply everywhere to courts issuing temporary relief. >> but you are not taking into account the fact that, as justice sotomayor said, section 5 itself operates as an injunction. and it's an injunction against the use of an unprecleared plan. >> justice kagan, i think we are taking that into account. i mean -- and i think that's at the heart of what's going on here. you have to ask yourself the

question -- what is the remedy that the texas court in this case was trying -- what is the violation, rather, that the texas court was trying to remedy. the appellees proceed and i think your question proceeds on the assumption as if the violation is a section 5 violation. but that's not what motivated the court's opinion, and you can -- i mean, look at page 96 of the joint appendix, where the court specifically says -- look, texas has always been cleared. they need to get preclearance. so this is not about enjoining them from implementing the plan. the constitutional violation that is being remedied here and the only thing that gave the texas court any authority is the one person, one vote violation with the old plans. >> that's what they said they are doing. i mean, i count eight times in the house plan, the state house plan, and several times in the senate plan where it's clear and i think it's fairly clear in the u.s. house plan, they say things like -- "the court began by considering the uncontested districts from the enacted plan that embraced neutral districting principles, although it wasn't required to give any deference. " and you say they are wrong about that. "the court attempted to embrace as many of the uncontested districts as possible. "

so after i got finished reading their opinions i thought, well, there may be a difference between what you say and they say, but i'm not sure that there is a difference that is reflected in the maps. and so it's now january 9th. we have to have something in effect by february 1st. they said that they are paying attention to what the legislature did and when i looked at the maps, as far as i can tell, they include some more, some less, most in the state senate, but they include a lot of the state's changes. so what am i supposed to do? i mean, i can't tell whether you are right or wrong without looking district by district by district by district. what am i supposed to do on january 9th? >> well, i think on january 9th, justice breyer, you should take another look at el paso county. because i think if you look at el paso county-- >> in which -- in which-- >> in either the congressional map or the house map. i think if you look at el paso county what you cannot conclude is that all -- 14--

>> what district is that? >> what's that? >> what district is that? >> well, it depends. if we are looking at the congressional map, i believe it's district 16 or 17. and those maps start on page 1. >> okay. el paso county in the original plan i guess was all like number 16. i've got it in front of me. and they split it, and it was split somewhat differently or not. okay. then what else? >> well, i mean, i think you are understating it. i mean, on the benchmark plan-- >> no, no, right. >> there is a whole straight line. on the enacted plan it was a different straight line. >> correct. >> and in the-- >> all right. so right now, why is that wrong? why is that wrong? tell me why it's wrong for them to do that? >> i want to say two reasons why it's wrong, but first i think that really does answer your premise, which is that all the court was doing was remedying one person, one vote. >> no, no, i didn't say that. i said in their way of thinking they are taking the map into account. now, to sit -- the enacted one. if i disagree with that, i can't disagree at the level of principle, i have to disagree at the level of particular

districts. that's why i asked you the question. so you point to district 16 and i say, very well, tell me what they did wrong, and why? because, remember, they are facing a challenge that's based on section 5, part purpose. and the district court there said in the d.c. -- you don't survive -- i can't give you a summary judgment on that, purpose here may have been violated. all right, now you tell me what's wrong with district 16, which i guess is your strongest case? that would be helpful. >> no, what i'm -- i'm not saying it's my strongest case. i'm saying it's illustrative of the problem. another thing that's illustrative of the problem-- >> but what's was the problem? >> tell me what's the problem? >> the problem is that the court lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. it was supposed to be-- >> what you said they were doing.

they couldn't have lost sight at the level of generality, because at the level of generality they said -- we are trying to take into account the map. i'm just repeating myself. i want to know what is wrong with the drawing of district 16, what they did, given that there is a section 5 challenge based on purpose? >> and what's wrong with it is because they neither started with the old benchmark plan and said we are going to solve the one person, one vote problem, nor did they start with the new legislative plan and say is there some violation that allows us to change that plan. they instead, as they told you said that they were on their own drawing an independent map. >> i'm sorry. that's incomplete. >> you can finish, finish your answer, please, mr. clement. >> what i was hoping to say is that they -- they told you they were drawing an independent map, and what they told you is that they thought that they were under an affirmative obligation not to defer to the legislative enactment because it hadn't been precleared. and the oddity of this -- i mean look, you're right. in certain places, they then turn around and say -- but we deferred where we could. but the oddity of their

position is their first premise, which is the one thing we can't do in drawing these maps, is look at that -- look at that unprecleared map. there's no explanation for why, if that premise was right, why would it be even a good thing that were pointing to the other map. >> counsel, i'm not sure how i understand that, okay? as i looked at one of the el paso maps, the enacted map created a antler-type district, a head and two unconnected antlers on top, nothing tying them together. the district court went back to the benchmark and said -- this is the benchmark district, now i'm going to draw the districts around it that fall naturally, trying to stay within neutral principles of not dividing up the city more than i have to, and it came out with another

district. i don't understand what principle, what legal principle, the district court was violating that makes what it did with that particular county wrong. you're saying they should have given deference to an oddly- shaped district that changed a prior benchmark that's been challenged as having been created specifically to minimize the latino vote. all of the challenges that relate to el paso are very significant. the district court has already denied summary judgment on that. tell me what legal principle they violated, other than the deference principle that you're relying upon? >> the basic principle they violated is they drew an interim order that they thought wasn't a remedial order without it being based on any finding

of substantial likelihood of a violation. >> that's your-- >> you may be right. you may be right. there may be a problem with those maps in el paso. i don't think so, and i would like to talk about that. but if the district court had said, you know, there's a problem with this because the two antler -- the deer with two antlers, that violates -- that's a substantial likelihood of violating the constitution. we're going to remedy that. if that's what they did, this would be a very different case. now, i do want to talk about the deer with two antlers, because what that ignores is that in the benchmark plan, the deer had one antler and an antenna.

and so the district court -- the map the district court drew doesn't look anything like the benchmark, and actually the map that the legislature drew looks very much like the benchmark. and so i think that just shows that what was going on here by the district court was something very different from either remedying a one-person, one-vote problem with the benchmark or from correcting specific identified problems with the legislative-- >> i -- i had thought, mr. clement, that -- that one of your objections was that in deciding whether they're using the benchmark or -- or the -- the legislature's proposed new plan, whichever one they're using, they -- in drawing up their own plan, they assumed the validity of all of the challenges. is -- is that not the case? >> well, that is the case, your honor, and that is one of the many problems with the way that the court proceeded here. because once you lose sight of the fact that, look, we only have remedial authority if we're remedying substantial likelihood of violations that are identifiable and particular, well, then what are you going to do? what this district court did,

after he started where justice breyer suggested, is that the district court judges then said -- look, we want to avoid the challenges that are brought by the plaintiffs. and what they mean by "avoid" is they basically take all the allegations at face value and then redraw-- >> but you don't have any problem, if i'm a district judge and i think there is a substantial likelihood that a particular challenge would succeed, you don't have any problem with my drawing an interim plan to avoid that likelihood. >> absolutely no problem at all, justice kennedy. and the great thing about that is that gives the district court a familiar role to play applying familiar standards, and it gives this court something to review. >> but the district court in that -- in that scenario is projecting what the d.c. court that has exclusive authority is going to do. and that's why i find your -- your position troublesome. you're asking one court to make its best guess at what another court is likely to do, and that other court has exclusive

jurisdiction. >> can i respond to that, justice ginsburg, as follows, which is, i had assumed that justice kennedy's question was not specific to section 5 and could just as well be a section 2 problem-- >> section 2. >> or an equal protection under the constitution problem. and in this case, there is no problem. all the court is doing is making a substantial likelihood determination of an issue that it's ultimately going to confront. >> but haven't we also said that, with respect to section 2 and constitutional violations, that those allegations would be unripe in the -- prior to the district court or the attorney general clearing a plan? >> absolutely, justice kagan. but i think it's important to understand that to the extent that the district court in this remedial phase should take section 5 into account, it's just in considering whether or not the remedial plan is consistent with section 5 principles. and that's what the judges did in this case with respect to their own plan. so we're not i'm asking them to do something with section 5 that they otherwise wouldn't do. and again, i think if you come back to the particular question of what are they trying to remedy, they are trying to remedy the one person, one vote problem. so if that's what they're trying to remedy, why wouldn't they take into account the

legislative policy judgments reflected in the unprecleared plan if that's -- if that's the state we're in, if that's the snapshot we're in. keep in mind, this court has throughout-- >> well, just because section 5 says that there's no presumption of regularity attached to that plan, and indeed, that it's unlawful to put that plan into effect without the proper approvals. >> two things, justice kagan. one, i would beg to differ that what section 5 says is that there's no presumption of regularity. and i think that's -- it's not just a quibble. because i think if what section 5 says is that there's no presumption of regularity, or no presumption of good faith, then section 5 i think is closer to the constitutional edge than this court said in northwest austin. i think all it says-- >> section 5 says somebody has to clear it before it can go into effect. >> absolutely. but i don't think that means that the assumption is that the legislature didn't act in good faith in enacting the provision. and that brings me to my second

point-- >> nobody said the opposite. the question just is, does somebody have to clear it? here, it wasn't clear. >> okay. i agree, but then the question is, if there's not a presumption of bad faith, then why wouldn't the court take that legislative judgment into account in drawing its remedy for the one person, one vote violation in the remedial district? if i could add my second point, which is the other thing to keep in mind is the preclearance obligation is not driven by congressional judgment that these covered jurisdictions are particularly bad at remedying one person, one vote problems. obviously, section 5 is driven by concerns about racial discrimination. so in that sense it's particularly odd, given that what's at issue here is a remedy for a one person, one vote problem that you would assume that you're not going to take into account the legislature's judgment as reflected in an unprecleared claim. >> no, i don't think-- >> counsel, i think there's -- i see two different problems and i'm not quite sure how they come out. one, you cannot assume that the legislature's plan should be treated as if it were precleared. the district court in texas

cannot assume or presume what the district court here in d.c. is going to do. but on the other hand, it can't presume it the other way. in other words, it can't draw its interim plan assuming that there are going to be these section 5 violations, because that's presuming what the court's going to do the other way. so how do we decide between those two -- you have two wrong choices. how do we end up? >> well, i think you try to split the difference by trying to apply the preliminary injunction standards. and i think if you do that, then what you're going to do is that you're going to ensure that the remedy that the district court draws for -- as an interim matter for the one person, one vote problem, which is not the same thing as preclearance, that remedy is both consistent with the legislative policy judgments, but also with section 2, with the equal protection clause. and i suppose if this court wants to, it can say that for purposes of interim temporary relief, the court can look at section 5 directly.

i would think the better answer is, no, you just focus it on section 2, the equal protection clause, and then you ensure that the judicial plan is consistent with section 5 principles, because that's the test that the court's going to apply in any event. >> can you -- can you tell me with reference to the two districts, other than the senate district, congressional and state house districts, did judge smith defer or use these -- the texas legislature's 2011 plan as a benchmark to some extent? >> i -- i don't think judge smith -- if i can answer your question, i think this does -- i don't think judge smith did this the way that we think he should or focused on the benchmark. if you look at the congressional plan, what he did is he just basically picked one of the proposals, that was a bipartisan proposal, the so- called c216. with respect to the house plan, i think he got it -- the texas house plan -- i think he got it closer to right. but i don't think he applied the right standard. and i would ask you to look at joint appendix 193, and

particularly his consideration of house district 33. because there, what judge smith did is said, well, you know, there's these allegations, and i find this -- he said the state has persuasive responses, but out of an abundance of caution i am going to redraw the districts. that doesn't seem quite right. i mean, if the state really does have persuasive responses, that ought to be enough to not redraw the districts. >> so you would fault his solution for giving insufficient deference to the state of texas 2011 plan? >> that's right, but it's certainly a fair improvement over what the district court majority did. if i could reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. clement. mr. srinivasan. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- the fundamental flaw with texas's approach is that it directly inverts the burden established by the voting rights act. section 5 places the burden on a covered jurisdiction to show that a proposed voting change is nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect, and the change can't go into effect unless and until the state carries its burden in

that regard. >> let me ask you this. suppose that this -- all the facts are the same except that this is in a state that is not subject to section 5. would there be a problem in your view with what the district, with what the district court did, with judge smith -- with what judge smith did? >> well, with what judge smith did, i guess in that context, justice kennedy, there wouldn't be a section 5 issue at all. >> right. alderson reporting company-- >> all you would be dealing with is section 2 or the equal protection clause. >> and then we could use -- then there would be no problem with using texas as a benchmark, the texas 2011 as benchmark, as a starting point, as a starting point? >> well, i guess what i would say is this, that in the malapportionment context what this court typically has said the district court should do is to start with a plan that is already in effect and then modify it according to neutral districting principles to

remove the malapportionment issue. >> what are neutral districting principles? anybody who draws a map faces at the outset certain legal constraints, constitutional constraints, restrictions that are imposed by the voting rights act, maybe some state law restrictions to the extent they are not inconsistent with federal law. once you have gotten beyond that point, all you have left is districting policy. they are policy choices and there are many factors that can be taken into account in drawing a map -- how compact you want the districts to be, to what extent are you going to respect zones of economic interest, to what extent are you going to try to preserve old districts, what about incumbents, what about party registration? are you going to try to have balance or are you going to try to favor one party or the other? that's all -- those are all questions of policy. and the question is who makes those policy decisions? are they going to be the policy decisions that were made by the legislature, or are they going to be the policy decisions made by the district court? and to say they are going to apply neutral districting

principles is a subterfuge. there is no such thing. >> i guess i would disagree with you, justice alito. i want to make two preliminary observations on what a district court is supposed to do in this regard, and then i'll try to walk through the principles that should guide this inquiry. the first preliminary observation is what a district court is not supposed to do, and what a district court is not supposed to do is to take the unprecleared plan as a given, because section 5 forecloses it. now, what's a district court supposed to do? it's not at sea, contrary to the underpinning of some of the arguments made today, because the district court starts with the last legally enforceable plan, which after all is the last manifestation of state policies and priorities. so you have that as a starting point. and then it has to modify that plan, of course, to deal with malapportionment issues and to comply with section 2 and section 5-- >> i don't want to interrupt you too much, but even if you do that, even if you start with the old plan and then you modify it to the extent necessary to comply with constitution and statutes, there are still -- i'm sure our computer could shoot out dozens and dozens of possible maps, and somebody has

to choose among them. now what criteria does a district judge, does a district court use in making that choice? >> there is discretion in the inquiry, justice alito. i am not going to -- i'm not going to disagree with that. what it looks to is the districting criteria that had been applied by this jurisdiction in the past. for example, in this case-- >> it's not just discretion. it's political discretion. that's what's troublesome about it. it seems to me the government takes an absolutist approach to the proposition that you cannot use an unprecleared plan for any purpose. all the law says is that you cannot apply a precleared plan. the plan being applied here is not the texas legislature's plan, it's the plan -- a remedial plan adopted by federal judges. and to say that they cannot use in drawing up that plan the legislature's last political decisions seems to me not required by the mere prohibition against implementing that plan as the plan of the legislature. what would you do if -- if the district court in washington and the district court in texas, neither one of them acts in

time, and it's too late? it's too late to have any -- any primaries anymore? what would happen? >> well, i guess-- >> what would happen? you can't use the old plan. you have an absolute rule against using the new plan. what happens? you disenfranchise every voter in texas-- >> no, i don't think you should do that. >> because there may be some voters in texas, may be, some who will be prejudiced by using the current plan? i suggest in that situation there is nothing to do but use the texas plan. >> well, i don't -- not in the context of section 5, your honor. that's one option, but the other option would be to use a malapportioned plan, which this court has suggested would be something the courts could do. now, that is not a preferred option, to be sure.

but we are not in that situation here, because what you have is interim maps that have been developed. we are not in the kind of emergency situation that you are positing. >> you acknowledge that there are some situations in which you can use the very plan that the texas legislature adopted, even though it's not been precleared? >> only if there is no time for the district court to adopt a different plan. but if -- >> so it's no longer an absolute rule. so the question is whether this is another reasonable exception to a non-absolute rule. >> there is an emergency exception, as there is with all sorts of legal rules. but that's so far as we would go. now, i would like to address the proposition that suggestions what the court would be doing here under texas's view is just a standard application of substantial likelihood of success principles, because it's not. it's decidedly different from standard operation of substantial likelihood of success principles in three fundamental respects. the first goes to the burden, justice kennedy, and i think you alluded to this in your

question. the burden in a preliminary injunction context stays with the same party at the preliminary injunction stage as at the merits stage. and so when in a preliminary injunction context the court is asking, has there been a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the same party has to make that showing as has to make that showing at the merits stage. here texas would turn that upside down, because at the merits stage, which is the preclearance proceeding-- >> well, would it be okay if we just said, well, texas has to make the showing? >> that would certainly be better. i think that would improve things quite a bit. but that's not what texas -- the approach that texas proposes today. but it's different in two other respects from a standard preliminary injunction context as well. and one is what justice ginsburg alluded to, which is here you don't have a situation in which the same court that's going to forecast its ultimate adjudication of the merits is also deciding what it's going to do at the preliminary injunction stage. >> well, that's exactly right, but you see it only on one side of the problem.

you say, well, you can't treat it as if it's being pre-cleared because that would be prejudging what the court is doing in d.c. but you have no trouble with them saying, assuming that there are going to be these section 5 violations, in drawing additional majority- minority districts, which is just assuming in the other way what the court here in d.c. is going to do. i don't know how you lean one way and say, it's horrible, you can't use it because it hasn't been precleared, but it's all right in drawing the interim plan to treat it as if preclearance has been denied. >> i don't know about that, because i think what a district court is supposed to do when preclearance is pending is not accept all the challenges. what it is supposed to do is to apply traditional districting criteria to the benchmark. so i guess-- >> so do you contest the view that this district court did essentially accept the challenges, did sort of say, well, look, there are these challenges, so we have to make sure that we don't do anything that cuts against them? >> well, there is some language in the opinions to that effect, justice kennedy. i have to say the district court opinions here are not a model of clarity. in some respects, they seem to

outline the right inquiry. if you look at joint appendix 137 to 138, i think what the district court said it was doing was starting with the status quo, which is the benchmark, and then modifying it. >> and if you look -- and if you look at joint appendix 146 to 147, it looks the exact opposite. it looks like they're drawing minority coalition opportunity districts to draw them, because they have anticipated how they think the district court in d.c. is going to come out. >> well, that's right, mr. chief justice, and i think we point to that in our brief as an area in which the district court could give further explanation on remand. >> you do. >> isn't it odd that this is a section 2 suit and yet section 5 seems to be driving that -- driving it. that's the problem with this litigation, it seems to me. >> i think section 5 can't help but drive-- >> and section 5 applies only to some states and not others. texas is at a tremendous disadvantage here in defending the section 2 suit and in drawing -- and in having -- and the judiciary is at a disadvantage in framing a remedy for a likely, a likely section 2 violation in some of the districts. >> of course, your honor, texas is in a different position precisely because it's a covered jurisdiction. and when you have a section 5

case, section 5 can't help but take precedence in some respects, precisely because a proposed change can't go into effect unless and until the covered jurisdiction shows that it's nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect. but i do think it's important-- >> i wonder if it should take precedence in a section 2 suit. all this -- this is the primary obligation of the texas district court, is to address section 2 violations. >> that -- that may be, your honor. but i think then if, if it can't address the section 5 issue at all, then the one thing that shouldn't happen is that the section 2 court gives effect to the unprecleared plan, because that is something that the d.c. district court is supposed to do. >> it's not giving effect to an uncleared plan. it's giving effect to a legislative judgment as to what is workable for all the factors and criteria that justice alito referred to, county lines, et cetera. >> we will let you go on for a little longer. we may have a few more questions. >> okay. thank you, mr. chief justice. i appreciate that. i guess what i would say,

justice kennedy, is, if you use the unpreclear plan as the starting point, which is what texas proposes, you are giving effect to that, notwithstanding the preclearance requirement of section 5. and with the covered jurisdiction, that is something that section 5 doesn't allow. now, i do think it's important to consider texas's preclearance submission in the context of the other statewide preclearance submissions that have been submitted in this election cycle. if you look at the government's brief at pages la to 3a, i think what that bears out is that there is not a fundamental problem with section 5 or the way section 5 operates. the problem insofar as it exists is with respect to the particular submissions that texas has made, because there were 20 submissions of statewide plans for administrative preclearance. in all 20 cases, the attorney general precleared them. in 19 of the 20 cases, the attorney general precleared it within the initial 60-day window. now-- >> counsel, i have -- your position -- i understand you're straddling a position. that's why you are sitting in the back rather than the front row between the two parties. but it's a little unsatisfying because what you say we should

do when we are all under the gun of very strict time limitations is we should send it back to the district court so it can give a greater explanation of what it's done. isn't that going to be very wasteful? and it's kind of an odd order from this court to send to a district court saying, you know, tell us more. >> well, i don't know that it is, your honor, and i have two responses in that respect. first, and this goes to a question that justice alito asked earlier, what is this court supposed to do in this situation? and i think one thing that could absolutely happen is if there were a remand the d.c. district court could complete its preclearance proceeding, which would be illuminating the what the texas district court is supposed to do. and to have guidance on that-- >> did you have -- what is that based on? >> what i would say is this. the d.c. district court has scheduled trial to begin on january 17th. it's supposed to last 8 days. closing argument is on february 3. if you look at what happened at the summary judgment stage, justice breyer, they had summary judgment arguments on one day-- >> yes, i read, i read, i read the opinion and what you said on the phone and so forth. >> no, not that. >> it seems to me that it's a complicated case. let's suppose you are

completely right on your time schedule. then they will decide something. how could any human being redraw maps in 5 days or 10 days where you will have different -- 6 different positions. i mean, i think it's impossible. how can you -- i don't see how you can do it. >> well, of course, if preclearance is granted we won't have an issue with drawing maps. >> well, i think there's -- it seemed to me from reading it, i didn't think that the judge there is ready to grant preclearance. and the other thing in sending it back, i read the brief and then i read the opinions. i don't think i have -- i'm not being too generous to the opinions, but i thought that they were saying throughout is -- we didn't try to draw extra coalition or extra opportunity districts, they emerged. they say "emerged" about seven times. they emerged as we tried to apply equal vote principles. and it's hardly surprising that it would, considering that the population growth is primarily due to the minority expansion. nowt didn't seem to me --

why do you want us to send it back to get more explanation when that seems to be the explanation, and to me at first blush, it seems like a perfectly good explanation. >> maybe -- brief answer, please. >> yes. sure. i think insofar as the coalition districts and ability districts emerge from growth, there is nothing suspect about them. the one example i point to is district 33. if you look at joint appendix, pages 146 and 147, it's not clear what the, what the district court was doing in that regard. >> thank you, counsel. mr. garza? >> mr. chief judge, and may it please the court -- there seems to be general consensus on at least three points that we've talked about today. first, that the unprecleared plan cannot take effect. the second, that the district court is foreclosed from entering and engaging in an analysis of the issues that are pending before the three-judge court in washington, d.c., and

that at this point, a court ordered plan must be implemented on an interim basis. >> exclude me from the second. i'm not sure that i have gone along on that, as you phrased it. the way you phrase it, you say they cannot even make the kind of preliminary inquiry that your friend suggests. >> i think we are dealing with a matter of semantics, your honor, because the question is, did the court give the state's plan deference. but it itself said that it began, as it should, as it has been directed by this court with the historical or benchmark configurations, and then respected the state's plan. >> but you know what i don't understand about your briefs, mr. garza. if the states can't -- if, if -- if the plan has not been precleared, you should be saying that the states can't

look at the plan. but on the one hand you are saying, well isn't it great because the court did look at the plan, and on the one hand -- the other hand you are saying the court can't look at the plan. so which is it? because there is a real tension. on one page you say isn't it great, the court looked at the texas plan. and then you say the court can't look at the texas plan. >> we don't say that the court can't look at the texas plan. what we say is that the court, the court can't implement the texas plan, and it certainly can't implement the texas plan if there is any suspect of discrimination. and what it did was exactly the right measure. >> then you are saying the court should look at the merits. >> i think that the court did the appropriate thing by looking at the -- at this matter. >> no. let's, let's go to something justice scalia asked was, what does a court do with frivolous claims? does it assume under your theory that those frivolous claims are valid?

and if you say no, it shouldn't assume that, then what level of inquiry should the court engage in before it accepts or deviates from the enacted plan? >> i think that the court should look at -- first of all, should not start with the state's plan. it should look at where there have been objections made. and the role of the district court in the district of columbia is where the question of whether there are frivolous claims have been made. and there have been no motions to dismiss any of the claims in washington, d.c. based on frivolity. >> so the texas court cannot -- should automatically accept all -- that every district that a challenge has been raised in the dc circuit court is okay? >> it should not accept any of the districts that have been challenged. but i think the difference in

terms of even assuming a violation -- 22-- >> i'm sorry, i don't mean to interrupt, but i didn't follow that. so long as a district has been challenged in dc, the court in texas should not accept it? >> it should make a determination either way, and it didn't. because in those districts, it didn't adopt the plans that were put forward by the plaintiffs or the challengers in washington, d.c. it looked at the benchmark plan as a starting point. >> but could it look at the district and say, well, it respects county lines, it follows a river, it's got urban/rural. can it look at it for that reason and rely on the legislative judgment as making a sound judgment that the river runs through here, and the county line is there and so forth? that's what seems to me the difficulty with saying oh, you can't look at the plan. >> i think the problem with that, your honor, is that then it would be assuming that the state is correct, that it doesn't violate section 5. that is -- that is an inquiry that is reserved to the district court in the district of

columbia. >> and that's right, but it goes the other way when you say they can't approve something that's been challenged. aren't you assuming that the plaintiffs are right? >> no. >> and that's an inquiry that belongs to the district court in d.c.-- >> no, because what the court did, is it didn't accept as a remedy what the plaintiffs proposed there. it reverted to state policy which is what it's directed to by this court. it direct -- it went back to state policy and it looked at the benchmark plan, and it started with the benchmark plan. even with the congressional plan, where there are four new districts, and there is no comparable district in the benchmark, it looked to the legislatively enacted plan to determine where to replace those districts. >> but that is not the current state policy. the benchmark plan is gone. it's old. the texas legislature now has a different policy, and that, you

say, should be ignored. >> that policy cannot be deferred to. it is incorporated in the court's plan by -- in the manner in which it did review the plans. that is-- >> there is a presumption of its invalidity. you can't presume it valid, but you can presume it invalid. >> either way. and, in fact, what the court did -- 23-- >> well, not either way. you are presuming it invalid. >> it -- you are not presuming it is invalid. you're -- you are suggesting that -- you are reverting to the next state policy. you are not incorporating it, but you're not -- you are not making any decision. and the way you sort of walk that tightrope is you go to what the state policy was before the enacted -- plan. >> let's say a legislature says -- says we have a new policy, and that is that once we've satisfied our constitutional obligations and our obligations under the voting rights act, the only thing we are going to do is try to draw the districts that are the most compact

possible, compactness over everything else. they draw up a plan that embodies that policy, and it's challenged under section 5. now can the district court just say well, that's -- the state's policy is compactness over everything else, but we don't agree with that, because we have other neutral principles that advance the interest of the collective public good, which is the -- the term that this -- the -- the words that this court used. can they do that? >> i don't believe they can, and this court didn't. the court in fact-- >> well, if they can't do that then you are saying that they are constrained by state policy, except to the extent the constitution or the voting rights act requires otherwise. >> and in this case, part of the voting rights act is section 5, and in those areas and in those districts where there have been challenges -- and by the way the district court has -- in the district of columbia has determined that those challenges are substantial, because they have denied preclearance. and in fact they've said that texas has not disputed-- >> they denied summary judgment. they didn't deny preclearance. >> i'm sorry? >> they denied summary judgment. >> they denied summary judgment, but they went even further. they said texas has not disputed many of the intervenors' specific

allegations of discriminatory intent. so it's -- it's -- and under the summary judgment standard, they have to find that the challenges that are being made are substantial. the district court in texas was not free to incorporate discriminatory districts in its interim plan, and it didn't. but it first went to the state's plan, the benchmark plan, to begin its process on how it was drawing those districts. and there is a good reason why texas is covered under the voting rights act. as this court indicated in -- in lulac v. perry, there is a terrible history of historical discrimination in texas, including discrimination-- >> the constitutionality of the voting rights act is not at issue here, right? >> that's not. >> okay. maybe you could turn to the issue that i see on joint appendix 146 and 147. they don't say a minority coalition opportunity district just happened to emerge. it said that district 33 was

drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district. and we have never held that it is appropriate or even permissible to draw a district where you are putting in together two minorities, two different minority groups. and it seems to me that that raises all sorts of different concerns. it's one thing under the voting rights act to say that this group votes as a bloc and has been discriminated against in its ability to elect representatives of its choice. it's another thing to say that two different minority groups are put together because they share some particular view so that one candidate is going to be each of theirs candidate -- candidates of choice. that goes quite a step further from what we have upheld under the voting rights act. and here you are have of the district court creating that in the absence of any state expression of a desire to create that type of -- of district. >> i think -- i think that the statement that the court made is a correct statement, it did create a coalition district in dallas. but that's not describing how it reached that -- that district. however, it describes how it

reached that district is in a number of other places, however, as discussed above the court has not intentionally created any minority districts. >> new district 33 was drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district. i don't see how that can be read any way other than saying -- saying when we sat down and drew it, we drew this one as a minority coalition opportunity district. >> of course it can be read differently than your honor's interpretation of this, because the court has said over and over again we did not attempt to create coalition districts, we did not attempt to draw-- are'm sorry, when you saying something can be read differently than that, and say because they said something else somewhere else, that is not responsive. >> what i'm -- what i'm suggesting is what he is saying is that this is the result of what they have done. that sentence can also be interpreted as saying this is the result of what we have done. we have created a-- >> drawn as? drawn as the coalition? >> yes.

yes. >> two sentences forward, if i could help with the reading, the fourth new district, district 33 was drawn in the dallas-fort worth metroplex "to reflect population growth in that area. " all right? then he goes on to say just what justice scalia says. and i -- i did read that as saying, well, when you apply -- i read it consistent what they have said in -- elsewhere, which is that what they are doing is, population grows, you have to have one person, one vote, the legislature itself in the new plan did create a minority, whatever you -- the opportunity district here, so we are following what they did. we are taking into account population, and it turns out to be, and we do create it as -- in which case there is some ambiguity here. >> precisely. and there is no independent evidence that this was a racial gerrymander. what do courts look at for evidence of racial gerrymanders? split voting precincts where you go out in cars and bring in

minority voters. this district maintains voting precincts intact. it is entirely within one county. it is a compact district. especially when you compare it to the district in that part of the state-- >> i'm sorry, why -- why do you care -- why do they care then that it was drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district? you are saying they didn't do that at all. they just followed precinct lines and everything else. why would they say something? >> i believe it is describing what the results of their map drawing is, and i think that is perfectly legitimate. >> can we infer from either the ambiguity or the other reading of the sentence that the chief justice suggested that in the court's view it was desirable to have a minority coalition district? i draw that inference. >> i think -- i think it is desirable to have a minority district there. >> a minority coalition district? >> a minority coalition district. moreover, i think the court is-- >> all right.

so you would defend the plan on the grounds that this is a sound result? >> i believe that the plan that was drawn by the court is fair. is it the optimum plan that the plaintiffs wanted? it is not. >> one of -- one of -- one of the basic rules that was followed in drawing up the court plan was not to divide any voting districts, right? >> that's one of the principles. >> why? why did the -- that certainly is not a principle that the texas legislature agrees with. >> there is two reasons, your honor. one is-- >> so the court just made it up? >> no. there are two reasons why the court saw maintaining voting precincts is important. one is because that is what it's been directed by this court in bush v. vera. in bush v. vera the court said we have an interim election or a -- or an impending election and it's important for elections administrators in -- in order to be able to -- to implement without -- without interference a legitimate election process, to have whole precincts, because whole

precincts makes a big difference in terms of how the election is -- is administrated. the second reason is that this court didn't adopt this plan without any inquiry into the standards and proposals from the parties. it was very deliberate. it was very cautious, and it was very open. we had 3 days of hearings on what these plans should look like and what the standards ought to be, including testimony from elections administrators and from the texas secretary of state. and in every instance those administrators and that representative from the secretary of state said the most important thing the court should consider, if it's going to order us to start conducting elections under a different plan, is maintain voting precincts, because that is the most cumbersome part. >> well, if texas says we don't care about maintaining voting precincts, this is -- this is a matter of -- of administrative burden and expense, and we are willing to bear that, so disregard that. the district court can say well, we think, we disagree with you, in order to make it more

convenient to hold the election and less expensive for texas, we are going to respect voting districts. they can do that? >> the state didn't do that in this instance. >> but could they do that? >> and -- >> could the district court do that? that's my question. >> it's -- yes, i think they could, because there's still the authority of this court in bush v. vera that directs courts, in drawing interim plans for impending elections, to be cautious about that, number 1. and number 2, if in fact in order to get an appropriate map you must split a number of precincts, which means then that you can't conduct the election on april 3, we still have time, as -- as the government's attorney indicated, the -- there are states that conduct primaries as late as june 26th. the drop-dead deadline is not april 3rd, it's november 6th. so if this court disagrees with our position, and is determined to send this back to the district court, then it should

consider this -- the district court in the district of columbia is about 30 days away from rendering a complete decision in the section 5 case. that would place the court in texas in exactly the upham circumstance. in that circumstance -- and the court is poised to move. it can move with all due diligence. it had two weeks of trial in which it heard testimony on the plaintiffs' claims. it is ready. once the district court in the district of columbia tells us these are the problems with the state's plan, the court in texas is primed to make its decision on the plaintiffs' claims under section 2 and the constitution. and under that circumstance-- >> mr. garza, what's the real drop-dead date? it's not november 6th, because that's the date of the general election. what's the latest election -- primary election that any state

has? june 26th? >> june 26th, your honor. >> all right. so, working backwards -- the last-- >> that's for presidential primaries, isn't it? i don't want to interrupt, but isn't that the date of the last presidential primary rather than congressional? >> that's correct. so utah is the last -- is the state with the last primary in which it conducts both the state's primary and the presidential. there are in states -- in fact, states that conduct primaries as late as september that have no presidential primaries at all. >> so how many days before that election do the -- does the voting mechanism or apparatus need to set up the voting booths, et cetera? >> the -- the critical date is 45 days from the election in order to ensure -- sending out a ballot to overseas voters, including the military. so if -- if you go back 45 days and then you give the jurisdiction sufficient time to develop a ballot, because you need a ballot to send to the -- to the soldiers, then that's about -- what they -- what the testimony was is that takes about -- 90 days, i believe is

what they testified. so 45 days plus 90 days, and that's the drop-dead deadline. >> go back from june 26th. where does that leave us? >> if go back from june 26th-- >> june, may, april. it's the end of march. right? >> you could develop a plan by the end of march, and we could conduct an election in june, in late june. >> when do you expect the d.c. court to finish? >> i would expect it to finish by -- within 30 days of today, because we have closing arguments on the 3rd of february, and if the court will act with the sort of diligence that it did on summary judgment, which was a complicated record and a large record, 6 days later, it made its determination. it didn't issue its memorandum

opinion, but it gave us something that we could run with. >> when -- and when do you expect our decision on the appeal from the district court from d.c.? [laughter] >> later this afternoon. [laughter] >> they did write in a -- in their summary judgment opinion, they made it sound like it's very complicated. >> yes. >> and so that's why i'm -- i have some doubts about how swiftly they're going to render their decision after -- what is the date, the trial will end on february 3rd? >> that will be closing arguments, yes, your honor. >> is there anything in the opinion from the three-judge court in the district of columbia that indicates that there are some likely potential violations that are section 2 violations as well as section 5 violations? >> from the -- from the-- >> and -- and i can amend that to -- and in the submission of the parties. >> in the district of columbia? >> yes.

>> well, i believe that the -- that the court has found that the -- the plaintiffs have made substantial claims with regard to retrogression and intentional discrimination. and of course, intentional discrimination-- >> the second -- the second being section 2 violations as well. >> intentional discrimination is a component of section 2, yes, your honor. and it -- and i think it's important to note that judge smith in texas used, in a manner of speaking, the preliminary injunction standard that's being advocated by the state, and they would not be able to meet that standard because generally, judge smith determined that the plaintiffs had presented colorable claims of statutory or constitutional infirmity. ruled that the plan was an extreme gerrymander. ruled that elimination of district 149 presented section 5 problems. ruled that the legislature

dismantle the minority district in essex county that presented-- >> do you have substantive objections to the plans suggested by judge smith in the house and congressional districts? >> yes, your honor. we believe that there are section 5 claims with regard to harris county. judge smith addressed the constitutional-- >> do you have some section 2 objections? well, that doesn't quite work. you have to talk about retrogression, i suppose. >> right. and in -- in district -- in harris county, the court did equalize population per the failure of the state to justify the sorts of deviations that are contained in that district, but didn't provide, in our opinion, additional remedies. but judge smith's proposed plan for the state house is in fact very similar to the plan that

was proposed by the majority. it -- it differs by only one minority district. that is one additional minority district is contained in the interim plan than is contained in judge smith's plan. >> mr. garza, what would you think of a system in which the court could start with the texas plan and say -- the new texas plan -- and say anything that is consistent with statutes and the constitution can go forward, but it's texas that has to show that consistency. so flipping the burden of proof in the way that mr. srinivasan was suggesting? in a way that makes it more consistent with section 5's burden. >> well, i -- i think that our position is that section 5 is clear that this court should not start with the interim plan, but if the court disagrees with me, i think that that's a much

more reasonable approach than the one offered by the state, for the same reason argued by the united states -- that is, that in the state's argument, you really turn section 5 on its head, because one of the principal benefits for the minority community in having section 5 is it alters of the burden of proof. and if you maintain the burden of proof on the state before it can implement any portion of its newly adopted but unprecleared plan, that's far more preferable than shifting the burden, which would be inconsistent with section 5 in its intent. i don't think i have anything else. thank you. >> i don't think we do, either. thank you, counsel. mr. clement, you have 3 minutes remaining.

>> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a few points in rebuttal. as one of justice alito's questions highlighted, one of the things that makes remedying a one person one vote problem particularly unique is there's literally an infinite number of ways to solve the problem. and for that reason, this court has always looked wherever it could to legislative guidance. so much so that in white v. weiser, this court looked for legislative guidance to a plan that had been declared unconstitutional for failing to accommodate one person one vote problems, but yet this court still said that the district court erred in not taking them into account to the extent that it could. as to the hard choice, if it comes to that, of using either the legislative plan that reflects the legislative will, or the judicial plan that even the united states concedes is flawed, i think this court has faced even more difficult choices in the past -- bullock v. weiser and in whitcomb. and in both of those cases, this court chose between an adjudicatedly unconstitutional state plan and a judicial remedy that it determined was flawed. and in both cases, it ordered

the election to take place under the flawed constitutionally adjudicated imperfect plan. compared to that, simply saying that an election should go forward under a plan that hasn't been precleared is a far less serious step. now, there was a reference made to the 3 days of hearings. but the problem is, 3 days of hearings with an unadministrable standard is worse than 1 day of hearing with an unadministrable standard. and what we ask is for a preliminary injunction standard that's familiar to everybody, everybody understands and everybody can apply. >> well, why -- why shouldn't it be inverted the way your friend suggests? >> well, i'll join everybody in saying that that's -- that's better than the -- than the worst alternative i face, which is to say it's better than the district court's opinion. but here's why it shouldn't. that actually further intrudes on the d.c. court. because the question that the

remedial court should not be asking is, geez, do i really think -- you know, what are the odds that the d.c. court is going to preclear? it shouldn't ask that question at all. it should ask the questions that are before it. is there a section 2 violation? is there an equal protection violation? if there aren't those and i use the state's plan, does that create a section 5 violation? that is different from the preclearance question. and on that section 5 question, the burden is not logically on the state. and that's the same section 5 question that the court considered on its own motion, because it understands that even when it takes a plan, it has to be consistent with section 5 principles. now, justice kennedy, you've asked the question, what if we take section 5 out of this, what happens? then it's an easy case. then it's the preliminary injunction standard. now, the objection to that, of course, is, well, but how can you take section 5 out of it? but there's not interference with section 5, because texas still understands it needs to get preclearance -- before its changes can take permanent effect, it absolutely positively needs preclearance. it's never wavered from that prohibition. so you go back-- >> finish your sentence. >> i was simply going to say if you go back, the default problem

here is that there's an infinite number of solutions. it's particularly a problem with respect to the congressional map, where there's not four new seats. there's nothing else to defer to than the judgment of the legislature reflected in this plan, notwithstanding that it hasn't been precleared. >> thank you, counsel. all counsel, i appreciate the extraordinary efforts you had over the holiday season. thank you very much. the case is submitted. >> a look at the upcoming session of congress. then jon huntsman -- jon huntsman's announcement of his withdrawal from the presidential campaign. then rick perry and rick santorum campaigning with their wives in south carolina. on "washington journal, "we talk about the south carolina primary with the founder and editor of the weekly standard. laura murphy will take your questions about voter i.d. laws.

"washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> a reminder of the deadline for the student video competition. we are asking students which part of the constitution has meaning to you and why. there is a grand prize of $50,000 in total prices. get your documentary to c-span. >> next, a look at the upcoming session of congress. this is 40 minutes. host: be good morning. thank you for being here. i wanted to talk to you about what is happening in congress. let's start with you.

what is on the list? guest: it is going to be a short day for the house. one of the things on their agenda is a resolution of raising the debt ceiling. there will be several votes on these limits. congress has agreed to raise the limit reached last summer. this is a political vote of disapproving of the president's affair -- authority. republicans voted against it. there will also be a vote in the senate on this. it is academic, it will not lead to anything because the president has the power to veto it. and that is the main king that is going to be happening. host: the president will make his state of the union address next week. what a milestone is that?

what will the debates be as congress looks at the agenda? guest: this is going to be a light year for congress. the big thing is the payroll tax cut. obama loves drawing distinctions with republicans. that is what his campaign is based on. that is what we expect him to do. the payroll tax hole -- holiday is sure to be brought up because the president wants it. host: yesterday we heard from a number of candidates running for president. also some members of congress but the focus was on the presidential race. one does the attention turned back to congress? it is expected to be a light year because of so many campaigns. guest: i think the house and senate will be fascinating because there will be maneuvering.

a lot of legislation will not get done. republicans will highlight issues they want to discuss, drilling, the keystone, and the commandant -- denominator will be jobs. the senate will push for things that will try to get the nominee on the record, the dream act, which mitt romney has vowed to veto, or raising taxes on millionaires. it is going to be a lot of maneuvering. host: what is the battle coming up? we had the bush-year at tax cuts. guest: we do not expected to get started until late in the year. republicans feel that they need to do some stuff to get political points. they had a bruising beginning. they stumbled on the payroll tax cut. they had a lot of funding fights.

they need to get things on the board. they are looking for items to pass that will make a statement. the president may not sign them but they will at least get on the record. that puts them in favor with the voters. that will play a big role, going forward. host: bush era tax cuts? guest: house, senate, and white -- i agree with him that a lot of activity will not happen until after the election. the house, the senate, and the white house are all basically up for grabs. the house is most likely to stay with the majority party, but certainly, it could still be in play. whatever happens in the election will change the dynamic in the lame duck on the bush era tax cuts. host: let's get to the phones to hear from philip in miami, florida. caller: good morning. these politicians, republicans have been pointing out, obama is embroiled with a lot of

people that have money. the rich are the people controlling these politicians, and in turn, these things are -- these laws have been set aside, they are being put on the books. it is too late now, they are too far out of reach. these people are keeping politicians in place. when they get in office, they do not want to do anything for the poor people. this has been going on and will continue until they put some of these laws into effect. when it is time to vote. when those start to come up, that is what i would like to see on the ballot. the rich people need to pay their fair share. which has been pointed out by obama, but they seem to be talking around that, i wonder why? host: he talks about the idea of the 1%, something that president obama has incorporated into his campaign pitches.

of cusec, any prospect there for some more democratic agenda, and what the president wants to say? guest: democrats know republicans will not go for raising taxes, but they look at the polls and a see an advantage there. polls suggest a fair amount of republicans support raising taxes on millionaires. that is where they would try to buy the republican party. -- divide the republican party. but republicans on that issue have been fairly united with the payroll tax being the exception. democrats are going to try to continue that advantage. we will hear a lot about tax policy in 2012. guest: with these bush tax cuts coming up at the end of the year, john boehner has been working on a big deficit plan. it is likely he will try to do that again. the bush tax cuts are a party -- a very thorny issue for republicans. one way to get out of them is to completely overhaul the tax

code and rework it. that is something to keep an eye on, going forward. host: it may seem like groundhog's day. we are talking up payroll tax holiday, insurance benefits, something that the congress approved is now coming up again. are willing to see anything new come up in this debate? is this going to be a rehash of what we heard in 2011? guest: republicans will want to get this out of the way. half a dozen people i have spoken to said they do not want to have this payroll tax hike. -- fight. it is not good for them, not policy they can agree with, but they cannot stomach to reject it. that is the big thing. they want to get it out of the way. guest: it will be rough-and- tumble because you have so many house republicans that are upset with the policy, and leadership does agree that they wanted to extend it for the whole year.

this is going to happen. finding their will to talk about unemployment insurance reforms, but this will happen, and will be extended for the rest of the year. host: steve in richmond. a republican. good morning. caller: i am a republican, 55 -- i am a gay republican for many years, 55 years old. last year, the last election, i voted for obama because i am tired of the republicans, the top 1% is what they are concerned with. the people that make the money. ceo's making $20 million a year, but they do not want to give the workers a decent wage to live on. right now, republicans are more interested in the 1%, and the heck with everyone else. of course, the top 1% has the money to donate to the republican party.

host: any comments, a gentleman? guest: that will be a huge issue, going forward. republicans are cognizant of the fact they are seen as a party that only caters to the wealthy. eric cantor has pushed himself as someone that wants to raise everyone up, but getting that message across is not easy for republicans, who have long been seen in that mold. >> we have especially seen that with the dnc. portraying mitt romney and republicans as out of touch, where republicans want to talk about president obama's record, his controversial effort to pass health care reform, and the stimulus. host: let's take a look at some key dates of the upcoming legislative session. in early february, the president will release his budget request. the end of next month, the payroll tax extension and unemployment benefits. at the end of the calendar year, december 31, the bush-era

tax cuts set to expire. joey in massachusetts. independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to know how many days congress worked last year. every time i turn around they are on vacation or are doing this or that. when they vote on things, they always wait until the last minute. right before we run out of money or the government shuts down. it is only scare tactics and the american people need to wake up. i call my congressmen all the time, and i tell them, you have to start doing work. do not wait until the last minute to get things passed.

host: what would you like to see congress do this year? caller: i would like to see them straighten out social security. it has to be straightened out, the way it is going. welfare programs, we are giving too much away. i know people are talking about the rich, but we have to talk about the other side, too. a lot of these programs are bringing us down. guest: there has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides about how much congress should be in. when democrats took over the house, they said we are going to have five-day workweeks. eric cantor has introduced a new schedule. two weeks in, one week out. we are working the whole time, he says, but we just want to get back to our districts.

certainly the new freshmen want to be back home. host: has there been a reaction to the congressional schedule, not just what they accomplished last year, but the number of days they are in washington versus their home district? guest: i remember being on this show and during this when -- and hearing this when democrats were in control as well. it is a constant complaint. these guys have to get back to their districts and it does not look good. however they do it, it is going to be difficult. but inside the beltway, they have had a lot more anger about the schedule. and democrats have tried to score political points by going to the floor and setting house -- and pointing out that house republicans were not in session. although democrats did the same when they were in the majority. not a terribly new complaint. something that makes constituents angry around the country. host: let's look if this story. this is how the story starts.

it is official -- congress ended its least-productive year in modern history after passing 80 bills -- guest: i think it's fascinating, with those kinds of statistics, and president obama using this strategy of running against congress, nancy pelosi called this a do nothing congress, not noting the the democrats control the senate. but that will be the flavor of the year. the white house running against this congress. those kind of statistics have to make john boehner a little nervous.

>> let's listen to senate majority leader harry reid on meet the press yesterday talking about placing blame in congress. [video clip] > understand we have had obstructionism on steroids. the republican leader said his number one goal at the beginning of this congress was to defeat president obama, not have him reelected. that is how they have legislated. we have spent months on things that used happened just a matter of factly. raising the debt ceiling, we did that for president reagan 18 times. we spent two and a half months doing that. the number one goal -- and i hope the republicans have learned their lesson -- extending the payroll tax. a disaster. imagine people being opposed to lowering taxes. i hope that they understand everything does not have to be a fight. legislation, building consensus,i hope that the tea

party does not have insolence in the next year that they had in the previous year. it has been really bad for this country. host: that was majority leader harry reid on meet the press. in response a spokesman for mitch mcconnell said -- dick sherman, respond to what you heard from senator harry reid and then this moment, as far as the blame game and also talk about the tea party element. guest: i think what harry reid has said is that they need to do something, they need to rally around something, something but they support. they are seen in the eyes of a lot of people of being against a lot of things, against raising the debt ceiling, having a tough time finding the government, and as not compromising. that is not what john boehner and others want going into an election year. so they are going to baltimore

this week thursday to, friday, -- this week on their house republican retreat, thursday through friday, saturday, and they need to rally around some sort of way forward in this election year or else they could be in trouble. host: bob cusack, harry reid also mentioned the tea party elements and how influential they have been and that they have some of the blame. they are part of what created the gridlock. is that playing politically? >> that did not play in 2010. the democrats in the fall of 2010 declared war on the tea party. that was when the tea party was very strong. the poll showed the tea party is not the force that it used been. we have seen that with mitt romney's rise in the republican party. tea party has never been fond of romney. the tea party is weaker than it was before and it will be a question of how strong they will be in 2012. host: let's hear from ron in new hampshire. democratic caller. caller: i believe obama has done

all he has been allowed to do by the republican congress. if after november we still have mixed political houses, the congress, the senate, we will be in for another four years of nothingness. think don't believe -- i obama has a pretty squeaky clean record before becoming president, but every one of these republican candidates have a lot of skeletons in their closets. they seemed to be very self- serving. mitt romney, a corporate raider before he became senator. newt gingrich, a lot of skeletons. obama seems to be pretty squeaky clean before he ever made to president. i just don't see anybody taking obama down. i don't care who the republican nominee is in november.

i don't see anyone taking obama down. host: did you vote in the primary last week? caller: i did not. i voted for obama last time and will vote for him again this year in the general election. i think i got cut off. host: you are fine. thanks. let's hear from our guests and get a response. guest: republicans would counter as far as the squeaky clean as far as president obama, there was jeremiah right. -- jeremiah wright. whether romney brings up those associations in 2012, we will see. john mccain did not do that. generally speaking. regardless, if president obama calls himself the underdog last year. if you talk to democrats now, they don't think they are the underdogs now. they have a lot of money and we have seen a very contested primary with a fair amount of gaffs-- gaffs.

-- gaffes. the white house has to be fairly confident of where they are right now especially with unemployment down. -- down at 8.5%host: donna is asking on twitter. -- you have been on the campaign trail couple days ago in south carolina. do you see the year ahead in congress coming up as a topic on the campaign trail? is that being talked about among the candidates? guest: i think they are talking about congress. if congress tries to do things, they will be put in the position of having to answer for them. if mitt romney looks like he's headed toward the nomination. we will see more after this week. he will be put in the position where he must answer for things like if john boehner tries to do a big deficit deal, every piece of that deal will be picked apart on the campaign trail in the general election later this year. if there are any stumbles a

payroll tax cuts, they will ask if he agrees with house republicans and how they are handling thus. if anything of substance happens, probably not, but that's what seems like right now. john boehner wants to do a highway bill. he wants to pay for that with oil. -- expanded oil drilling. that will pass the house, but likely not for the senate. things like that will get done. they will need to do something. they cannot have an entire 2012 and they are all up for reelection. host: massachusetts, good morning. caller: how are ya? host: good, go right ahead. caller: the question i have, understand that everybody's talking about president obama and how good he did and how bad is doing, but truthful in the president is just a spokesman for the united states. you have to have a congress, the senate, and everybody else to actually pass the bills before he can even do anything. the main thing i think most

people are overlooking is we pay more for aliens to live in the united states, giving them public aid, housing, food stamps, medical, they are allowed to take american jobs. there's a gentleman that used to work for a company that's not a legal citizen of the united states but he also sued the company because he got fired for not having a green card or anything else to say that he is supposed to be here. host: concerned about illegal immigration, let's talk about that. is that on congress' radar? guest: i have heard that especially from democrats. when democrats took over and they controlled both chambers and at the white house, they probably could a past the "dream act. -- they probably could have passed the dream act. this is a scaled-down version of immigration reform, with enough support from its republicans. but they went after health-care and that's a long time.

obama has repeatedly it's about -- has repeatedly vowed to pass to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. if he has not gotten that done. he will need the latino vote in order to win. immigration divides the republican party. democrats will try to talk about that issue of fairmount. -- a pair of mount. -- of paramount. -- a fair amount. guest: whatever newt gingrich said that he wants to give people that have been here 20 years and have been good citizens and their communities, he wants to help them and let them become legal. rick perry and rick santorum and a lot of those folks have been completely against him on that. so this topic will be hot in the general and probably in the primary, a comprehensive or even a scaled-down immigration appeal would probably not been taken up in the senate or house this year. host: what is on the agenda and what is expected to get done, the topic of your book. sequestration was something we

have heard in last couple months. as they are figuring out how to deal with the debt limit, nothing came out of the super committee. sequestration is looming. talk about what that is about and what is the looming deadline going to been to a congress this year? >> the super committee, it wanted to have incentives for democrats and republicans to broker a big deal. for democrats that was cuts to domestic spending and for republicans they did not want to put taxes on the table, so they put defense spending. past board. -- past for me. -- fast forward. the super committee flops. now the defense industry and defense stocks including senator john mccain are saying that it is no way the defense industry can take these cuts. barney frank says they are not cuts. they are cuts to the rate of

growth. they're not that significant. the fascinating thing is with defense secretary leon panetta, is not like the cuts that are looming. president obama has said that he vows to veto anything that would head off the cuts regarding entitlement spending. the defense cuts that are looming in 2013, i think, will be talked about a lot. that will be talked about a lot on the campaign trail. host: what strategies will bc -- are we going to be seeing within congress on the democrat side and republican side on facing sequestration and how to avoid it or let it go true? guest: democrats have come to the opinion the sequestration is not that bad. the super committee was considering a lot more drastic cuts in entitlement programs than the sequestration. democrats are ok with letting it stand. republican leadership has tried to devise a plan and has many different pieces moving on sequestration. eric cantor has looked at it as well.

he has tried to do is on plants -- he has tried to do his own plan and folded into unemployment insurance and that did not go anywhere. john boehner would be most likely to do a sequestration and fix it the end of the year with the bush tax cuts. the tax cuts don't come into play until 2013. hopefully the head winds from house republicans wanted to get it done before that, there's an uncertainty that the military can handle this. host: on our independent line, ky. go right ahead. >> good morning. in this country today when the congress gets itself in line, when they have to live like everybody else does and do away with the perks and their salaries, gdp, employment rate -- base their salaries on gdp, employment rate, and such as that, that is when this country will come back. until then, as long as congress blows the money that they blow, big salaries eight years to 10

years, they are way over/staffed -- overstaffed. each congressman. and so is the supreme court. when they get their house and line, this country will change. monkey see, monkey do world. guest: perks for members of congress has been long talked about. one of the things you're going to see on that issue. they're moving forward on a bill that would ban congressional insider trading during that got a lot of attention. it is picked up over 200 co- sponsors. eric cantor wants to make changes to the bill. if i am not sure. he wants to make it broader than a bill that has introduced. that is something that will be moving because there is anger outside the beltway. host: senator rand paul cut a check to the treasury department. talks about how he returned a half million dollars from his office budget to the treasury

department on thursday, a small tent of cash to help pay off the massive federal debt. he is not the only member of congress to give money back from his office to the treasury. what does that say politically? is that the kind of message that will resonate with people like our last caller? guest: absolutely. it's a good political move. $500,000 does not do anything in controlling the national debt and deficit of $15 trillion, but there are members that give tens of thousands of dollars back. paul has given back tens of thousands of dollars. it is great publicly. it looks like you are cutting corners and tightening the belt in the office. his home state would be happy with that. but it does very little in practical terms, but is very good political. host: on twitter --

congress has had quite a low approval rating. what are they going to do to boost baskets the way the -- boost up the way the american people examine the work they get done? guest: they will blame the other party with this divided government. the senate being in democratic hands and house in republican hands, we see a lot of fingers pointed. going back to harry reid on meet the press, people are tired of fighting. i think both parties will try to sum would decrease the fighting at least in the early part of the year, because temperatures will get hot in the fall. if host: another comment on twitter, chris jones writes -- jake sherman, is that a sentiment you hear from many members of congress right now? guest: yes. the bigger problem is the two sides don't agree on what is good for the country. that was the idea in trying to do large-scale deficit plan,

lock arms with the president and jump out of the boat, as john boehner said. they tried to do that. the pressure even at his own leadership table, john boehner had other leaders that did not agree with him. they have taken on medicare and medicaid and social security and they got very criticized for that. that is the sentiment be here. -- we hear. there are very few areas of agreement on large issues like medicare and medicaid, social security, and tax policy. eric cantor said election may be the only thing to solve that. host: michele, democratic caller in dallas, tx. caller: the thing that bothers me in the process is the people making the decisions of forgotten about the people. we are talking about balancing the budget and doing tax cuts, but we are not looking at what is good for the 1%.

you cannot cut expenses without bringing money in. that's why people go to work every day. we have to bring money in. we can cut expenses, but we have to bring money in. my question to the guests here today, when we talk about tax cuts, balancing the budget, can you personally say that you can recommend of where you would like to cut taxes and would you be willing to go to those people and say we are cutting your budget? if you are going to cut pell grants, would you go to a group of college teenagers and say we're not giving you any more money? or if you are going to homeless shelters, would you go to the shelters and say you're not getting more food? that bothers me when people making decisions are so far removed from actual life that they can make the cuts with no feeling or face to the problem. guest: certainly, the members, when they have to make the

decisions, whether it is cuts, and republicans say there is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem if, democrats come back with that we need more revenue and it's only fair to tax millionaires and billionaires. but i do think that over the last several years if politics has gotten very volatile. the temperature has gone up recently. we have seen that in the town hall meetings. some members because of that and because of youtube have decided to cut down on their public appearances. host: let's hear from im in oklahoma, republican caller -- jim. caller: i called me mr. support ron paul, because he is a clear contrast to obama. since you are not showing him much for your network or none of the media, he has been endorsed by senator davis and jim demint.

host: we are trying to give all the candidates equal air time on c-span. what do you think about his legislative record? caller: what do i think of his record in congress? compared to obama? host: just wanted you think about his record in general? he's been a congressman a long time. caller: what he is trying to do has been no pointble -- been noble. and he has been consistent in what he is trying to do. and you forgot to mention that and he did also give money back to the government that the gods. -- to the government. and obama's excuses for its failure being congress' fault. for two years he had a democratic senate and congress and did nothing but destroy the country. host: you were on the campaign trail couple days ago in south carolina. what are you hearing about the

discussion about congressman ron paul's political record of, what he has done while in washington? guest: is a popular figure on the campaign trail. he has run for president several times and has an organization in a lot of these states and has people on the ground. we saw that in new hampshire and iowa and we're seeing that in south carolina. there's a story this morning in the "new york times dedicated he is trying to lock up more delegates who have more leverage down the road. mitt romney is the likely nominee. there's not much talk about people's legislative record, because the public does not like congress and is not really attuned to what is going on in washington. ron paul has been in congress since the 1970's on and off and has done a lot. but that is not what is really being talked about on the campaign trail. host: david on the democrat line from las vegas, nevada.

caller: hello. i want to comment on the fight over the payroll tax-cuts and how i think that if the general population would familiarize themselves fenwick street and economics versus kennedy in economics, they would understand republicans stance on the tax cuts. -- kensian economics. when you looked at the state of affairs in general with the economy, i don't know how you can sit here and sit with these economic ideas guys aboutdown. taking labor into consideration is very important. lincoln was very famous crossing that labor is very important to capital -- very famous for saying labor is important to capital. that needs to be considered much more. the republicans are trampling over the middle class.

it is just the whole economic freedoms are complete failure. -- fell whole economic philosophy of friedman is a complete 5 year from what i conceive. -- is a complete failure from what i conceive. -- can see. host: let's get your comments. guest: the payroll tax holiday, the right does not like it. the left does not like it. a fair amount of liberals in congress are not fond of taking money out of social security's, because they think eventually it will be used as an effort to reform and cut back on social security. when they first implemented this fall, they said it would only be a one-year thing. then now it has been renewed again. the question is, will it be renewed at the end of 2012? there are people in congress who are nervous this is taking money out of an entitlement program and once again it is we have to make painful decisions. they think one. they think this is one of the things congress is giving more

money to people but we cannot afford it. host: we were going through economic philosophies and ideas. will that debate played out this year? guest: i'm not sure if members of congress are familiar with complex economic debates. important to note is the politics are uncomplicated. -- complicated. members of congress say the only way out of this, we will have to keep extending this. they say publicly on capitol hill the only way to get out of this is a comprehensive rewriting of the tax code. they are resigned to the fact they are extending a policy but -- policy they don't like, because of politics. and they cannot get out of bed. -- get out of it. host: there's a store looking at -- there is a story here in the "wall street journal" looking at the shake-up in the white house. we are seeing jack lew. he will be by the president's side now. tell us about what this means

for the white house relationship with congress. guest: it has been incredibly rocky in past. jack lew has been one good thing. he has a good relationship with democrats and republicans although he has had some rocky interactions with nancy pelosi over the last couple years with republicans in charge. if eric cantor has said that he gets along with jack lew and john boehner gets along with him. he could be a good thing for the president's relationship with congress. but the president has an important political calculus to make with his budget that he will submit to congress and that will set the tone for an election year and for the battle with house republicans. jack lew, his relationship might help if the president and republicans cannot agree on a list of issues. host: talk us through what kind of liaison role they surf? guest: it depends on the chief of staff. jack lew and is more of a policy person. rahm emanuel is more of a political operator. they can be involved in the

dealmaking. we saw rahm emanuel on the stimulus and health care. he was in those meetings with harry reid on the phone constantly. bill daley, the outgoing chief of staff, not as much. jack blum was taking the lead on that. if now is going to be the chief of staff and has other responsibilities, managing the staff of the white house,who gets to see the president. -- jack lew. he worked as a budget chief in the clinton administration as well as the obama administration. host: republican in the bronx, nick. caller: good morning. most of the time a lot of people to think about newt gingrich as the most experienced, to be the president of america. technically experienced in washington and knows how to solve problems better, knows

the shortcuts. but he married a couple times. if you get married and it's not going well, you have to change it. host: what is the relationship to washington me on the campaign trail? we have for a lot of candidates say i am not a washington insider, the other guy is. when we looked at the records of some of the folks running for president, they have had washington ties and connections. guest: newt gingrich has been in the washington area decades, but has run an anti-washington campaign, but while touting the fact that the past health care reform, but not mentioning bill clinton had a big part in that. newt gingrich's experience in washington was mixed because many house republicans don't like him. tom coburn, who has worked with him and was involved in the the

effort to oust him as speaker in the 1990's, said he found his leadership lacking. and another senator has also been very critical of gingrich. gingrich does have support in congress and some congressional endorsements, but not a lot. host: let's talk about steps the president made over the winter holiday, the christmas holiday, to move people into place. richard cordray it to become the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. that happened while congress was away. how will that play out? guest: that has kind of passed a little. senate democrats and republicans in both houses have already battle over that. there might be some challenges to it. there might be some talk about it. but it will not be the overarching narrative of this congress of this session. host: the uc bad as having -- dd see that as having fallout as congress comes packed?

-- as congress comes back? guest: the chamber of commerce is thinking about pursuing on the recess appointments. the consumer agency is something a lot. president obama likes talking about the consumer agency. it is one of the differences that you see in the presidential campaign, republican side and leaders in congress. there's a lot of talk about repealing dodd-frank on the campaign trail, but we have not seen that done yet in the house. host: thank you so much. bob cusack is managing editor for the hill. thanks for joining us. jake sherman is a staff writer at "politico." >> in at the moments, jon huntsman withdrawn from the president of canada's. and then a couple of presidential candidates and their wives campaigning. the group clifford rossi hosting riparian and rick santorum. on "washington journal" we will talk about presidential

politics and the south carolina primary with bill kristol, the founder and the editor of the "weekly standard." laura murphy of the aclu will talk about voter id laws. and we will talk with the financial professor clifford rossi. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> rick perry is hosting a town hall meeting on the coast just south of myrtle beach. that is on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. here on c-span, we will be live at 1:30 p.m. eastern with a town hall meeting hosted by newt gingrich, the former speaker of the house. >> a quick reminder -- the deadline cent for our studentcam. we are asking middle and high school student what part of the

constitution has meaning for you and why? there is a grand prize of $5,000, and $50,000 in total prize. if your five-eight minute documentary to c-span by friday, january 20. for last minute details, go online to studentcam.org. >> jon huntsman ended his presidential bid and endorsed mitt romney. he made the announcement just one day after he was endorsed by south carolina's largest newspaper. the former ambassador to china so that the primary had become too-and personal and that the candidates should focus on defeating president obama. this is 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i am delighted to be surrounded,

first and foremost, by those i love and appreciate most. i am up here with the greatest human being i have ever known, my wife mary kaye, who has sustained us throughout this journey. i am also up here with an interesting group of campaign activists called the jon2102 girls, and i am delighted to be here with maryann, abby, and liddy, and also delighted to be joined by my daughter gracie dubbed as our senior foreign- policy adviser, and i want to compliment her on the excellent job she did. i am here with my father and i want to express my love and appreciation for him, my son- in-law, and terrific team. some supporters, like the beloved iris campbell, the former first lady of this great state, as is the attorney ha general, alan wilson, and close personal friend of mine, mike campbell, who is here, among others. i am honored and delighted to be in the presence of some of our comments about the current

state will let you go. as candidates for our party's nomination, our common goal is to restore bold and principled leadership to the white house. . thatleadership that will unite our will reignite economy and renew the american spirit. yet, rather than seeking to advance that common goal by speaking directly to voters about our ideas to rebuild america, this race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks an not worthy of the american people and not wording of this critical time in our nation's history. this is the most important election of our lifetime. this country desperately needs to begin a journey that will allow us to courageously tackle

our two most urgent deficits. one is an economic deficit. the other is a trust deficit. only bold ideas will get us where we need to be. andand this campaign needs to be driven by those ideas. at its core, the republican party is a party of ideas. but the current toxic form of our political discourse does not help our cause. and it is just one of the many reasons why the american people have lost trust in their elected leaders. today i call on each campaign to cease attacking each other and be instead talk directly to the american people about how our conservative ideas will create jobs, reduce our nation's debts, stabilize energy prices, and provide a brighter future

for our children and our grandchildren. let's invest our time and resources in building trust with the american people and unite them around a common purpose. three years ago, the president promised to unite the american people. yet his desire to engage in class warfare for political gain has left us more divided than ever. this divisiveness is corrosive and does not advance america's interests. this nation was built on unity and trust. trust in each other, trust in a revolution that gave birth to the freest and most prosperous nation the world has ever known. trust in our system of government. that sense of unity and trust

has sustained us through world wars and national tragedies. now we need to -- it to sustain us during this hour of need. all to leave, this election is -- ultimately, this election is about more than the future of one candidate -- campaign or one party. it is about the future of our nation. and for our nation to move forward together with new leadership and unity, the republican party must first unite. we entered this race just six of months ago with the longest of long shots. my candidacy was staked on the simple principle of country first, and driven by a refusal to pass down to the next generation a country who is less powerful, less prosperous, and less competitive than the one we inherited.

today i am suspending my campaign for the presidency. i believe it is now time for our parting to unite around a candidate best equipped to defeat barack obama. despite our differences and the space between us on some of the issues, i believe that candidate is governor mitt romney. as for the huntsman family, we stepped down with an even greater appreciation for american democracy, which is fundamental to american values. after all the town halls and handshakes and meet and greets, we leave it in the hands of the people and we respect the results. to our many staff, supporters, and volunteers, i offer my heartfelt thanks. today our campaign for the presidency ends but our

campaign to build a better and more trustworthy america continues. we will continue to fight for a flatter, simpler tax code that helps unleash opportunity rather than stifle it. for an energy policy that ends the scourge of our addiction to foreign oil. for congressional term limits. for education reform that prepares our kids for the realities of the 21st century. for worth -- finance reform that breaks up too big to fail banks and protects taxpayers from future bailouts. and we will continue fighting to bring home our brave men and women from afghanistan and stop nation-building overseas and start rebuilding our own nation. for mary kaye and our family, these last six months have been an incredible and awe-inspiring

journey. i have seen the very best of america. i have seen it in the spirit of our entrepreneurs whose innovations continue to inspire and better the world. i have seen it in the courage of our veterans who i have met at vfw halls in communities all over the nation. i saw it in china, 10,000 miles away, meeting with dissidents who have been tortured and beaten, but who drew strength from our nation's values -- our openness, our freedoms, our commitment to human rights. half way around the world, they can still see america's light. that is the power america still projects. and i will never stop fighting for her and fighting to ensure that america's light shines bright for generations and

generations to come. because in the end, we must all come together as americans and must be reminded -- reminded that the fight to preserve and enhance life, liberty and happiness is what really sets us apart in this world and is worth our tireless efforts as citizens of this most extraordinary nation. he america. thank you. >> [inaudible] why the change of heart? >> thanks, everybody. c-span.o[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> clifford rossi -- and cafemom.com address several presidential candidates today. the first hosted rick perry and his wife along with frank luntz. this is an hour and 15 minutes. what kind of response have you

been getting? >> everything has been great. the hospitality is fabulous. we have enjoyed getting to know the people of south carolina and going to the different communities. we were in georgetown the day before yesterday. one of the most beautiful cities in south carolina. the history that you get to learn as you go to these states, the people, if there was not a south carolina, there would not bit a texas. there are just some great stories and history that you get to share with people. the short answer is we have had a wonderful time. anita has probably been here more than i have over the course of the campaign. she made a lot of the stops. she was in georgetown a couple of months ago. every time i go somewhere people tell me -- we love your wife. [laughter] >> they may not be so sure about him. [laughter] >> my wife, my son, then maybe meet. that is the way it has been. griffin has been on the stage -- i cannot tell you how many

times, back when you're all on the b team, and then rick was on the top of the list as well. we have had a wonderful time. this whole process is stressful and it can be rough and tumble. but we are asking for your support for the most important job in the world. this is a job interview and you need to know everything that there is to know about it. -- about us. what we did 30 years ago, or what we did over the last 11 years as the governor of the 13th largest economy in the world. in need to know my vision for -- you need to know what my vision is for this country, as you do all of the other individuals standing up today. i want to give you a vision to make you feel better about the future of this country and why our children and grandchildren are going to have a better life than we had. if you are like my wife, she has great concerns about the future of this country. >> shi'a -- you have got this

thing, debate after debate, rough-and-tumble, the super pac, you cannot feel the same way about this as you did when you got involved. is this process reworking when -- really working when there is more negativity than ever? >> where were you when you ran -- when we ran in texas? [laughter] >> you are saying texas is worse than america? >> i am not saying that at all. [laughter] politics is rough and tumble. go back 150 years, look at the advertisements that were run. it is a tough business. there are people that said things that they wish they had not said and you can reel them back in, but this is rough and tumble work. the world is a dangerous place. we need a tough individual who has a very powerful core and they know what they believed in. they're willing to go face-to-

face with the leader of china, or the leader of russia, or for that matter that madman in iran. saying that this is what the united states is going to do. to not equivocate. i want our allies to be very, very comfortable that america is going to stand with them. and i want our enemies to be very nervous. [applause] >> there are mothers and grandmothers here. in some cases, great grandmothers. are you prepared to look them straight in the eye and say to them that you might send their children into battle over iran? these are their children. >> as an individual who has worn the uniform, i am the only person on stage who has volunteered to serve our country. [applause] for the last 11 years i have been the commander in chief of our national guard troops.

-- of over 20,000 national guard troops. i have seen them deployed multiple times in two theaters. the absolute last thing that i want to do as your commander in chief is put our most precious resources at risk. and we will use every tool that we have got. it is one of the reasons i am concerned about this administration and their lukewarm approach to what is going on in the middle east. whether it is wanting to negotiate rather than using every tool. civic, overt, covert sanctions. we should have been sanctioning the iran and central bank years ago, frankly. we are not even sanctioning them now with the power that we would be sanctioned. bring them to their knees, if that is what is required. when american interests are truly impacted and the only way

to defend ourselves is force, we will use it. but let me share with you this. having won that uniform and -- having warned that uniform and -- worn that uniform and having had great knowledge about our power and ability, we will ghostwrite card. it is about winning. [applause] >> a few days ago you called -- you referred to vulture capitalism when talking about mitt romney. the media really picked up on that. some republicans were upset. i wonder if you regret saying it now. or do you still stand by your words? >> i think it is a term that

has been used before. mitt romney's campaign consultant used it against meg whitman. the fact is this. i am about creating jobs. my record on job creation is being part of the 13th largest economy in the world. it is impeccable. when million jobs have been created in texas because we have a climate in that state where people know that they can have a return on their investment and keep more of what they work for. that is what the president of the united states needs to be focused on. this is a job interview. you need to know what my tax returns look like. if that is an issue, my taxes -- we put our taxes out every year, since back in the 1980's. every candidate up there, they should put their taxes out. including mitt romney. november -- excuse me,

september and october is not the time to find out that there is something out there that is a problem. we need to know it now. as i talked about georgetown, i talk about that steel mill, i think that that is fair for us to say -- is that the right type of mentality, that american people want to see in the leader of this country? they swoop in. people putting a lot of debt on the country, a lot of people losing their jobs. that is the point i was making. the bigger issue is that americans have lost confidence in washington and in wall street. we have seen this huge transfer of wealth from main street to wall street bankers. congress was the facilitator in that. you want a congress with a --

you want a president with a record that has been vetted and a record of job creation and they have a vision for our children so that my son knows that he is able to go risk capital and have a chance with tax policy that i put out, that 20% flat tax policy is the reason i would pull back every regulation that has been in place. and have that philosophy instilled into this country. do it every day. not just talk about it. people are so fed up with folks that talked about doing one of the other, and they go to washington, d.c., and nothing changes. my question is this. do you think that if we change a democratic insider with a republican insider, will we get a big change? i am the outsider that will go in with an 11 year record of making a difference.

in a big, big economy and do it in washington, d.c. our children and grandchildren will be better off for it. [applause] >> i believe we have a mom that is wedding dress to a question. -- waiting to ask you a question. >> hi, mom. >> hi -- hi. our children will be the future americans. the education of our children is very important for us. >> yes, ma'am. >> i need to know, what role do you think the office of the president of the united states of america should play in american educational policy? >> a great question. our two children are out of college now, but they were public school children all of the way through. the little town of haskell. we started our lives together and right through one of them