>> was that yours? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> with the south carolina primary two days away, texas governor rick perry dropped out of the provincial raised today and endorsed newt gingrich. that is next on c-span. in about 10 minutes, ron paul campaigning in south carolina. president obama holds an event tonight in new york city. we will have that live at about 9:30 eastern. >> wrote to the white house coverage shows you the events leading up to the south carolina primary. >> the obama administration came

out with a policy that says in her program she cannot teach abstinence as a preferable way of avoiding out of wedlock birth. and she cannot talk about marriage. she cannot talk about marriage as any other than an alternative lifestyle which is no better or no worse than any other lifestyle. my question is why? >> the president put out a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars that nobody has read and finds out the shuttle ready jobs were not shovel ready and the stimulus left us deeper in debt. at some point, he needs to take responsibility. that was his plan, his proposal, and it failed.

>> the candidates meet with voters to get their message out. >> after the polls closed saturday evening, we'll show you the results from south carolina along with candidates' speeches and your phone calls. >> taxes governor rick perry dropped out of the republican provincial race. he spoke with supporters in north charleston, south carolina about his decision. >> good morning. thank you for coming out and

particularly to my incredible staff. i want to say thanks for the work you have done. nelson, thank you. it has been a real privilege to be able to learn and grow under your work. as i have stated numerous times during the campaign, this campaign has never been about the candidates. i ran for president because i love america. i love our people, i love our freedom. this mission is greater than any one man. i have travelled across this great country, starting in charleston, going to new hampshire, iowa, california, down into florida, numerous states in between, obviously. i discovered this tremendous

purpose and resiliency of our people. they have never lost hope despite the circumstances we find ourselves in. they have not stopped believing in the promise of america. they have not stopped believing in the american dream. americans are down, but we can never be counted out. we are too great a people for that. what is broken in america is not our people. it is our politics. what we need in washington is a place that humbler, the federal government that is smaller so our people can live freer. i was a governor who had led a large stake, leaving at the country in economic growth. the son of tenant farmers, he was born with little more than a

good name, but who has experienced the great opportunity and freedom of this country. but i have never believed that the cause of conservatism is embodied by one individual. our party and the conservative philosophy transcends any one individual. it is a movement of ideas that are greater than any one of us. it will live long passed any of us in our lives. as a former air force pilot, i know we cannot lose track of the ultimate objective in carrying out our mission. that objective is to not only defeat president obama, but to replace him with a conservative leader who will bring about real change. our country is hurting, make no mistake about that. 13 million people out of work.

50 million of our citizens on food stamps. $15 trillion national debt and growing. we need bold, conservative leadership that will take on the entrenched interests and give the american people their country back. i have always believed the mission is greater than the man. as i have contemplated the future of this campaign, i have come to the conclusion there is no viable path forward for me in this campaign. therefore, today, i am suspending my campaign and endorsing and newt gingrich for president of the united states. i believe newt is a conservative and visionary who can transform our country. we have had our differences. newt is not perfect, but who

among us is? the fact is there is forgiveness for those who seek god and i believe in the power of redemption for it is a sampler tenet of my christian faith. i have no question that newt gingrich has the heart of a conservative foot reformer, the ability to captivate the conservative movement, the courage to tell those washington interest to take a hike if that is what is in the best interest of our country. as a texan, i have never shied away from a fight, particularly when i considered the call to be righteous. as someone who has always admired the great texas governor, sam houston, i know when it is time to make a strategic retreat. so i will leave the trail and return home to texas, wind down

my 2012 campaign, and i will do so with pride in knowing i gave appellee of myself to a cost worthy of this country. as i had a home, i do so with the love of my life by my side. a woman who makes every day at good when she is there by me. that is my wife, anita. honey, thank you for all you have done. she has been an incredible patriot during this process. i also want to thank my son, griffin, and his beautiful wife, meredith. cindy, who is not here with us today. with a good wife, three loving children, and a loving god who

is in my life, things are going to be good no matter what i do. i am proud of the policies we put forward to the american people and i believe we provided the right path forward for our party and our nation. overhaul washington, providing the road map for that, proclaiming the 10th amendment and all the goodness of allowing the states to be more competitive and the local governments. creating energy security and energy jobs. cutting spending and eliminating these unnecessary federal agencies. cutting taxes to that flat and simple 20%. i will continue to fight for these conservative reforms because the future of our country is at stake and the road we are traveling today,

president obama's road, is a very dangerous one. i want to thank some wonderful individuals i have come to know and admire, who have stood by my side in this state. thank you for all the work you have done and being the loyal supporter you have been. a strong and good man in the united states congress, ambassador wilkins -- i talked to all of them this morning. i just want to thank my supporters, the men and women who have come across the country to be here in south carolina, who were in new hampshire and iowa -- god bless you for loving your country. for volunteering, being here, and are making a difference. i want to play it -- safe place to governor bobby jindal who has

been a fabulous spokesperson. steve forbes -- as i know him more, i admire him greatly. governor sam brownback. congresswoman candace miller. congressman sam graves. all just great americans. we have come to have such great respect for and reflect their love of country. i want to say a really special thanks to three distinguished veterans who have joined me on the trail. medal of honor -- medal of honor recipient, like clinton. mike spent the last two days with us. navy cross recipient, mark latrell. my christian brother up in greenville who has trouble so many times with me, young marine

captain, dan moran. they truly represent what is best about america. they give us so much of themselves. they have been up lifting for me as the commander in chief of the texas forces. they are truly my heroes. i began this race with a sense of calling. i felt led into the arena to fight for the future of this country. i feel no different today than i did then knowing a calling never guarantees a particular outcome, but the journey that tests one's faith and one character. now this journey leads me back to texas neither discouraged nor

disenchanted, but, instead, rewarded by the experience and resolute to remain in the arena and the service of my country. our country needs bold leadership and a real transformation. our country deserves that. we must rise to the occasion and elect a conservative champion to put our nation back on the right track. this i know -- i am not done fighting for the cause of conservatism. as a matter of fact, i have just begun to fight. god bless you, god bless this great country of america. thank you are coming out and being with us today. [applause] >> republican presidential

candidate ron paul was asked about the departure of rick perry from the race. congressman paul held an event at the college of charleston. this is about 55 minutes. following congressman's paul remarks, we will open for questions from the audience. before moving forward, i would like to thank the many individuals and parties involved in making this event possible. it is through your support that we are able to achieve our purpose of bringing presidential candidates to the college of charleston to participate in a dialogue with members of our campus and charleston community. present at our nation's founding, the college of charleston is pleased to hear from congressman ron paul. congressman paul is the fourth presidential candidate to speak in this nonpartisan series on political communication this season. thanks to the generous support

of the office of the president, we will hear about the many issues important to congressman paul as well as have the opportunity to ask congressman paul about issues important to us. dr. ron paul was born and raised in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. he graduated from gettysburg college and the duke university school of medicine. before serving as a flight surgeon in the united states air force during the 1960's. while serving in congress during the late 1970's and early 1980's, dr. ron paul served in the house banking committee and was a key member of the gold commission. in 16984 he voluntarily relinquished his house seat and returned to his medical practice. however, dr. paul returned to congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of texas. he served on the house financial services committee and the foreign affairs committee. as a member of congress, he continually advocated for dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional

principles. dr. paul's the author of several books and the recipient of many awards and honors from organizations such as the national taxpayers union, citizens against government waste and the council for competitive economy. dr. paul lives in lake jackson, texas, with his wife, carol, and they are the proud parents of five children and 18 grandchildren. so please welcome candidate for president of the united states, congressman ron paul. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, thank you. thank you. thank you very much, and looks like a very nice crowd. my wife is up here with me today, carol. [cheers and applause] sounds like to me that the spirit of liberty is alive and well in charleston.

it's great. you know, and it's nice to be down a little warmer climate. yesterday, i flew up to washington. i knott i ought to attend and vote against the increase of our national debt of $1.2 trillion. so it's nice to come back down and have this nice warm welcome. i always say in washington when i give a speech i never get applause so i'm always glad to get out of washington. you get a better chance of an applause if you are telling the people the truth about what's really happening in washington. and i think that's the real tragedy. i think there's so much deception going on, and i think what's happened over the many years is we have things turned upside down. the constitution was written not to restrain you but to let you have your freedom but also to protect your privacy. but they're always attacking your privacy. they are trying to take over the internet.

at the same time they want more secrecy in government. so i want to turn that around. i want you to have your privacy and your freedom. [cheers and applause] and it looks like the bill to stop the online privacy bill is very stymied. it looks like by the help of many of you we have been able to stop that and it has -- it did come from the energy from the people, the people who heard about the bill where they really wanted to take over the internet and many members of congress responded. a lot of people signed on that bill, and yesterday they started removing their names from that bill. so when the people really decide they're going to speak out, washington will listen. sometimes you need a two-by- four to get them to listen, but evidently numbers play a role in this. i think this is really important. this is why i in spite of all the problems i'll probably talk

about here in a few minutes i'm really an optimist because i think the people and especially young people are waking up and letting the politicians know what they want. so i have frequently been asked, why do i think the young people seem to be attracted to our campaign? i said, well, why not? they believe in liberty, too, you know. so it is a delight that there's a tremendous attraction for the views that i hold, and we shouldn't be surprised at all. i'm always surprised that we don't have a lot more, but our numbers are indeed growing. i have been in this business for a long time, and the crowds were very small. but something has happened, especially in the last couple years. i think there's a recognition that government's not a very good organizer or a management. they can't manage our lives. you know, they can't manage the economy, and they certainly can't manage all these countries around the world, and

i think we're getting sick and tired of what they've been trying to do. [applause] but the only thing they've been good at is running up the debt. they seem to have no problems with that. but you know, yesterday, that vote on raising the national debt limit by $1.2 trillion, it was a real farce in many ways because the debt is going to be increased. last summer the congress gave up their responsibilities and they said, well, when the president needs more money he can raise the national debt. and we get to vote it down if we want to. and then if we vote it down, then he can veto it. then you'd have to, you know, override his veto. a foregone conclusion because voting down the debt increase won't happen in the senate. so the debt is automatically going up $1.2 trillion. nobody seems to care. if they did they would take my advice and cut the budget by $1 trillion in one year is what we need. [applause]

but overall our issue is that of individual liberty. that's what's made america great. that's what the founders fought for. when you look at the bill of rights and the fourth amendment and the due process of law, i mean, it has been so severely undermined. if you take the bill that was passed shortly after 9/11, the patriot act, that hasn't given you any more freedom. it's given you less freedom. i don't even believe we need the patriot act to take care of the people. [applause] also, yesterday while in washington, i introduced a piece of legislation. it was my typical very long complicated piece of legislation. it was one page. it says repeal that provision in the national defense authorization act that gives the president the authority to arrest americans by the military and held indefinitely. i want to repeal that clause. [applause]

so in many ways if you look at the 20th century it was the unwinding many freedoms that we had. there wasn't a lot of freedoms that we created in the 20th century. there is big differences here. it's not on profits and savings. it's based on a belief that our dollar can be printed forever and it's a belief that we can borrow money forever so the wealth in this country is basically debt. the money is debt. our wealth is debt. we're running the world on debt. but there still is a bit of trust in the dollar and the dollars of reserved currency. it acts like gold. but believe me, markets are smarter than governments, and markets eventually know in a paper is not gold and this is why the dollar will be rejected and it has been rejected in many ways already. i got involved in politics in 1971 when the last link to gold was undermined and removed. believing then that that would mean the politicians could spend money endlessly and have

no responsibility and that's exactly what has happened. everything has exploded. if you're interested in economics, take your economic textbook out and look at the charts from 1971 on the size of government, the number of employees, the inflation rate, the unemployment rate, everything is exponential from the early 1970's. but if you take a look at the value of your dollar since 1971, it went down 85%. so in a true free market economy where we want people to have the incentive to take care of themselves they would work hard and save. they might not be sophisticated enough or willing to gamble in this market and other things. if they put their money away 40 years ago and now they're going to retire, the money they put away has been gradually eroded. it would be worth 15 cents. this is criminal. this is immoral. it is bad economics. that is why we have to pay attention to the monetary

system, why we have to look to the constitution realizing the constitution only says only gold and silver can be used as a legal tender. there is no authority in the constitution to print money and there's no authority for the federal reserve system at all. [applause] but, you know, even short of the time will come when we revamp and have a new monetary system or get rid of the federal reserve, the most important thing we do right flow, and it supports about 80% of the american people because i can't imagine anybody being opposed to it, why doesn't the congress demand to know exactly what the federal reserve is doing, how much money they're printing and when and where it goes and who gets all the benefits? and we need a full audit of the federal reserve system. [applause] during the crisis, which is ongoing, but when it burst, when the bubble burst in 2007

and 2008, the congress went and passed tarp funds in the various programs and spent $1 trillion. sounds like a lot of moneys and it is. and they bailed out companies and banks and transferred the debt from the corporations over to the people because we ended up owning the bad debt. in the free market you want to liquid ate debt, you don't want to transfer the debt to the innocent people. but what is generally not understood well is what was the federal reserve doing. they were involved in trillions of dollars and we don't even know the exact amount. they were involved with the manipulation of $15 trillion, and it's estimated about $7 trillion were used to bail out people overseas, foreign banks and they're still doing it. they're sitting over there promising -- don't worry. the dollar is strong. everybody can trust the dollar and we'll take care of the banks in europe. it's the banks they worry about. they don't worry about the people of greece or spain or these other places because, of

course, they live beyond their means too. they had a runaway welfare state and they had debt but the banks bought the debt and now they're stuck with the debt. that debt should be liquidated. now, if our federal reserve goes in and starts buying that debt as they already started that means even foreign debt is going to be dumped on us. there's a limitation to that and it comes closer every single day and that's why the burden will fall on us, especially the young people of this country and why it is so important that we understand the importance of liberty, property rights, sound money and the responsibility of individuals to care for themselves but you can't -- it's very difficult to even no matter how energetic you are to take care of yourselves if you don't have a market-type economy and sound money and jobs. that's what you have to have if you are going to take care of yourselves and this means the government has to change the government. we're overregulated, overtaxed. we have as manipulated a

monetary system. and let me tell you, there is a big drain on this economy for what we're doing overseas. we're spending over $1 trillion every year overseas. if i thought this would enhance and take care of our national defense i'd be all for it. i tell you what, i quite frankly, i think just spending money overseas is not an answer and will actually make us more vulnerable, especially if it contributes to the destruction of our currency here at home. so we should think more carefully about where we get involved overseas, how long we should be involved over there. and my position is quite frankly, we've been overseas in some places way too long. we don't need any more countries to occupy. we need to come home from places like japan, korea and germany. [applause] so we can't have a stronger national defense if we do that. it's the prime responsibility of the federal government to have a strong national defense.

actually, one of the things i can tell you is where we as our government has done a pretty darn good job. we have a military in a is superior to all the other militaries put together. we have more weapons and we're more capable and, believe me, nobody is going to invade us. and we're quite capable of taking care of ourself. but it doesn't mean that we should continue to spend money. i make a strong point that you should think about military spending being different than defense spending. if you spend money, say, in iraq fighting a war that was unnecessary, helping to put our government into debt of $4 trillion, which has happened with military spending over the last four years, if you do that that doesn't mean that we're stronger. that means in a we're

financially weaker. and who knows, we may have more enemies now than ever because there's a lot of collateral damage that we like to dismiss. but let me tell you, it's not dismissed when people get killed because we're occupying their countries. just think -- i know the other night people didn't like what i said, but just think what it was like, you know, if another country did to us like we do to some of them, wouldn't we be annoyed as well? [applause] so what is the advice and how do you explain the point where they say if you endorse this? does it mean you want to be an isolationist and not trade and talk to people? it's exactly the opposite. we don't want to occupy people. what we want to have is a more and free and open society and a mobile society. we a lot believe in nonintervention or isolationist is the ones that want to put sanctions on countries. sanctions are actually acts of

war. i think it's time that we -- you know, after 40-some, maybe 50 years now, i think we ought to think seriously, don't you think it would be safe to remove the sanctions against cuba? we talk to cuba and trade and travel to cuba. [applause] we put sanctions on iraq for about 10 years and bombed them constantly. eventually it ended up in a war and that war is far from over. a lot of our troops have left, but we have a huge embassy there. and troops will have to be there so we'll be -- it will be a financial burden to us and a distraction from what we want to do. i complain about all this effort. when i was in the air force i was over in that region and i was right up to the border between pakistan and afghanistan. very, very mountainous. and, you know, it's just unbelievable how mountainous and rough terrain that is. and the border between the two

countries run through there. and we're supposed to be involved in a war fighting and chasing people back and forth and figuring out who's in what country. you know, my idea is, let's forget about that border and worry about our own borders a little bit more. [applause] our borders today are a real mess, especially to the south of us. it has immigration problems and our immigration rules are a mess and i can't go into that in detail, but obviously we need better border patrol and we shouldn't endorse illegal immigration but there is something else going on in our borders that we should be thinking about because it is a threat to us and nothing seems to be changing and that happens to be dealing with the drug wars. the drug war is really very visible down there. in the last five years, 47,500

people died on our own border and it has to do with the drug war. so i would like to say that it wouldn't hurt us to maybe put a moratorium on that war as well. [applause] we have been fighting the drug war substantially since the early 1970's spending trillions of dollars. and guess what? prohibition doesn't work. it didn't work with alcohol and it isn't working with drugs. i think we should rethink that. your generation needs to rethink it because when they -- previous generation decided we will make people more moral and teach them that alcohol is bad for them which is bad. it's a really very dangerous drug as all drugs are. they tried a prohibition method to try to mold people. they did it for 10 years or so. they woke up one day and repealed it.

this has been going on longer. it's much more complicated. it's been more costly. we fill our prisons with nonviolent criminals. you can get put in prison for being a nonviolent user of drugs on three occasions for life. and i would suggest those people who have done the murdering and the raping shouldn't be getting out and we shouldn't be putting nonviolent drug users in prison. [applause] the other question we ought to ask is, it seems like we accept the idea that alcohol must not be a drug and if you're addicted to alcohol you're treated as a patient. as a physician and person in politics, i would suggest that people who are addicted to drugs, instead of encouraging them to kill and murder and rob in order to get enough money to pay about 1,000 times more for the drug, why don't we treat people who are addicted to drugs as patients rather than

as criminals? [applause] not only is it a failed policy but it also does something to our liberties because it's an excuse for people to come busting in the houses. i'm sure you heard the stories of the police, the departments, the federal government, the f.b.i. busting into places where they were suspected of having drugs. guess what, they go in the wrong houses sometimes and tear up the houses and leave the people in distress. some people get killed that way by these sting-type operations. anit's a very -- it is recollection cues now with the patriot act to use search warrants -- i mean, search without search warrants. so in order to really protect our privacy and restore the fourth amendment you have to deal with not only the patriot

act but also the downside of the war on drugs. but what are some of the things we must do in order to get the economy going again? and there's a lot that we have to do. they say my viewpoint, does that mean the government should do nothing? in some areas we shouldn't tell people how to spend nair money. we shouldn't have to tell people how to spend their money. there is the environmental of the economy that we have to deal with. we have to have a sound currency. we shouldn't have a currency that's constantly losing value. we shouldn't have a federal reserve system that creates the bombs and the busts. we shouldn't have these programs that tell the businessman they must give loans to people who can't qualify for loans contributing more so to the boom cycle. we should have low taxation. the other night they asked me what i thought the ideal tax would be on income. i gave them my uncomplicated answer. i thought the income tax should

be zero. [applause] people working their way through college, you know, if there were more jobs and not taxes it would be easier to work your way through college and not have to borrow so much money. it was close to that when i went to college. taxes were essentially nil at that time. the jobs didn't pay very much. the education doesn't cost very much. when the government gets involved, whether it's housing or education, they want everybody to be educated and more people might get educated, but when they just pump money into anything, whether it's houses or education or medicine, guess what the number one thing that happens, the price goes up. the cost of education, the cost of medicine, the cost of houses distorts the economy and then there has to be a correction. that's certainly what happened in the housing bubble. but right now the most important thing that we have to try to do in order to get the growth back again is you have to

liquidate. you have to get rid of debt and you have to get rid of malinvestment. when the federal reserve lowers the interest rates lower than it should be, it encourages savers and business people to do the wrong thing, make mistakes and borrow too much money. if you can't liquidate the death you want build on that. unfortunately in the last four years, like i mentioned before, they didn't liquidate the debt, they transferred the debt. they transferred the debt from the people who made the more money and gave it to people who are losing their jobs and losing their houses. so what we need is a clear understanding of the free market economic system, and unfortunately we have been engaged in this country many, many decades, if not 70 or 80 years being taught only one form of economics and that's the keynesians economics. people aren't smart enough to tell you how to spend your money and run your business, the people in washington.

[applause] but our whole system thrived on the principle of individual liberty. my belief is that our life comes from a creator and our liberty comes from our creator and where he ought to be able to assume responsibility for ourselves and not be hindered by our government. the one thing what happens if you live in a truly free society, then you have the chance of assuming the responsibility of seeking excellence and virtue. that should be the goal in life. excellence and virtue and prosperity, and yet when government decides they are going to make you virtuous or they are going to make the economy perfectly equal, believe me, they ruin things. they ruin things. they can bring about equality in economics, but the 20th century has shown what total socialism gets. poverty is what you get. so in a free society it's quite

different, but it becomes a more creative society. we were the freest and the most prosperous and we had the largest middle class ever. now the middle class is shrinking. productivity is down. but there's no slowing up of spending. none whatsoever. and this is the reason, you know, i made this modest suggestion that if spending is the problem, instead of tinkering around with how you raise the debt limit and deceive the people, we should cut the budget by $1 trillion. i think that's a pretty good place to start. [applause] freedom at one time was seen as a unit, and the founders understood this. if you had a right to your life you had a right to your social life and you had a right to your economic life. today we have a few people defending personal liberty and a few others defending economic librity. but you need to put this back together. if you have a right to your life and your liberty, therefore, your social life as

long as you don't hurt people, you have a right to do what you want to do as well as how to spend your money. and some people say, oh, no. some people will waste nair life. they are going to do some dumb things and we got to take care of them. i had one member of congress, we were voting on something, putting controls on the people. i said, why are you doing this? why should you regulate and tell people what to do? they said, they're too stupid. this is their attitude that they have to tell you. but it is true in a free society. if you have your freedom you might make mistakes. but the whole thing is, it's better you make your own mistake and suffer the consequence rather than the politician making the mistake and everybody suffering. [applause] so if we could bring people together -- and this is to me the wonderful message of freedom. some people will use their freedom in one way. you don't endorse people's use of freedom. the limit is use of force and

stealing and hurting other people's property. you don't endorse this. we understand this in religion. people can be atheists and they can be all forms of religion. they make mistakes. but in social things and economic things, all of a sudden we think we have to regulate them. we need to have a better understanding and not feeling so threatened. just because we legalize freedom, that doesn't mean we endorse what people do. a lot of people would like to paint me as being pro-drug or something. i'm not. you know, it's just that i'm pro-choice on people allowing to use their own life. but i condemn, you know, some people on their choices. but i'm willing to believe in a free society is the most prosperous society. that's what made america great and that is what's going on in this country. believe me. the crowds are bigger, the young people know about it.

the remnant is still out there. people are getting excited. and they know change has to come. the only question now is, are we going to march forth with continuation of gigantic growth of government worldwide and have the united nations taken over or are we going to demand our rights as individuals to live in a free country where we don't have to be dictated by international government, where we don't go to war on the united nations and nato and that we live as free people in this country as it was intended? thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you. >> ok. great. what a crowd. ok. if you could have a seat, congressman paul has agreed to respond to questions as he is able.

we have a few staff around. if you raise their hand they'll get around to you as they can. here, we have one over here. >> considering the nature of the bully pulpit series, my question of communication, how would you use the bully pulpit as president of the united states? >> how would i use the bully pulpit as president of the united states? probably give the same speech i gave you today. the message is important, but understanding is important. we talk for many years in the support i've gotten about a revolution. it's an intellectual revolution. but nothing works if people don't understand it. government reflects the people. there is no doubt about it. and they have to understand if. so just like i mentioned about the change in attitude about the piracy bill on the internet. people knew and understood that so you want to galvanize people and get them excited to put pressure on the people in

washington. we don't have to change every single person in washington. what we have to do is change your hearts and your minds to know what you expect from government. when that happens. we don't hear that very often from very few of our leaders that it's the change in people's minds that have to count. but government is a reflection of the people. if the people want us to go to war under u.n. banner and not declare war and occupy more and more countries, the government will continue to do it unless you decide as a generation enough is enough. if you want your rights back again and your assumption you can take care of yourself, you have to hear from the people, that would be something i would keep pushing to try to get people to understand. the one thing about the free market, people say, well, it's cruel and it's evil and uncaring. but actually it isn't. it's humanitarian. if you care about your fellow man, you want freedom, because it produces the most and gives you the largest middle class and the greatest prosperity and one of the best distributions.

although there would be inequality. but people, when they hear this they should be encouraged and that would be a message i would continue to spread. [applause] >> dr. paul, in regards to the sopa and pipa bills currently in congress, are south carolina senator lindsey graham is a co- sponsor of pipa. in my interactions with him through email, i feel that the politicians speak a different language than the voters. as a politician, what do you suggest we tell him in regards to the bill so he fully goes away with pipa? >> if there is two or four of you, it's not going to do any good. just yesterday, rubio switched his vote. he took his name off because he heard from his people. a lot of people in washington aren't philosophically

interested. they're interested in re election. that's what motivates most of them is re-election and power. no, if there's enough people to send that message, they should have, you know, change their minds. that's what the system is all about. so i would do is encourage to contact all your representatives who do not agree with you on sopa. >> congressman paul, i'm a sophomore polysci major. in 2009 you signed a letter from the texas congressional delegation requesting support from the federal government for high-speed rail in texas. i was curious as to what your opinion was towards high-speed rail and american infrastructure in the united states, being a promoter of small government? >> well, i don't recall that particular letter but it's

something that i would sign and make request. i represent a district and they take a lot of money from all our districts. they take highway funds. this is the best example. it's probably a highway transportation bill. highway funds were supposed to be a user fee. we pay for gasoline. we send the money to washington. it's supposed to build our highways. there is no money in the bank and they have to appropriate money. i routinely, if there was any request from any city, town or individuals for infrastructure, i would just, you know, automatically make the request and say, you know, you took their money, we have niece moneys come back and they're called earmarks. this is like a controversial issue because i believe in the principle of earmarking. i don't -- because if you vote against an earmark and don't support it, the money goes to the president and he gets to spend the money and i think it's wrong. as a matter of fact, i think there should be more earmarking.

i think everything -- every nickel should be designated how the congress because we represent the people. so we should designate this and we should do this because that is our responsibility to designate how the money should be spent. but the one thing is, since i never voted for an appropriation bill i never voted for one of those earmarks. i might make the request saying, look, if you are going to divvy up the money that you stole from us, yeah, i would at least -- let my request be in there. [no audio] [applause] >> thank you, dr. paul. i know you don't want to occupy any our countries or break down our relationships. do you have any plans to

strengthen our relationships, particularly with pakistan and iran? >> she knows i don't want to occupy more nations but what can we do to strengthen our relationship in particular with pakistan and iran. i would continuously do that because i would want to offer friendship and trade with anybody who will accept it. and that would be the opposite of punishing the people of these countries like in iran. we're putting punitive punishment and not allowing them to import or export which is an act of war. so i wouldn't do that. i would take off the sanctions because it backfires on it. it hurts people. it never hurts the government. as a matter of fact, it enhances the power of the government because there's a lot of people in iran right now that don't like their government. and they actually have elections. the american people don't realize it. they have a lot more elections there than they do in saudi arabia. we do whatever saudi arabia

wants because we do what they tell them to do. you should offer friendship and trade and say, well, some of these people are bad people. like did we talk to the soviets when they were killing hundreds of millions of people as well as china but eventually we got over this. we should talk to people. one thing i used is the example when i was drafted in 1962 with the missile crisis in cuba and kennedy and khrushchev talked and decided they would not start a war. we took missiles out of turkey and missiles out of cuba. i think we need more diplomacy and more talking and not more instill dation. -- intimidation. pakistan is the example of the worst type of foreign policy we could have because i used to claim there were two options. we go to a country and say, look, we want you to be our buddy and dictator like mubarak and give them $40 billion. if they do our bidding we give

them a lot of money. if they don't do it we bomb them and occupy them. but in pakistan we have three ways of doing it. we bomb them, kill innocent people, they get angry at us, they get angry at their government and we keep giving money to their government and we wonder why we don't have good relationships with that. the founders were right, the more trade and communication with people the less likely we'll fight with them. when i was in high school we were fighting the chinese. i was glad nixon talked to them. the french and americans probably killed more than a million vietnamese. we finally left. we lost 60,000 americans. many of them sick and injured people. finally we leave. guess what? there was no communist domino effect. what happened is they became westernized, china became our banker and we invest in vietnam all through peace and not war. we should be talking to people,

whether it's pakistan or iranians or whatever. that doesn't mean you should condone what they do. i don't want more people to get nuclear weapons. i don't want the iranians get more nuclear weapons. we contained the soviets. they had 30,000 of them. so the last thing we need is a war in iran over a weapon they don't have. [applause] >> dr. paul, i have about three comments. one, i would like to see term limits for congressmen and senators. if they can accomplish anything they should be able to accomplish it in the time allotted to them. they don't need to make a career of being in washington, switching from this to that and taking big money from the big

oil companies, the big pharmaceutical companies and big insurance companies, big banking consortiums. we need to make our own decisions. those big companies do not need to make them. we need to get rid of the lobbyists and we need to deal directly with our representatives. and i think you're absolutely right about drugs. i know this is very unpopular, but if we made drugs legal we would get rid of all the crime involved. [applause] and like alcohol, we could make them legal, clean out our jails and collect tax on them to help on this deficit. thank you.

people't i tell you under 30 have good common sense. very good. thank you. with term limits, i introduced the first term limit bill even in the 1970's when it wasn't a subject. we had a chance to vote on term limits in the 1990's after the republicans took over in 1994, and we had about six votes. i voted for all them. so i support term limits but i don't think it's the answer. it would be helpful, but ultimately if you have somebody who believes the same thing and they leave and you put somebody else in who believes in the foreign policy and the monetary policy and the federal reserve and all the bailouts, it doesn't change anything. but what i think you're suggesting is the turnover you're going to get a better chance of doing it. that's why i support it. unfortunately we are not on the verge of it. after we had the six votes in the 1990's it was passed by, so

i guess the your second option to that is the people that aren't responding to you, you know, there's still such a thing called an election and you have to work harder at that, i guess. ok. which way are we looking? >> one more question. >> dr. paul, on monday the debate when asked, what was the highest income tax you would have you said zero. totally agree. i think it's direct theft. i don't think the american people understand how you would get the taxes, whether it be user fees or tariffs or what. could you please elaborate on that? >> he likes the idea of a zero tax rate and i think most of us do. but he asks a realistic question, how do you get there, because obviously if we had no income tax right now, the deficit would get worse. so you have to change the spending habits. we have to literally change the role of government. if you want a perpetual welfare state and if you think we should police the world, no

income tax would go up. they'll keep printing money until the whole thing blows up and that's what i'm worried about. that's likely to happen. let's say we are sensible, we work our way out of it, how do you get to a zero tax? bring our troops home, not be the policemen of the world, have a strong national defense and say we are not in the entitlement system. today, most people in this country, or at least a lot of people in this country think entitlement -- it sounds like it's a good word like you have a right to it but entitlements aren't right. you have a right to your liberty but you are not entitled to somebody else's property. so you have to change that whole philosophy. [applause] but up until 1913 we didn't have an income tax. it was user fees. i think the user fee on the highway, we could work with

that. we have a user fee -- i have a lot of coastal area in my district, and you know in the intercoastal canal they pay fees to use it. but then somebody else uses up the money and then they -- we have trouble taking care of our harbors and our canals. so user fees would be good. a highway gasoline tax i think would work under these circumstances. but the big thing is cutting back on the size of government. but some taxes -- the import tax isn't, you know, real popular. an import tax raised revenues at the very beginning of our history. but when it's punitive, when it punishes people and tries to protect certain industries that is bad. but if you have a flat tax, i think that would be a proper way of raising some revenues if we want to avoid the income tax. anyway, that looks like our time is up. i enjoyed it. wonderful day. wonderful weather. thank you very much. [applause]

>> congressman paul, thank you, and on behalf of the bully pulpit series at the college of charleston i'd like to present to you a token of our appreciation. [cheers and applause] >> well, what a crowd. thank you. on behalf of the sear sees, the nonpartisan series, regardless of your vote, we want you to remind you to vote saturday during the primary election. thank you so much. >> hey, thank you. appreciate it. thanks a lot. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> young people come to my office and i hand out a constitution and say, you read it because nobody else reads it. >> thank you, sir. >> ok. thank you. thank you. thank you, you guys. glad you're out.

>> good luck. >> good to see you guys. you can make me an honorary member. quite sure can. >> can i get a picture with the. -- with you?

>> thank you so much. as a better myself, thank you so much. -- veteran myself, thank you so much. >> the odds of them closing out, it did seem like them more than anyone else. did they need it as much as anybody else. they're saying to think it over. in effect they have a weapon, they're not going to use it. >> they threatened to close it. >> i know. they are retaliating verbally a

lot we are doing. >> they're going to suffer from it. >> do you gain some support? >> not really. >> one day i had 47,000 new donors. under not make judgments. -- i did not make judgments. i work at house restaurant.

if you come down, i can setup a reservation for you. >> could to see everybody. orrect >> what to say to young people who do not want to show up? >> i'm not going to lose any sleep over it. i tried to interject some ideas. i have been successful. they are bored with the idea. i think i can energize the ideas. >> >> >> why do you think young

people seem to be going through this? >> thank you very much. clacks. >> good to me. >> i am going to have trouble. >> thank you so much. >> >> can you watch that?

>> i am running out of ink. >> if you sign but i will love you forever. >> that is a long time. they're telling me i have to go. harry doing?

-- how are you doing? thank you. >> right now, it does not cover this. >> the government has no money. what we need to do is have a prosperous economy. i want and again of their money.

-- i want them to get all of their money. the you >> it is good to see everybody. thank you. >> you are an inspiration. and if we can ever did anything, here we are.

>> republicans have been campaigning around south carolina. >> president obama was in florida today. tonight he is in new york for a

speech at the apollo theater. after a tally released today, rick santorum was named the winner of the iowa caucuses. he has been campaigning. he spoke with the seven republican leadership conference. he was joined onstage by those from the citadel. >> thank you very much. it is great to be here.

it is great to be here. we're looking for a fun night tonight at the debate. i am here with a few friends. mimosa important friend is my wife karen. we're raising our seven children. we have had a wonderful time here. we spent the last few weeks. we had a wonderful time. we come down to the low country a lot. we have been vacationing here for almost 20 years. it is an opportunity to spend a little time at a great institution in the city of charleston. that is the citadel. i want to thank you all for joining us. thank you. i'll be with them tomorrow night at the republican club dinner.

i think you all for being here. thank you for the greek word you're doing for the republican party. -- for the great work you are doing for the republican party. i believe this is about the fundamental freedoms we have. we have a present to as a very different view about what america is great and what it is. america is a country that believes in limited government, god-given rights and for people to be able to pursue god's will for them in their lives to be able to work and reap the fruits of their labor. they provide for themselves and their country. that is the uniqueness of this country. we are a free country based on rights given to every individual. the government's jobless to protect those rights. it was limited.

president obama does not see the world that way. america is on its road to be like every other country. our founders left those countries to come to america to establish something different. barack obama once return as to what we came from. it is why this election is important. people here have a huge role to play. they have the opportunity to speak loudly about what candidates they want to carry forth that message. they have the background to back up that vision. someone that can win the state's southern necessary for us to when and relate to voters.

those are the 10 states where a group of folks called reagan democrats made all of the democrats -- made all the difference. ladies and gentlemen, i come from one of those states. i come from a background and a town where there were lots of reagan democrats. people ask me how i won a 60% democratic district when i ran against a 14 year incumbent. how i won against a democratic incumbent when i ran toward the united states senate with more than 500,000 more registered democrats in a year where george bush lost the state by 2000 and i won by 6. how did you do that? it is by going out and talking about the values that make this country great. the value of hard work.

i grew up on -- grew up in a steel town. i talk about the value of hard work and the value of giving every single american the opportunity to rise in society. it has always been about opportunity to me. that is what my grandfather and my thought it taught me here is if you work hard and do your best in america, it will receive the reward you. a lot of people are questioning whether that is true. a lot of people are feeling left behind thinking no politicians carry -- care about them. democrats are saying, we will take care of you. the people of america do not want to be taken care of. [applause] they want someone who believes in them, someone who believes they can do things if we can set a playing field that allows for

it or opportunity and the opportunities all rise. we seem to be fixated on talking about cutting taxes and promoting economic growth. i am all for that. we seem fixated making sure that top rate -- a lot of folks are not paying that top rate. they are wondering, how are you going to help me? do you care about me? the answer is, we better care about them. they are the heart and soul of america. i come from that area of america, western pennsylvania. the area that barack obama said clings to their guns and their bibles. thank god they do. [applause] i have put forth an economic plan not just for the economy, but for the family, that will restore the institutions and the economy that is necessary for those folks out there paddling along to have the opportunity to be able to succeed and provide for themselves and their family and help rebuild a lot of the communities in small towns across america.

the plan at the slow were shows we have not only small -- strong principles of supply-side economics, but an unplanned rate in double digits. we have to have someone who can understand and relate to the problems going on across america in the states necessary to win if we are going to win back the trust of the american people and win this presidency. we have an opportunity to put someone out there who is in sync with the people and that america needs to participate again in the enterprise of america, to participate fully, to half upward mobility and have hope and optimism. that is what we are looking for in a president, someone who has plans that give others hope and optimism that they can be part of the revitalization of the american economy and their communities and their own

families. that is why i talk about the family as the center and bulwark of our society. the family is absolutely essential if we are going to have that the elimination of poverty and we are going to have opportunities. we have to have a government that nurtures as the poorest families and focuses on how we can hold an environment together and promote fatherhood and marriage. all of these things are critically important. as the family breaks down, the economy breaks down.

people are isolated in trying to do the job of two people in raising a family, which is so much harder. we all know this. republicans as well as democrats do not have policies other than the democrats giving folks money. that does not solve anything. it perpetuates dependency for people who do not want to be dependent. they want opportunity. we bring back to the table better than anybody else left in this race. we also bring something that is also important, someone who can rally the base of our party.

someone who is unapologetically a conviction conservative on national security, on moral, on constitutional, economic, on fiscal issues. i have no apologies for the strong positions i have taken over the years. they have been consistent and i have led all the way around. we have important issues in this race. we have an important group of people have to keep energized and involved in the republican party called the tea party. [applause] if you look at the tea party and you look at the issues that got the tea party started in america, it started with the wall street bailouts and the furor that was going on about government reaching in and taking control of a sector of the economy. it was typed up even further by the talk of obamacare and taking over the health care system and cap and trade and the takeover of the energy sector and the manufacturing sector and

controlling the environment. that is how the tea party got going. that is what put the energy in the 22010 race -- in the 2010 race. the two candidates i am competing with in south carolina to win support individual mandates. there was a similar obamacare plant in massachusetts. both of them supported global warming. one of them sat on a couch with nancy pelosi and talked about the need to do something. both of them supported the wall street bailouts. how're we going to differentiate ourselves on the major issues of the day if we nominate twiddle dumb and kildee -- tweedle dum and tweedle dee? [applause] south carolina can speak loudly that we want clear and bold contrast. the last time we were disrespect around the world and the last time we knew we had a president

that was over his head. south carolina was told by the pundits and the media, we just need to win. pick someone who is more moderate who can win. south carolina said know. we are going to pick the conviction conservative. we are going to pick someone who represent our values, someone who has the energy and enthusiasm and the vision to do what america needs to put america back on the right track. they took a leap of faith in this ultra-conservative, this man who was old and out of touch he was so conservative and was a throwback named ronald reagan. [applause] i remind you all that when you took that chance in south

carolina for ronald reagan, he was not the runaway -- ronald reagan we know and admire. he became that reagan because south carolina believe we needed someone like a reagan. [applause] and so i encourage you all, over these next 24 hours, those of you who are from here or from out of town, spread the word. we have an opportunity in south carolina to surprise everyone. we are fortunate to have won the state of iowa today when the official certification came down. [applause] we have one state under our belt. we had an opportunity to surprise again. with your help and support, the

people of south carolina who every single day say, senator, do not go out and compromise. fight for the principles you believe in. i say back to you, do not compromise. voted for the principles you believe in. vote for me for president. god bless you. [applause] ♪ >> we are winding down here, south carolina holds its

presidential primary on friday. rick santorum will join us on friday to take your calls. that is live at 7:04 a.m. -- 7:45 a.m. eastern. none could just a few minutes, we plan to go live to harlem. president obama will speak their before about 1400 people with a general admission tickets start at $200. the president is raising money for his reelection campaign. our coverage is getting under way shortly on c-span. and sell them, the center for the study of the american collector -- until then, the center for the city of american collections was here on washington journal.

you have a new report out on voting trends. when you look at 2012 as a turn not here, what kind of turn not do you expect tax >> i expect a fairly low turnout. we have had increases in 20002006 and 2010. it is not going to continue. host: y? guest: the republican party is deeply divided. the democratic party is supportive of of obama.

young people were driven by anger in 2004. latino support for president obama -- but they are worried about him, because there has been more deportations been in . there are all these things that essentially, likely will produce lower turnouts as well as the fact that the people in the middle and the independence have no real strong feelings for either party at this point. we have a huge number of people who feel the country is moving in the wrong direction. increasingly, a number of people feel a pass on both of the houses. i think all that will lead to a lower turnout. host: here is a chart we put together in looking at presidential election turnout from 1948 to 2008. you can see the turnout of the

elector was about 52% jumping up to 60 some than%. -- up to 60%. it looks like the second hi mark is 2008. that is at about 62% turnout. if you were to predict, where would you say turnout is going to go here? guest: i think it will be in between 55% and 58%. something like that. it is going to go down. there is a wild card. the wild card is whether in the people will be looking for another solution. that is way in the future. at this point, you have to be looking at a pretty sharp

decline. host: curtis gans, who votes? who are the most reliable voters? guest: a man put for a book called "who votes?"using census data. that book essentially says that the people who vote most are more educated. the people who are older. the people who are more presidentially stable. and of the people who are married. also people who have a higher income vote than people who have a lower income. host: what about regionally in the u.s.? guest: regionally what you have is it is lower in the south.

host: why? guest: because they are catching up. the contrast, prior to the voting rights act in 1965, was a stark. but because of the voting rights act in 1965, african americans were enfranchised. conservatives and people with racial concerns the moved to the republican party. what you ended up with was a two party competition, which you never had. it is still behind-the-scenes. most of the rest of the nation is higher, but prior to the 2000 increases, most was declining where the south was increasing. host: curtis gans, current population trends, which party do they favor?

guest: long-term, favor the democrats. host: why? guest: because we are going to be a majority/minority population. largely because of latinos. the republican party does not have much risk there and did not have much roots in african- americans. the second thing is there are places where essentially the republican party does not have a prayer at this point with their current advocacy. they almost cannot win in new england. they lost most of the ground that they used to have in the far west.

they are even having trouble now in the far midwest. of the industrial states, only indiana seems to be reliably republican. but what they have is the south. and the south is going to be less republican at its edges, where you have latino migration. and places like virginia where northern virginia is growing in that area. both of those areas are democrat areas. the republican base is going to narrow. unless they change their advocacy to be more inclusive and more moderate, you know, they are likely on the long haul to be losing ground. that does not speak to this election.

this election will be decided by the unemployment rate in may, june, or july. host: when this country is in a recession, it does that encourage or discourage voters? guest: under normal circumstances, it encourages voters because they are angry and mobilize. there are places with significant increases since 1960 during the period of decline or 1982 when we had a recession. 1990, when we were coming out of a recession. 2004, 2006, and 2008. particularly 2006 and 2008. the problem right now is that people do not see hope of coming out of the recession from either party. so, if you get to may, june, or july, and we are not looking like coming out of a recession, it will be hard for people to vote for president obama appeared at the same time, -- for president obama.

at the same time, people do not see the economic policies of the republicans. host: hour to talk about the midterm elections. this is a chart that your organization, center for the study of the american electorate, put together. you can see that turnout was about 38%. but it has been increasing up through 2010, approaching 42%. do you see this trend continuing? guest: i do not see any trend toward increasing turnout. there is an underlying problem of declining motivation of the electorate. we have had a decline of the quality of education. that only now is beginning to be reversed. we have two political parties at this point that do not engage the electorate where people feel one party is right

at the american center and the other party is not affected. we have the way we build our campaigns. and overrun glut of attack advertising that denigrates each candidate and undermines people's faith in the political process. it is increasingly demagogic. we have the impact of technology. it started with television. it brings the world community into your living room. it's atomizes our society and makes people spectators.

we had three networks with nightly news and information. then we got cable and satellite. it gives you lots of wonderful things. at 95% of the channels, you do not get any intersection with politics and public affairs. you can watch espn as i often do, all day, every day, without getting one. and then you go to the internet. it is a self-choice medium with millions of websites. politics and concerns are not the choices of everybody.

by and large, they go to separate websites. and then you have the ipad and the iphones, facebook, that create personal networks that fragment our society. for all of those reasons, the state of political institutions and communications technologies, we have an electorate that at times when we are in crisis, people do not participate. host: curtis gans is our guest. he is the director of the center for the study of the american electorate. he has been doing that for some time. one of his positions was the staff director for eugene mccarthy in 1968. he was a senator from minnesota. we're going to go to calls. the numbers have been on the screen. very quickly, some political

news. rick perry is dropping out of the 2012 campaign and in -- and endorsing newt gingrich. that is the headline i was reading just one minute ago. the most recent polls show that newt gingrich is gaining quite rapidly on mitt romney in south carolina. i also want to point out that rick santorum, tomorrow morning, will be a guest on this program. 7:45. he will be taking your calls from south carolina. this call comes from greenville, tenn.. please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to inquire of your guest, why he thinks that there are so many of these groups that are set up for study in the united states? i feel like we are getting less and less truth and more and more opinion. many progressives seeing if they can predict the future.

the studies are often very bent in one direction. all of the liberals get together. all of the environmentalists get together. i just feel that their promises are based on their own opinions, almost an ideology that not all of us share. i think we cannot compromise with those that share a different world views. guest: i think there are studies done by the heritage foundation, there are studies being done by people with points of view, and studies being done by people without points of view. people who are seeking truth. i like to think of myself as that. i have worked for the last 36 years in it deeply non- partisan, what ever my personal

political bent is. there are a lot of places that define research. even places with some biases, whether it is in barman or libertarian or conservative or liberal, the often produce information that is useful, so long as you take it with a little grain of salt. we cannot have too much research. what we have to have is good research. host: next call comes from delaware, brandon on our independent line. caller: how are you doing? good show today. i would like to mention about felons of voting. if you can give me a little history on that because i know most people to think that felons cannot vote, but in every state is different.

to my understanding, most can vote after a certain period. can you give a little information or history on that? because you can even have a business in the past and you can vote. they pay taxes and things of that nature. and have the knowledge that people think you cannot vote. host: all right, we got the point. curtis gans? guest: it is a mixed picture. i think only massachusetts allows a felons, while in jail, to vote. several states believe that once you finish your penance to society and return to society, you ought to have the right to vote. that is my position also. but some states either deny felons the right to vote after their return from prison or create obstacles for their participation or craig long waiting times for their participation.

-- or create long waiting times for their participation. i think once they have been released into society and done their time, been restored and all other aspects of citizenship, the right to vote should be included. host: something else you have written about is a voter i.d. laws. you have a chart here that shows where voter i.d. laws are and how different states look at them. the state in green all require a photo id. the states in yellow require a photo id but they can sign an affidavit. they do not necessarily need a photo.

there are a lot of states that you do not need a photo. is it important to the integrity of the voting process to have a voter i.d. laws? >> it is not necessarily important to the integrity of the process to have voter i.d. laws. on the other hand, it is also not harmful to the process to have voter i.d. laws, provided they are paid for by the state and distributed widely the people without photo ids tend to be the people who do not drive. they tend to be the people who are more poor. if you only make them available at the department of motor vehicles, it is not very good. but the principle of having i.d. is not a terrible thing. people on the liberal side want to deny that any sort of fraud exists. that is not true. it does not dominate our political process.

i know a famous person who was a contributor to my mccarthy campaign who voted both in michigan and in maryland. i know the new jersey newspaper and in florida, when they did the investigation into the campaign in which lauretta sanchez one in california, they found that illegals had voted but not enough to return a result. we have in places. it is not wrong to try to protect the integrity of the process. it is wrong to make it such that it really is -- it makes it hard for people to get these i.d.'s. host: curtis gans is the director of the center for the study of the american electorate. the next call comes from kansas city. caller: in just one to make a quick comment and ask a

question. my comment is that i am a professional. i have a degree. i am around 60 years old. i have waited for obama to do good in this country and i have not seen him do anything that helps this country. therefore, i am voting republican this year. the question i have for him, is don't you see the surge in republican people wanting to vote republican this year? wanting to make a change this year? and the demographics of the way this country is being run? guest: i do not see a surge in that direction right now. i see a republican party that is divided in its most

conservative elements and its more moderate elements. whichever one is not battling the other, the others have less motivation to participate. i do not agree with you that president obama has not done much for this country. he has done several things for this country. but what he has not been able to do is turn the economy around and create jobs. that may be a terminal failing. people will be asking if we are not moving in the right direction on unemployment, do we want four more years of this? but what we have in the republican party is a divided party. we have a disappointed democratic party. all of that does not necessarily lead to an activist polarized election. host: curtis gans, the lead

story in the n.y. times, if you have not seen it. obama is faulted by swing voters in a new survey. guest: well, you know. i think, again, the dominant issue in our country right now is the economy and jobs. there has not been much movement on that. people who are independent do not have a strong feeling that anything is going to change if you essentially are reelect president obama.

he has, as far as i am concerned, based on history, sometime between may and july to see a turning of that employment situation. if he does not, if we are still in the 8% or 9% range, and 15% or 60% out of the labor force or working part-time, -- or 16% out of the labor force working part-time, people ask the question of do we want four more years of this? i think president obama will have a very difficult time being reelected. host: if you're working for the president and 10 months out use of these numbers, the overview numbers of 77% approval by democrats, independents 37%, would you be worried? guest: of course you would be worried. i think obama is worried right now. he is worried that the young people will not turn out the same level.

he is worried about how he is going to persuade the numbers of those independents to show up for him. if i m in his position, i am running scared too. -- if i am in his position, i am running scared, too. host: new jersey, mike on our independent line. you are on c-span. where is that? host: north west virginia -- northwest new jersey. guest: that is a pretty area. host: yes, it is. first, i want to tell you thank you for the opportunity. i want to commend you, sir. your assessment is an extremely accurate. i think the surge away from voting is the impatience with the fact that what we -- what we are presented by most parties

are the best that money can buy. both people are associate with heavy funding, special interests. they do not represent the middle class. that is manifested in the fact you have the democrats who want to dominate america through the government and the republicans who just want to dominate the whole world. consequently, that shows up in our federal budget. they take taxpayer money away from the middle class and they do not have education money. my question is, sir, would this be the right time for ron paul, who seems to address both of those issues, as a third-party candidate who could cause a resurgence towards the electorate and finally have a choice that represents the middle class which currently

there is no representation? guest: well, i think people are unhappy with both political parties. i do not think that money dominates either political party. i am a sort of apostate on the conventional wisdom of campaign finance reform. i do not think ron paul is the answer. i think he carries too much a logical baggage. in certain aspects of his advocacy that is not presidential. he has served good on a few issues. he has raised some issues of importance, but i do not see people seen him as a person who could be president. i may be wrong. this may be a great time for ron paul.

i think he has, at best, within the republican party between 20% to 25% of supporters. that is not very much at all. host: if you have been watching this from the beginning, you saw that we spoke with the reporter from the des moines register about the situation in iowa. their report that rick santorum is actually the lead go -- the leading vote-getter. no winner has been declared, but he has certified what we discuss that point that rick santorum is currently ahead by 34 votes. and that eight of the 1700 precincts are unaccountable. so no winner will be declared. at the current accounting rate, rick santorum is ahead by 34 votes. any comment on that? guest: i think it is old news. i think the train has moved out of iowa and gone to new hampshire and now south carolina. i do not think it changes

anything. people looking at the vote in iowa, on the night of the election, saw election night that there were neck and neck. it does not matter which nec is a slightly higher. which noses over the tape. whether this knows is a much behind. it does not change anything. host: rick perry is dropping out of the race today. according to political, endorsing newt gingrich. is that affected? guest: i think it will help newt gingrich.

i think it will help consolidate the more conservative elements of the republican party around newt gingrich rather than rick santorum. i think that is what may emerge out of this south carolina primary. there is a wild card which is only beginning to surface as news. his second wife is about to hold a press conference. host: she was interviewed. currently, it looks like abc may have some excerpts from interview tonight, but then the awful thing on monday. guest: but whatever, that is a wild card right now because we do not know what she said. how much damage it may do with former speaker newt gingrich. but right now, it looks like south carolina is a two horse race.

should newt gingrich be able to overcome romney's lead, we are likely to have a fairly long primary process. i would not be surprised down the road if somebody else got in. host: who is that somebody? guest: i think right now there are a lot of graybeard in the republican party that do not have a lot of tauruses. -- a lot of choices. the graybeards are looking for the person to give obama the greatest competition. there is no enthusiasm. when you look at the polls, you're looking at, most recent polls showing there is less enthusiasm this year than there was for 2008 republicans within the republican party. you are having problems. you are having problems with speaker gingrich's history of shooting from the lip. you're having problems with some of the baggage that governor romney has. his inability to connect on a feeling level with the electorate. i think the whole republican

nomination process really hinges on a south carolina. i think romney has a fairly -- >> rick santorum will be on the 745 eastern. now we're going to live to harlem to hear president obama do speak on an evening of fund- raising for his reelection campaign. he is speaking here at the apollo theater. >> hello, new york. hello, new york. hello, harlem. it is good to be here tonight.

all right. [chairing indiscriminately] thank you. i want to begin by just thinking him for the incredible introduction and being such a great mom. we're so proud of her. i want to thank our mc. we appreciate you. i want to thank the incredible performers this evening, one of my favorites india are.

i did not know reverend al green was here. ♪ i am so in love with you ♪ heers and applause] those guys did not think i would do it. at told u.s. was going to do it perrin the salmon did not come out. did not worry. it -- they did not think i was going to do it. the sandman did not come out. i also wanted acknowledge a couple of outstanding members of

congress with us here today. congressman charlie rangel. have a seat. i have something to say. >> we love you, mr. president. >> thank you. thank you. i am here tonight not just because i need your help. i am here because your country need your help. there was a reason why some many of you got involved in campaign in 2008. you work your heart out. it was not because you thought it would be easy. when you decide to support somebody named barack hussain obama for president, you're not doing it because you think it is

a cakewalk. you did it because you understood the campaign was not about me. it was about a vision that we shared for america. a vision that was not narrow and cramped. it was not an idea it was not an idea that in america, you look out for yourself and the most powerful among us can just play by their own rules. it was a vision -- a vision that was big and passionate and it said, in america, you've got a chance to get ahead. it does not matter where you were born, what you wrote -- what you look like.

it does not matter what your name is. if you are willing to work hard, if you've got some talent, some idea, if you are motivated, you can make it. and it was a vision that said we are greater together than we are on our own. [applause] that when everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules then we all do better. we all do better. that is the vision we share. that was the change we believed in. and we knew it was not going to come easy. we knew it was not going to come quickly. we knew there would be

resistance. we knew there would be setbacks. but because of what you did in 2008 we have started to see concrete examples of that change. think about it. change was the first bill i signed into law that enshrine a very simple proposition, you get equal pay for an equal day's work because we want our daughters treated the same as our sons. [applause] change is a decision that we made to rescue the auto industry from collapse, even though there were folks saying no and wanting to let destroyed go bankrupt. and now, 1 million jobs were saved and local businesses were picked up again, and gm is once again the largest auto company in the world.

[cheers and applause] and we are seeing cars rolling off of the assembly line and they were probably made in america. [applause] change is stopping waiting for congress to do something about our oil addiction and finally doing something about the energy efficiency standards on our cars. in the next decade, every car will get 55 miles per gallon. that will save you money. it will save our environment. it is good for our national security. that is what change is. change is the fight that we had to stop sending $60 billion in unnecessary subsidies to the banks in the student loan program. take that money directly out and give it directly to the students so that millions of students across america are able to afford a college education. [applause]

change is the health care reform bill that we have. [cheers and applause] it says, if you get sick in america, you will not go bankrupt. and we have 2.5 million young people with health insurance that did not have it, and seniors getting help on their prescription drugs. [applause] and americans will not be denied coverage because of pre- existing conditions, or insurance companies dropping them right when they need them the most. that is what change is. [applause] change is that for the first time in our history, you do not have to hide who you live in order to serve this country that you love. don't ask, don't tell is over. we do not believe in discrimination in this country. [applause] that is part of who we are. that is what change is.

and change is keeping one of the first promises i made in 2008. we ended the war in iraq and we brought our troops home. [applause] and in the meantime, we refocus our efforts on the terrorists who actually were after us on 9/11. and thanks to the men and women in uniform, and intelligence agencies, al qaeda is weaker than the deficit -- and it has ever been, and osama bin laden will never walk this earth again. [cheers and applause. that is what change is. -- [cheers and applause] that is what changes. you guys have been paying attention. none of this was easy. some of it was risky. we were opposed by lobbyists, special interests. millions of dollars were spent trying to maintain the status quo.

and a lot of the things that we did or not always popular at the time, certainly not with the crowd in washington. but part of the reason we were able to get it done before -- was because of you, because i knew that all across america your voices were still being heard. you were knocking on doors and making phone calls and you were rooting for us because you understood that as hard as this was, it was consistent with the vision that we campaigned so hard to bring about. you kept up the fight long after the election was over. and that should make you proud. and a trip made you hopeful. -- it should make you hopeful. it should not make a complacent. everything we did over the last three years is now at stake in this election. the very core of what this country stands for, that idea

that no matter who you are, you can make it, that idea that a child somewhere not getting a good education, that affects me. the idea that if there is a senior somewhere losing her home, that affects me. that idea is at stake in this election. [applause] the crisis that struck in the mindset -- and the month before i took office, there have been more americans out of work than any time since before the great depression. we have a chart that shows in the months before i took office, 4 million jobs lost. in the months right after i took office, another 4 million before our economic policies had a chance to take effect.

we have been growing ever since. we have been adding jobs ever since. [applause] but this was a profound crisis. but it was also a culmination of a decade where middle-class families felt further and further behind and more and more manufacturing jobs left our shores. and suddenly, our prosperity was built on a risky financial deals, or homes we could not afford, or everybody running up their credit cards. and we wrap up greater and greater debt, and incomes fell, and wages flat line, and the cost of everything from college to health care went through the roof. these problems did not happen overnight. we were not going to solve them overnight. it is going to take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decade in the

making. the american people understand that. what they do not understand is leaders who refused to take action. [applause] they are sick and tired of watching leaders who are supposed to represent them put party ahead of them. or the next election before the next generation. president kennedy once said after he took office, he said, the thing that surprised him the most about washington was that it was as bad as they had been saying it was. [laughter] i can relate to that. [laughter] you've got the top republican in the senate who said his top priority was beating me. that is his top priority. my top priority is putting americans back to work.

[cheers and applause] my top priority is making sure our kids get a good education. [applause] my priority is mcginn trebek has affordable, accessible health care. -- is making sure everybody has affordable, accessible health care. his top priority is beating need. [laughter] that shows you things are non on low level. -- not on a level. that is how you end up with republicans in congress to voting against proposals that they used to support. [applause] use of them in december all tied up in knots. -- you saw them in december al qaeda and not. because we were proposing tax cuts -- all tied up in knots. because we're proposing tax cuts for small businesses. suddenly --

[laughter] the didn't know what to do. proposals to rebuild roads and bridges, that did not used to be a democratic issue. it used to be we understood building america was good for america. putting teachers back to work and copps back on the street. they will fight with at the -- with everything they have to protect the tax cuts for me for the wealthiest americans and then suddenly they are confused when it comes to a tax cut for the middle class. maybe they thought this was smart political strategy. maybe they thought it would advance mitch mcconnell's agenda to beat me. but it is not a strategy to create jobs. it is not a strategy to strengthen the middle class.

it is not a strategy to help america. we have got a choice this year. we have not seen a choice this stark in years. even in 2008, the republican nominee was not a climate change denier. he was in favor of -- was not a climate change denyer. he was in favor of immigration reform. he was opposed to torture. [laughter] the contrast this year could not be sharper. the question is not whether people are still hurting. people are still hurting profoundly. a lot of folks out there are

still out of work and looking for work. the question is what we do about it. the debate we need to have in this election is about where we go from here. the republicans in congress, the candidates running for president, they've got a very specific idea about where they want to take this country. they want to reduce -- [laughter] they want to reduce the deficit by getting our investments in education, by getting our investments in research and technology, by letting our bridges -- bridges and roads and interior deteriorate. i have already signed more than $1 trillion in spending cuts,

impose even more. i think it is time for us to reduce the deficit by asking those of us who are more fortunate to pay their fair share. [applause] and by the way, let me just say this, because i've been hearing a lot of these republicans talking about how that is class warfare. he just wants to redistribute. in work.t believe he is trying to create an entitlement society and this and that and the other. let me be absolutely clear. i should pay more taxes, and folks in my income tax -- income bracket should pay more taxes, and certainly, folks who make more than $1 million should pay more taxes. not because i want to take their money and just give it to somebody else. it is because we've got basic

investments and basic functions that have to be carried out in this 21st century if we are going to be able to compete. we're going to have to train our young people so they can get a high skilled jobs of the future. we're going to have to make sure that we have the best infrastructure to move products and services. we're going to have to make sure that we have the basic science and technology research but allows us to stay on the cutting edge of the nation, because other countries are making investments, and they are cashing out. if we're going to do all about without leaving a mountain of debt for our kids, while still

maintaining the strongest military honors, while still making sure that -- on earth, while still making sure that medicare and social security are there for future generations, then all of us have to do our part. [applause] that should not be a democratic idea or a republican idea. that should be a -- an american idea. it is about taking responsibility for the country. and when all of us take responsibility, we all do better. that is the idea. [applause] the republicans in congress and on the campaign trail, these guys running for president -- [laughter] a lot of the -- why do you laugh? [laughter]

they are running for president. [laughter] and they want to take medicare and make it a form of private insurance so that seniors shop around with a doctor, even if it does not cover the cost of their medicine for their care. i think we can lower the cost -- we have to lower the cost of medicare -- with reforms that still guarantee a dignified retirement for seniors. because they have earned it. [applause] these folks act like it is an entitlement that was not burned. -- not earned. these folks paid into the system. they worked hard to make sure they would have retirement. [applause] our reforms should reflect that. they think the best way for america to compete for new jobs and businesses is to follow

other countries in a race to the bottom. they say, look, if china lets you pay low wages, they want to roll back our minimum wage, or our right to collectively bargain. they say, well, companies can pollute the some of these other countries, so they want to get rid of protections that make sure we have clean air and clean water. we should not have any more regulation than is required for the health and safety of the american people. nobody likes red tape. nobody likes bureaucracy. that is why i have actually reformed government so that we have initiative fewer regulations than the previous administration with a lot more benefit, much lower costs relative to the benefits, looking to streamline government. it is billions of dollars in

reduced paperwork. we are not interested in regulation for regulation's sake. but i do not believe in this notion that we should have this race to the bottom. that should not be what we are competing for. we should be competing to win the race for the top. we should be competing to make our schools the best in the world. [applause] we should be competing to make sure that our workers have the best skills and the best training so we have the best pay. we should be making sure that college is within reach of everybody. we should be in a race to give our businesses the best. we should be in a race to support the scientists and researchers that create the next clean energy breakthrough, or

the medicine that might cure pernicious diseases. we should be in a race to make sure that the next generation of manufacturing does not take root in indonesia or asia, but in detroit and pittsburgh and cleveland and new york. i do not want this to be a nation that just barrault's and consumes. i want us to be known for manufacturing and selling all over the world. and that is for middle-class security, for advanced technology, for having the best workers in the world. this is a race i know we can win. but america is not going to win if we do the same things, if we respond to our economic challenges with the same old, tired "cut taxes for wealthy

people." "let companies do whatever they want even if it is harming other folks, and somehow prosperity is going to trickle down to everybody else." we tried that. i do not know if you remember, but we tried that. [applause] it never worked. it did not work when it was tried in a decade before the great depression. it is not what led to the incredible boom in the 1950's and 1960's that created the greatest middle-class onerous. it did not work in 2001, 2002, 2003, 20005, and 2006 -- [laughter] where we have the slowest job growth of any decade.

we cannot go back to this brand of "you are on your own" economics. if we can attract outstanding teachers by giving her the pay and support she deserves, she is going to educate the next steve jobs. [applause] and not only will we have whatever the next ipad is, but we will all see the economy grow. if we provide faster internet service to some rural business somewhere, and suddenly we have access to a global market, or some business right here in harlem that was selling something and could previously only sell within a few blocks and now, they can sell it anywhere, that means they can start hiring more workers. they have customers all over the world. [applause] our whole country will do better.

this is not a democratic idea or a republican idea. abraham lincoln, the first republican president, he understood this. he launched the transcontinental railroad, national academy of sciences, the first land grab college, all while dealing with the civil war. a republican. teddy roosevelt called for a progressive income tax because he understood that you cannot pretend you are for equality of opportunity when you have a huge inequality and you are not creating ladders for success for people. the republican. pryke eisenhower. -- dwight eisenhower build the highway interstate system and invested in math and science so we could compete in the race to space. a republican.

there were republicans in congress that supported fdr giving millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, the chance to go to college on the gi bill. [applause] that idea is as old as this country. and you know, that idea, it is still there. that sense of common purpose, we tapped into it in 2008. and it is still out there all across the country. i see it everywhere i go. it may not be in washington. it may not be in congress. but it is out there. you talk to folks on main street, town halls, vfw halls, barbershops, they understand this. our politics may be divided, but people understand we are all in

this together. [applause] they understand that no matter who we are, we rise or fall as one nation and as one people. and that is what is at stake right now. that is what this election is about. i know these have been three tough years. i know that some of the change folks wanted has not come as fast as people hoped for. i know that after all of the stuff that has gone on in washington, it is tempting to sometimes say, you know, it is not possible. the system is broken. we give up. it is tempting. but remember when i used to say in the last campaign, i said this -- i repeated it over and over again.

real change, big change, it is hard. it takes time. it takes more than a single term. it takes more than a single president. [applause] what it takes is ordinary citizens like you, who just keep on fighting, keep pushing. keep inching the country closer and closer and closer to our ideals. that is how the greatest generation defeated fascism and gained das out of a great depression and build the largest -- and yanked us out of a great depression and built the largest middle-class in history. that is how people were able to suffer because the clubs and fire hoses to ensure that our people were able to -- that our

children were able to grow up in a world where race is not who you become. change is hard, but we know it is possible. we have seen it. we have lived it. i have lived it. i have seen it. as we go into this election year, i want everybody to understand, yes, my hair is .reategrayer [laughter] yes, we have some deans and dense -- dings and dents. yes, this financial crisis has been a wake-up call. but there is no other country that does not envy our position.

they understand that this country is still the last, best hope. [applause] and they are counting -- the world is counting, and our fellow citizens are counting on not giving up, not giving in to despair. if you want to end this is the sum and the game playing and the point scoring -- end of this cynicism and the game playing and the point scoring and the sound bites, then you have got to send a message this year. starting right now. that you refuse to back down, that you will not give up, that

you intend to keep hoping and keep pushing and keep fighting just as hard as you did four years ago. you are going to keep believing in change -- [applause] and if you are willing to do that, if you are going to work just as hard, if you are able to generate that same passion and commitment, then i will be there next to you. because i have often said -- i said in 2008, and not a perfect man. man.m not a perfect i'm not a perfect president. but i promise you, i have kept that promise i made in 2008 -- i would always tell you what i thought. i would always tell you where i stood. and i would wake up every single day fighting as hard as i can for you. [applause]

i am just as determined to now as i was then. and if you are willing to stand alongside me, we will not those obstacles out of the way. we will reach for that vision of america that we believe been, in our hearts, and change will come -- that we believe in, in our hearts, and change will come. if you work harder than the last time, change will come. if you keep on believing, we will finish what we started in 2008. change will come. [applause] if you fight with me and press on with me, i promise you, change will come. and we will remind everybody just why the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] "your love is lifting the higher"♪] ♪ >> tickets for this fundraiser at the apollo theater started at $200. at another election campaign event, the president attended tonight, the tickets were $35,800.

there were about 45 guests at that one. ♪ >> we will have more road to the white house coverage tomorrow when newt gingrich and ron paul participate in a forum at the southern leadership conference. that is one day before south carolina in scope to the polls. live coverage gets under way from charleston 9:00 a.m. on c- span2. and then mitt romney will hold a rally from charleston. you can see that at 3:45 p.m. eastern here on c-span. now a discussion on the 2012 election.

we will hear from campaign strategist anita dunn, a democrat, and steve schmidt, a republican. >> a beautiful tribute to pat murphy. this morning, i wanted us to have a thoughtful discussion about the presidential and congressional election. i think our collective concern is the silence that is deafening about the state of america's cities. it is interesting, every year when we present the metro economy report, it seems members of congress are living on some other planet. they do not realize that 90% of the gdp is generated in our cities. 85% of the jobs that are created this year will be created in our cities.

if we just talked about 10 cities, the top 10 cities in america, we are talking about an economy the size of france. we are talking about an economy that would be the largest economy in the world, it would be much larger than double the size of france. if you talked about just the three largest metropolitan areas, you are talking about an economy the size of france. and you would never know that talking to congress. getting the candidates to focus on domestic and metra priorities is important. getting them to think about investment and the ongoing housing crisis, these are the issues we hear about.

yesterday we had a meeting with president obama to discuss these priorities. we invited major republican candidates to be with us, but they were a bit busy out campaigning. in south carolina, as a matter of fact. to help understand how this election is going, we have invited some of the nation's top political experts to frame the current debate. i am very pleased that today we have with us, steve schmidt, campaign strategist and adviser to john mccain in 2008. he is a friend of mine and someone who has also advised a very close friend, governor schwarzenegger. i am also extremely pleased that we have anita dunn, who served as senior communications strategist for president obama

in both the campaign and at the white house. and we are most fortunate to have as our moderator today, mike allen, the chief white house correspondent from politico. he came to political front "time" magazine where he was there whitehouse correspondent. prior to that, he spent six years at the "washington post" where he covered president bush's first term and the bush /gore campaigns of 2000. these people have been in the thick of things for a long time, and they have the scars to prove it. as national political media experts, i know they will lead us in a very meaningful discussion. mike, is yours. >> mr. mayer, mr. president, thank you for having us. we really appreciate it. [applause] we're going to plunge right into

a great conversation here. i have enjoyed visiting with some of you because here in washington, we can talk all you want, but you and your colleagues actually have to do it. i look forward to connecting with you. the last time i saw the mayor, he was in spandex. and you will be happy to tell -- to know that it was not on "meet the press." it was in aspen. the mayor was doing a hike with lance armstrong. they had a body -- a sort of bunny slope. you went all the way to the peak, right? you went up and back. >> i had to walk back. >> ok. a very exciting time to be in washington. we will start with -- most of you have seen on your device in the last few minutes that texas

gov. rick perry is going to pull out of the presidential race today and he is going to endorse newt gingrich. we will plunge right into that. i needed done, there is a debate at 8:00 p.m. tonight -- anita dunn, there is a debate at a p.m. tonight. four.down now to how does his sudden exit affect this? >> i tend to leave the prognosticating about republican primaries to the people that know that party, which would be steve. but i will say, just think about tonight's debate before a second. they have a two-hour debate for what was scheduled to be six or seven candidates. now you have four candidates. it is an interesting dynamic in that santorum and gingrich are fighting with each other to be

the romney alternative, but they both have to take romney on directly, but brahney coming off of what is arguably his weakest debate performance of the election cycle. and he is a much better debater than in 2008. and then you have ron paul, who charts his own course at all of these debates. [laughter] >> that was nice. [laughter] >> but frankly, tends to do well in these debates in terms of his supporters because he is very clear, very straightforward, and he does not sound like a typical politician. i want to get to steve's analysis. >> i think for much of the year this has been the greatest riyadh show on television. if-greatest reality show on television. if you look at the cast of characters, some of them have fallen away. it has been an interesting process to watch.

you have a number of balls in the air right now. it may well be the case by the end of the day that we find out that ricks santorum, in fact, won the iowa caucuses. at gatorade, who the winner was may be impossible to know. -- at any rate, who the winner was may be impossible to know. but with rick santorum pulling ahead, i think that is a further loss of momentum and altitude for mitt romney in one of the toughest weeks that he has had a, with the tax story, which i think was not handled particularly well by governor romney. and by gingrich resurgence. he was down and on his back. he appears to be out. there is going to be very controversial interview that takes place with gingrich's ex- wife this evening on abc. [laughter] who knows what is going to come

out of that. but i think we will see the hell hath n of "healt no fury like a woman scorned." it will be an interesting dynamic over the like -- the next 24 hours. conventional wisdom is that mitt romney will be the republican nominee for president. i think anyone you talk to in the political or journalistic community in washington believes that. whether they will say it or not -- they may not be able to. i think the white house is preparing to run against mitt romney. new gingrich is utterly implausible as a victorious candidate in a general election cents. he has been incredibly erratic over the course of the campaign.

one moment he's not going to attack his opponent. the next moment they are liars and looters. one moment he saying one thing and the next is -- his rhetoric is identical to people who could be sert -- carrying signs in the occupied wall street movement. ron paul will stay in this race until the last primary is over. i think he will pull somewhere between 18% to 25% of the vote. >> that is june. >> all the way through. >> he is not running for president, but to advance an idea and to change the year -- the trajectory and the discussion of american politics, the issues that he cares about. and he is doing an effective job. he has initiated what will become a big debate on, for example, national security issues with the republican party. but saturday's race in south

carolina, if mitt romney runs in south carolina, the nomination will effectively be over. >> how much does he have to win by? >> i just think he has to win. expectations are so low for mitt romney in south carolina going in that -- it has always been a determinative state in republican politics going back to 1980. but if he wins, the race will begin to shut down. whether santorum get out of their race, or gingrich gets out of the race or not -- i suspect, they will not. but he will well be on his way to being the nominee. florida is going to be a painful week. you have this long break before the super tuesday states and everybody will stay in the race. >> knickerbocker is one of the fastest-growing firms in the

nation and is an adviser to president obama. how does that look to you? >> i think the president campaign has always anticipated a tough race and a close race regardless of who the nominee for republican was. in reality, most of the candidates have ended up taking relatively simple -- similar positions on all the major issues. some of them came to those positions later than others in their careers, but they have all ended up at basically the same place, whether they are issues around spending or something else. they're all pretty much aligned. we have always ended the pitted that we would be running against a nominee that would be carrying a banner, like it or not, of this republican congress, but they have tried to adopt the last 15 months.

as much as they would like to escape death, they will have that. -- escape that, they will have that. one of the things i found interesting is that in 2008, our primary process actually ended up making president obama, then candidates obama, a much stronger candidate. going up against a candidate clinton, a really top candidates, ended up making him in much better candidate than if the process had wrapped up early. in watching the republican candidates, i am not at all convinced that this process has made whoever it ends up being a stronger candidate. the kinds of attacks you are seen right now are what we would have anticipated as general election attacks. whether they are questions about what kind of value you bring to the economy, if you are

primarily concerned about retired life or an investment firm. or whether they are questions about whether investment income should be taxed the same way as people who work hard for a living. i think that this is not a primary process that has been helpful to the eventual nominee. from the president's point of view, he has always known that he would have it tough. he has to defend his record, and also put out a vision of where this country can go moving forward. i think the process is beginning. i think what you have seen since august is a president who is clearly stating, not just the differences in policy, but a different kind of vision of what america can be. >> during the primary process, governor romney has been pulled to the right on a number of issues, banged up on a number of

issues. will that make it harder for mitt romney to go up against president obama? >> i agree that there is a need for a democratic primary -- a need for a difference in a democratic prairie process and the republican primary process. both president obama and senator klatten were well prepared and qualified to be president. -- senator clinton were well prepared and qualified to be president. there was no question they were prepared to take the oath of office. that is not the case with all of the republican candidates, as is the case with governor romney. when you are running against people in a primary process for not plausible commander-in- chiefs, it becomes a diminishing experience as

opposed to an elevating experience over the course of the debate. i would also say much of the focus has been on the republican primary contest. the big political story over the last six months is, though it is glacial, though it is slow, you improvementsteady of the president's approval numbers from a very, very dangerous place from the context of trying to get reelected to a place where there is vulnerability still, but where those numbers are improving to a range that, for example, where we were in the 2004 bush campaign. and you talk about the context of a close election. it is important to bear in mind that in 2008, it was the worst republican and are meant that a

republican candidate has ever had a run in. and we were outspent by $250 million. the president got 53% of the vote. john mccain in the aftermath of the global economic collapse got 47% of the vote. all of these messages that you here, when you hear a republican message -- 47% of the population response to it. when you hear the president's message, 47% of the population response to it. and there is about 6% of the population that will decide the outcome of the park -- of the election. it will be interesting to see how that group evolves over the course of the next year. >> the reality is, we have had extraordinarily close elections. as steve pointed out, 2008 was bought -- was by no means a landslide. people remember it that way, but it was close. >> 2.9%, right? >> yes.

but in 2000, bill clinton did not get 50% of the vote. he got 49.9% or something. this is a closely divided nation, and continues to be. and has been for several elections. and you will continue to see very close elections, unless by some extraordinary set of circumstances that i cannot imagine, the republican party nominates someone that is deemed a not delectable by the electorate. -- that is deemed not electable by the electorate. >> steve, you pointed out that there has been an unmistakable glacial increase in the president's approval ratings. something else that matches that description is the economy. the economy is getting slightly better. it is tough to feel, but statistics are pointing that

way. does the remove a lot of the argument for mitt romney? >> when we sit up here and talk about what is going to happen in elections, we often talk about them through the prism of events that have already occurred. i think this election is fundamentally going to be shaped by events that have yet to occur. for example, the euro crisis will have a dramatic iimpact on whatever nation in recovery that is under way. there's also the question of how the american people feel. if you look at the nbc/wall street journal poll, you have 70% of the people saying the company -- the country is on the wrong track. it is the 93rd consecutive month where people think the country is on the wrong track.

>> that is a lot of people. >> absolutely, and there is a global survey every year, the largest of its kind in the world called the trust barometer. it is 30,000 people surveyed in 30 countries are on the world and the trend is a total collapse of trust in the government, not just in the u.s. and i do not mean this as a partisan statement. when i say "collapse of trust in government" it applies to both parties. but you see that globally. unemployment will remain high. people are pessimistic. people do not trust the government. people think the government is heading in the wrong direction. i think the fundamental challenge for the president in that environment, and all presidents who are incumbents have a 66% chance just on the odds of getting reelected -- his challenge is to communicate that tomorrow is going to be better than today. i think his reelection is difficult absent the ability to

communicate that. because i think that is what the american people are fundamentally looking for. who is going to make this better? for one thing, in a nation closely divided where republicans and democrats do not agree on a lot, everybody agrees universally that the country is not going in the right direction and that these are bad times. when you look at the instability in irrational elections -- in congressional elections, we are in a cycle where there could be a 20-seat switch possibly in the house. that is the first time since the 1948 through 1952 cycles. all of the instability in the economy is feeling that. a very high wrong track number and a deep sense of

dissatisfaction feeling that. >> among the many had to have one in washington is white house communications director. president obama is one of the greatest political communicators of our lifetime, maybe the best since reagan. why has he lost that connection with the american people? >> it is always a challenge in the white house to keep the connection with the american people, because there are so many hurdles both steve and i have been on that side of the wall as people of the government. the best laid plans can be waylaid pretty easily buy things out of your control. having said that, i think what you have seen, as steve suggested, suggests not only the it -- not only the improvement of the economy and the way people feel, but you have also seen a president since aug. going out and communicating very directly with the american people about what his priorities

are, where he wants to take this country, but more importantly, where we are going and how we have to get there. the contrast is the message since august between the president and the republican candidates, that they have been striking. the republicans as a grupo -- as a group have tended to have it an extraordinarily-message. -- an extraordinarily negative message. but it is not a lot of how we get there. is going back to this or that kind of thing. the president has laid out a very tangible set of values and visions for the american people in terms of a middle-class that works. in terms of an economy where hard work is reported. where people take responsibility and businesses and individuals are held accountable.

the fundamental values that made this country great to begin with. that is the real contrast. next week, he delivers the state of the union. that is for any president his opportunity to lay out the vision for the year. as challengers, republicans have to make the case against the president, and make the case why they are the best to replace him. but one of the great challenges they have is actually getting to an optimistic message, given that their base is such an angry base, and appears to respond best to the candidates who deliver the most red meat at any given time in contrast with the president. that is a tremendous challenge. the one thing that president obama had in 2008 with the ability to criticize the status quo, while still maintaining the optimistic message. i do not think any of the republican candidates have struck that balance yet.

>> in just a few minutes i will bring you into the conversation. we will set up microphones for you, so get your questions ready. but first, steve schmidt made a very interesting point, the edelman trust barometer of the about the collapse of support for government. this is not just a u.s. issue, and not a partisan issue. steve schmidt, why is washington frozen? what will change that? >> i think it is frozen fundamentally because of a continuing cycle of political violence where the intentions of the other political party in terms of trying to do right by the country are called into question constantly for bipartisan gain.

when i was in the business of running campaigns, i have done my fair share of it. ronald reagan talked about the fact that in this country we do not have political enemies. we have political opponents. if you look back at a generation of americans -- maybe it is because they fought in a real war together against a real existential threat. a man like ronald reagan and tip o'neill, while fears partisan opponents, could never -- fierce partisan opponents, could never look at each other like enemies. the social mixing that used to occur in washington between the lives of democrat and republican members of congress, increasingly as we have more female members of congress, there is very little contact, very little mingling.

everyone is gearing up to provide content for the cable news, internet industrial complex. it does not reward the reasonable person who goes out and says this is the solution to the problem. not to drone on, but there was a fascinating "charlie rose" special where he had the 10 biggest players in the country. they're republicans -- the 10 biggest mayors in the country. they were republicans, democrats. and in reality, they were the people who had to make decisions and run stuff. they were just so fundamentally detached from what goes on in washington. it is an unhealthy process. >> when i worked at the democratic senate campaign committee, the dssc, he almost

always wisely refused to have that conversation. but he used to try to say that -- they are all miserable. do not let them do that. steven is absolutely right. governors and mayors who are accountable for results and actually have to do things have a very different outlook on politics than what happens here in washington. if an issue is debated and argued about and then nothing happens on that, people move on. that is not a problem any longer because we are not talking about it in the longer. you cannot do that in the city. it is one of the reasons why going to steve's trust a

barometer. if you go to any data, the closer you are -- the better people feel about the government here >> what can change that ta? >> i believe the voters have to be the first in changing this. they have been rewarding the most polarized behavior and their primary process. i think steve would agree it started with our party back in the democratic wing of the democratic party days. i am not saying that is a terrible thing, but between redistricting and between the primary processes and that the activist wings of both parties thanks in no small part that

campaign finance rules unchanged and that the internet has given people a porthole to democracy, which is a wonderful thing, but it also means that, again, those who make the most noise can often get the most support. the reality is that voters who say they are sick and tired of the partisan gridlock, voters said they want people here who will work across the aisle, voters have to step of and take control of the democracy again. i am a huge believer that at the end of the day when voters said they have had enough of this behavior people are going to change their behavior. i do not see politicians deciding absent that. centrist behavior gets penalized and not rewarded at the voting booth. >> i would love to bring you into the conversation. we will give you a microphone pronto.

if you do not mind sitting who you are and ask your question. >> identify yourself. >> the 2012 election is shaping up to be about the undue influence of lobbyists and it just as much about the economy. you see this from the rhetoric fromoccupy wall street to the attack ads from romney to gingrich. you have a lot of access to the president from advising his campaign to regular visits to the white house. the thing it is disingenuous that you are being paid by a lot of corporations to lobby against the reform specifically on childhood obesity and predatory for-profit colleges. >> i would like to say i am not a lobbyist. i have never been a registered lobbyist. i do public relations. >> what is the difference fax >> the difference is -- i should also say to my friend of my

cooling off period from the white house because this president has instituted some of the strongest ethical reforms of any president ever means that i do not talk to anybody in this administration on any issue for public relations. white house communications director, i was involved in so many issues. i do not talk to anybody in the white house. i do work with people. i do work with nonprofits and i work with some corporations because the fact of the matter is, we are in a democracy and people have a right to be heard. the fact of the matter is, most of the time when i work with people they have a story to be told. this president has done things that allows my friends to say, i am a regular visitor to the white house. why? because part of the move toward transparency is to make sure anybody can go on at any time

and see who is visiting the white house. it sounds like a small thing, but it is not. it means there is a greater degree of accountability. this white house by and large has shut down the revolving door. people who leave the white house cannot lobby this administration on issues they worked on while they were inside the administration. this white house and campaign does not take money from registered lobbyists. these are not rules but congress applies to itself. as we move forward in the political process, one thing you will see is that voters will continue to demand greater transparency from everybody. if you look right now at gov. romney's flailing around on whether he will release his tax returns, the reality is politicians will not have a choice about transparency much longer in the country because voters expected of them. >> let me just for future

questions, i would like to start with -- >> we have the lights on now. over there. yes. >> i want to thank both of you for coming this morning. i have enjoyed your chat. i have a very simple question. the last two presidents have put an emphasis on who they have selected as a vice president looking for certain things in their running mates. if you were advising the mitt romney, what would you be advising him to look for in a running mate? >> my wife has said i should never give an answer to a question about who to pick for

vice president. [laughter] we will not tell her. >> i think first and foremost, on the issue of who to pick for vice president, it is an important question. i think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the 2008 campaign and also from the 2004 campaign. i think this election process is fundamentally broken in a number of different ways. both parties have resulted and that nominating people who were unprepared and unqualified to be president of the united states.

stepping back, in 2008 it was a story of assumptions that this person is a governor, therefore this person has a knowledge base and an issues base and that would make them prepared to do this. that turned out not to be the case. it also is a story of the outcomes that do not go the way you want them. nobody had the intention of putting forward somebody who was unprepared to be president of the united states. the focus is on trying to win the election. the focus is on trying to get ahead. it is a story of ambition. it is a story of wanting to win. this is a process that requires a great deal of circumspection. i think on the part of the media

and the price it should be framed for what it is. this is the first decision the candidate makes by themselves or they have to take the measure of the person who they are going to put in the position of being the next in line. if you look at the history of the country, a lot of presidents have had to come forward to take the 35 word oath and assume the duties of commander in chief. obviously for the past couple of years, it is an issue i thought about a great deal. when you run a presidential campaign or you are involved in the decision making of a presidential campaign, you never have the aspiration to have a result where somebody was forwarded to this. about this.clinical

if you were advising gov. mitt romney, would you advise him to picked rubio of california or rod portman of ohio? >> if i were in that room with him, i would say remember the two most important things is you believe this person is prepared to be the president of the united states if, god forbid, something happens. you have that confidence -- it is your first presidential decision. can you look the american people in the eye and say this is the person. do you have a comfort level and the trust this person? the role of the vice-president has evolved. it has become an operational role and a very engaged role and that is a good thing. that means the president has to have a certain degree of trust.

i think those two things. can you say that this person is prepared to be president? if you look at the two names that you said, run portman is somebody you can present to the american people as somebody who has served in government who has an understanding of the fiscal issues. it somebody who has been through enough vetting processes to playoff what steve said. he has the base of knowledge about national issues. with senator rubio, i do not know his record as well. he probably would want to do some significant vetting. i think that is something that cannot be underestimated. you do not want to be surprised when to announce that person to the american people. i think at the end of the day, it is not my decision. it will be republican nominees decision. given the fact that if the

republican nominee is mitt romney, at the gas is he probably does want to pick somebody who offered him regional diversity and somebody who offers him something to fill out his governing reza may. something he does not have in his profile. i would also add that the ideas that a vice presidential candidate brings to their state or brings anything to the ticket, i regard it by and large as not true. many -- may be occasionally they can help you on an individual state, but at the end of the day you pick somebody you think can be president. >> i think also it is that the only criteria that should matter is a is this person prepared to take the oath of office to be president of the united states? there is a list of people who meets that qualification in both parties and there are other people who do not.

i think all of the political calculations have to be supported it to that. i think it is one of the chief questions of 2008. >> thank you for joining us this morning. i am the mayor of the city of davenport. my question is, in 2008 president obama won by 9 million votes nationwide, one of the biggest margins since lyndon johnson. he won with young people, students, african americans, four hispanics --poor hispanics. in 2010 we got the worst shellacking since the civil war. i remember in 2000 a, 39 people

got out of the homeless shelter to vote, more people than ever before. in 2010 and nobody voted from the shelter. what can you do to reassure me that things will be different. people in that these demographics will turn out when i see thousands of people protesting in the occupy movement, i see the highest poverty we have had up among our base. what are the poll's showing? how is the campaign going to get to them? what are we doing? what are the positive signs to see in these demographics that did not vote in 2010? >> in 2010, the election as midterms are was a referendum. it was not a choice and it was not a friend as a choice. presidential elections have a

different dynamic than midterm elections. i think this presidential election will present a very clear choice to people. that is the first thing i will say is that rather having the people turn out to tend to be angry is that the administration, you always get a larger turnout in presidential elections anyway. there will be a very clear choice and the president will from the choice in a way that will motivate people to come out. it really is a significant difference. mayer's always understand what the stakes are here because you have been living with the idea that somehow the federal government can just reduce all of the discretionary spending in the federal budget and we will all live happily ever after. you know that is not true. there are significant needs in this country and investments that need to be made in education, transportation, in

your infrastructure and sewer systems, in those things the federal government needs to do to build us for a stronger future. that is going to be a huge thing, especially for younger voters. young voters are the people who have a great stake in what happens next. i think a different vision of an america where hard work is rewarded and where we have responsibility and accountability for government, business, and for individuals where we do not have a on your own attitude but where people and government make investments, work together, have a private public partnerships whether it is infrastructure, education programs that all of you are doing in your cities, what ever it is where people are working together to move the nation forward together. that is the president's vision and something that will be incredibly important and different from the republican

vision that we have seen with this republican congress. that is, you are on your own, tough luck, let's cut all the critical programs that help disproportionately seniors and low income people so that we can keep taxes low for the people who do the best in this country. there is going to be a major debate in 2012. i think it is a healthy debate for this country to have. i think it will motivate people to come out and vote in a way they were not motivated and enter 2010 when it was not seen as a choice of very different directions. >> well, obviously on the frame of the issues have profoundly disagree. i think the tax code is more progressive than it has ever been. the most compassionate policy government can have is a pro-

growth economic policy. i think the federal debt is an enormous crisis for this country at 15 trillion dollars with no and in site. i think we will have an election that is based on a choice. in a midterm election, it is often a referendum on incumbent presidents who have only had two occasions where there were first term presidents had pickups. every other president has lost seats. as you talked about it earlier, i think there is a number of other factors driving instability. an election for president is a choice. this will not be an election in terms of the type of job that the president is doing. it is a choice of who will do a better job, the republican nominee or the president backs there is an abc washington post poll that shows 57% of voters

disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy. as a republican i look at that through two prisons. first, there is a lot of room to criticize the president of the economy. also because i think the president laura and this election is 47%, a very significant percentage of people who reject his handling of the economy will vote for him in the election. it will be a very close election. there are some elections were there are pale differences between the parties. if the choice is not painted in bold and a bright colors. i think this election will be one where there are clear lines, clear choices, and bold colors. it will be a healthy debate because there is a fundamentally different vision offered by the president. i think it is ultimately by the republican nominee. >> at the mayor's introduction

at the top, he talked about the deafening silence he hears. if i am a mayor of davenport are philadelphia, how do i connect with a washington that does not seem to be listening? >> i was going to say you and the rest of the country in terms of how you feel. i think it is critically important for mayors and particular to hold the candidates accountable of both parties at every level. you cannot separate out cities from suburbs. we all know how interconnected we are as a nation. i think the mayor's command great megaphones in their communities.

members of congress and senators are increasingly sensitive to their communities, much more so than they used to be. i am getting a little old now, when i was working in washington it was still possible for people to " say one thing in washington and another at home. now it is not possible for somebody to say one thing at a town hall meeting and something else five minutes later because it is already on you to but. part of what mayors need to do is to -- it is already on youtube. people are ill -- elected officials are sensitive to local criticism, particularly when it is linked very directly to how conditions are at home. i think your collective the voice is very important. there will be a republican nominee. there is a democratic president.

there may be a third party or libertarian canada, but all of these people are going to come looking for votes in your area. all of these people will debate. your collective voice to put things on the national agenda is significant. i think picking a few critical areas whether it is transportation and infrastructure spending, which i happen to know some of you care about. whether it is education and education policy, which is obviously a huge debate in this country. to pick a couple of issues and make your voice heard withholding candidates accountable and also with their elected officials. >> i agree with that. i think publicly communicating your issues which -- compared to an antiquated approach of solving these with one on one meetings, that does not work anymore. i think you need to communicate

publicly. there was a story and "the washington post"or there were a bunch of members of congress who stood up and began quoting lines out of the movie brave heart and analogizing the payroll tax to the fight to the death that was taking place between the british and of william wallace. i think in the context of being a mayor and running something and having accountability and being responsible for services, that is just so off the wall to almost be unimaginable. i think there is a detachment between the reality that you live in and the reality that a lot of people in washington live in. it is important to communicate your reality and enter a way that makes them accountable. i think all politicians as a species of animal have a high

instinct for self preservation. to the extent that you are able to put a burden on to the member of congress that triggers that instinct by advancing your agenda in the needs of your constituents is probably an effective strategy. >> i will add one thing. due to the news cycle having accelerated exponentially, there is much less time for the in- depth policy reporting that one would like to see. that gives you a huge advantage because you can play that role. the conference of mayors can play that role in terms of looking at the impact of the policies that the candidates are talking about. this is something that is not being done as much as it used to because nobody has the time or the space or the resources to have reporters do this. it is critically important to

you and important to the people you represent in your cities. i would suggest one way to be in that dialogue is saying this is how it will affect you a in real life, not just a central canada rhetoric for an answer in a debate but in real life. >> mayor riley will have the last question. >> the tea party movement appears to have moved the republican party even further to the right. to what extent will that pose a problem or may yet prove to be a benefit to the republican nominee? >> i think the tea party movement is broadly misunderstood. i think the reality is there has always been conservatives and the republican party and there will always be liberal's in the democratic party. i think the fact that there are

energized voters -- i think if you look at the two movements that have gotten a great deal of media attention over the last year, the occupy wall street movement and the tea party movement, i think the tea party movement is a movement that does good for the republican party. i think on an issue basis it has appealed in the middle of the electorate. i think one of the big unanswered questions is what does the occupied wall street movement look like in the spring? i do not think it necessarily helps the democratic party in the context of the general election in the fall. i think of the two movements and what the impact will be on the general election, the one that is likely in my view to be consequential is the occupy wall

street movement. >> i agree with that. the occupier was to movement is still in many ways at a very early stage. if you look at how quickly our national dialogue has changed to really address the issue nobody wanted to talk about which is the growing inequality in this country, i think that will be an issue central to the economic debate in 2012. we have republican leaders of p of paul ryan who felt it necessary to give speeches about a denture away six months ago they never would have. at least for 2012, the occupy a wall street movement will have a significant movement will have an affect on the national dialogue will the tea party is more effective and then to organizing pierre >> i will see you on politico.com. i would like to thank steve

smith a stevenita dunn. [applause] -- steve smith and anita dunn. >> with the south carolina primary two is a way, rick perry dropped out of the presidential race today and endorsed newt gingrich. that is next on c-span. in 10 minutes, run paul's campaign in in charleston, south carolina. we will also hear about rick santorum and being declared the winner of the iowa caucuses. >> we will talk with rick santorum on tomorrows " washington journal." professor mark tompkins on the history and role of the south

carolina primary. also, a conversation with michael kranish who co-authored the book "the real romney." "washington journal"each morning at 7:00 eastern. later in the morning, a forum on the u.s. education system. we will hear from michael bloomberg and white house senior adviser. that is live at 11:00 eastern. >> texas gov. rick perry dropped out of the presidential race. he spoke with supporters in north charleston, south carolina about his decision.

>> good morning. thank you for coming out and particularly to my incredible staff. i want to say thanks for the work you have done. nelson, thank you. it has been a real privilege to be able to learn and grow under your work. as i have stated numerous times during the campaign, this campaign has never been about the candidates. i ran for president because i love america. i love our people, i love our freedom. this mission is greater than any one man.

i have travelled across this great country, starting in charleston, going to new hampshire, iowa, california, down into florida, numerous states in between, obviously. i discovered this tremendous purpose and resiliency of our people. they have never lost hope despite the circumstances we find ourselves in. they have not stopped believing in the promise of america. they have not stopped believing in the american dream. americans are down, but we can never be counted out. we are too great a people for that. what is broken in america is not our people. it is our politics. what we need in washington is a place that humbler, the federal government that is smaller so

our people can live freer. i was a governor who had led a large stake, leaving at the country in economic growth. the son of tenant farmers, he was born with little more than a good name, but who has experienced the great opportunity and freedom of this country. but i have never believed that the cause of conservatism is embodied by one individual. our party and the conservative philosophy transcends any one individual. it is a movement of ideas that are greater than any one of us. it will live long passed any of us in our lives. as a former air force pilot, i know we cannot lose track of the ultimate objective in carrying out our mission.

that objective is to not only defeat president obama, but to replace him with a conservative leader who will bring about real change. our country is hurting, make no mistake about that. 13 million people out of work. 50 million of our citizens on food stamps. $15 trillion national debt and growing. we need bold, conservative leadership that will take on the entrenched interests and give the american people their country back. i have always believed the mission is greater than the man. as i have contemplated the future of this campaign, i have come to the conclusion there is no viable path forward for me in this campaign. therefore, today, i am suspending my campaign and

endorsing and newt gingrich for president of the united states. i believe newt is a conservative and visionary who can transform our country. we have had our differences. newt is not perfect, but who among us is? the fact is there is forgiveness for those who seek god and i believe in the power of redemption for it is a sampler tenet of my christian faith. i have no question that newt gingrich has the heart of a conservative foot reformer, the ability to captivate the conservative movement, the courage to tell those washington interest to take a hike if that is what is in the best interest of our country. as a texan, i have never shied away from a fight, particularly when i considered the call to be righteous.

as someone who has always admired the great texas governor, sam houston, i know when it is time to make a strategic retreat. so i will leave the trail and return home to texas, wind down my 2012 campaign, and i will do so with pride in knowing i gave appellee of myself to a cost worthy of this country. as i had a home, i do so with the love of my life by my side. a woman who makes every day at good when she is there by me. that is my wife, anita. honey, thank you for all you have done. she has been an incredible patriot during this process. i also want to thank my son,

griffin, and his beautiful wife, meredith. cindy, who is not here with us today. with a good wife, three loving children, and a loving god who is in my life, things are going to be good no matter what i do. i am proud of the policies we put forward to the american people and i believe we provided the right path forward for our party and our nation. overhaul washington, providing the road map for that, proclaiming the 10th amendment and all the goodness of allowing the states to be more competitive and the local governments. creating energy security and energy jobs.

cutting spending and eliminating these unnecessary federal agencies. cutting taxes to that flat and simple 20%. i will continue to fight for these conservative reforms because the future of our country is at stake and the road we are traveling today, president obama's road, is a very dangerous one. i want to thank some wonderful individuals i have come to know and admire, who have stood by my side in this state. thank you for all the work you have done and being the loyal supporter you have been. a strong and good man in the united states congress, ambassador wilkins -- i talked to all of them this morning. i just want to thank my supporters, the men and women who have come across the country to be here in south

carolina, who were in new hampshire and iowa -- god bless you for loving your country. for volunteering, being here, and are making a difference. i want to say thanks to governor bobby jindal who has been a fabulous spokesperson. steve forbes -- as i know him more, i admire him greatly. governor sam brownback. congresswoman candace miller. congressman sam graves. all just great americans. we have come to have such great respect for and reflect their love of country. i want to say a really special thanks to three distinguished veterans who have joined me on the trail. medal of honor recipient, mike

clinton. mike spent the last two days with us. navy cross recipient, mark latrell. my christian brother up in greenville who has traveled so many times with me, young marine captain, dan moran. they truly represent what is best about america. they give us so much of themselves. they have been up lifting for me as the commander in chief of the texas forces. they are truly my heroes. i began this race with a sense of calling. i felt led into the arena to fight for the future of this country.

i feel no different today than i did then knowing a calling never guarantees a particular outcome, but the journey that tests one's faith and one character. now this journey leads me back to texas neither discouraged nor disenchanted, but, instead, rewarded by the experience and resolute to remain in the arena and the service of my country. our country needs bold leadership and a real transformation. our country deserves that. we must rise to the occasion and elect a conservative champion to put our nation back on the right track. this i know -- i am not done fighting for the cause of conservatism. as a matter of fact, i have just begun to fight.

god bless you, god bless this great country of america. thank you for coming out and being with us today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> run paul's was asked about the departure of rick perry from the wrist. he held an event at the college of charleston two days before the primary. [applause] before moving forward i would like to think the parties making is even possible. his sister your support we can

get kids to participate with a dialogue with members of our campus and college community. the college of charleston is pleased and honored to hear from one candidate seeking the presidency, ron paul. he is the fourth presidential candidate to speak on this non- partisan that series. thank you to the generous support to the office of the president. if we will have the opportunity to ask him about issues important to us. dr. ron paul he was born and raised in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. he served as a flight surgeon in the united states air force during the 1960's. while serving in congress, dr. served in the house committee and was a key member of the gold commission. in 1984, he voluntarily

relinquished his house seat and returned to his medical practice. however, he returned to congress to represent the 14th district of texas. as a member of congress, he continually advocated for a reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles. he is the author of several books and the recipient of many awards and honors from organizations such as the national taxpayers union, citizens against government waste, and the council for a competitive economy. he lives in lake jackson, texas with his wife carol. please join me in her welcoming the candidate for the president of the united states, congressman ron paul. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, thank you. thank you.

thank you very much, and looks like a very nice crowd. my wife is up here with me today, carol. [cheers and applause] sounds like to me that the spirit of liberty is alive and well in charleston. it's great. be know, and it's nice to down a little warmer climate. yesterday, i flew up to washington. i knott i ought to attend and vote against the increase of our national debt of $1.2 trillion. so it's nice to come back down and have this nice warm welcome. i always say in washington when i give a speech i never get applause so i'm always glad to get out of washington. you get a better chance of an applause if you are telling the people the truth about what's really happening in washington. and i think that's the real tragedy. i think there's so much deception going on, and i think what's happened over the many

years is we have things turned upside down. the constitution was written not to restrain you but to let you have your freedom but also to protect your privacy. but they're always attacking your privacy. they are trying to take over the internet. at the same time they want more secrecy in government. so i want to turn that around. i want you to have your privacy and your freedom. [cheers and applause] and it looks like the bill to stop the online privacy bill is very stymied. it looks like by the help of many of you we have been able to stop that and it has -- it did come from the energy from the people, the people who heard about the bill where they really wanted to take over the internet and many members of congress responded. a lot of people signed on that bill, and yesterday they

started removing their names from that bill. so when the people really decide they're going to speak out, washington will listen. sometimes you need a two-by-four to get them to listen, but evidently numbers play a role in this. i think this is really important. this is why i in spite of all the problems i'll probably talk about here in a few minutes i'm really an optimist because i think the people and especially young people are waking up and letting the politicians know what they want. so i have frequently been asked, why do i think the young people seem to be attracted to our campaign? i said, well, why not? they believe in liberty, too, you know. so it is a delight that there's a tremendous attraction for the views that i hold, and we shouldn't be surprised at all. i'm always surprised that we don't have a lot more, but our numbers are indeed growing. i have been in this business for a long time, and the crowds were very small. but something has happened, especially in the last couple years. i think there's a recognition

that government's not a very good organizer or a management. they can't manage our lives. you know, they can't manage the economy, and they certainly can't manage all these countries around the world, and i think we're getting sick and tired of what they've been trying to do. [applause] but the only thing they've been good at is running up the debt. they seem to have no problems with that. but you know, yesterday, that vote on raising the national debt limit by $1.2 trillion, it was a real farce in many ways because the debt is going to be increased. last summer the congress gave up their responsibilities and they said, well, when the president needs more money he can raise the national debt. and we get to vote it down if we want to. and then if we vote it down, then he can veto it. then you'd have to, you know, override his veto.

a foregone conclusion because voting down the debt increase won't happen in the senate. so the debt is automatically going up $1.2 trillion. nobody seems to care. if they did they would take my advice and cut the budget by $1 trillion in one year is what we need. [applause] but overall our issue is that of individual liberty. that's what's made america great. foughtwhat the founders for. when you look at the bill of rights and the fourth amendment and the due process of law, i mean, it has been so severely undermined. if you take the bill that was passed shortly after 9/11, the patriot act, that hasn't given you any more freedom. it's given you less freedom. i don't even believe we need the patriot act to take care of the people. [applause] also, yesterday while in washington, i introduced a

piece of legislation. it was my typical very long complicated piece of legislation. it was one page. it says repeal that provision in the national defense authorization act that gives the president the authority to arrest americans by the military and held indefinitely. i want to repeal that clause. [applause] so in many ways if you look at the 20th century it was the unwinding many freedoms that we had. there wasn't a lot of freedoms that we created in the 20th century. there is big differences here. it's not on profits and savings. it's based on a belief that our dollar can be printed forever and it's a belief that we can borrow money forever so the wealth in this country is basically debt. the money is debt. our wealth is debt. we're running the world on debt. but there still is a bit of trust in the dollar and the dollars of reserved currency. it acts like gold.

but believe me, markets are smarter than governments, and markets eventually know in a paper is not gold and this is why the dollar will be rejected and it has been rejected in many ways already. i got involved in politics in 1971 when the last link to gold was undermined and removed. believing then that that would mean the politicians could spend money endlessly and have no responsibility and that's exactly what has happened. everything has exploded. if you're interested in economics, take your economic textbook out and look at the charts from 1971 on the size of government, the number of employees, the inflation rate, the unemployment rate, everything is exponential from the early 1970's. but if you take a look at the value of your dollar since 1971, it went down 85%. so in a true free market economy where we want people to have the incentive to take care of themselves they would work hard and save. they might not be sophisticated

enough or willing to gamble in this market and other things. if they put their money away 40 years ago and now they're going to retire, the money they put away has been gradually eroded. it would be worth 15 cents. this is criminal. this is immoral. it is bad economics. that is why we have to pay attention to the monetary system, why we have to look to the constitution realizing the constitution only says only gold and silver can be used as a legal tender. there is no authority in the constitution to print money and there's no authority for the federal reserve system at all. [applause] but, you know, even short of the time will come when we revamp and have a new monetary system or get rid of the federal reserve, the most important thing we do right flow, and it supports about 80% of the american people because i can't imagine anybody being opposed to it, why doesn't the congress demand to know exactly

what the federal reserve is doing, how much money they're printing and when and where it goes and who gets all the benefits? and we need a full audit of the federal reserve system. [applause] during the crisis, which is ongoing, but when it burst, when the bubble burst in 2007 and 2008, the congress went and passed tarp funds in the various programs and spent $1 trillion. sounds like a lot of moneys and it is. and they bailed out companies and banks and transferred the debt from the corporations over to the people because we ended up owning the bad debt. in the free market you want to liquid ate debt, you don't want to transfer the debt to the innocent people. but what is generally not understood well is what was the federal reserve doing. they were involved in trillions of dollars and we don't even know the exact amount. they were involved with the manipulation of $15 trillion,

and it's estimated about $7 trillion were used to bail out people overseas, foreign banks and they're still doing it. they're sitting over there promising -- don't worry. the dollar is strong. everybody can trust the dollar and we'll take care of the banks in europe. it's the banks they worry about. they don't worry about the people of greece or spain or these other places because, of course, they live beyond their means too. they had a runaway welfare state and they had debt but the banks bought the debt and now they're stuck with the debt. that debt should be liquidated. now, if our federal reserve goes in and starts buying that debt as they already started that means even foreign debt is going to be dumped on us. ande's a limitation to that it comes closer every single day and that's why the burden will fall on us, especially the young people of this country and why it is so important that we understand the importance of liberty, property rights, sound money and the responsibility of individuals to care for themselves but you can't -- it's very difficult to even no

matter how energetic you are to take care of yourselves if you don't have a market-type economy and sound money and jobs. that's what you have to have if you are going to take care of yourselves and this means the government has to change the government. we're overregulated, overtaxed. we have as manipulated a monetary system. and let me tell you, there is a big drain on this economy for what we're doing overseas. we're spending over $1 trillion every year overseas. if i thought this would enhance and take care of our national defense i'd be all for it. i tell you what, i quite frankly, i think just spending money overseas is not an answer and will actually make us more vulnerable, especially if it contributes to the destruction of our currency here at home. so we should think more carefully about where we get involved overseas, how long we should be involved over there. and my position is quite frankly, we've been overseas in

some places way too long. we don't need any more countries to occupy. we need to come home from places like japan, korea and germany. [applause] so we can't have a stronger national defense if we do that. it's the prime responsibility of the federal government to have a strong national defense. actually, one of the things i can tell you is where we as our government has done a pretty darn good job. we have a military in a is superior to all the other militaries put together. we have more weapons and we're more capable and, believe me, nobody is going to invade us. and we're quite capable of taking care of ourself. but it doesn't mean that we should continue to spend money. i make a strong point that you should think about military spending being different than defense spending.

if you spend money, say, in iraq fighting a war that was unnecessary, helping to put our government into debt of $4 trillion, which has happened with military spending over the last four years, if you do that that doesn't mean that we're stronger. that means in a we're financially weaker. and who knows, we may have more enemies now than ever because there's a lot of collateral damage that we like to dismiss. but let me tell you, it's not dismissed when people get killed because we're occupying their countries. just think -- i know the other night people didn't like what i said, but just think what it was like, you know, if another country did to us like we do to some of them, wouldn't we be annoyed as well? [applause] so what is the advice and how do you explain the point where they say if you endorse this? does it mean you want to be an isolationist and not trade and

talk to people? it's exactly the opposite. we don't want to occupy people. what we want to have is a more and free and open society and a mobile society. we a lot believe in nonintervention or isolationist is the ones that want to put sanctions on countries. sanctions are actually acts of war. i think it's time that we -- you know, after 40-some, maybe 50 years now, i think we ought to think seriously, don't you think it would be safe to remove the sanctions against cuba? we talk to cuba and trade and travel to cuba. [applause] we put sanctions on iraq for about 10 years and bombed them constantly. eventually it ended up in a war and that war is far from over. a lot of our troops have left, but we have a huge embassy there. and troops will have to be there so we'll be -- it will be a financial burden to us and a

distraction from what we want to do. i complain about all this effort. when i was in the air force i was over in that region and i was right up to the border between pakistan and afghanistan. very, very mountainous. and, you know, it's just unbelievable how mountainous and rough terrain that is. and the border between the two countries run through there. and we're supposed to be involved in a war fighting and chasing people back and forth and figuring out who's in what country. you know, my idea is, let's forget about that border and worry about our own borders a little bit more. [applause] our borders today are a real mess, especially to the south of us. it has immigration problems and our immigration rules are a mess and i can't go into that in detail, but obviously we need better border patrol and we shouldn't endorse illegal immigration but there is something else going on in our

borders that we should be thinking about because it is a threat to us and nothing seems to be changing and that happens to be dealing with the drug wars. the drug war is really very visible down there. in the last five years, 47,500 people died on our own border and it has to do with the drug war. so i would like to say that it wouldn't hurt us to maybe put a moratorium on that war as well. [applause] we have been fighting the drug war substantially since the early 1970's spending trillions of dollars. and guess what? prohibition doesn't work. it didn't work with alcohol and it isn't working with drugs. i think we should rethink that. your generation needs to rethink it because when they --

previous generation decided we will make people more moral and teach them that alcohol is bad for them which is bad. it's a really very dangerous drug as all drugs are. they tried a prohibition method to try to mold people. they did it for 10 years or so. they woke up one day and repealed it. this has been going on longer. it's much more complicated. going on longer. it is much more complicated. it has been more costly. we fill our prisons with non- violent criminals. you can be put in prison for being and a non-violent user for life. [applause] the other question we ought to

ask is that it seems we accept the idea that alcohol is not a good drug. if you're addicted to alcohol, you are treated as a patient. i would suggest that people who are addicted to drugs, instead of encouraging them to kill for the drugs, maybe we should treat the people addicted to drugs as patients rather than criminals. not only is it a failed policy, but it does something to our liberty. it is an excuse for people to come busting into houses. i am sure you have heard the stories of the police department and the federal government, the fbi busting into places who are suspected of having drugs. but they go into the wrong houses sometimes and then they walk off and leave the people in

distress. people get killed that way. by these staying operations. it is used to undermine, as an excuse now with the patriot act, to use -- to search without warrants. in order to really protect our privacy and restore the fourth amendment, you have to deal with the patriot act and the downside of the war on drugs. some of the things we need to do to get the economy going again, there is a lot we have to do. in some areas, we should do nothing, like telling people how to spend their money. i would think that we shouldn't tell you how to spend your money. but there is the economy that we have to deal with. we have to have a sound currency. we should have a currency -- which should not have a currency that is costly losing value. we should not have these programs that tell the business

that they need to give loans to people who cannot qualify for loans, contributing more so to the boom cycle. we should have low taxation. it did not seem like a complicated question. i gave them my and complicated answer. i thought the income-tax should be zero. [applause] [applause] college, you know, if there were more jobs and not taxes it would be easier to work your way through college and not have

to borrow so much money. it was close to that when i went to college. taxes were essentially nil at that time. the jobs didn't pay very much. the education doesn't cost very much. when the government gets involved, whether it's housing or education, they want everybody to be educated and more people might get educated, but when they just pump money into anything, whether it's houses or education or medicine, guess what the number one thing that happens, the price goes up. the cost of education, the cost of medicine, the cost of houses distorts the economy and then there has to be a correction. that's certainly what happened in the housing bubble. but right now the most important thing that we have to try to do in order to get the growth back again is you have to liquidate. you have to get rid of debt and you have to get rid of malinvestment. when the federal reserve lowers the interest rates lower than it should be, it encourages savers and business people to do the wrong thing, make mistakes and borrow too much money. if you can't liquidate the death you want build on that. unfortunately in the last four years, like i mentioned before, they didn't liquidate the debt, they transferred the debt. they transferred the debt from the people who made the more money and gave it to people who are losing their jobs and losing their houses. so what we need is a clear understanding of the free market economic system, and

unfortunately we have been engaged in this country many, many decades, if not 70 or 80 years being taught only one form of economics and that's the keynesians economics. people aren't smart enough to tell you how to spend your money and run your business, the people in washington. [applause] but our whole system thrived on the principle of individual liberty. my belief is that our life comes from a creator and our liberty comes from our creator and where he ought to be able to assume responsibility for ourselves and not be hindered by our government. the one thing what happens if you live in a truly free society, then you have the chance of assuming the responsibility of seeking excellence and virtue. that should be the goal in life. excellence and virtue and prosperity, and yet when government decides they are

going to make you virtuous or they are going to make the economy perfectly equal, believe me, they ruin things. they ruin things. they can bring about equality in economics, but the 20th century has shown what total socialism gets. poverty is what you get. so in a free society it's quite different, but it becomes a more creative society. we were the freest and the most prosperous and we had the largest middle class ever. now the middle class is shrinking. productivity is down. but there's no slowing up of spending. none whatsoever. and this is the reason, you know, i made this modest suggestion that if spending is the problem, instead of tinkering around with how you raise the debt limit and deceive the people, we should cut the budget by $1 trillion. i think that's a pretty good place to start. [applause] freedom at one time was seen as a unit, and the founders

understood this. if you had a right to your life you had a right to your social life and you had a right to your economic life. today we have a few people defending personal liberty and a few others defending economic librity. but you need to put this back together. if you have a right to your life and your liberty, therefore, your social life as long as you don't hurt people, you have a right to do what you want to do as well as how to spend your money. and some people say, oh, no. some people will waste nair life. they are going to do some dumb things and we got to take care of them. i had one member of congress, we were voting on something, putting controls on the people. i said, why are you doing this? why should you regulate and tell people what to do? they said, they're too stupid. this is their attitude that they have to tell you. but it is true in a free society. if you have your freedom you might make mistakes. but the whole thing is, it's better you make your own mistake and suffer the consequence rather than the politician making the mistake and everybody suffering. [applause]

so if we could bring people together -- and this is to me the wonderful message of freedom. some people will use their freedom in one way. you don't endorse people's use of freedom. the limit is use of force and stealing and hurting other people's property. you don't endorse this. we understand this in religion. people can be atheists and they can be all forms of religion. they make mistakes. but in social things and economic things, all of a sudden we think we have to regulate them. we need to have a better understanding and not feeling so threatened. just because we legalize freedom, that doesn't mean we endorse what people do. a lot of people would like to paint me as being pro-drug or something. i'm not. you know, it's just that i'm pro-choice on people allowing to use their own life. but i condemn, you know, some people on their choices.

but i'm willing to believe in a free society is the most prosperous society. that's what made america great and that is what's going on in this country. believe me. the crowds are bigger, the young people know about it. the remnant is still out there. people are getting excited. and they know change has to come. the only question now is, are we going to march forth with continuation of gigantic growth of government worldwide and have the united nations taken over or are we going to demand our rights as individuals to live in a free country where we don't have to be dictated by international government, where we don't go to war on the united nations and nato and that we live as free people in this country as it was intended? thank you very much. [applause] thank you.

thank you. >> ok. great. what a crowd. ok. if you could have a seat, congressman paul has agreed to respond to questions as he is able. we have a few staff around. if you raise their hand they'll get around to you as they can. here, we have one over here. >> considering the nature of the bully pulpit series, my question of communication, how would you use the bully pulpit as president of the united states? >> how would i use the bully pulpit as president of the united states? probably give the same speech i gave you today. the message is important, but understanding is important. we talk for many years in the support i've gotten about a revolution.

it's an intellectual revolution. but nothing works if people don't understand it. government reflects the people. there is no doubt about it. and they have to understand if. so just like i mentioned about the change in attitude about the piracy bill on the internet. people knew and understood that so you want to galvanize people and get them excited to put pressure on the people in washington. every't have to change single person in washington. what we have to do is change your hearts and your minds to know what you expect from government. when that happens. we don't hear that very often from very few of our leaders that it's the change in people's minds that have to count. but government is a reflection of the people. if the people want us to go to war under u.n. banner and not declare war and occupy more and more countries, the government will continue to do it unless you decide as a generation enough is enough. if you want your rights back again and your assumption you can take care of yourself, you

have to hear from the people, that would be something i would keep pushing to try to get people to understand. the one thing about the free market, people say, well, it's cruel and it's evil and uncaring. but actually it isn't. it's humanitarian. if you care about your fellow man, you want freedom, because it produces the most and gives you the largest middle class and the greatest prosperity and one of the best distributions. although there would be inequality. but people, when they hear this they should be encouraged and that would be a message i would continue to spread. [applause] >> dr. paul, in regards to the sopa and pipa bills currently in congress, are south carolina senator lindsey graham is a co- sponsor of pipa. in my interactions with him through email, i feel that the politicians speak a different language than the voters. as a politician, what do you suggest we tell him in regards to the bill so he fully goes away with pipa?

>> if there is two or four of you, it's not going to do any good. just yesterday, rubio switched his vote. he took his name off because he heard from his people. a lot of people in washington aren't philosophically interested. they're interested in re election. that's what motivates most of them is re-election and power. no, if there's enough people to send that message, they should have, you know, change their minds. that's what the system is all about. so i would do is encourage to contact all your representatives who do not agree with you on sopa. >> congressman paul, i'm a sophomore polysci major. in 2009 you signed a letter from the texas congressional delegation requesting support

from the federal government for high-speed rail in texas. i was curious as to what your opinion was towards high-speed rail and american infrastructure in the united states, being a promoter of small government? thatll, i don't recall particular letter but it's something that i would sign and make request. i represent a district and they take a lot of money from all our districts. they take highway funds. this is the best example. it's probably a highway transportation bill. highway funds were supposed to be a user fee. we pay for gasoline. we send the money to washington. it's supposed to build our highways. there is no money in the bank and they have to appropriate money. i routinely, if there was any request from any city, town or individuals for infrastructure, i would just, you know, automatically make the request and say, you know, you took their money, we have niece moneys come back and they're called earmarks.

this is like a controversial issue because i believe in the principle of earmarking. i don't -- because if you vote against an earmark and don't support it, the money goes to the president and he gets to spend the money and i think it's wrong. as a matter of fact, i think there should be more earmarking. i think everything -- every nickel should be designated how the congress because we represent the people. so we should designate this and we should do this because that is our responsibility to designate how the money should be spent. but the one thing is, since i never voted for an appropriation bill i never voted for one of those earmarks. i might make the request saying, look, if you are going to divvy up the money that you stole from us, yeah, i would at least -- let my request be in there. [no audio]

>> thank you, dr. paul. i know you don't want to occupy any our countries or break down our relationships. do you have any plans to strengthen our relationships, particularly with pakistan and iran? >> she knows i don't want to occupy more nations but what can we do to strengthen our relationship in particular with pakistan and iran. i would continuously do that because i would want to offer friendship and trade with anybody who will accept it. and that would be the opposite of punishing the people of these countries like in iran. we're putting punitive punishment and not allowing them to import or export which is an act of war. so i wouldn't do that. i would take off the sanctions

because it backfires on it. it hurts people. it never hurts the government. as a matter of fact, it enhances the power of the government because there's a lot of people in iran right now that don't like their government. and they actually have elections. the american people don't realize it. they have a lot more elections there than they do in saudi arabia. we do whatever saudi arabia wants because we do what they tell them to do. you should offer friendship and trade and say, well, some of these people are bad people. like did we talk to the soviets when they were killing hundreds of millions of people as well as china but eventually we got over this. we should talk to people. one thing i used is the example when i was drafted in 1962 with the missile crisis in cuba and kennedy and khrushchev talked and decided they would not start a war. we took missiles out of turkey and missiles out of cuba. i think we need more diplomacy and more talking and not more instill dation.

pakistan is the example of the worst type of foreign policy we could have because i used to claim there were two options. we go to a country and say, look, we want you to be our buddy and dictator like mubarak and give them $40 billion. if they do our bidding we give them a lot of money. if they don't do it we bomb them and occupy them. but in pakistan we have three ways of doing it. we bomb them, kill innocent people, they get angry at us, they get angry at their government and we keep giving money to their government and we wonder why we don't have good relationships with that. the founders were right, the more trade and communication with people the less likely we'll fight with them. when i was in high school we were fighting the chinese. i was glad nixon talked to them. the french and americans probably killed more than a

million vietnamese. we finally left. we lost 60,000 americans. many of them sick and injured people. finally we leave. guess what? there was no communist domino effect. what happened is they became westernized, china became our banker and we invest in vietnam all through peace and not war. we should be talking to people, whether it's pakistan or iranians or whatever. that doesn't mean you should condone what they do. getn't want more people to nuclear weapons. i don't want the iranians get more nuclear weapons. we contained the soviets. they had 30,000 of them. so the last thing we need is a war in iran over a weapon they don't have. [applause] >> dr. paul, i have about three comments. one, i would like to see term

limits for congressmen and senators. if they can accomplish anything they should be able to accomplish it in the time allotted to them. they don't need to make a career of being in washington, switching from this to that and taking big money from the big oil companies, the big pharmaceutical companies and big insurance companies, big banking consortiums. we need to make our own decisions. those big companies do not need to make them. we need to get rid of the lobbyists and we need to deal directly with our representatives. and i think you're absolutely

right about drugs. i know this is very unpopular, but if we made drugs legal we would get rid of all the crime involved. [applause] and like alcohol, we could make them legal, clean out our jails and collect tax on them to help on this deficit. thank you. people't i tell you under 30 have good common sense. very good. thank you. [laughter] with term limits, i introduced the first term limit bill even in the 1970's when it wasn't a subject. we had a chance to vote on term limits in the 1990's after the republicans took over in 1994, and we had about six votes. i voted for all them. so i support term limits but i don't think it's the answer. it would be helpful, but ultimately if you have somebody who believes the same thing and they leave and you put somebody else in who believes in the

foreign policy and the monetary policy and the federal reserve and all the bailouts, it doesn't change anything. but what i think you're suggesting is the turnover you're going to get a better chance of doing it. that's why i support it. unfortunately we are not on the verge of it. after we had the six votes in the 1990's it was passed by, so i guess the your second option to that is the people that aren't responding to you, you know, there's still such a thing called an election and you have to work harder at that, i guess. ok. which way are we looking? >> one more question. >> dr. paul, on monday the debate when asked, what was the highest income tax you would have you said zero. totally agree. i think it's direct theft. i don't think the american people understand how you would get the taxes, whether it be user fees or tariffs or what. could you please elaborate on that? >> he likes the idea of a zero tax rate and i think most of us do. but he asks a realistic

question, how do you get there, because obviously if we had no income tax right now, the deficit would get worse. so you have to change the spending habits. we have to literally change the role of government. if you want a perpetual welfare state and if you think we should police the world, no income tax would go up. they'll keep printing money until the whole thing blows up and that's what i'm worried about. that's likely to happen. we's say we are sensible, work our way out of it, how do you get to a zero tax? bring our troops home, not be the policemen of the world, have a strong national defense and say we are not in the entitlement system. today, most people in this country, or at least a lot of people in this country think entitlement -- it sounds like it's a good word like you have a right to it but entitlements

aren't right. you have a right to your liberty but you are not entitled to somebody else's property. so you have to change that whole philosophy. [applause] but up until 1913 we didn't have an income tax. it was user fees. i think the user fee on the highway, we could work with that. we have a user fee -- i have a lot of coastal area in my district, and you know in the intercoastal canal they pay fees to use it. but then somebody else uses up the money and then they -- we have trouble taking care of our harbors and our canals. so user fees would be good. a highway gasoline tax i think would work under these circumstances. but the big thing is cutting back on the size of government. but some taxes -- the import tax isn't, you know, real popular. an import tax raised revenues at the very beginning of our history. but when it's punitive, when it

punishes people and tries to protect certain industries that is bad. but if you have a flat tax, i think that would be a proper way of raising some revenues if we want to avoid the income tax. anyway, that looks like our time is up. i enjoyed it. wonderful day. wonderful weather. thank you very much. [applause] >> congressman paul, thank you, and on behalf of the bully pulpit series at the college of charleston i'd like to present to you a token of our appreciation. [cheers and applause] >> well, what a crowd. thank you. on behalf of the sear sees, the nonpartisan series, regardless of your vote, we want you to remind you to vote saturday during the primary election. thank you so much. >> hey, thank you. appreciate it. thanks a lot. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> young people come to my office and i hand out a constitution and say, you read it because nobody else reads it. >> thank you, sir. >> ok. thank you. thank you.

thank you, you guys. glad you're out. >> good luck.

>> good to see you guys. >> are you going to make me an honorary member? >> can i take a picture with you? can you take a picture? >> sure. >> thank you so much. >> can we take a picture? >> we can try. >> air force medic and veteran myself, thank you very much for coming. >> good to see you. >> thank you for your hard work. >> congressman paul.

>> israel and the united states could mandate -- they're retaliating verbally on what we're doing to them because we're trying to undermine their whole system and they're going to suffer from it. butter in' just saying we might have some recourse. but it wouldn't make any sense from their viewpoint either to do it. they've never done it before. [inaudible] >> i do not make judgment on people who send me money.

if they're bad people -- i am glad to take money out of their pockets. [laughter] >> good to see everybody. >> congressman paul, what do you feel about your fellow texan dropping out of the race? [laughter] >> what do you say to young people that don't want to show up? >> i don't worry too much about it. >> you don't want to try to get them involved? >> well i do, i do what i did

today. if that doesn't work, i'm not going to lose any sleep over it. if people are interested, it is because they are born with the idea. >> why do you think that you have such an appeal to young people coming to college students? >> because they care about the body. >> why do you think that young people seem to be going forward your message? >> they like freedom. >> thank you very much, dr. paul. >> ok. >> all right, very good.

>> good to see everybody. great. >> there's a lot of enthusiasm, dr. paul. >> there certainly is. i am out of sync. -- out of ink. >> i'll love you forever. >> that's a long time, you know. >> thank you, dr. paul. >> we got to get a picture.

[applause] [applause] >> ok, very good. >> can we take a picture? >> here we go. >> thank you very much. >> ok. >> an honor to meet you. >> thank you. >> with your health policy, would that be dental and eye care as well right now, they

don't cover. >> the government has no money. i want them to get all of their money back if they need to their health care. the government is broke. very good. great to see, everybody. >> thank you, mr. paul. >> good to see you. >> these guys put this together. >> i am worried about the

budget. >> thank you. >> as a young person going into medicine, you are an inspiration. >> great, great. wonderful. >> if we can ever do anything for you, we are ready. >> come on saturday.

>> only a couple of more pictures, guys. we have got to run. >> nice to me. >> dr. paul. >> thank you, dr. paul. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you, sir. good night. you are a good man.

>> c-span's rd. to the white house coverage shows you the events leading up to the primary. >> the obama administration came up with a policy that under the program, they cannot teach abstinence as a preferable way of avoiding out of wedlock births. and she cannot talk about marriage, she cannot talk about marriage as an alternative lifestyle that is no better or worse than any other lifestyle. my question is, why? >> when the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars that no one has read and then discovers to his great surprise two years later as he himself put it, that

the shell already jobs were not shell already, and the stimulus fails. -- that the shovel ready jobs or not shovel ready, the stimulus fails. >> and we follow the candidate says they get their message out. after the polls close, we will show you the results from south carolina all along with candidate speeches and your phone calls. >> rick santorum was declared the winner of the iowa caucuses which were held at two weeks ago. he has been campaigning in south carolina which holds presidential primary on saturday. he spoke at the southern republican leadership conference is in charleston. he was joined onstage by cadets from the citadel.

>> thank you very much. i am joined by some friends on the stage. no offense to the cadets, but my best friend is my wife. we have had a wonderful time, we spent the two weeks in the low country. we have had a wonderful time as we always do. we come down here a lot. we have been vacationing here for almost 20 years. charleston is a little bit of home for us. we have had the appetency to spend some time that the great institution here, the citadel. i want to thank the citadel cadets for joining us on the stage. i will be with them at the

citadel republican club dinner. thank you all for being here and the great work you should do for the republican party. this is the most important election in our country's history. the president has a very different view of what makes america great, what america is. from our founding principles, america has been a country that believes in limited government and god-given rights and for people to be able to pursue god's will for them and their life and to be able to get the fruits of their labor and to be able to provide for themselves, their community, their family, and the country.

president obama does not see the world that way. it is not see america that way. he sees it as on its way to be like any other country, bigger, top down. our leaders left to be something different, barack obama wants to return as to what we came from. that is why the people here in south carolina have a huge role in that process. they have the opportunity to speak loudly, to speak loudly about what a candidate they want to carry forward that message. someone who has the vision, the track record, and background to back up that. someone that can win the states that are necessary for us to win, too late to the voters that are important us to relate to. -- too late to the voters that are important for us to relate

to. -- to relate to the voters that are important for us to relate to. it was a group of states, the reagan democrats that made all the difference. ladies and gentlemen, i come from one of those states. i come from a background and a town where there was lots of reagan democrats. people ask me how i won a 60% democratic district when i was running against a 16-year incumbent. they asked me how i won against 8 democratic and comment when i ran and won reelection in a state that has more than half registered democrats. the only conservative to win in a state that george bush lost. how did you do it? i did it by going out and talking about the values that

make this country great. the value of hard work. i grew up in a steel town, the grandson of a coal miner. i talked about the value of hard work and giving every single american, believing in them, and giving them the opportunity to rise in society. it has been about opportunity for me. that is what my grandfather taught me and what my father taught me -- if you work hard and you do best, you will be richly rewarded. there are many questioning whether that is true again. a lot of people feeling left behind and are out there alone. they are thinking that those politicians care about them. you have democrats saying that they will take care of you. ladies and gentlemen, the people of america don't want to be taken care of it. -- don't want to be taken care of. they want someone who believes in them. they want someone who believes

that they can do things, we can set up a playing field that allows for equal opportunity. on the republican side, we need -- we seem to be fixated on cutting taxes and promoting economic growth. i am all for it. we are fixated on that top rate. you know what, people are not paying that top rate. how are you going to help me? the answer is, we had better care about them. this is the heart and soul of america. i come from that area of the country, western pennsylvania. the area barack obama says clings to their guns and baubles. thank god they do. [applause] i put forth an economic plan and a plan not just for the economy but for the family that will restore the institutions and the

economy that is necessary for those folks out there that are working alone to have the opportunity. to be able to succeed and provide for themselves and provide for small trees across america. the plan that goes forward shows that we not only have a strong principals and supplies in economics but also for the and working men and women. the people that have the unemployment rates in double digits. we have an opportunity in this election to put someone out there on a values level that is in sync with the people.

that we and american aid to participate again. someone who is hopeful, optimistic, and has plans that gives others hope and optimism that they, too, can be part of the revitalization of the american economy, of their homes, and families. [applause] that is why i talk about the family as the center of our society. this family is absolutely essential if we will have the elimination and alleviation of poverty. if we want up to it is, we have to have a government that nurtures and support his family's, how we can promote fatherhood and marriage. all of these things are critically important because of

the family breaks down, the economy breaks down people are out there isolated trying to the job of two people we all know this. people don't want to be dependent, they want opportunity. we bring that to the table that anyone else left in this race. we also bring something that is also important. someone who is a conviction conservative, national security, moral, constitutional, economic issues.

we have very important issues in this race. we have a very important group of people to keep energize and involved the, called the two parted. -- the tea party. [applause] if you look at the issues that got them started, it started with the wall street bailouts and beefier that was going on about government's reaching in and taking over a section of the economy and risking taxpayers' dollars and bailing out people that acted potentially in morley, but illegally. it was tied up further by the talk of obamacare, a take of the health-care system, the take care of the manufacturing center, controlling aspects our

lives in the environment. that is how the tea party got going. let's be honest, the two candidates i am competing for and south carolina to win. both of them supported individual mandates, one of them put in a full-scale plant in massachusetts. both of them supported global warming and one of them sat on a couch with nancy pelosi how they needed to do something. a third issue, the wall street bailout. both of them supported the wall street bailout. how will we differentiate ourselves on the major issues of the day when we nominate tweedle dum or twiddled the residence someone who stood up and said, no -- major issues of the day when we nominate tweedle dum or

tweedle dee, then someone who stood up and said, no. south carolina was told by the pundits and the media, we just need to win. let's pick someone who is more moderate that can win. south carolina said, no. we will pick the conviction conservative. we will pick someone who represents our values. someone who has the energy and enthusiasm and vision to put america back on the right track. they took a leap of faith in this ultra-conservative. he was a conservative and he was a throwback named ronald reagan.

i remind you all that when you took that chance and south carolina for ronald reagan, he was not the reagan that we know. he became that reagan because south carolina believe that we needed someone like a reagan. [applause] we were here when we heard the news that came from a wonderful state of iowa. we have one under our belts and we have an opportunity to surprise again. with your help and support, the people of south carolina, who every single day say, senator,

don't let and compromise. a vote for the principles that you believe then and vote for me for president. thank you very much. that lets you. god bless america. [applause] ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> south carolina holds its presidential primary on saturday. rick santorum will join us and take your calls. that is live at 7:45 eastern. >> if you have a saudi prince said as part of the royal family of saudi arabia that bought one of these franchises, you have to look at what are his motives. >> diana west writes about culture, politics, and the spread of islam in the western world. >> there's an argument that they should have to register as a foreign agent given the role of the prince in its corporate structure. >> more with "washington times" editorial writer and syndicated columnist, diana west. >> president obama campaigned in new york tonight and held an event at the apollo theater in

harlem. that is next on c-span. then, political stratus this talk about the 2012 elections. -- political strategists talk about the 2012 elections. then, a discussion about women in politics. we will have more road to the white house coverage tomorrow when a republican candidate newt gingrich and ron paul participate at an event at the southern republican leadership conference. live coverage gets under way from charleston at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span too. and 80 -- c-span 2. then, that gingrich told an event at 3:45 eastern -- it then, mitt romney holds an event at 3:45 eastern.

>> hello, new york. >> hello, new york. hello, harlem. it is good to be here tonight. [applause] [applause] [applause] [crowd chanting "4 more years"]

i want to begin by thanking you for the incredible -- banking my wife for the incredible -- i would like to thank my emcee. i want to thank the incredible performers. one of my favorites, india irie. [applause] then, to know that reverend al green was here. [applause] [singing] i youso in love with

[applause] [normal voice] those guys did not think i would do it. i told you that i was going to do it. don't worry, reverend, i cannot sing like you but it is wanted to show my appreciation. i also want to acknowledge a couple of outstanding members of congress with us, congressman charlie rangel. congressman jerry is in the house. have a seat, i have something to say. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. no, thank you.

i am here tonight not just because i need your help, i am here because your country needs your help. [applause] there was a reason why so many of you got involved in the campaign in 2008, you work your hearts out. it was not because you thought it would then be easy. when you decided to support someone named barack obama for president, you and i do it because you think it is a cakewalk. -- you are not doing it because you think it is a cakewalk. the campaign was not about me. it was about a vision that we shared for america. a vision that was not narrow and cramped. it was not an idea that in america, you just look out for yourself.

the most powerful among us can just play by their own rules. it was a vision that was big and compassionate and bold and it said, and america if you work hard, you have a chance. you have a chance to get ahead. it does not matter where you were born, it does not matter what you look like, it does not matter what your name is. if you are willing to work hard, if you have some talent, some idea, if you are motivated. you can make it. it was a vision that said, we are greater together than we are on our own. [applause] [applause]