i.r.s., the social security administration, and the department of homeland security. so the right hand, the left hand and the middle hand know what each other are doing. we get social security no match letters that used to come out, they stopped sending them because nobody was doing anything with them. they would say, we did our job, a letter would go out, nobody shows up, that's the end of it. hopeland security is operating as -- homeland security is operating at the direction of the white house deciding they're going to provide administrative amnesty, 300,000 illegals in the united states, adjudicated for deportation and the president and janet napolitano and eric holder set up a policy, primarily janet in a powell tau noah -- napolitano, take staff time and find a means and way to justify

allowing them to stay in the united states. administrative amnesty. my bill, new idea, puts the three of them together so the inch r.s. sends the information to homeland security and the social security administration, no match letters from social security administration go to the i.r.s. and to homeland security and it says, p your heads together, figure out how to enforce america's immigration law. that's what we need to be doing, mr. speaker. and by the way, the president of the united states, who has disrespected the rule of law, has a couple of family members who have received some type of administrative amnesty, asue lum. . one has been in the united states illegally, president obama's aunt, living in public housing, reportedly, was finally adjudicated again for deportation and the obama

administration declared her to be too much of a risk now after all these years, if she were sent back to kenya, because his aunt is now too high a profile public figure to be sent to kenya, someone might kidnap her and hold her and therefore it is a great risk and give her asylum in the united states and no one would kidnap her living in public housing, they would just do it in public housing. so homeland security, i presume the state department may have had a voice on this, granted, according to news reports, asylum for barack obama's aunt. if you can get asylum for the president's aunt and you think in terms of the rule of law as applied the same to everyone, then who would not it apply to? it didn't apply to barack obama's drunken uncle omah and

adjudicated for deimportanttation. drunken uncle omar ran into a police car and had a blood alcohol content of 1.4, nearly twice the legal amount and drunken uncle omar disappeared from the scene and wept the way of barack obama's aunt, administrative a.m. mess ti, not -- amnesty and not deported. if we won't the president's aunt or uncle, no matter his blood alcohol content and 300,000 in the united states who have been adjudicated for deportation and we are shorthanded and having trouble processing this and janet napolitano has said that we don't have the resources to

enforce the laws, why are we using our staff resources to go try and give people an exemption from a law that has already been enforced. that is administrative amnesty. we have been scouring the books to give people a pass on a rule of law, and i raise the issue and i asked dozens of people across the spectrum in my district and around the country, what's the most important component of immigration law? mr. speaker, what i hear is, the rule of law, the rule of law, not the idea that some people are needy and it hurts our hearts to enforce the law. it does. but in the end, if we don't respect the rule of law, if we don't refurbish the rule of law, they have then have desecrated. we cannot be a great country if

we don't have the rule of law. we must be a country of sovereign nation, borders must be defended and must be controlled in a way when we decide who comes in and decide when people go out if they don't decide on their own and we must deserve, protect, refewer bish the rule of law. the idea act has the support of all presidential candidates, formally ait'sed to by governor romney and he sees the logic in it and we passed this off the floor of the house of representatives. i believe that governor romney would be supportive of such an initiative. if you go on down theline in the platform that are universal among the presidential candidates, you would see the desire to repeal dodd-frank. dodd-frank that is set up such that the government would decide

which lending institutions were too big to be allowed to fail. and once declared too big to fail, the three entities in the federal government would decide whether they are going bankrupt and if they went into receivership and which entity would receive them. it is horrible for the federal government to decide winners and losers written by the very people that contributed to the financial problem that we had, chris dodd and barney frank. i'm full for 100% repeal of dodd-frank and if there are redeeming qualities, let's put them back into the law. dodd-frank needs to be repealed and need to pass the repeal of dodd-frank. michelle baum man has been the lead on that and drafted the legislation. she has been a strong and vocal

advocate and so the other presidential candidates and we should do this for the american people, for the next president and do it to honor the effort of michele bachmann. next piece is official english. and almost every country has one official language. it has been so recognized throughout the ages. the single most powerful unifying force throughout humanity is common language. and so here in america, we are so fortunate that english is that language. and yet, there seems to be an open effort to try to encourage language enclaves in the united states where they don't live within english and trapped in that cycle of an ethnic minority instead of assimilating into a

broader society. english is the official language of government. and unify the american people and hold us together as a people and strengthen our unity. government does not need to be spending that kind of money on language. thank you, mr. speaker. and repeal obamacare and a number of other things. i appreciate your attention to this matter this evening. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa for a motion. mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. ism the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it, the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

his remarks are next on c-span. 10 states hold presidential contest tomorrow. we will hear from rick santorum and mitt romney. watch super tuesday election results tomorrow night. while you watch, use our second

screen web page with your tablets or laptop computer. you can also monitor our blog. use a laptop or tablets to extend your c-span and the link on our brand new web page. -- viewing on our brand new web page. on "washington journal tomorrow morning, the president of the business roundtable looks at president obama's speech tuesday night. tom zeller looks at america's poor and middle class. "washington journal" is live on

c-span every day at 7:00 eastern. attorney general eric holder spoke about national security issues and defended the killing of u.s. citizens abroad and were viewed as terrorist. he spoke in chicago. he sat down for an interview with northwestern law school dean. and >> good afternoon. it is my great privilege and pleasure to welcome you to northwestern law school. we are pleased this afternoon to host the honorable eric holder, attorney general of the united states. he will deliver an important policy address.

before i welcome our speaker, i want to acknowledge and welcome several distinctive but guests. -- distinguished guests. joining us from the department of justice, chief of staff and counselor to the attorney general. a prowled northwestern law alarm from the class of 1976 -- a roud northwestern a llaw alum from the class of 1976. [applause] we also welcome this senior counselor to the attorney- general for the civil division of the department of justice. gary shapiro and christopher beach. i am also pleased to welcome at northwestern university president.

many of the law schools and the university of distinguished alumni. we are very pleased you could join us. can the students are at the center of everything we do here. in that regard, i want to give special thanks for general holder for meeting earlier this afternoon with a group of law students. a distinguished lawyer and devoted public servant, attorney general has held a wide range of positions in his career. as a federal prosecutor, denied states attorney comment -- united states attorney, supreme court -- a judge. a graduate of columbia university and law school, the

general joined the department of justice following graduation and was assigned to the newly formed public integrity section for investigated and prosecuted corruption involving officials and local state and federal government. in 1988, president reagan appointed to the superior courts of the district of columbia. he remained a judge until 1993 when president clinton appointed him to the post of u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 1997, president clinton promoted him to deputy attorney general of the united states. in july 2001, he joined the washington d.c. law firm. in 2008, president barack obama nominated him to be the 82nd attorney general, in nomination

confirmed by the u.s. senate. titleholder is the first african-american to serve in this critical -- general holder is the first african-american to serve in this critical post. he oversees the efforts the federal prosecutors, investigators, analysts, and fbi agents who work on counterterrorism. during his tenure, the justice department's work has been marked by significant national- security achievements. successfully confronting some of the most significant terrorist threats since 9/11. strengthening the department's decade-long track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists in our federal court. dismantling a number of potentially deadly plots. he has forged and strengthen the

international partnerships that are proven so integral to our success in combating terrorism. he has secured convictions and prison sentences against the christmas day bomber, the times square bomber, and many others. he participated in a successful operation that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden last year. on behalf of the northwestern law community, i want to thank the attorney general for his command the to our country. our safety as americans and for his service to the legal profession. please join me in welcoming the honorable eric holder, attorney general of the united states. [applause]

>> this is my kind of crowd. i have not said a word and i already have a standing ovation. thank you, dean rodriguez for your kind words. and also for the outstanding leadership you provide for our nation's legal community. it is a privilege to be wicked today and to be among the distinguished faculty, members, staff, alumni, students. for more than 150 years, this law school has served as a training ground for future leaders and has a meeting place for issues of national concern. this afternoon, i am honored to be a part of this tradition. i am grateful for the opportunity join with you in discussing a defining issue of our time. a most critical responsibility that we share. how we will stay true to

america's founding and an adoring promises of security, justice, and liberty. is this country's earliest days, the american people have risen to this challenge. as we have seen, and that president john f. kennedy described the best, in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. pop a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation confronts national camp -- national security threats that demand are constant attention. -- we have reached an hour of danger. we are a nation at war. in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.

i began each day with a briefing on the latest and most urgent threats made against us in the past 24 hours. i go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe. i know that more than a decade after the september 11 attacks, there are people currently plotting to murder americans. they reside in distant countries as well as within our own borders, disrupting and preventing these plots and using every available and appropriate tool to keep the american people save has been and will remain this administration's top priority. just as surely as we are a nation at war, we are also a

nation of laws and values. even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the constitution and must always be considered the statutes, court precedents, rule of law, and are finding ideas. not only is this the right thing to do, history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm. this is not my view, my judgment is shared by senior national security officials across the government. as the president reminded us in 2009, at the national archives, we uphold our most cherished values because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. time and again, our values has

been our best security assets. history proves this. we do not have to choose between security and liberty. and we will not. today i want to tell you about the collaboration across the government that defines and distinguishes this administration's national- security efforts. i also want to discuss the legal principles as well as the special role of the department of justice in protecting the american people and upholding the constitution. before 9/11, today's level of interagency cooperation was not commonplace. government lacks the infrastructure as well as the imperative to share a national security information quickly and effectively. domestic law enforcement -- those who attacked us on september 11 chose military and civilian targets. they crossed borders and

jurisdictional lines. it immediately became clear that no single agency could address these threats because no single agency has all of the necessary tools. to counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw from all the resources and to radically update the operations. as a result, today, government agencies are better posture to work together to address a range of the emerging national security threats. the lawyers, agents, and analyst at the department of justice work closely with our colleagues across the national security community to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary to keep the american people safe. the fact and the extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debate. it is something that this had been a station and the previous

one and the previous one can be proud of. as part of discord and efforts, the justice department plays a key role -- as part of this coordinated efforts, the justice department plays a key role. with the foreign intelligence surveillance court in authorizing surveillance to investigate suspected terrorists. we must and will continue to use intelligence gathering capabilities congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect american lives. at the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, including oversight by congress as well as within the executive branch to protect the privacy and civil rights of innocent individuals. this administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests. under section 7 -- the attorney

general and the director of national intelligence and authorized -- may authorize collection aimed at a foreign intelligence targets. this insures the government has the utility that it needs to identify and to respond to terrorists and other foreign threats. the government may not use this authority in tons of lead to target a u.s. person here or abroad or anyone known to be in the united states. the law requires special procedures to make sure these restrictions are followed and to protect the privacy of any u.s. persons whose nonpublic information may be acquired through this program. the department of justice and the office of the director of national intelligence conduct

extension -- extensive oversight reviews and will report to congress on implementation twice a year. this establishes a comprehensive regime of oversights in all three branches of government. it is the top legislative priority of our nation's intelligence community. surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate. suspected terse -- in order to identify the security of this nation. much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and military commissions. the reality is both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the administration

and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al qaeda. our criminal justice system is renowned for its fair process and respected for its results. we are not the first administration to rely on courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last. far too many choose to ignore the fact. the previous administration relied and criminal prosecution in federal court to bring terrorists to justice. i attempted shoe bomber, 9/11 conspirators were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism related offenses without political controversy. without political controversy during the last administration. over the past three years, we have built a remarkable record of success.

he provided significant intelligence during the briefing sessions with the fbi. he described in detail how he became inspired to carry out an and how heihad traveled to yemen. he may contact with a leader of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he detailed the training that he received as well as the specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the united states before detonating the bomb. in addition to the attempted

times square bomber, three individuals who plotted an attack against jfk airports in 2007 have begun serving life sentences. convictions have been obtained in the cases of several homegrown as well. last year, the united states citizen and north carolina resident pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnapping, and injured persons abroad. u.s. citizen and illinois residents pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside a federal courthouse. i could go on. that is why the calls i have heard to ban the use of civilian courts and prosecutions of terrorism related activities are so baffling.

they are so dangerous. these calls to ignore reality. they would significantly weaken our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm. since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism in article 3 courts and are now serving licenses in federal prison. not one -- serving sentences in federal prison. no judicial district has suffered any type of retaliatory attacks. these are facts, not opinions. there are not two sides to this story. those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion. they are simply wrong. federal courts are not our only

option brick military commissions are also appropriate and proper circumstances. we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots. this administration's approach has been to ensure that the military commission system is as effective as possible. strengthening the procedural protections by which the commissions are based. with the president's leadership and the bipartisan backing of congress, the military commissions act of 2009 was enacted into law. meaningful improvement have been implemented. it is important know that the commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial. they provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. the accused has the right to counsel and the right to present evidence. they prohibit the use a statement obtained through torture.

destroy the right to appeal to article three judges -- they have the right to appeal to article three judges. a key difference is that in military commissions, roles reflect the realities of the battlefield. statements may be admissible even in the absence of a miranda ordinance. you cannot expect military personnel to administer warnings to an enemy captured in battle. instead, a military judge must make other findings. the statement is reliable and that it was made voluntarily. i have faith in the framework and the promise of our military commissions, which is why i have sent several cases to them. there is quite simply no

inherent contradiction between using military commissions inappropriate cases also prosecuting other terrorists in civilian court. their differences between the systems that must be weighed carefully. such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are corp. executive branch functions. in each case, prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals, conduct an intensive review of case specific facts. several practical considerations affect the choice. first of all, the commission's only have jurisdictions to prosecute individuals that are part of al qaeda. or you have purposely and materially supported such hostility. this means they may be members of certain terror groups that

fall outside this jurisdiction of military commissions. daylight ties to al qaeda -- and they laughed ties to al qaeda. -- they lack ties to al qaeda. civilian courts cover a much broader offensives. this means the federal prosecutors have a wider range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists. those charges and sentences can provide important incentive to reach plea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate. there is the issue of international cooperation. a number of countries have indicated that they will not

cooperate with the united states. if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution. the use of military commissions in the united states can be traced back to the early days of our nation in their present form. there are less familiar to the international community that our time tested criminal justice system and article 3 courts. it is my hope that commissions will retain respect in the eyes of the world. today, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of the u.s. is being prosecuted before the u. s. -- before a military commission.

we will continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between military commissions and federal courts instead of using them both. if we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the nation and its people. that is not an outcome that we can accept. this administration is working in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have the flexibility they need to fulfil their critical responsibilities without divergent from laws and core values. last week marked the most recent step when the present issued procedures -- president issued procedures. this legislation mandated back a category of al qaeda must be placed in temporary military custody. last tuesday, the president exercised his authority under

the statute to issue procedures to make sure military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations. an individual could be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his or her case. as authorized by that statute, the present wave of the requirement for several categories of individuals. these procedures -- the expressed intent of the sponsors of this legislation. they address the concern the president expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year. i have gone into considerable detail. it is preferable to capture

suspected terrorists or feasible. so we can gather the valuable intelligence from them. that we must also recognize that there are instances where the government has the clear authority and responsibility to defend the united states with the appropriate use of lethal force. this principle has long been established under u.s. and international law. in response to the attacks perpetrated by al qaeda ed, the taliban, and associated forces, congress has authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. because the united states as -- we are authorized to take action under international law. a constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of

violent attack. an international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. none of this has changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war. our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields of afghanistan. neither congress nor our federal courts can limit the geographic scope for us to use force. we are at war with a stateless in any -- enemy. over the last three years, al qaeda has directed several attacks against us from countries other than afghanistan. our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats. this does not mean that we can use military force whenever and wherever we want. international legal principles,

including respect for another nation's sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally. the use of force and a foreign territory would be consistent with the international legal principles is conducted with the consent -- after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with the pride to the united states. furthermore, it is entirely lawful under both the united states lot and lot -- law of war principles to targets senior operational leaders of al qaeda and associated forces. this is not a novel concept. during world war ii, the united states tracked the plane of the commander of the japanese forces and shot it down specifically because he was on board that plane.

as i explained to the senate and judiciary committee following the operation had killed osama bin laden, the same rules apply today. some have called such operations assassinations. they're not. the use of that loaded term is misplaced. assassinations are unlawful killings. for the reasons i have given, the u.s. government use of lethal force and self-defense against the leader of al qaeda or an associated force that presents an imminent threat of violent attacks would not be unlawful. it would not violate the executive order banning assassinations or criminal statutes. it is an unfortunate fact that some threats we face come from a small number of united states citizens. they have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. based on generations old legal

principles and a supreme court decision, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear that the united states citizenship alone does not make such individual's immune from being targeted. it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to united states citizens, even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent americans. of these, the most relevant is the due process clause. the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law. the supreme court has made clear that the due process clause does not impose one size fits all requirements. it mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. in cases arising under the law and due process law, including a case involving a u.s. citizen,

the court has applied a balancing approach. when the private interests will be affected against the interest of the government is trying to protect. where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat. here are the interests on both sides of the scale are extraordinarily weighty. an individual's interest in making sure the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant. it is imperative -- to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks. in a decision to use lethal force against a united states citizen, even want intent on murdering americans and has become an operational leader of al qaeda in a foreign land, is

among the greatest leaders of the government can face. the american people deserve to be assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws. i cannot discuss any particular program or operation, i believe it is important to explain this legal principles publicly. let me be clear. an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a u.s. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or so seated forces, and to is actively engaged in planning to kill americans would be lawful in the following circumstances. the u.s. government has determined after a thorough review that the individual poses an imminent threat to of a violent attack against the united states. second, capped certification is

not feasible. third, -- capture is not feasible. the evaluation of whether an individual presents an imminent threats incorporates considerations of the relative window of an opportunity to act, the possible harm of missing the window without cost to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disasters. as they learn to on 9/11, al qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no motive. devastating casualties. if leaders -- the leaders are continually planning attacks against the united states. they do not behave like a traditional military. given these facts, the constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical in stage

of planning and precise time, place, and manner. such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail and americans would be killed. whether a capture is feasible, it is a time sensitive question. it may depend on a lot of things. given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a united states citizen terrorist. in that case, the government has the clear authority to defend the united states with legal force. of course, any such use of lethal force by the united states will comply with the four fundamental principles governing the use of force.

the principle of necessity requires the target has definite military value. the principle of distinction requires that civilians directly participating in hostilities may be targeted intentionally. under the principle proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. they did not prohibit the use of technologically advanced weapons. the use other advanced weapons may help to ensure the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations. some have argued this president

was required to get permission from federal court before taking action against the united states citizen who was a senior operational leader of al qaeda. this is simply not accurate. due process and judicial process are not one in the same, particularly when it comes to national security. the constitution guarantees due process. it does not guarantee judicial process. the concept and management of national security operations our core functions of the executive branch. military and civilian officials must often make a real time decisions better balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the executive branch may possess in real-time.

the constitution is guaranteed of due process is ironclad. it does not require judicial approval for the president to use force a broad. even if that individual happens to be a u.s. citizen. that does not -- that is not to say the executive branch should ever have the ability to target any individuals without robust oversight. that is why the executive branch informs the appropriate members of congress about our counter-terrorism activities. these circumstances are sufficient under the constitution.

it is important to note the legal requirements i have described may not apply to every situation. operations that take place on traditional battlefields. the unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that originate with their own citizens. when such individuals take up arms against his country and join al qaeda, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response. we must take steps to stop them. in full accordance with the constitution. in this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until plans are carried out. this is an indicator of our times. it is not a departure from our laws and our values.

this administration and for this nation, our values are clear. we must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions, like the ones i have discussed today. as president obama reminded us at the national archives, our constitution has endorsed for civil rights, world war, and cold war. because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically. it provides a compass that can help us find our way. our most sacred principles and values of security, justice, and liberty for all citizens must continue to unite us, to guide us, and to help us build a future that honors our founding document and advances are ongoing in pursuit of a safer and more perfect union. in the continuing effort to keep our people secure, his

administration remains true to those values that inspired our nation's founding and over the course of two centuries, has made america an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all of the world. this is our pledge. thank you for inviting me to discuss these important issues with you. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> super tuesday, the republican candidates were on the campaign trial today. coming up, we will hear from corporate santorum -- we will hear from rick santorum and mitt romney. watch super tuesday election results tomorrow night on the c- span networks. he is our second screened web page with your tablets or laptop computer. you can also monitor our blog. use a laptop or a tablet to

extend your c-span reviewing. >> on "washington journal tomorrow morning, the president of the business roundtable looks at president obama's speech on tuesday night. tom zeller looks that america's middle class. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 eastern. republican presidential candidate santorum campaign in ohio i had a super tuesday. -- i had a super tuesday. in ohio, 66 delegates are at

stake. mr. santorum spoke to supporters at a rally. >> please welcome our attorney general. [applause] >> what a crowd. wow. there are 500 people here. i guess we have some people outside, too. thank you for being here. 12 of hours to go until the polls opened. this is a new day. this is a great opportunity for ohio to really send a message. the question tomorrow for ohio voters is really a couple. prue is the true conservative? who is the true conservative?

who can beat barack obama in the fall? we have known which and karen -- rick and karen for 20 years. what you see is what you get. the same principles he will take to the white house in january. [applause] i watched rick work on the senate floor. rick santorum is a conservative who has gotten things done. i watched them as we took on welfare reform. there was no one more eloquent about the importance of welfare reform than rick santorum.

what he said was this -- it is not about saving money. it is not about people going to work. what is really important is giving every american opportunity so they can do better. they will have that opportunity. they can get a job and better themselves and better their children. their children would live in a better society. that is how the approach that issue and that is how he approaches every single issue. rick santorum was on the senate floor. we were working night after night and we were going against barbara boxer and others. rick was the leader and we got it passed. bill clinton vetoed it. on the third time, we got it

passed and george bush signed it and it was turned into law. that is what he would do. [applause] entitlements, we talk a lot about entitlements. rick santorum was trying to get people to have courage when no one -- when no one else wanted to do it. no one else want to talk about it, but he was their leading the charge. he will be a president who has the moral courage to take on the tough issues. i have watched and connect with voters in ohio. being the president is a lot of things, but one thing is is the ability to inspire. the ability to lead. we found that out with ronald reagan. the ability to take us places on comfortable for us to go. the thing the next president will have to do is to be tough.

we need that person who has the moral leadership and the courage to do it. rick santorum is that person to do it. [applause] his core values, they have never changed and will not change. he is a fighter. in case you have not noticed it. the man started with a 2% in the polls. when you are at 2%, nobody knows you. it is a statistical error at 2%. no money, and no one gave him a chance. no one thought we would be here tonight. he is set to do battle with the governor romney tomorrow and has a great chance of winning ohio. no one thought. no one fought to become down to two people. if it came down to two people, no one thought rick santorum was

one of them. he is here today because he is a fighter and he takes on the odds. that is what we need. there is a grassroots movement around the state. let's just be candid. gov.romney has the money. he spent $12 to $14 million. that is the fastest rate i have ever seen in ohio politics. he is the establishment candidate. let's be honest. rick santorum is the people's candidate. [applause] we need a fighter. we need a fighter to beat barack obama in the fall. we cannot have someone who has no ability and is uniquely unqualified to talk about obamacare.

the governor cannot talk about obamacare. he has romney-care. we will give that issue up the fee is the nominee. we cannotand the average americ. [applause] rick santorum connects. he is one of us. the is from a neighboring state and understands the issues of manufacturing and job creation in ohio. he understands what this state needs. i have watched this connection, and i will predict and the fall, when rick santorum is the nominee, we will bring back, we will bring back those people used to refer to as the reagan democrats. we will bring them back, and they will vote for rick santorum. ladies and gentlemen, it is my

distinct honor to present to you my dear friend, the next president of the united states, rick santorum and his wife. [cheers and applause] we will see you tomorrow night. >> thank you. how are we doing? thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you very much.

thank you. thank you so much. are we going to win tomorrow? thank you. i appreciate that for traveling around the state and helping us out and working for us. you know him. he is into a taxable -- he is indefeasible -- indefatiguable. thank you. thank you for being here and helping us out. while. thank you for being with us. the speakers outside. they can prove great. for the folks outside, an extra thank you and a blessing because it is an little chilly out there. i just want to thank all of you for being here tonight, and what a great rally your to send us into a very big day tomorrow.

[cheers and applause] you might have noticed, there are a few people behind me, and if you have not recognized them before, they are not just behind me. they are at my side. they had just been amazing in holding me up and encouraging a, and a little kid in my but every now and again. this is what families do. i am very, very blessed to have a wife, being the true north star for me, someone who is my soul mate, and i would not be here, just simply would not be here without her, and that is my wife. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. and karen and i are the parents of eight children. we are raising seven. we have a little boy in heaven, but we have three, a representative sampling.

we have four boys and three girls. it represents a sampling, so we have the number two child and others, including daniel and sarah. [cheers and applause] sporting the sweater vest, i should mention we are all sporting the sweater vest, which is on sale at ricksantorum.com, and a lot of people have been going. it has been inspiring over the last few weeks, that people have stepped up, when all of the money come all the big endorsements, all of the power players, all of the party chieftains have lined up behind the guy next in line with the most money, and the people of america saw a guy from a little

steel town in southwestern pennsylvania, taking his message on the road in iowa, driving around in a dodge ram pickup with about 200,000 some odd miles on it. my son john and daniel, one of the other boys, occasionally my daughter would come with us, and karen would not ride in the truck. that is not true. she loved the truck. we had a great time. no one was paying much attention to us, but we were delivering the message that we need a conservative, someone with a record and a vision, and just would not run on but a candidate this is someone who understood the plight of everyday americans in america, someone who grew up in neighborhoods like most people grew up on in america, and was able to go out and articulate

that message, concerned not just about the 99% or 95%, but 100% of the americans, and we have a plan to give everyone the opportunity to rise and a fill their dreams, because that is what america is about. [cheers and applause] and we are here in ohio. as mike said, we have been hammered here in the media. $12 million. $12 million in the last few weeks. 12 to 1 is the ratio that we have been outspent. it is really remarkable, and yet, the average of the five poles, dead even here in the state. [cheers and applause] it is a gut check time.

who wants it the most. what do you say? [cheers and applause] now, people have said, well, rick, you have an advantage because you come from pennsylvania, a neighboring state. they do not realize that the people of all high and no the i am a steelers band. there you go. i have got things i have got to overcome. [laughter] a pirate fan, you guys just feel sorry for us over there. pittsburgh and cleveland. really sister cities in many respects with the intensity of their rivalry between us because we are so much alike, the communities and neighborhoods that we all grew up in, the rivalries, all of that, the sense of community, the importance of family and faith and civic and community organizations and schools and

small businesses, a local coaches and the people who helped out, where mom and dad were so stressed, so they came in and pick things up. that is the environment that built this strong backbone of america for what they now call the rust belt. ladies and gentlemen, i believe in this area. i believe in the people let go across from new jersey all the way through to the grain belt. i believe that the better days are not behind us. we are seeing it in some spots. we are seeing opportunities. we are seen places where industry is growing again, and yet, we have not quite yet made it the whole way back in so many of our communities. that is because government has, well, focused, if your president obama, you focused on how we can redistribute wealth, how we can

spread the wealth around. you focused on it helping people by creating more government programs, exploding the food stamp and medicaid rolls. you know it. these are exploding with government now, , 50% of the american people, almost 50% receive some government benefit. eyes, thatt obama's is success. in my eyes, that is government not focused on the right bank. they should be focused on getting people out of those programs and to work, not putting them into the programs. [cheers and applause] and that is what we do. we put a plan out there. when i was traveling around, not just tonight but across this country, i was talking to

people, and i was learning, growing up in western pennsylvania. almost every little town in america grew up around manufacturing or processing facility or a mill ore processing for minerals, whenever it is, but something that brought people together, where they were making things, producing things, and it caused the genesis of that town. all across america, that happens, and it builds a rich patchwork of towns and communities that grew and prospered. we went through a rough time, and there are a lot of folks to say, "well, you know, those times are behind us. there is a knowledge base community, and that is all that matters." i do not argue with that at all. we need an innovative, knowledge-based community.

one of the only things i put in as an exception to my flat tax is a 20% research and development tax credit, because it is important that we continue to inspire the creativity and ingenuity of the american people. [applause] and what the media would have you believe, i believe people should be allowed and have the opportunity. government should be creating a marketplace where there are jobs or college graduates. we should have the opportunity for everybody who wants to go to college to go to college, but we have to understand that not everybody wants to. not everyone is directing their life in that direction, and we have to have jobs for everybody, no matter what the skill level here in america. [applause] we cannot be leading whole sectors of our economy to the

ravages of foreign competition, where they do not care to play fair. they play to win. we need to make sure that the people you have the opportunity to get as good, high-paying jobs, and they are higher paid, $20,000 on average more per year in those jobs versus any other job. we need to have a president who looks out and says, "recker," and we are going to creep a dynamic system, not just giving tax credits here or dangling something in front of businesses to do the kind of manufacturing the president wants you to do. we have seen that with green energy and a whole host of other failures out of this administration. our plan is called by "the wall street journal" "bold," compared to a certain governor of

massachusetts's plan, which was called "timid." we're going to take the corporate tax rate and cut in half and may get a flat tax, except as a mentioned before the research credit. small businesses, large businesses have the same calculation, making it easier on everybody, so people can focus on hiring people and growing their businesses as opposed to worrying how much they we direct the business so they can save money on their tax, and we also need for manufacturers a special rate, because, well, if you look at all of the other businesses around the country, they compete year, but it is manufacturers that have to compete with countries overseas that want those jobs, because we have to treat them differently because they are in a different model.

35% to 0%. we tell every manufacturer that we want you to make things here in eastern ohio. we want you to make things here in america. [cheers and applause] if you made the mistake of schip in your jobs overseas or you had to begin just could not survive without doing so, and a lot of manufacturers were and that position. $1.50 trillion overseas and profits, if you brought it back now, there would be a 35% tax. we pass our made in america plan, you do not have to pay anything if you invested in plant and equipment here in america to create jobs. [cheers and applause] so we have been talking jobs.

the big issue is energy. is that not good to hear that the big issue here is energy? it is nice to be able to look at the resources we have in the ground that bless eastern ohio with the coal mines, in southern ohio, those of us from western pennsylvania. we have a resource-based economy that build a manufacturing-based economy, and now we have the opportunity to tap the resources. the amazing thing is that the president of the united states sees this tremendous potential here in ohio and pennsylvania and off the north dakota and sees it not as potential but as a problem, as a liability, not an asset. he is talking about how we have to do some real intense a regulation or study on this new technology called hydraulic fracturing.

it is not a new technology. it is a technology that has existed since world war ii. there have been hundreds of thousands of wells drilled in america using hydraulic fracking, and yet, this president sides with the environmentalists, sides with them, who would like to see energy prices high, and, in fact, they are. when you see that gas pump when you are pumping gas the next time, and you see that numbers -- the number go from two columns to that third column, and you see that zero, up, it is a zero, which is being o for obama, and that is why you are paying that. [cheers and applause] . >> the president obama energy policy has another letter in

addition to o. n. n-o. offshore drilling, no. deep water, no. federal lands, no. alaska, no. the keystone pipeline, no. ladies and gentlemen, what do we need a president to say? >> yes. >> there you go. from day one, i will say to build the kingstowne pipeline. [cheers and applause] -- the keystone pipeline. folks, we are going to start getting this economy going, but if we do not deal with the huge explosion of the federal government and regulation -- last year, the president set a record. for businesses over $100 million

a year. he blew away the next highest. the average for clinton and bush was six. he did 150 in one year alone. piling up costs after costs after costs. there are people out here. i have talked to so many of them who say, "i could live with clinton and bush. it was a little bit better, but i am spending all of my time trying to figure out what this president is doing. i cannot spend time." in some cases, they are getting out of business, but cheekily if they are financial services, small banks, folks in the real- estate market. the president is destroying this economy with his "we know best" policy out of washington, d.c., and, of course, the worst offender of regulations, the worst offender of usurping your rights, of creating a culture of dependency, because now, if

this bill is implemented in 2014, not just 45% to 50% will be on dependency programs. we will have money taken from some and redistributed to others, but every single american will be dependent upon the federal government for something that is rather important for most people, their health and their life, thanks to obama care. there is no more important issue in the race. electorally as well as in principle, than obamacare. it magnifies and focuses all that is wrong. he is trying to expand the federal government, trying to micromanage and economic life. he is trying to impose his values on people of faith.

and yet, in this race, we have one candidate who is the perfect foil for president obama and his big government overreach, and his control of people's lives. we have one candidate who is uniquely positioned, because from the time i came into the united states congress 20 years ago, when bill clinton was talking about health care as a right when he was running in 1992, a couple of guys on the budget committee way back then decided we had better have an alternative to this, because the health-care issue is coming, so the guys on the budget committee got together. we had hearings, and we listened to a lot of people, and we came up with another idea, from listening to people with their ideas, medical savings accounts. you know the other person who came up with that idea.

i might add that he is a guy from pittsburgh, but he happens to be your governor, john kasich [cheers and applause] as you know, he ended up going to the ohio state university. [cheers and applause] and he liked it enough to stay, and i am certainly glad for the people of ohio that he did. ladies and gentlemen, from the start, you know how principle he is. you know he is a fighter and a scrapper. well, i am a fighter and a scrapper, too. i will go out there and fight for freedom, fight for the liberties that are at stake in this country because of obama care. [cheers and applause] so, for 20 years, i advocated free-market health care, the

government getting out of the health-care business, leading it to 300 million consumers to solve the problem in this country, giving them the power and resources and the control. and what did president obama do? he took the opposite approach, the approach that government needs to do this. that they need to take money from some and give it to others, all on the guise of giving you a right. ladies and gentlemen, in america, do the rights come from the government? >> no. >> where do they come from? >> the lord. >> we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are equal and endowed by our -- >> creator. >> with certain unalienable rights. when the government gives you a ride, not only they can take it away, but they can tell you exactly how to exercise their

right, dealing with your religious convictions or anything else. that is why obamacare must be repealed. [cheers and applause] >> rick, rick, rick, rick, rick, rick! >> thank you. this race is coming down to two candidates. one is unique repositioned on the issues of the day, on the economy, on the deficit, on control of your life, which is obamacare. the biggest issue, the one in the swing states which will decide the race, 70% of the voters disagree with obamacare

and the mandate included in it. it is the most powerful issue in the states that will determine this election. you already decided here in all- how much you like and the doorman dates. folks, the other person who is tied for us in the polls in this race, when he was governor of massachusetts, he imposed an individual mandate on the people of massachusetts. he imposed a variety of different government-controlled mechanisms to force people not just to buy the insurance but what insurance they would choose from, what doctors and what the limits are on coverages, what their ratings will be for the price of your coverages, how much you will be fined if you do not. there are 15 things in a recent

report that romneycare advocated that are identical to what obamacare put in place, and for a long time, governor romney said he was or romneycare because it works in massachusetts, but "i never suggested that should be adopted at the national level." we can learn from what we did, the good things and the bad things, and he repeatedly told that to the people of al fayed, michigan, new hampshire, iowa, south carolina. he went all over saying, "no, i never encourage anyone in washington, d.c., to adopt the mandate at the federal level. i am against that." except we have found out in the past three days that that is exactly what he did, not five years ago or 10 years ago but right in the middle of the

debate on obamacare. in 2009, with an op-ed that was remarkably removed from the archives of "usa today," but an old copy was found. it said, "maybe you should learn, mr. president, from what we did in massachusetts," and he goes on to talk about the individual mandate, and all of the of the things that, guess what, president obama adopted, and then he has a segment on "meet the press" with tim russert back in 2009, same thing. it is one thing to put a government-run health program when you're governor of a state. it is wrong in principle. he would have been the worst candidate to go and make that case. "it is ok on the state level, but i am not for it on the federal level." not a strong argument.

if the policy is bad, the policy is bad. [cheers and applause] do you believe in free people? like help savings accounts? or do you believe in government control? like romneycare and obamacare? that is the fundamental issue in this race. not only did governor romney advocate for a federal government program that barack obama gladly accepted and did, but now we know that government romney for the course of this campaign has told people of this country something that was not true. now, it is one thing to have bad policy. it is another thing to mislead the american public. the governor does this on a variety of subjects.

"you just do not understand." "you do not understand. we did not impose the morning after pill." yes, they did. when you have $12 million, and you can outspend some 120 to 1, you can ignore answering the questions. he cannot avoid answering the questions in the fall, and as a result, he will be the weakest candidate we could possibly put forward on the most important issue of today. [applause] it always comes down to ohio. but usually not in a primary. i know you folks are used to having, being rode hard, being

asked to do extraordinary things, and particularly a tough chairman. but we need that energy and enthusiasm for freedom. we need to make sure that ohio puts forth the best possible nominee to take on barack obama. [cheers and applause] >> rick, rick, rick, rick, rick! we want rick, we want rick! >> i want you guys, too. i want you to go home and get

on twitter, talk to your friends, send them emails, do whatever you can to communicate. tomorrow, go out and work hard for us. take a day for freedom. [cheers and applause] you know, at the end of that declaration of independence, there is a line. our founders who signed this document, signed what seemed almost impossible, that america can separate and be free from england. it seemed impossible. the most powerful army in the world. a powerful king. these folks dressed up in spiffy uniforms, beautiful redcoats, finely pressed.

the noble people ran that army, and who knew, because they had the best education, the best breeding, how to win a war, but yet, our founders signed that document, put their lives online because they wanted to create an opportunity for each of them, their children, and people they knew not of. to be free. when they signed that document, they said that they pledged to each other. that is what american has always been about. yes, it is about lofty things and our great country. it is not patriotism we have for

our government. it is the love we have for each other. and our common bond. to build a great community, family, neighborhood, and thereby a great country. so they pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. [cheers and applause] in the next 24 hours, i am not asking anyone to pledge their life, but as you know, today, people are out there across this world, putting on the uniform of the american military and defending their freedom. and our veterans.

and i am not asking you to place your fortune. i remind everybody that we raised $9 million for the month of the february. a at ahead -- i had a woman, who was dressed in a uniform. she handed me $13. she said this was the money she made from being a pet groomer today. [applause] another little girl at an event here in ohio. she handed me $20 for

babysitting money. a at yesterday and oh,, i think a man who made over 2500 calls in the state of oklahoma, and he was sitting there in a wheelchair. [applause] folks, i can tell you story after story of people who are legitimately concerned about how this country will view them. the average person in america.

a at they are doing big things, little things, but they are doing things. why? because they all understand their honor is at stake. a and what makes them the greatest generation? were they of higher character? no. it is because they identified the challenge to freedom in america. and they rose to meet that challenge. [applause] you hear an ally and know that challenge. you here in ohio know the challenge, and over the next 24

hours, we will see if the people in eastern ohio will stand up and meet that challenge, to do your duty, preserve your honor, and keep freedom alive. thank you. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

a at a at >> that is going in the cards. >> thank you. hello. how are you? thank you. >> great. >> how are you? good to see you. >> from pennsylvania. >> good, good. >> thank you.

>> mm-hmm bless you. >> no, no, no. >> thank you. you know what they are playing? that is depends date fight song. -- beat penn state -- the penn state fight song. thank you. >> ♪ stand behind us, and guide

us ♪ to thethe mountains, valleys, to the oceans god bless america, my home sweet home god bless america, my home sweet home ♪ ♪ >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you for coming.

>> the next president. >> thanks a lot. >> in their rego. >> the fighting irish. -- and there we go. >> thank you.

>> are you allowed to accept any money? >> sure. >> there you go. >> you can collect the money. thank you. thanks a lot. >> go get them, rick. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> good luck, rick. god bless.

>> you are doing a great job for your dad. keep up. >> a little boy. >> how beautiful. what is his name? >> oh, my goodness. >> my other son, conner. this is conner.

>> sad to donna. i have watched that videos so many times. >> oh, my god. >> ok. >> so cute. >> hi. >> that's the president.

>> a thank you. >> that is ok. >> how are you doing? >> yes. >> special olympics. >> a little girl in june. yes. >> congratulations. congratulations. >> tonight. ♪

>> thank you. >> yes, very well. ♪ >> thanks. bless her heart.

>> got it? >> here you go. i wish i could. >> elementary. >> my brother-in-law. >> he works there now. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> how are you doing?

>> shake her hand. >> let's go. >> hurry, hurry. got it? push it to. >> three times. >> thank you. >> that is its. ♪ >> i already voted for you today. >> thank you. >> ok. i do not know.

>> thank you. >> ohio. >> good to see you. appreciate it. >> put it away. >> my picture with rick? >> thank you. >> out of the way, out of the way.

>> the thank you. appreciate it. >> god bless you. ♪ >> there you go. there you go, sweetie. >> good luck, rick. we are faring -- fighting for you. >> thank you, guys. i have got to run.

i think we are going to get tons of delegates here in ohio. >> thank you for being so -- thank you so much. >> you guys are going tuesday. >> rick! >> thank you. >> take care. >> all right. thank you.

>> rick! ♪ >> now, we will hear from presidential candidate mitt romney, campaigning in ohio. polls show a tight contest between rick santorum and mr. romney. 56 gop delegates are at stake in the state. >> thank you. free ♪ >> thank you to the senate

president, others, i appreciate their welcome and introduction, and i appreciate your spending a little time with us this evening. i tell you, we have been all over in this state, a to nz, and we are getting good support. you know that? everywhere we go, we get crowds that are encouraging. i hear people that say they were and decided, and they have decided to be with us. if you do your job tomorrow, we are going to win this thing. [cheers and applause] this is a special treat for me to have ann with me. she is not always with me. i hesitate to have her speak because after she speaks, you will not want to hear me anymore. i knew she catches your attention. i did not notice are in the second grade, but when we were

at high school together, and she was at a party with someone else, i noticed her, and i went to the guys who brought her, and i said, "look, i live closer to ann than you do. i can drive for home or you." we have been going steady ever since. ann romney. >> zanesville. i love saying that. what a great town. ohio has a big decision to make tomorrow, and if you do, we will put a lot of wind into the sky' -- this guy's iail. four years ago, i knew something for certain, and a put it on a video camera, and i will have to show it to you, and, as i said,

"i am never doing this again." and he said to me, "itann, you say that after every pregnancy." that was me a little over one year ago that, you know what, mitt, i hate to tell you this, you have got to do this again. [cheers and applause] >> we want mitt, we want mitt! >> i asked some questions. we did not know who he would be running against. if you can possibly defeat barack obama, i do not want to go through all of this if you cannot tell me that you can fix this when you get in this office, and you know what? he is the only one that can, and that is why, that is why i decided to change my mind and get behind this effort to -- it

is not easy, by the way. i have not been home since january 10. women can sympathize with me on that one. but we are committed to this, and we love this country. we love all that the country has given to us, our freedom, our liberty, our opportunities, and i have 16 grandchildren, and those grand kids are going to inherit something from us, which i do not want to give them. they are going to inherit debt. and, women, this is what i hear everywhere. you can talk about a lot of things, but do you know what i hear women talking about? jobs, the economy, the debts. this is fantastic. thank you women. women want a good job for their children, and they do not want debt for their children, so there is only one answer. there is only one answer.

it is right here. and i have another thing. if miff wins, america wins. if mitt loses, america loses, so let's put some wind in his sail. [applause] i got her hooked in mind pin. she is my first lady, and i hope she is the nation's first lady. she is a champion. this campaign has been so much fun so far. it is difficult. some days, you get a little tired, but the people you meet and the stories you hear are inspiring. i never imagined i would be doing this. as a kid, i thought i wanted to be a policeman, and as i got older, i wanted to be in the automobile business like my dad, following in his footsteps, but running for president of the united states, this is not what

i had expected. the idea of going off to run the olympics, you know i ran the olympics in 2002, and there was some irony in that because i am not the world's best athletes. my son's point that out regularly. they knew i was taking the job, but when they saw in the paper, they said, "there is not a circumstance we could have conceived of that would have put you on the front page of the sports page -- section." and i am running, and she said, because i love this country. i love the principles upon which this country was founded and believe those are god-given. i believe in freedom and the people of the world. i believe that the president is leading this down a path that would change the very nature of our country. he wants a larger and more intrusive government, dealing with our health care and what share of the income we can keep.

i want the freedom that the founding fathers envisioned. >> usa, usa, usa! >> so this campaign is about something else. the president when he ran said he would cut the deficit in half, and he doubled it. he said he would have unemployment below 8%. he borrowed money. but unemployment has not been below 8% cents. he said he would give the middle-class a tax break. that did not happen. he has actually raised taxes. in 2012, he is going to be out of office. [cheers and applause] there is a real difference in the course we take. the path i take will not be a larger and larger deficits, $1 trillion deficits.

you heard the auditor. i cannot believe it. 25 years bc. he must be wrong. i am not willing to pass on those kinds of obligations to my kids and grandkids. it would ultimately lead to a situation like greece, where we hit a wall and have economic calamity. there is nothing big enough to pull us out. we have got to cut federal spending and cap it and finally balance our budget. [cheers and applause] and i'm going to go through every federal program and i'm going to ask this question -- is this program so political is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? and it is not, going to get rid of it. i will get rid of a lot of programs, and first on my list is this, obamacare. the we have to get rid of that. [applause]

the president has been in office for three years. we have a lot of people out of work, 24 million people out of work, or have stopped looking for work, or can only get part- time jobs. you would think after three years and 24 million people in that situation, the president would have come up with an idea for more jobs. i guess he is still thinking about it. one of the things he came out with recently was raising the marginal tax rate from 35% to 40%. did you know that over half the private sector workers in america working in business taxed at the individual level. when you raise those taxes, you cause those businesses to either lay people off or keep wages down. i want to lower marginal rates across the board by 20% and get america working again. [applause] there is a big difference in

energy. look at his energy policy. what is his energy policy? it is apparently to make it hard to get cold underground with more regulations, hard to use it. harder to take advantage of our oil resources, and makes it harder to get the gas out of the ground. we all like wind and solar, but you cannot drive a car with a wind mill on it. we will finally get america energy secure by taking advantage of our coal and oil and gas and taking advantage of the keystone pipeline from canada. [applause] let me mention another difference, and that is, with regard to our commitment to our military. this is a president who has laid out $5 billion in cuts to our military and is planning another $500 billion. do you realize that we have fewer ships in our navy today than at any time since 1917?

our air force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947. and our troops, of course, are stretched to their breaking point in iraq and afghanistan, but he wants to reduce the number of personnel by 57,000. and you all know he is planning on raising the payments that have to be made by veterans and members of the armed services in try care, the one place he seems to be willing to cut the budget. it is in the military. my own view is that we must have more ships, more aircraft and were aircraft in our air force. the we should add 100,000 personnel to our active duty roster. we should treat our veterans the way they deserve to be treated. [applause] i believe we have a strong military not to just win wars, but to prevent them. i believe america is the best

ally -- keeping america strong is the best ally in the world. this is a critical time for the country. this is not just about names on about. this is an election about the course for america. this is an election about liberty and economic freedom. this is an election about the stresses on a family where you have mom working the day shift and that working the night shift and the kids are not sure who is home when. this is about a family who is not sure they will have enough gas to see their grandparents from time to time. this is about what their young men and women can find a job when they get home from war, or people graduating high school or college can find a job commensurate with the skills they have developed. i think he wants to turn it into something that as more european

than an american in some respects. i do not think europe is working. i do not want a social democratic state. i want an opportunity nation, where people believe in freedom and opportunity. i grew up in a time when there was a promise of america. we all knew that the future was brighter than the past. if you worked hard and have the right values and got as much education as you could, your home would be prosperous and secure, and you could have a good life for yourself and your kids. people question whether that promise is still there in america. it is. is with the right leadership. we will have to get rid of a failed president and get someone in there who will go to work for the economy and help people get good jobs. [applause] i believe in america. and i believe in the principles upon which this nation was founded.

i believe they changed our lives and a changed the world when the founders wrote those words that we were endowed by our creator with those rights. they did not say they work -- that we are endowed by the state or the king or whatever. we are endowed by our creator and among them is life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. we are free in this nation, free to vote for who we choose, freedom to live where we want to, and freedom to pursue happiness as we choose. no one tells us what we have to do with our lives. and by virtue of those freedoms, people from all over the world wanted to come here over the past couple of years and come here they did. they build a nation of opportunities and dreamers. it is what made us who we are. and their successes did not make us poorer. it made us better off. we cherish the bayous and principles upon which this nation was found -- the values

and principles upon which this nation was founded. my dream is to pass them along to our kids, to provide an america that a strong and free, to make sure that we have leaders that understand how this economy works, have leaders to understand how this nation works. it people who are in touch enough with america to have leadership that will help us get back on track. i believe in america. i believe you will do the right thing tomorrow. i need your vote. get out there and keep america the hope of the earth. thank you. ["born free" by kidd rock] ♪

♪

♪

♪ "life is a highway" by sammy hagar] ♪ >> republican presidential candidates rick santorum, mitt romney and newt gingrich will be speaking at the american israel public affairs committee conference tomorrow on super

tuesday. live coverage gets under way at about 8:30 a.m. eastern on c- span3. republican presidential candidate newt gingrich has been competing in tennessee. he spoke to supporters at the airport in chattanooga. this is about 30 minutes. >> it is great to be in chattanooga this evening. we are so proud of our many volunteers in chattanooga and throughout the state of tennessee that have helped us with our campaign. thank you for your support. new tendai are engaged in this race because we believe america is at a crossroads and care deeply about the future of our country. there are only a few months left before the most important election of our lifetime. our only opponent is barack obama and we are committed to removing him from the white house. it [cheers] knew it is the only candidate

with the experience and knowledge necessary to rebuild the america we love. he has a successful national record of creating jobs, balancing the budget, and reforming the government. today, we need a leader that can clearly articulate what president obama -- why president obama and his policies are wrong for our country today. we need a leader who has bold solutions for the future of our country and create a better future for all of us. i believe that leader is my husband. [cheers] please welcome former speaker of the house and the next president of the united states, newt gingrich. [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ ['only in america" by brooks and dunn] ♪ >> i'm laughing because we started from the tri-cities and we stopped. as we got closer to the border of georgia, the crowds have gotten louder and rowdier. [cheers] glad that you are all here and you are so ntc asked. -- so enthusiastic. i should recognize rhonda thurmond from the hamilton county school board. she is right back there. [applause]

and connie griffiths on the republican candidate executive committee. she is back there also. [applause] and. baylor, the juvenile court of course is also here. thank you all for being here. we are going to do this differently. because somewhere between here and oklahoma, my daughter, jackie, our grandson, robert, and herman cain, they should land in a few minutes. those of you that no hermine -- know hermain, when he gets here i will tell you a 9/9/09 story. until he gets here, if i will entertain you myself.

it has been fascinating, the last couple of weeks, because president obama ran on behalf of left-wing environmentalists who believe that gasoline should be dramatically more expensive. he appointed as his secretary of energy who i call the secretary of anti- energy, dr. chu. he said in 2008 that he thought that gasoline pricing should be about at the level of europe, which is $9 or $10 a gallon. [boos] he went in front of the house committee last week and when he was asked about the current gas price and the congressman suggested that this was higher than people wanted to pay, and when asked what the secretary of energy was going to do, he said, nothing. he said, i'm interested in

getting people off the gasoline -- off of gasoline, not lowering the price of gasoline. he then told the two stories, what about a battery break through that may matter in the next 10 or 15 years. and the other, about natural gas. that does have some interesting potential. and i do believe in flex fuel cars. i talked about having an american energy policy and i talked about the idea that having an american energy policy makes as independent of the middle east. [applause] and i said, one way to frame that goal is that no future american president should ever again bowed to a saudi king. [applause]

and the president, after we had been talking about it for a while -- and i said, i believe if we were to open up offshore and if we were to open up federal lands and modify the environmental protection agency and replaced it with a refinery solution agencies so that we can build a new refinery -- we have not build a new refinery since 1977. i think we could get back to $2.50 per gallon or less. faster than people think, frankly, because markets react to change. ronald reagan signed the victoriya -- the deregulation of gasoline as his first executive order, by the it -- in january of 1981 and by the summer the market had collapsed. that suggests we have an all-out effort to create opportunities for drilling to develop lower

cost gasoline. the president finally got enough pressure that last week he went to florida and he gave a speech on energy in which he said, first of all, there are no silver bullets. and he liked the phrase, because he repeated it two or three times. [laughter] well he is right, there is no silver bullet. but there is a presidential penn. and there are at least three things that that pen can sign. one, he can approve the keystone pipeline. [cheers and applause] that is 700,000 barrels a day to houston from canada. secondly, he could have gone back to a pre-obama opening of the gulf of louisiana to taxes. that is about 400,000 barrels a day.

and 3, he could open up about 1 million, 200,000 baradei from alaska. he would open up 2.3 million barrels a day, or 800 million barrels a year of oil coming into the united states. that is not anything new. that would have a significant impact. the president said, the republicans have a three-part strategy. part one, drill, part two, drill, part 3, drill. [applause] i just want to say, mr. president, you understand exactly. drill, drill, drill. [cheers and applause] these energy speeches are actually why i would love to debate him, because the next

part of his speech he explains the drilling will not solve the problem. and he offers a solution. does anybody remember what it was? algy. -- algae. i am surprised this has not become a saturday night live skit. it was a little bit like the scene in the graduate where a man comes up to dustin hoffman, the newly graduated student, and he says, i have a word for you that will change the rest of your life. and hoffman is eager, the big moment. he says, plastics. this is sort of for the nation. this is barack obama sharing his future of energy, which is algae. let's be clear, i believe in

biotechnology and alternative fuels. over time, we will find a way of doing things through developing methods for alternative energy. but i do not believe that if someone was at the station in chattanooga and they pulled in and the price was about $5 and i said, hi, would you like some algae? [laughter] it is just not going to work. this will be an american campaign open for every american. [applause] i do not care what your background. i do not care what your ethnicity as. i do not even care what your ideology is. if you think daljit -- algae will solve your gas problem, you should vote for bacbarack obama. and if you think drilling will

solve your gas problem, you should vote for new gingrich. [applause] i talked to a number of oil experts and they said $2.50 would be the price that you have a continuing expiration. several people have already attacked me saying, how can you say it is going to be $2.50, etc.? if you expand supply, the high cost is going to go down. when i was speaker, it costs about $1.13 per gallon. the day obama was sworn in, the national average was $1.89. i would say to my friends in the news media, i want you to go back to -- i'm not even carrying you back to a pre-obama world. i picked $2.50.

i took a look at this issue of what is happening with natural gas. in the president's speech, he says that drilling will not get us there. and then two pages later, if you read it is a fascinating study in psychology -- two pages later he says, it is really great. we have had this huge break during natural gas and now we have 100 years' supply of natural gas. and we will create 600,000 new jobs over the next decade with natural gas. i thought, that is terrific. then i began to think to myself, how did we discovered natural gas? [laughter] all right, ok. let me be fair here, we are going to participate. everybody thinks that algae

found in natural gas, raise your hand, and you should be at an obama rally. everybody thinks that would probably drilled to get to the natural gas, raise your hand. [applause] by the way, natural gas has dropped from its peak by 75%. if you did apply that to gasoline this morning, that would get you to $1.13, what it was when i was speaker. but i just saw one of our three guests -- is robert here? no, you are not robert. robert. [cheers] [applause]

before we get around to the guy you have already met, this is our grandson, robert. and robert is one of my two debate coaches. i wanted you to meet one of the people that helps me do pretty well at the base. he is a very good chess player. whereas his we below ceremony two weeks ago. we also got him a shotgun for christmas. he beats me at chest and he beat his father at shooting. it is an inspirational moment. this is his mother, jackie, who has been campaigning. [applause] and like a list that, she is multitalented. she has also written two books and a bunch of problems and all of that. i know you probably recognize another person, but before i let

him talk, i want to tell you my 9-9-9 story. cliff and i are in nashville and we are with senator fred thompson. we are campaigning at a rally. some guy says, i want you to tell herman cain that i have figured out barack obama's 9-9- 9 plan. and i said, what are you talking about? and he said, i'm serious. i want you to tell mr. kaine that i have discovered that the president has a 9-9-9 plan. he said, the president wants us to pay $9.99 per gallon. the guy that made 9-9-9 famous and was one of the great marketing geniuses in america and is a terrific personal friend, fresh from oklahoma where he has been campaigning with j.c. watts all day, herman cain.

[cheers] >> thank you. thank you very much. i am honored to be here again. [cheers] jackie and i campaigned in tennessee together friday and saturday. and we heard you all were having this little party without us, so we thought we would crash it. but more importantly, i'm glad that you are here. normally, for the last few days, jackie would go first and introduce me and she would steal all of my lines. now i get to go first and she will not have anything to say what i get done. i want to thank speaker gingrich for having us here, giving us this opportunity. and i will share with you very briefly the message i have spread all over the tennessee,

all over oklahoma, and all over the country. this country is at a defining moment in its history. and is at a defining moment in its history. and we need a president who will define the future, rather than be our history, and that is, speaker newt gingrich. [cheers and applause] how do i know that he will help define the future of america? because that is who he is. at first of all, he is a bold leader. we do not need a namby-pamby's leader, or as j.c. watts says, someone who is going to gracefully manage the destruction of this country.

no, we want somebody who is going to prevent the destruction of this country. that is why i support speaker newt gingrich. [applause] #1, he is a bold leader. this is why i'm helping to support him spread the word. secondly, he is not afraid of bold solutions. $2.50 is bold. not exactly 9-9-9 -- [laughter] but $2.50 is bold. somebody asked me today, the you think the speaker supports 9-9- 9? i'm working on it. give me a little bit of time. but do you know what mitt romney said about the $2.50 per gallon gasoline program? that newt was pandering to the

american people. pandering. oos] i've got news for you, that is not pandering. that is leadership, because the american people do not need to pay more than $2.50 for a gallon of gasoline. [no audio] [applause] and here is the other reason i love the $2.50 per gallon gasoline plan. he actually has a plan to get there. [cheers] he's got a plan to get there. the way i know is because i wrote about it in my weekly commentary. go to hermancain.com and look it up. he's got a plan to get there.

he was speaker of the house when it was $1.13 and he knows how to get it down. i am trying to raise awareness about the fact that he is the right candidate for this. the other thing i admire is that he is not afraid to be bold for the people. he will reject the mainstream lapdog media and he will reject the establishment if he has to. [cheers] [applause] we are at a defining moment. and we've got to win this election. that is why i want to encourage all of you. i want to encourage all of you to make sure that you stay informed. there is a lot of garbage out there about this and that, about

people's pasts. who cares how somebody voted in 1850? [laughter] this is 2012 and we are at a defining moment. i encourage you to stay informed. biker -- i encourage you to stay involved. that is why you are here. if you stay home, we lose. you cannot stay home. we are surging in tennessee. he is surging in oklahoma and a lot of other places. the mainstream media, they want you to think that they know what is going to happen so you can stay home and not, number three, stay inspired. stay inspired. i would not be here if i did not believe that newt could do this along with your help. you would not be here, none of us would. i know what it is like to be

perceived as an underdog. at but you better watch those underdogs that have a big arc and a big bite. that is what is happening now and in this election coming up on super tuesday. but stay inspired. let me tell you, finally, what inspires me. i'm glad to be with jackie and robin. we are having a great time. and yes, i'm not just doing this supporting newt because i had to pick somebody. i was the unconventional candidates. i did not have to endorse anybody, but i did. and that is, because i wanted someone who would be a bold leader with bold ideas. [applause] america is that one of those defining moments. let me share with you one of the defining moments in my life. and what that can do to you. it was in 2006.

i had a very successful business career. i had a very successful radio career, had even been seen a little bit on television. and life was good. life was really good. then i was diagnosed in 2006 with the stage for cancer. -- stage four cancer. that meant i had cancer in two organs in my body, in my: and in my liver. i went to the doctor that day -- in my colon and in my liver. i went to the doctor that day with my wife and met with the surgeons and i said, what is that? and she said, that means you only have a 30% chance of survival. in order to be able to survive,

what are they going to have to do? she said, most likely they are going to have to take out 30% of your colon and 70% of your liver. never before in my life had i had such a defining moment as that. i said, let me get this straight, doctor, you mean that my only chance is that if you colon and 70%f my of my liver. do you mean i can live off a sliver of liver? [laughter] i did not know that. you know, the liberals back. my wife and i walked out of the -- the liver grows back. my wife and i walked out of the doctor's office and imagine if

you had been told you only have a pretty% chance of survival. as my wife and i work -- a 30% chance of survival. as my wife and i were about to get into the car, i was standing on the driver's side and she was standing on the passenger side about to get into the car. she looked at me and she saw a look on my face for the first time in my life and in her life, and she said to me, do you need me to drive? i said, no. and she said, are you all right? because she could see the impact of that news in my face. and i looked at her and i said, i can drive. and she said, are you all right? i said, i can do this. and she said to me, we can do this.

we can make newt gingrich the next president of the united states of america. [applause] this is our defining moment in history. [cheers] [applause] >> well, since it is impossible to top herman cain, i'm not going to try. but before i give you a final request on my part, i thought i would ask jackie to tell you about what is going on in oklahoma, because we have a very exciting race out there as well. >> i am thrilled to be here. i'm not quite as thrilled to follow herman cain, because i've been introducing him the whole time. it is a whole lot easier to

introduce herman cain that is to follow him. but i'm glad that you are here. and after hearing that story, i believe i now -- i know why god save herman cain. because god knew that we needed someone with bold ideas and solution, someone who when he stepped out in the president's race would not step back and do nothing, but would come and work for us. that is why he is here and that is why i'm here. i had a great day in a coma. i traveled with j.c. watts and i traveled with herman cain. there is nothing like traveling with two rock stars when you are not a rock star. it was so much fun ever we went. people took pictures of them and flocked to them. and i know that we get a lot of good work. congressman watson was working this weekend for my dad, speaker

gingrich, and i know he had an impact. i know that with your help, it can be done. i know that with your help, we can elect my father president of the united states. i know that because he is the only person in this race, including barack obama, who has actually bounced a national budget for years in a row. come on, give it up for him. [applause] not only that, but he is the only man in this race that has performed with an entitlement program. i know he can do it again. [applause] we need someone who can stand up to washington, who will not give in, who will not give up, who instead will work for you, for the american taxpayer. that is exactly what my dad will do. he has always been a hard

worker. he has always put his country first. i'm sure it comes from 27 years in the infantry. he knows what it means to serve his country, and he is here to serve us. thank you for coming in tonight. e mail and call people because with your help, we can win. thank you very much. [applause] >> here is my request. we put together a very people- oriented campaign. we cannot raise the kind of money that mitt romney can raise in wall street. but we can rouse people to use the internet and effective ways. now have 04 $170,000 already. 95% give less than $250. we have a very broad base of support. a couple of questions, how many are on facebook? when you get a chance, go to your facebook page and just put

in "newt equals $2.50 per gallon." how many are on twitter? if you have a chance, go to # $2.50gas. encourage people to go to newt.org where they will see the plan to get us back below $2.50 and make us energy independent from the middle east. and finally, if your friends say what can they do to help, there is a space where they can go and give one newt gallon, that is, $2.50. it gives us a bigger and bigger

network of volunteers to reach out to. we are not here to get you to help kalista and me. and we are here to get you to help the country. i hope you'll take this campaign and make it your campaign. if everybody will do a little bit between now and election day, we will win an astonishing victory. together, we will get america back on track and we will create a country for our children and grandchildren that is more prosperous, safer, and freer, and is worthy of the american tradition. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

>> republican presidential candidates ron paul was a natural for a town hall meeting. the texas congressman has been campaigning throughout the state. 32 delegates in the super

tuesday caucuses. this is in idaho falls. ♪ [cheers] >> thank you. thank you. >> [crowd chanting "ron paul!"]

>> i have to say, that is one of the best welcome's i have ever had. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] i always knew people out here loved liberty. now you have convinced me. thank you, thank you. thank you. before you -- before i start, i would like to make sure that my -- that you know that my wife and my granddaughter and a daughter are with me tonight. [applause] with this enthusiasm, we have to do well tomorrow. do you think? -- don't you think? [applause] will you all be out voting tomorrow? is that what will happen? [applause] it is a lot of fun.

but we still have to go to the bottom line. the bottom line is not only voting, but becoming a delicate. -- a delegate. we expect to do very well. i do not want to make bold predictions, but there is no reason we cannot win this thing. i suspect we will do exceptionally well and i thank you so much for your hard efforts. there is a need in this country. there is a great need, and there is not a to difficult answer. we have too much government and big government undermines liberty. we need less government and more liberty and we will solve our problems. [cheers] the founders of this country had a beef with the king, so they had a little revolution and they

wrote a document called the constitution. they did their very best to provide for us a republic and there were hopeful that it would last, but they were very leery about whether or not we would live up to the task. and unfortunately, in the last 100 years i think we have slipped a lot. that does not mean we have lost it, but if we continue what we are doing right now, we will lose it and it will be difficult to recover. but right now, the people are being energized. washington, i can guarantee you -- they are sound a sloasleep. they do not know what you want. we have to send a loud and clear message to the people of this country, and especially washington d.c. that we want them to live up to their oath of office and shrink the size of government and expand people's liberty once again in this country.

[cheers and applause] no wonder the best measure trends -- measurement of the size of government is how much money they spend. and the next best measurement is how they spend money they do not have. [laughter] and then they go out and borrow. and another little trick, how many -- how much money they spend that they don't have and then they go out and trim it. it undermines the economy and destroys the currency and then they get involved in very dangerous actions, like entitlements that don't work and then a foreign policy of policing the world that gets us into trouble, undermined our national defense, and helps to bankrupt our company -- country and we ought to change it. [cheers and applause]

there is so much i see of our problems today that would have been prevented if we only have had what people in washington who took their oaths of office seriously and understand the constitution. if we had done that, i think we would not have the problem of overspending today. if we had followed the constitution, we would not have a central bank. we would not have a federal reserve system. [cheers and applause] the founders knew something about monetary policy. the monetary issue has been around a long time. it is a biblical issue. you should not cheat people, debasing the current -- the currency. basically, people found out about inflation because they have run away with the continental dollar.

you cannot make bills of credit, which is printing press money. and there is no authority to have a central bank. think of all the mischief that would have been avoided if we had just obey that part of the constitution. we would not have the government sized this big. jefferson argued that the federal government should not be able to borrow money. if you want to spend, tax the people and then they will know how much government is costing. borrowing money is deceitful because you delay the payment and you build up interest and you can borrow it for a long time. then they said come what we want to institutionalize this principle of printing money through the federal reserve system. this provides the epperson key for those who like the government. and they are not all liberals. there are some conservatives --

at least they call themselves conservatives. i do not think we should grant them the title of conservative if they want more money. [applause] but unfortunately, the spending habits are bipartisan. they keep saying they do not have enough bipartisanship. for spending, we have had too much bipartisanship because they both have been spending too much money. [applause] if you have groups coming together, i would like to think there are more coalitions, and they can have different opinions. but we should come together for cutting spending and realizing deficits are bad and printing press money is bad. therefore, we have to come together on how we are going to cut. then cut in both areas, whether the entitlement system or the foreign entitlement system associated with our excessive military spending around the world. if we do that, we can literally

come up with a solution because it should be the easiest place. the easiest place to cut should be the overseas spending. [applause] unfortunately, the provision in the constitution that was provided for -- and this was an explicit mandate from the founders because they resented the fact that the king could initiate wars and then tax the colonists. it also use the military to invade their houses. this is why we have a fourth amendment for governments and not coming into our houses. but they said the king, the executive branch, should never be able to go to war in a free society, in a republic. the people should make that decision through their representatives in washington and no war should be funded unless it is declared by the congress, not the president.

[cheers and applause] but to add insult to injury, since world war ii, we have gone to war and most recently we have engaged in wars overseas. our president just recently decided they wanted to go into libya and egypt. he said, well, i get my authority from nato and the united nations. [boos] this is very dangerous. we want sovereignty -- actually, the true sovereignty is with the individual or a very local government. the federal government should be kept very small. but we are moving in the wrong direction. this is the reason since the early 1980's i have always

introduced legislation to get out of an united nations, not to listen to their system. [cheers and applause] today, we are in the midst of a financial crisis because we do not obey the monetary issue. and what are they doing now? the world knows that we are in this mess. it is not just a few of us them realize that the system that we have is coming unglued, the debt bubble is getting worse and they have not gotten us out of this mess yet. but guess what, we agree we need a new currency. discussions are going on at a -- this very moment to have a new world currency at the imf and the united nations. [boos] that will lead to less sovereignty, more one-world government, a trend is that we have to reverse. we have to defend our constitution, defend our right to be a sovereign nation, defend

our right to deliver most of our government through the local people. our responsibility is to the individuals and to the families. [applause] in the last 10 years, we have been fighting constantly. it nobody knows exactly how many countries we are in and how many bases we have. it is approximately 900 bases in approximately 135 countries, but we keep adding to these each time. because instead of us taking advantage of the wonderful opportunity when the soviet system collapsed and the cold war ended, it would have been a perfect time for us to get a peace dividend. lay off of all of the spending. how many more bombs do we need? do we have enough bonds right now to blow up the world -- we

have enough bombs right now to blow up the world tucke20 times. we spend more on weapons than the rest of the world put together and we sell more weapons around the world. it is a big business and has nothing to do with our national defense. we should adhere to the admonitions of the founders when they said that national defence is a federal issue. but just spending money on the military does not translate into defense. there is a big difference, and eisenhower warned us about this. he said if you are not careful, the u.s. will be involved in more military tourism -- militarism and not national defence. those are his words of wisdom and we ought to abide by them. [applause] but in these last 10 years, we have racked up a lot of debt.

we are currently running up debt and $1.30 trillion to $1.5 trillion a year. it will collapse the dollar. during these last 10 years we have added to our national debt more than $4 trillion for the wars in the middle east. and what have we gotten for it? we lost about 8500 americans when you count the independent contractors and all the military personnel. we had over 40,000 individuals come back with severe injuries, amputations and severely handicapped because of the war. hundreds of thousands of veterans coming on that cannot get their medical care. and we are spending this money, going around looking for trouble, and we have an entitlement system of control, and we are not taking care of the people we have an obligation to take care of, and that is, our veterans.

[cheers and applause] it seems to me if these wars are unconstitutional and declared unwinnable, and if they are hurting us and causing our debt to explode, it mandates that we have to look at this and change our foreign policy. and we have no choice about it. that is what happens to great nations. that is what happens to empires. usually, they do not get defeated by another empire. we did not have to fight the soviets. they defeated themselves because they had deeply flawed policy and they destroyed their own economy. today, our greatest threat is not come from externally. it comes from internally, both with our financial condition and the threat from our own government with our civil liberties. we ought to remember that the constitution said we will defend against all enemies,

foreign and domestic as well. [cheers and applause] but it seems like it would be the easiest place to start cutting, the overseas spending. bring our troops home rather quickly. and let themat home instead of d japan and korea pure good -- germany and japan and career. i propose we should cut the budget by a trillion dollars. how would that be is a startek, -- azar a start? i am convinced if we keep doing what we are doing, of we will destroy the dollar. if you do not like the price of

gasoline, do not say it is somebody making too much profit. and why don't you say it is ben bernanke? that is where the problem is. if we continue to do what we are doing, we will run into a much more economic crisis, destroy the value of currencies. interest rates will rise, and the more the government does trying to keep up with inflation, the worse it gets, so the only way i see out of this is in the of waiting for the day -- instead of waiting for the day, we more or less have an addiction, so we keep spending money, and it seems to keep hiding them over. if we did its now, we could have priorities and say there are a

certain class of people who have been taught to be dependent on the federal government, and some of those programs and would have never been started, but i am willing to say the best way is to cut overseas spending and take care of those fat are dependent. those who are told if we take your money, you will get social security benefits. we ought to protect those who received about, and if we do it right we could work our way out of debt, but we have to change foreign policy. there would have to be a lot of other cuts. i propose we cut five departments. what should be one of the easiest to cut, because there is no authority for the federal

government to take care of our education, so i would start with getting rid of that. [applause] the federal government has one responsibility in education, and that is over the city of d.c., so why shouldn't the american people attend the ability of the federal government and -- look of the ability of the federal government to deal with the education system it has more crime, more drugs, a terrible education system, and very expensive, and every year people come to the congress, yes, we are having trouble. give us more money, they are up to $18,000 per student your good -- per student. i understand if you are home schooling, you can educate a

child for a lot more than -- a lot less than $18,000 a year, and guess what? if you are on home schooling or you have a private school, you do not have to ask the government if you can say a prayer. you have a right to do that. [applause] then they say, maybe they will not get it through education. that has been is proven. they find people who are home school do quite well. they say you will not get a sense to do well in sports. of i was talking to a football player the other day, i think it was tim tebow. most people know he was home schooled, and he is doing pretty well for himself.

there are alternatives. people think of the government does not do it, it will not happen. if the government does not do it, maybe we will do it for ourselves much better. people get little nervous when i say i would like to cut one trillion dollars, and the things the world would fail if the government did not spend the money. i said, it is going to get much better if the government does not spend, but the point is if the government does not spend one trillion dollars, who gets to spend it? you get to spend it. over the years i have met a few politicians and a few bureaucrats, and i guarantee

they do not know how to spend your money. they are not smart enough to know what is best for you. this is the whole thing, the assumption the government should not be taking care of us is based on the assumption they know what is best for you. only you know what is best for you. if you make a bad decision, you should suffer the consequences. you should not be able to get bailed out. if you make a mistake, it is your business, and only you suffer. if the state makes a problem, it is the state, and that is why the founders did not want a national government they wanted it to be local, but the government cannot know what is best for you, and if they cannot understand what is best or they make a mistake, it is universal.

if they make a mistake on the principle of entitlement, it is devastating. if they make a mistake about going to war, it is devastating to us. and we need to get back to the understanding that self-reliance is not a default. we wanted from ourselves or our church but not from the federal government. of basicers uasked question. what should the role of the federal government be? they were fed up with a king and the military marching into their homes. they understand our role of

government is to defend liberty. it was not written to provide secrecy of government your good it was there to protect your privacy. -- in was not written to provide secrecy of government. it was there to protect your privacy is. we need to flip the round again. the government was supposed to protect the value of our money. and they were down on counterfeiting. in 1792, they said anybody who debases the currency would get the death penalty. is not in effect today. there would be a lot of people in trouble in washington. the government is supposed to protect contracts, but they are always dictated having rules and

regulations, and when there is a problem they will settle a dispute. they are supposed to protect private property, but there is an abuse of eminent domain in that some people believe your land is not your land. a lot of people think it is their land and not ours, so not only is our life and liberty, we should have the right to keep the fruits of our labor. good we have to restate once again that the people own the property, not the government. goo[applause] there are some that would argue with us, and they would say, you people just want to run your land and take care of your land. q. do not take care of your environment. there is no evidence to show

government land ever took better care of private property and land owners. a more dictatorial, the worst the environment has been in the past. the free market, you are not allowed to load your neighbor's property. you cannot dump your garbage in your neighbor's yard. you should not be able to coach their land or water. unfortunately, the government and a big business frequently got together and call luted the land and water and the air, so it is not an -- and polluted the land and water and the air, so it is not to say if you have strict property rights it would be worse taken care of. it would be better taken care of. you cannot get worse than you have a socialist dictatorship

that destroys the environment. when we sacrifice our liberties, whether for the entitlement system or the foreign policy, we realize there are basic definitions the pentagon of stray, and entitlements sounds like region we have gone astray, sounds likement ounce people are entitled to their neighbors' property as long as the government gives it to them. that is not a good definition, so the entitlement system undermines the concepts of right centss, so people are entitled to their liberty and there property, and that has to be institutionalized once again,

because if not we are going to continue to undermine our liberty, and we are going to continue the process of what we have been doing for almost 15 years, a steady weakening of our economy. we have created a basically no net increase in productive jobs since the year 2000, and jobs are going overseas. we have a currency system is deeply flawed. we overtax, over regulate, and businesses are not invited to bring capital back home, so it is not just an accident. if businesses did not become on american. they are in the does this of making money, and they will go overseas, and every other country says if you make money overseas and bring it home we will not tax you, but we said

you pay the taxes over there and if you bring it back we are going to tax you again. i do not like the tax code. the income tax code says they own every penny of what our earnings are pure johan -- what our earnings are. that is based on the assumption they have control of 100% of your money and they allow us to keep certain percentages according to their rules, but the other one that undermines accumulation of capital, if you have a family or a farm or a house or a business, if it gets to a certain level and you want to pass it on, the government says, we on this part, or you do not have enough to pay taxes. that destroys capital. we want to build capital. the liberals to believe that

capital does not come from savings. it has to come from savings. capital has to be what is left over after you take what you earn and to live on it, but they do not believe that. faith faith you do not have to save it -- they thing you have to save it all. they think, we will replace that with printing money, and that will be our capital, but the problem is it just salutes the value of the currency -- dilutes the value of the currency, but the worst part is that is distributed by the politicians taking care of their friends. if you have savings and put it in the accounts people have to borrow from, the market and distribute that, but why should anybody saved today? some people do because they did not want to take in the stock

market'. there is no incentive to do this. when i brought that up with greenspan and bernanke, i said, you keep interest rates low. it benefits the banks, but what if you believe in self-reliance? what've you want to retire and take care of yourself and you do not want to go into the stock market. you are going to make 1%? they understood that, but some people get worried when you have to protect the big picture of the financial system, so they believed they are protecting a certain group of people, and in the process destroy the whole process of capitalism and free markets, and we need to hold their feet to the fire and say we understand this business a lot more than they think we do, and there will be a change of

there always is with the monetary system that self- destruct. going to follow the constitution and say only sound money can be used. the only gold and silver is legal tender. [applause] under these conditions, whether it is the economic crisis where they say, if you do not bail was out of whole country is going to fall apart, all the bad debt gets dumped on the people, so the emergency action is usually making things much worse, and overseas as well, what about all of the excuses for going into iraq? they have weapons of mass destruction, and they are

harboring out haida, and on and on -- it was not true. -- harboring al qaeda and on and on, it was not true. right now they are beating the war drums to do the same thing against syria as well as iran. we need to make sure they tell us the straight story, that they should not be taking us in supporting the roles that are not permissible. these conditions lead to a very careless attitude about the real purpose of government, and that is to protect our personal liberty. today our personal liberty is under threat. if there is one thing you have to worry about protecting, is personal liberty.

some people say, that means you have to give time and effort, but it is not like you are donating something. and we have an obligation, those of us that have come to a conclusion it is for the benefit of our community. this is necessary for self preservation, that the city of erosion of personal liberty, all you have to do -- the steady erosion of personal liberty, all you have to do is think about the humiliation some people have to go through at airports. they do this without search warrants. they do this with the power they got from the patriot fire to search -- patriot act to search all kinds of people and say you do not need a warrant. they can have surges in our houses. they can go on and on, and this

is a consequence of the fear and misunderstanding of 9-11. it was only a week or so after 9-11 that the patriot act was passed. it was not called the repeal the fourth amendment act you're good -- fourth amendment act, but the steady erosion occurs, whether it is a consequence of the war on drugs, which has been an excuse for people in trading and during the unconstitutional searches, but also the way the system of regulations, whether it is the epa or any other agency or the other favorite agency iron sure everybody loves, and that is an -- i am sure everybody loves, and that is called the internal revenue service, but they become the law

of the land, and they come, and you are guilty until proven innocent. regulations are laws, and lars are supposed to be -- laws are supposed to be decided by congress. someday we are going to change all that. [applause] under the excuse of the drug laws, they invade our houses, but what else do they do? they say people should not be doing those things, but what about the places that might be selling nutritional products? they get broken into, and the federal government closes them down, so we have undermined our opportunity to make our own choices when it comes to food and nutrition and medical care,

and we could solve the problem by allowing you to make up your own mind about what kind of things you want to have. [applause] about a year ago the president had one of his designees go to the senate and testify it is now the policy of the president of the united states he has the authority to assassinate american citizens. no trial, no charges, nothing, because if he designates them a bad guy, he is allowed to do this. somebody asks him, where do get the authority? he says, i am the commander in chief. i can do everything i want to do accept what i am prohibited by the constitution. he is allowed to do only the things he is explicitly allowed

to do, not what he thinks he can do. [applause] the president has gone on to prove his point, and american citizens have been assassinated. you say, there are only three pure good one was very controversial, but even -- there are only three. one was controversial, but even the controversial ones deserve trials. going to happen if they arrest one of us, he decided after killing the first one, a family member was also collaborating with him, so they assassinated that family member. it turns out it was his 16-year- old son who was cooking at a barbecue with his cousin. this does not go over well, and

i think we need to be aware of it. they do it secretly for a while, and then they changed lot and make it legitimate your good we are at the point where they have done it secretly for a while. now they say the law permits it. the congress passes a national defense authorization act, and that was signed into law on january 1, and this repeals the law that says the president can use his military to a rise in the american that they think is a suspect. the only definition is associated forces, associated with someone who might be causing a criminal act. no charges made. he could be held without trial, without an attorney, and put in a secret prison indefinitely. and that became the law of the

land. how many people? there has been a few, so these are the kinds of things we have to address. if we allow these to slip by, sometimes it gets too late. it is the attack of liberty that is necessary to address. we will address foreign policy as well as economic policy, dealing with who owns property and what happens in a volunteer society, so the crisis is here today. i am encouraged today because i am meeting tens of thousands of people like you who are sick and tired of it. [applause] of those tens of thousands, quite a few have come from the

state of idaho. which means if this message is going to get out, we have a good opportunity coming up rather quickly, like tomorrow to express ourselves. freedom is something that is relatively new. we get accused so often of going back to the guard -- the gold standard of the 19th century, but for those who downplay what we are talking about, they are the ones who are favoring a system that now has been a around a lot longer than freedom, and that is tyranny. when you have advocated big government, you are going in the wrong direction. we have had relatively short time in this country, and we

became very wealthy, the wealthiest country ever, the largest middle class ever, and distribution of wealth better than ever before. it is not true anymore. the middle class is shrinking. the privileged are getting benefits. they get the benefits from the system. if they get in trouble, they get bailed out, and we end up holding the debt. the numbers of people are growing. they want to see changes. washington is pretty much as sleet, so our message needs to be heard loud and clear to bring about the changes that are necessary. goo[applause] what i believe has happened over the time as we grew to be the wealthiest country and the free as a country, we neglected to

understand where wealth came from. that is hard work and savings, so what happened is the country got so wealthy if we concentrated on the free materials, and we became concerned with redistribution of wealth and everyone could be taken care of. some people could have free food and education, and all of a sudden, it did not last. it undermines the wealth, but it destroyed productivity inc so we are not the producers we used to be, and the answer is loud and clear. it has been a around a long time. it is what made america great. all we have to do is get the understanding back, and from these tens of thousands of people i have talked to, it is a young people of this country

demanding these changes and demanding we defend liberty for their generation. [applause] this is the reason we should welcome the opportunity, and the one thing that is such a pleasure to defend is the principle of liberty, because it incorporates people. if you say, i believe in this group of values or this group of values, it would be like saying, i am going to be president because i am a christian protestant and that is the only cause. that is important in a personal life, but if you want to bring people together, you cannot

become what you want, whether it is your intellectual values or your personal values. what you want is the tolerance of people so people come together to enjoy it libertine because we all enjoy liberty. -- to enjoy liberty, because we all enjoy liberty. this becomes a different problem for some people, because some who think the economic system would be a disaster. some people would report, and some would be rich, and not understanding, so they will insist we will not be tolerant of the system because we will want to change it. on the other hand, on social values, people will not take care of themselves. now they are going to do things that are not right, so we cannot tolerate that, but if you accept personal decisions, it does not

mean you endorse what people do. you endorse the principle of liberty, and everyone should come together in defending the right. this is what i believe is giving us the energy in this campaign as well as the modern revolutionary spirit. it has been going on for 30 or 40 years, but it was in the but now the young people are leading the charge and are excited about it. of the same time, those who were quiet about it are frustrated, and they did not vote or dropped out, and they are coming around, and the people are coming together. of reporters said something i was pleased about, because i did

something unusual. i complemented the reporter. he said, i have notice to you get a young crowd, but recently i have noticed there is many others from an older generation coming out, and i said, that is true, and that is good, because it has to be pervasive. a true revolution is not a base of the republican party. that is not a true revolution. remember what nixon said, he said we are all keynesians now whether it has to do with a foreign policy or the defense of liberty. it has to be bipartisan. in us to bring people together, and this is the reason right now our campaign has recognized we do better than the other

candidates when it comes to being independent as well as putting my name against the president, so this means people are coming together, and i think this is wonderful. good also, people will challenge us on foreign policy. people thing because i do not want to go to war i do not want to be in the military. maybe the military wants to defend the country and not just go to war. [applause] so the statistics we can cite now is looking at some other candidates. there are some other candidates cutoff for donors are banks including goldman sachs. looking at the top four, it is the army, the navy, the air force, and the coast guard.

[applause] we should be optimistic spirit of we should assume responsibility for -- we should be optimistic. we should assume responsibility for ourselves. we do not need to wait for the majority. and we have the minority who are willing to change this and continue to build, and that is what happening, but if you are part of the i rate minority, there is more responsibility on your shoulders because the large majority of people never get involved. half of them do not register to vote, but if you come around to understanding the cause of liberty, the importance of sensible foreign policy, and you do carry a greater burden because you know about it and you know it is right, so you

so the besticipate, thing you can do at the moment, at this point, the best thing we can do is send a loud and clear message tomorrow and tell the country that now this idea of limited government is the best way to achieve peace and prosperity in our time. good thank you very much. thank you. [applause] >> ron paul, ron posnaul! [applause] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> what super tuesday election results tomorrow night on c-span networks, and use our web page with your tablet form a laptop computer to see a public forum for your weetweets. use a laptop or tabloid to extend your seas and viewing -- your c-span viewing on our web page. republican presidential candidate rick santorum, mitt romney, and newt gingrich will be speaking of the public

affairs comments tomorrow. live coverage gets under way at 8:30 eastern on c-span 3. coming up later tonight, eric holder talks about the legal justification of the u.s. to kill american citizens overseas who are considered terrorists. now a preview of tomorrow's super tuesday contests. we will hear from michael steele. >> we are joined by students from fairfax, va., and the washington center here in washington, d.c., and joining us is michael steele, the former chairman of the committee. great to have you with us. there are a couple of story lines that could come out.

what are they? >> there are more than a couple. you have the mitt romney it which is winning big in places like ohio and winning one of the southern states to release solidify the argument he is a player to go -- to solidify the argument he is the player. the base has begun to gel around winning in the south for example, so he has a great opportunity to bring closure to the process of throwing of someone like rick santorum, his story line is going to be, -- to the process. for someone like rick santorum, his story line is going to be continuing the story line, winning ohio, which he -- if he does the resets of thing.

the base will have an opportunity to say, maybe we should look closer of someone like santorum going forward. and you have georgia and the newt gingrich story line, witches region which is making his stand. -- new carell story line, which is making his stand. you think i forgot ron paul? of course not. ron paul is a common threat who will be there this august, regardless of how he does and where he does it, but he would like to win. he is the only one who does not one of least one state, so for him, winning something would be good. good >> including idaho democrat

said yes. >> -- including idaho? >> yes. >> let's take a step back. you are responsible for the rules and plays for proportional relatives across the country. explain how we had an earlier start and expected, how the rules changed and that allowed us to get to this point. >> the old rules allow for a process that virtually ended in february. you had a nominee is chosen, and the gop was sidelined, and out of the narrative for seven months as you saw this whole thing unfold between hillary end barack obama. the party went through the old school versus new school discussion, so looking at that, they said, for 2012, we will

extend our rules for one term. they can change rules. the only time the rules change is at conventions every four years, so they allowed the chairman to come in and look at a new design for the rules. for 2012, they wanted to expand the field, create a bigger table for more candidates to get their message to the base. this is less about old school and more about letting the base have a greater say. if you are kentucky, georgia, mississippi, a washington state, why should you wait and have your vote not really count if the process ends in february and

mind now iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and florida have decided who the nominees will be. it looks like every state will get a chance to play, and it is great. >> this is still going to be a two or three or four person race. >> tomorrow night, everyone is talking about this is a big night and it is going to be decided one way or another. only two states are winner-take- all. every other state is proportional, so everyone will get a bite of the apple. everyone will be able to move on to the next round. when you get into april, you had to be proportional to play between january and april.

the big states coming in, which tend to be winner take all, but by that point, everyone will have some amount of the delegates they can go into the final stretch with. everyone is talking about the fact this is going on too long. if you are rick santorum or newt gingrich or ron paul, you do not have to have romney money to stay in the game as long as you have a message sent resonates. this is good for the party. but this is our first student question from the washington center. >> my question was dealing with, the republican nomination process has been described as explosive, and it is a roller- coaster ride.

you think the polls are televise that come out every week, do you think they have played a negative role, or do you think they are a positive part of his campaign in that they show the true thoughts of the people? >> that is a good question. it really is a combination of the two. there are those that are there to tell and narrative the furthers the opportunities of the one candidate. it really does find the right mix based on population and demographics to get a sense of where the american people are, and those polls have been fairly

consistent in telling the story of these primaries thank you, one in which -- of this primary process. some may come off-by some, but that is all part of the new mix that has made this process are roller coaster but of fun roller coaster. if you are an underdog, you have a chance to compete in a level that keeps you in the game as long as you can sustain it. these candidates have found a way to strike with the voters,

and we will seek tomorrow whether or not anyone has a mind to fold up their tent and go home. i suspect not, unless you lose by seven or eight points, you are going to be there. there is no reason to get out of this thing. >> did he get out too soon? >> absolutely. >> if you quit the race after the iowa straw poll, this is a barnburner festival, and it is like a fair, and it is not indicative of what voters are thinking of the end of august, so i think he got out too soon,

and i think if it was a matter of money the other candidates have proven you do not need a lot of cash to compete. >> let me put a hypothetical on the table. the republicans lose in 2012 for a new set of candidates. will the same rules we have today be in place? >> the way the 2008 convention put this in place and really created a guidepost for me in the committee that oversaw the statements is whatever changes are adopted at uthe convention will stay in place. otherwise, we go back to the old rules. this is a one time shot to see if we can find some news energy. you have a lot of contention between michigan and iowa and new hampshire, florida, ohio,

all competing to be in the frontiers states. meanwhile, a lot of western states are saying, why should we be relegated to second or third here? to alleviate that, we went to the current system based on proportionality. now we moved in nevada to go on the front line, so i wanted some parallelism with the democrats, and there were some things we did the democrats liked now that they took on when they wrote their rules, so we will see what the convention says in august about what they will keep. otherwise they will go back to the old rules. caller: i have a question, and then i would like to go to my

students. this is an election in which you have several viable candidates much later than you normally do, and a lot of thought was intentional, and you set it up to give more states a chance, but how much of the situation results from these rules, and how much results from the many debates that brought several candidates to like very early centpaks?perpowe >> let me take it as quickly as i can. >> let's start with debates. >> the debates are with many states. we just saw the candidates decided not to participate in the sea and in debate, so bout

was canceled. good -- survive was canceled. as chairman, i did begin to have conversations about setting up a schedule where i thought the rnc should declare six or seven debates that were of party importance. you can do anything else you want, but these are the ones we want the base to focus on. that did not work out, because i did not complete the job. the debate is on them. with respect to th money, i saw the writing on the wall when i saw the major donors had decided to move on.

a lot of them had been hit by the recession, so their bank accounts were smaller. they were not giving to party organizations, so we help come up with a different structure, so we generated 1 million new donors and got grass-roots activism. concern is the lack of disclosure, the lack of ability to let people know who their donors are. i say congress will fix that after hearing the cry from the american people, and the process itself has nothing to do with a crazy when rhetoric you hear coming from the mouth of candidates. how long the primary process

goes on has nothing to do with your standing in front of the camera and saying whatever comes out of your mouth, so that is a discipline issue the candidates had to deal with. if romney had been selected in mid february, would that have precluded the words coming out of his mouth, i do not care about the pork? -- poor? you cannot blame the process for that. that is more an ability to stay on the message, the economic message. that would have nothing to do

with rick santorum's take off on social issues and nothing to do with the rush limbaugh controversy, because i would submit its romney were the nominee he would be in a much tougher spot given what rush limbaugh said if the cameras came to him every day. now we have three or four people as opposed to focusing on the nominee. >> i have a question on what the eventual nominee does about all this. >> my question is what you think the republican nominee will have to do to bring together the parties hamas >> it comes down to that ability -- to bring together the party? >> it comes down to the ability

to find that moment where you can bring all of the ends together and you can have an honest conversation about what a core of section -- objective is, and a core objective is to defeat barack obama. it also means it brings together various coalitions of interest but we do not necessarily have access to. there is a whole collection of americans that this process has alienated, so now we have to find a way to appeal to the party to it -- to appeal to outside the party. back to take you governor romney followed by rick santorum.

>> a week ago they were able to account us out. i kept meeting with moms and dads and grandparents, and they were concerned about what was happening with this country, and i was confident we could take a giant step to a brighter future, so tonight their efforts have brought our cause a great victory, and we celebrate with people across our states. tonight is also particularly special because this is the place where i was born. this is the place where i was raised. i know we consider you all family. thank you so much for your help, and in this room are the people who knock on doors and made a

tremendous difference. >> a month ago they did not know who we are, but they do now. what an absolutely great night. i am so thankful to so many people tonight. first i have to say to the people of michigan, and we came into the backyard and a raise everybody's said, you have no chance here, and the people of michigan looked into the hearts of the candidates, and all i have to say is, i love you back these have become pivotal points with the candidates. let me ask a question. how did you feel with those sound bites thelma which one may

do moves into the candidates and emotionally -- with the sound bites? which one makes you moved to the candidates emotional wave? mitt romney was like going to a doctor's office. everything was sanitize. rick santorum, when he said, i love you back, i love you, too. there is a very different connection, and that is the undertone that has been driving to the base, which is i will fight, but higher do not want to fight just become -- but i do not want to fight just because you have the moniker of, and that feeds into the overall narrative the press writes about how these men connect. we talk about trees and living

trees. you have to connect it to something. that is like saying i liked the buildings because they are the right height. they are going to see your connection to michigan. if you grew up there, tell me a story that makes me see something i would not otherwise see. , and thengo to julia we will take your question. and have seen a romney founan, i know he does seem sterilized. like you said, you go to a doctor's office, and he is too clean. host: why deal like mitt romney? what is motivating you? >> the son of flav the private

sector, he knows what he is -- definitely the private sector, he knows what he is doing. i do not think we have gotten pushed down by social issues like a brick santorum, that is what he is going on, and -- like rick santorum, that is what he is going to, so i think ann romney is focused on the economy. gardner -- i think mitt romney is focused on the economy. guest: that is one thing he has focused on. did the guy is a little sterile a. i do not think i would want to have a beer with him, but he brings to that business experience that i think is going to be relatives and important, and that is great, and all of us can appreciate his campaign is going to require a little more

than that level of business acumen. it is going to require a translation. you are asking the american people assume fire an incumbent president and -- american people to fire an incumbent president. that is a tall order, and it is something a lot of professionals completely underestimate in calculating what we need to do this fall. you have to bring that approval to a point where the american people say, not only am i not liking his policies, but i am not feeling him anymore, and that is not happening yet. romney has a chance to do that, and one of them has got to be able to carry it going forward. it is not just about experience going into this fall campaign.

>> let me share something about super tapacs. this ad is taking aim at the koran need your good -- now taking aim at mitt romney. >> mitt romney docketed huge fees for the 04 companies collapsed --are those the valut? >> we should point out the obama campaign has been taking aim at mitt romney since last year. >> from the beginning. they're taught -- of their calculations regardless has been the president will be against mitt romney come the fall. and so they have done effectively the job of getting

themselves inserted into the narrative of the gop primary process which is what you want to do if you're an incumbent. and certainly have that ability to shape people's perceptions of what you are saying and doing at the time you are saying and doing it. by that time you get to -- people have formed an opinion about you that is more to the liking i crafted as opposed to what you have done over the past months or year. that is what romney will be up against in the fall. not that -- that will be played back in sound bites and commercials but more importantly, the stuff the president's team has done. to insert themselves. we will see how the romney organization response going forward.

>> bucco to -- let's go to jessica larkins. >> you mentioned the candidates, the ones who do have cromie's money, or a message that resonates. >> you guys are very perceptive. the thing about super tuesday is it is 10 states at one time. you saw what rick santorum did in iowa. visiting all 99 caucuses, caucus sites in counties. this is different. where you are running into a problem and you see those strategic decision making already, i will hunker down in georgia and play for georgia.

i have kind of put myself out here. the polls have narrowed. you have to spend this time here. santorum has the luxury of slipping out to michigan to washington. just to make it interesting. and come back through georgia and his job is ohio. romney is the only one who has the advantage to play in all the states. here is the difference. the basis for forming opinions for individuals they do not like or they do like. the tv ads and commercials, they have some resonance. it is going to boil down to whether that base fills a desire to pull the lever for one or the other individuals they support. as we have seen, the turnout levels have been lower than 2008. in the states that have gone so far. the question for super tuesday is, do we see that trend line

reverse? is that the result of running' pushing up theney boat? is that the result of passionate conservatives staking their claim for ron paul or one of the other guys? that is something we will look for in exit polling to see where the trend lines are. it does present a particular challenge for you if you do not have money. the process is designed so you do not necessarily have to have a lot of cash but it helps. it is always good to err on the side of cash. you might have to compete in one -- 10 states at one time. that is tomorrow. it will be interesting to see of the strategic decisions each campaign has made plays well for them. >> in 1960, no single reporter spent more time on the campaign trail than dan balz. thanks for being with us.

this is a two way street. if you have questions for michael steele, please feel free to jump in. let me begin with a simple point. you have been writing about tomorrow being a pivot point in the selection, how so? >> i think the importance of super tuesday this year is we will get for the first time an indication of how long this fight may go on. it will go on for some time. the question is, how long? the second is, will there be any candidate who has been challenging governor romney who comes out of super tuesday with a realistic chance of winning the nomination? we've had ups and downs and different people rising and falling. romney has been a steady competitor. the person to be. after tomorrow, we will have a better sense of the totality of this race and the degree to

which governor romney has an advantage over the rest of the field. >> we have been touching on a number of issues with the students and including the money, the organization, the infrastructure. what is the worst possible case for tomorrow night for someone like mitt romney? can he get by with winning barely or not winning in tennessee? what happens if he loses ohio? how do you see this story line on folding given that gingrich and paul and santorum are not going anywhere. is this more -- one more hurdle or is there an end game for him? >> this is such a slot for him. i think the boston team that is

running this campaign concluded a long time ago that because of iraq -- a variety of factors this was likely to be a longer range than any people in the media or people who follow these things might have anticipated. we're used to dealing with campaigns where momentum takes over and drives people to the sidelines we do not have that phenomenon this year. there is to ways people can look at tomorrow night. the way that the romney campaign wants everyone to look at it is as a battle for delegates. they are almost certainly going to win the battle for delegates. the reason is first of all in virginia, his only competitor on the ballot is ron paul. given the rules of the game, the rules of the road in virginia, mitt romney could win the delegates in virginia. that gives him a big leg up over santorum or gingrich starting out there. ohio is another important prize.

it has 66 delegates at stake. santorum has competed very well there. it is a dead heat going into the polling places tomorrow. senator santorum has not filed a full slate of delegates in that state. the romney campaign had a conference call on saturday in which they said, he is 18 short of the 66 full slate of delegates. even if he were to win the state in the popular vote, mitt romney most certainly will win a majority. as to go through tomorrow night, it is likely governor romney will expand his lead in delegates. what you will be hearing from them is what we heard from the obama campaign when they were against hillary clinton in 2008, which is focused on the delegates. this is a battle for delegates and we're in a better position than anyone else to win the race. having said that, the other reality is that if governor

romney loses another big battleground state, if he were to lose ohio tomorrow night to rick santorum, it gives santorum a shot in the arm. it creates another kind of psychological blow for governor romney that he cannot win an important swing state, put aside the question of whether people who lose a stake in a primary cannot come in when it. we saw a president obama do that in a bunch of states in 2008. governor romney is at that point where if he can do what i think a lot of people anticipate he might be able to do, he can come out of their pretty good. if you fall short on in ohio, if he does not look very strong in a place like tennessee, if he does not pick up some reasonable number of delegates in georgia, there will be renewed attention to the questions about what is wrong with mitt romney. this is going to be an interesting post-super tuesday or super tuesday evening as the

campaigns tried to spin it in the direction they want. >> let me turn to bob and then some student questions. >> i have a student who would love to put the spotlight on you. instead of saying what might happen, see if you can pull some predictions. second question. go ahead. >> let me jump in once you get your question lined up. let me go to ariel. >> many of republican voters are not convinced cromie is a conservative. especially that he authored romneycare. gingrich or santorum could win the nomination.

>> probably not likely. as dan laid out, the battle lines are drawn in a way i am getting more delegates but lose the popular vote. the campaign is right about that. that is the important underlying narrative. you need to get to the 1100 plus delegates to secure the nomination. because of the proportional voting that will take place, only two states of 10 will be winner take all. everyone is getting something. whether it is 15 delegates, 40 delegates, whenever it happens to be. everyone will walk away with something they can carry with them into tampa. this fall. that again does not necessarily augur well for this process ending next week for the week after that. brother going through the

california primary. -- rather going through the california primary. this allows me to make a case for some role, something in the platform. the speech, what ever does. i am going to be looking for to negotiate. the thing is -- they do not care. he will pick up 46 delegates at of virginia. they're not worried about that part of it. the goal is to keep him away from the 1144, whenever the number is. so that when he gets to the convention, he has to turn to one of them to get that magic number, and that is the contested parts that will be fun to see it becomes too precious. a brokered convention is a notion that they get so jammed up in tampa where the party does

not become fun anymore. they're looking for someone from the outside to come in, chris christie or someone like that come in on their white horse, i am here to save the day. that is not happening. >> let me follow up on the point and ask you some history. the last time the republicans were faced with the potential of the convention, it was divided with in 1976 with gerald ford and ronald reagan. walter mondale going into the 1984 convention with not quite enough delegates. some negotiations had to take place before he secure the nomination on the first ballot. what are the lessons from 1976 and 1984? >> the lesson is, win it as quickly as you can. there's no mystery as to what governor romney wants to do. this is the house that mr. steele built whne he -- when he

was chairman. it is a new house republicans are dealing with. the issue of proportionality changes the way nomination battles play out. democrats have long had proportionality. as we saw in 2004, john kerry made a very early and significant run, had a lot of momentum and basically, everyone else by -- fell by the wayside in part because their money dried up. the difference this time is even a candidate who is losing is not necessarily forced to the sidelines because of the role of the super pacs. one person has the capacity -- one rich person has the capacity to keep a campaign alive or candidate who is losing and having difficulty perhaps raising money. one of the things we will see after tomorrow night is which of the rebels to governor romney still has the capacity to raise money for his own campaign and which of the super pacs backing

those cabinets has the wherewithal and commitments to keep funding and supporting their candidates. there are enough new locals that is likely to go on for a long time but there is another factor that we have to look at. we have begun to see a little bit a sign -- of assigned to that. there is no question the locker this has gone on, the more it has hurt the republican party -- longer this has gone on, the more it has hurt the republican party and governor romney. do people who are elected officials try to do things to shorten this race or suggest that the people chasing governor romney change their tone in some way, reduce the negative attacks, began to unify the party? that is asking a lot for newt gingrich or rick santorum who are fighting their hearts out and are looking for ways to

survive. that is again why we are at a potential pivot point. we have 10 states voting to bar night and a lot of different possible outcomes. >> -- tomorrow night, and a lot of different possible outcomes. >> the punch was thrown going into iowa. they needed to figure out a way to stop newt gingrich for a week , $6 million lighter. they pounded the guide to the heint where he is -- te guy to the point where he is now. while you had some candid it' -- candidates preaching reagan's 11th cabinet -- i do not see anyone going quietly into that good night with respect to

bowing out and letting romney have a free shot to the nomination. i do not see that happening. >> i will give you a chance to ask michael steele the big question. let me go back to george mason university and another student question. t >> here are -- >> there are a couple of good questions. given the kind of wanted party that comes together eventually, what are they going to do to beat the democrats? >> olive it will depend on the arguments that are made. -- a lot of it will depend on the arguments that are made. we're talking about stuff we have no business talking about. we're off message. it reminds me of the terry schiavo conversation during the bush years. beyond the pale and outside the purview of the national party to inject itself into personal decisions. we cannot real against democrats

for wanting to take control of government offices of our lives and businesses and the next breath, have the kind of conversation we have and see the legislation proposed that people interpret as during that same thing. we have to get off of that. and focus in on the strength of the argument, which as -- which is at the end, growth, small business, entrepreneurialism, the backbone of this country's economic engine. and how the one-for-one, the comparison of policies that are government-centered versus policies that are free market centered. to challenge the notion that making money, being wealthy, aspiring to wealth creation is somehow-. -- somehow negative. students did not get up today

and say, "all of what to do is be pour." u.s. fire to a certain level of wealth for yourselves -- you aspire to a certain level of wealth for yourself. that is a positive argument for the republican party to get back on, making policies of this administration where you're talking about the growth in debt, spending, whatever it happens to be. you can make the arguments over all. we have gotten off that message. we're talking and playing the ball the way the democrats want us to play it. where the president is not talking about his record, he is not talking about health care. the types of things we can push back on that we have not. >> let's get a quick follow up from one of the george mason students. >> there is a quick strategy question. >> do you shore of the conservative base as the republicans did successfully in

2004 and 2010, or do you move to the center to sort of challenge obama on mainstream issues? >> do both. you cannot have a 2006 happened again in 2012. 2006, the base was so fed up with big government republicanism that they stayed home. they did not support our efforts on the ground. i was a senate candidate in 2006 and saw after the fact the drop off. 6% of our base stayed home versus what we saw in 2004 and 2002. that is going to be very important. my first six months or so as national chairman was to reassert the party into the political discussion. remember, they had written off the gop after the election of obama. our better days had already been seen and gone. the goal was to reassure the base that we were the conservative party of this country, we were going to stand

on core principles and fight for those principles in order to protect that idea of an america entrepreneurialism. that is important -- an important first effort coming off the primary and she began to meld that into a national discussion, a center-right discussion of where the country is next. >> weigh in on this point, dan. you need to expand the base and appealed to the independence -- appeal to the independents. >> what i want to ask those to this question. governor romney has had to work hard to convince the base that he is acceptable to them. not that they are going to see he is their first choice but he is acceptable to them and he has struggled to do that. in doing that, we can see what has happened with the independents. they have become-in their

assessment of romney. my question is if this race goes on until sometime in late april or early may which it could, and with the kind of competitiveness we have seen and the tone we have seen in this race, how badly damaged wood governor romney be? are you worried it could be losing the general election as you are picking a nominee in the spring of 2012? >> the way we lose the general election now is less about the process as i said earlier, and more about how our candidates frame the arguments. we could have -- i think president obama has played mitt romney very well to this point. a very good example of that is this whole discussion we have had with ms. fluke and her one to testify. the rush limbaugh comments. it would have been a sista

souljah moment to stand with those who are afraid to take on rush limbaugh. i have had to dance with rush limbaugh as national chairman. and know what that feels like. it is important to understand he is not an elected official in the party. he does not get to call the shots. that is the reality of it. for mitt romney, a tillich america in the eye and say, this is not -- to look america in the eye and say, this is not what conservatism is about. this is not the country and want to leave -- lead would have defined him differently. it would have given him such an expense of opportunity. remember, if you take the conventional wisdom, you're going to be the nominee. regardless of what has happened. why not begin to take that effort to push the envelope, to make that pitch, if you will, to the independent voters that

polls have shown that you have lost and are losing, to show that you're not beholden to an ideology that is not consistent with the values of this country? that is an argument that mitt romney has to make coming out of this thing. in order to began to bring those pieces together that he is going to need to defeat obama in the fall. >> do you think he missed that moment by not doing it in real time? >> yes, i do. i really do. it does not mean he will not have that opportunity down the road or some way he can make up the moment but this was that time. in politics, this stuff comes around like that and what it does, you have to grab this. it is like lightning in a bottle. you have to grab it and make the most of it. this was that moment where everyone else fell silent. for his voice to rise above all others and to say with clarity, this does not stand. it is not how we treat citizens. it is not the kind of leadership

i want to bring credit is not reflective of the values of the gop. it is not reflective of conservatism and it is at of bounds. it is wrongheaded and has no place in my world that i am trying to create for the american people, which is why i am trying to run for president. >> a couple of thoughts from you, dan? >> i agree that was a moment and politicians do need to seize those moments. the hold that rush limbaugh has over the republican and conservative establishment is powerful and we have seen it time and time again. this is when -- one in which advertisers voted with their dollars and the democrats have been very deft in going after it and exploiting it and taking advantage of it. and i think he is right. governor romney had a moment where he could have said it come in his own language but he did not. you do not get a lot of those opportunities but it seemed this

was an opportunity lost. >> for the students, if you want a comparative moment, bill clinton. i remember the gnashing and wringing of hands in which he went against the grain and took on an iconic african-american performer to kind of set the tone of his campaign. it defined him. blacks did not run away from him or turn against him. they were impressed he would stand up and make a principal argument. i think that is what this moment afforded mitt romney. >> i have one side are question before we turn to politics and say goodbye to you. you have been covering politics since 1968. paul -- technology has changed. your style has been consistent. what is that approach and what keeps you motivated every day to cover politics in 2012? >> covering politics is a great

privilege. it sounds corny and cliche, but it is. those of us who are on the trail and able to follow these races as closely as our news organizations allow us to, this gives us an extraordinary opportunity to see history in the making and for anyone in journalism, that is part of the reason we are here. there are a lot of other aspects to journalism. the storytelling is important. you're right. technology has changed enormously and i do not think it has changed any more dramatically than the time since the 2008 election and this election. the arrival of twitter has fundamentally changed the nature of the way the news business and political reporting is taking place. and so for me, one of the things i have always tried to do is think about different audiences. that we have an audience that reads the "washington post" who are devoted political

aficionados, political junkies. the what the most detailed information. -- they want the most detailed information. the larger audience, the general public are looking to us to help them sort through all kinds of stuff that is coming at them. there is such a flow of information coming at people today. they look to us. one of the things i have tried to do is what i have learned from others who taught me over the years, beginning -- including a lot of others. you have to make this topic accessible to people. the more i think we'd do a disservice to people, to that general audience. pollsters said something to me years ago when i was a youngster starting out in politics and covering it. you are not a handicapper.

a political reporter is not there to predict who will win or lose. the most valuable thing that good political reporting can do is that on the morning after an election, when people wake up and say, the country has elected silence so as the next president, you have helped them understand why that happened. you have described for them through the course of a year, not in any one story, but through the course of the year, the forces there were. the issues in play, the characters of the cabinets, the personalities, the highs and lows, so that they did not wake up surprised and say, how in the world that that happen? i had no idea this might be the case. we have tried to do that. i have tried to do that in my individual reporting. >> no one does that better than you. thanks for sharing with us on c- span. >> take care of yourself. >> thanks, mr. chairman. take care. >> i will.

>> back to your questions. anna. >> we heard dan mentioned the extended primary process maybe hurting the potential candidate for the republican party. mr. steele mentioned he thinks it is a good thing. hi. the new chairman believes this is a good thing. do you think the republican party >> i can honestly say i don't know, but i have my worries in my concerns about it. the fact that they just hired last month or in the month of january and hispanic outreach director, which always found that out reach notion to be

somewhat comical and farcical, but i don't know, they are saying they are going to have hispanic coordinator and directors in the key states, which probably means tenor 15 states are so. my approach is much more broad based, more bottom up. in order to get ready for the 2010 election, i had to first get on the ground and prepare with the election of chris christie and bob mcdonnell in new jersey and virginia respectively. the special elections we all remember, what excitement that brought to the political process. for the first time you had the base of the party pushed back against the establishment and reject completely their choices. so it was a lot of lessons taught to me, leading up to the 2010 election about putting a comprehensive effort on the ground. our goal -- we created a coalitions department that has

since been disbanded that allowed for that kind of reached out to folks and new people, and to get the organization, to get the base fired up at engaged, to get the money coming from the bottom up, not just from the top down, from the major donors. the emphasis has been on top down, major donors coming back, but keep growing in keeping the number of individual small dollars to the party. what is the grass-roots organizational infrastructure that you put in place to help the state party's who are the front lines. that is your offensive and defensive line for the big game in november. they are the ones who will have to take the limited resources they have to go out and build the infrastructure from the bottom up so that you have the door knockers, waivers. you have people on election day getting voters to the polls.

it is important that it be there. obama has met and surpassed the gop's effort so far. in other words, throughout the primary process, that also been building. we may have three or four satellite offices but they have 10 or 12. we have to meet that at some point and i don't know if we are ready for that. >> from the romney super pac, one of his campaign spots, and from the santorum for president committee. >> rick santorum has been in washington so long he is called the ultimate washington insider. he voted to raise the debt limit five times and for billions of wasteful the remarks. >> i am proud of the money that i did set aside. >> creek santorum, a washington insider, big spender.

-- rick santorum. >> mitt romney negative attack machine is back on full throttle. this time, romney is firing his mud at rick santorum. his super pac president of whopping 20 million attacking fellow republicans because he is trying to hide from his big government romney care. in the end, his ugly attacks are going to backfire. >> you have seen this from a number of different vantage point, but as a candidate and a political observer and political chair. how influential is television advertising? >> i have always been amazed by that. people say i am so sick of the negative ads, it just makes me ill, and yet they buy it. they are so gullible for it. it is amazing the impact they are able to have in running

those two examples of negative ads. with newt gingrich, that was all tv ads that stomp to the political life out of his campaign to get people will tell you that i am so sick of it, it does not have an influence, but it does. it is subliminal. what it does is create some doubt. i need to be something else to think about about this individual. i am not going to come heavy and hard, some of it is kind of campy and over the top, but at the end of the day, i planted a seed. when you continue to water it with a lot of other negative stuff, whether your campaign is sending out stuff online or they read a tweet, it reinforces and nurtures it to the point that when you go to that voting booth, you vote against the guy you really like. you have seen it in the polls, going into any of these states,

santorum and gingrich had been busting mitt romney beau biden 7, 8, 10 points. ohio is a good example coming up where rick santorum had a 10- point lead. it is not even money at best. because of the negative advertising that started chipping away at santorum and brought him down to the point where they could effectively deliver the knockout punch, with their organization, their turn now tomorrow. so it is very effective, and no matter how much you pretend to be the victim of these things, if you have the money, you would be doing the same thing, too. remember, our redesign of this process had nothing to do with your ability to raise money or spend money or keep money. we were creating a playing field on which you can go play.

how you got there and what you do once you are there, that is still up to the individual candidate. >> the go to your earlier point, you might find yourself on your own terms. >> you never want your opponent to define you. >> >> you talk a little bit earlier about obamacare and the failed policies of president obama, and no one in the republican party has really picked away at that. if mitt romney is a candidate, do you feel it will be harder for him to pick away at obamacare simply because of romney care in massachusetts? >> that is the political reality here. i said from day one, i always thought romney should have just shown up to what he did with his own hand. he was the governor put in place something that he thought as a governor was best for the people

of this state because that is what they said they wanted. he did what he was asked to do in response to the people. the response is, i got it right, obama got it wrong. when you start from a defensive posture of i did not create that, i don't know what it is, it makes it easy for your opponents to come back and continue to quit saw you on that issue. but they can take it out of context and used against you. you want the candidate to come -- either neutralize it or take away your opponent's ability to take signature pieces of legislation you have altered or think you have done as an elected official and put your own imprimatur on it early. i don't think that was done by the romney campaign. the attacks came from within first. he had not sufficiently from

2007 to that moment, to this moment, define for the base or contextualized what the whole health care plan he developed was all about. now you are seeing the individual mandate come back against him. that is being played out today in the washington post and elsewhere. it is very important about defining yourself as a candidate, not just defining who i am but what i have done. of all the candidates, the most effective at pushing back from that has been rick santorum, which is why not a lot of ugliness has stuck on him. mitt romney is verbalizing extemporaneously on stuff that is seven or eight years old. he is volunteering this stuff. >> or 50 years old if you are talking about john kennedy. >> i have no idea what that was about.

>> it struck me in looking at the romney versus santorum victory speeches and santorum is inability to intuitively know when to make a report is due to make a report. i feel like with rahm you have the pros, but not the poetry. -- mitt romney you have the prose and not the poetry. this is something that barack obama's base is complaining about. that thought they were getting poetry, and they were getting prose. >> in your opinion, has barack obama lost the support of the black community, and do you think republican nominees are actively engaged according to black yours to may or may not be in support of obama now? >> let me answer the second question first, the answer is

no, they are not. there is no evidence that either underground or in the shadows, there is no pretense with the current leadership in that regard. the african american voters have largely been written off as unabashedly and very much a democratic vote. i still do not subscribe to that. i know my community well enough to know that there are disparate and very diverse voices within its, that if we take the time to cultivate a relationship, we can begin to make some headway. during my term, we elected two african-americans to the united states congress. we have elected a number of hispanic governors and leaders, african american legislators at the state level. it came from a concentrated effort and focus on developing that.

the first part of your question, i don't think it's a matter of blacks not supporting president obama. they will support president obama. does not mean they are not frustrated with him to a lead up point that i think there has been a lot of expectations on the president in terms of what his liberalism would be like, how would be played out. he is a community activist organizer, so that means in some sectors, a certain thing that even the gop bought into. i don't think the one thought the president would come in and do what he has done on foreign .olicy lis the president's use of drones surpassed anything in george bush ever did as president. a lot of the liberal base is looking at someone like barack

obama annette mirrors what a lot of the republican base has concerns about with respect to mitt romney. both of those gentleman will find themselves doing an interesting dance. the president gets away with it because he is not in a primary. who is challenging him? no one. his challenge will come in the fall when he has an opponent and an infrastructure behind that opponent that will be bombarding him from various sectors, not just on the obvious stuff like health care but even some of the foreign policy positions he has taken. surly on the economy and jobs creation. government control and ownership of the auto industry. people forget, the government still owns 27% of gm. the government is the one who is controlling that. how do we get the government out of that? no one talks about that. that will be part of the conversation, because regardless

of what you may feel about it, that rankles at people that the government owns part of our private sector that way. that is part of the conversation the president will have to deal with in a real way. raises concerns right and left about both of these potential candidates or eventual candidates for the presidency as to whether or not they are true enough to their base. i think it will be a bigger question for the romney base than the obama base. just two examples from over the weekend in cleveland, ohio area. let's begin with mitt romney in a town hall meeting. >> what a thrill it is to do what i am doing. can you imagine running for president of the united states? this is not something i expected to do. when i was a boy, i wanted to be

a police officer. as a got older, i wanted to do what my dad did. i hoped to run a car company some way. then i got in business on my own. i never thought i would get in politics, of all things. here i am running across the country, meeting people, and it is such an extraordinary opportunity to get to know america. if you watch the evening news, you see people doing things that are out of the ordinary. that is why it makes news. by and large, those are good things they are doing. you, way with a bit of a cynical view about what is going on across the country. when you get to do what i do, and he meet average, ordinary citizens like ourselves, you get a sense that what is at the heart and core of the american people. is good, and encouraging. it gives me more optimism about the future of our country, just

to meet the citizens and not those that are doing unusual things. >> i understand what he is doing , and how he is trying to weave that story line about what i wanted to do as a young boy. i never thought i would be here, and i appreciate that very much. i think it is side of him that more people would like to see and hear a lot more about, and then we've that story in to the policies that you will specifically advocate for as president of the united states. a very telling moment for me was early in the debates, we had eight or nine people on the stage. there was a youtube question that was asked. give me an example, a recent example of how you felt in this

economy. tell me how you have walked in my shoes not 30 years ago, but now. how hard is it for you to balance your budget at home? how difficult is it for you to pay for your kids' education? the worry about the things i worry about? every one of those candidates talked about what it was like when they lived in the 1950's and growing up. we lived above a shoe store, in a 2-bedroom -- ok, that is great, but now, today, you are a very successful person. i just lost my job. relayed to me and tell me understand what my pain is like. tell me that you believe this will get better for me and how you will have a hand in that. and they could not answer the question. that hasis the peaiece

been missing. we saw in kansas. with chris kit -- chris christie identified with that guy who is trying to make it happen. rick santorum comes close when he talks about the wear and tear on his grandfather shands, and as a young boy grabbing at hand and appreciating now what that meant for him, running for president of the united states. that is the kind of connection that is going to move this country towards our nominee. that is the kind of connection i think the country is wanting, and going to your point about obama, on the fly, the rhetoric is great, and it sounds good, but still not feeling it. they don't have anything else to compare it to, so obama gets the benefit right now. if our nominee comes out of this process with that passion, that sense of walking barefoot with america, feeling the earth

beneath their feet, that painful walk for a lot of people, i think this is going to be one heck of a ride this november, and we have a great chance to do something that right now, a lot of people don't think can be done. that is to go into a leadership structure through have the white house, the senate, and the congress, and then the real test of our ideas will begin. >> that compare that to this weekend and the all-important primary tomorrow. this is rick santorum. >> in 2008, our elections were determined by a candidate who went out and promised that he could solve the problems that confronted america. all you had to do is trust him. that he was able to take on the problems that confronted us in this economic crisis were in, and if you trusted him, he could

turn america around. sometimes that happens in times of crisis. leaders come along and pretend to think that maybe they can do things for us. but americans are now a little more sober, understand what has happened, and they now realize what we need is not a president who can believe in, we need a president who believes in you. >> to your earlier point, that is the passion, that is the narrative. something interesting about that, last week obama at the uaw convention or the speech before the uaw, what did he say? he said i did what i did because i believe in you. that is a very powerful connection. it transcends the politics, it's

through the little black box there and really draws people in. rick santorum in his tone, his pacing, almost like welling up inside, you can feel what he is saying so much. translate that out to the american people. where he is stripping and stumbling is that the narrative about him is focused on an antiquated view of the role between women in society are how you feel about contraception or something that really isn't rick. if you look at this story line, his wife is very much a professional woman, very well accomplish. all the narrative about him wanting to keep them barefoot and pregnant is just b.s..

he needs to pivot that into something that is consistent with what you just heard. if he does that, he has a chance -- and i have said this before, the left needs to be careful what they wish for if rick santorum is in fact the nominee. a lot of what he says residents with people more than people want to give him credit for. he needs to get beyond the confines of the battle with ronnie to talk at a bigger level. that could be an interesting race in november. >> which is why tomorrow is so important. bob, we will turn to you for a final comment or thought. >> the key to presidential election rhetoric is, the candidates have to say in some way, my story is america's story. my pain is america's pain. my hopes or america's hopes. my success as an individual mirrors our success as a

nation, and i can lead us in even greater success is. this was not always the case. john kennedy did not show that he felt america's pain the way that bill clinton did. this started in the 1970's after the cynicism and anxiety of the 1960's ended in watergate. jimmy carter came along and said i want a government that is as good and honest as the american people. ronald reagan showed how to do it as a president. barack obama did wonderfully in connecting his personal story through his autobiography. that is something mitt romney does not have and if he doesn't get it, he does not become president. >> very well said. that has been a whole rub here. you've got to get the american people to the point where they like you enough to forgive you for some of the crazy things about to policies that they may not like our cannot stomach, but they like you.

that's been shown time and time again with president obama, whether it is health care -- 2010 was a wholesale rejection of the president's health-care plan. that is what i ran on in terms of the direction we were pushing the rnc. you want to get this government back? start by firing pelosi. we set the narrative in motion. it was all about the health care policies that were pushed through congress and pushed it down to a situation where the government is going to be mandating health care. that was the bottom line. if you don't have that kind of negative working for you, the reality becomes something else. it becomes your inability to communicate and resonate and focus on things that you don't want the voters to focus on. that is what your opponent's then exploit. obama has been very successful in this part of the cycle at keeping the focus away from the

shortcomings of this administration and focus more on his opponents. to the professor's point about looking at romney's inability to make that argument that draws un, which serves obama best right now. >> former chair of the republican national committee and former lt. governor, michael steele. thank you for being with us. [applause] >> attorney-general eric holder says the u.s. has the right to order the killing of american citizens overseas it that pose an imminent terrorist threat. his remarks are next on c-span. then republican congressman kevin brady unveiled legislation that would change the authority of the federal reserve board.

and "washington journal glo-coat tomorrow morning, the business roundtable on obama speech tuesday night. tom is our look said americans -- tom zeller looks that america's middle class. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> in this crazy world of ours, we have atom bombs. the question is not how to use them, the question is how do you restrain yourself from using them? particularly when you are commander in chief. any fool can get this country in

trouble. it takes a wise man to get out. " to our website to see video of the contenders to have a lasting impact on american politics. >> shouldn't your president have the highest moral and ethical standards and then example to our children and young people in this country? ask yourself that question, please. shouldn't his life make you a role model for future children? shouldn't anyone you elect to this office always keep his promises? >> attorney general eric holder spoke about national security issues and defended the killing of u.s. citizens abroad who are accused as terrorists. he spoke in chicago and is introduced by the dean of a law school. this is about 40 minutes.

>> good afternoon. it is my great privilege and pleasure to welcome you to northwestern law school. we are pleased this afternoon to host the honorable eric holder, attorney general of the united states. he will deliver an important policy address. before i welcome our speaker, i want to acknowledge and welcome several distinguished guests. joining us from the department of justice, chief of staff and counselor to the attorney general. a proud northwestern law alum from the class of 1976. [applause]

we also welcome the senior counselor to the attorney- general for the civil division of the department of justice. i am also pleased to welcome northwestern university's president. many of the law schools and the university of distinguished alumni. we are very pleased you could join us. the students are at the center of everything we do here. of everything we do here.