word of the day -- again, thank you for watching us tonight. i'm bill o'reilly. the spin stops here because we are looking out for you. now out to sioux city, iowa, for the debate. take it away, bret baier. [ applause ] >> bret: thanks, bill. welcome to the sioux city convention center. the site of our republican debate, first ever in iowa. how about that? this crowd is fantastic. it's sponsored by fox news and the iowa republican party. besides watching us on fox news channel, we are being streamed on foxnews.com and heard on fox news radio. now this is the final debate before the january 3 iowa caucuses. the closing arguments for the now familiar seven candidate on the stage. former senator rick santorum. texas governor rick perry.

former massachusetts governor mitt romney. former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. congressman ron paul. congresswoman michele bachmann. former utah governor jon huntsman. [ applause ] joining me at the big desk my fox news colleague, neil cavuto, chris wallace, and megyn kelly. our rules are similar to the previous fox debate. one minute for answers. 30 seconds for follow-ups. if the candidates run too long, we'll politely remind them it's time to wrap up with this sound. after a long string of debates we trust you know the drill and we won't have to use it much. we have an enthusiastic crowd here tonight and we welcome that. but we do have a limited amount of time here. we ask you to honor the fact

we're trying to keep valuable time for candidates throughout the debate. tonight's event obviously comes amid an extraordinary backdrop. the struggling american economy now further threatened by financial turmoil in europe, gridlock on capitol hill. a real threat to world security posed by iran. even as we pull the last u.s. troops out of iraq. we have received thousands of tweets and facebook messages and e-mails with suggested questions. and the overall majority of them had one theme. electability. people want to know which one of you on this stage is able to be in the best position to beat president obama in the general election. that is the number one goal for republican voters obviously. speaker gingrich, since our last debate, your position in this race changed dramatically. you are now physically at the center of the stage, which means you are at the top of the polls. yet, many republicans seem conflicted about you. they say that you are smart,

that you are a big thinker. at the same time, many of same republicans worry deeply about your electability in the general election, saying perhaps governor romney is a safer bet. can you put to rest once and for all the persistent doubts that you are indeed the right candidate on the stage to go up and beat president obama? >> well, first of all, let me say to you and to all of our viewers, merry christmas. this is a great time for us to be here. and i hope that everybody across the country has a very joyous christmas season. i have been around long enough that i remember at this exact time in 1979 when ronald reagan was running 30 points behind jimmy carter. and people said gosh, electability is the number one issue, they wouldn't have nominated him. what they said is he believes what he is talking about. he has big solutions. he can get the economy growing. he understands foreign policy

and he is the person i want to have debate jimmy carter. he carried more states against carter than fdr carried against herbert hoover in 1932. i believe i can debate barack obama and i think in seven three-hour debates, barack obama will not have a leg to stand on in trying to defend a record that is terrible and an ideology that is radical. >> bret: mr. speaker, governor romney just yesterday said you are an unreliable conservative. obviously, he is your opponent. isn't iowa governor terry branstad said today he respects you greatly but he openly questioned if you had the discipline or focus to be president. >> those are two different questions. let me take them one by one. quickly. i have a 90% american conservative union voting record for 20 years. it balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative. the first wealth entitlement reform of your lifetime, the

only one now is welfare. two out of three people went back to work or school. pretty conservative. the first tax cut in 16 years. largest capital gain in american history. unemployment came down to 4.2%. conservative. on the conservative thing, sort of laughable to suggest that somebody who campaigned with ronald reagan and with jack kemp and has had a 30-year record of conservatism is somehow not a conservative. >> bret: what about the concerns from iowa governor branstad? >> i think people have to watch my career and decide. i spent 16 years to create the first republican majority in 40 years. it spent years helping to create the first balanced budgets. i am the longest serving teacher in the military, serving one or two-star generals in art of war. i think it's fair to say my commitment to discipline systemic work is fairly obvious.

people set it aside. part of the difference is i change things when conditions change. part of the difference is i strive for large changes a i'm prepared to lead the american people to get this country back on the right track. that is a very large change. >> bret: now to my colleague, megyn kelly. >> megyn: similar question to you, congressman paul. you have some bold ideas, some fervent supports and probably the most organized ground campaign in iowa. but there are many republicans inside and outside the state who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. how can you convince them otherwise? if you don't wind up winning the nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee? >> fortunately for the republican party this year, probably everybody up here could probably beat obama. [ applause ] so the challenge isn't all that great in how we are going to beat obama. he is beats himself. the question is what do we have to offer? and i have something different

to offer. i emphasize civil libertys and pro-american foreign policy, which is a lot of different than policeman of world. i emphasize monetary policy and the things that the other candidates don't talk about. the important thing is the philosophy i talk about is the constitution and freedom. that brings people together. independents in the fold and democrats over on some of the issues. therefore i see this philosophyf being

>> bret: chris wallace? >> chris: thank you. i want to follow up on bret's line of questioning to the speaker. many of our viewers tell us they are supporting newt gingrich because they think that he will be tougher than you. in taking the fight to barack obama and next fall's debate. why would you be able to make the republican case against the president more effectively than the speaker? >> well, let's step back and talk about what is happening in the country. we're finding across america a lot of people are hurting. 25 million people out of work. stop looking for work or part-time work that need full-time jobs. a lot of people in the middle

class who have seen the incomes go down as the cost of the living gone up and up and up. the american people care deeply about having a president who can get america right again. all of us on the stage spoken in the last several debates government doesn't create jobs but the private sector does. it spent my life, my career in the private sector. it understand by the way from my successes and failures what it will take to put americans back to work with high-paying jobs. it can debate president obama based on that understanding. i have credibility on the economy when he doesn't. my successes include businesses that were successful, like staples and bright horizon children center and a steel mill in the middle of indiana, things i learned from. and failures. i remember when founders of jetblue came to me and said invest in us. i said that will never work. kind of wrong. now one of my favorite airlines. i know what it takes to get the economy going. the president doesn't. the proof is in his record. it's terrible. my record shows i can get america working again.

>> chris: congresswoman bachmann, no one questions your conservative credentials. but what about your appeal to independents who are so crucial in a general election? if you are fortunate enough to become the republican nominee, how would you counter the efforts by the barack obama campaign to paint you as too conservative to moderate voters? >> well, it's very clear in the last five years i have won four elections as the first republican woman ever to win out of the state of minnesota. i did that by attracting not only republicans by independents and democrats as well. people wanted to know who could they trust? they knew that in me they may not always agree with me but they knew i was a woman who said what she meant and meant what she said. and they respected that level of authenticity and sincerity. they also knew i was an action person. that i wasn't just going to sit on my hands. i was going to work and serve them. that is what i've done. i have worked very hard in the

united states congress in the brief time i have been there. i'm 55 years old. it spent 50 years as a real person. now five years going toe to toe with barack obama. taking him on, on every issue from dodd-frank to cap and trade and illegal immigration to obamacare. and i will do that as president of the united states. that is my proven track record. >> bret: neil cavuto? >> neil: thank you, bret. governor perry, by your own admission you are not a great debater. you have said as much. downplayed debating skills in general. but if you were to become your party's nominee, you would be going up against an accomplished debater in barack obama. there are many in this audience tonight, sir, who fear that possibility. and don't think you are up to the fight. allay them of their concerns. >> i want to share something with you. as each one of these debates -- i'm kind of getting where i like the debates. i hope obama and i debate a lot. i'll get there early. we will get it on and we will

talk about our differences which are great. i'll talk about what we have done in the state of texas and talk about passing a balanced budget amendment to the united states congress. i'll talk about having, the type of part-time congress that i think americans are ready for. you know, there are a lot of people out there, i understand it. there are a lot of folks that said tim tebow wasn't going to be a very good n.f.l. quarterback. there are people that stood up and said well, he doesn't have the right throwing mechanisms, or he doesn't -- you know, he is not playing the game right. you know, he won two national championships. and that looked pretty good. we're the national champions in job creation back in texas. but am i ready for the next level? let me tell you, i hope i am the tim tebow of the iowa caucuses. >> neil: governor huntsman, your campaign has been praised by moderates but many question your ability to galvanize republicans, energize the

conservative base of the party. they are especially leerily of your refusal to sign on to a no tax-hike pledge. how can you reassure them tonight? >> i think people, neil, are coming around to finding that i am the consistent conservative in this race. they are coming around to find that i am not going to pander. i am not going to contort myself in a pretzel to please any audience i'm in front of. i'm not going to sign the silly pledges. you know what else? i'm not going to show up at a donald trump debate. this nation has been downgraded. this nation is on the cusp of the third government shutdown. we have been kicked around as people. we are getting screwed as americans. i'm here to tell you, we are going to lead charge in doing what must be done in addressing the two deficits we have. we have an economic deficit in this country, and is it going to shipwreck the next

generation unless we deal with it. we have a trust deficit. people in this country don't trust the institutions of power anymore. we need to go to congress and we need to say you need term limits. we need to go to congress and say you need to close that revolving door that allows members of congress to file on out and lobby. we need to go to wall street and say no trust there either. because we have banks that are too big to fail. i'm telling you, neil, i'm the person that is going to leave the charge on all of the above and fix the economic deficit but i'll fix this country's trust deficit. we're too good as people to be in the hole we're in. we deserve better. >> bret: as governor huntsman mentioned there is a real drama playing out real-time in washington right now with the threat of yet another government shutdown, the possibility that millions of americans could see their payroll taxes go up. if you're president, as is the case now, and you are at lagerhead with one chamber of

congress, how would you hand this situation? 30 seconds down the line. start with senator santorum. >> well, you do what leaders do. they go out and try to bring people together. they tell a narrative and remind americans who we are and how we solve our problems. this country is a great country because we believe in free people. in 2008, the american public were convinced by barack obama that nay needed someone to believe in, that they could believe in. we now understand what we need is some president who believes in them. that is the narrative. go out and motivate the american public. have them talk to their representatives in washington. to pass solutions that believe in bottom up, how we built america, free market, free people. >> bret: governor perry? >> after three years, you would think this president could learn how to work in washington, d.c. if there has ever been a greater example of on-the-job training, this is it. couldn't have been at a worst time for america. we need a president who has

the governing executive experience and someone who understands how to work with both sides of the aisle. frankly, we should never have gotten this point at all. the idea he walked away from the work at hand and we had a supercommittee, that was put in place, that was going to fail on its face. that is the type of leadership that this president has been an absolute failure at and the type i have been working at as the governor of texas for the last 11 years. >> bret: governor romney? >> this is a question that ought to take longer than 30 seconds or even 60 seconds. the question of the presidency. what is leadership? i had the disadvantage of some respects becoming governor of a state with a legislature 85% democrat. turned out to be a blessing in disguise. to get anything done, i had to learn how to get respect of the speaker of the house and the senate president and democratic leaders. i found a way to do that. to find common ground from time to time. when crisis arose, we were able to work together. that is what has to happen. there are democrats who love america, as republicans do. but we need to have a leader in the white house, that knows how to lead.

i have had four leadership experiences in my life where i lead enterprises. i want to use that experience to get america right again. i will do it as president. >> bret: we will have many more questions about gridlock in washington and the topic overall. speaker gingrich? >> i want to start by reinforcing what governor romney just said. leadership is the key. when you have a sal alinsky radical doesn't do the job of president because he's running for re-election, the constitution can't work. it helped ronald reagan when tip o'neil was speaker to get enough votes to pass the reagan program despite democratic majority. as speaker, one reason some people aren't happy with my leadership i worked things out with bill clinton to get welfare reform, tax cut and four balanced budgets signed in a way that required bipartisanship, because you couldn't get anything done otherwise. leadership matters immensely in getting this done. >> bret: congressman paul? >> the main problem we have is

the government is too big and debt is too big and you have to cut spending so you have to get people to come together. they have been coming together to increase spending for decades. we have to get them to come together to do the opposite. two factions up there. one wants welfare and the other wants warfare around the world and pleasing the world. if you go to people who like warfare you say give me half of the cuts that have to be in the welfare. go to welfare people and say give me the cuts to cut the oversea warfare spending and bring people together and live up to what they say. >> bret: congresswoman bachmann? >> as p of the united states i would have called all 535 members of congress to come sit down in washington last summer looking at the debt ceiling crisis. what i would have done is said there are three principles we are going to follow, because the first one needs to be no new taxes. we're taxed enough already. the second principle needed to be the government can't spend any more money than what it is taking in. the third principle had to be that we were going to follow the constitution of the united states.

what that would have meant we would have looked at $15 trillion debt in the eye and said we are not going to add one more cent to it. we are going to prioritize the spending and put the reform in the long-term programs now. not wait eight months or five months. we are going to reform right now. >> bret: governor huntsman? >> leadership is action, not words. it learned a very important lesson about this when i ran for governor in 2004. i promised the people of my state as governor we would create the finest state in america for business. i ran on a flat tax proposal. it took us two years, we got it delivered. flat. i hear a lot of people talk about tax reform and flat tax, we actually got one done. the finest business in the united states we delivered to the people. healthcare reform without mandate. the list went on and on and on. i ran for re-election. i got almost 80% of the vote. not because i'm a great politician, but i learned some lessons in leadership. people want to be told where you can take them and then

they want you to deliver. >> bret: thank you. we have many more interesting questions coming up. we have a new feature for you tonight. how well are the candidates answering the questions. we are asking you to weigh in on twitter. tweet the candidate's last name and #answer if they are answering it or #dodge if you think they are avoiding it. go to foxnews.com/debate to see results. in the break, head there to check it out. if you have a suggested question or a followup to something you have heard, tweet @bretbaier. we will use some of those suggested questions tonight. after the break, the candidates on the increasingly sharp tone of this campaign, the economy and a topic that has not been raised in any of the debates so far. stay with us. how can you get back pain relief that lasts up to 16 hours?

with thermacare heatwraps. that's 8 hours while you wear it, plus an additional 8 hours of relief after you take it off. can your patch say that? for up to 16 hours of relief... try thermacare.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening from sioux city in northwest iowa. i'm matt strawn, chairman of the iowa g.o.p. four years after propelling barack obama to the white house, iowa has seen a surge of new republican voters as iowa republicans posted 33 straight months of voter registration gain. as the republicans prepare to vote in 19 days, we understand the responsibility that comes with the privilege of being first in the nation. because the fight to reclaim the white house extends far beyond iowa's borders we want you to be the first to know. so text iowa to 91919 to know the result and other updates. thank you. now let's return to the final

debate before the january 3 iowa caucus. >> bret: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome back to sioux city, iowa, and the republican presidential debate. for next round of questions, i turn to my colleague chris wallace. >> chris: thank you, bret. candidates, i will call this section for lack of a better word "d.c. culture." governor romney, i will begin with you. speaker gingrich says you should give back the millions of dollars you made in his words bankrupting companies and laying off employees. you responded that he has in your words an extraordinary lack of understanding of how the economy works. his comments dovetail with daringmentarguments you hear fre democrats on your belief of the creative destruction of capitalism, shows a hard heartedness. what do you think of what speaker gingrich said about you and are you vulnerable to that attack? >> it's a great opportunity for us. i think the president will level the same attack. he will go after me and say in businesses that you have invested in, they didn't all

succeed. some failed. some laid people off. he will be absolutely right. but if you look at all the businesses we invested in, over 100 different businesses, they added tens of thousands of jobs. in the real world that the president has not lived in, i actually think he doesn't understand that not every business succeeds, and not every entrepreneur is lucky now have to do as well as entrepreneurs at bright horizons, staples and the steel company and many others. i, myself, have had the chance to lead four different organizations and each of those was highly successful. in part because of hard work and in part because of good luck. in the real world some things don't make it. i believe i learned from the successes and the failures. the president i'll look at and say mr. president, how did you do running general motors of the president? took it over. gee, you closed down factories. you closed down dealerships. he said i did that to save the business. same with us, mr. president. we did our best to make the businesses succeeded. i'm pleased they did and i

learned the lessons of how the economy works. this president doesn't know how the economy works. i believe to create jobs it helps to have created jobs. >> chris: thank you. speaker gingrich, on the freddie mac website in 2007, you said this -- "i like the gse, or government sponsored enterprise, like freddie mac model. making homeownership more affordable is a policy goal that i believe conservatives should embrace." w recent debate you said politicians like barney frank, who in your words profited from the environment that led to the financial meltdown should go to jail. now that it turns out that you were on the freddie mac payroll to the tune of more than $1.6 million, how do you answer critics who say you are being hypocritical? >> i think pretty straightforward. barney frank was in public office, with direct power over freddie mac. he exploited that power, just as chris dodd was in public office when he got special

bargains from countrywide, a firm which went broke. they were using power. i was a private citizen engaged in a business like any other business. now, if you read the whole thing that they posted i said they need more regulations, and i want to go back to my point about helping people buy houses. it work for years with habitat for humanity. it is a good conservative principle to find ways to help families right at the margin learn how to budget. learn how to take care of a house. learn how to buy a house. i am not going to step back from an idea that we should have as a goal helping as many americans as possible, be capable of buying homes. when you look for example at the electric membership coopts and credit unions, there are a lot of government sponsored enterprises that are awfully important and do an awfully good job. >> chris: congressman paul, you are, having been in this town for 48 hours now, you are all over iowa tv these days.

with a negative ad about speaker gingrich. you accuse him of selling accession and playing the corrupt revolving door game. what about the explanation you just heard he is in the private sector and this is free enterprise? >> he has a different definition of private sector than i have. it's a g.s.e. government sponsoredder is prize. that iprize -- sponsored enterp. it's a government agency. it gets mixed up. the worst kind of economy. pure, private enterprise more closely to what governor romney is involved with. if it's government sponsored it is a mixture of business and government. some say if it goes to extreme it becomes fascism, because big business and big government get together. they get money. i was talking about that for a long time. line of credit, excessive credit from the reserve, community reinvestment act for ten years. the austria economist knew there was a bubble. at this time, nobody was listening or doing anything in the congress.

then to go to work for them and get money from them, it literally is coming from the taxpayer. they went broke. we had to bail them out. indirectly that was money he ended up getting. they are still getting money from a government sponsored enterprise. it's not a free market enterprise. >> chris: speaker gingrich, 30 seconds to respond. >> go back to what i said a minute ago. the term "government sponsored enterprise" has a wide range of things that do good. go across the state and talk to people in electric membership coopt or talk to people in the credit unions. there are a lot of good institutions that are government sponsored. frankly the idea that anything that ever touched government could raise questions about doctors dealing with medicare and medicaid and a range of other government activities. there are many things that governments do. i did no lobbying of any kind for any organization. that was a key part of every agreement we had. >> chris: well, let me pick up with that with you, congresswoman bachmann,

because you accuse speaker gingrich of peddling his influence with the congressional republicans to help companies that paid him tens of millions of dollars since he left office. given his denial over time and again tonight that he denies ever having lobbied, what is your evidence, hard evidence that he engaged and influenced peddling? >> the fact that we know he cashed paychecks from freddie mac. that is the best evidence you can have. over $1.6 million. frankly, i am shocked listening to the former speaker of the house because he is defending the continuing practice of freddie mac and fannie mae. there is a big difference between a credit union and freddie mac and fannie mae. they were the epicenter of the mortgage financial meltdown. i was trying to see these two entities put in bankruptcy because they frankly need to go away when the speaker had his hand out and he was taking $1.6 million to influence senior republicans to keep the

scam -- -- [ loss of audio ] thbuilt up. >> chris: speaker gingrich? >> well, the easy answer is that is just not true. what she just said is factually not true. i never lobbied under any circumstance. i never went in and suggested in any way we do this. in fact, i tried to help defeat the housing act when the democrats were in charge of the house. if you go back and talk to former congressman rick lazio, they said while we were passing housing reform when i was speaker i never tried to slow down the reform effort. i helped him pass the reform bill. some of the people should have facts before they make the wild allegations. >> chris: go ahead. congresswoman? >> well, after the debates

that we had last week, it was said that everything i said was true. evidence is that speaker gingrich took $1.6 million. you don't need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyists to still be influence peddling with senior republicans in washington, d.c. to get them to do your bidding. and the bidding was to keep the grandiose scam of freddie mac going. that is something that our nominee can't stand for. we have to shut down the government enterprises. we have to end them. it's shocking that he is saying that. >> bret: speaker gingrich quickly. >> two things. first, my policy is to break up both fannie mae and freddie mac. it's not anything like what you just described. second, i want to state unequivocally for every person watching tonight. i have never once changed my positions because of any kind

of payment. because the truth is i was a national figure who is doing just fine, doing a whole variety of things including writing best-selling books, making speeches, and the fact is i only chose to work with people whose values i shared and having people have a chance to buy a house is the value i believe still is important in america. >> bret: now to neil cavuto with questions about the economy. >> neil: speaker gingrich, not to make you a target. but you. >> it goes with being right here. >> neil: you just responded this morning, tweeted originally and follow-up statements of a major break through of the plan on the part of republican congressman paul ryan working with democratic senator ron white to find a sort of updated way to keep medicare solvent. this would involve a choice. those who like the program as it is can stick with it. they will be a private option, et cetera. but earlier on, this might

have confused congressman ryan and others for whom you had said was the initial medicare fix it was right wing social engineering. later on you backed off that comment and said there was much you could find in mr. ryan's plan to like. can you blame governor romney for saying you have a consistency problem on this issue? >> i'm not in the business of blaming romney. i f you go back to look at the "meet the press" quote did i want reference him. i'll say it again. a free society should make very big decisions with the support of the people. now you can earn that support, you can win a communications argument. reagan was very, very good at that. the only point i was making on meet the press is when you are going to have a major change, you have to communicate with the american people to ensure that they are for you. governor romney came up frankly with a very good variation on the ryan plan allowed the maintenance of the current system. paul has adopted that.

i think did a very brave act by senator ron widen you have a democrat willing to cosponsor the bill. i endorsed the concept today. it's a big step forward. governor romney deserves some of the credit to help figure out a way to make this thing workable. it's a nice thing to actually have a bipartisan plan in washington that we could look at in a positive way. and hope would help save medicare. >> neil: governor romney do you want to respond to that compliment? >> thank you. yeah, i hope people understand just how big today is for this country. we have all understand that the spending crisis is extraordinary with $15 trillion now in debt, with the president that racked up as much debt as all the other presidents combined. but there is another problem we have. which is our national balance sheet. which of the obligations that we have made, that we have no funding behind. it adds up to $62 trillion. today republicans and democrats came together. with senator widen and congressman paul ryan to say we have a solution to remove

the $62 trillion. this is a big day for our kids and grand kids. enormous achievement. it means we finally have the prospect of dealing with somebody which has the potential of crushing our future generations and a good democrat and a good republican came together. this is the impact of people on both sides of the aisle that care about america in a critical time. i applaud him. good news. >> neil: congressman paul, as you have been warning, we are on the brink of another government shutdown because of the spending that you call out of control. but having you contributed to that spending problem yourself, sir, supporting over the years earmarks that have benefited your district and your state? back in 2009, you explained this by saying if i can give my district any money back, i encourage that. i don't think that the federal government should be doing it but if they are going to allot the money, i have a responsibility to represent my people.

isn't that what they call a mixed message? >> it's a mixed question is the problem, because the real message is you should include in your question also you have never voted once for an earmark. it's a principle that i deal with. because if the government takes money from you and you throw out your tax form, you take your deductions. i look at that the same way in our communities. they take our money, they take our highway funds. and we have every right to apply for them to come back. as a matter of fact, it's a bigger principle for me than that. i think the whole thing is out of control on the earmarks, because i think the congress has an obligation to earmark every penny. not to deliver that power to the executive branch. what happens when you don't vote for the earmarks it goes in to the slush fund, the executive branch spends the money. then you have to grovel to the executive branch and beg and plead and say oh, please return my highway funds to me. so if this whole principle of budgeting that is messed up,

but i never vote, i never voted for an earmark. but i do argue the case for my, the people i represent to try to get their money back if at all possible. >> neil: but isn't that the same thing of having your cake and eating it too? you can complain about earmarks but then if there are provisions there that help your district or your state, that is different. 434 felt the same way, how would we ever fix the problem? >> i don't complain about the earmarks. it is the principle of the congress meeting their obligation. if everybody did what i did, there would be no earmarks. the budget would be balanced and we'd be cutting 80% of the spending. so that would be the solution. but you also want to protect the process. you have want to emphasize the responsibility of the congress, and not delivering more power to the president. it would be a different kind of president. i wouldn't be looking for more power. everybody wants to be a powerful executive and run things. i, as the president, wouldn't

want to run the world. i don't want to police individual activities and their lifestyle. i don't want to run the economy. that is an entirely different philosophy but it's very much in our tradition and tradition of our constitution. >> neil: governor perry, you said the only way to stop our spending problem is to get congress to stop spending. quoting you, sir, you said i vetoed 82 bills in my first year as governor of texas. i have a railroad of keeping spending under control. but as texas agricultural commissioner you oversaw a loan guarantee program that as the "austin american statesman" reported at the time had so many holes that the state had to stop guarantee bank loans to startup in the agri business and bailed out the program with the taxpayer money. aren't you guilty of the same behavior you rail against as presidential candidate? >> two things. don't believe everything you read in the "austin american statesman."

the second time is we had that program put in place and the state did not bail out those programs work as they were supposed to work. just like in any bank or business, you will have some that fail. but i want to go back and talk about just a second the issue of where we had a big back-and-forth about whether newt was involved in untoward activity. the issue we ought to be talking about on the stage is how you overhaul washington, d.c. the idea that you can't tell the difference between lobbying and consulting. the idea that we have congress staying there as many days as they do and the salary they have. that is the reason i have called for a part-time congress. cut their pay in half. cut their time in washington in half. cut their staff in half. send them home. let them get a job like everybody else back home has and live within the laws of which they passed. we do that and pass a balanced budget amendment of the united states constitution and the

conversations we've been having up here will be minor. >> neil: by the way, they work 151 days last year. how much more would constitute part-time? >> i would suggest to you maybe 140 days every other year like we do in texas. >> neil: governor huntsman, as you're probable familiar, the chinese just left huge tariffs up to 22% on imports of some american sports utility vehicles, larger american cars. now as a former ambassador to china and one who argued for adult conversation with beijing, how would you respond to what some are calling a childish move on the part of a country that routinely averts the international trade rules? >> it's a large complicated rule. part pakistan, part burma and part south china sea and military to military engagement. you move one end of the relationship and it impacts the other. best thing to do is find a few

dissidents seeking freedom and expand democracy in china to the united states embassy. the kind of thing i used to do. that is what matt torres chinese people who are looking for change and -- that is what matters to the chinese people looking for change and reform. that is the kind of thing that over time is going to create enough swell of change in reform in that country that will make a u.s. -china relationship successful longer term. because eventually, we need more than just a transactional relationship. we need shared values infused in this relationship. let's face it, the 21 z century will only have two relationships that matter. the united states and china. for that to succeed we need shared values. that is democracy, human rights. that is recognition of the role of the internet in society. that is greater tolerance toward religion and so much more. as president of the united states, i would drive that home. i would make it a relationship that worked. >> neil: senator santorum, right now american companies have trillions parked overseas

because of the very high tax rate here. would you support a tax holiday to bring that money back, but only under as some democrats suggested the condition that the companies hire workers with that money? >> yeah, what i proposed in the made in the usa plan is that if money has been made overseas, that it can come back at 5.5% rate, which is what we did in 2004 and it did cause a lot of money to come back. but i put a special rate, 0%. if they bring it back and invest it in equipment in america. we need to rebuild the manufacturerring base of the country. when i travel around to all of the counties in iowa, i went to a lot of small towns. like sydney and ha hamberg in fremont county and the other day in newton where they lost jobs overseas. why? we are not competitive. we need our capital competitive and come here free to invest it. cut the corporate tax, manufacturerrings to zero. why? there is a 20% cost

differential between america and the nine top trading partners. that is excluding labor costs. we need to get the taxes down and repeal the regulations. i promise to repeal every single obamacare regulation. every single obama regulation that cost businesses over $100 million. i can repeal it. i can't repeal laws but as a president you can repeal regulations, and i will repeal every single one of them so business can get going in this country. >> bret: thank you, neil. this question is from twitter. it's for you, governor romney. @alreadyeonjamespage tweets over the next ten years in what sector or industries will most of the new jobs be created? >> the great thing is the free market will decide that. government won't. we have a president, someone who doesn't understand how the economy works. and thinks that as a government, he can choose for instance which energy sector will be successful. so he invests as a venture

capitalist in certain car companies with electric battery power. not understanding that perhaps toyota and g.m. could do a better job than tesla and fisker. the president goes into solyndra because he thinks that solar power is the future. let the markets determine what the future course of our economy will be. what do i happen to be the future? i think manufacturing is going to come back. for some of the reasons that rick indicated, manufacturing will come back to the u.s. i think high-tech is going to be extraordinary source of growth for a long time in this country. and energy. we have extraordinary energy resources in this country. opening those up, our president holds them off, doesn't give them the permits to start drilling and getting the natural gas and oil. those are some of the areas that are extraordinarily powerful. this economy has every potential to continue to lead the world. our president thinks america is in decline. it is if he is president. it's not if i'm president. this is going to be an american century. >> thank you, governor romney.

now to megyn kelly with the next round of questions. this is a new topic. >> megyn: this is something we have heard pressure little about in the election, but something that is an important issue for a lot of voters. speaker gingrich, let me start with you. you have proposed a plan to subpoena judges to testify before congress about controversial decisions they make. in certain cases you advocate impeaching judges or abolishing courts altogether. two conservative former attorneys general criticized the plan saying it alters the checks and balances of the three branches of government. they used words like "dangerous," "outrageous" and "totally irresponsible." are they wrong? >> the first half is right. it alters the balance because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and arrogant in the misreading of the american future. there is an entire paper at

newt.org,vy been working on this project since 2002 when the ninth circuit court said one nation under god is unconstitutionable in the "pledge of allegiance" and i decided the judges that are so radically anti-american they thought "one nation under god" was wrong, they shouldn't be on the court. i taught a course in this at the university of georgia law school and testified in front of sitting justices at georgetown law school and i warned them, if you keep attacking the core base of the american exceptionalism and you will find an uprising against you which will rebalance the judiciary. we have a balance of three branchs. not a judicial dictatorship in this country. that is what the "federalist" papers promised us. like jefferson, jackson, lincoln and fdr i'd take on the judiciary if it did not restrict itself in what it was doing. >> megyn: these are conservative former attorneys general that criticized the plan as dangerous, ridiculous,

outrageous, totally irresponsible. >> sure. first, did they study jefferson? abolished 18 of 35 federal judges. 18 were abolished. >> megyn: something highly criticized. >> not by anybody in power in 1802. jefferson himself asked the supreme court supreme? he said that absurd. that would be aligacky. lincoln in the first inaugural address in 196 1861 said no nine people can make law. that would be end of the freedom. as a historian, i understand this better than lawyers, and as lawyers the two attorneys general are behaving like law schools with overly empowered lawyers to think they can dictate to the rest of us. >> megyn: congresswoman bachmann, you heard speaker gingrich, you heard speaker gingrich reference the ninth circuit court of appeals. that is one of courts he has suggested abolishing.

a left-leaning court, and as he points out and has done before he believes it's an activist court because in part it was a court that issued a ruling striking down "under god" in the pledge years ago. decision reversed by the supreme court later. do you agree that the ninth circuit should be abolished? and if so, what would then happen if a democratic president came in office and we had a democratically controlled congress that later took aim at the right-leaning federal courts? where would it end? >> where it needs to end is under the constitution of the united states. that is the real issue. are the courts following the constitution or aren't they following the constitution? it isn't just congress that gets it wrong. it's the courts that get it wrong as well. >> megyn: what do you do about it? >> what we need to do about it is have both the president and the united states congress take their authority back. and i would agree with newt gingrich, that i think that the congress and the president of the united states have failed to take their authority. because now we have gotten to the point where we think the

final arbiter of law is the court system. it isn't. the intention of the founders was that the courts would be the least powerful system of government. and if we give to the courts the right to make law, then the people will have lost their representation. they need to hold on to their representation. that is why i commend iowans because they chose not to retain three judges that decided that marriage would be in their residence -- [ applause ] iowans decided to take their constitution back. that is what the american people need to do. take the constitution back. and as president of the united states, i would only appoint judges to the supreme court who believe in the original intent of the constitution. >> megyn: congressman paul, let me ask you. do you believe what the two candidates have said, that it would be okay to abolish courts like the ninth circuit court of appeals entirely or

judges, impeach them if congressmen don't decide they like the ruling? >> the congress can get rid of the courts say if a judge misbehaves or is unethical and gets in trouble, the proper procedure is impeachment. but to subpoena judges before the congress, i'd really question that. and if you get too careless about abolishing courts that could open up a can of worms. there could be retailiation. so it should be serious, yes, we are frustrated with this. but the whole thing is if you just say well, we are going to -- okay, there are ten courts. let's get rid of three this year because they ruled a way we didn't like. that to me is i think opening up can of worms for us. would lead to trouble. but i really, really question this idea that the congress could subpoena judges. and bring them before us. that is a real affront to the separation of the powers. >> megyn: governor romney, many people believe that the way to rein in activist judges

is to be careful in appointing or nominating the judges in the first place. as governor of massachusetts, you passed over republicans for three quarters of the judicial vacancies you faced. instead nominating democrats or independents. with that track record, why should republicans believe that you will appoint conservatives to the bench if you become president? >> well, i have to let you know in massachusetts i actually don't get to appoint the judges. i get to nominate them. they go before something known as the governor's council. it consists of, i believe, seven members, all of whom are elected democrats. and so to be able to get my appointments through i had to have people of both parties. the people i put forward all were individuals who i vetted very carefully to make sure they would follow the rule of law. these are largely people going in criminal courts. i chose overwhelmingly people who had been prosecutors in their prior experience. so we had that kind of justice. let me note that the key thing the president is going to do is going to be with the longest legacy, appointing supreme court and justices throughout the judicial system. as many as half of the

justices in the next four years are going to be appointed by the next president. this is a critical time to choose someone who believes in conservative principles. i don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to have congress overseeing justices. the only boot that has less credibility than justice is congress so let's not have them in power of overseeing the justices. however, we don't call it we the judges. we call it we, the people. we do have the ability to remove justices that need to be impeached. we also have the ability to pass new amendments if we think a justice is taken the nation in the wrong direction. and if a statute is misinterpreted congress can write a statute to clarify that point. we have ability to rein in excessive judges. >> megyn: go down a name, favorite supreme court justice. current. >> vy to say of these folks over here have been talking about taking on the courts. i have done it. i campaigned in iowa. against the justices. i was the only one on this

panel that did it. number one. number two, when the partial birth abortion status struck down by the supreme court, george bush got elected we went back and i worked with henry hyde and passed another bill, told the supreme court they were wrong. passed it, george bush signed it and it was overturned. we can talk about reform and doing something to confront the courts, or you can actually go out and make it happen. i made it happen. and it's tops. >> megyn: quickly down the line. favorite current supreme court justice. >> as quickly as i can, but when i talk about overhauling washington, d.c., one of the things i talk about besides a part-time congress is no longer having lifetime terms for the federal bench. i think that is one of the ways that you keep these unaccountable legislators from rogues to try to dictate to the rest of us. i say you pick alito, roberts, thomas. pick one. >> megyn: all right. would you pick one, please. >> roberts, thomas, alito,

scalia. >> i think that is a darn good list. i would sign up for the guys. scalia is probably the most intellectual of the four. they're all four terrific judges. we had nine judges as good as those four we would be happy with the supreme court. >> megyn: congressman paul? >> from my point they're all good and all bad. our country a long time ago split freedom up to two pieces. personal liberty and economic liberty. the judges as the congress and the nation think it's two issues. it's but one issue. therefore, congress is on this issue as well as our judges. >> megyn: last chance to say a name. >> no, i'm not going to -- all of them are good and all of them are bad. >> megyn: congresswoman bachmann? >> i do think that there are good justices. i would put antonin scalia at the top of the list. i would also include clarence thomas and john roberts and alito. they are all marvelous. it could be easy topy any one of them. >> one of the reasons i'm optimistic about the future of

this country is because we have rule of law. let's face it. one of the great things that this country has that very few other countries have. so judiciary is critically important. it's also important to note that governors actually some experience appointing judges. you got to make the hard decisions. as i reflect on those today serve i'll say justice roberts and justice alito fit the bill nicely. >> megyn: thank you, all. >> bret: valueian value -- a vat effort. >> megyn: i tried. >> bret: coming up, the threat from iran and other foreign policy hot spots. up-and-down oil prices. border issues. controversial social issues. stay with us. remember, tweet @bretbaier with a question or followup. we'll be right back. this is an rc robotic claw. my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three years we've put nearly 1 million dollars

into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪ for a hot dog cart. my mother said, "well, maybe we ought to buy this hot dog cart and set it up someplace." so my parents went to bank of america. they met with the branch manager and they said, "look, we've got this little hot dog cart, and it's on a really good corner.

let's see if we can buy the property." and the branch manager said, "all right, i will take a chance with the two of you." and we've been loyal to bank of america for the last 71 years. my dis best absorbedlcium in small continuous amounts.

only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal. if you have painful, swollen joints, i've been in your shoes. one day i'm on top of the world... the next i'm saying... i have this thing called psoriatic arthritis. i had some intense pain. it progressively got worse. my rheumatologist told me about enbrel. i'm surprised how quickly my symptoms have been managed. [ male announcer ] because enbrel suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been tated for heart faure, or if, while on enbr, you experience

persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ male announcer ] enbrel. the #1 biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. ♪ ♪ >> bret: welcome back to sioux city. and the republican presidential debate. fired up crowd. ready for hour number two. we begin hour number two with an important topic. foreign policy. congressman paul, many middle east experts now say iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. now judging from your past statements, even if you have solid intelligence that iran in fact was going to get a nuclear weapon, president paul would remove the

u.s. sanctions on iran, included those added by the obama administration. so to be clear, g.o.p. nominee paul wld be running left of president obama on the issue of iran? >> but i would be running with the american people, because it would be a much better policy. for you to say that there is some scientific evidence and some people arguing that maybe in a year they might have a weapon. there is a lot more saying they don't have it. there is no u.n. evidence of that happening. clepper in our national security department says there is no evidence. it's no different than it was in 2003. you know what i really fear about what is happening here? this is another iraq coming. war propaganda going on. and we're arguing -- to me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact and we will soon bomb iran. the sentiment is very mixed. it's very mixed. even in israel.

you know, the head of the security for israel who recently retired said it wouldn't make sense to do this, to take them out because they might have a weapon. i would say that the greatest danger is overreacting. there is no evidence that they have it. and it would make more sense, if we live through the cold war, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us we ought to really look back and seek and not jump the gun and believe we are going to be attacked. that is how we got into that useless war in iraq and lost so much in iraq. >> bret: congressman paul, the question was based on the premise that you had solid intelligence. you actually had solid intelligence as president paul. and yet you still at that point would pull back u.s. sanctions, and again as a g.o.p. nominee would be running left of president obama on this issue. >> yes. all we're doing is promoting their desire to have it.

ahoud barrack the defense minister for israel said that if he were in iran, he would probably want a nuclear weapon, too, because they are surrounded for geo-political reasons. so that is an understanding. so the fact they are surrounded, they have a desire. how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? with a lot more respect. what did we do with libya? we talked to them. we talked them out of their nuclear weapon. then we killed them. so, it makes more sense to work with people. and the whole thing is that nuclear weapons are loaded over there. pakistan, israel has 300 of them. we have our ships there. we got to get it in a proper context. we don't need another war. >> bret: understood. you make that point quite a lot. i'm going to -- i'll try one more time. iran is reportedly running exercises on closing the strait of hormuz. a key passage as you know for global trade. what should the u.s. response be if iran were to take that

dramatic step? >> this is -- the plans are on the book. all they talk about is when are we, the west, going to bomb iran? so why wouldn't they talk about they don't have a weapon, they don't have a nuclear weapon, why wouldn't they try to send out some information and say you know, if you come and bomb us, we might close the strait of hormuz down. so already the president, i think is wisely backing off on the sanctions, because it will be an economic calamity if you take all the oil out of europe. so i think it make sense. he knows these sanctions are overreaching. sanctions are an act of war when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. we need to approach this differently. we have 12,000 diplomats in the services. we have ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while. >> bret: okay. just a reminder again, that little friendly beep is when you wrap up. senator santorum, you have a very different thought about the threat from iran.

for several years according to the u.s. military leaders iran provided training, funding and lethal arms to jihaddist killing american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. are those acts of war? >> they have been continually. they tried to plan an attack in the country kidding the saudi ambassador. they have been at war since 1979. the i.e.d. killed so many soldiers are manufacturerred in iran. iran is not any other country. it's ruled by the equivalent of al-qaeda on top of this country. they are a radical theocracy. the principle virtue of iran according to president ahmadinejad is not freedom or opportunity. it's martyrdom. the idea that mutual assured destruction like the policy during the cold war with the soviet union would work on iran when their principle virtue is martyrdom is mutual destruction with respect to iran would not be any kind of,

you know, idea of preventing a war. it would be inducement to a war. this is what their objective is. their objective is to in fact create a calamity. this is what their theology teaches. they believe it is their mission to take on the west. they don't hate us because of what we do or the policies we have. they hate us because of who we are and what we believe in. we need to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon. and we should be working with the state of israel right now, we should use covert activity and we should be planning a strike against their facilities and say if you do not open up the facilities and not close them down, we will close them down for you. >> bret: governor romney, this week president obama said the u.s. asked iran to give our downed high-tech drone back. as you know iranians have it on display and claim to be

extracting data from it and have no intention of giving it back. yesterday you called the president's response "extraordinarily weak and timid." if your book you write weakness invites challenges, act of intimidation, aggression and sometimes war. in this case, are president obama's actions inviting war? >> absolutely. there is timidity and weakness inviting aggression on the part of other people? absolutely. a strong america, a strong america is the best ally peace has ever known. this is a president that the spy drone being brought down, he says pretty please? foreign policy based on pretty please? you have to be kidding. this is a president who fundamentally believes that the next century is the post american century. perhaps it will be the chinese century. he is wrong. it has to be the american century. america has to lead the free world. the free world has to lead the entire world.

the right course under president obama's plans is to shrink our military. thinking somehow if we appease or accommodate the tyrants of the world, the world is stronger. he's wrong. we need to strengthen our value, family and military. rebuild the navy and modernize the air force. these are 100,000 new additional troops in the military. take care of our veterans in a way they deserve. time to recognize once again a strong military does not create war. a strong america prevents people from trying to test us around the world. >> bret: congresswoman bachmann, today is the official end of the u.s. military operation in iraq. there is real concern as you know about growing iranian influence inside iraq. also the deputy prime minister there is expressing concern about country possibly slipping into civil war. are there any circumstances as president where you would send

u.s. troops back in to iraq? >> well, i think clearly the biggest mistake that president obama has made and there are many when it comes to foreign policy, has been the decision that he made regarding iraq. he was essentially given on a silver platter victory in iraq. he is choosing intentionally to lose the peace. we all know what is going to happen. we know that iran is going to be the hedgemon and try to come in iraq and have the dominant influence. then iraq will essentially have dominance from the persian gulf all the way to the mediterranean through its ally syria. with all due respect to ron paul, i think i have never heard a more dangerous answer for american security than the one that we just heard from ron paul. i'll tell you the reason why. the reason why i would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt

that iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally israel off the face of the map. and they stated they will use it against the united states of america. look no further than the iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up for worldwide calworldwide caliphat. we would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan. >> bret: congressman paul? >> obviously, i would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. i don't want iran to have a nuclear weapon. i would like to reduce them because there would be less chance of war. but to declare war on 1.2 billion muslims and say all muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. yeah, there are some radicals. but they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. do they go to switzerland and sweden? that is obsurd. -- absurd.

they come here and explicitly explain it to us. the c.i.a. has explained it to us. it said they come here and they want to do us harm because we are bombing them. what is the whole world about the drone being in iran? we're begging and pleading and how are we going to start a war to get the drone back? why were we flying a drone over iran? why do we have to bomb so many countries? why are we -- why do we have 900 bases in 130 countries and we're totally bankrupt. how do you rebuild a military when we have no money? how are we going to take care of the people? i think, i think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. the danger is really us overreacting. we need a strong national defense. and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war and carelessly flubbing it and starting these wars so often. >> bret: speaker gingrich,

congressman paul. >> can i respond to that? >> bret: go ahead. >> the problem would be the greatest underreaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off face of the earth. then we have an iaea report that recently came out that says literally iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. nothing could be more dangerous than the comments we just heard. >> bret: all right, 30 seconds. >> there is no u.n. report that said. they's totally wrong on what you just said. >> iaea report. >> that is not true. they produce the information that led you to believe that. they have no evidence. there is no, there has been no enrichment. >> if we agree with that, if we agree with that, the united states people could be at risk in our national security. >> i would like to finish. if she thinks we live in a dangerous world, think back to when i was draft in the 1962 with nuclear missile in cuba.

and kennedy calls and talks to them to say we don't have a nuclear exchange and you are trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat iran like we treated iraq and kill million iraqis, and 8,000 some americans have died since we have gone to war. you cannot solve these problems with war. you can solve the problems if we follow our constitution and go to war only when we declare the war, win them and get them over with. instead of this endless fighting and this endless attitude that we have enemy all around the world. >> it's -->> -- we can't standn the sideline. >> bret: we have been liberal with our friendly ding. mr. speaker, you have been openly critical of the united nations. for example on the topic of palestinian efforts for statehood at the u.n. you said, "we don't need to fund a corrupt institution to beat up on our allies." in a gingrich administration

will the united states leave the u.n.? >> no, but we would dramatically reduce our reliance on it. we'd confront certain realities. people talk about a peace process. 11 missiles were fired in israel last month. last month. over 200 missiles fired at israel this year. you think if we had 11 missiles fired in the united states we -- this president anyway would say gee, maybe we could communicate and you would like us more. i don't think there is -- i think most americans would say you know if you are firing missiles at me, that may not be a good gesture. okay? the united nations camps that we have helped fund have been training grounds for terrorism. congressman bachmann pointed out the last time we debated, she was over there with textbooks that are clearly teaching terrorism that are indirectly funded by the united states through the u.n. we have no obligation to lie. and every obligation to tell the truth about how bad the u.n. bureaucracy is.

and why it ought to be fixed or we ought to radically cut what we're paying. >> bret: governor huntsman, do you agree? >> i think the united nations serves a useful purpose in the area of peacekeeping and some humanitarian work. beyond that, i hate the anti-americanism. i hate the anti-israel sentiment. but let me tell you what this nation needs. and what it is going to get under a huntsman administration. it needs a new foreign policy. we need to update it a little bit. we are still trapped a little bit in the cold war mind set. i want to make sure that first and foremost we have a foreign policy, the national security strategy that recognizes that we have to fix our core here at home. we are weak. this economy is broken. when we are strong we project values of goodness that transform people and change people like no military can.

liberty, democracy, human rights and free markets of the. we have to fix the core first and foremost if we are going to be effective overseas. that is what i want to focus on. second of all -- >> bret: governor huntsman, that is the time. >> let me just g the second point. second of all, i want a foreign policy, i want a foreign policy that is driven by economics first. let me just tell you, its used to break my heart sitting in embassy in beijing the second largest embassy in the world looking at afghanistan with 100,000 troops. we are securing the place that chinese go in and they win the money concession. we need to change how we're doing business. >> bret: two dings in that one. governor perry, given the grim detail of the united nations report on the syrian regime killing and torturing its own people, thousands of people said to be killed at the hands of the assad regime. at what point should the u.s. consider military intervention there? >> i have already called for overfly zone -- no fly zone over syria already.

they are iran's partner. they are attached at the hip. and we have to stand firm with our ally in that region. israel. there needs to be no space between the united states and israel. this administration has absolutely bungled, the most muddled foreign policy i can remember in my lifetime. whether it was in 2009 when we had the opportunity either covertly, overtly or other ways of helping the iranian citizens as they were trying to overthrow that repressive regime. whether it was working with mubarak, and trying to have a moderate to come in and replace him. whether it was leading from behind, as we have seen in libya, and now we have seen this president, mitt, newt both talked about, asking the iranians to give us back that drone. what we should have done is one of two things. destroy our retrieve it. he took a third route, which was the worst and the weakest. that is to do nothing.

>> bret: now to my colleague neil cavuto. neil? >> neil: candidates, i want to move on if we can to energy issues. speaker gingrich, i would like to begin with you. as you know, the president, sir, rejected any efforts to tie a payroll tax cut extension with the keystone pipeline. and to reopen it. and to explore reopening it as well. he says that any other way to connect the two would be akin to adding an extraneous issue. given his opposition, and the likelihood that the keystone issue could be up in the air for year or more, how do you recommend republicans deal with this to force the issue? >> you know, neil, i sometimes get accused of using language that is too strong. so i've been standing here editing. i'm very concerned about not appearing to be zany.

but i want to paint a picture for all of us. the iranians are practicing closing the strait of hormuz. the canadian prime minister has already said to the american president if you don't want to build the pipeline to create 20,000 american jobs and bring oil to the united states to the largest refinery complex in the world, houston, i want to put it straight west in canada to vancouver and ship the oil direct to china so you will lose the jobs, you will lose the through-put and you will lose 30, 40 years of work in houston. the united states cannot figure out that it is -- i'm using mild words here -- utterly irrational to say i'm now going to veto a middle class tax cut to protect left wing environmental extremists in san francisco, so that we are going to kill american jobs, weaken american energy, make us more vulnerable to the iranians and do so in a way that makes no sense to any normal, rational american.

>> neil: no offense, sir, but you didn't answer my question. what would you do to try to move on this within a year? >> what should the republican congressionals do? attach it to the middle class tax cut, send it to president, force him to veto it and send it a second time. we had to send welfare reform to bill clinton three times. he vetoed it twice. by the third time the popular outrage was so angry, 92% of the country wanted to have welfare reform. he decided to sign it. it happened to be an election year. i tell the president you want to look like you are totally out of the american people, my guest. i'm not backing down. when we are right and you are totally wrong. >> neil: governor huntsman, on the same issue, the delay

goes to thousands of jobs, in a recent speech you said it was 100,000 but president supporters said a rush decision could cost the environment a great deal more. what i'd like to ask you, governor, is there any condition under which a president huntsman would say the need to protect our land trumps the need to provide more jobs? >> it is always a balancing act. we have land that everybody respects and appreciates but the job we've got to undertake as american people is fuel our future. we have no choice. our economy has hit the wall. i want to get rid of the heroin-like addiction we have based on imported oil. $300 billion transfers every year from this country to a lot of unpredictable and relationships that are no more than transactional. to get to where the country needs to be, we need a relationship with canada, from which we can bring in raw materials. i want to make sure i am able as president to disrupt the oil monopoly. there is a one product monopoly in terms of the product distribution in this country.

if we are going to achieve energy independence we have to draw from multiplicity of products like natural gas. we wake up in the reality in this country we have more natural gas than saudi arabia has oil. i say how stupid are we? when are we going to get to the picture and start converting the transportation and converting to manufacturing and electricity and power generation? it's completely within our grasp. it's going to require a president who understands that delicate balance. and who is going to be able to come up with an aggressive plan toward energy independence that gets it done for this country. >> neil: congresswoman bachmann, you are very critical congresswoman of the extended shutdown after the b.p. oil spill that i believe lasted upwards of five, six months in terms of a moratorium. i was wondering, congresswoman, if you were president and there were such a disaster again, what would be an acceptable period for

oil drilling to cease, for you to get to the bottom of a problem? >> well, what we needed to do was find out what the true cause of the problem was. and the obama administration wasn't willing to have a true and thoughtful investigation to get to the bottom of it. president obama jumped to conclusions, and he put a moratorium on accessing american oil on the gulf region that actually hurt the economy more than the original disaster. but i wanted to add something on keystone. keystone is extremely important. the pipeline. this pipeline is one that would have brought at least 20,000 jobs, at least $6.5 billion worth of economic activity. and if i was president of the united states, i wouldn't have taken the decision that president obama did. his entire calculus was based on his re-election effort. because quite frankly, the radical environmentalists said to president obama, you pass keystone, we are not going to do your volunteer door-to-door

work. that is what barack obama has done to this country. he has put his re-election over adding jobs and making the united states energy independent. i would have made the decision as president of the united states, we would have put keystone online immediately. >> neil: governor perry, you have railed against the special treatment as other candidates have tonight. particularly the tax code for green technology and allowances made for this industry. but as texas governor, you have afforded the same attention to the oil industry. back in 2003, you signed a bill that reduced the tax paid by some natural gas companies that helped them reap better than $7 billion in tax savings. i guess what i'm saying is are you guilty of the same behavior as governor favoring an industry that you claim this president has favoring

green industry? >> today is the 220th anniversary of the signing of the bill of rights. one of those, the tenth amendment i like a lot. and the reason is because that is how our founding fathers saw this country set up. where if we had the laboratories of innovation, it should be in the per vie the pud decision-making process of the state, if they want to put tax policies in place that helps make them be more competitive. we did it not only for the oil and gas industry but we also did it for the alternative energy industry. and the wind industry. they came in droves, made texas the number one wind energy state in the nation. but government shouldn't be picking winners and losers from washington, d.c. that is the difference. if in the states, i will promise you terry branstad in this state, he knows how to

put tax policy, regulatory policy in place to make his state be more competitive. you need 50 states out there dom peteing with eac peteing wis out there competing with each other and washington out of their hair. >> bret: thank you, neil. reminder, go to foxnews.com/debate to see how well the candidates are answering the questions. with your votes. coming up, we will ask about the border issues, immigration and a topic that got a lot of attention on twitter. plus some controversial social issues as well. stay tuned. when you have tough pain, do you want fast relief?

try bayer advanced aspirin. it's not the bayer aspirin you know. it's different. first, it's been re-engineered with micro-particles. second, it enters the bloodstream fast, and rushes relief to the site of your tough pain. the best part? it's proven to relieve pain twice as fast as before. bayer advanced aspirin.

test how fast it works for you. love it, or get your money back. the pioneers. the aviators. building superhighways in an unknown sky. their safety systems built of brain and heart, transforming strange names from tall tales into pictures on postcards home. and the ones who followed them, who skimmed the edge of space, the edge of heaven, the edge of dreams. and we follow them up there to live by an unbreakable promise, stitched into every uniform of every captain who takes their command:

to fly. to serve. where they grow america's favorite wpotoes. idaho, everyone knows idaho potatoes taste great. but did you know they'reood for you too? they're high in vitamins and potassium. and idaho potatoes are now certified to carry the heart checkmark from the american heart assoction for foods low in saturated fat and cholesterol. so they're good for my family, and for yours. heart smart idaho potatoes. always look for the grown in idaho seal. [ knock on door ] coo you found it. wow. nice place. ye. [ chuckles ] the family thinks i'm out shipping these. smooth move. you used priority mail flat rate boxes. if it fits, it ships for a low, flat rate. paid for postagenline and arranged a free pickup. and i'm gonna track them online, too. nice. between those boxes and this place, i'm totally stayinsane this year. do i smell snickerdoodles? maybe. [ timer dings ] got to go.

priority mail fla rate shipping at usps.com. a simpler way to ship. ♪ ♪ >> bret: welcome back to sioux city, iowa, and our republican presidential debate. here in northwestern iowa. these people tend to like it i think so far. i think they do. you have to next round of questions on board issues and immigration. >> megyn: thank you. the question for you, governor perry. this topic received traffic on twitter. you have joined the 57 house republicans who have called for the attorney general of the united states, eric holder, to resign. in the wake of the failed federal gun tracking program operation fast and furious. so far, there is no clear proof that mr. holder knew about the controversial aspects of the operation. and he points out that he actually helped stop it when

it came to his attention. are you and other republicans politicizing this issue as general holder claims? >> if i'm the president of the united states, and i find out that there is an operation like fast and furious and my attorney general didn't know about it, i would have him resign immediately. the president of the united states comes to el paso, texas, earlier in year and proclaims that the border of texas and mexico, the u.s. border with mexico is safer than it's ever been. well, let me tell you,vy been dealing with this issue for 11 years. i sent texas ranger recon teams there. the law enforcement men and women. face fire from across the border, on the u.s. side from the drug cartels. it is not safe there. our country is in jeopardy. if we are going to be able to

defend america, from iran, from hezbollah, from hamas, that are using mexico as a border, as a way to penetrate in the southern part of the united states, venezuela has the largest iranian embassy in the world there. we know what is going on. it is time for this country to have a real conversation about a monroe doctrine again like we did against the cubans in the '60s. >> megyn: senator santorum what say you to the attorney general's game that the republicans are politicizing this issue? >> i agree with governor perr perry. if he was the attorney general under me, i'd fire him. not have him resign. fire him. this is something he should have been aware of and something that should have been stopped and should haven't started in the first place. i think governor perry is also right. this is something i've been saying now for many years. which is we need to pay much more attention to what is going on in our own hemisphere. not only do they have the largest embassy in venezuela,

there are flights from tehran, from damascus to caracas. the flights stop at a military base before they come in the civilian base. there are training camps, jihaddist training camps in central and south america. working with the drug cartels and they are planning assaults on the united states. that is what we know is going on right now. we are doing -- this president has ignored that threat. has insulted our allies like honduras and colombia, deliberately and enbraced like other scoundrels in the middle east, embraced chavez, ortega and others in south america not promoting our value and interests. we're need a new initiative to say we will promote our values in this region and stop the spread of terrorism in central and south america. >> megyn: governor romney, last week you said that the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country must return to their country of origins before they can apply for legal status. you also said that we are not

going to go around and round up the 11 million. why would these illegal immigrants voluntarily leave america just to apply for a chance at legal status, especially when they have your assurance if they stay put we are not going to round them up? >> let me tell you how that works. we will have an identification card for people who come here legally. the campaign, rudy giuliani talked about this time and time again. we have a plastic card, bioinformation on it. individuals who come here legally have the card. when they apply for a job, they are able to show that the employer. the employer must check it with e-verify or a cisco similar system. led mastercard or visa process, as gingrich says. to make sure it's valid or not. if the employers hire people without the card, the employer is sanctioned just like for not paying taxes. serious sanctions. so you say to people who are here illegally today you are not going to be able to work here unless you register, we

will give you transition period of time. ultimately you have to go home and apply for permanent residency here or citizenship. if you want to try to do that. but get in line behind everyone else. my view, people who come here illegally, we welcome you to apply but you must get at the back of the line, because there are million of people in line now that want to come here legally. i want them to come here legally. those here illegally have to get in line with everybody else. >> megyn: speaker gingrich, is that realistic? >> well, let me start and say that congressman steve king has just introduced the idea act, which would reinforce this model. it would take all tax deductibility for anyone who is employed illegally and once you have something like e-verify effectively working you really go the big sanction. we disagree some on what you do with very, very long-term people here. somebody who has been here 25 years and has family here and has local family supporting them ought to have some kind of civilian certification. but let me say the issue of immigration. on day one, i would drop all

the lawsuits against arizona, south carolina and alabama. it is wrong for the government. i would propose, i would propose cutting off all federal aid to any sanction anyy city that deliberately violated federal law and begin process of completing control of the border by january 1, 2014. those steps would begin to fundamentally change the entire behavior toward getting control of legality in the united states. >> megyn: governor huntsman, a recent fox news poll showed 66% of voters believe that the government should allow a pass to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here in this country. nearly three-quarters of latinos agree. given the majority of the growing importance of the latino vote in the general election, does the republican presidential candidate need to take a more moderate approach on this issue, in hopes to defeat president obama? >> i think the republican candidate has to speak based

on our values. the values of the republican party. limited government, pro-growth, these are the things that the hispanic and the latino populations will be looking for. you don't need to pander. you just need to be who we are. but in terms of immigration, and illegal immigration, this president so screwed up this economy, nobody is coming anymore. there is nothing to come for. not a problem today. look at the numbers coming across. the numbers posted the other day, lowest in four decades. so i say you know we have to secure the border, of course. we have to deal with the 11, 12 million people here. but let's not lose sight of the fact that legal immigration is an engine of growth for this country. half of the fortune 500 countries in this country today were -- fortune 500 companies in this country were founded by immigrants. we have lost, the market share of traveling tourism went fro to 12% because visa is screwed up in the nation. look at the homeland department of security and

completely remake the way people are moving back and forth and the visa system, how we deal with the movement of system and immigration. this is an economic development opportunity and we are missing it. >> bret: chris wallace has the next round of questioning. >> chris: thank you, bret. governor romney, you have changed your position in the last ten years on abortion, on gay rights, on guns. you say keeping an open mind is a strength. some of your cit i believes sa --some of your critics say ey one has been to your political advantage. you took liberal posions in massachusetts but now you take more conservative positions running for president. is it principle or just politics? >> i will begin to take exception with your list there. >> chris: which one? >> gay rights. >> chris: well -- >> i am firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. at the same time, i oppose same-sex marriage. that has been my position from the beginning. with regard to abortion, i changed my mind. with regard to abortion, i had

the experience of coming in to office, running for governor saying you know i'm going to keep the laws as they exist in the state. they were pro-choice laws so effectively i was pro-choice. then i had a bill come to my desk that didn't just keep the laws as they were but would have created new embryos for the purpose of destroying them. i studied it in some depth and concluded i simply could not sign on to take human life. i vetoed that bill. i went to the "boston globe." i described to them why i am pro-life. every decision i took as governor was take on the side of life. i firmly pro-life. i learned over time like ronald reagan and george herbert walker bush and others, my experience in life over 17, 18, 19 years told me sometimes i was wrong. where i was wrong, i have tried to correct myself. >> chris: if i may just pick up. you said one issue i was wrong on, was gay rights, correct, sir? >> i don't recall the whole -- >> chris: abortion, gay rights and guns. >> i supported the second

amendment. we had a piece of legislation that came to our desk that would have provided an assault weapon ban. the gun lobby favored it because it also did things that the gun lobby wanted. working with them we decided to sign the bill. you could say i changed my position on that, but i have been progun and continue to be pro-gun. >> chris: if i may, in 1994, when you were running for the senate you wrote a letter to the log cabin republicans in which you said i am more convinced than ever before that as we see full equality for america's gay and lesbian citizens i will provide more effective leadership than my opponents who was ted kennedy. in 19994, you also said you supported not only assault weapons ban, but also a five-day waiting period. in 2002 when you were running as governor you said you supported the tough gun control laws in massachusetts. and then as you say in 2004 you also signed an assault weapons ban. so you are still more of a champion of gay rights than

ted kennedy was. >> i think you said what i said which is this. let me go back and say that. i do not believe in discriminating against people based on sexual orientation. some people do. i had a member of my administration, my cabinet who was gay. i didn't ask justices that i was looking to appoint, rather people who are applicants for job what is their sexual orientation was. i believe as a republican i had potential to fight for antidiscrimination in a way that would be better than senator teddy the democrat who was expected to do so. at the same time, chris, in 1994, and throughout my career i said i oppose same-sex marriage. marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. my view is let me tell you, protect the sanctity of marriage, protect the sanctity of life. that is my view and i have had it for many years. thank you. >> chris: senator santorum, you have campaigned on social issues as much or perhaps more than any other candidate on this stage. are you persuaded that governor romney has made these

changes or what he says in some cases are not changes, based on principle and not political expedience? >> governor romney when he was governor of massachusetts was faced with a supreme court decision that said that same-sex, traditional marriage was unconstitutional. in that court decision, the court said that they did not have the power to change the law in massachusetts and rule same-sex marriage legal. why? in the massachusetts constitution it states specifically only the governor and the legislature can change marriage laws. governor romney, the court then gave the legislature a certain amount of time to change the law. they did not. governor romney was faced with a choice. go along with the court, or go along with the constitution. and the statute. he chose the court. and ordered people to issue gay marriage licenses. he went beyond that. he personally as governor issued gay marriage licenses. i don't think that is an accurate representation of his division of saying tolerance

versus substantively changing the laws. i have had a long, consistent track record for standing few for values of this country. not discriminating. it had a no discriminating policy in my office. we are not talking about discrimination. we are talking about changing the basic values of our country. >> chris: governor romney, 30 seconds to respond, sir. >> that is a very novel understanding of what our supreme court of massachusetts did. i think everybody in massachusetts and the legal profession in massachusetts and my legal counsel indicated that the supreme court of massachusetts determined that under our constitution, same-sex marriage was required. and the idea that somehow that was up to me to make a choice as to whether we had it or not is a little unusual. we got together with our legislature and i fought leading an effort to put in place a constitutional amendment in massachusetts to overturn the court's decision to make marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. this is something i battled in the year i had after their decision.

i fought it every way i possibly could and i went to washington, testifying in favor of a federal amendment. to defy marriage as a relationship between man and a woman. let me tell you, i want to make it very clear. i have been a champion of protecting traditional marriage that continues to be my view. if i somehow missed somewhere i'm happy to get corrected. but that is something i feel very deeply. >> chris: all right. congresswoman bachmann, you say that speaker gingrich has a, "inconsistent record on life" and you singled out comments he made recently that life begins with the implantation of a fertilized egg, not at conception. what is your concern? >> well, my concern is the fact that the republican party can't get the issue of life wrong. this is a basic part of our party. just last night we gathered in des moines to talk about this issue. because it's that crucial to our party. one of the corn certainsvy is that when speaker gingrich was speaker of the house he had an opportunity to defund planned

parenthood. he chose not to take it. that is a big issue. also i think even more troubling when he was in washington, d.c., he made an affirmative statement that he would not only support but he would campaign for republicans who are in support of the barbaric procedure known as partial birth abortion. i could never do that. and as a matter of fact, george wilt asked the question of speaker gingrich. he said this: he said, "is it a virtue to tolerate infanticide?" this is a seminole issue and something we can't get wrong. as president of the united states, i will be 100% pro-life from conception until natural death. >> chris: speaker gingrich? >> sometimes congressman bachmann doesn't get her facts very accurate. i had ad 98.5% right to life

voting record in 20 years. the only -- >> chris: go ahead. >> the only difference was that they didn't like the initial welfare reform bill, which every other conservative group said had nothing in it on abortion. only one in 20 years. i believe that life begins at conception. the conversation we're having which is an abc interview, i was frankly thinking about proposing a commission to look at fertility, because there is a challenge with what happens to embryos, who i think should be regarded as life because by definition they have been conceived. i am against any kind of experimentation on embryos and i think my position on life has been very clear and very consistent. >> chris: let me just ask you -- no. i want to ask you a direct question, if i may, speaker. that was your rebuttal to congresswoman bachmann. >> can i rebuttal, have a rebuttal for getting my facts wrong? >> chris: absolutely, congresswoman. >> this isn't just once. i think it's outrageous to continue to say over and over

through the debate that i don't have my facts right. when as a matter of fact, i do. i'm a serious candidate for president of the united states. and my facts are accurate. speaker gingrich said that he would actively support and campaign for republicans who got behind the barbaric practice of partial birth abortions. this is not a small issue. this is a big issue. i think george will was wright when he asked that question. what virtue is there in tolerating infanticide? >> chris: we are over time. ask 30 seconds to respond on the that specific issue. >> i said on that particular issue i wouldn't go out and try to purge republicans. i don't see how you are going to govern the country if you are going to run around and decide who you are going to purge. twice when i was speaker we moved the end of partial birth abortion. clinton vetoed it. we worked hard. rick santorum has been a

leader on this issue. i consistently opposed partial birth abortion. i would like to see us go much further than that. and eliminate abortion as a choice. i said as president i would defund planned parenthood and shift the money to pay for adoption services. to give young women a choice of life rat rather than death. >> chris: thank you. >> bret: ronald reagan famously spoused the 11th commandment. thou shall not -- sorry. thank you very much. [ inaudible ] >> bret: thank you. let me finish this question. we are running out of time. ronald reagan famously espoused the 11th commandment. thou shall not speak ill of another republican. to varying degrees, during this campaign, you have all broken that one way or another, broken that vow. i guess the question is how do you balance on the one hand trying to win the nomination, with on the other hand not weakening the eventual nominee

to the point where he or she is less electable than president obama? down the row. senator santorum. >> we have a responsible to vet the candidates. that -- responsibility to vet the candidates. i have been at 350 town hall meetings andvy been kicked hard by iowanss about the position i hold. that is the process. let's find out who can stand up and find out who has the best record and who is the person that can have the consistency, of going out there and finding for the principles we believe in. let me assure you, the other side is going to kick very, very hard. and we have to have someone to stand up for it. fight and holds those convictions deep. so they can fight the good fight in the fall and win this presidency. >> bret: governor perry? >> yeah, there is an -- as a matter of fact, i think it was the republican chairman not ronald reagan that actually said that. >> bret: he espouseed it. >> indeed he did. there is an n.f.l. player, his name doesn't come to mind but he says if you don't get your tail kicked every now and then you are not playing at a high enough level. i want to give you all credit

for letting me play at a high enough level. [ applause ] >> bret: governor romney? >> we ca can handle it. there is nothing said by the folks on the stage about me i won't hear 100 times by president obama. he will have $1 billion to go after me or whoever the nominee is. we are going to give each other what we need to for people to understand who we are. let's not forget this. every day remember time and time again this is president obama we have to be talking about. he has unveiled himself as a president that is not the right person to lead the country. >> bret: speaker gingrich? >> i think it's pretty clear if you look at m my ads and website and how i operate in the debate. i reserve the right to correct attack against me overallvy tried very hard to talk about very big solutions to go to the american people with the communication about what do we need to do. i said consistently, these are

all friends of mine. any of these folks would be better than barack obama in the white house. any of them would be great in the next administration. our only opponent is barack obama. we need to come out of this process remembering beating him is what we collectively have to do. >> bret: congressman paul? >> you know the media has a responsibility and we have a responsibility and i think exposing our opponents to what they believed in and the flip-flop, i think the reason may be we had to do more this year is maybe the media is messing up. and they haven't asked enough questions. we have to fill in and ask these questions and get the information out. so, i think it's responsibility on us. there should be lines drawn. i think there are some things below the belt. i don't think -- i don't like the demagoguing, distortion and taking things outs of context. i don't like that. but when they disagree on an issue, important issue we should expose them. >> bret: congresswoman bachmann? >> ronald reagan also brought

clarity to his opponents that he had in his primary as well. famously asked the question in 1980: are we better off today than we were four years under jimmy carter? i think the republicans are in far worse shape today under obama's leadership. that is what we are exposing now. who will continue that legacy of ronald reagan? and who will take barack obama on toe to toe and hold him accountable? i think that i'll be the best one to do that on the stage. >> bret: governor huntsman? >> i actually worked for ronald reagan. i think he would have been the first to stand up and say debate is good. it must be respectful. it must be rig louse. rig -- ri. rigorous debate leads to more trust. one thing that the nation needs is heightened trust. in institution, in the tax code, in the wars abroad. in congress. toward wall street. i am here to tell you that this kind of debate over time will elevate the trust level

in whomever makes it out as the nominee. that will allow us to beat barack obama. thank you. >> bret: well, that is it. for our debate tonight. thank you all very much. thanks to the candidates, their staffs and the iowa republican party and to all the great people here in sioux city. of course, in iowa. they could not have been more hospitable. our next debate is in south carolina. january 16. but after the holidays we'll be right back here in iowa for extensive coverage of the caucuses and then in new hampshire for the primary. stay with fox news channel, america's election headquarters all the way through the convention, general election, the inauguration of 2013. post debate analysis is on the way. keep it here. thank you. captioned by closed captioning services, inc

welcome back, we're going to get reaction from juan williams and charles, your thoughts on the debate? >> very interesting debate. and romney was very steady, and he wasn't high, he wasn't low. resisting an opening on the right wing social engineering. gingrich at times really strong at times, weak. very strong attacking judges. very strong attacking obama on peace down, very weak when attacked on freddie mac $1.6 million. who did attacking? bachmann. strong attacks on gingrich on that as opposed to others she

went right after them. strong attack on late term abortion. then, there was interesting ron paul, i thought he was impressive on resisting the mob on judges but then he did iran and nukes off the rails. so i thought it had all of the elements that we've seen in the campaign, romney, neutral, gingrich, up and down, bachmann strong, reasserting herself z paul, wacky, yet impressive at times. >> juan, your thoughts? >> i think if you have to make a judgment right now, you'd say we're down to a four-man field. i think people who are left now like analogy of survivors but people left standing would be paul, gingrich, romney and i think perry. i think perry was a memorable tim tebow analogy is still around.

he was about what was going on and his ability to debate. gingrichame in with the most to lose, losing some momentum. i think after tonight he regains and had the crowd on his side, there was a discussion about the type line and judges. i didn't see romney go after him and take him out which is what we'd anticipated. i think gang rich managed to hold his own tonight. that counts for a lot going towards january 3 caucuses. >> thank you very much, and my fantastic colleagues here, neil? thoughts? >> you know i was impressed with michelle bachmann on her game. and i was impressed with governor perry. he improved. >> chris? >> i think two big winners were michelle bachmann and rick